Ladle 80
Moderator: Light
Ladle 80
Challenge Board
This is the final Ladle of Bowl season and 3rd/4th seed are anyone's guess. Good luck everyone.
This is the final Ladle of Bowl season and 3rd/4th seed are anyone's guess. Good luck everyone.
Re: Ladle 80
I'm assuming KS's spot in the bowl won't be given away, right?
Also, thanks to whoever made the results page more user friendly by adding that navigation box. It was such a pain to have to scroll through it before
Also, thanks to whoever made the results page more user friendly by adding that navigation box. It was such a pain to have to scroll through it before
Re: Ladle 80
I just wonder what will happen if ks members don't wanna team up for bowl, they should clarify it imoSoul wrote:I'm assuming KS's spot in the bowl won't be given away, right?
I am not responsible for the content of this message
Re: Ladle 80
*April 6thwiki wrote:The Eightieth TRONIC Ladle will be played on Sunday, March 2nd, 2014!
Re: Ladle 80
If I dont remember bad, the team who attain the seed needs to repeat Team Leader and 5 members total right?
Re: Ladle 80
I believe this was dlh's doing. It's great.Soul wrote:Also, thanks to whoever made the results page more user friendly by adding that navigation box. It was such a pain to have to scroll through it before
This is a little unclear. It is not written in the Bowl guidelines on the wiki. However, last season we had the problem of Speeders not having a full team (actually, 3/8 of the teams were short players). It seems to have been decided that any team who declines to participate will be replaced with the next highest team. In this case, Kill Street only has two players who qualify for Bowl: vogue, and blondie. If Kill Street declines to play (likely) their seed will be taken by the 5th ranked team in the season.Soul wrote:I'm assuming KS's spot in the bowl won't be given away, right?
Of course, since this was not written in the guidelines I would not expect the Bowl teams to accept this rule if they didn't want to. However, it would make for a much better event.
Speaking of the event, has anyone got the steaming situation down? I suspect there will be a lot of spectators.
Re: Ladle 80
I believe that instead of the 5th ranked team taking that spot, the teams should be bumped up a seed instead. So 3 would be 2, and 4 would be 3. Although it will mess up the planning aspect (only slightly), it offers a better solution than having that 5th seeded team play the 3rd seeded team in this situation. Lowest seed should face highest seed, with the two middling against each other.
If that's what you said then ignore my post; but it sounds like the 5th ranked team would plug in to where KS would play.
If that's what you said then ignore my post; but it sounds like the 5th ranked team would plug in to where KS would play.
BRAWL dead. RIP.
Fort is like a box of knives, you never know when you're going to be cut.
Fort is like a box of knives, you never know when you're going to be cut.
Re: Ladle 80
That makes a lot of sense. In the previous discussion we were just swapping the final, 8th seed for the 9th. Let's hammer this out in a way that is fair for everyone. Just remember, a qualified team, even if they have one member, still has the option to play. This is another issue we haven't sorted out. We also suggested a qualifying team must have at least 5 players who played 5 times. That sounds like a good rule too.Overrated wrote:I believe that instead of the 5th ranked team taking that spot, the teams should be bumped up a seed instead. So 3 would be 2, and 4 would be 3.
( Mods should prepare to split this thread is necessary.)
Re: Ladle 80
I think something like this is needed. It wouldn't be enjoyable for players nor spectators to watch a 6v3.sinewav wrote: We also suggested a qualifying team must have at least 5 players who played 5 times. That sounds like a good rule too.
Re: Ladle 80
I think we agreed on that? I mean it was a while ago, so I don't remember, but I don't see any good arguments for allowing a team with less than 5 qualifying players to participate. 5v6 is difficult but doable, but it could be discussed whether 4v6 could be ok. Maybe those 4 (for the 2015 bowl) are the best players ever and could win it all? A team of 4 beating a top team of 6 in the finals would be entertaining ^^. super unlikely though. My point being: "at least 4" or "at least 5"? I'd say "at least 5".sinewav wrote:We also suggested a qualifying team must have at least 5 players who played 5 times. That sounds like a good rule too.
Re: Ladle 80
Ok I know it's early to say this but it seems we are generally agreeing that teams should have a minimum and unqualified teams should be replaced. Now, focusing on this next Bowl, the main question is "should the unqualified team be simply replaced or should all the lower seeds get bumped up one in it's place?" I think the later, right? I would like to see the most feedback from the top teams since it affects you the most.
Re: Ladle 80
Definitely the latter. With the teams "1 2 3 4 5", if #2 is taken out, "1 5 3 4" wouldn't make a lot of sense. "1 3 4 5" would. in fact "1 5 3 4" would defeat the whole purpose of seeds, which is to rank the teams from strongest to weakest as accurately as possible based on the [season's] results.
Re: Ladle 80
yeah there should not even be discussed, it's pretty much common sense moving up one seed every team.
Re: Ladle 80
Agreed.Titanoboa wrote:Definitely the latter. With the teams "1 2 3 4 5", if #2 is taken out, "1 5 3 4" wouldn't make a lot of sense. "1 3 4 5" would. in fact "1 5 3 4" would defeat the whole purpose of seeds, which is to rank the teams from strongest to weakest as accurately as possible based on the [season's] results.