2v2 random: why it really sucks. A lot.

Coolio · 09-22-2013, 10:40 AM

(09-21-2013 01:19 AM)phineas94 Wrote:
(09-20-2013 11:10 AM)Coolio Wrote: Disagree, I was placed in fluffy 2v2r. Now about to be promoted to gifted. Given, you are going to get some bad teamates and face arranged teams that know what they're doing and kill you, but that's all part of the challenge. It makes it worth it even more when you get promoted up. I keep noticing my teamates getting stronger and stronger. If everything in life came easy, then it wouldn't be fun.

First off, congrats on getting to the hard way, no mean feat!

But what are you disagreeing with? Is it this?

(09-20-2013 02:15 AM)Juslas Wrote: And with top ranked random players game is quite enjoyable ;-)

Possibly implying that playing with lower ranked players isn't enjoyable.

I believe this statement is made in response to the thread as a whole, not as a moan about inexperienced players. Because Juslas only played 1 game at a time in his placement matches, and won all 5, he ensured that he had the highest possible hidden rank thereby getting him to 41st in the lists - a position which meant he was almost guaranteed an experienced partner.

If he had started 5 games simultaneously, chances are at least 1 of those games would have timed out due to being paired with unranked partners, lost one other due to bad play from partner and lost one more due to being matched against an arranged team. 2 wins out of 5, placed in or , the road to would have been slightly longer.

No-one's saying it isn't fun to play outwitters at whatever level although many feel frustration at the way the random 2v2 system works. See you in soon though Coolio

Sorry that I was unclear, but I was disaggreeing with Gfish's original post not winning 5 placement games. Winning all your placement games is an achievement when you will likely be paired with fluffier and such! I do not think 2v2r sucks as much as Gfish states though.

phineas94 · (This post was last modified: 09-22-2013 07:11 PM by phineas94.)

@ coolio

Copy that

Copy that

I agree with the taking of enjoyment from whatever R2v2 throws at you but I'd still "invite" someone if they were going to time out.

Spillblood · 09-22-2013, 08:46 PM

r2v2 can be a pain, but that's what so cool about it. The randomness of it. Sorry, phineas94, but I think that your 'invites' method is like a hack, ie, a sure fire method of recording 100% wins on r2v2. And if that's not taking advantage of an inherent system weakness (aka a hack) then what is?

For example, if your r2v2 game is on the ropes and one turn away from defeat, just invite that random partner to start an a2v2, and that blinkered r2v2 game doesn't count as a ranking r2v2 game anymore. Do it for all r2v2 blinkered / about-to-be-blinkered games, and ST ranking beckons very soon.

phineas94 · 09-22-2013, 10:44 PM

(09-22-2013 08:46 PM)Spillblood Wrote: r2v2 can be a pain, but that's what so cool about it. The randomness of it. Sorry, phineas94, but I think that your 'invites' method is like a hack, ie, a sure fire method of recording 100% wins on r2v2. And if that's not taking advantage of an inherent system weakness (aka a hack) then what is?

For example, if your r2v2 game is on the ropes and one turn away from defeat, just invite that random partner to start an a2v2, and that blinkered r2v2 game doesn't count as a ranking r2v2 game anymore. Do it for all r2v2 blinkered / about-to-be-blinkered games, and ST ranking beckons very soon.

No apology needed Smile

If you read the whole OP (I know it's a long'un) I agree with your appraisal. The main use of the "invite" would be to avoid ranking loss when matched with a partner who was about to time out - and in fluffy and clever that is quite a high proportion. As mentioned in the thread, I haven't had to invite anyone since hitting gifted and anyone abusing it to try and achieve ST, due to the small player base and the way the matching system works, I believe would be easy to spot and possibly shooting themselves in the foot. Why? Well because if you we're rank 20-30 your possible partners would be coming from a small pool of players and if you became arranged partners with some of that pool your path to ST would be further hindered

Gf!sh · 09-23-2013, 01:41 AM

Strictly speaking it's an exploit.

Spillblood · 09-23-2013, 02:08 AM

Exploit, hack.. Tomato,tomahto... Tongue

[PETA] Doodat · 09-23-2013, 02:49 AM

Nahhh there's more than just a nuance in those two.

=) Random Task (= · 09-23-2013, 03:17 AM

(09-23-2013 02:49 AM)Doodat Wrote: Nahhh there's more than just a nuance in those two.

His argument was that its not fair play and here I agree with him.

phineas94 · 09-25-2013, 08:09 PM

When I first stumbled upon the "invite" method I had an idea to take my R2v2 career all the way to Supertitan and call it "How I cheated my way to the top" or some such. With the intention to expose the exploit/hack (Oh I do so love a semantics debate on the internet, always constructive Smile

) so the developers could do something about it i.e.

(04-16-2013 01:50 AM)ImperialSun Wrote: That's pretty smart. I was going to say that was clever, but somehow that doesn't sound like as much of a compliment on these forums as it would elsewhere. I may actually try 2v2R now, though this is kind of an exploit and should be patched by OML. Instead of this exploit OML should just fix the problem with a legitimate solution. Basically if someone leaves or forfeits in 2v2 random, the partner should be able to take both player's turns. That doesn't fix the problem with terrible partners, but that's what you get for playing 2v2 random.

But as the "invite" method is quite time consuming ( I always played the invited game to it's conclusion unless it was being utilised for a partner who had timed out in which case I forfeited the invited game immediately) I was happy to go with the random flow once I was promoted to Gifted as, at that level, you rarely get partnered with a bad player.

The possibility that players could use the system to attain an undeserved rank was the only real concern but, for reasons stated previously, this was of a fairly low level.

(09-23-2013 03:17 AM)Random Task Wrote: His argument was that its not fair play and here I agree with him.

I don't feel Spillblood's stance was about the unfairness of the system as who has it been unfair to? The opponents who have just won a game and been accredited with all increases in points and hidden rank? No. Your "invited" partner who was just about to lose a game anyhow and suffer the subsequent point loss? No. The player using the system? Obviously not.

The only possible "unfairness" aspect I can see, and this is stretching it a bit, is that if a player were to abuse the system other players would have to look at that player's name at the top of the list instead of their own. Not the end of the world is it?

Anyhow, it's been 5 months or so since posting and I don't believe anyone out there has been abusing it. Again, I feel it would be fairly easy to spot - time will tell.

***onealexleft*** · 09-26-2013, 06:36 PM

(08-31-2013 06:07 AM)Gf!sh Wrote: The main point, really is that [b]random pairs can be matched against arranged pairs.

Point taken, but this was a decision made early on as a stop-gap of a dwindling player pool further down the road. Better to play a game than to not play a game at all.