@probabler waiting to start games sucks... I've changed the minimum players to 2

@bammbi thats good rationale about the chat features. Let's think about how to make that better... I'll gladly put the time in to change things here

I've also started experimenting with targeted ads on facebook to bring new players. I'll let you know how this goes

2 players at all tables is probably not a good idea. It opens any wanted perspective to funnelling and I don't see how it attracts new players.

If it was only because people wanted to play games, not gain points, 0 tables are often starting quickly. No need to have a 2-player 5k game.

To get new players you need a way to get them into this society without being insulted and exploited. They need to see a chance to get to top 100 in realistic times and without the support of a larger group. Giving the usual addicts with a good social background in this game the chance to gain points faster is not doing that.

I have described my idea of table limits before to have the higher tables populated and thus get some thrill for those scoring better. I still think non-permanent badges and rewards are worth a thought.

Talk at the tables:

NOBODY thinks this a good change.
A few tables with no limit (low tables) can be discussed. The current change is bullshit (quote from numerous players).

Please change it back ASAP.

thx for the change, but do all the tables need to have the 2 players feature? i think they start far too early and make the game more boring.

It could be fun to have a big bonus if you kill someone at round 1. And also it can really change the way players are playing the first round, maybe it'll be way more agressive. It can be funny to try this.

Okay. I'll switch back to a 5 player min when I get home.

Are you saying 2 player min is good for 0 tables?

I've noticed the problem around 8pm est. there's not many players at the 0 tables and hey take a while to start. If a new player joins it's not a great experience

Most agree that tables like Jurgen or IntegralWorld are a nice add on. They present specific features and enable quick games. Having a few tables starting with 2 players at 0 and 100 level will make it much easier to get to 500 and above. That would be great for "permanent residents" plus remove the waiting for new players.

At 5k, imagine this scenario (and it is realistic I am sure):
I help my friend to get to 5k. We then sit at all available 5k tables (you can sit many tables). Some of them will just have the 2 of us. He loses all tables where it is just us 2 - here I am in the top 20! This is the most blatant way of funneling with the current scheme, you could work a little more sophisticated. For that reason the high tables should be out of these quick starts.

Reconsider table limits that are only activated when sufficient players are online. If there is 10 (arbitrary number) people online exceeding the limit it is switched on. If there are not enough players, you can play lower tables too. This would get higher tables populated, something the regulars would like to see, and would sort of force new players to try.

my 0.02 Euro.

1v1-games are fun, but there should be a separate table for them. Maybe create a 0 table that always starts as soon as a 2nd player sits and one that fills up like they do now (so that games with 3 or 4 players are possible as well).

The problem that comes with bigger tables is the dom factor. A 1v1 2k game is usually finished within 8 rounds which leads to both players finishing with negative dom which leads to an overall point loss for the players playing dom-1v1-tables.

I've changed it so that only 0 and 100 tables will start with 2 players if nobody else joins in 45 seconds.

Everything higher is back to a 5 player minimum.