Bump these teams to SuperTitan please!!!

[GreatGonzales]

Agree that matchups are a significant factor. WF, I'm honored that you think we may be the best, but all 3 games we played against you guys were on BB, which is probably our strongest map. From what I can tell, there is no significant gap in skill between any top 10 teams.

I mean, really. How complicated is this game? Everyone knows the rules, can count wits, and is familiar with winning strategies at this point. Fog of war prevents this game from having the depth of skill of a game like chess; we do not have 100% knowledge, so capacity for using tactical prowess to control the battlefield is limited. The edge comes out more in one team making mistakes, rather than a teeam making the big play. But, just one man's opinion.

[CombatEX]

I don't quite agree with that verdict. Eijolend and I have only played something like 6 or 7 games on Machination (and mostly as P2) so I certainly don't know the 'winning strategy' for that map. As for FoW making the game have significantly less depth, I also would disagree. The game can't be 'solved' to the extent Chess is (not that Chess is solved, but you get the basic idea), but there is also skill in risk assessment in Outwitters.

FoW does introduce an element of luck which is absent in Chess. However, it also introduces a different aspect of skill. In Outwitters you must consider possible scenarios and assess which is the best way to minimize losses and maximize gains. "This is a powerful move in most scenarios, but if my opponent did move A last turn then I will be putting myself in a bad position." Is it worth it? What does the game look like from your opponent's point of view? Would your opponent suspect you to do such a move? Or would 'move A' (the counter) leave your opponent open to many other moves you could make and so s/he probably wouldn't do it. It requires a different type of thinking/planning than Chess, but it requires skill regardless. So yes, there is some luck introduced by FoW, but this does not prevent Outwitters from having a high level of depth and skill. The games are just different.

I'm mostly speaking from my experience in SC2. Sure, you can lose some games from build order wins, but SC2 still has a great deal of depth. Which has more depth and takes more skill? SC2 or Chess? I think you can't so easily say as they are both skill-based, but in different ways. Outwitters is between the two.

[GreatGonzales]

Yeah I see that point. Fog of war requires a different kind of thinking than chess - instead of discovering the best possible move, as in chess, you are trying to consider all possible scenarios to come up with the maximally great move. SC2 is a good example of this....except that you can't really compare SC2 to chess because SC2 requires a level of physical prowess. I.e. hand/eye coordination, micro skillz, etc. Speaking of depth (non-physical) of the game, I think you'd certainly have to say that chess takes the cake over SC2. Likewise, Chess is a deeper game than Outwitters in my estimation. Yes, FOW adds a different sort of skill component, but I still think that there's going to be a much broader range of skill fidelity in chess as opposed to Outwitters. Any element of luck brings the highest possible skill threshold down, and we will necessarily asymptote at a certain point. This happens too in chess I think, but not until a much higher skill level (relative to the population of players, respectively). In short, a game with a luck element, however small, is necessarily less skillful than a game without luck (assuming comparably complex rules).

[Ryzuma]

I don't see how FOW is luck. Isn't it you either getting vision or guessing? Not rly luck imo

[worldfamous]

(03-03-2013 06:19 AM)Gurleyman Wrote:  What say ye? I say the gap is close. I say that FTA makes a huge difference in these high-rank matches, and I would like to see that reflected in league points, as I suspect it might be in hidden skill rankings. As AJ/MB said, we recently lost two games to them, both of which they had FTA on, and one where FTA makes a huge diff (Blitz Beach). I'm not really complaining, because we enjoy the same advantage when we get FTA there, but all four games with them were/are at that disadvantage. Furthermore, the matching system limits the diversity of play. What if Krogoth & I have a weakness that rank #59 (whoever that is) can exploit? Or the same for AJ/MB? We'll never know.

One Easter egg we've discovered is that if we stack the queue and no one who matches us starts a game, after two days of waiting, the system matches us against placement or low-rank players. I call this an egg because while we get 2-4 points for winning, we get to see different strategies and try new things ourselves, and it makes us better.

In some ways, it will be a relief if the hidden ranking eventually decides to bump us to #2. Since the standings are such a black box, it feels like we're defending a place gained by trickery, though that is not the case. I think if all the data and rankings were shown, we'd see a lot of us with huge win ratios on FTA, some favorability on certain maps (ours has changed as we've continued playing), and some other interesting correlations between team styles.

Amen brotha! Amen! Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Juslas]

Several top 100 teams have less than 30 wins. I know for a fact that with less than 20 games ( not all won) team can make to top 100. Krogoth300 has 210 doubles victories. Comments here say less than 10 games played per map or against specific team.
I don't see need to bump anyone to super Titan, yet. Sure havin 2 teams seems silly, but we do get to play against them, don't we.
There are tournaments and now doubles ranking list, too.
But to say that things have settled ... I think not. After all game rules have changed and will change soon again!

And we all should be proud of our standings on top 200 lists. Not all competitive hobbies have millions of users.

[connor34911]

(03-04-2013 04:47 PM)Juslas Wrote:  Several top 100 teams have less than 30 wins. I know for a fact that with less than 20 games ( not all won) team can make to top 100. Krogoth300 has 210 doubles victories. Comments here say less than 10 games played per map or against specific team.
I don't see need to bump anyone to super Titan, yet. Sure havin 2 teams seems silly, but we do get to play against them, don't we.
There are tournaments and now doubles ranking list, too.
But to say that things have settled ... I think not. After all game rules have changed and will change soon again!

And we all should be proud of our standings on top 200 lists. Not all competitive hobbies have millions of users.

I agree with you. I originally thought that there weren't enough super titans in 2v2 but based on the distribution of this list I can see why there are only two. I also think its weird that a few losses knocks you so far back in the ranks. I am ranked a little better than 60 with boyoxneder and we have only won like 5-6 games. I think the ranking system needs to be tweaked to take into account volume of games played.

[aaronINdayton]

I think Trip and I have 10ish wins after placement and we're fairly high on the list. It does seem kind of silly, especially since we've only played one game since season 2 started.

[GreatGonzales]

Eh. I see that side of the argument since I also play with ACFD Lee, who makes mistakes ALL THE TIME, and yet together we are able to reach a rank of 44th. Even so, I think it's clear that the promotion threshold for 2v2 ST needs to be tweaked - just looking at the teams who are in the top 10, it's pretty clear that these are ST teams. Particularly if you take the respective 1v1 ranks into consideration.

I agree that the 2v2 population is still maturing. But the 1v1 population was certainly still maturing in September 2012, and there were many 1v1 STs at that point - after a mere 3 months. The issue is that the ST promotion threshold for 1v1 and 2v2 are out of sync. Look no further than the OSN stats and do the math.

[krogoth300]

I also agree the gap is very close. I also think match ups are a huge part as well. There are some teams, that we are able to handle well (and I read other people struggle with them); while there are other teams that we struggle with (and other people handle them well). It really just depends from match-up to match-up I think. Even what map you play a specific person on makes a difference. FTA also makes a big difference (esp. on blitz beach), but not really complaining there, because it goes both ways (sometimes get P1 sometimes P2) - although I would love for One Man Left to adjust FTA for 2v2.