Ladle 48
Moderator: Light
- apparition
- Match Winner
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:59 am
- Location: The Mitten, USA
Re: Ladle 48
LIMIT_ROUNDS is necessary for Ladle games that are less than 6v6. For 6v6 I think the score should be the determining factor.
Re: Ladle 48
So are you suggesting if one team can only field 4 or 5 players, then the setting should be re-enabled for that match?apparition wrote:LIMIT_ROUNDS is necessary for Ladle games that are less than 6v6. For 6v6 I think the score should be the determining factor.
Also, isn't it 1 vote per team, and voting in a separate thread?
The Halley's comet of Armagetron.
ps I'm not tokoyami
ps I'm not tokoyami
Re: Ladle 48
In answer to your questions Hoax: no one is using multiple round suicides yet, and yes, Ladle is really that competitive. CT used suicide to win a match in opening rounds last month. We are at the point where it's not just a couple teams winning Ladle all the time. The tournament is wide open and every meet counts. (That's really cool by the way.)Hoax wrote: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... I just read in an example here somewhere sounds like a bit of a farce
And yes, my example seems a little outlandish. However, it wasn't too long ago when no one believed a team would use repeated, organized holing to win Ladles. Speeders blew our minds with that one and left us scrambling to counter it. But unfortunately, there is no way to counter repeated, organized suicides. If the tactic takes off, which is quite possible, matches will be decided after just a few rounds instead of 10. Think of it this way: by keeping limit rounds at 10, we almost guarantee many matches will be over quicker in the ultra-competitive future. The good news is, we might have shorter Ladles. The bad news is, more and more Ladles will end anti-climatically.
Another example of our suicidal future: Currently, every time a lone defender faces 3 opponents, the enemy holes and takes the zone. It's totally predictable, instinctual even. It's so expected that now lone defenders automatically suicide to reduce the number of points given up (zone save!). It's just a matter of time before teams instinctively suicide when the number of points they have >= 10(number of rounds) +2. Just sayin.
Also, it's not boredom that prompted me to revive this discussion. It's just from my experience in the old CTF tournaments (even the current one explicitly states disqualification and there was even a squabble about suicides in the last brawl). Really, no action needs to be taken here since it isn't a problem in Ladle. But I think is a good topic of discussion because we might encounter it later.
Re: Ladle 48
Limit time encourages time wasting which is just as bad, and no limit at all means the ladle could go on far too long.
Why don't you just introduce -2 points for suicide, and increase round limit to 12. (It is still possible to reach 10 rounds with honest gameplay at the moment, as we found out annoyingly against Tx).
Why don't you just introduce -2 points for suicide, and increase round limit to 12. (It is still possible to reach 10 rounds with honest gameplay at the moment, as we found out annoyingly against Tx).
pLxDari - Challenge us!
Re: Ladle 48
Whereas removing the limit round generally doesn't affect the style of fortress while trying to encourage more exciting gameplay, your suggestion (in my opinion) drastically changes the direction of fort while vaguely changing it in the direction most people want...dariv wrote:Why don't you just introduce -2 points for suicide, and increase round limit to 12.
The Halley's comet of Armagetron.
ps I'm not tokoyami
ps I'm not tokoyami
Re: Ladle 48
Really? It removes no-point holing and slightly punishes zone savers. Those are the only two side effects I can think of.
pLxDari - Challenge us!
-
- Match Winner
- Posts: 638
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:36 am
Re: Ladle 48
I'm 100% with sine on this one, having faced the suiciding horrors of the old ctf tournaments. And to counter something INW said,
Actually, if a team beats you that bad at start, they deserve to win if they get 18 points before their enemy gets 60, not no matter what.INW wrote: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.
Re: Ladle 48
Yep, a match is won over the whole match, not the opening few rounds.PokeMaster wrote:I'm 100% with sine on this one, having faced the suiciding horrors of the old ctf tournaments. And to counter something INW said,Actually, if a team beats you that bad at start, they deserve to win if they get 18 points before their enemy gets 60, not no matter what.INW wrote: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.
Re: Ladle 48
Alright well I guess now it's been highlighted it should probably be dealth with as the titan vs CTb example seems lame, or do we want what looked like a good match looking at the scores to be decided like that? (I also don't think there will be time issues if limit_rounds is removed or increased)
Another idea no one has mentioned yet is a win after achieving a certain point lead (like on pickup). Combined with no limit_round the losing team still has a chance to comeback but also the winning team has their right to suicide replaced by carrying on as they are to achieve the win threshold
Defenders suiciding 3v1 is what is actually happening now so before the rules are changed to counter that it should decided if it's a skill to do so or not
Another idea no one has mentioned yet is a win after achieving a certain point lead (like on pickup). Combined with no limit_round the losing team still has a chance to comeback but also the winning team has their right to suicide replaced by carrying on as they are to achieve the win threshold
Defenders suiciding 3v1 is what is actually happening now so before the rules are changed to counter that it should decided if it's a skill to do so or not
Re: Ladle 48
I don't think it's a good idea really Hoax. I'd say a team 60-70 behind still has a small chance of the comeback, and if they're that far ahead 99% of the time their score will be in the 90s anyway.
The only time losing the limit_rounds could lead to significantly longer matches are matches with less than 5-6 player on both teams.
The only time losing the limit_rounds could lead to significantly longer matches are matches with less than 5-6 player on both teams.
Re: Ladle 48
That's true, ladle matches are only to 100 after all
Re: Ladle 48
Yes. So far this is the only potential drawback I can see. But this occurrence might be even more rare than a match ending on rounds. I wish I had some data on this stuff...ppotter wrote:The only time losing the limit_rounds could lead to significantly longer matches are matches with less than 5-6 player on both teams.
We can always try extending Limit_Rounds for this Ladle and repeal it later if needed. If we are headed in the wrong direction it should be obvious immediately, right? I hope more people join the discussion so we can make the best decision. But if no one can come up with a really solid reason why not too extend the rounds, we probably don't even need a vote (though personally I would feel more comfortable with one).
Re: Ladle 48
since I'm late to the discussion and you've already addressed most things I'll just back sine (and poke) up, and add that there's more good than harm in raising the round limit, and there's definitely no harm in putting it on trial for a month (which is only one Sunday night in practice anyway).
And I'm not a fan of -2 for suicide, but I still think (and have thought for a long time now) that it'd be interesting (and more fair to all players) if the other team gained 2 points for your suicide instead.
And I'm not a fan of -2 for suicide, but I still think (and have thought for a long time now) that it'd be interesting (and more fair to all players) if the other team gained 2 points for your suicide instead.
- INW
- Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:10 pm
- Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Re: Ladle 48
Suicides and team kills shouldn't count against your team's score or give the other team points.
The whole point of No-Point Hole is to die without giving points away or in this case, losing points.
If -2 points were to be awarded for suiciding, the era of No-Point Holing ends, abruptly.
FYI, I couldn't care more about that.
Edit: How does the server choose between a suicide and team kill?
The whole point of No-Point Hole is to die without giving points away or in this case, losing points.
If -2 points were to be awarded for suiciding, the era of No-Point Holing ends, abruptly.
FYI, I couldn't care more about that.
Edit: How does the server choose between a suicide and team kill?
Last edited by INW on Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.