Proposed Bowl Changes

[Concord]

The idea of the Bowl was originally to have a SuperLadle that was a little more exclusive and a little more competitive and therefore would "count" a little more. To do this, we made a long season so that the top teams would clearly identify themselves, we scored Ladles during that season, and then we took the best couple teams and put them into another bracket.

I do not believe we have been truly successful, yet. To improve the Bowl, I have several proposed changes. I would like to describe each one, along with my reasoning. Thanks for your consideration.


1. Shorten the season to 3 Ladles
The current season is way too long. Humans could literally be created from scratch in the time it the more than 9 months it takes to play a Bowl. It's too hard to remember when the Bowl started, and rosters change too much across that time span. Furthermore, creating an incentive for teams to keep their same rosters for 9 months is having negative effects on gameplay and competitiveness. It's no accident that the two largest teams ended up being the Bowl finalists. One the other hand, roster fluidity is, in many ways, a very good thing. It allows new combinations of players to compete, and new ideas to come to fortress. Many new teams have been successful in a short period of time, because new combinations of players encourage innovation. Long seasons are making the game a bit stale, and they make the Bowl itself less meaningful, because we can't even remember the whole season.

Three months is much, much shorter. Having a compact season will benefit the Bowl in many ways, which I will describe below.

2. Tighten the Player Qualification policy
Because the season will now be just 3 months, we are able to make the player qualification policy tighter. My proposed policy is this: 1) Players must be on the team every Ladle in the 3-Ladle season, and 2) no more than 9 players may play be the final Bowl roster. The first part is self-explanatory. Part two encourages large teams not to needlessly load their Ladle roster with players, just so they will qualify to play the Bowl. If they can only bring 3 subs to the bowl, their other players (above 9) might as well form second teams, or open teams.

3. Change the Team Qualification policy
Currently, any team that makes semis consistently can probably qualify for the Bowl. That is too low a bar. The scoring system is not perfect either. Kill St was able to qualify as the 2nd place team in scoring by only playing 5/9 Ladles. That's silly. I have a couple proposed changes to the Team Qualification policy.

• Teams must play every Ladle in the season
• Simplify the scoring system to be a simple count of Total Ladle Rounds Won (Bouts Won)
• For the scoring system, Byes count as Rounds Won.
• Any team that wins a Ladle automatically qualifies for the Bowl
• 3 teams qualify for the Bowl

Just like players, Teams must play each of the 3 Ladles. The top 3 scoring teams qualify for the Bowl, unless a team not in the Top 3 wins one of the Ladles. This means that no team is eliminated before the final Ladle of the season. In the current season, most of the teams are basically eliminated from contention about half-way through the season. In the proposed format, any team of 6 players who stay together for 3 months can form a Bowl team. They need not be a clan, it can be a more specific, competitive driven unit. Rather than consolidate into large teams, the short and more dynamic season should encourage many smaller, competitive, focused teams, rather than large, bulky, prestige-motivated clans.

3 Teams will qualify for the Bowl. The #1 seed gets a bye to the Final. This is a proper reward for the top seed. Currently the top seed gets no such benefit for their season performance.

4. The 1st Ladle in the season is unseeded, the 2nd Ladle has 2 seeds, the 3rd Ladle has 4 seeds.
In each case, the seeds are determined by Bowl score, not specifically Ladle performance. Incremental seeding, such as this, will prevent a bad draw that may distort the scores in such a short season.

5. The #1 seed gets to choose the server for the first 3 matches of the Bowl Final. The other finalist chooses the server for the final 2 matches.

This gives the #1 seed another slight reward, and also makes the Bowl Final more fair, as any server advantage is somewhat leveled out. Reducing the server advantage means the outcome is more meaningful.

6. The Bowl is played the week after the 3rd Ladle.
Waiting almost a month just needlessly elongates the season. The Bowl should be played the Sunday immediately following the regular season final Ladle.

7. Two Bowls per year.
3 month season. 3 month off-season. 3 month season. 3 month off-season. Simple, simple, simple.

For your consideration, here are two separate season schedules

• Spring Bowl Season: February, March, April.
  Fall Bowl Season: September, October, November
  Pro: The students among us have consistent schedules during those months. Con: We are in school.)
• Winter Bowl Season: December, January, Feburary.
  Summer Bowl Season: June, July, August
  Pro: Very active months because many people have vacations. Con: Some inconsistency in availability, with subs this drawback can be mitigated over the regular season

The second schedule is probably the better one.



These changes are significant, but I believe the current Bowl format isn't very good. It is trying to be too much. It is trying to be a yearly Championship, when the fact is there is no coherent yearly season. Teams change too much over the course of the 9-month season for the Bowl to really mean all that much. It is also not very well integrated with the Ladles themselves. It is sort of just tacked on. The current system is not having any positive effects on the competitive fortress scene. For one thing, it is so complicated and longwinding that it becomes hard to comprehend. I believe making the above changes, most of which are simplifications, will make the Bowl a more significant, more comprehensible, and more competitive event.

Thanks for reading,
Conc

[Overrated]

1. Shorten the season to 3 Ladles

Not necessarily opposed, although I do like the consistency factor and the less clan hopping aspect from the 9 month season (Gazelle left Rd, joined ks, rejoined Rd and was able to play with them in Bowl (wat?))

The idea definitely adds more intense matches throughout the year.

2. Tighten the Player Qualification policy
My proposed policy is this: 1) Players must be on the team every Ladle in the 3-Ladle season, and 2) no more than 9 players may play be the final Bowl roster. The first part is self-explanatory.

1) What about instances where one could not make a ladle? Do they just have to be on the wiki roster? It seems a little unfair for someone to have something planned in advance, or something come up to where they have to leave (emergencies happen) ruin their chance to play in the Bowl with their teammates.
2) It takes 1 ladle for someone to not be able to play. Like I said before, sometimes people can't show up and it would suck for a team to not be able to play in the bowl because they were short a player due to this policy. I would rather give the option of more people, and no one wants to let down their team and play for another. (one ladle could have 9 show up, another could have 5)

3. Change the Team Qualification policy

• Teams must play every Ladle in the season
• Simplify the scoring system to be a simple count of Total Ladle Rounds Won (Bouts Won)
• For the scoring system, Byes count as Rounds Won.
• Any team that wins a Ladle automatically qualifies for the Bowl
• 3 teams qualify for the Bowl

1) Agree that teams should play every ladle if you have a shorter season
2) Not sure how much I agree; would like a test system.
3) Byes count as 2 round wins? I brought this up when we determined Bowl seeding. Completely agree that they should since it ruins an opportunity for a team to earn standing points.
4) 3 Ladles, 3 winning teams, not sure if they should technically qualify. Would you rather want a team that wins 1 ladle and eliminated in first round twice, or a team that makes the finals 3 times. I'm not heavily opposed, but I think there could be a little bit of unfortunate luck involved which is why...
5) I would rather there be 4 teams; I do not want to play just one match (even if it's best of 5). The main reason I'm opposed to seeding is having a bye is basically a punishment in terms of playing time. I want to win, and I want to win a lot. I wouldn't feel accomplished beating one team.

Top seed, as I believe I also mentioned in the Bowl topic, should get choice on server in semi's and finals. I think the ratings are proper for ladle; but when it comes to the Bowl the top seed should have choice of server, highest seed that advances in finals then gets choice (2 seed vs 4 seed, 2 chooses).

4. The 1st Ladle in the season is unseeded, the 2nd Ladle has 2 seeds, the 3rd Ladle has 4 seeds.
In each case, the seeds are determined by Bowl score, not specifically Ladle performance. Incremental seeding, such as this, will prevent a bad draw that may distort the scores in such a short season.

I'm against seeds altogether; it's luck of the draw when it comes to some teams. If you get unlucky 3 ladles in a row then it sucks. Would rather you have 1 seed, top Bowl team, keeps it to prevent them from "spoiling," another team's chances.

5. The #1 seed gets to choose the server for the first 3 matches of the Bowl Final. The other finalist chooses the server for the final 2 matches.

Mentioned above, how #1 seed should choose server. I'm not opposed to this idea specifically, it makes it more of a "home field advantage."

6. The Bowl is played the week after the 3rd Ladle.
Waiting almost a month just needlessly elongates the season. The Bowl should be played the Sunday immediately following the regular season final Ladle.

Brawl is the following weekend, although agree it kind of elongates the season, it also avoids all other tournaments conflicting since no one does it that late (just make it 4th Sunday of the month, that way in a 5 Sunday month, you still have a week before the following ladle).

7. Two Bowls per year.

2 Bowls a year is a lovely idea for competitions sake, I would rather do a January, February, March: July, August, September ordeal; since it completely avoids finals weeks. Plus it exactly fits 2 in one year; instead of going between years and possibly adding confusion. It's an ideal situation for a student, since it ends up putting them near the beginning and allow you to focus for most of the semester.

If I had to choose from those I would choose the second one, although I would rather have what I mentioned.

Thanks for reading,
Conc

Appreciate the idea, it's an interesting one and I like it simply from a more competitive standpoint. It might invite me to play more since you'll definitely have to be on top of your game in order to succeed. I don't think our format isn't good, I just think it's long and it's meant to be more like an actual sports league opposed to a video game.

[Titanoboa]

I have more to say, but since the previous posts are pretty long I'll leave the rest for later, because I hope this discussion will go on.

First off: thanks, really good idea and I believe there's sound reasoning behind it.

1. Shorten the season to 3 Ladles
The current season is way too long. [...] It's too hard to remember when the Bowl started

Agreed. The 9 month season idea sounded great beforehand, and it's an epic idea, but it did indeed turn out to be too long.

2. Tighten the Player Qualification policy
1) Players must be on the team every Ladle in the 3-Ladle season

Just before this previous ladle someone got sick and I had to work in their stead, and thus missed R matches. Yes, this specific circumstance doesn't apply to most of us ladlers, but things with similar effect could occur to anyone and do occur on an irregular basis.
There could be, however, a rule prohibiting players from playing for several teams in a season and still qualify for one of them. I think this accomplishes what you want to accomplish in the first place. People being dicks and using aliases shouldn't be a problem since we would make it clear that there's a zero-tolerance against this, and once they're found out it's gg. In our small community, you'd have to work pretty hard to get away with it as a top player.
A 2/3 requirement would be totally just. 1/3 would be too low.

3. Change the Team Qualification policy

• 3 teams qualify for the Bowl

A 3 team bowl feels skewed and awkward to me, and not because I don't like new things (y'all should know that I do by now )
4 team bowl with semis and a grand finale seems more appropriate to the occasion. Coincidentally, it also refutes over's good argument against the ladle win qualification rule; there could be 3 different upsets within the season and the "solid" team with the best overall score would still qualify (which they deserve, with the best season score!)


Ugh, I wanna address every single point but I'll hold it in for now

[Concord]

2. Tighten the Player Qualification policy
1) Players must be on the team every Ladle in the 3-Ladle season

Just before this previous ladle someone got sick and I had to work in their stead, and thus missed R matches. Yes, this specific circumstance doesn't apply to most of us ladlers, but things with similar effect could occur to anyone and do occur on an irregular basis.

1) What about instances where one could not make a ladle? Do they just have to be on the wiki roster? It seems a little unfair for someone to have something planned in advance, or something come up to where they have to leave (emergencies happen) ruin their chance to play in the Bowl with their teammates.
2) It takes 1 ladle for someone to not be able to play. Like I said before, sometimes people can't show up and it would suck for a team to not be able to play in the bowl because they were short a player due to this policy. I would rather give the option of more people, and no one wants to let down their team and play for another. (one ladle could have 9 show up, another could have 5)

I specifically worded it: Players must be on the team every Ladle in the 3-Ladle season. This does not mean they have to play, or show up. But they must be on the roster. Having a last minute thing or missing a Ladle because of a conflict or any other circumstance does not disqualify you as long as your team carries you on their roster. This is the same way we count currently.

[Overrated]

Hate to do this just for bump purposes, but this really should be discussed more.

Also, the wording made it seem like they had to play. Saying they have to be on the roster would be more appropriate.

[Magi]

My input is small on this, but I like the proposed changes, but I'm unsure how I feel about 3 or 4 teams, 3 teams would make ladles a lot more intense I think to get that final spot for the bowl, but at the same time only 3 teams seems a bit small, but I think since the seasons will be shorter and two bowls a year it wouldn't be such a bad thing since if you're the 4th team it'll make you either want to try something new with a different team next season, or just try that much harder to get there with your current teammates.

As for the server choice, I'm not sure how we want to do it, most teams these days are either all EU or all US, say CT has first seed and wants to play in CT Liv, they should be allowed to be, it's their right for having the first seed, my thought is should we do play first 2 matches in CT liv, then next 2 in the other team's choice, say a US server, then if it's 2-2 after that #1 seed gets to choose? I think that'd be more of a fair outcome than playing 3 straight matches in an EU server for an all US team.

Now I know there's problems with that idea too, it'd take longer to do server switches, hurt teams' momentum and it would mess with any kind of recordings that are being done, just figured I'd say it and see what people's thoughts are on the idea.

[Overrated]

This will probably be the last time I bump this topic.

I am seriously disappointed there is little to no discussion on this topic. Is it the fact Concord wrote it; or the fact no one wants to take the time to read it and post about it? If you don't think it's a good idea, say so. The more responses the better (just like rating servers!).

[ogo]

I think Bowl is a non-event that no one really cares for and is out-of-sync with the pace of roster changes amongst the community. I flicked through the suggested ideas and think they'd be good, something certainly needs to be done

[Titanoboa]

I think Bowl is a non-event that no one really cares for and is out-of-sync with the pace of roster changes amongst the community.

Exactly why this topic is important

[Soul]

In my opinion, the bowl hasn't been what it was meant to be. We tried to emulate a real sports season which is impossible to do simply do to the fact that this is an online game where the variables that make the season format work for sports seasons do not exist here. As much as I really liked the idea of this system, it seems like it isn't working

[-*inS*-]

The current system is pretty uninteresting to me, +1 to the proposed changes.

[sinewav]

Hello everyone. I have been very busy. This is my first opportunity to read the Proposed Bowl Changes. I think Concord's proposal is solid and well thought out. I see no strong arguments against any of the changes and I am willing to execute his plan starting in September. If any of the new rules don't work as intended, we can change them later. We are a very flexible community. At this stage, I believe it is more important to take action now and make changes later. After all, there is nothing at stake here. Bowl is still a very new & experimental tournament and has not reached its full potential.

I might have to do make some adjustments to the script I use for collecting Ladle stats. Currently, byes are not recorded as a round win. Doing so would change the Global Ladle Stats, though I don't think anyone is too attached to them. I will not be retroactively recording byes, I simply don't have the time. (This is just me thinking out loud.)

[Gazelle]

Im only posting because Over has been raging hard and telling me to post!

No but really, I agree, bowl changes are needed, not that the original rules weren't great, I just think we need to spice it up a bit

[owned]

To be honest I like the bowl system as is. I like that the tournament is once every year, having it more often would make it less important to me. While there may be some problems with the length of the season, that could just be fixed by shortening the season instead of making two bowls in one year.

[ppotter]

I don't think the Bowl will ever be as prestigious as it's meant to be. It's too similar to ladle, and more people play in the ladle, so more people care about it by default.

I think it would make more sense just to have a ranking based on ladle performances (basically what we have already, but make it means something).