Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

[PokeMaster]

Although the ladle is really getting quite long, I'm really against having any sort of timer (as previously mentioned) that allows a team with the higher score to hold out on a match until it is over. Think of a classic 1v1. The attacking team is the team ahead. Then they simply don't have to attack, but can remain in the area so that the defender can't go and attack. Sure the defender can suicide and save time, but then you're just easily giving points to the team that is already up.

[Olive]

that don't make no sense at all.

the logic is simple, its unfair for the team thats behind because the team thats ahead can play very boring to lengthen the rounds.

BUT

its their own fault they fall behind.

easy

[PokeMaster]

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't support the idea of a comeback

[þsy]

I think this is silly - the first few posts here talk about how well this ladle ran, and how well the settings have all worked. Now we're talking about time limits? I think that is something that should be considered if we get so many teams in it means we need an extra round (So one before the opening round, or in between opening and sweet sixteen). It is such a drastic change and would change a team's approach to fortress entirely. I think the phrase 'Don't fix something that isn't broken' applies

If it is because ladle is too long, or there isn't enough time for breaks, then I suggest you just get over it. Ladle always has been about endurance as much as it has been about winning each match. If it is too long individually, sub out, it's as simple as that

[.Wit]

if there's such a problem with time why dont just adjust the score limit? or change best of 3 to 1 match up to like 150 or something? idk just thinking outloud i dont think a time limit would be good because a team would feel rushed and people make alot of mistakes when rushed.

[Slov]

ladle time limit would be like football world cup finals when you lead 1:0 and there's 5 mins left..

[dariv]

If there was a time limit I'd tell my team we are 6 defenders...

Why is this a problem? It was a long ladle because we had 5 rounds instead of 4. Don't ruin the game because of that.


I've said before, fort is fundamentally a broken idea because in a 1v1 situation there is no need to attack. (Pokemaster made this point perfectly). Now you can tell me that it's the defender's fault for getting in that position, but if they are a good defender then the game can last forever. Forget whose fault it is, that's everyone's problem.

[Z-Man]

Slow: Except that in soccer, there are rules in place to prevent total game stalling; the goalie is not allowed to hold on to the ball forever once he got it, for example. Here, well, as far as the intrinsic mechanics already in place go, we have the permanent-for-the-round deaths, and they can even work in favor of the team trying to stall. It's hard to predict.

I don't really think there is a problem right now with the time that requires radical fixing. Only one in three ladles goes so much overtime that it gets a little painful. Yeah, it then turns into a sort of endurance sport, and the load is not distributed equally over all teams; some get half hour breaks, some don't. Those that don't, well, they usually lost a match, didn't they? So it is kind of their own fault.

If anything should be adjusted, I'm with .Wit: the score limit can be scaled without changing the game. Why don't you put the score limit up for one of those median-based polls? We could even have different score limits for the first two matches and the third, tiebreaking, match, though that requires admin attention.

[2020]

timer makes sense

if a team does have 1-0 advantage and chooses to play defensively
this gives the losing side the benefit of offence
and if they manage to pull it back to 1-1
then it will come down to who is ahead in the final match if they run out of time

it should be tried for a few ladles to see what happens

[Cody <3]

I would want a point edit before we start talking about time limit.

I think as of right now the best of 3, 100 points to win is perfect. If anything I would want ladle to last longer, I love long games, makes for good competition.

Also can we go ahead and try 7v7 for the next 3 ladles? I think it would be awesome. I know I could of used a 7th team mate this ladle. Also would benefit teams/clans that have a lot of active plays but yet not enough for 2 whole teams.

I would vote for no holes just because i like the idea of actually working your way into the def, then again It is nice knowing you have a for-sure way into the def

Also can we change finals to best of 5? I really like the idea of having a longer final.

[2020]

one thing about the results table
could be change the score to actual scores?

instead of one column
upto three

eg
mbm 0
sp 1
becomes
mbm 76 84 -
sp 100 100 -

i think it would show how close things got...

[Olive]

then I suggest you just get over it.

Read before replying. I responded to kyle as he brought up the point because it would flow into an interesting discussion, at least I hoped it would. The same settings are used for a long time and people's stances to those settings do differ (look into past ladle discussions, enough examples there). And it is better to prevent than to cure.

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't support the idea of a comeback

No, you completely miss my point, again. The most often used argument against time limits is the stalling of the game. I'm trying to make clear the winning team has 'the right' to stall in their advantage as they earned more points.

It would mean more conservative play. I never said I support time limits, I only tried to air an interesting discussion.

Repetition ftw.

[Hoax]

Let's not get carried away with time limits and such..one long ladle & it always get suggested, then the next one is half as long and it's not even mentioned. So wait and see if we have as many teams and it takes just as long next time then the timing can be taken seriously.

As for specs being kicked why isn't the stream still going what happened to that? epsy?

[þsy]

Olive: I don't think you understand what I was saying - I know people have complained about it in the past, even I have. But it's a factor that has always been there, I'm sure you remember that ladle where arrow played until like 1 in the morning after like 6 hours of play.

But unless a significant amount of teams were added to next ladle's roster, I don't think it's necessary. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, it would add a whole new dimension to the game. People already complain about the hole factor, surely this just be another factor that people worry about whilst playing?

[dariv]

But olive, his counterargument is still valid. You are saying the team with the initial advantage deserves the extra advantage of being allowed to time-waste. He is saying this extra advantage (deserved or not) will inevitably lead to fewer comebacks.

I have to agree.