Ladle 17

[Lucifer]

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

No. In a fencing tournament, the idea is that of all the participants, to have a single-elimination tournament, you have to start the single elimination with a set number of players. Here, the problem is you need exactly 8 teams to do it the way you want to do it. If you get 16 teams, you can still do it the way you want to, but the problem is that you have more than 8, and less than 16.

So, in fencing, they deal with this situation by filtering out the suckiest players right away. You organize everyone into pools, give them abbreviated bouts, and just have them do several bouts. Eliminate enough people in the pools so that you have your ideal number of players to start single elimination. Typically, the pool bouts will be timed, exactly one minute long. Sometimes they only go to first touch, where the first person to score a point on the other wins the bout.

Here, you could do one round instead of a whole match. Or even just do first to 10 points (where you could win by slaughtering the other team and not even touching their fortress). Organize your pools a certain way, make the initial matches short enough, and you can be done with the pools in 15 minutes. The results of the pools can be used to seed the tournament, or you can just do whatever you normally do with the 8 teams that are left. The only real point of the pools is to end with the ideal number of teams you need to have the single-elimination tournament you want.

That way, everybody has to get into the first single elimination round the same way. There's no disadvantage to be had by having some teams have to play an extra round (and therefore risk getting eliminated early), and there's no need to play the "teams that have been in the Ladle before get a bye" card.

[Concord]

That way, everybody has to get into the first single elimination round the same way. There's no disadvantage to be had by having some teams have to play an extra round (and therefore risk getting eliminated early), and there's no need to play the "teams that have been in the Ladle before get a bye" card.

This would suck, Luci some teams would be out without having played a full match. With this I doubt we'd get 10 teams for Ladle 18.

[Lucifer]

That way, everybody has to get into the first single elimination round the same way. There's no disadvantage to be had by having some teams have to play an extra round (and therefore risk getting eliminated early), and there's no need to play the "teams that have been in the Ladle before get a bye" card.

This would suck, Luci some teams would be out without having played a full match. With this I doubt we'd get 10 teams for Ladle 18.

Considering that I only offered ways the pools could be organized but didn't explicitly give an opinion on how they should be organized (outside the number of teams allowed to proceed afterwards), your conclusion is erroneous because it is based on an assumption.

How would you prefer to organize a series of short matches that meet the requirements and satisfy the teams involved that the initial eliminations were fair (assuming a definition of "fair" that is more than just "everybody plays by the same rules")?

[Concord]

Considering that I only offered ways the pools could be organized but didn't explicitly give an opinion on how they should be organized (outside the number of teams allowed to proceed afterwards), your conclusion is erroneous because it is based on an assumption.

Here, you could do one round instead of a whole match. Or even just do first to 10 points (where you could win by slaughtering the other team and not even touching their fortress). Organize your pools a certain way, make the initial matches short enough, and you can be done with the pools in 15 minutes. The results of the pools can be used to seed the tournament, or you can just do whatever you normally do with the 8 teams that are left. The only real point of the pools is to end with the ideal number of teams you need to have the single-elimination tournament you want.

[Lucifer]

/me hands Concord the "Totally Not Getting It Award"

[Concord]

/me accepts as he still does not get it at all.

[sinewav]

You organize everyone into pools, give them abbreviated bouts, and just have them do several bouts.

Excellent idea. We should try it in L-18. And I think the teams who aren't organized enough to show up for the pool are automatically out.

[Monkey]

As many of you may know, I made two teams for this Ladle. One I am in charge of and the other I asked Desolate if he would be in charge of it...and he accepted. I gave him and his team each other's email addresses but, even despite many of them emailing him, he has not communicated back. I emailed him serveral times recently but got no response. Therefore, with the Ladle being so close and with the deadline for adding/removing teams being wednesday, I have had to remove Desolate's team from the Ladle.

I am trying to find spaces on other teams for the players. My team, noob_saibot's team and probably Wild West+ID's too should be able to accomodate most of them at least. If any other teams have space then don't hesitate to say.

[1200]

I think there is a mistake on the match start times on the Wiki challenge board. There should be a 5 hour difference between GMT & EST.
Can someone verify this and fix it....


http://wiki.armagetronad.net/index.php? ... enge_Board

[kyle]

1200 you are correct for this half of the year, other half is GMT-4, Corrected i know CDT was off also so I assumed that PDT was also ,so i corrected it also.

[1200]

TY Sir Kyle! I didn't change cos i didn't know which was the correct start time...

[Corn1]

You organize everyone into pools, give them abbreviated bouts, and just have them do several bouts.

Excellent idea. We should try it in L-18. And I think the teams who aren't organized enough to show up for the pool are automatically out.

Im pretty sure the point isn't to find ways to weed out teams but more to get people interested. I'm not saying i support unorganization but making people jump through hoops doesn't make people happy.

[sinewav]

I'm not saying i support unorganization but making people jump through hoops doesn't make people happy.

What, you mean "show up for an extra match at a given time?" That's hardly making people jump through hoops. Sure, I'd love it if more people played fortress, but participants need SOME level of commitment. For instance, half the Ww team still doesn't know when the ladle is. A lot of them just aren't as interested as the rest of us. Should the Fortress community bend over backwards to coerce them into playing? Already, the amount of time guys like Monkey and Durka put into getting people together is amazing. They need to be met halfway.

But I do see what you mean. I'm sure that a couple quick bouts just before a ladle would be enough. It wouldn't take much time, and teams would already have to be there. That doesn't seem unreasonable at all.

And, I don't think "the point" of all this is to put on an exhibition of Fortress as a means to stir interest. We're trying to run the actual tournament here.

[Concord]

1,000,000 players in a year's time self-organising a tournament of Fortress to be held in one day, the champion team winning THE CUP and £16,000 per player, with post-dated funding of server admin, programming-developers, and game-designers.

I think that's ^ the goal. Right now we only have around 100 players, so. . .

[Monkey]

I have managed to fit the players from Desolate's team into other teams nicely. With some people being removed from teams due to unreliability and some being removed because they can't make the Ladle after all, it has all worked out well.