Ladle Rules

owned · Post by **owned** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:31 pm

Discuss what rules you guys want to have for the next and following ladles.

Like:
-Whether we have seeding or not and in what manner.
-When the teams and servers are chosen.
-If we have a 3rd place match.
-Server Settings
-Starting time of the Ladle
-Whatever else you can think of.

Corn1 · Post by **Corn1** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:55 pm

Double Elimination.

I've talked about this several times and i'll explain why we need it. If we were to add a losers bracket on to the current tournament then it would get rid of all the problems with seeding.
Even if you were placed against the best team it gives you a chance to prove yourself contrary to how the bracket was set up making it possible to do your best even if your working against how the system got set up.
For people that don't know a losers bracket, also known as double elimination gives you a chance to win the tournament even after you get knocked out. Albeit harder to win if you are in the losers bracket than the winners. The finals take place between the winner of the losers bracket and the winners. To make it fair the team coming from the losers bracket would have to win more matches to win the entire tournament. (This amount could be adjusted to our fitting.)
Double Elimination is virtually future proof as it works well with nearly every practical number in a tournament. Not to mention it is a better system then our current one.

Please consider this and argue it's possible problems to help adjust it for our use.

Website · Post by **Z-Man** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:26 pm

Corn1 wrote:Please consider this and argue it's possible problems to help adjust it for our use.

Problem would be the longer time. At the time regular Knockout has determined a winner, Full Double Elimination has determined the team winning all matches and, for each round, the winner of the loser's bracket from that round. Those need to battle it out in additional rounds (two for 16 teams), and then the real final has to be played.

Also, Double Elimination only works without byes for 2^(2^n) teams.

And I don't really see the need for it. There's always the next ladle to prove yourself if you think you were unlucky with the team assignments this time.

Just playing devil's advocate, I'm a fan of Double Elimination on theoretical grounds.

Concord · Post by **Concord** » Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:27 pm

For a tournament with 16 teams or more, how about a world cup style qualifying round.

Split into 8 groups. Each group plays a round robin, 1/2 teams advance

For 16 teams there is no difference from our current tournament, but for 16-32 it would work great, and would not need adjustment to make more fair.

2020 · Post by **2020** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:16 am

also to discuss:
2v2 un/conquerable

wrt double elimination
we don't actually need to have the winners play against one another
that is
the same number of rounds can be played...
we have the finalist
the losing finalist
the runner up finalist
and the losing runner up finalist...

sets a nice potential for the next ladle

Corn1 · Post by **Corn1** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:48 am

2020 wrote:also to discuss:
2v2 un/conquerable

wrt double elimination
we don't actually need to have the winners play against one another
that is
the same number of rounds can be played...
we have the finalist
the losing finalist
the runner up finalist
and the losing runner up finalist...

sets a nice potential for the next ladle

I think the only problem is i at least don't see much in being the 'loser' finalist. Even if you called it something else, it seems like being a second best without a chance to proof you really are the best.

Concord · Post by **Concord** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:09 am

though, you are proven to be second best, which is more than can be said for the losing finalist in past setups.

Lackadaisical · Post by **Lackadaisical** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:02 am

2020 wrote:also to discuss:
2v2 un/conquerable

We've discussed this before, it was decided for ladle 16 by vote to have it unconquerable (note that it was one vote per team): http://forums.armagetronad.net/viewtopi ... 514#199514

If anyone really wants to we could do another vote, but I think the sentiments are more or less still the same.

2020 · Post by **2020** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:42 pm

@lack
so
why are the cafe settings at conquerable?

Lacrymosa · Post by **Lacrymosa** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:26 pm

I am against a 3rd place match, I don't really see reasons for the whole loser brackets at all, and apart from that I would be too tired to play a 3rd place match when there is "nothing real" to win imo (so I agree with Corn).

As for 2vs un/conquerable, we discussed and voted already, so I won't touch that again. Don't know why the settings at Café are different though.

I personally would prefer an earlier starting time, but I can understand that it would/could make things hard for Americans and that we have to find a compromise.

I completely agree with z-man about double elimination and I'm not a fan of seeding teams at all.

pike · Post by **pike** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:44 pm

I don't see much sense in double elimination when we play Ladle every (second) month - it just makes tournament longer and complicated. You lost with better team - live with it and do your best next time.

But for something bigger - Bowl for example, it could be a good idea, especially that it'll be the very first tourney of that size. And I don't think that seeding best teams from last Ladle would be very fair in this case.

It'll be good idea to test double elimination before Bowl though, so we can be sure it won't turn into organisational flop.

Lackadaisical · Post by **Lackadaisical** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:43 pm

I don't know 2020, I suppose wrtl prefers to have them conquerable?

freako · Post by **freako** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:42 pm

Lackadaisical wrote:I don't know 2020, I suppose wrtl prefers to have them conquerable?

Because they originally were conquerable

Can we stop discussing about this matter now? If someone doesn't agree, let him ask for a new teamcaptain vote....

Z-Man wrote:Just in case anyone was wondering, that server is mine.

To experiment, I made explosions smaller (2 instead of 4) to make blocking a ramrod/plow/steamroll easier. I also made the two zones harder to conquer (roughly according to Philippe's suggestions in the other thread), now it's

1 attacker, 0 defenders: 5 seconds to conquer.
1 attacker, 1 or more defenders: not conquerable.
2 attackers, 0 defenders: 2 seconds to conquer.
2 attackers, 1 defender: 3.3 seconds to conquer.
2 attackers, 2 defenders: 10 seconds to conquer.

I hope that makes the rounds last a tiny bit longer and shift the gameplay a bit away from the domination of offensive tactics.

I also doubled the wall acceleration.

freako · Post by **freako** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:43 pm

freako wrote:
Lackadaisical wrote:I don't know 2020, I suppose wrtl prefers to have them conquerable?

Because they originally were conquerable
Can we stop discussing about this matter now? If someone doesn't agree, ley him ask for a new teamcaptain vote....

Z-Man wrote:Just in case anyone was wondering, that server is mine.

To experiment, I made explosions smaller (2 instead of 4) to make blocking a ramrod/plow/steamroll easier. I also made the two zones harder to conquer (roughly according to Philippe's suggestions in the other thread), now it's

1 attacker, 0 defenders: 5 seconds to conquer.
1 attacker, 1 or more defenders: not conquerable.
2 attackers, 0 defenders: 2 seconds to conquer.
2 attackers, 1 defender: 3.3 seconds to conquer.
2 attackers, 2 defenders: 10 seconds to conquer.

I hope that makes the rounds last a tiny bit longer and shift the gameplay a bit away from the domination of offensive tactics.

I also doubled the wall acceleration.

freako · Post by **freako** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:44 pm

freako wrote:
freako wrote:
Lackadaisical wrote:I don't know 2020, I suppose wrtl prefers to have them conquerable?

Because they originally were conquerable
Can we stop discussing about this matter now? If someone doesn't agree, ley him ask for a new teamcaptain vote....

Z-Man wrote:Just in case anyone was wondering, that server is mine.

To experiment, I made explosions smaller (2 instead of 4) to make blocking a ramrod/plow/steamroll easier. I also made the two zones harder to conquer (roughly according to Philippe's suggestions in the other thread), now it's

1 attacker, 0 defenders: 5 seconds to conquer.
1 attacker, 1 or more defenders: not conquerable.
2 attackers, 0 defenders: 2 seconds to conquer.
2 attackers, 1 defender: 3.3 seconds to conquer.
2 attackers, 2 defenders: 10 seconds to conquer.

I hope that makes the rounds last a tiny bit longer and shift the gameplay a bit away from the domination of offensive tactics.

I also doubled the wall acceleration.

Sorry again, I always tend to hit the quote* button instead of the edit...
EDIT: ffs, I hit it twice lol