Best allround players

[GreatGonzales]

I think these ranks are PERFECT!

At most, they are 3 places off.

[LortGob]

(03-07-2013 01:33 AM)John3:16 Wrote:  Although too difficult (and impossible given the incomplete data) to factor in, best all-around would take into consideration if the person used different teams, right?

Yeah it should. When you have multiple 2v2 teams listed, you get more points. However, the first team (the highest ranked) nets you more points than the second team, and the second team gives you more points than a third team.

This is to compensate for players who choose to go for only one team and have achieved a very high rank. I still think it's harder to get to the top 5 with one team than to the top 200 with three teams.

Currently, one team ranked #5 gives you 9,8 points, while having three teams ranked #100, #125 and #150 gives you 9,18 points.

---

(03-07-2013 01:41 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  I think these ranks are PERFECT!

At most, they are 3 places off.

LOL

I might want to change the points so you are ranked a bit lower....

[Uvafan173]

(03-07-2013 01:46 AM)LortGob Wrote:  

(03-07-2013 01:33 AM)John3:16 Wrote:  Although too difficult (and impossible given the incomplete data) to factor in, best all-around would take into consideration if the person used different teams, right?

Yeah it should. When you have multiple 2v2 teams listed, you get more points. However, the first team (the highest ranked) nets you more points than the second team, and the second team gives you more points than a third team.

This is to compensate for players who choose to go for only one team and have achieved a very high rank. I still think it's harder to get to the top 5 with one team than to the top 200 with three teams.

Currently, one team ranked #5 gives you 9,8 points, while having three teams ranked #100, #125 and #150 gives you 9,18 points.

I think by different teams he means adorables, scallywags, veggies, feedback.

[LortGob]

(03-07-2013 01:49 AM)Uvafan173 Wrote:  I think by different teams he means adorables, scallywags, veggies, feedback.

Ah. Good point. Too bad that's impossible.

[connor34911]

I think the concept of this is okay, but is should be proportional to how competitive each league is. 1v1 should have more weight than 2v2. 1v1 is much more competitive and it's harder to get ranked. I could start a 2v2 team with almost any team. It's just not as competitive.

Before all the hardcore 2v2 players jump down my throat, I realize the top 20 is competitive. But outside of that it really isn't very competitive. I think over time things will mature and it will become competitive, especially since the hidden ranks are published now.

[GreatGonzales]

(03-07-2013 05:06 AM)connor34911 Wrote:  Before all the hardcore 2v2 players jump down my throat, I realize the top 20 is competitive. But outside of that it really isn't very competitive. I think over time things will mature and it will become competitive, especially since the hidden ranks are published now.

I actually agree with this. I also play with ACFD Lee, and I use my games with him to relax. Very rarely communicating, and I rarely think very hard about my moves. Even so, we are ranked 44th as of 3/1. I think the skill ramps up severely as you approach the top, more severely, I think, than in 1v1.

[awpertunity]

lol I didn't even know I had a team ranked 182 till I saw this. I think the problem is just that the points awarded are linear with rank, when they should be some higher order (like quadratic).

Right now, raising your 1v1 rank from 200 to 199 gives you 0.125 points and so does increasing it from 2 to 1, which is a lot more difficult. Something like

points = 25 * [ ( 201 - rank ) / (200) ]^2

would be better.

[connor34911]

Some parts of my comment might not have made sense because I wrote it on my iPhone. I meant to say I could start almost any team and be ranked in the top 200 (playing with veggies). That isn't meant to sound cocky, I just don't think it is too competitive yet.

---

(03-07-2013 05:20 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  

(03-07-2013 05:06 AM)connor34911 Wrote:  Before all the hardcore 2v2 players jump down my throat, I realize the top 20 is competitive. But outside of that it really isn't very competitive. I think over time things will mature and it will become competitive, especially since the hidden ranks are published now.

I think the skill ramps up severely as you approach the top, more severely, I think, than in 1v1.

That may be true, because of the communication aspect.

[harvarnold]

The problem with this is a lot of top players don't play 2v2 random at all, since it can be kind of pointless without good partners. I'd be interested in seeing a list that didn't take into account 2v2 random.

[Necrocat219]

But doesn't 2vs2 random require the most skill as once you have a partner you have to figure out how to communicate with them and play mostly against 2vs2 organised?