Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

A place for threads related to tournaments and the like, and things related too.

Moderator: Light

Post Reply
User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6214
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by sinewav »

Little or nothing to discuss. I went through the last few relevant threads looking for concerns. At the end of L-40 people were talking about removing holes completely, and changing the zone size, and wall_shrink, and everything else under the sun. And then last month a few of us talked about making the teams 7v7, even though there is historically almost no support for it.

This last Ladle was very successful. We had a few problems that were addressed immediately. And, we've been basically "drama-free" for a few Ladles now. I can't think of anything that needs to be addressed on the settings, rule, or management side - which is what these threads are about.

I'll leave this here and bump it occasionally so everyone has a chance to see it and make a contribution. Try and keep concerns related to things we can change that don't involve coding a new version of the game. :)

Magic
Core Dumper
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 2:33 pm

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by Magic »

I'll nominate 5v5

User avatar
teen
Round Winner
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by teen »

1. Holes are annoying but without the holes matches would take FOREVER.
2. I support 6v6,5v5,7v7
3. I also vote that people should not be mad at other teams strategies or players. They obviously work if that team won. Just a old "gm" is fine not even "gz" because all the matches were good.

other than that i think that it was a pretty decent ladle apart from the angry mob of people.
Image

User avatar
AI-team
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 1021
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:17 pm
Location: Germany/Munich
Contact:

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by AI-team »

sinewav wrote:removing holes completely
teen is right , even with holes matches take already to long
sinewav wrote:changing the zone size, and wall_shrink, and everything else under the sun.
and maybe also another map and ctf settings?^^
sinewav wrote:making the teams 7v7, even though there is historically almost no support for it.
with good reasons
  
 
"95% of people believe in every quote you post on the internet" ~ Abraham Lincoln
 
 

dariv
Round Winner
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 2:24 pm

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by dariv »

Three comments,

1. Final server should have more than 32 slots. I waited patiently there for over an hour and was kicked and banned 5 minutes before the finals. That really sucked.


2. I was given the impression that seeds are given favourable servers (I think it was in the ladle 40 thread). I don't know if it's true but it shouldn't be. Seeding exists to stop the best teams meeting in the first round. I see no reason why seeds should be given a server advantage.


3. It was a really really fun ladle to play in and watch and thanks to everyone. Lots of good moves, strategies and interesting matches. Especially thanks to z-man for his recordings.
pLxDari - Challenge us!

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6214
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by sinewav »

dariv wrote:2. I was given the impression that seeds are given favourable servers (I think it was in the ladle 40 thread). I don't know if it's true but it shouldn't be. Seeding exists to stop the best teams meeting in the first round. I see no reason why seeds should be given a server advantage.
No advantage. Right now we try to keep the servers alternating US/EU across the brackets and across Ladle events. Also, there is no real way to gauge a "favorable server". We use the servers that are available, and the most reliable ones get used for later matches. Unfortunately, even reliable ones are sometimes shaky - and untested ones work flawlessly (like we saw yesterday).

We talked about ranking servers before, but that conversation went nowhere. And, with so few servers to choose from, we really don't have a choice but to use everything we have. Server problems and lag are part of the game and there is little we can do about it currently.

User avatar
kyle
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1843
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by kyle »

could implement a time limit :) (though that never gets supported)
Image

User avatar
Rain
Round Winner
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: a random empty server playing with bots

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by Rain »

I should have somewhere old Fortress Test Server map and configuration, if you are interested.

rain
END OF LINE

Olive
Match Winner
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:11 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by Olive »

Time limits suck because one team can choose to play ultra-conservatively to lengthen the rounds when they are ahead.

Although 45 minutes a match sounds reasonable, one could argue it's the losing teams fault of falling behind, meaning we get even longer rounds while having limited matches?

Just spamming some thoughts.
Olive a.k.a ZeMu, MoonFlower & chicken.

syllabear
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 984
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:37 pm
Location: UK/HK

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by syllabear »

put a time limit on the end of the ladle. All matches/scores/etc. saved and play next sunday. Any noobs who can't make it don't deserve to be in the finals/semis (since if it was so late, we'd hopefully be at least up to the semi's by then)
Last edited by syllabear on Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Halley's comet of Armagetron.
ps I'm not tokoyami

User avatar
Desolate
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 985
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Baseball Field or Computer

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by Desolate »

Interesting, as long as the time limit does not cut off a match in the middle. (eg. 1-1, 1-0) but I would still support playing it all in one go.

User avatar
Nelhybel
Round Winner
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:51 pm

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by Nelhybel »

I really stronly oppose holes being banned: I staunchly believe that there must be some surefire strategy of saving a holed position, and/or creating a position in which holing is not a viable tactic for your opponent - but at this time, this strategy[-ies] has yet to be found. Once some team does figure it out, it'll be one of those most important recent break-throughs in fortress tactics.

I also don't think Ladle should be spread to more than one day; the momentum and intensity for those playing it and watching it will dissipate during the interim of the two playing times. Many people organize plans ahead of time knowing they'll be playing Ladle on a specific day, and setting aside two days in a row - or even two Sundays in a row - is a bit difficult.
Obviously, in the distant future, we would hope to have so many teams playing that it may be necessary to break Ladle into multiple days - but I personally don't believe we're there yet.

Also, I really wish there were more spectating spots for the finals - everyone has got to agree watching those live, and partaking in all the often times senseless conversation in spec chat is lots of fun! :mrgreen: But, if having more spec spots will increase lag for the players - and I don't know how this works - then I don't think it's fair to the players. Possibly we should broadcast the Ladle to a site/wepage, and have a chatbox on that site/webpage so the specs can watch and chat just as if they are in the server?

Just some ideas! :)

-- uNa|Nelhybel
Feel free to contact me here or on the grid if you would like assistance or support in beginning a relationship with Jesus Christ.
---
uNa| United Noobs of Armagetron Forums
-=}ID< Immortal Dynasty Forums
_~`Ww_ Wild West Forums

User avatar
Elmo
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:21 pm

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by Elmo »

Well you could have one person do a screenshare and then post the code on irc like we did for this ladle.

User avatar
kyle
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1843
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by kyle »

sinewav wrote:Try and keep concerns related to things we can change that don't involve coding a new version of the game. :)
What i'd really like to see violates this (only servers would have to change)

have a match timer of 12-15 minutes a piece, but instead of when the time limit runs out it ends as it does now, it allows the current round being played time to finish. (I might dig into that code a little bit in the next few days, I'll put a test server up if i do that)
Image

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6214
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

Post by sinewav »

That would be super. But it would definitely need to send time to the HUD, counting down to zero then back up again all the way to the end of the round. Isn't that how it is in Association Football with penalty time after official time ends?

Post Reply