I agree with Good Kid that the matchmaking is problematic, but when there are few teams on the ladder (and yes I'm aware that there are far more teams on the 2v2 ladder than there used to be, is still low compared to the 1v1 ladder) is difficult to match teams against other similarly rated teams who they haven't played recently in a timely fashion. The only solution I can see is allowing teams to play each other more frequently, but that has its own set of issues.

Picking your opponents is a bigger deal on this ladder (and on the 3v3) than on the 1v1 ladder for that reason.

Starting "new" teams with different accounts but essentially the same players is another big issue, but unfortunately I don't see an easy solution to that one.

I haven't really seen stalling on this ladder recently, but in general it is a big problem on the ladders.

Edited 3/11/2016 13:39:41

Well .... we have won another match. Our opponents have rating 1593. We fell by 4 points and got match against team with rating 1631.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KncbQaxWD9Y

Wow, I've seen your team lurking around in the 2v2 ladder for quite a while now, well done for breaking the record!

@Mohikanin: The ladder always tries to pair teams up with their closest ranked opponent teams however I didn't pay attention to in which interval the matchmaking occurs. You could wait a couple of hours to accept an opponent surrender when you see that there are only low ranked teams in the pool. Another option would be to reduce your game count to the minimum and when you see a high ranked opponent team has finished their game you could temporarily increase your game count to get matched agains them. If you play also with temporarily leaving the ladder and joining only to get matched up you could get quite precisely matched against the opponents that you want.

Edited 3/13/2016 13:45:50

Norman that's exactly the behaviour that should be discouraged on the ladders.

Full agreeement. I know what we "should" do but I don't accept that. We should play less games, keep them going forever and watch other teams results to catch some more valuable games. System designed in the way that promotes this kind of behaviour kills ladder.

Mostly response to Beren's post, but to everybody else as well:
"Losing to a team rated below 1800 kills your rating. Once that loss expires, your rating will probably jump by 100 points."

Our loss against this team has just expired. We've jumped by 54 points. This loss has cost us 150 points but somehow we have earned only 50. Right now our only loss is against the number 1 pair. They also have 1 loss but against lower-rank pair than we, plus we have more wins. We've finished one game the same day with pair from top 10 and yet got paired with ~1600 team.

I don't want you think that I/we complain, cause we can deal with it. We will "fight on your's conditions". I just wanted to show again, that this systems simply sucks.

Right now, the ladder is updated and games are created every other hour. In my opinion, that's where the problem lies. The games of the 2v2 ladder tend to be long, I know mine generally range from 2 weeks to a month. So let's say you are the #2 team on the ladder and you're waiting for a game against the #1 team. If the #1 team is playing 2 games at a time and each one of their games takes 2 weeks to finish, then you basically have ONE two-hour window opportunity every week to get matched against them. I know, that 2-hour window is sometimes longer than 2 hours, if the ladder can't find the #1 team an opponent right away. But my point is, even with 5 games at a time, it's really difficult to be matched with the opponent you want and you deserve.

I think there's an easy way to fix that problem: instead of creating games every other hour, let the ladder create them every day or even every other day if that's necessary. This is not the 1v1 ladder: games take time to be played, and I don't think anyone will complain because he has to wait 24 hours or 48 hours before he gets matched with a new team. The ranking updates could still be done every other hour, but having larger intervals between the creation of the games would guarantee that every player gets games better suited to his rating .

Regarding the rating system, my only issue is with the first pick advantage. It might be advantageous to get first pick on the 1v1 ladder, but there are no great picks on the 2v2 ladder. Between the potential FTB, the 3+3 and 4+3 combos that can give you 11 or 12 income at the end of turn 3... there are just so many good picks to choose from. On the opposite, it's actually more interesting to have one of your picks denied, that way you know where your opponent is. So it doesn't make sense to give a rating advantage to someone who loses his first pick.

But I wouldn't change anything else. I know it's frustrating to win only a few points after you defeat a low-rated opponent, and it's even more frustrating to lose a hundred points because you lose against another low-rated opponent. (I know what I'm talking about, there's this one defeat against a team now rated 1640 that is ruining my rating.) But it's part of the game, and it's a risk every team faces. If you want to reach to top, you have to prove that not only you're able to win against the best teams, but you're also able to beat every low-rated team the ladder matches you with.

Anyway, I'm talking about the 2v2 ladder but this is not what that topic was originally about... Congratulations on what is now a 26 games winning streak! \o/
26 games, it's really impressive! I can't say I'm proud to be part of it but since every game you win indirectly helps my rating, I hope your streak will continue for a long time. :p

Edited 3/27/2016 16:29:12

I wouldn't put too much weight to how many wins a team has, it only matters who are the wins and losses against. Only loss is against 1st place so it's rather fair I think. You're only 16 points behind first place so I think you'll soon overtake it.

I think there's an easy way to fix that problem: instead of creating games every other hour, let the ladder create them every day or even every other day if that's necessary.

I agree with this. It makes a lot of sense. Once per day seems like a reasonable rate at which to create the games. Maybe twice per day is better so it doesn't give an advantage to teams that are regularly online at the time games are created.

@rakleader:
I agree - system choosing opponents could be designed in different way.
First pick advantage is a bit strange. I don't know the real statistics but taking the first pick does not help for me. The pick or the knowledge where your opponent actually is, is a comparable advantage I suppose. Fair enough.

Thanks, about the winning streak, you know ;) In fact we pull everybody up, because if someone lost the game against us he is going up; if someone won - again up. But I see our ranking only going down from hour to hour :/

The real problem is that won against low-rank team simply gives you nothing but loss is devastating. So you have to play only against top-rank teams and to avoid other games. So basically top teams play 2 games at the time and add one only if another good team is available. Everything is going slow as hell. I see no exit from this loop in the regime of those rules.

I don't think the issue is the match making, I think it's the template. Better template = better players play = more better teams = better teams for you to play.

Template is fantastic.

Edited 3/28/2016 19:48:01