OML - Where is the 2v2 love?

[GreatGonzales]

(02-17-2013 06:27 AM)Alvendor Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 04:55 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  No FTA Fix for 2v2
Admitedly, this is not agreed upon even within the 2v2 community - namely, that FTA is a significant enough problem for 2v2 to warrant a fix. I asked this question in my survey: 56% of respondents (controlling for "Mainly 2v2" players and players who play 1v1 and 2v2 equally) feel that significant FTA exists in 2v2 and should be fixed; 31% believe that FTA exists but it's not significant enough to fix, and 12.5% believe that there is no FTA for 2v2. (I should point out, though, that mathematically there IS 2v2 FTA; so this 12.5% is just factually wrong). This has been discussed in several threads already, including here (Samura's thread) and here. However, I was thinking about starting a new thread myself, because I feel that 2v2 FTA is emerging with increased significance for high level play. There are a number of well-known early bombshell strategies that make it difficult to be P2/P4, especially on Blitz Beach and Machination. While a solution has not been agreed upon, I think we can get close - I propose wit allocation of 5/6/6/7, for example (giving P1/P3 11 starting wits; P2/P4 13 starting wits). Something like this would be an improvement, I think, over the current state of affairs.

Samura's thread above explains it clearly why 2+ wits for P2 and 1+ wit for P4 creates the most balanced play with each team getting a lead with 3 wits depending on who's turn it is (after the initial 4 turns).

I guess you can argue that the asymmetry is bad but this is a competitive game, let's make it as balanced as possible!

Re-reading samurai's thread, I see you are right. Absolutely, +2 for p2 and +1 for p4. Lets implement this change!

[alexjiang1]

(02-17-2013 08:05 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  There doesn't need to be a significant advantage to warrant an FTA fix. Just look at the numbers and you'll see Ravernoth's suggestion just makes things more even.

Forgive me, I mistyped, but from what I see, our opponent already gets out their BS earlier than us, with the change, it'll be even earlier. I don't know, it's probably just our style of play and methods are outdated

[GreatGonzales]

(02-17-2013 08:02 AM)alexjiang1 Wrote:  @LaYahooz, the reason behind our 2v2 FTA isnt a big issue is because when we are P1 (which is most of the time), our opponent gets out of the opening fine, usually, our BS gets out later than theirs! Even on Mach and Blitz Beach. We have 3 losses now as P1, all on CCM and 1 as P2 on BB (my mistake) and about to suffer another one on CCM as P2 (yes we've lost 3 out of our last 4, been taking a break from 2v2 for some time). Maybe its because we dont take advantage of our P1 or our methods are outdated, but for some reason, weve never felt a significant advantage going as P1 and never felt disadvantaged as P2

But clearly it's better to be P1/P3 than P2/P4. Mathematically, there is FTA. OML should attempt to balance this, especially considering the growing "rejecting" trend.

[CombatEX]

(02-17-2013 09:05 AM)alexjiang1 Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 08:05 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  There doesn't need to be a significant advantage to warrant an FTA fix. Just look at the numbers and you'll see Ravernoth's suggestion just makes things more even.

Forgive me, I mistyped, but from what I see, our opponent already gets out their BS earlier than us, with the change, it'll be even earlier. I don't know, it's probably just our style of play and methods are outdated

Well, mathematically the only way your opponent could get out a bombshell faster is an issue of style since as P1 you have access to more wits earlier.

(02-17-2013 11:07 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  But clearly it's better to be P1/P3 than P2/P4. Mathematically, there is FTA. OML should attempt to balance this, especially considering the growing "rejecting" trend.

While I agree with you that they should implement the FTA fix, I feel that the growing rejecting trend is also due quite a bit to map picking.

[GreatGonzales]

(02-17-2013 01:01 PM)CombatEX Wrote:  While I agree with you that they should implement the FTA fix, I feel that the growing rejecting trend is also due quite a bit to map picking.

Didn't mean to suggest that FTA is the only factor encouraging match rejecting. Many factors involved, one of which being FTA; therefore relevant to this discussion.

[harvarnold]

I totally agree with this post, except I believe I heard from somewhere as well that more 2v2 maps are on the way. A response from Adam or Alex would really be appreciated now.

[GreatGonzales]

I propose we start bumping this thread instead of the petition thread. Who is with me?

[The RawkHawk]

I agree with this.

[TheQwertiest]

why dont you guys just message adam and alex?
and check tracking.

[GreatGonzales]

I have sent messages about some of these issues in the past. Certainly they are aware of the top players list request, at least.