Gulidar wrote:Ace Rimmer wrote:But the point isn't to limit the players, which the above does. The point is to get games played.
The point is to make games more challenging.
Ok, let me rephrase to make my point more clear. The intent of the 2v2 ladder is to (in the order of importance)
- Get more games played
- Build a more cohesive "core" group of players (pooled from the forum)

Player A: Hmm, I've got players b, x, y, and z here. Now who's in my range and which team... to hell with it, I'll go play diplomacy/eat dinner/feed my cats.
Gulidar wrote:Ace Rimmer wrote:Besides, if you only ever play games with players in your range, you will never ever get any better.
Not really. Player win => player gets more points => player plays with better players => player gets better.
This might work in an ideal world, but this is reality. Also, why not reduce the equation?
Gulidars Way:Player win => player gets more points => player plays with better players => player gets better
Rimmers Way: Player plays with better players => player gets better
Or better yet, make the equation work for you instead of you working for it...
Gulidars Way:Player win => player gets more points => player plays with better players => player gets better
Rimmers Way: Player plays with better players => player gets better => player win => player gets more points

Gulidar wrote:And of course this scoring mode will be used only in 2vs2 ladder, sois wrong.Ace Rimmer wrote:playing in the same "range" will create a loop effect seen in regular 1v1 ladders. That is, the same people will always be playing the same people
If you honestly think this type of scoring mode wouldn't end up forcing the same players to play against each other, you are wrong.
Besides, who's gonna keep track of which range you're in? I'm not.

Edit: One little side note, you have a total of four out of seventy-three games (5.5%). How can you rank such players accurately? You can't, you need somebody to be at least partially active to get good numbers to use. :p