Bump these teams to SuperTitan please!!!

joelduque · (This post was last modified: 02-19-2013 01:55 AM by joelduque.)

(02-19-2013 12:04 AM)laYahooz Wrote: @alex and mr. Banger
I don't really get your resistance to get those teams in ST. I would kind of hate having only one team to compete with.

I think I know where Alex and Banger are coming from. I was once an uber active 1v1 master who thought I was skilled enough to be on the Weekly Top 100. I was really wondering and somewhat disgusted at not seeing my username in the weeks that came. Still, I continued to play my best, and I got there. It is really challenging to be part of the 1v1 ST or Top 200 list, maybe much more with the 2v2 ST list.

It has to be earned. Even though a party feels it has already earned such right to be acknowledged for the level of skill or wit it has demonstrated, it could still be not enough. The system, as it currently is, has determined that they are not 2v2 ST yet. They may be on the very verge of promotion. Who knows? Maybe God or the devs.

Nevertheless, I think that it is all a matter of time. It is but a natural effect of having a much smaller player base for 2v2 as against 1v1. This is in addition to the slower nature of 2v2 too (as against 1v1). More total turns per game played and the fact that turns cycle among 4 players in 2v2, vs only 2 players in 1v1. I think 2v2 has improved since before there was no 2v2 ST! It is moving there; it is all a matter of time. Play more 2v2 and invite your non-Outwitters friends to play 2v2 too. Smile

GreatGonzales · (This post was last modified: 02-19-2013 01:57 AM by GreatGonzales.)

Quote:I think I know where Alex and Banger are coming from. I was once an uber active 1v1 master who thought I was skilled enough to be on the Weekly Top 100. I was really wondering and somewhat disgusted at not seeing my username in the weeks that came. Still, I continued to play my best, and I got there. It is really challenging to be part of the ST or Top 200 list, maybe much more with the 2v2 ST list. It has to be earned. Even though a party feels he/it has already earned such right to be acknowledge for the level of skill or wit demonstrated, it could still be not enough. Nevertheless, I think that it is all a matter of time. It is but a natural effect since there is a much smaller player base for 2v2 as against 1v1. This is in addition to the slower nature of 2v2 too (as against 1v1). More total turns per game played and the fact that turns cycle among 4 players in 2v2, vs only 2 players in 1v1. I think 2v2 has improved since before there was no 2v2 ST! It is moving there; it is all a matter of time. Play more 2v2 and invite your non-Outwitters friends to play 2v2 too.

I contend that 7 months is long enough for the elite to emerge. How long before there was a vibrant community of 1v1 super titans? 2 months? Top lists began august 1. 2v2 only has 2 STs; the proportion of play duration between 1v1 and 2v2 is not that severe. Everything seems to point to the promotion threshold being too restricting, rather than there not being enough sufficiently talented teams who have demonstrated that talent. The facts just don't add up.

Joel, you are right to point to the smaller population of players as a factor. So, the devs should more appropriately delineate the 2v2 population, taking the smaller size into consideration. Nothing suggests that we will have 10 ST 2v2 teams a month from today if the status quo continues; that's not how ranking systems work. The more i think about this, the more obvious to me that the problem is the promotion threshold.

amoffett11 · 02-19-2013, 02:17 AM

This is starting to make sense to me now. I see two solutions:

1. The current number of STs does not accurately reflect what most players feel should the percentage given the size of the 2v2 population. Therefore those players closest to promotion should pull up their socks and win more, bringing them to the level they feel they are at now, and then we'll have the 'correct' number of STs.

OR

2. Promote this entire list to ST right now so that these players can give themselves a pat on the back, and then promote the actual STs to another level, say Master Titans or something.

All kidding aside, I have to agree with joelduque. I've been trying to crack the top 200 for a weeks now, and failing. On the one hand, I consistently beat people in the 100 - 200 range, and wonder "why the heck am I not making it up there?" On the other hand, I lose quite often to unranked players, which is what keeps me off. Don't think about the teams you're beating, think about who and how often you're losing. If OML decided to release a top 300 list, I wouldn't feel better if I saw my name on it.

**TheQwertiest** · (This post was last modified: 02-19-2013 02:52 AM by TheQwertiest.)

(02-19-2013 02:17 AM)amoffett Wrote: If OML decided to release a top 300 list, I wouldn't feel better if I saw my name on it.

i would! atleast i wouldnt be so near the bottom of the list. it might even keep me on the list till next week. xD

GreatGonzales · 02-19-2013, 02:47 AM

(02-19-2013 02:17 AM)amoffett Wrote: This is starting to make sense to me now. I see two solutions:

1. The current number of STs does not accurately reflect what most players feel should the percentage given the size of the 2v2 population. Therefore those players closest to promotion should pull up their socks and win more, bringing them to the level they feel they are at now, and then we'll have the 'correct' number of STs.

OR

2. Promote this entire list to ST right now so that these players can give themselves a pat on the back, and then promote the actual STs to another level, say Master Titans or something.

Neither of these is the proper solution. As I've made clear in other posts, the threshold is too limiting considering the population of players. This is not about giving players a "pat on the back". This is about bringing the ST league in line with realities in the 2v2 population, and creating a more meaningful delineation of the player population.

Coolio · (This post was last modified: 02-19-2013 03:11 AM by Coolio.)

First off.... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...8t9saDCRdQ

Second off .... (Using OSN statistics) 103 1v1 super titans/16,455 total 1v1 players = x amount of 2v2 super titans/1,312 total 2v2 players. Using cross multiplication this would come out to....16,455x = 135,136 Then dividing by 16,455 to isolate x you would get.... x = 8.2 (rounded). So, according to proportions, if Alex and Adam were trying to keep the same proportion of 2v2 super titans to the amount of 1v1 super titans, there should be 8-9 2v2 super titans.

amoffett11 · 02-19-2013, 03:11 AM

(02-19-2013 02:47 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:
(02-19-2013 02:17 AM)amoffett Wrote: This is starting to make sense to me now. I see two solutions:

1. The current number of STs does not accurately reflect what most players feel should the percentage given the size of the 2v2 population. Therefore those players closest to promotion should pull up their socks and win more, bringing them to the level they feel they are at now, and then we'll have the 'correct' number of STs.

OR

2. Promote this entire list to ST right now so that these players can give themselves a pat on the back, and then promote the actual STs to another level, say Master Titans or something.

Neither of these is the proper solution. As I've made clear in other posts, the threshold is too limiting considering the population of players. This is not about giving players a "pat on the back". This is about bringing the ST league in line with realities in the 2v2 population, and creating a more meaningful delineation of the player population.

Neither of those was a serious solution. An others have said in previous posts, it's not about population size or percentages, it's about skill level. On the one hand we have people saying they went 35 - 1 to reach ST, and on the other we have people saying they're maybe kinda winning 60% of the time, maybe, they think. I've been dodging around saying this, but the above teams are not STs because they are not good enough to be. You are not on the same level as the current STs. They are better than you, and have earned their distinction.

Willythewile · 02-19-2013, 03:15 AM

As I stated earlier, I must be confused. Yet it seam simple to me, win more lose less. Then once you've earned it, you'll become ST.

worldfamous · (This post was last modified: 02-19-2013 03:21 AM by worldfamous.)

If skill rating is solely based on wins and losses, having nothing to do with population, and the necessary skill level for ST is 700 while mine is 690, I am perfectly ok with remaining a master. However, if it is population based and only a certain percentage of players get it, I am not ok with it at this point. Let's say there are 1000 players and only the top .002 can be super titans. Now we say ST team 1 is a skill rating of 1000, team 2 999, and I come in at 998. Do you all not think that's just a little absurd at this point? I don't know if I'm that guy at 998 but I do know that someone is and I know that I am constantly matched up against the 999 team and beating them a fair percentage of the time. If Terenceahiu loses to poweewee 60 or 70% of the time but beats every other super Titan 75% or higher, should we bump him to masters? That's roughly what's going on here due to lack of population. At least that's my guess of what's in the black box.

As for the Gurleyman Krogoth being one person, there is one circumstantial piece of evidence. I just checked and see that Gurleyman is a master in 1v1 and Krogoth isn't even ranked. I realize it's totally possible to never have played 1v1 but it does seem odd to be a ST in one and not even play the other. I'm not saying that's what's going on but since Necrocat brought it up I thought I'd look.

amoffett11 · 02-19-2013, 03:33 AM

(02-19-2013 03:16 AM)worldfamous Wrote: If skill rating is solely based on wins and losses, having nothing to do with population, and the necessary skill level for ST is 700 while mine is 690, I am perfectly ok with remaining a master.

That's exactly what it is. It is not population based, and has nothing to do with the percentage of players. It is only wins and losses, and as it stands currently, only two teams have beat up on the masters enough to separate themselves from them. You are probably correct in assuming the above teams are closest to promotion, now it's just a matter of taking that next step.