2 v 2 cancels

[Jakeyboy20]

I agree the ninjas scare me. I feel like they're gonna sneak around to one of our bases....LIKE A NINJA

[GoHeat 3]

(01-31-2013 10:56 AM)Jakeyboy20 Wrote:  I agree the ninjas scare me. I feel like they're gonna sneak around to one of our bases....LIKE A NINJA

Ur a ninja FROG! Why would you be scared of a ninja!?

[worldfamous]

(01-31-2013 10:51 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  I haven't heard of people quitting to avoid players and I don't think that's the primary reason (though it's possible). A more compelling reason to quit a game that I can see is to pick which map you want or to be P1 (since there is still no FTA fix in 2v2 for some reason). My teammate and I never do this, but I do get fed up with being P2/P4 most games.

There's definitely plenty of that going on.

[connor34911]

(01-31-2013 10:48 AM)laYahooz Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 09:52 AM)connor34911 Wrote:  Why shouldnt teams be penalized? If a team forfeits it should count as a loss. To be the best you have to beat the best. This is the same as P1 quitting in 1v1 because they didnt get the map they like.

It's not forfeiting. It sounds like your describing the give up button. I may be wrong, but I don't think you get it.

When my partner invites me to a game and I'm P4, I can see who we're up against. If I decline the invitation, the game doesn't happen because we “forfeited"

I will, and I do, decline invitations if we're up against a team 4 or more times in a row, especially if its on the same map. The main reason is because the other team can delay all games except one to view our strategy. Master league 2v2 teams, and even gifted, will do anything to win

Now I'm curious if people who decline your games, myninja527, are already in a game with you. If not, then they are scared

No I understand. I am saying they are similar situations. Essentially gaining an unfair advantage in maps/teams played against by quitting after you see who you're up against. While its understandable to quit if you face someone multiple times in a row, I really don't think it should be allowed.

I haven't had the problems of matching up against the same teams multiple times in 2v2 yet. I think its because since 2v2 games move slower (even all 4 players are active), I play them less. I typically have 5-10 2v2 and 20ish 1v1's.

I basically think that once you start a game (1v1 or 2v2) you should be locked in. Giving up/forfeiting should count as a loss. In 2v2 this could be solved by having both player agree to play a game before they are matched against opponents.

[Jakeyboy20]

(01-31-2013 11:55 AM)GoHeat 3 Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 10:56 AM)Jakeyboy20 Wrote:  I agree the ninjas scare me. I feel like they're gonna sneak around to one of our bases....LIKE A NINJA

Ur a ninja FROG! Why would you be scared of a ninja!?

Haha true very true. I stand corrected

[Mr.Banger]

Haven't had a problem with this yet

[The RawkHawk]

My bro and I see a strong first turn advantage (FTA) emerge in 2v2 as the level of play approaches the higher levels. Despite this, we haven't had troubles with people declining our games - but this conversation does highlight an issue that needs to be addressed: 2v2 FTA.

Ideally - whether your team goes first or second should have no bearing on the outcome of a match. The simplest solution would be to award less starting wits to the players that go first in a 2v2 match - but deciding what those starting numbers are will be a lot trickier than fixing the 1v1 FTA.
Perhaps something like:
1P - 5
2P - 6
3P - 6
4P - 8

I literally just made those numbers up - so I wouldn't be surprised if they're off. What does everyone else think about this?

EDIT: I forgot to answer the actual question of the thread! No - teams should not be penalized for declining games.

[laYahooz]

(02-01-2013 03:14 AM)The RawkHawk Wrote:  My bro and I see a strong first turn advantage (FTA) emerge in 2v2 as the level of play approaches the higher levels. Despite this, we haven't had troubles with people declining our games - but this conversation does highlight an issue that needs to be addressed: 2v2 FTA.

Ideally - whether your team goes first or second should have no bearing on the outcome of a match. The simplest solution would be to award less starting wits to the players that go first in a 2v2 match - but deciding what those starting numbers are will be a lot trickier than fixing the 1v1 FTA.
Perhaps something like:
1P - 5
2P - 6
3P - 6
4P - 8

I literally just made those numbers up - so I wouldn't be surprised if they're off. What does everyone else think about this?

EDIT: I forgot to answer the actual question of the thread! No - teams should not be penalized for declining games.

I think the numbers they came up with in another 2v2 thread was
p1: 5
P2: 6
P3: 5
P4: 6
Anyways, I think that the FTA is big on machination, blitz beach, and even on Acrospire (P1 and P3 can get the first sniper out to push).

[Mr.Banger]

(02-01-2013 03:14 AM)The RawkHawk Wrote:  My bro and I see a strong first turn advantage (FTA) emerge in 2v2 as the level of play approaches the higher levels. Despite this, we haven't had troubles with people declining our games - but this conversation does highlight an issue that needs to be addressed: 2v2 FTA.

Ideally - whether your team goes first or second should have no bearing on the outcome of a match. The simplest solution would be to award less starting wits to the players that go first in a 2v2 match - but deciding what those starting numbers are will be a lot trickier than fixing the 1v1 FTA.
Perhaps something like:
1P - 5
2P - 6
3P - 6
4P - 8

I literally just made those numbers up - so I wouldn't be surprised if they're off. What does everyone else think about this?

EDIT: I forgot to answer the actual question of the thread! No - teams should not be penalized for declining games.

Disagree. Don't feel it.

[Gf!sh]

^What's the last time you've played a game as T2?