Ladle 103

[Magi]

March 6th, 2016

Topics that I believe should be talked about are the starting times and double elimination.

The starting time being moved earlier didn't seem to go over well (probably could have been avoided had I not pushed a time change so close to ladle), with lots of teams being no shows or late, though I think this could have just been due to lack of availability as well. I personally think trying it for another ladle or two, so people actually know what time it starts and seeing if they like it better or worse and we can go from there.

As for double elimination, I know some people have brought forth concerns about not liking it, now would be a good time for arguments for or against it. I personally have thought it kind of drags ladles on, which the entire point of it is to give teams a second chance and allow for more matches to be played, I'm just not sure if the current set up we have is the way to go about it though.

Discussion made about these topics probably won't be implemented until the following ladle unless there's a really strong demand for immediate change.

[niin]

I would like to keep starting time as well as double elimination.
Starting Time - it fits me better cause I can't stay up late in the evening (cet here) and I think we should try it again with everyone knowing about to see if it works out better this time.
Double elimination - no real arguments here. I just like to get a second chance when you lose. Could be a point for new teams or open teams to take part if they see it's worth the effort

[Plee]

Yeah same thing, but it'd rather not do double elimination anymore. It's too time consuming, too many players leave waiting for their next match.

[sinewav]

...too many players leave waiting for their next match.

Even though I'm the one who usually has to leave early I still like the extra matches. I'm happy to play 5v5 or 4v4 in the loser bracket just for the sake of playing competitively. I think double-elimination is fun. The early Ladle start is good too.

I know this event seems a little rocky with the lack of player/team commitment and occasional server attacks, but it will get better. I think double-elimination is ideal for smaller Ladles. We are dealing with a lot of entropy right now, but things will eventually settle down and go smoother.

[Hoax]

Last ladle was the superbowl as well which has clashed before (although the NA ratio is already way higher)

[Gazelle]

The only way I see things getting better is if more people start playing the game, and at the moment there aren't enough people playing the game. This also causes new players who download the game to have a lack of enjoyment and not want to continue trying it out, which won't lead them to fortress or any other competitive game mode.

It's the first time in a long time I have seen a server browser with 0 people on tron and that alone tells me there is very little hope for the game, it sucks, but I think its about time we stop thinking there is a way to fix it, there is no fix for this that is free for that matter, the game itself is kick ass, but with the way things are now, nobody will probably ever hear of this unless its through word of mouth..

As for double elimination, it takes the "ladle" feel away, like I can see how its good under the circumstances that this game is in right now, where we don't have a plethora of players, but I feel like the satisfaction of winning ladle is that you weren't allowed to lose.. Now you can lose and still come back, and it just doesn't seem as rewarding. I think that if we have more than 8 teams we should consider going back to single elimination.

[Monkey]

I think that seeing as we have made these two changes, we should stick with them for a few Ladles to see how they go. As Hoax pointed out, Ladle 102 was on superbowl day. Ladle 103 will be on mother's day here in the UK so some of us may not be able to make it then too.

I feel like the satisfaction of winning ladle is that you weren't allowed to lose.. Now you can lose and still come back, and it just doesn't seem as rewarding.

Despite the fact that I've never won a Ladle, I agree with this comment. My ideal scenario would be to have a round robin group setup for the first stage of the Ladle, similar to that in the football (soccer) World Cup. However, our small community is far from ready for that.

[[Anonymous]]

This game isn't dying, its coming back.

[S0lutai]

I think ladle is fine as it is right now, start time could be changed though. Personally, it doesn't hurt me a lot playing it 45 minutes sooner, which isn't really THAT much of a change for me and others, of course there could be some exceptions. Matches started like 30-ish minutes after scheduled time I believe? So after all, the time we always waste before matches start remains the same, even with the time changed.

As for double elimination, it takes the "ladle" feel away, like I can see how its good under the circumstances that this game is in right now, where we don't have a plethora of players, but I feel like the satisfaction of winning ladle is that you weren't allowed to lose.. Now you can lose and still come back, and it just doesn't seem as rewarding. I think that if we have more than 8 teams we should consider going back to single elimination.

The problem with a single elimination tournament is that, in theory, the two best teams can play each other in the first round, and then one gets knocked out and the most competitive match of the tournament is over already.
One way to solve this is double elimination. Assuming the best team always win a match, double elimination guarantees that, not matter how the bracket is seeded, the finals will be between the best two teams of the tournament. It also tends to result in good accuracy for the rest of the bracket.

The problem with ladle's double elimination system is, as you say, you can lose and still come back with no problems. A pretty decent fix to this IMO is forcing the finalist from losing bracket to win 2 matches, while team from winning bracket only has to win 1. A little reward for being consistent through all the tournament. And it gives a bit of competitive spirit overall.

Single elimination is fine as long as there is an extensive and well thought out seeding (i.e. no byes). Double elimination is not necessary, but if the brackets aren't done correctly, single elimination is boring as hell for all the teams that are not top notch.

[Gazelle]

This game isn't dying, its coming back.

I almost laughed a little..


As for the double elimination, ladle was always exciting because you were always eager to see who you were going to play first, and not going to lie I always wanted to knock the best teams out first, but now it's like we know who is going to make it, there aren't enough GOOD teams for a double elimination to work, the same teams will always make the finals every month until more people come along and practice, but we don't have enough of that, nor will we.. I am not trying to be pessimistic, im just trying to look at it from a realistic viewpoint. There aren't enough good teams for this to work the way it is.

[Ratchet]

The problem with ladle's double elimination system is, as you say, you can lose and still come back with no problems. A pretty decent fix to this IMO is forcing the finalist from losing bracket to win 2 matches, while team from winning bracket only has to win 1. A little reward for being consistent through all the tournament. And it gives a bit of competitive spirit overall.

To be honest, that sounds pretty innovative.

Make the Ladle finals best of 5 (i.e. first to win 3 matches) and give the finalist from the winners bracket an automatic match win for being in the winners' bracket. In other words, the winning team would have to win 2 matches to take it home and the losing team would have to win 3 matches to take the win, a penalty for passing through the losers' bracket.

[sinewav]

...there aren't enough GOOD teams for a double elimination to work, the same teams will always make the finals every month until more people come along and practice, but we don't have enough of that, nor will we..

Let's remember what our focus. We are long past the point of trying to grow this game. We should only focus on making it fun for as many players as possible. To me that means more people playing, which double-elimination provides. With a community this small it is inevitable that the same couple teams will always win Ladle, single-elimination or not (really, it's always been this way to varying degrees).

Make the Ladle finals best of 5...

This is technically how double-elimination is supposed to work. During Ladle 100 we decided that Bo5 was too long. We also left it open for teams to change their mind during the Ladle. There are currently two open-ended rules for Ladle finals. One which we wrote into the Operations page, which is, all upper bracket finals are Bo3. The second, unofficial rule is that the undefeated team gets to pick the final Ladle server from any of the available servers (a decision partially motivated by recent DDoS activity).

This community has proven over and over again during pickup games that we can make decisions like this in-game. We can make Bo5 "officially" variable. In smaller It might be more fun for Ladle finalists Ladles in smaller events that stay on schedule.

[Magi]

but I feel like the satisfaction of winning ladle is that you weren't allowed to lose.. Now you can lose and still come back, and it just doesn't seem as rewarding.

You know what feels even worse than that though? Getting to finals back to back ladles to then only lose to the same team you already beat but now has 3 new players on it that they didn't have before.

Make the Ladle finals best of 5 (i.e. first to win 3 matches) and give the finalist from the winners bracket an automatic match win for being in the winners' bracket. In other words, the winning team would have to win 2 matches to take it home and the losing team would have to win 3 matches to take the win, a penalty for passing through the losers' bracket.

This is how dota's finals are done I think, koala or vov could probably confirm. Still though, having played in long best of fives before, I'd rather it just stay best of two, if we were to move to some sort of handicap system I'd rather it be the team in the winner's bracket only needs one win and the team that's already lost needs two wins. The idea of double elimination is cool and all, but playing the same group of people for like, 3 hours of the day is dreadfully boring.

[Recko]

lol no double elimination needed.. we will see one match only anyway

[Plee]

Hey guys, if you're looking for a team, let me know. Ct's open this ladle You can pm me on the arma forums but also on the ct forums if you have an account!