we've discussed this idea, and see its merits, it's just not something we'll have for launch.

this is something we'll likely add if we implement tournaments, or an "arena mode", which would hopefully serve as the ultimate place for competitive players to be. we might even anonymize players throughout the tournament and only reveal their screen names after it's over.

we'll see... gotta ship this thing first

I kinda like the idea of ranked matches being server assigned match making instead of join at will.

Not sure if that could make it as a launch feature, but it would make it harder to game the system for ELO ratings. No one should be able to choose their opponents for a ranked match.

ron wrote:hey everyone,
for me, there is one good argument in favor of having a single winner, and one good argument in favor of multiple:

Is there a reason it has to be one or the other? Why not let the game host decide the number of winners when choosing the number of players?

I really like winner-takes-all skirmishes, and getting medals for a top-three finish is excellent. But I also like the idea of being able to properly work together with somebody I had a sound alliance with in a previous game. If two people work well together, they might team up repeatedly across different games. And in a multiple-winners format, it's not hard to imagine a setup with some alliances defined during game setup, and all of a sudden you have a team game that supports multiple factions battling it out for placement on team as well as individual leaderboards.

Subterfuge is easily deep enough to support both game formats, and I think it would be amazing to see.

Im sold on the medal format. It didn't take much, as I was always in favor of a multi-winner game.

I'd like to see the 2nd place (and 3rd place if appropriate) leaders show up at the top of the screen throughout the game like it used to do.

Any thoughts?