Ladle 17

[sinewav]

The only way to let all teams have the same chances is counting the scores.

I kind of like that idea. Should SCORE_LIMIT be set higher or kept at 100? Do teams have to win by 10 points? I forgot, sorry.

Oh, and I'm now available to play in L-17 if someone needs me.

[SageLord]

Personally, I like the idea of having the byes at the beginning, that way we don't have teams waiting around for others to finish. You could figure out beforehand who gets the byes and they can just skip the first round and come right into the semi-finals.

I also like lack's idea for closing sign-ups early to figure this all out, fwiw...



First poast?

[Lackadaisical]

The last time I tried to convince someone (epsy) why their idea (score_hole) wasn't a good one, I pretty much got ignored, along with many other people.

So, with that being said, I'm not even going to waste my time trying to convince you guys that picking 6 random teams to get a bye while 4 others have to play an extra game, is a bad idea.

Durka, I didn't like it either that epsy did not want to go into a discussion about the TST, but I don't think the way the ladle has been run can be compared with how the TST is done.

Trying to work with the little hints you give why my idea is a bad idea, I'd like to note that considering the highest 4 placed teams of last ladle get seeded, just two random teams get lucky.

Why not just expand the bracket, add another round and use around 2 byes instead of 6... What you guys are trying to do is cope with the expansion of interest in fortress with the use of byes, that doesn't work because it leaves people sitting around even more and they get mad because they're waiting for their bye to be over instead of fighting the other teams that are waiting on their byes themselves. The best way to do this is use 2 or 3 byes and instead have another round added to the tournament to make a smaller matchup not just pretend they cant fight eachother. Because think of it this way, why cant those people sitting in their byes fight against eachother rather then wait for the next round?

Corn, I'd like to see your schedule, because in the way I proposed noone has to wait for a bye, there's just four teams who will have to start earlier (or the rest later).


1200, I don't see what the exact advantage is of your schedule, because basically it all takes the same amount of time (4 rounds), and I think it's unfair that one team only needs to be better than 3 other teams and the other needs to be better than 5 other teams to reach the finals. Also this seems like it is specifically catered for 10 teams, I'd rather not have this discussion again when we have 11 or 12 or 13 etc teams and just have one way that is more easily expanded to more teams.


Using scores to determine who gets to the next round is just a terrible idea. Scores only say something about how good they are compared to one other team, and says nothing about how good the five winning teams compare to eachother.

edit: added a picture for some clarity

[Monkey]

Durka, I think you misread something in Lack's post about team spots and byes. His method is just that 4 teams get "seeded spots" while the others get random spots. The the priority of getting a bye goes to higher seeded teams and if all seeded teams get a bye, any more byes are just random as to who gets them. Surely this method is the most logical way to do it.

I'm not saying we should close out teams, but I just don't think we will be able to fill 8 full teams this time.

The lol.

[1200]

Lacka Wroted:

1200, I don't see what the exact advantage is of your schedule,

I was just chipping in the idea but an advantage with my config for the 10 Team scenario would be that only 4 teams would have to play the extra round as opposed to six teams in your scenario.
But since your config accomodates for up to 16 teams i'd say it'd be cool so we don't have to go thru all this again like you said...

[Goodygumdrops]

I agree with lacka, it is best to have a way that is ready to expand to more teams with minimal tweaking if necessary.

[DDMJ]

The only way to let all teams have the same chances is counting the scores. That's a painful way, I know but... maybe it's the fairest way.
so we'd have 5 games at start. Each 3 matches must be played to take the real score
for example, the results of team A vs team B might be
100 - 85
91 - 100
100 - 40
team A's score is 291.
After this first round we'd have then 5 winners: the team with the lower score will be discarded and we'd just continue with semifinals
Just an idea

So if only one team wins 2-0, they're automatically out even though they were "the best" but didn't get any points from the 3rd match, thus resulting in the lowest score.

[Corn1]

Ok lack i understand the schedule now, from what i understood before is that some teams would not have another team to play against due to the seeds and would have to wait an extra round because they werent able to play. Clearly that was wrong.

I think choosing seeds is hard aswell, maybe take the average of the last 2 to 4 ladles and find the winners to be able to understand a overall winner not just teams that got lucky or unlucky. This could come in conflict with teams that are either randoms or new though.

[Concord]

The only way to let all teams have the same chances is counting the scores. That's a painful way, I know but... maybe it's the fairest way.
so we'd have 5 games at start. Each 3 matches must be played to take the real score
for example, the results of team A vs team B might be
100 - 85
91 - 100
100 - 40
team A's score is 291.
After this first round we'd have then 5 winners: the team with the lower score will be discarded and we'd just continue with semifinals
Just an idea

So if only one team wins 2-0, they're automatically out even though they were "the best" but didn't get any points from the 3rd match, thus resulting in the lowest score.

In addition, hoop, it is just cruel to have a team that won discarded. That would suck so much. There would be no finality. Winning wouldn't be conclusive.

[hoop]

So if only one team wins 2-0, they're automatically out even though they were "the best" but didn't get any points from the 3rd match, thus resulting in the lowest score.

[...] Each 3 matches must be played to take the real score [...]

Maybe my way to spell it wasn't clear. The 3rd match will be played even in case of 2-0

In addition, hoop, it is just cruel to have a team that won discarded. That would suck so much. There would be no finality. Winning wouldn't be conclusive.

True, Concord.
Anyway I don't really like that some teams will have to play more matches than others

[owned]

I think choosing seeds is hard aswell, maybe take the average of the last 2 to 4 ladles and find the winners to be able to understand a overall winner not just teams that got lucky or unlucky. This could come in conflict with teams that are either randoms or new though.

Well going back to last ladle, you can get

1.CT
2.X
3.KOZ (now KOD) since MC isn't playing now.
4. Go to the ladle before that, and DS was 2nd so DS.

[Lucifer]

Why not just run a couple of pools before the elimination starts?

So, there's what, 10 teams? Run two pools of 5 teams, have each team play 1 match with each other team. Or split it up into 2 pools of 3 teams and 1 pool of 4 teams.

Give each team one point for each match they win.

Eliminate the lowest scored teams until you have only 8 teams, then continue as normal.

Note: They do this in fencing tournaments.

[kyle]

I think 1200's idea, but forget about the seeding just randomly poll each team into a position.

place the 10 teams and 6 bye's into an array and shuffle them around a few times

them take a random element from it and set that to team 1 remove it and repeat.

If you are afraid this may poll our 2 bye's into playing each other , predetermine where each bye / team is (meaning team 1 through team 10 with the 64 bye's placed) and basically do what i said above.

if you are 1 of the 4 teams that has to play an extra round, it was by chance and you'll have to live with it.


@Lucifer, don't you think that would be too time consuming

[1200]

1200 Wroted

I was just chipping in the idea but an advantage with my config for the 10 Team scenario would be that only 4 teams would have to play the extra round as opposed to six teams in your scenario.

Upon further examintaion. I think Team 11 in lacka's diagram is a mistake so his config would also have only 4 teams that would have to play the extra round. Its actually same as my config if Lacka switched Team 3 & Team5/9. But again Lacka's is better i think cos it forces the unseeded teams that won the extra round to play a seeded team in the following round which is not the case in mine and his can accomodate 16 teams. Nuff said...ignore my config and move on....

[sinewav]

Maybe it's time for a poll?