No, that's the sad fact that "teams elo" is actually "all-elo", which includes 1v1 -- and Lauri has harvested quite a lot of 1v1 elo recently :P

1vs1 makes you better at expanding/early game from what i found, but most 1vs1'ers don't know how to deal with late game which is why i always proposed separating the 2.

Plus they are not used to helping teammates, if you want high elo for example klon, you have to be able to play a certain way (hv) not lose your shit, and be able to support your buddies when they are losing on a front. I seen it with my own eyes.

He really good at supporting the nubs.

I would go as far to say, that getting 2200 elo in 1vs1 is much easier to get then getting 2200 in team games and keeping it because team games are twice as hard, where you have to be the shit and everything.

sfireman got his elo from rushes/nukes. which is the basic strategy in massive team games. in 2vs2 3vs3, 4v4. it much more vital to support to each other especially if one player is of much higher elo.

Burp is like klon.

quote: sfireman got his elo from rushes/nukes. which is the basic strategy in massive team games

That's actually an argument towards "team elo is easier". Or would be, if it wasn't irrelevant.

Team ladder generally has 200 more elo on each player at the same rank, that's an easily verifyable fact even if you adjust for inflation caused by 1v1.

Please stop claiming things that are so obviously false, that makes you look bad.

quote: Burp is like klon.

I've never played Burp in 1v1 because he never plays 1v1. I've played Klon in 1v1 enough to recognize him by one glance on the minimap. They are nowhere alike.

Elo is not a score.

It's not an absolute score, it is a relative score. Team elo and 1v1 elo are not comparable (i think that's what CrazyEddie was trying to imply with his out-of-context post).