Welll, hopefully this gets back to the game devs.
The way I believe 2v2 works now is it tries to balanced 4 players. For example: A lvl8 and lvl3 might play 2 lvl 5s.
This is decent, and they way a game should be balanced. However, one problem is the complete newb.
I'm level 7 in 2v2, and so often I get put with a lvl 1 player. Sometimes this player is decent. However, sometimes this player is horrendous. I'm going to give examples of what happened to me:
I was 3rd on the 2v2 ladder, aiming for that #1 spot. I play then play with a level 1 who masses 5 engineers in his base and when I say to him build a wsc he asks me what that means. I attempt to teach him how to build at the same time as trying to out micro 2 level 3 opponents, but I can't deal with double micro and double resources. I lose most of the map, and while I try to come back, I simply cannot.
I'm now 7th or so, however, trying to shrug off the frustrating loss I play again aiming for #1.
Game 2, another level 1. This player builds a barracks, but produces no troops, then a wsc, with no troops, then a supply yard, and finally even a motor depot. When I asked him what he was doing or if he could build some units to help me hold the points he did not answer at all. Now i'm ranked 12th and even more frustrated.
I play again. Another level 1. This time he's afk for 15 minutes, comes back and gives his appologies because he didn't know the game would load that quickly. He then proceeds to mass engineers and attempt to 'storm' an hmg in a building. The game was already over before that.
If a level 1 player disconnects I have a very good chance of winning by playing for us both. However, it is extremely difficult to win with these level 1s if they are at the skill level as described above (if not impossible to win).
Why does this matter to the game devs?
Playing with these players is really no fun for any decent players. It's usually a lesson in frustration and futility. Anyone who gets these lessons will surely not want to keep playing. Not only is it the exact opposite of enjoyable, it also makes the accuracy of the ladder poor. This in turn lowers the drive for competition, as if one feels that being #1 is just luck, one wouldn't strive for it or value it. Both of these points have strongly discouraged myself from playing 2v2. Other players respond, "that's why I don't play 2v2" when I point this out to them. However, I don't want to give up that easily because I really enjoy 2v2, and have seen it done well (e.g. BNet).
What's the solution?
Well, the best solution is arranged team matches. This is something that I feel should have been with CoH from the beginning and has severely undermined the popularity of the game from gaming communities. The lack of arranged team matches eliminates what would seem like 80% of the entire competitive gaming community! That is, the players who enjoy playing comeptitively with a team.
That community is further alienated by the poor RT matches as described above.
However, even if AT matches become available, RT (random team) matches are still enjoyable and allow solo players to play in a team even if they do not have a friend. So how are those fixed? The biggest problem right now is that a lvl 1 player can be so poor is skill. I would make a simple restriction that ONLY lvl 1 players cannot play with anyone higher than lvl 4. I would have wanted a limit on level differences of say, you cannot play anyone who is not within 5 levels of yourself, but I realise and conceed that CoH does not have the player base for that and thus would end up making it too difficult to even find a game.
I personally enjoy team games more than solo. However I play both and am reasonably decent at it. At the same time, I am on the edge of giving up 2v2. If that happens I may stop playing CoH as 1v1 isn't bad, but not enough to keep me going (not nearly as much community to it). I do not think I'm alone in this view.
I think creating AT games is of paramount importance and I think a restriction on lvl 1 players playing with those of lvl 5 higher should be implemented. I think this should occur to grab (and hold onto) a large competitive player base and to increase the enjoyment of the game. Obviously one of the reasons WoW was so popular was not because of WoW, but because of how excellent past blizzard games were. Relic has a chance to do this (and is doing this to a point), but I believe AT is one of the fundamentals they are missing.
I hope the above is seriously considered, and would love a reply from Buggo just noting that it has been seen.