The goal of a ladder should be the better players win. Otherwise dont call it a ladder, call it a league.

Should lesser players beat better ones sometimes? Sure. That happens on the 1v1 ladder now. But it happens when the better player gets outplayed at times (predicts the wildcard wrong sometimes or maybe the lesser player gets lucky or just predicts great a game).

But, it should not happen at a significant rate. Ladders should 'sort' people based on skill for the most part. This template allows too many lucky wins to be called a ladder

Edited 8/24/2015 01:23:57

Good post ;)

@Lolowut, To me it sounds like you are making the same point as me, but in a different way. Fizzer 2v2 ladder template is all about the "fun" factor for the average player.

@Chris, Having lost 9 out of the 10 last 2v2 ladder games, I certently agree that the TBest player is not winning enough. On a serious note, it is a fair argument that upsets are too frequent, hard to say what is the right rate for upsets to happen at through.


Oh, and right now the 2v2 ladder is healthy in terms of number of active teams, compared to what it used to be. Makes it hard to convince Fizzer that there is need for change, no? Anyway, instead of doing like QI have done her and made a long list over everything wrong with the ladder, I would suggest you pick the ONE most important change, make a Uservoice, and rally support. In my eyes it is easier to convince him to make one change then to change the whole template at once. (Don't think forum post is the way of convincing him.) If needed you can repeat the Uservoice thing with the next change, etc.

But I do not understand the term used in 4th point: "Standardization of bonuses", and neither what you mean in 5th. Where you derive the opinion that your called optimal and decent starting spots "afford to have more starting positions". I do not see the clear derivation between them.

Stardarized bonus = every territory that have X territory will Always have Y income. Example: 3 territory 2 income, 4=3, 5=4 etc. not posible have a territory of 3 with 2 incopme and another one with +1. This what it meant.
If every territory have same ratio teritory/income, is very balanced and is better have more starting position for overall coverage, as it isn't clear 10=% which spot coould be better, and counter picks is major part of the game probably.

The goal of a ladder should be the better players win. Otherwise dont call it a ladder, call it a league.

yeah

Oh, and right now the 2v2 ladder is healthy in terms of number of active teams, compared to what it used to be. Makes it hard to convince Fizzer that there is need for change, no?

lol ok, quantity over quality :(
i don't remember a so weak ladder, with 1700s being ion top 10.