Ladle Rules

newbie · Post by **newbie** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:06 pm

well, 60 was a safe bet, but 80 would do the job

try one LLLR turn and you will see that despite not touching the wall and having a clear space between them your rubber will still go up by .1-.2

someone may say it is marginal and newer players probably won't feel any difference... but the fact is that this effect gets manifold while doing many turns and grinding close but still maintaining a small space between walls

try the simplest pattern of four LLLR RRRL turns forth and back, without touching the wall you will probably waste between 0.8 to 1 rubber

Corn1 · Post by **Corn1** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:24 pm

madmax wrote:
Z-Man wrote:The idea, I guess, would be to make a quick left-left-left-right combination use no rubber at all (...)
Nooooooooooooooooooo(o)! That benefits triple binders!
/offtopic

I use double binds and do that so triple is useless, regardless it is kind of unfair for single binders to change that setting.

hoop · Post by **hoop** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:39 pm

Hoax wrote:I think the only reason I would be/am for 2v2 conquerable is that it would prevent teams from sitting back & just defending..which is quite frankly just boring. An incentive to attack will liven things up maybe. You should win ladles with a good defence and attack.

in a 2v2 fight the defenders are not "sitting back and just defending", they simply cannot leave the zone to avoid losing, which is a penalty already. instead the attackers can do whatever they want, i.e. stay outside and try to close the enemies in a small place until they die
so leaving it unconquerable is just fair, for me

2020 · Post by **2020** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:09 pm

changing the basic physics of fortress setting
might be something which we do later

it's kind of like the new footballs in soccer
which have altered the game over the decades...

we just have to decide on the "rules" of the competition
don't we?

sinewav · Post by **sinewav** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:25 pm

I think there is a better way to decide the settings for this ladle and every following one without these circular discussions. I've thought a long time about this and I can see very little problem with it. We can add an extra step to the sign-up on the wiki. When a team adds their name to the challenge board, they also pick the rules they prefer for that particular ladle. The rules with the most support get used. It might look like this:

Team List
team a
team b
team c
...

Server List
server 1
server 2
...

Rules
1. Zone settings
___a. 2v2 is conquerable
_____team a, team b
___b. 2v2 is unconquerable (current)
_____team c

2. Bracket positions...
___a. should be completely random
_____team b
___b. should be seeded (current)
_____team a, team c
___c. previous winners hold their bracket position, new teams are shuffled in

3. Start time
___a. 6:30 GMT
_____
___b. 6:45 GMT (current)
_____team a, team b, team c
___c. 7:00 GMT

The rule with the most signatures is used for that ladle. If there is a tie, the previous (current) settings are used. This makes the settings more flexible and reduces threads like this one. Teams can have discussions about rules on their own forums and not fight here. The only problem I can foresee is the possibility of a "fraudulent" team that signs up, votes, then never shows up - a team that was constructed by someone in an effort to swing the vote. But, I think if this happens the foul play would be obvious.

So, what do you think?

newbie · Post by **newbie** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:32 pm

there is no better place than a tournament to introduce any new changes

and i am still for changing speed/accel but this time to 28/22 and this concept is almost 2 years old ! http://forums.armagetronad.net/viewtopi ... c&start=15

Corn1 · Post by **Corn1** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:49 pm

sinewav wrote:The only problem I can foresee is the possibility of a "fraudulent" team that signs up, votes, then never shows up - a team that was constructed by someone in an effort to swing the vote. But, I think if this happens the foul play would be obvious.

It might be easy to see foul play now, but we have to think future proof. In the future when theres a whole ton more teams it will be harder to detect foul play because with a whole ton of different teams you can be under the radar easier.

In general I really like the idea. My only question is that you said if a setting ties then we use the 'current' setting. The problem with that is what if 2 settings, both different from the 'current' one tie then do we go back to the current one? This doesn't seem to make sense because if the current one got barely any votes because people realized that the setting should be changed from its current for whatever reason than we are stuck with that setting because we got tied up in.. well a tie.

Other than that, I love it. We could have people sign what option they like via ~~~~ on the wiki.

sinewav · Post by **sinewav** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:55 pm

Corn1 wrote:It might be easy to see foul play now, but we have to think future proof.

Yes. I wish I had an answer other than "cross that bridge when we come to it".

Corn1 wrote:The problem with that is what if 2 settings, both different from the 'current' one tie then do we go back to the current one?

Excellent observation, I hadn't thought of that. My guess would be to continue the current setting, since there is no clear winner (even thought everyone is against it). The previous setting was already approved at least once, and why should a new rule get picked without a clear majority? Well, that's what I think until I hear something better. This isn't fool-proof, but I thinks it's a step in the right direction, because it doesn't look like we're getting anywhere right now.

2020 · Post by **2020** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:37 pm

hehehe
sorry sine
but that looks too complicate for me
hehhehehe
sorry

seems to me that we are doing what developers tend to do
try to provide as much flexibility for the end user as possible
v
the mac ethic
which is to make the interface ergonomic and aesthetic and well designed

imagine if chess had a million alternatives
which it actually does
but the reason why it appealed across so many cultures
was because it was standardised
simply

Hoax · Post by **Hoax** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:48 pm

hoop wrote:
Hoax wrote:I think the only reason I would be/am for 2v2 conquerable is that it would prevent teams from sitting back & just defending..which is quite frankly just boring. An incentive to attack will liven things up maybe. You should win ladles with a good defence and attack.
in a 2v2 fight the defenders are not "sitting back and just defending", they simply cannot leave the zone to avoid losing, which is a penalty already. instead the attackers can do whatever they want, i.e. stay outside and try to close the enemies in a small place until they die
so leaving it unconquerable is just fair, for me

Ah I meant in general not when it's just 2v2

1200 · Post by **1200** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:58 pm

Corn Wrote:

The problem with that is what if 2 settings, both different from the 'current' one tie then do we go back to the current one?

Maybe toss a coin??? If an old setting got thrown away for two new settings then there's a reason and prolly shouldn't be called back.

1200 · Post by **1200** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:04 pm

@2020

I share your views. Simple is good.
But how else would you do it for the collective to setup rules and settings that is simpler??
I don't think Sine's suggestion is that complex....

2020 · Post by **2020** » Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:45 pm

ok
if sinewav's idea is long term
it allows us to play with different configurations as we progress through the ladles...

this sounds good
since it allows us to try things out rather than get caught in the knots of opinion which forums and threads are prone to get us tied into

when it comes down to it
it's not about opinion
it's about holding to principle
and these are trickier to "argue" about...

the basic fortress design came out of zman's head
two zones with 8 players per team
as did the whole acceleration wrt proximity to deal with lag problem
...
why don't we chat about having 10 players per side?
or having four zones (which was fun actually)?

there are so many variables
so many choices...
and yet things seem to have evolved into a variety of different server types
like football evolved various types of versions...

so...
1
why fix it if it ain't broke?
2
in order to evolve beyond individual skill
into true teamwork
the parameters of the actual game need to remain constant

i believe fortress is a well designed game
and it is good platform for individual skill and teamwork
the second of which has yet to blossom

we just have to limit the scope of our discussion

methodology:
anyone with a good complete design idea
puts together a video which deals with the whole thing
and then we can compare different holistic systems...
then we can comment or skype or whatever...
design by committee gives us mud...

edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8XgPDs_pHc&NR=1
if their website was as good as the video and the concepts
this would be a very useful tool for a collective
edit edit:
the MIT boys seem to have produced something a little closer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31Ipljh_Zsg

1200 · Post by **1200** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:12 am

2020 Wrote:

in order to evolve beyond individual skill
into true teamwork
the parameters of the actual game need to remain constant

Agrees i think i said a similar thing on wordpress.

we just have to limit the scope of our discussion

I'm not sure how you go about doing that or if that is a good idea. I like the freedom of speech but at the same time there are a lot of unrelated comments that get placed in a thread.
But i do like the principles & the system discussed in the truthmapping video.

anyone with a good complete design idea
puts together a video which deals with the whole thing
and then we can compare different holistic systems...

It helps but I don't think making a video is always necessary just to present an idea. But i wish people that make comments would give reasons why. Often people make statements without backing up what they say.

2020 · Post by **2020** » Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:19 am

just in case peeps didn't believe me when i wrote my first big post in this topic
about this being the real edge wrt collective collaboration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMYt9M_8Ebs
explains that we are in fact in the middle of a non-linear negotiation
which accounts for the subtle complexity

why do you think i like the simplicity of fortress and tronic progression?
this is a perfect test-case environment for experimentation
in this incredibly important edge of human learning

and the bonus is
we get to have fun while we do it!