Agreed, but you're not being truthful here pacov. We did beat you consecutively and even put an exclamation mark on the final game, but you have yet to admit that McOrcenz was at least better with that particular character combo. <--Renz,Orcun,Me
yes... the fantasy world I live in that where you are incorrect. Its also reality, but we can call it a fantasy world if that helps. Anyway, I trust playing those combos on a more frequent basis will at least get you to shut up after the loses start stacking up on your team. I'd rather just whoop ya than listen to you jabber on about total wins in a series of those dg selections, so lets just do that instead. But like i said:
You know how it is amongst us arrogant folks
So its pretty obvious what your response to this will be followed by my response eh.
For me a league that focuses on 2 vs 2 doesn't interest me. I'd prefer to see stacked idiotic 4 person teams where the goal is 3 vs 3 but we settle for 2 vs 2 if there's not enough team members around.
I get that you don't dig the 2v2 league idea. I think that's probably the best based on folks that would play. Just doing the basic math, if it was 3v3's, then we need 4 people per team (1 to serve as an alt per kira's suggestion). So, how many good teams would come out of that if 4 are required per team? 2-4 teams tops, I'd think. But in 2v2, I'm pretty sure we could get 4-6 good teams with many others that would participate.