LADLE 34

[sinewav]

I think we need to re-evaluate which servers are chosen for the Ladle.

Is there a way for us to rate/test them? I know we have a limited number of servers available, but it would be helpful to know which are the top picks. Last month when I was making the brackets, Flex pointed out one of my EU server choices should be switched with the DS server. His opinion was enough for me, and there we no complaints from that server after Ladle. With more information regarding preference, the brackets can be set up for optimal game play.

[dlh]

I also had issues with the PRU Ladle server. I suicided a couple rounds because of the slides (I was also defending). My ping was stable in the 150-160 range, and I don't think the issue was latency related. The server seemed a little over-taxed, as in not enough memory or CPU.

[2020]

gz to the hot chili peppers

[compguygene]

And speaking of rating ladle servers. Nobody has ever rated or tested my new uk server or a new german one that I have....
I have tested them.

I really would like to see an informal "panel" of players agree to test each server, and report back results.

[2020]

btw
i heard some grumblings that one round lasted some 10mins...
is this true...?

i noticed in our game
there was a tendency to play defencively
and hence
games seemed to play for a lot longer...

this might be solved if we have a definitive cut-off time
ie
best of 3
or leader after exactly eg30mins have elapsed
which would encourage a losing team to take risks...

[Titanoboa]

I'm with 2020!

LIMIT_TIME has been tested in pickup matches and it has been working out great. It's definitely something to bring up for the next quarterly vote.

[Word]

I also had issues with the PRU Ladle server. I suicided a couple rounds because of the slides (I was also defending). My ping was stable in the 150-160 range, and I don't think the issue was latency related. The server seemed a little over-taxed, as in not enough memory or CPU.

i'll talk to our hoster about that, for some reason we all lag there too. We used to have no problems there until some months ago...

[PsYkO]

Hmmm..Don't think I'm a fan of the limit time, I can foresee all kinds of negatives.

To counteract the "OMG new defenses make the game boring" ... I've been thinking of a new team competition. Much like how high rubber transformed into dog fighting, the competition can prohibit the defender from either A) overlapping the tail and/or B) Defense = Double sumo tactic.

[sinewav]

LIMIT_TIME has been tested in pickup matches and it has been working out great.

Yeah I think it does work. One of the reservations people have about time limits is when a team is in the lead, they can "work the clock." This has the effect of making game very boring if a winning team decides not to take any risks.

But, teams already have a habit of not taking risks and dragging out the matches, so what's the difference?

Having a combination of LIMIT_SCORE and LIMIT_TIME would be appropriate, given that the time is sufficiently long. I'd say about 20 minutes. Right now, a final is scheduled to last about 45 minutes. Setting LIMIT_TIME 20 would make sure any final that starts on time, doesn't run longer than an hour. Realistically, matches ending because of time should be quite rare with 20 minutes to play. And if your match is running that late, well, maybe you deserve to have it cut short?

[Titanoboa]

One of the reservations people have about time limits is when a team is in the lead, they can "work the clock." This has the effect of making game very boring if a winning team decides not to take any risks.

Just want to add that the winning team well deserves the win if they can avoid all risks and still win. Boring matches? If the match is unbalanced it's boring anyway, and if it's balanced the "losing team" will fight back.

Hope the people with such reservations consider that.

I'm sorry btw, that I can't fully put my thoughts on here because of this being my second language.. doing my best though.

[INW]

Limit time will just change this entire competition...no good i would say.
Lets use an example:
Baseball works with no time limit; just one team vs. the other- just like how the ladle is set now- 9 innings for baseball and 10 rounds for ladle. Putting a limit_time on a round would make it like basketball. Each team has a shot clock in basketball where as each round has a limit_time in ladle...i dont think changing a baseball game into a basketball game would work.

Ofcourse the first team to 100 has nothing to do with the example but w/e.

[dlh]

Basketball didn't always have a shot clock. It was implemented because teams in control of the game would just stall when they had the ball, leading to the other team fouling. It turned into a free-throw shooting contest—boring (you could say the same is true today, but to a lesser extent). IMO, adding a time limit would make the Ladle like Basketball before the shot clock. If there was a setting or game-feature that enforced players to engage and attack rather than stall, I might be for it.

[PsYkO]

Basketball didn't always have a shot clock. It was implemented because teams in control of the game would just stall when they had the ball, leading to the other team fouling. It turned into a free-throw shooting contest—boring (you could say the same is true today, but to a lesser extent). IMO, adding a time limit would make the Ladle like Basketball before the shot clock. If there was a setting or game-feature that enforced players to engage and attack rather than stall, I might be for it.

But the consequence implemented from adding the shot clock is the loss of possession. There is no consequence for fortress time limit, the round just becomes null.

[sinewav]

I got it! Let's just switch to Fort-Onslaught!

But like said earlier, if the time limit was sufficiently high it would rarely come into effect anyway, just like Ladle matches rarely get to 10 rounds. Just think of it as insurance so EU players can get to sleep at a reasonable hour.






Baseball is one of the most boring sports ever, BTW.

[INW]

or which ever team has more players gets points for holding their base or something like that...if there is the same number of teammates left on both sides...neither team gets the points...that would make losing teams use risky strategies to kill opposing team members.