That's a sorry state of affairs for two such excellent players. Somethings must be done stat. The 2x2 ladder needs more teams.

On the other hand, I am excited for the ratings surge when bostonfred and fatguy beat us.

I know this has been mentioned before, but it'd be cool if you could enter the ladder with more than 1 team mate. This would increase the # of teams involved.

Weird things are always going to happen with Bayeselo when you only have a couple games completed. I agree that it seems bizarre, but don't think of it as a permanent loss of rating. Things will fully re-adjust once both teams have more games played.

Also, I agree that we need more teams in the 2v2 ladder. I think one thing that would help would be to allow each player to be in two separate teams. Obviously, when matchups are decided, the algorithm would just avoid matchups which would contain the same player on both teams.

This ranking system makes no sense whatsoever.

fatguy and I are 4-0 and undefeated in 2v2 play. Ruthless and Duke are 2-0, also undefeated in 2v2. Perrin and crafty are 3-1, losing only to Ruthless and Duke. We've beaten the same teams that perrin and crafty beat, and two others. Yet we're behind both ruthless/duke AND perrin/crafty.

I can understand that it will all even out later, but I don't see any way for the numbers to shake out the way they have based on the games played so far.

I think you are mistaken. You haven't beaten the same teams that Perrin and I have -- we have only one common opponent (we both beat Knoebber/Soyrice). Results will absolutely not be intuitive as long as we have multiple teams with only 1-4 games completed, that has to be expected with this system. Honestly, I think Fizzer should just hide the ratings during the provisional period.

I should point out that both teams ahead of us did beat blue precision and eitz, who have a 1514 rating. But they're 0-2, and the only reason they have a high rating is because they were beaten by teams with high ratings, who in turn only have high ratings because they beat blue precision and eitz.

So ruthless/duke beat 3-1 crafty/perrin and 0-2 blue/eitz, and they're in first. That's weird, but OK. Crafty/perrin lost to ruthless/duke, beat 0-2 blue/eitz, and beat two teams that we also beat, and they're ahead of us? When we beat both of the other two teams that we faced? How can that possibly work?

crafty> i think you're right. our win against dragons/ryco isn't done yet. that's probably the difference here. still seems really strange that a 2-0 team that beat an 0-2 team is ahead of a 4-0 team, but it is what it is.

I obviously spoke to soon. When I saw our win on the ladder i saw BP/Eitz in last int he low 1400s and we were in like 4th. Clearly our ranking did not go down as we are now in 1st with 1700s. Makes no sense.

lol i agree with the fact that Randy should hide the provisional 2v2 rankings for now... it just stirs up a lot of argument.

Plus it'll be a nice mystery as to who's in what place later on.

Remember the ladder also takes into account whether you had first pick or not.

So you can win more than another team against similar opponents, but you'll get less points if you got first picks and the others didn't.

OK, we just got our fifth win, and are 5-0 and have now beaten all of the teams that crafty/perrin have beaten. Our reward for this is that we dropped to fourth place.

That's still not entirely true -- you haven't beaten BP and Eitz, and they are currently rated higher than anyone you have beaten. Seriously, though, just give it a few days and things will start to make sense.

oh don't worry bostonfred, we'll be sure to give you your first loss so this won't be an issue anymore.

:)

ugh - pride goest before the fall.

lol i'm eating my words