ENT Gaming

Guys -

What do you think about having a 2v2 game option in the LIHL?

Please vote! And comment if you want

I voted yes for these reason:

1. Late at night in the states it is hard to get a game going. 2v2 is better than nothing!
2. I would like to use this bot for 2v2 practice with !draw function also just for fun.
3. We all know that 4v4 is preferred so I only see 2v2 happening when it is very slow activity in channel

I voted no, mainly because of this reason: In my opinion, there are too many different armor/attack types for 2v2. Those armor/attack types have their own way of balancing the game in 4v4 (and to a lesser extent 3v3), but I think sending at the right moment is undefendable 2v2. Besides this, you cannot really do a strategy in 2v2. Imagine if you have wolverines. It's crazy to build them, because half of your team will leak 12/16 then. If your partner goes anti-12 or 16, you cannot defend 17. Therefore, going wolverines is suicide.

This is just an example, but I think this shows balance issues will occur when playing 2v2.

I think 2v2 should at least be extensively tested before implementing it.

EDIT: another type of imbalance: the king's upgrade will be the same as in 4v4, while the teams are half the strength of 4v4. This means the king's upgrades become relatively twice as strong. It is already hard to kill a king on for example lvl 7, 10 or 14 when he is upgraded. I think it is near impossible to kill him when he is twice as strong.

MickeyTheMousie wrote:but I think sending at the right moment is undefendable 2v2

hmm true to some extent, i haven't played enough 2v2 to be able to verify.

MickeyTheMousie wrote:another type of imbalance: the king's upgrade will be the same as in 4v4, while the teams are half the strength of 4v4.

I don't understand? You mean you can only send 1/2 the summons vs a strong king? That I will agree with.

So it should be a wash then? If its un-defendable to stop a good send but the king is harder to kill - shouldn't those two wash each other?

hmm true to some extent, i haven't played enough 2v2 to be able to verify.

Yeah I think it should be tested, but I reckon it is nearly impossible that in a team with 2 you have good units versus all of the levels, for example 16, 17,18,19 and 20. Perhaps huge tower luck can save you, but else there is always one round that you will leak hugely if the enemy sends. This is no problem if you do not mind the 'impossible kill'-factor, but I am no fan of it. But again, it needs to be tested to see if this is true.

The same for your question if it washes each other out. If either of the two weighs in slightly more on the game it can be a huge influence. Not for nothing are we playing version 3.41. A lot of adjustments and balancing had to be done to get to this version. Playing with half the players is a robust change which will no doubt influence the balance (and probably for the worse).

As for my 'king argument': take the game I played last night versus you. I was going elite archers and I upgraded the king to 30-20-20 pretty much alone before 14. If every player leaks 10 units, this will mean the 30-20-20 king will have to fight 40 units in 4v4, but only 20 in 2v2. The king is therefore relatively twice as strong in 2v2. (However, in many cases you cannot upgrade the king alone, and then the extra wood you have to invest with the 2 players to compensate for the two missing players add another dimension - which shows the difficulty of the balance)

Finally, one more thing: the luck with the towers plays an important role in -hpgmcb prophet-legion. This luck factor becomes less important if there are more players - with 4 players you can expect 1 to have good towers, 1 bad, and 2 mediocre (for example). In 2v2 the differences can be way bigger: it is not uncommon for 2 players to get 2 good towersets, which means in 2v2 that the entire team has good towers, the enemy 2 bad towersets etcetera.
What this means is that the luck factor (which is already present in 4v4 and 3v3) will be even increased, both in games and in the rankings. I think that's not a good idea for the LIHL, where we (or at least I) want games to be played (as much as possible) on skills.

I agree that it is sometimes frustrating to not be able to play a game when there are just 5 online or so. But I think the primary concern for this league is fair and fun games. It is really doubtful the games are fair because of the three reasons I mentioned (sending, king, increased luck factor). This will probably also influence the fun in the game and the 'authority' of the league ("the league is imbalanced because of the 2v2!"). I think this outweighs the discomfort of waiting.

However, I will once again stress that this is (informed) speculation, and if testing shows different results I am not against 2v2. But without more information I would still stick to a 'no'.

MickeyTheMousie wrote:

What this means is that the luck factor (which is already present in 4v4 and 3v3) will be even increased, both in games and in the rankings. I think that's not a good idea for the LIHL, where we (or at least I) want games to be played (as much as possible) on skills.

However, I will once again stress that this is (informed) speculation, and if testing shows different results I am not against 2v2. But without more information I would still stick to a 'no'.

I will argue that the exact opposite is true, 2v2 will be mainly reliant on skill and knowing when to reroll instead of being carried by building on your ally. even if they build together in 2v2, the leaks to the king will become too big if you decide to help a lane. For those that don't know how to plan ahead 2v2 will be a pain, yet planning is part of the game. I haven't tried 2v2 in a top tier setting but I'm pretty sure this holds true there also.

In my opinion, 2v2 will actually be the most skill based, but it does go against what we are used to so I can see why some people would vote against it.

I will argue that the exact opposite is true, 2v2 will be mainly reliant on skill and knowing when to reroll instead of being carried by building on your ally. even if they build together in 2v2, the leaks to the king will become too big if you decide to help a lane. For those that don't know how to plan ahead 2v2 will be a pain, yet planning is part of the game. I haven't tried 2v2 in a top tier setting but I'm pretty sure this holds true there also.

I understand that 2v2 sounds more like skill, just like 2v2 is more skill in BNet, than playing 4v4.
But your post has 3 presumptions which are not always true:
1. 2v2 is mainly skill: imagine your enemies having for example lods and archers, while the best tower of you and your ally is a zombie (even with re-roll). With 3 allies the chances are greater that the luck with those towers will be equal than with 1. (Just like it is more likely that 100% of a random group of people has red hair (=good towersets) and no other colours (= other towersets) when you randomly take a group of 2 people, than when you take a group of 4 people)

2. Knowing when to re-roll: to know when to re-roll you must know which towers you are gonna get on a re-roll, with prophet you don't know this. It is very well possible you were better off before your re-roll, even though you knew those towers weren't gonna make it.

3. Building solo is better than on one lane in 2v2 (if I understand you correctly). You must remember the 30-20-20 king is equivalent to a 60-40-40 king in 4v4 (both damage/amount of creepwise as lumber per playerwise) - he can make up for a lot.

Difference is I've actually tried it twice, not counting the times i went 1v3 or 2v3 or 2v4. When it's 2v2 it makes it so that you can't afford to make mistakes. As for a buffed king, that is true but you make it seem like the king will always be maxed(or easy to upgrade). Getting upgrades for a king with only 2 people is very hard to do. In 2v2 games, the game will either end really early or really late. Ending on 20 is nearly impossible when its 2v2, but most other levels are still fair game. The only luck factor that will determine the game is whether you get immolation or not.

Regardless of whether it is skilled or not, this can be useful when there aren't enough people to do a 3v3 or 4v4. If it is implemented and there are some problems like people gaining elo unfairly, then that's when something should be done

And there are very few crap towers, getting average towers is all you really need. You don't NEED to get elite lord yggdrasil or wolverine to win games, people should learn to play any tower they are given tbh.

I agree that there are concerns which Mickey has expressed, and those have been learned over playing a lot of 2v2s together and vs each other with old clanmates.

I love playing 2v2, as the games are much more dynamic. It's much rarer to see "pure" builds in 2v2, as severe weaknesses to certain lvls can be much more readily exploited by the other team, i.e. mass archers on 10, or blasters on 13 or wolves on 12. I personally would love this option, to get more of an influence over my team,and playing a more adaptive game. The main elo concern might be that it's too rng based, and makes elo farming at odd hours unfair for those players not present, as it makes exploiting skillgaps at those odd hours far more lucrative than for those others only being able to play 4v4, where you got 25 % of the influence instead of 50 %. This should as is allready suggested, be monitored when implementing the suggestion, which I hope you do.

thumbs up

Perhaps a synthesis can be found in having a separate 2v2 league? Because:

1. Although I am alone so far in the discussion in being against it (4 agree with me in the poll), I think we agree there are some balance issues which need to be examined. A separate 2v2 league would be the perfect opportunity to test those issues.

2. As BA_Fail and DonaldtheDuckie point out, 2v2 has a totally different dynamic than 3v3 or 4v4. To implement 2v2 in this league would therefore be comparing apples and oranges.

3. Duckies argument on the elo

4. There are people who want to try out playing 2v2 and find it a good way to spend their lonely hours with too few legionfriends to play 3v3 or 4v4 online.

5. As iightfyre has said earlier in a different thread, perhaps it is best to not change the league during its first season. I think the league is on its way to become very balanced, fun and fair. Changes during the season may jeopardise those qualities. There is always time to implement the 2v2 league into the LIHL if there still is a need for it after the first season. If you are in real need of timekiller, there are more than enough alternatives: one can do public games, host a 2v2 themselves, play other games, read a book, find a girlfriend (although one might attract the wrong crowd on a late tuesdaynight).

As for the influence: I would say you have 50% more responsibility in the game but 50% less influence on the towers (on the basis of my argument of the inversely proportional relationship between the amount of players and the chance of outliers)

BA_Fail wrote:I will argue that the exact opposite is true, 2v2 will be mainly reliant on skill and knowing when to reroll instead of being carried by building on your ally

The proposition will include slots being closed on blue, purple, oj and pink making it impossible to build on an allies lane. I did not mention this earlier, but I think it will lead to a more "pure" build style

BA_Fail wrote: 2v2 is mainly skill:

I agree

MickeyTheMousie wrote:Building solo is better than on one lane in 2v2 (if I understand you correctly)

I disagree. I have had a 2v4 match were we built together from lvl 11 on and won the game. It turned out to be very strong.

MickeyTheMousie wrote:4. There are people who want to try out playing 2v2 and find it a good way to spend their lonely hours with too few legionfriends to play 3v3 or 4v4 online

Meh.. we want to play pro games and sometimes those "odd" hours are just us waiting around to play a game. Maybe we could experiment with 2v2 and mandatory !draws? Just to play for fun?

MickeyTheMousie wrote: read a book, find a girlfriend

LOLOLOLOL Thank you for that.. made my day

Thanks for the insights!!! Please keep them coming!

I support 2v2 being implemented into LIHL. But, if it is indeed implemented into LIHL there should be a rule (got this idea from iight) that colors for West team is Red/Teal and for East team Yellow/Green or whatever color as long as teammates aren't on the same side. If teammates aren't on same side it creates a more balanced 2v2 game imo. The reasons being is as follows: 1) You can't anti your units to catch your teammates leaks. Whether it's a planned leak or not. 2) You can't build mid to hold levels better. 3) You can't "give" your teammate an aura and/or build on their side for a certain level and/or upcoming level. LET'S MAKE THIS 2V2 HAPPEN PLEASE! I CAN ALREADY FORESEE SOME EPIC MATCHES BEING PLAYED WITH CERTAIN TEAMMATES/OPPONENTS!

Yeah I agree that building on different lanes will create more balance, because of the reason MurkemHanks gives, although the reason we build together in 4v4 is because it is otherwise impossible to survive some rounds (leading me back to the 'impossible kill factor').

After getting used to the thought of 2v2 it does seem to me like it has a lot of potential I'm willing to play some 2v2 legion to test whether it is balanced and fun - but I really think we should think twice of implementing 2v2 if there are certain features which imbalance the game. A practical issue the admins will have to bear in mind is that 2v2 will undoubtedly lead to more 'discussion' - first of all, because tower luck has a bigger influence (enemy is a lucky bastard), second, because sending at the right time has a bigger influence (enemy has maphack/ghosting etc.), third, because it is easier to snipe ELO (he only plays 2v2 vs the lower skilled, while I play 4v4 with the highest skilled), fourth because the games become more 'personal' people will more easily take the loss personally than in 3v3, 4v4 (which means even bigger ego's than there already are ).

(Speculative: fifth because fully upgrading a king early will be a viable tactic that will be despised, maybe getting the status of going merc - at least I can see it being really annoying if you saved straight to 17 only to find out there is a 30-20-20 king there that will never die this early in the game)

I think that because of the discussion here we have a good idea on what aspects to examine while testing the 2v2, so we should be able to come up with a well-informed judgement in a few days

Who is with me?

MickeyTheMousie wrote:first of all, because tower luck has a bigger influence (enemy is a lucky bastard)

Agree

MickeyTheMousie wrote:second, because sending at the right time has a bigger influence (enemy has maphack/ghosting etc.)

Any MH or ghosting violators will be banned

MickeyTheMousie wrote:third, because it is easier to snipe ELO (he only plays 2v2 vs the lower skilled, while I play 4v4 with the highest skilled)

I don't foresee this happening.. but I guess, in theory, it could.

MickeyTheMousie wrote:
(Speculative: fifth because fully upgrading a king early will be a viable tactic that will be despised, maybe getting the status of going merc - at least I can see it being really annoying if you saved straight to 17 only to find out there is a 30-20-20 king there that will never die this early in the game)

True. It will, however, force players to make a decision "play aggressive or defensive" - could be the ultimate downfall to a team to upgrade the king only as well. Remember that king upgrades give 75% value on income and king leaks give 50% bounty.

MickeyTheMousie wrote:fourth because the games become more 'personal' people will more easily take the loss personally than in 3v3, 4v4 (which means even bigger ego's than there already are ).

I'm not sure who you play versus or with, but the people I play with/vs don't get mad over the games and don't take it personally (if they do they don't show it). We play in LIHL to play vs pro-level players, not noobs or scrubs.


!support