Ladle 17

[DDMJ]

Also why do teams who lost their first and only match in the last ladle get to be seeded*?

We have no other 8+ team Ladles to base our decision off of, so this will have to do for Ladle 17. Then, for the next Ladles, it will be easier to choose who gets the bye based on the # of teams that are playing.

[kyle]

I have not changed from what I said before. 6 seeded teams is way too many. I get what your saying, but This is the way I look at it, you are punishing the new teams just because they have not played under a certain name. Randomly pick them all then you don't have those teams mad if they have to play an extra round I mean if we can randomly select all the teams no one should feel discriminated against.

[Hoax]

I just changed the first round text to Round of 16.

lol, no. There isn't 16 teams in this round. It's not the world cup..


lack are you suggesting 100% random placings?

[epsy]

I'd go for 100% random

[Lackadaisical]

Well if it was my choice it would be 4 seeds, or if not 2 seeds, or thirdly completely random. 6 seeds just seems a bit arbitrarily (and as I said before, I'd rather have a solution that will work for upcoming ladles as well, what if we have 11 teams next time of which only 5 of them played now? or what if we have 9 teams and 8 of them were in ladle 17?)

[kyle]

what if non of the previous ladle teams sign up for the next one

100% random only thing that will always work

[hoop]

/me agrees 100%

[Lackadaisical]

Yeah I guess I should've said: If it was my choice all teams who made it to the semifinals in the previous ladle should get a seed, or if not those who made the finals, the rest of the teams will get a random teamnumber.

[owned]

well 3 out of the 4 semifinalists from the last ladle are playing now (since KOZ is basically KOD) So
1.Ct
2.X
3.KOD
4. Randomly picked.

Everyone fine with this?

Also, what do you guys think of third place matches?

[Concord]

I think we should do whatever this guy wrote ^^

What about this:

1 finalist out of a bracket of 4

3 potential finalists out of a bracket of 6. They play a round robin, just 1 match to 100 against another semifinalist, winner stays on, first team to 2 matches won moves on. Max 4 matches.

Code: Select all

a.) 1 v 2
b.) winner of a.) v 3
c if needed.) 3 v loser of a.)
d if needed.) winner of c.) v winner of a.)

The problem would be having 8 players in spectator all the time, and reorganizing teams when matches end. However, this could be managed well with a adept admin on site and/or kicking the teams where they need to be.

It is "fair," you can only blame losses on you team's performance, and "equal", every team, regardless of starting position, has to win 4 out 6 matches they play to make the finals.

Or just pick random seeds. This is "fair" but not equal.

[Lackadaisical]

I don't think 2 people is enough to make one team count for another..

edit:

concord: what if

Code: Select all

a) team 1 wins
b) team 3 wins
c) team 2 wins
d) team 3 has no chance to go to the finals even though he played just as good as the other two teams?

edit 2: in the end it doesn't matter, the best team is going to win no matter how you start, but imho it is desirable to spread the teams we know to be good as much as possible.

[Concord]

ah! you're right, lack

how about, same thing, but 1st to 3. If a team in that match plays 3 matches and only wins 1 they are eliminated on the spot.

[Monkey]

since KOZ is basically KOD

Not even close. The Ladle 17 KOD team is very different to KoZ. In fact, I think that only 1200 and Luzifer were in both (correct me if I am wrong).

I agree with kyle/Lack/etc in that less seeds are better. Have you guys never seen how professional sports tournaments are arranged? I have played in amateur sports tournaments and they are run similarly. You either have a small number of seeds or no seeds at all. Take Wimbledon (tennis) as an example. There are 128 players in the singles tournaments but only 20 are seeded. Then take the world cup (football/soccer) as another example. There is no seeding at all.

Also, past results of teams/individuals are only a part of how their seedings are decided. A large factor is human judgement. I have observed seedings in certain sports and they don't fully correlate to the rankings of the teams or individuals. Teams and individuals change and so do conditions and circumstances. Seeding has to reflect this.

I think that we are still too small and teams change too much each Ladle for us to try to seed at the moment. If we have to have seeding, then 4 should be the maximum.

Are we going to have polls at some point?

[DDMJ]

I agree with kyle/Lack/etc in that less seeds are better. Have you guys never seen how professional sports tournaments are arranged? I have played in amateur sports tournaments and they are run similarly. You either have a small number of seeds or no seeds at all. Take Wimbledon (tennis) as an example. There are 128 players in the singles tournaments but only 20 are seeded. Then take the world cup (football/soccer) as another example. There is no seeding at all.

That's a horrible parallel Monkey. If there's 8,16,32,64,or 128 teams, then our issue doesn't come up. The problem we have here is that 4 teams will have to play 1 extra game than the other 6 if they want to win the Ladle.

[sinewav]

So, what are our options for a poll?

100% random (no seeds)

2 seeds (CT, |X|)

4 seed max

6 seeds

Am I missing something? I'm starting to get confused.