Ladle Rules

[Z-Man]

This thread might take forever to solve anything, and now look - I'm debating the method of solving. Sorry!

Don't forget to schedule a pre-meeting for the meeting where you'll discuss the rules for debating the changes.

[2020]

This thread might take forever to solve anything, and now look - I'm debating the method of solving. Sorry!

Don't forget to schedule a pre-meeting for the meeting where you'll discuss the rules for debating the changes.

hehehheheh
honestly
laughed alot
thanks
heheheheheh

Damned tricky, this collective making of decisions. It is the real edge wrt self-organising in the real world. Adults tend to get it wrong. There is a tendency to make decisions before experiencing anything. We have avoided that, thankfully. We have experienced Ladles, and they do seem to work pretty well, and I believe we all have integrated the skills so we are speaking from experience. This is a vital point. Respect to all.

The call for rules is reasonable. We definitely needed standardisation wrt fortress settings. And we needed standardisation in terms of self-organising the tournament. It might be sensible for us to consider the whole range of issues, and then decide on a format by which these issues are dealt with. My initial impression is, forum might not be the right tool. The issues which seem to concern us currently are:
*start timing
*how often
*fortress settings (2v2 un/conquerable, points)
*server admin quality

I believe that we must always think future-proof. That is, what is essentially scalable. It's like what happens when developers start getting over excited and want to include every new feature they can think of, making a piece of software almost unusable to the non-geek. Look at the success of things like twitter, etc. The interface has to be easy. Similarly, I believe the ladle, and anything out of the box, has to be easy. One of the most amazing things I experienced in this game was that once I downloaded the game, I was playing on the net with other players by the click of a button. Super simple. Thanks again to the development team for that.

So, we might want to consider using eg the wiki to help us float ideas for a bit, clarify alternatives, before we make any hard and fast decisions that may last for years. I distrust taking polls -- just look at them in the real world of marketing and politics. I don't want to be a stat, and I am suspicious of small groups making decisions for a collective. We need to explore this a little.

If, however, we wish to attempt to sort it out here, then my suggestion is, keep it simple. WRT scoring, it should be simple, 10 for a win. WRT zones, you outnumber an opponent, and it tends to the win; paired play makes for exciting watching, either 2v2 or 1v1, and 3v3 is just sheer madness. I will go with rain's revision of tronic progression with different concurrent levels of play. I originally thought it was a progression, where we could be playing a bowl every month instead of a ladle, but I like the idea of a weekly spoon, monthly ladle, seasonal bowl, and annual cup. (I am not sure what the difference is, except in numbers, but there you have it ; ). WRT timing, it should be based on the same final time, eg 9pm, so the start time changes depending on the number of preceding rounds. This means the final is ingrained in our heads, it is simple to comprehend, and emphasises the importance of getting our timing right. Seems like a simple, neat solution imho.

Be well!

[owned]

An incentive to attack will liven things up maybe.

Wasn't that kinda the point of splitting the match win points into 6 and 4?

So split win points to liven up attack but do the opposite move for 2v2 conquerable? lol?

I never said it was to liven up attack. I said it was to give an incentive.

[1200]

Sinewav Wrote

Actually, I was thinking of making a whole page of polls with all the relative issues on it.

Yea i was thinking of something similar...

How bout something like each player that wants to play in the Ladle fills out a preference sheet. (Much like choosing the start time/server in a Sumo tourny.)
The preference sheet contains options such as 2vs2 un/conquerable,
SCORE_WIN/FORTRESS_CONQUERED_SOCRE 10/0 or 6/4 etc.

Prior to each Ladle after a pre-designated deadline, a tally is taken and whatever the majority is for all the options becomes the setting for that Ladle.

Each player essentially only needs to submit the preference sheet just once unless he/she changes her mind next time around in which case they should be free to do so at any point in time.

All we need is an administrator to keep all of this information on a data base and announce what the tally for each option is for each Ladle.

I wouldn't mind helping out setting up the initial data base but would be nice if there are others that can also do it in case i get swamped with work from time to time...

I don't know any other way for the collective to make decisions otherwise.
I think polls are inaccurate because it is only limited to those that read the forums.

[DDMJ]

Is there anyone besides Epsy thats in support of 2vs2 conquerable???

I (now) am and here's why:

If it's 2v2 and one attacker breaks the opposing team's def, then both players will drop back and it will be a 1v2 fight in the zone, the 1 being the attacker. Why? Because the 4th player is still back on defense just waiting...why? Because even if that player attacks, 2v2 is just as unconquerable as 1v2.

This just leads to the game being more defensive minded; again.

[Corn1]

Is there anyone besides Epsy thats in support of 2vs2 conquerable???

Isn't it more exiting when its 2v2 conquereable? I mean you take the risk when its 2 players on each team left to leave your defending when there is a big chance your teammate will die while you go over there leaving your base unguarded? At least i think its more interesting...

[1200]

Durka Wrote:

If it's 2v2 and one attacker breaks the opposing team's def, then both players will drop back and it will be a 1v2 fight in the zone, the 1 being the attacker. Why? Because the 4th player is still back on defense just waiting...why? Because even if that player attacks, 2v2 is just as unconquerable as 1v2.

Arrow This just leads to the game being more defensive minded; again.

I don't think you can generalize what everybody would do in that situation.
It depends on how much zone the attacker was able to steal from the defender.
If i was defending when its 2vs2 and my team mate broke into the enemy zone my tendency is to try to attack it even if it is 2vs2 unconquerable.

Like Lacka said it just boils down to preferences so lets just dead this endless argument.

@Corn: Thanx for sharing your thoughts but you didn't need to double post i read you the first time.

[DDMJ]

If i was defending when its 2vs2 and my team mate broke into the enemy zone my tendency is to try to attack it even if it is 2vs2 unconquerable.

Yea, but why? You can't conquer the zone.

Worst case scenario: your teammate dies and you have to retreat to try and cover your zone before the other 2 enemies get there, in which case you'll most likely lose the round

Best case scenario: one of the enemies dies and you conquer the zone...o wait, even if you had stayed on defense you could still go and conquer the zone.

[Flex]

I believe Z-Man's server should be chosen as the preferred server for the finals. If there is ever a problem with the server, a new server as the final should be voted on. This is to simply ensure that all finals stay fair and the server stays consistent and stable for every Ladle. If of course everyone wants another server as the finals, we can all vote. Ladle is all about majority in my opinion, so the majority should control where they play for the finals and not by random shuffles.

My server performed well for the Ladle 18 and I don't think anyone complained. I managed to ask one or two people and they said it was good, I guessed it would perform fine too. It was chosen for the final, but I agreed for it to be changed with Z-Man's so this rule I put forward isn't something I'm deciding for my benefit, because I get a ping of low as 15 on my server. For the next Ladle (if I ever reach the final), I don't want to end up playing on a server that is worse than mine or has the same problems, because then I dropped my server for no reason.

[1200]

Durka Wrote:

Yea, but why? You can't conquer the zone.

Obviously it depends on every situation. Who the attacker is that penetrated and how much zone he was able to steal from the defender, who the defender is and who the other defensive sweeper is.
But in any situation I definitely keep an eye on the enemy zone and ears to my team mates and be ready to attack it.

Here are some reasons why you'd go and attack even if you can't conquer 2vs2...

1) The Lone attacker can not conquer the zone by himself unless he kills both defenders.
2) By not going the lone attacker is at a disadvantage having to battle with 2 defenders.
3) By going u can put pressure on the defenders making them more prone to mistakes and suicides. Even killing them by trapping them. (/me likes to do the latter)
4) Attackers have an advantage in a 2vs2 situation because they do not have to stay in the zone.
5) It reduces the other team's chance of getting the conquer_zone points. If your team mate dies, you can opt to suicide right there as well. (Least of the reasons.)

You seem like you're against the game being played defensively. Doesn't this approach seem to fit your way of thinking??? Your way of defender staying back for the safety sake seems the opposite.

[newbie]

i would change cycle rubber speed to 60, i wanted to post this long time ago but i wasn't playing the game enough to make a move; the thing is that with current settings rubber kicks in just way too quickly and this wasn't noticable in the beginning of fortress when everyone was bad but now when the games got tighter... you can see that rubber goes up even if you do not touch the wall

[2020]

@newbie:
what effect does this have?
does it mean we crash easier?
less margin for error when grinding?
or something about the rate of acceleration?

[Z-Man]

It basically just means that all grinds are tighter and doesn't change a lot, all things considered. The idea, I guess, would be to make a quick left-left-left-right combination use no rubber at all (you lose some speed with the turns and would survive even without rubber). But I think a speed of 60 is not enough for that.

[madmax]

The idea, I guess, would be to make a quick left-left-left-right combination use no rubber at all (...)

Nooooooooooooooooooo(o)! That benefits triple binders!
/offtopic

[Lacrymosa]

The idea, I guess, would be to make a quick left-left-left-right combination use no rubber at all (...)

Nooooooooooooooooooo(o)! That benefits triple binders!
/offtopic

/me agrees