Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

[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]

I'll nominate 5v5

[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.

[AI-team]

removing holes completely

teen is right , even with holes matches take already to long

changing the zone size, and wall_shrink, and everything else under the sun.

and maybe also another map and ctf settings?^^

making the teams 7v7, even though there is historically almost no support for it.

with good reasons

[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.

[sinewav]

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.

[kyle]

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

[Rain]

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

rain

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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! 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

[Elmo]

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

[kyle]

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)

[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?