I didn't want to draw it out here but it's now or never.

Someone has pointed it oud: win records and not even 1st place. Now we have won 1 more game and falled down by points 19 to 3rd place. Something is just completely wrong with this counting system. Of course one might say that we have 3 losses and this is the reason of this relatively low rating. Sure. But in 1 month those games will expire. Then our rating will be calculated from this winning strike (and hopefully not any loss) and won't give a stunning number, I'm sure of it.

I don't want to offend anybody, but I've seen teams with e.g. 10 wins and 3 losses that had higher rating than we did winning 26 games and loosing 6. Also opponents rating worked in our favor. It's just simply unfair for me.

The first team (MotD & Beren) has 10 wins and one lossu unexpired.
Second (Me and Biches) 21 wins 2 losses.
Third (You guys) has 24 wins 3 losses.
The first team has played to rather all good teams and their loss is to 2200+.
Rather simmilar scores so Idon't know, though ofcourse the system is not perfect.

1st team - 10 wins, 1 losses, with 2 wins against 1900+ teams and 2 against 2000+. Rating: 2267
2nd team - 21 wins, 2 losses, 4 wins 1900+, 4 wins 2000+. Rating: 2240
3rd team - 24 wins, 3 losses, 5 wins 1900+, 2 wins 2000+. Rating: 2199.
4th team - 18 wins, 2 losses, 2 wins 1900+, 2 wins 2000+. Rating: 2164

7th team - 8 wins, 5 losses, 2 wins 1900+, 1 wins 2000+. Rating: 2088.

First of all - I don't mean to offend anybody. I respect results of all players.
What I'm getting at is that the first team has similar result as the second one and difference is close. That's fine. 3rd team has more wins but one more loss, 2 less wins against the top teams. The difference in rating is about 40 points. Understandable. 4th team with noticeably smaller record and lower opponents rating is only 30 points behind the 3rd team. Hmmm. 7th team is just shown for the comparison. 8 wons with, 5 losses, low opp. rating, high position with 76 points to the 4th place. Wow.

We have 68 points to the leadership having comparable results. Can you imagine us having 5 instead of 3 losses? Not even mention having 8 wins instead of 24. Does anybody thinks that our rating will be at ~2090 still? I don't.

The issue isn't the number of wins and the number of losses. It's not even whether some teams have more impressive wins than others. The only reason your rating is as low as it is is this loss: https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=9702538

Losing to a team rated below 1800 kills your rating. Once that loss expires, your rating will probably jump by 100 points.

Your run is very impressive - it's just that losses to bad teams (even wins sometimes) really hurt.

Edited 3/11/2016 02:08:52

2251

If you won the game Beren is referencing that would be your rating. I'm not estimating, that's an exact calculation.

Ruil and Mohikanin vs Angi and Flippy
10670618 Angi and Flippy: 1631

Ruil and Mohikanin vs Peixoto and Ragnarok
10637605 Peixoto and Ragnarok: 2128

Ruil and Mohikanin vs ALE and fireice82
10632079 ALE and fireice82: 1592

Ruil and Mohikanin defeated Botanator and DrummingManiac1
10489044 3/4/2016 16:45:08 Botanator and DrummingManiac1: 1692

Ruil and Mohikanin defeated GrayFruit and FunkyT
10593955 2/29/2016 08:51:43 GrayFruit and FunkyT: 1565

You just beat two bad teams, you're playing two more bad teams, such games lower the average rating of your opponents, and thus your rating.

The problem on 2v2 ladder is matchmaking. It's very luck-based, bad opponents can damn you from reaching rank 1.

Loss against 1800- team can should lower rating, but by ~150 points? Isn't that too much?

Again till yesterday we've fallen down by 19 points without loosing any game or having any won expired. Damn, 19 points is a huge amount. Single win against team with rating about ~1800 gives us hmm 5 points? So we have "lost 4 wins" in fact.

If the frequency of choosing opponents with low rating is higher the rating possible to reach is simply much lower. Small prize for win and huge point-penalty if you lost makes those game unpleasant for any top team.

Nauzhror - thank you for your response (with the exact calculation). Can't wait to see this game expired to check how much it weighs.

Edited 3/11/2016 06:34:59

This system is bad in many ways. System not favor teams that want to play.
- Counting system
- Selection of opponents
- Less points for victory when you get the first pick
- Is that people are changing pairs when they lose a few games and from the victory with them we have nothing, and failure costs us 150 points, because their rating falls in short time to e.g 1800. After that they have new pair, and ahead us playing with 10 opponents ...

In my opinion, you win with the team, which is in the particular shape and the rating should be counted only from the start of the game and not to change after they exit ladder or change partner. In addition, the difference in rating between randomly selected pairs should not exceed 300 points.


I do not attack anyone personally, because it's a system in which we all play, but We agree that something would have to change?

I strongly believe the matchmaking is the key issue. You're playing two bad teams, and you just beat two bad teams. I don't believe you should have ever gotten any of those matchups. They were lose-lose scenarios for you.

It wouldn't matter if everyone played fair. Opponent pickers, players who do only runs and stallers are poison for a ladder. At least for everyone who plays fair.

I agree with Good Kid that the matchmaking is problematic, but when there are few teams on the ladder (and yes I'm aware that there are far more teams on the 2v2 ladder than there used to be, is still low compared to the 1v1 ladder) is difficult to match teams against other similarly rated teams who they haven't played recently in a timely fashion. The only solution I can see is allowing teams to play each other more frequently, but that has its own set of issues.

Picking your opponents is a bigger deal on this ladder (and on the 3v3) than on the 1v1 ladder for that reason.

Starting "new" teams with different accounts but essentially the same players is another big issue, but unfortunately I don't see an easy solution to that one.

I haven't really seen stalling on this ladder recently, but in general it is a big problem on the ladders.

Edited 3/11/2016 13:39:41

Well .... we have won another match. Our opponents have rating 1593. We fell by 4 points and got match against team with rating 1631.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KncbQaxWD9Y

Wow, I've seen your team lurking around in the 2v2 ladder for quite a while now, well done for breaking the record!

@Mohikanin: The ladder always tries to pair teams up with their closest ranked opponent teams however I didn't pay attention to in which interval the matchmaking occurs. You could wait a couple of hours to accept an opponent surrender when you see that there are only low ranked teams in the pool. Another option would be to reduce your game count to the minimum and when you see a high ranked opponent team has finished their game you could temporarily increase your game count to get matched agains them. If you play also with temporarily leaving the ladder and joining only to get matched up you could get quite precisely matched against the opponents that you want.

Edited 3/13/2016 13:45:50

Norman that's exactly the behaviour that should be discouraged on the ladders.

Full agreeement. I know what we "should" do but I don't accept that. We should play less games, keep them going forever and watch other teams results to catch some more valuable games. System designed in the way that promotes this kind of behaviour kills ladder.

Mostly response to Beren's post, but to everybody else as well:
"Losing to a team rated below 1800 kills your rating. Once that loss expires, your rating will probably jump by 100 points."

Our loss against this team has just expired. We've jumped by 54 points. This loss has cost us 150 points but somehow we have earned only 50. Right now our only loss is against the number 1 pair. They also have 1 loss but against lower-rank pair than we, plus we have more wins. We've finished one game the same day with pair from top 10 and yet got paired with ~1600 team.

I don't want you think that I/we complain, cause we can deal with it. We will "fight on your's conditions". I just wanted to show again, that this systems simply sucks.

Right now, the ladder is updated and games are created every other hour. In my opinion, that's where the problem lies. The games of the 2v2 ladder tend to be long, I know mine generally range from 2 weeks to a month. So let's say you are the #2 team on the ladder and you're waiting for a game against the #1 team. If the #1 team is playing 2 games at a time and each one of their games takes 2 weeks to finish, then you basically have ONE two-hour window opportunity every week to get matched against them. I know, that 2-hour window is sometimes longer than 2 hours, if the ladder can't find the #1 team an opponent right away. But my point is, even with 5 games at a time, it's really difficult to be matched with the opponent you want and you deserve.

I think there's an easy way to fix that problem: instead of creating games every other hour, let the ladder create them every day or even every other day if that's necessary. This is not the 1v1 ladder: games take time to be played, and I don't think anyone will complain because he has to wait 24 hours or 48 hours before he gets matched with a new team. The ranking updates could still be done every other hour, but having larger intervals between the creation of the games would guarantee that every player gets games better suited to his rating .

Regarding the rating system, my only issue is with the first pick advantage. It might be advantageous to get first pick on the 1v1 ladder, but there are no great picks on the 2v2 ladder. Between the potential FTB, the 3+3 and 4+3 combos that can give you 11 or 12 income at the end of turn 3... there are just so many good picks to choose from. On the opposite, it's actually more interesting to have one of your picks denied, that way you know where your opponent is. So it doesn't make sense to give a rating advantage to someone who loses his first pick.

But I wouldn't change anything else. I know it's frustrating to win only a few points after you defeat a low-rated opponent, and it's even more frustrating to lose a hundred points because you lose against another low-rated opponent. (I know what I'm talking about, there's this one defeat against a team now rated 1640 that is ruining my rating.) But it's part of the game, and it's a risk every team faces. If you want to reach to top, you have to prove that not only you're able to win against the best teams, but you're also able to beat every low-rated team the ladder matches you with.

Anyway, I'm talking about the 2v2 ladder but this is not what that topic was originally about... Congratulations on what is now a 26 games winning streak! \o/
26 games, it's really impressive! I can't say I'm proud to be part of it but since every game you win indirectly helps my rating, I hope your streak will continue for a long time. :p

Edited 3/27/2016 16:29:12

I wouldn't put too much weight to how many wins a team has, it only matters who are the wins and losses against. Only loss is against 1st place so it's rather fair I think. You're only 16 points behind first place so I think you'll soon overtake it.

I think there's an easy way to fix that problem: instead of creating games every other hour, let the ladder create them every day or even every other day if that's necessary.

I agree with this. It makes a lot of sense. Once per day seems like a reasonable rate at which to create the games. Maybe twice per day is better so it doesn't give an advantage to teams that are regularly online at the time games are created.