Ladle 48

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

Moderator: Light

Post Reply
User avatar
Eckz
Core Dumper
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:27 am

Ladle 48

Post by Eckz » Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:51 pm

ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6198
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 48

Post by sinewav » Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:41 pm

Thanks Eckz.

I'd like to bring up a discussion we had after last Ladle and make sure we all think it's a good idea. The first part involves adding "shout" settings to the ladle.cfg since only half the servers seem to have them set properly. This was a good catch by Jip and makes makes the servers more homogeneous.

The second part involves a slight change to Fortress that seems to have unanimous consent. This is, removing Limit_Rounds and making Fortress a Limit_Score game. The advantages of doing this are:
  • Teams can't suicide to work the scoreboard and the game early, a practice that's becoming popular. Most agree this is an acceptable tactic, but also agree that it's kind of "dickish."
  • Teams are compelled to keep driving forward for points instead of playing overly safe and ending the game on rounds, which is very anti-climatic.
  • Making Fortress a Limit_Score game opens up the possibility of more exciting comebacks, which we all agree are totally awesome!
The fact is, games rarely end on rounds anyway, so they will hardly be missed. But with more teams choosing single and team suicides for points I can see the practice of "working the rounds" leading to a resentful atmosphere with runner-ups calling winners "cowards" and any number of demeaning names when Ladle victories are achieved that way.

It should be noted that removing Limit_Rounds does not automatically mean matches will drag out longer. Clearly it is ultra-safe playing that makes matches longer, not rounds. I've seen quite a few 80 minute matches that never reach 10 rounds.

If everyone thinks this is a good change we can add this right away. We can even have a vote like we used to and make it feel more "official" if that's what you want.

Cody
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 959
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:43 am

Re: Ladle 48

Post by Cody » Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:51 pm

sinewav wrote:Thanks Eckz.

I'd like to bring up a discussion we had after last Ladle and make sure we all think it's a good idea. The first part involves adding "shout" settings to the ladle.cfg since only half the servers seem to have them set properly. This was a good catch by Jip and makes makes the servers more homogeneous.

The second part involves a slight change to Fortress that seems to have unanimous consent. This is, removing Limit_Rounds and making Fortress a Limit_Score game. The advantages of doing this are:
  • Teams can't suicide to work the scoreboard and the game early, a practice that's becoming popular. Most agree this is an acceptable tactic, but also agree that it's kind of "dickish."
  • Teams are compelled to keep driving forward for points instead of playing overly safe and ending the game on rounds, which is very anti-climatic.
  • Making Fortress a Limit_Score game opens up the possibility of more exciting comebacks, which we all agree are totally awesome!
The fact is, games rarely end on rounds anyway, so they will hardly be missed. But with more teams choosing single and team suicides for points I can see the practice of "working the rounds" leading to a resentful atmosphere with runner-ups calling winners "cowards" and any number of demeaning names when Ladle victories are achieved that way.

It should be noted that removing Limit_Rounds does not automatically mean matches will drag out longer. Clearly it is ultra-safe playing that makes matches longer, not rounds. I've seen quite a few 80 minute matches that never reach 10 rounds.

If everyone thinks this is a good change we can add this right away. We can even have a vote like we used to and make it feel more "official" if that's what you want.
++ I want Limit_Score not Rounds.

Question is, Limit_Score 100 or Something else?

User avatar
Zimblunk
Average Program
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:41 pm
Location: USA

Re: Ladle 48

Post by Zimblunk » Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:46 pm

sinewav wrote:Thanks Eckz.

I'd like to bring up a discussion we had after last Ladle and make sure we all think it's a good idea. The first part involves adding "shout" settings to the ladle.cfg since only half the servers seem to have them set properly. This was a good catch by Jip and makes makes the servers more homogeneous.

The second part involves a slight change to Fortress that seems to have unanimous consent. This is, removing Limit_Rounds and making Fortress a Limit_Score game. The advantages of doing this are:
  • Teams can't suicide to work the scoreboard and the game early, a practice that's becoming popular. Most agree this is an acceptable tactic, but also agree that it's kind of "dickish."
  • Teams are compelled to keep driving forward for points instead of playing overly safe and ending the game on rounds, which is very anti-climatic.
  • Making Fortress a Limit_Score game opens up the possibility of more exciting comebacks, which we all agree are totally awesome!
The fact is, games rarely end on rounds anyway, so they will hardly be missed. But with more teams choosing single and team suicides for points I can see the practice of "working the rounds" leading to a resentful atmosphere with runner-ups calling winners "cowards" and any number of demeaning names when Ladle victories are achieved that way.

It should be noted that removing Limit_Rounds does not automatically mean matches will drag out longer. Clearly it is ultra-safe playing that makes matches longer, not rounds. I've seen quite a few 80 minute matches that never reach 10 rounds.

If everyone thinks this is a good change we can add this right away. We can even have a vote like we used to and make it feel more "official" if that's what you want.
Add "shout" settings: Sounds good to me. :D

Remove Limit_Rounds: Of course!

...Although it may mess with scheduling and timing in the ladle if a match lasts more than the 45 minutes allotted. May I propose you also put a 45 minute limit on matches? This is something that, from what I've heard, usually won't be reached anyways, but in the chance it does, will decide a winner and keep the entire competition running more smoothly.

User avatar
fingerbib
Core Dumper
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:02 am

Re: Ladle 48

Post by fingerbib » Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:23 am

The fear is that that will increase time wasting by the team in front. Which, in all probability, it will.
he said.

User avatar
INW
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1949
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA

Re: Ladle 48

Post by INW » Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:42 am

fingerbib wrote:The fear is that that will increase time wasting by the team in front. Which, in all probability, it will.
But doesn't the winning team have all rights to do that? Well same with the suiciding.

I guess the whole point in taking off limit_rounds is to propose comebacks?

User avatar
fingerbib
Core Dumper
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:02 am

Re: Ladle 48

Post by fingerbib » Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:04 am

Sure, it's their right to do so, but I imagine that it's not something most of us would want to encourage.
he said.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6198
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 48

Post by sinewav » Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:21 am

INW wrote:But doesn't the winning team have all rights to do that?
I think you are asking yourself the wrong question. A better question is "do team suicides make for a more exciting and interesting Fortress?"

Here is an ugly, but likely scenario. Your team is down 40-82 at the end of the 6th round. You've taken a beating, but your team has what it takes to turn things around. You know the maximum amount of points a team can score in a round is 22. If you can last until round 10, you can steal a victory. But, you never get a chance because the other team decides to suicide the final 4 rounds. Even though you take the zone and the win each round, you still loose 82-80. Do you somehow feel -- cheated? Is it fun to watch 4 rounds go by helpless to do anything while your opponent says "sorry, our cost/benefit analysis has determined that continuing this match is above our risk threshold so we are ending the engagement early. No hard feelings. Good luck next month."

This example is far wild fiction. We have all seen comebacks like this in Ladle and it's rare, but amazing nonetheless. With competition continually increasing it's only a matter of time before team suicides are how matches will start ending regularly. The same thing happened in Wild West CTF Tournaments a few years ago and you wouldn't believe the shitstorm that followed. Those of us who were there see this recent suicide trend as very troubling, with good reason.

User avatar
INW
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1949
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA

Re: Ladle 48

Post by INW » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:03 am

Well I see how it can be less exciting but if you weren't down 40-82 to begin with, the situation wouldn't happen anyway.

If a team beats you that bad at the start, they deserve the win in my eyes.
But then again, here comes the cocky we so good situation where they actually start to lose and then lose because their is no limit_rounds.

Interesting scenario.

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

Re: Ladle 48

Post by Desolate » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:45 am

INW, you're fighting for a boring and less competitive ladle. Rather than making it more interesting for new players who might happen to stumble across our small community in the future, you are suggesting that we make the game a boring suicide fest after one team takes the lead. The enjoyable part of watching competitive gameplay in all sorts of games is the knowledge that the losing team has the opportunity to make a comeback and save themselves from their earlier mistakes/defeats. There's still a large chance that the team up by 40 points will still win, but there is the possibility that the losing team can have some spectacular rounds and get themselves back in the game within two rounds. We don't want to encourage suicides just because a team gets off to a bad start in a match. You can't just simply force your team to not go down 40 points when a large number of factors can come into play.

User avatar
INW
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1949
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA

Re: Ladle 48

Post by INW » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:10 am

Desolate wrote:INW, you're fighting for a boring and less competitive ladle...
I'm not fighting for anything.
Like I posted in the other thread, I could careless what happens. I am just bringing up points that others may not have seen.

Jesus.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6198
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 48

Post by sinewav » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:31 am

INW wrote:I'm not fighting for anything.
Yeah... that's actually a problem. Don't do that. You're not contributing to the discussion and you're not bringing up any solid counterpoint. I'm just going to put you down for a "yes" vote on raising Limit_Rounds.

Oh and I don't think the number it's raised to needs a huge discussion either. Probably 99 or 100 will do. If someone with crazy statistics knowledge wants to figure out the minimum possible rounds we can set it at, go ahead and knock your self out.

User avatar
dlh
Formerly That OS X Guy
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 12:05 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 48

Post by dlh » Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:33 am

INW wrote:I could care less what happens.
Image

Hoax
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:24 pm
Location: UK

Re: Ladle 48

Post by Hoax » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:07 am

Hah that looks familiar after recently wondering why people actually say that

So what teams exactly are suiciding muliple rounds to get a match win in a ladle?
Has 'sportsmanship' completely gone out the window or is it so competitive these days & teams are just desperate to win..Don't tell me it's taken 40 ladles for people to tron and math at the same time
I was undecided about the round limit question & took it as another change due to people with too much time on their hands however a whole team suiciding for 4 rounds like I just read in an example here somewhere sounds like a bit of a farce

edit: also default shout spec 0 is a no brainer
& should probably decide sooner rather than later about a vote or not so this topic can be split

User avatar
INW
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1949
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA

Re: Ladle 48

Post by INW » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:37 am

sinewav wrote:
INW wrote:I'm not fighting for anything.
Yeah... that's actually a problem. Don't do that. You're not contributing to the discussion and you're not bringing up any solid counterpoint. I'm just going to put you down for a "yes" vote on raising Limit_Rounds.

Oh and I don't think the number it's raised to needs a huge discussion either. Probably 99 or 100 will do. If someone with crazy statistics knowledge wants to figure out the minimum possible rounds we can set it at, go ahead and knock your self out.
Don't put me as a "yes". Put me as "other" or whatever the other category is besides yes or no.

Post Reply