change 30 sec from hyper to bullet

So you would rather lose all of your time in 6 sec than have more time just in case it lags? This is just silly. 

making another time control doesnt give you back time after you lag

THAT'S NOT THE POINT LMAO,

if we had a 45 sec hyperbullet mode it would be more ideal than the other ones right now, unless you want to lose all of your time to lag and drop in rating.

basically, you guys want to change hyperbullet to ultrabullet and make a completely new rating and then you want to add back another time control to the game, that sounds like trouble to me, and it wouldnt really do much

Because 4pc will continue to be die, until the core issue is addressed. 

I was mainly replying to @ElPolloLocoMan, 4pc just isn't as fun as it once was.  We had to start a League just so we can play Old Standard with slower Time Controls.  We've asked repeatedly to change the position back, but it's gone on deaf ears, and 4PC will continue to die and lose the player base it once had.  We can't pretend that the endless server issues, disconnects, and inferior starting position aren't issues causing players to leave this game. 

I'm literally on the verge of leaving as well, I'm tired of playing repetitive boring games, there's literally nothing being offered to attract new players, or bring back the players that we lost after the merge.   How often do you see @Icystun playing these days?

Correct. The lags are caused by the server merge with variants, where the variants server wasn't designed to cope with all this load. The old 4PC server was fine as it was. There was split load with way less lag. You can't just merge servers without actually replacing the server. The original variants server did not have to take this load. It had virtually no lag. Now, having to cope with the 4pc pool, WITHOUT BEING REPLACED, with the same server, with the same RAM memory and the same clock speed, it's obviously going to be slower. Chess.com needs to put more memory into its variants server.

Also, stop changing setups. In Old setup, in teams, If blue blunders, the maximum that BG could lose are a bishop and a pawn. In New Standard, if blue blunders on 1st move, it could lead to mate. That only encourages more games aborted, and more play-bans. Also, if that is done regularly, then the work goes to the admins, to manually play-ban the aborters. This puts more work on admins, and more work means that Chess.com loses money because they have to pay more to the admins. Also, server lags make aborting more frequent. This adds to the workload for the admins. 

Also, revert the decision to remove variants. We need more variants so that more people can play. If they are simply not popular, then maybe consider removing them, but we need more. This will add to the player pool so that Chess.com can make more money from advertisements if we have more fun variants. Also, make wheel of fortunes more frequent. It needs to be on 24/7. This way, if we are bored, then we can at least have fun with Wheel of Fortunes. I used to create one called Amazon Safety, where the pawns are replaced by sergeants and the other pieces all being able to move by knights (rook to rook-knight, knight to knight-knight (knight rider), bishop to bishop-knight, queen to queen-knight and king to king-knight), with 4 royal amazons in middle with 12 check.

The new set up was a completely rational idea. In the old set up too if, blue or green make dubious moves on move 1 or 2, they can end up in losing positions, not simply lose a bishop or a pawn. Why I like the new set up? I gets the players to think more tactically. I love the old set up. But it should be played correctly as well, and the new set up encourages that from the players.

old server didnt have "virtually no lag", and if you blundered in the first few moves in old setup, it wouldnt only lead to a lost bishop