[2v2] 2151 2v2 Enough?

[Sylect]

For gladiator, on reckoning? I think it is, as there's ~29k teams on the battlegroup (read the numbers making the gladiator teams around 150ish. Can anyone confirm? (2151 is ~104 ranked)

[Gunnolf]

I play in your battlegroup and yes it is enough right now, but i think both of us will have to go up since people will push for gladiator at the end of the season.

[Phiers]

At least 32364 teams, meaning 161-162 gladiators from 2v2. This is currently 2097 rating.

http://www.wowarmory.com/team-info.xml?r=Firetree&ts=2&t=Gears+of+War&select=Gears+of+War

Keep in mind a lot of people sell teams, and will be making a push for their own team to get gladiator in the last 2 weeks. 2150's probably going to be the bare minimum.

[Kanuck]

Only the top 20 in each bracket should get glad...

2100 2v2 is way too easy to get :(

[Dimachaeri]

Only the top 20 in each bracket should get glad...

2100 2v2 is way too easy to get :(

So why isn't your 2v2s there, yet?

[Vivec]

So why isn't your 2v2s there, yet?

We all know it's because he can't find a random SL/SL lock to do 2s with.

[Grup]

Top 20 is a terrible idea, especially given the fact there's a lot less 5v5 teams than 2v2 teams. It also virtually removes most shaman/hunters from getting gladiator in 2v2.

[Kanuck]

I see absolutely no benefit to me for putting any serious time into 2v2, I play with 2 of my friends alts, I find 2v2 either boringly easy or frustatingly difficult depending on my opponent's class makeup, also, the queues are way too long.

My premise is this, only the most dominant teams deserve gladiator.

There may be thousands more 2v2 teams than 5v5 teams, but in my battle group, you will notice that the variation in ratings on the front page is roughly the same in all brackets. Now, if there are so many more teams in 2v2, then there should be so much more rating to be won (every new team introduces 1500 rating into the system). Based on this, you would expect that the top 2v2 team would have a much higher rating than the top 5v5 simply because they have the opportunity to win the most rating. In my battle group, the top 2v2 team has a rating of 2422, and the top 5v5 team has a rating of 2543. What this tells me is that the top 5v5 team has actually done a MUCH better job of establishing its self as the more dominant, since its portion of the total available rating would have to be considerably larger than that of the 2v2 team.

The top 17 5v5 teams, 20 2v2 teams, and 22 3v3 teams are above 2300. Roughly speaking, as far as round numbers go (eg. 0.5% rather than 0.6%) 20 seems like a good solid cut off to capture the teams which are proving themselves to be the most dominant in their respective brackets. In fact, I would say the teams in 5s and 3s are doing an even better job of demonstrating they actually are better than their competition because they have much larger portions of the total amount of available rating. So while there may be more teams in 2v2, I still think the number of truely exceptional teams does not change much from bracket to bracket. With the glut of 2v2 teams with middle of the road ratings and no skill or teamwork to speak of, it really isn't difficult to move up to a relatively high rating, however, the same total number of teams are actually showing themselves to be capable of dominating their opponents.

[Kanuck]

As far as shamans and hunters go, that is irrelevant. The point is not to make sure everyone has an equal opportunity to get gladiator, its to make sure the most dominant arena teams get gladiator. If it really is impossible for hunters and shamans to win games (which I'm not sure it is) that issue has to be fixed another way. In order to get 3 shamans gladiator you shouldnt have to give 100 extra warlocks gladiator when the warlocks in the top 20 are in fact better than the other ones.

[Xios]

Only the top 20 in each bracket should get glad...

2100 2v2 is way too easy to get :(

I totally agree. The competition on 2s and 3s seems completely dead atm. It just gets pointless to raise your team higher since im stuck playing 5 pt games most of the time. Most of the top 20 are inactive although we did play the first place team this weekend. It would be a fun way to bring back competition in these brackets.

[Bustuarii]

I see absolutely no benefit to me for putting any serious time into 2v2, I play with 2 of my friends alts, I find 2v2 either boringly easy or frustatingly difficult depending on my opponent's class makeup, also, the queues are way too long.

Yes, 2vs2 is very challenging. Some combos are harder to beat and some are easier, but learning to beat them all is the key to success in that bracket.

My premise is this, only the most dominant teams deserve gladiator.
There may be thousands more 2v2 teams than 5v5 teams, but in my battle group, you will notice that the variation in ratings on the front page is roughly the same in all brackets. Now, if there are so many more teams in 2v2, then there should be so much more rating to be won (every new team introduces 1500 rating into the system). Based on this, you would expect that the top 2v2 team would have a much higher rating than the top 5v5 simply because they have the opportunity to win the most rating. In my battle group, the top 2v2 team has a rating of 2422, and the top 5v5 team has a rating of 2543. What this tells me is that the top 5v5 team has actually done a MUCH better job of establishing its self as the more dominant, since its portion of the total available rating would have to be considerably larger than that of the 2v2 team.
You're thinking about it all wrong. If there are 10 teams playing, half will be above 1500 and half will be below 1500. If there are 1000 teams playing, half will be above 1500 and half will be below 1500. Furthermore, queue times for 2v2 are much longer.


The top 17 5v5 teams, 20 2v2 teams, and 22 3v3 teams are above 2300. Roughly speaking, as far as round numbers go (eg. 0.5% rather than 0.6%) 20 seems like a good solid cut off to capture the teams which are proving themselves to be the most dominant in their respective brackets. In fact, I would say the teams in 5s and 3s are doing an even better job of demonstrating they actually are better than their competition because they have much larger portions of the total amount of available rating. So while there may be more teams in 2v2, I still think the number of truely exceptional teams does not change much from bracket to bracket. With the glut of 2v2 teams with middle of the road ratings and no skill or teamwork to speak of, it really isn't difficult to move up to a relatively high rating, however, the same total number of teams are actually showing themselves to be capable of dominating their opponents.

See, I completely disagree with you (and your math is very faulty, btw).
With a 5v5, it is hard to tell the individual skill of a person because they are only 20% of the equation. With a 2v2, each person is worth 50%. You can only carry a bad teammate so far in 2v2, but in 5v5, you can easily carry an unskilled player to the top.
The smaller brackets require that way more skill be present, and with so many people competing, it is a much harder bracket to climb.

[cauch]

. Now, if there are so many more teams in 2v2, then there should be so much more rating to be won (every new team introduces 1500 rating into the system). Based on this, you would expect that the top 2v2 team would have a much higher rating than the top 5v5 simply because they have the opportunity to win the most rating.1

Flawed logic. (what you say is flawed, the opposite is true, that is: Since there are many more teams it's actually HARDER to get a high rating than it is with fewer teams since there are way more teams competing points)

30000 2v2 teams each contributed 1500 points. Point pool is 45M points.
10000 5v5 teams each contributed 1500 points. Point pool is 15M points.

Notice the pool points and the number of teams is strictly proportional (the average rating is 1500 for both brackets)

The top 20 teams of the 2v2 bracket have to compete with 29980 other teams for the 1000 rating they need to hit 2500.
The top 20 teams of the 5v5 bracket have to compete with only 9980 other teams for the same 1000 points they need to hit 2500 rating.

The pool point is 3 times larger, but the number of teams one team has to compete against for the same amount of rating is fiercely larger thus makes it harder to sustain a higher rating when you have so many teams playing.

Therefore this season, since there are so many more teams playing you will need a lower rating than you did last season for gladiator.

[Kanuck]

As far as the first part goes, I think its pretty obvious that every combo can not learn to beat every other combo. Nor can most combos learn to beat any other combos. Quite frankly if played properly, certain make ups will not lose to other specific make ups no matter how well they play. The odds can shift too greatly in favor of one team or the other simply because of class combination for me to enjoy myself. If I put time in and dodged teams a little I do believe I could easily get above 2200 (in fact I did in season 1).

You're thinking about it all wrong. If there are 10 teams playing, half will be above 1500 and half will be below 1500. If there are 1000 teams playing, half will be above 1500 and half will be below 1500. Furthermore, queue times for 2v2 are much longer.

This is a totally wrong assumption based on the system. The point is that teams can build up their ratings by winning consistently, this means that if one team could beat every other team consistently, they could put a huge amount of distance between the #1 team and the #2 team. In fact, they could be so dominant that there could be 6 teams below 1500, or 7, or even 9 teams all below 1500 because every single time they get any points and move into the #2 spot, they start consistently losing to the dominant team until someone else becomes #2. While this is unlikely due to the nature of the game and the fact that all teams are not constantly queueing, it is possible that a team will eat up a bigger piece of the pie than anyone else.

What math? I just counted the teams above 2300 and noticed there were roughly 20 in each bracket...

Are you saying that a team of 5 highly skilled players would be likely to lose to a team of 4 highly skilled players and one average player? I'm going to assume you are not and point out that even if there is room for a team to carry up a mediocre player for a little ways, the team will start losing once they start playing against a team of 5 good players. I'm also going to argue that there is more potential for class combination to give lesser skilled players winning streaks and higher ratings in 2s than there is potential for lesser skilled players to get carried into high ratings in 5s.

And as far as 3s go, I'd say they obviously fall somewhere in between.

[Kanuck]

Flawed logic. (what you say is flawed, the opposite is true, that is: Since there are many more teams it's actually HARDER to get a high rating than it is with fewer teams since there are way more teams competing points)

30000 2v2 teams each contributed 1500 points. Point pool is 45M points.
10000 5v5 teams each contributed 1500 points. Point pool is 15M points.

Notice the pool points and the number of teams is strictly proportional (the average rating is 1500 for both brackets)

The top 20 teams of the 2v2 bracket have to compete with 29980 other teams for the 1000 rating they need to hit 2500.
The top 20 teams of the 5v5 bracket have to compete with only 9980 other teams for the same 1000 points they need to hit 2500 rating.

The pool point is 3 times larger, but the number of teams one team has to compete against for the same amount of rating is fiercely larger thus makes it harder to sustain a higher rating when you have so many teams playing.

Therefore this season, since there are so many more teams playing you will need a lower rating than you did last season for gladiator.

As far as I'm concerned, the only important parts are that there are more points available and that roughly the same number of teams are able to convincingly demonstrate their superiority over the others. I attribute this to the very nature of class combinations and their influence over the outcomes of matches. Better players can lose consistently to worse players.

I suppose what I'm really saying is that the nature of 2v2 does not lend its self to the idea of a team dominating the other ones and actually establishing its self as better. Because of this, fewer rather than more 2v2 players can actually deserve the title of gladiator. Assuming the gladiator title is actually for the more dominant teams.

[Bustuarii]

If I put time in and dodged teams a little I do believe I could easily get above 2200 (in fact I did in season 1).
Yes, a lot less people were lvl 70 during S1 and thus did not get a chance to compete. Now that so many new teams are playing, competition is stiff.


This is a totally wrong assumption based on the system. The point is that teams can build up their ratings by winning consistently, this means that if one team could beat every other team consistently, they could put a huge amount of distance between the #1 team and the #2 team. In fact, they could be so dominant that there could be 6 teams below 1500, or 7, or even 9 teams all below 1500 because every single time they get any points and move into the #2 spot, they start consistently losing to the dominant team until someone else becomes #2. While this is unlikely due to the nature of the game and the fact that all teams are not constantly queueing, it is possible that a team will eat up a bigger piece of the pie than anyone else.
No, one team will not realistically get a significantly bigger piece of the pie. You can only go so far ahead until the teams below you give next to zero points.


What math? I just counted the teams above 2300 and noticed there were roughly 20 in each bracket...

You're assuming that being above 2300 means the same thing in 2v2, 3v3, and 5v5. As that other poster also pointed out, the competition is tougher in 2v2, and thus it is harder to reach 2300.


Are you saying that a team of 5 highly skilled players would be likely to lose to a team of 4 highly skilled players and one average player? I'm going to assume you are not and point out that even if there is room for a team to carry up a mediocre player for a little ways, the team will start losing once they start playing against a team of 5 good players.


No, I completely disagree. I've played 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 in Warcraft 3, and it is very similiar to WoW in terms that the higher brackets get less active teams. 4v4 wasn't very competitive at all, and I easily got to the top of the ladder (which actually sucks, because then you wait 1+ hour to get a game, and nobody wants to play under those conditions) with multiple teams. It wasn't necessary to have 4 amazingly skilled players; just have a couple of decent players and two superb was enough to win any game. Like I said, this is mostly due to the lack of competition. Yet, keep in mind, that way more players play 4v4 in WC3 than they play 5v5 in WoW.
On top of that, strategy is much simpler in the higher brackets. In WC3, a human player could almost just spam mortars and be very successful while in WoW, a warlock spams CoT and such. The other formats require you to use a lot of your own abilities instead of a few of your strong ones.


I'm also going to argue that there is more potential for class combination to give lesser skilled players winning streaks and higher ratings in 2s than there is potential for lesser skilled players to get carried into high ratings in 5s.

Well, maybe if you're playing double hunter or double mage...
There are many class combos that have risen to the top, and I'd only give that argument to someone who plays on a team that really doesn't exist on the top of the ladder.

[Thaniel]

/wave Kanuck.

[Thaniel]

It's difficult to compare the different brackets because the playstyle in 2s and 3s is vastly different than playing 5s. It is definitely a lot easier to carry a mediocre player in 5v5 based on good gear alone. I feel that a player's individual skill is tested a lot more in 2s and 3s, simply because there is way more multi-tasking going on. When you are 50% of the team the margin for error is a lot less than if you are 20%, it's as simple as that.

The only problem with 2v2 is that certain games (very few actually, because in most cases there are ways of countering it) are won solely based on superior class makeup to yours (for example Spriest/ualock vs. Druid/warr w/out SR gear), but the same could potentially be said for any of the 3 brackets.

[Phiers]

The more people in the system, the higher the high, the lower the low, in theory.

If there are 10 teams in the system, even spreading people 100 pts between teams, you'd see a rating variety of 1000-2000. The 2000 team could only get points from the 1900 and 1800 team, and minimal points at that, and probably cap out around 2100.
Now double the number of people in the system, with 2 teams at each 100 point milestone. The previous 2000 team can now play another 2000 team, and go up another 50 points or so than previously, to 2150.
Double the number of teams again, and now that "2150" team can farm the 2150 team you just doubled, and go up to 2250. Double again, now they're 2350. Then 2450. Etc. The more teams there are, the more teams near your rating you can play, the higher your rating will get if you truely are the dominant team.

[Tyveris]

Just restored this thread from a backup of this morning due to an accidental deletion. Sorry if it is missing posts. If it makes you feel better, it was a pain in the ass to restore it :P