Ladle format discussion

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

Moderator: Light

Post Reply
User avatar
vov
Match Winner
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:40 pm

Ladle format discussion

Post by vov »

For the last couple of ladles, we have experimented a bit with different formats, and there has been a bit of discussion on the discord server. However, discord is not the best medium to put discussions like that - stuff is hard to find and navigate and lots of topics may be discussed at once in a channel.
I'm starting a thread here so discussion can be a bit more on point, not a headache to follow, and be preserved for the future in case the topic comes up again.

As of right now (heading up to Ladle #120) with the small amount of teams, debate is mostly between single elimination, double elimination, round robin and swiss system. Ladle 119 had been set up with a 4-round swiss system setup and a finals game between the top two; one of the games in the last swiss round between the two sure finalists had been skipped though. There was some controversy on how the algorithm (L119 used challonge.com) decided matchups and how it could lead to bad situations.

User avatar
delinquent
Match Winner
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:07 am

Re: Ladle format discussion

Post by delinquent »

My most recent point was regarding the scoring system. I proposed an adjusted system like so:

A win gains 10 points
A draw gains 5 pointes each
A loss gains Nothing

A bye gains 7 points

Titan asked why, and this is my reasoning:

Assume, for the moment, that a poorly performing team receives a bye in the second round (seeded teams getting first bye). They are subsequently opposed by a mid-range team, and a draw is reached. Assume, also, that another poorly performing team lost to the mid-range team first round.

Based on team metrics, the mid-range team might have expected to face a more skilled team in the third round, and to have lost as a result. The poorly performing team that received the first bye would also expect to face the other poorly performing team. However, as a result of that second-round bye, the mid-range team is now tied with the poorly performing team. This gives them an unfair disadvantage, and makes it difficult to match either team with any other team in a five-team tournament.

Reducing the points for a bye to 7 staggers this points gain, putting the team that has actually won a match ahead of the team that has done nothing. Meanwhile, the other poorly performing team takes the next bye and receives seven points, making the structure 7-12-15 between the three teams, with the mid-range team leading.

This also has a knock-on effect in ongoing points, were we to start a year's end tournament or something similar.

I also had the idea of starting each team at 50 points, deducting 5 for a loss, nothing for a bye, adding 5 for a draw respectively, and adding 10 for a win. However, that makes points calculation a bit more complex and probably merits me thinking longer on such a structure.

User avatar
Desolate
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Probably golfing

Re: Ladle format discussion

Post by Desolate »

So this is documented before the vote we need to have for Ladle 120:

Current State
  • <= 4 teams - Round robin, followed by a finals between the top 2 teams
  • > 8 teams - Single elimination knockout
Proposed Formats (5-8 Teams)
  • Option 1 - Single elimination knockout
    • Pros - Easy to follow, traditional approach, quicker tournament, no tiebreakers
    • Cons - Fewer matches, more randomness in matchmaking
  • Option 2 - Double elimination knockout, winner bracket finalists will have an advantage going into the finals
    • Pros - Traditional bracket approach, with second chance for every team, no tiebreakers
    • Cons - Confusing to follow, causing delays in between rounds. Winner's bracket has to wait for lower bracket to finish extra round. Finalists often end up meeting twice. (Note: I'm basing this off what I can remember from double elim tron tournaments in the past, they ended up being more of a mess than the below two options. However, recently the tournaments have been running pretty smoothly for the most part thanks to good prep beforehand, so it's possible these concerns are alleviated.)
  • Option 3 - Round robin, with various group sizes to accommodate the various number of teams
    • Pros - Easy to follow since matchups can be fully scheduled beforehand. More matches, more opportunities to practice, and able to play more opposing teams
    • Cons - Potentially longest approach, based on # of teams signed up. Potential for tiebreakers after group stage, leading to delays.
  • Option 4 - Swiss, using Challonge to automate matchups, finals between the top 2 teams (we don't have the time to consider a non-Challonge option for this ladle, but can definitely be an approach moving forward)
    • Pros - Easy to follow using external tool to automate matchmaking. More matches, more opportunities to practice, and able to play more opposing teams (although slightly less so than round robin).
    • Cons - Long approach, not necessarily meant to decide 2 finalists. Potential for tiebreakers, leading to delays. Confusion over matchmaking approach (Challonge or custom approach), cannot schedule beforehand since every round needs to be randomized.

blondie
Core Dumper
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Ladle format discussion

Post by blondie »

A format for a 5 team ladle:

Full round robin but best-of-1
Then best-of-3 semifinals with:
1st vs 4th
2nd vs 3rd
Head-to-head record breaks any ties
Last edited by blondie on Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
delinquent
Match Winner
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:07 am

Re: Ladle format discussion

Post by delinquent »

I don't like the idea of a bo1 tourney at all, tbh.

Frankly, it's too close to Ladle to vote on the format for 120 (as it's less than a week until the tournament), so I would propose we keep the current challonge format for L120 with the votes in this thread being for L121. Our last few ladles have been a bit disorganised, and I think it's because we've been ignoring the idea of closing entries and modification proposals a week prior.

abcd
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:09 pm

Re: Ladle format discussion

Post by abcd »

wwwwww.

User avatar
Desolate
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Probably golfing

Re: Ladle format discussion

Post by Desolate »

delinquent wrote:
Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:42 pm
I don't like the idea of a bo1 tourney at all, tbh.

Frankly, it's too close to Ladle to vote on the format for 120 (as it's less than a week until the tournament), so I would propose we keep the current challonge format for L120 with the votes in this thread being for L121. Our last few ladles have been a bit disorganised, and I think it's because we've been ignoring the idea of closing entries and modification proposals a week prior.
Last time we voted the Thursday before ladle, I would rather we decide on one of these options or Conc's proposed approach than stick with the most controversial option.

blondie
Core Dumper
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Ladle format discussion

Post by blondie »

Titan suggested after the b01 round robin that 1st place plays semi vs 4th, which makes sense and I will add to my suggestion post above

User avatar
delinquent
Match Winner
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:07 am

Re: Ladle format discussion

Post by delinquent »

Honestly, bo1 still doesn't sound like a good time to me. Mostly because teams often like to switch players or player positions between games, or change tactics to improve their odds. Shortening the round removes that option, IMO if we do this we're just going to face the same problem as we have been for years - one or two teams consistently get the advantage.

blondie
Core Dumper
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Ladle format discussion

Post by blondie »

Think of the round robin as a 4 game match where you need to win 2 games to advance to the knockout stage (going 1W-3L might even be good enough depending)

I don't really understand your claim of how the format gives anyone an advantage (or how the old format did either)

User avatar
delinquent
Match Winner
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:07 am

Re: Ladle format discussion

Post by delinquent »

Results of Deso's poll:
Capture.PNG
Ladle remains a 6v6 tournament, and this month we are repeating the Swiss tournament system using Challonge.

User avatar
Desolate
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Probably golfing

Re: Ladle format discussion

Post by Desolate »

Swiss went smoothly this time! This was an insanely intense and fun ladle! It was long as hell, but some of it was due to typical server technical issues and the competitiveness of some of the matches. The good news is we've basically identified the maximum length that this format can take with 5 teams.

Let's let this thread live on through Ladle 121 and possibly vote for a more permanent shift in format for 5-8 teams before that one.

ahsoka
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2020 3:21 am

Re: Ladle format discussion

Post by ahsoka »

I think it went smoothly but it was also close to a disaster

Magicians and Korean Meta could have intentionally drawn round 3 to nearly guarantee themselves final spots and eliminate TXA
Magicians could've forfeited/lost round 4 to play Paradigm in Finals, meaning Paradigm would've made finals without beating the 3rd or 4th place teams and Magicians would've been able to pick their finals opponent

Even with everyone playing with integrity, we very nearly had 3 way tie for second which would've extended the ladle even further. 3-way tiebreaker is a nightmare

Any of these things would've have laid bare some significant problems with the system for five teams, I think we just got lucky.

Post Reply