Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

[sinewav]

there should be a winner/ loser ladle.

This was tried before and no one played. This thread is also showing support for removing seeds, not that they were any kind of incentive to begin with. People don't play for seeds, they play to win. A seed is just a bonus (a bonus that wrongly favors better teams, as we can now see).

[sinewav]

I am going to set up a voting thread in a couple days. So far the only significant topic is seeding. There doesn't seem to be a solid way to transition to double elimination so voting on it would be a little pointless. Likewise, changing the map to reduce the power of center attacks did not get the attention needed. As far as I know the test server was never used. We might include 6v6 or 7v7 as an option even though 6v6 will win, same with trail length. It is still interesting and worthwhile to see where the community stands on such things.

I am going to run this vote a little different than we have in the past. Since the only real discussion that got any traction regards seeding, I want to include a few non-choices whose purpose is more like an opinion poll rather than a policy making one. It will help us think better about what future changes we might make.

The possible ballot will look like:

• Seeding: 4 Seeds (current) | 2 Seeds | 1 Seed* | No Seeds
  Team Size: 6v6 (current) | 7v7
  Tournament Structure: Single Elimination (current) | Double Elimination | Swiss System | League Play
  Are you willing to change cycle physics? No | Yes
  
  * The 1 Seed rule would guarantee a bye to the previous Ladle winner when a bye is available. Also note that changes to seeding will not take place until Ladle 78.

For those who are unfamiliar with Ladle Voting or have forgotten how here is a recap of the process:

• Only Team Leaders can vote, one vote per team.
• Your team must be on the Challenge Board for your vote to count.
• Voting closes before the Challenge Board is randomized

The bad thing about this particular vote is that seeding benefits the larger clans and they have the most voting power, assuming the entire clan votes together. Plus, weaker teams are generally disorganized and some probably have no idea there is even a vote taking place. There is a real danger of oppression by they majority here, so please be considerate when you bring these topics to your individual forums for intra-team voting. Think about what is best for the game, not what is best for you.

[owned]

What we did in the past and what I think is good practice is to only let the teams in the previous ladle (not on the challenge board for this ladle) vote. That way no one can add a team just for the sake of voting and then erase it when the tourney starts.

[sinewav]

What we did in the past and what I think is good practice is to only let the teams in the previous ladle (not on the challenge board for this ladle) vote. That way no one can add a team just for the sake of voting and then erase it when the tourney starts.

I can find no evidence of this practice. Can you show me where this was decided? I don't have time right now to go through all the voting threads and match them with Ladle results. However, this voting thread from Ladle 24 shows the current teams and not the teams from Ladle 23 (notice Assorted Freeloaders). I know we addressed this before and I think we decided that ac hoc teams made to sway votes would simply not have enough weight, partially because the team requirements are strict enough that it would not be worthwhile.

Unless we can find a concrete example of using previous team instead of current I'm afraid we will have to take results from the Ladle 77 Challenge Board.

[owned]

My memory seems to have failed me. It seems like the technique you mentioned was the one used most commonly in the past. The only one I could find that voted the way I said was this topic: http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60&t=20097

But that seems to be an exception.

I still think that using the previous ladle is a better method, but it seems most people in the past and now disagree with me.

[sinewav]

But that seems to be an exception.

Ah yes, it seems we would have no choice but to use previous teams for any kind of time-sensitive or emergency vote. I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference. Changes in Ladle usually happen with a fair amount of agreement and all the main community members play every Ladle, practically.

[2020]

I'm returning to education in the new year, and I am glad to find the Tron community is still alive. Shows the depth of the game to have this level of commitment.

The above discussion is valid, and I think Sinwav penetrated to the root of the problem -- getting new players. The gap between skilled and unskilled remains the problem which we tried to address in 2009. I also began to introduce a potential solution 2012, but didn't generate the moneyflow to enable it.

So, just wanted to complement everyone here, the 80 or so players who are regulars. Enough of a critical mass to produce a substantial result, if we align and launch well. But I shall leave that to another post. And just to warn Z-man that I shall be posting and if you could keep certain parties from core-dumping what I suggest immediately, that would be most appreciated.

[J Dawg]

Will we have enough time for this to be implemented before the january ladle? We would have to do some serious time crunching

[Gazelle]

Im totally against changing ladle... I dont see why we are doing it.. I dont mind changing the seeding, but thats about it... we had 7v7 once and changed it to 6v6 for a reason... 6v6 is fun.


Centering, if u cant stop it, u dont deserve to be at the top anyways.. I know it sounds blatant and rude, but thats the truth...

I like the format we use now, single elimination, no group style..


I think if we are going to change anything it should just be the seeding... If we change to much it wont be "ladle" anymore, imo.

[woof]

Yea...gonna have to agree with Gazelle. Fortress is fun the way we know it. If you want to change the seeding for ladle, thats fine, but changing the settings of a game type we all know and love? Cmon, what's the point?

[J Dawg]

well Thats why all of us are voting, to see if the majority of players want a change. I agree with you gazelle about centering and maybe even the numbers, but why not? I always like change and this will be a great way to see how top players like us react to different fortress. Besides gazelle, you wont have THAT hard of a time getting used to it anyways xD

[orion]

Yea...gonna have to agree with Gazelle. Fortress is fun the way we know it. If you want to change the seeding for ladle, thats fine, but changing the settings of a game type we all know and love? Cmon, what's the point?

Like i always say, why need to change the ladle? you can make a complete new tournament.

[*16]

Yea...gonna have to agree with Gazelle. Fortress is fun the way we know it. If you want to change the seeding for ladle, thats fine, but changing the settings of a game type we all know and love? Cmon, what's the point?

Like i always say, why need to change the ladle? you can make a complete new tournament.

You could also ask yourself why not change ladle? A completely new tournament of fort wouldn't get any change if ladle still takes place.

You can also say that the fort we know is fun and we shouldn't change it. But how do you know other settings wouldn't be fun? Did you test them all out enough times to say the fort we play at the moment is more fun?

Don't get me wrong, the ladle settings can stay like they are at this moment. But I think you should look less negative at changes.

[Zenith]

I agree with Gazelle and Wolf.

[sinewav]

Cmon, what's the point?

The point is obvious to anyone keen of mind. A game is good when everyone finds it's fun and challenging. It is always a good idea to reevaluate any game from time to time as the players change. It allows the game to grow and evolve, and most importantly, stay interesting. They do it in professional sports all the time and even the simplest games have variants.

Lot's of people get scared when discussions like this happen. They say "don't destroy my beautiful Fortress!" But if you notice, Ladle always gets better when the community comes to a consensus. The ongoing joke is "oh you don't think Fortress should change? Maybe we'll go back to having a winzone then." There is a very good reason why we don't have winzones, 8 player teams, and 2 meter holes. And there should always be a opportunity to go back to those settings if the community desires it. Think Fortress is fine just the way it is? Vote to keep it the same.

One of the reasons this discussion happened is because the community has changed and Ladle has some problems. Those problems are amplified by certain rules or settings, specifically seeding. We should remove it, if only temporarily. If that is the one thing we get out of this discussion it will be worth it.