Heyheuhei and Monsenhor Chacina, become a team again?

My main motivation for joining the 2v2 ladder was to beat the best. The best rated 2v2 team (1880+) is not active. This has made the 2v2 ladder a bit less interesting.

Also, HHH/MC got many of their wins in a period of time when there weren't as many strong 2v2 teams. Would they be the best now? Where would they fall in the rankings after a couple months of playing strong teams? Or is their rating only indicative of what a very strong team would do against watered down competition?

the thing is i am traveling in march, so i cannot play in the ladder for too long. i dont think you can beat us gui, anyway -- only if you had an incredible luck

yeah. i'll need to practice my 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2 attacks

i'm glad this fair victory is still somewhere in your throat... i confess it was one the best 2v2 i've ever played

i made a double-elimination tournament of 8 teams: the top 7 ladder teams have been invited, along with you/hhh, and a mix of about 8 other non-members who i think would be top 2v2 ladder players. http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TournamentID=1745

i trust you have time for this.

strong teams would have higher rating compared to other strong players rather then compared to water down competition..
X>1400
X>1300
X>1250

is seen as less then
X>1700
X>1650
X>1800

perrin, you deserve a name change: 'The Literal' or 'The Overlooker of Context'

mc is a friend. i'm just teasing him. in this context, 'watered down' should be understood in a less literal manner...

the point, in context, still remains.. Impaller was stuck just barely peaking at 2k before she got some real good competition, now that there is more competition the leaders are peaked much higher.. if there was more competition in the 2v2 ladder they would likely have a higher rating..

and I take things that can seem factual in a factual manner...
heck.. my team was 4th in the 2v2 ladder when I was playing, and that's just kinda sad.. ;)

i think the ladders have a built in adjustment mechanism (a) that accounts for the total number of participants (more participants adjusts slightly upwards, less adjusts slightly downwards) and/or (b) that inflates or deflates scores based on some equation for overall ladder ratings (more higher rated teams inflates upwards, less inflates downwards).

1v1 ladder: as more players joined since october, ratings have gone up. (a) and (b) can both be seen.

seasonal ladder: (b) is more prevalent.

2v2 ladder: (a) has remained prevalent (total number of teams is still low, so the top teams are not rated highly).

i've paid attention, bc sometimes my 1v1 or 2v2 rating will change significantly. i'll look to see why and notice that nothing has happened to account for this change. meanwhile, other players'/teams' ratings also changed.

the adjustment mechanism seems to take effect once every 2-4 weeks. most recently, it was triggered on the 2v2 ladder after zaeban/oliebol lost to unknown and me: top team on the ladder was lowered, causing a chain reaction for everyone else's ratings.

upper limits, lower limits, and overall number of participants in ladders change are key variables.

Not relevant to the topic, but is "she" in the Perrin's post a typo or not?

Nope Impaller is a girl, she said so in an old thread.

Gui, take everyones score, -1500, add them together.. your end result will be 0
the ratings are based off of your opponents current ratings.. meaning that if the opponents that you beat lose, then your score will go down as theirs does.. which cements the fact that having more high ranked players makes it more possible to have a higher ranking.. more people in the 2k range, means more high ranked people for you to be better then, means a higher rating gain for each victory against those top tier players..
when the ladder first came out the ratings were re-adjusted based on current matches every 6 hours, but Fizzer said he was going to lower the time when the ladder became less volatile, Idk what he lowered it to however.