Best TA player of your time...

[jacksonx]

ACE Beanx and Valmet used to play only 2v2 on gow and have beaten so many strong teams including pic + nana consistently (there are a few tads here), rick + space, etc. All these players have superior individual skillz compare to the two ACEs. However they were lacking teamwork and therefore lost.

Like what RVD said earlier, RVD + Approx = disaster, eventhough they are good at 1v1.

BF said best partner for 2v2 = possible best player?

Well, i think Valmet is the best partner for gow all time. Does that make him the best player in TA? All Valmet did was to give really good support to the aggressive partner (consistently from start to end) so the partner has a better possibility in winning 1v1 situation and gain advantage from there for the team.

I have seen so many "better" players trying to be greedy and always trying to kill their respective opponent quickly. They often refuse to share effectively and lost these team games miserably.

[Andrew]

Do your eyes work. That's not what i did at all. I'm done here

[Andrew]

and @ jackson: I dont think these teams lost cos of lack of teamwork. It was moreso than bean and val were just better players at gow 2v2 in their respective roles...teaming or not.

[FiN_Tiptushi]

I don't think being good 2v2 pard means what bf said. Some ppls pard up naturally way better than others. When playing with good (as in: good pard for you) partner, it feels he is doing right things at right moments. Similar sense of timings helps tons, cause then team ends up less in 1v2 situations when both are i.e. ready to attack at about same time.

I would add teamwork factor to that vap's theory:

player 1 skills 0 - 10
player 2 skills 0 - 10
teamwork 0 -10

so 2x8 skills with teamwork 8 is better than 2x10 with zero teamwork (pretty theoretical but yeah...)

Pretty much depends on map too... If i was to name favorite partner for TF/cpia or CF/gow, would be different guys. I think i.e. me and Med would make great huge map team, but if we team up on gow we attack just with bombers early on and with hawks at late game. Inbetween we build tidals and nothing else

[retard0h]

its not a theory at all, i wasn't trying to come up with anything.

i agreed with rvd on everything but the first thing he said. as i see 2v2's as two people vs two people and not one vs one plus one vs one, teamwork is a huge factor never seen in 1v1. just cause someone is spectacular at 1v1 doesn't automatically make them spectacular at 2v2.

and the only way to get my point across was with a fact, a game we played. if i chose any other game that rvd wasn't in, he'd just say "but i'd never do that its stupid" or along those lines so it had to be a game he played in and i couldn't ever say i was an equal amongst the four or he'd say that was bullshit too.

although i have beaten said players 1v1, they've also beaten me, and they'd beat me more im sure so dont get that twisted.

[teawoody]

When non statisticians try and apply arbitary math or values to an almost-impossible-to-quantify factors and attempt to determine real facts... they will inevitably fail, why?

.. Because even the statisticians would fail too


So guys please STFU with your theories and get back on topic, bf asked who your favorite ally was for a 2vs2..

I'd agree with Tip in saying it all depends on the map.. I play well with Jono, and basically any half-decent player who cooperates well even if he isn't particularly very skilled. Had ggs with Shao, TheDart and Zorg where we melded well, where we both played efficiently with respect to what our allies and opponents are doing, even if it takes me marking 1234223 times on their 6 minute adv kbot lab on +9 metal to stop them making it..

On the other hand.. I've had many seriously shit games with players like Tip, RVD & Jackson as allies... I suppose it's because we're more focussed on doing our own thing and lack 2v2 experience, where aggressive plays were generally less effective if not done very cooperatively. Of course this just gets worse in 3v3 games.. defensive and porcing plays are hugely favored and every fucking game turned into mass hawks because you can never rely on your team coordinating a significant attack effectively.. all wanting to do their own thing and farm res/pump hawks/nukes/subs...

Hope the info there means volumes more then the irritating theories appearing here

[Andrew]

Yes yes i agree with teamwork being an important factor in 2v2. If you actually read what i was saying tho I'm saying that teamwork becomes AUTOMATIC as the skill level of the players in the 2v2 increases. And a huge factor in the 2 guys parding is their RESPECTIVE STYLES( aggressive guy and balanced building guy is optimal for me on most maps) not some ''teamwork skill'' which can be quantified similar to regular skill.

[Med]

We kick ass on gow tip!

[pacer]

I think that if you start out as a 2v2 player, you have a better chance to be a great player later on. Since now you have way more understanding of teamwork etc. But yeah, that's not always the case. Some players are just naturally good, who are good at both areas. Take iggij(raster) for example, his first 3 years or so all he played was 2v2's. He would never play 1v1's, even if you begged him to. He just enjoyed 2v2s more and he found 1v1s boring and hated it. But I don't know, I saw something.

I remember I used to tell him and others all the time, if he starts playing 1v1's he would be so damn good cuz he really build up that solid foundation. I remember writing in that Top 10 players thread about this also, how "he would own everyone soon in 1v1s." Cuz he really built up great understanding of teamplay and how to play certain players, when to attack and when not to. And I think you all know, he turned out to be pretty much the best 1v1 guy later on. Gotta say though, to me that period was definitely my favorite time in TA. I would say the #1 spot was basically in a 3 way tie with RVD, Raster and Diablo duking it out. It was like one day RVD would win all games and then next day it was raster etc. It was hard to say who was the best between those 3, cuz they were just swapping places every day lol. That was also the time when our ladder was at its peak, and everyone really made each other play their best.

In Supcom: FA, I often see these so called great 1v1 guys, they basically only know how to play their guys. But really they are usually the cause of the team losing because they know nothing about team work. Also you have to remember some players may seem really good on certain maps, but that's about it. Diablo is a good example, on most build maps he is great, but then you play him on 100 isle or something and meh. To me a great player should be able to play on all maps.

Same thing with me, I always saw myself as a great 2v2 pard, I would say I was one of the few that could really adapt to my allies. For example, when I would ally say rvd or crip. I would be the support and build up while they do all the damage early on. Then say I would ally MY FAVORITE BITCH EYEDOLL, I would be the aggressive one and man had to do everything. But nah it was fun, we owned for some reason and some how. We used to beat some really strong teams. Doll is another example of strictly 1v1 player. He was really way too focused on his guy and often neglected team play. I think that was one reason many didn't like to ally him. But being able to adapt and know your strength is also an important factor. Sometimes you just have to be the "aggressive player" or sometimes the "builder".

[retard0h]

woody, you're a fucking idiot. the reason the numbers work for theories like such is because they're arbitrary.

i could write those numbers verbally for you "of the 4, im the worst, of the 3 of them they're pretty equal"

dumb faggot.

and how many people disagree with that who are posting here? you take 3 experts who you are equal skilled with and do a 2v2 with some average type player you think "oh fuck whoever gets that cunt is gonna lose"

what i said applies, works, and makes you look like a fucking dickhead for trying to 1-up me without understanding whats being said.

[TAG_Venom]

Feb 25, 2010 18:53:32 GMT -5 pacer said:

Same thing with me, I always saw myself as a great 2v2 pard, I would say I was one of the few that could really adapt to my allies. For example, when I would ally say rvd or crip. I would be the support and build up while they do all the damage early on. Then say I would ally MY FAVORITE BITCH EYEDOLL, I would be the aggressive one and man had to do everything. But nah it was fun, we owned for some reason and some how. We used to beat some really strong teams. Doll is another example of strictly 1v1 player. He was really way too focused on his guy and often neglected team play. I think that was one reason many didn't like to ally him. But being able to adapt and know your strength is also an important factor. Sometimes you just have to be the "aggressive player" or sometimes the "builder".

I know what you mean. For most gow 2v2s I'd go air first, and pretty much doing all the unit control stuff right from the start, FFs, bombing, then pels etc. Or other games where I'd play with Rock or someone they'd beg me to go air so I'd play the building role. Supplying them with energy, metal, skeets. You have to do specific things in a 2v2 and so does your partner. Both players need to be good, but teamwork is also important and playing each specific role.

Oh and Woody is stupid.

[TimmyFred]

Feb 25, 2010 18:53:32 GMT -5 pacer said:

In Supcom: FA, I often see these so called great 1v1 guys, they basically only know how to play their guys. But really they are usually the cause of the team losing because they know nothing about team work.

But being able to adapt and know your strength is also an important factor. Sometimes you just have to be the "aggressive player" or sometimes the "builder".

I know exactly what you mean about that...In Vanilla SupCom, RapierX and I were a pretty top level 2v2 team, and it mostly stemmed from the fact that most every team we played was just two decent 1v1 guys, whereas we actually considered one another our 2v2 partner. We both came from TA and understood the dynamics of 2v2 and importance of good team play. Almost every game, I'd play aggressive and get both of them to focus their time and resources on killing me, while Rapier would just get big. I died in probably 95% of our 2v2s, but we also won about 95% of our 2v2s, because by the time they managed to kill me, Rapier would be huge and untouched and just beast all over them. The only teams that ever beat us were teams that also employed actualy team strategy, rather than devolving it into a pair of 1v1s.

As for my best TA 2v2 partner...it would probably be Gnug215. I was never as good as most of the folks in this thread, but I still played fairly aggressively, and the Gnug-turtle style complements my own fairly well. Our TA 2v2s usually went about the same as mine and Rapier's SupCom 2v2s, with me being the instigator, and just trying to buy time for my ally to beast.

[chaszilla]

Holy Crap... a TA website.....

Been way too f'ing long since I played this game... OK best players I remember back in the glory days of TA were mostly members of the ELITE CLAN... Vader & Kade come to mind.. those guys would build so fast and hit you so hard

[xpoy]

2V2 is diffrent for game, Which you should play like your parter.

2 examples:
1. gow2, everyone hate gow2, but 1v1 i gow2 is a bit interesting. Due to there just 1 ppl in a team, so this team had same idea/ think/ goal in all time, which make a team work as a team.
But in 3v3 or more in gow2, it suck. Just if a team had 3 same guys, like 3 guys attack at start, the game will over in early game, less than 20 mins tho.
It's simple to check out, in usually 3v3 gow2 game, when you want attack, your 2 parter just hold on and building building keep XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, oh well, then if you can beat 30 skeets(3 ppl's ) by 10 skeets, you cheating. After your attack failed, your team lost in enemy's attack, due to they had 3 ppl building, yours just 2 ppl building, which maybe 300 hawks vs 200 hawks, in this case if you win, you cheating.

And next example.
I like play with jacks, due to I learn how to play gpp/ gow/ or some maps( that just touched in those months) from him, so we are same in 2v2 game.
The 2v2 game can be this:
when I aware a missed metal and want to have it but didn't had cons, jacks will build it when I thinking more cons.
When I aware he attacked and have some metal, then I goto build mts and reclaim, and he doing it.
When I want pels for attack, his pels came for help.
And in attack, this jacks goto snap a enemy's head, before that enemy hold on, another jacks goto snap his head, after some times he dead. So over

[Med]

Ace!