Twenthieth TRONIC Ladle

Concord · Post by **Concord** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:20 am

Where to start...

So, here we are. A month away from the 20th Ladle. We just put a nineteenth Ladle in the books and crowned another fortress champion, congratulations again Kill or Die members. We did not make much progress between the eighteenth and nineteenth. Not much at all, actually. But we did maintain, which is good, right? Well the major problems facing us became very clear to me today. Firstly, timing. With current scoring, matches take longer than 45 minutes. Teams take around 15 minutes in between matches as well. And overall, the tournament runs as fast as its slowest matches. So, what can we do to fix this. Scoring could be adjusted. We could do away with points for kills, and just award 1 point for a round win. Theoretically, players would be less cautious than they are, and matches would move faster. This takes away a bit of the fun of Fortress though. We could set a match time limit so that each match is at maximum 13 or 14 or 15 minutes. This causes the losing team to play more aggressively, rather than packing into their defense, as they do currently. We could reduce the number of points needed to be won for a match. Setting it to 75, would dramatically reduce how long matches take. The most attractive option and the one I'm currently favoring, is playing only 2 matches, and having the winner advance on total points, crediting a won match as 10 points. This gives credit to teams that lose close matches, but still insures that match wins count. Only playing 2 matches, it is foreseeable that rounds would take 45 minutes or less. The lag between when round a ends and round b starts needs to be dramatically reduced as well. We need to give administrators more power to start matches by a given time, regardless of whether a team is "ready" or not. The administrator should have the most authority in the server, not the team captain or the loudest player.
We need to define a set of protocols for teams and administrators to follow when servers crash, when players randomly leave, or when other players join teams. We need to insure there is an administrator or someone with administrator access present at every match, or at least in the beginning of every match. Administrators need to be able to lock teams or need to instruct team captains to do so, in case the team captain is not savvy with chat commands. The team captains need to be in IRC, before and in between matches.
We need to tighten up our process if we are going to conduct bigger and bigger events on a schedule.

Speaking of bigger and bigger events, we need help. I did a lot of work for this Ladle, I enjoyed that work and I'm glad to see it paid off, bringing a couple new teams into the fray. There are many people who have been and continue to be great at working towards the Bowl, namely, sine.wav, pike, Radian, Owned, 2020, Corn, kyle, compguygene, PinkTomato, Z-Man and many others. All of us have been working and adding our talents in different ways. Sine.wav, pike, and 2020 have been producing some amazing videos. (If you don't know what I'm talking about: playfortress.wordpress.com/video/, davidpinto.org/tron/tronpodcast.html, youtube.com/user/i2020, youtube.com/user/playfortress, youtube.com/user/bhilmers, youtube.com/user/dragongateinn) Corn and Owned have provided essential reality checks and invaluable constructive criticism. Kyle and Z-Man have been saints on the server end of our shenanigans. Radian and 2020 have been keeping us all positive with their keen observations and idealistic thinking. Pike has been the Man, organizing two open teams this past ladle. We need more though! To reach 32 teams, which is definitely possible, we need to engage to full volume of Armagetron players. If we just get a team from each popular server, we will be mighty close to a 32 team event. A Durka Durka Land squad of 8. A Cheers squad of 8. A Wild West Capture the Flag squad of 8. A Crazy Tronners Wild Fortress squad of 8. A Delicious Desserts racing squad of 8. A Immortal Dynasty DogFight squad of 8. This sounds overwhelming, of course. However, it can be accomplished with relative ease. Easily, if one person takes just one a team to organize, he can give individual attention to that team, create a forum for them, insure they will show up. It is overwhelming if one person (in this past ladle: myself) running around trying to get 5 squads to show up with 8 players, and half-failing to do it because one player cannot produce enough energy or time to show proper care for 5 new teams. But if we each took on just one team we could do it, easily. This would mean spending some time in those servers, and being friendly, and being very persistent. It is not a wholly easy thing to do, organizing new players to play a game mode they haven't played. And it sure takes effort. But isn't it worth it?

I don't want to get too lost here but say we are able to create the Cup. You'd be one of the world's best at something a lot of people are trying to be the best at. How many people get to say that. About anything.

So, I got a bit exhausted this past ladle, and much of the work I did came to naught. Dev/null, VcL and NW all had too few players. The players of Pru V. ID thought matches were best of 1, and threw the whole timetable off. Part of this is my fault, I learned it is difficult to succeed in all this, and play on a team myself. However, I don't just want pity or attention, I want things to actually progress. I have learned on the fly some techniques for engaging players. I would love it if instead of running around finding teams in Durka Durka Land, Crazy Tronners Wild Fortress, Cheers, Immortal Dynasty High Rubber, Capture the Flag, Delicious Desserts Racing, that I could support 5 new organizers going into these communities and introducing fortress and building a team. Send a p.m. or email (concord.arma {at} gmail.com) !

Many of us want things to progress, to change. And many of us have fantastic ideas on how to do that, (Armagetron Revitalization, Community Arbitrators are the two most recent examples). Things won't actually change if we just talk about them, no matter how good our conversations may be. We need to act. The great thing is, the more that act, the less each person has to do. Part of it is inertia. To start acting one needs the initial burst of energy. Mine came after the sixteenth Ladle, when I started playfortress. Others have gotten moving as well. Many have not. So maybe this post can act as that initial push. That bit to get you rolling. TRONIC is so diverse that there is an application for your specific talent, and there is a ton of diverse talent in the Armagetron community. A PHP challenge board would be a fantastic addition, if we could get moving on the match coordination website. In game organizing of teams, reaching out to virtual and real life friends with the game, every bit helps and every bit is appreciated. Make the decision.

kyle · Post by **kyle** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:39 am

I think a timelimit may be the best option to keep the ladle moving on time. but as we work to the bowl, what about having the first round or first 2 rounds matches the day before? this also gives teams a bit of a brake, a time to stratagize heading in to the final 2 to 4 rounds.

Another thing that would be helpful is when teams sign up (or within the week before the ladle the team leader leaves their global ID on the team signup list. this way server admins are able to give admin access to each of the teams. Concord was very lucky today to find me and have me able to give him admin on Crazy Tronners server.

we had 17 for ladle 19 lets see 24 for this next one. As son as the challenge board opens up Start signing up and lets hope for a 24 team lineup.

owned · Post by **owned** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:47 am

We need to set up a solid foundation of rules for the Ladle so everyone knows exactly what will happen. So lets continue discussing on the other topic. I agree with you concord, in that we need to reach out to the other communities in armagetron in order to get 32 teams for the bowl. We need to start now and to try to get as many teams as possible playing.

About the timing, matches do take longer than an hour. Maybe have an one hour time limit for all 3-match-matches and 1:30 for the final? we would need to spread it over two days (Saturday and Sunday, or opposing Sundays) but as the tourney grows, this will become necessary.

sinewav · Post by **sinewav** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:19 am

I also thought of setting LIMIT_TIME 10. Right now, each final is slated to last 45 minutes. With a time limit, a final is guaranteed to end 30 minutes after it starts (unless the server crashes). In addition, it might be kind of thrilling to see "30 seconds remaining" flash on the screen.

Timed events can be very exciting because you fight against the clock too (like football/soccer and basketball). In addition, this also opens up a new avenue of strategy, not just scoring points but managing the clock.

Owned, didn't you say today that you thought the perfect size team was 6-7 players? Maybe that's a good idea. The benefits are: a little less lag, easier to manage teams, it's easier to put one together, and ultimately - more teams! It becomes more reasonable for a team of 4-5 to compete.

I think L-19 was great. My only complaint was the time it took to play it. I imagine there will be a point where we outgrow the ladle and have to do something like the AFL, but we're not quite there yet.

noob_saibot · Post by **noob_saibot** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:57 am

Yeah timing was a bit of an issue. Waiting around for so long was a bit of a pain but it all worked out in the end.

Personally I don't think a good match should be "ruined" because of a time limit. A time limit could take away from some of the most enjoyable things we experience playing these things....

Perhaps, more should be put on team leaders, admins, moderators or whatever have you, to make sure its organized: the ID - VCL thing was ridic, that was the main reason things were set back. The length of the matches wasn't the problem, it was people not being aware of what they were doing.

1200 · Post by **1200** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:00 am

Concord Suggested:

Scoring could be adjusted. We could do away with points for kills, and just award 1 point for a round win. Theoretically, players would be less cautious than they are, and matches would move faster.

I don't think taking away points will make players less cautious because its having the number advantage that usually conquers zones so each life is preciious even with or without kill points.

I think foremost thing that can reduce loss of time is starting matches on time and letting admins force start of the time. The finals today was 2 hours late because of it. If teams don't know how many matches they are supposed to play i think thats their problem. They should at least read the guideline/rules if they want to compete in a tourny. Which is why it is imperative to update and make new rules like forcing start time etc so the next ladle can run smooth.

As for putting the time-limit on the matches.... it is good to be able to put a limit on how long matches take but it will no doubt change the way the game is going to be played....for better or for worse...

Example 1: Team A is winning against Team B by two points. It comes down to 1vs1 situation where Team B is defending. All Team A has to do it run the clock down without attacking... this i would say takes out excitement out of play cos we don't get to see the 1vs1 battle.

Example 2: Team A is losing against Team B by 8 points. It comes down to 2vs1 situation where Team B is defended by a lone defender. This would force Team A to attack aggressively instead of trying to gank slowly... i don't know if this is a good or bad...without clock Team A has the advantage but with clock they don't....

We could also allocate more time for each round say 1 hour instead of 45 mins. I personally like long rounds and would hate to see a good fight stopped because of the clock. But i'd be ok to experiment if people want it. Another idea is to have a time limit in the pre-liminaries but lift the time-limit for the finals and make the semis have a lil longer time limit???

DDMJ · Post by **DDMJ** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:02 am

Ok, I didn't play in this Ladle, but I have a few suggestions for the next one:

1) Team size:
- Recently, teams with only 1 player have been signed up to play! Why?...or teams with 4 players! C'mon guys. This is my new suggestion:
- Teams must have at least 6 players.
- Along with the 6 player minimum, I suggest that matches are 6v6 from now on. For those that played in the AFL, they might agree with me that 6v6 is more fun/competitive than 8v8.
- 8v8 = 16 players, 6v6 = 12 players, that's 33% more players!...which leads to even more lag!
- 6v6 involves more strategy. 6v6 isn't as chaotic (less players on the grid). In 6v6, everyone's role is that much more important. In 6v6, the grind and split is even more crucial!
- And overall, we want more teams right? That's exactly what 6v6 gives us. 3 teams of 8 = 24 players. But if we do teams of 6, those same 24 players can be divided into 4 teams!
- Oh, and how could I forget?! 6v6 = shorter rounds!

2) Organization
- I'm always really confused when it comes to the servers. Why does every server have a completely different looking name? And, why are some of the servers not up? Can't we get a reliable base of servers that actually work? My next suggestion is for generalized server names:

Code: Select all

(Ladle 20) TR vs CT (~|DS|~ Server)
(Ladle 20) KoD vs WW (|x| Server)
(Ladle 20) + vs |x| (Z-Man's Server)
(Ladle 20) SP vs DS (TR Server)
...etc...

- Then, everyone will know what server to play in (of course, server admins will have to update this every so often) and non-ladle participants might inquire why so many players are in servers that start with (Ladle 20), rather than wonder what the hell "Wild West =Fortress=" is being used for.
- Another suggestion is for a lounge. Wild West does this for their tourneys. Basically, one server acts as a giant chatroom. Yes IRC should be the way team captains communicate amongst each other, but at the same time IRC should only be for team captains (otherwise, with other players spamming the discussion, little progress is made). I know that CT has at least 2 different machines that they host servers from. What I suggest is a server with:

Code: Select all

CYCLE_RUBBER 100
CYCLE_WALLS_LENGTH 1
MAX_CLIENTS 100
SIZE_FACTOR 4
TEAM_MAX_PLAYERS 1
TEAMS_MAX 2
WALLS_LENGTH 1

- Basically, in this server, only 2 players will be allowed on the grid and they won't easily die, so essentially, it's just a giant chatroom with tons and tons of players in spec mode talking (*team captains should still meet in IRC*).

That's all I have for now. I'll brainstorm some more ideas later.

Website · Post by **Z-Man** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 10:08 am

/me agrees with Durka 150%.

1200 wrote:Example 1: Team A is winning against Team B by two points. It comes down to 1vs1 situation where Team B is defending. All Team A has to do it run the clock down without attacking... this i would say takes out excitement out of play cos we don't get to see the 1vs1 battle.

B has the choice to suicide. If A is really not making much of an effort, B may even manage to deny them the conquest points. Sure, suck it does.

The Basketball solution of limiting round time would also be possible. Nuke zone, anyone? The time limit needs to be much larger than your typical round time without the limit, though, or defenders will resort to strategies that don't aim at outlasting the other defender, but just the short time limit.

But yeah, main delay definitely was that one first round game taking ages/not getting started on time/getting played with rule confusion/I wasn't there, I don't know. We need admins or someone else with implied authority present at each match to ensure there are no undue delays. I myself am guilty of letting a game start late by 20 minutes, luckily that was buffered. Won't do that next time. Be ye warned.

compguygene · Post by **compguygene** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:36 am

Ok, I gotta weigh in on this team size thing....

I think that it is STUPID to go with a maximum team size less than 8!

Fine, np, we need to have a minimum team size to sign up of 6!

But, a lot of the most fun tactics that make fortress fun to play, require 8 players. If a team cannot learn to build up to a size larger than that to have 8, or make do with 6 or 7 to own the weaker 8 player teams....too bad.

I think that the cries of LAG, LAG, LAG when we American players are playing in Euro servers with 16 total players are cries of people who have not learned the finer points of the game. I don't tolerate such behavior from my team members, they know better! As most, if not all of you know, Lag is part of the game! Use it to your advantage or be owned by it!

I mean really people, what makes this fun is to coordinate the strategy and tactics of 2 sweepers, a goalie, 2 midfielders, and a 3 person attack team. Or have some of you forgotten the joy of that?

A two day solution would probably mean not the same players would all be available.

IMHO, and I recognize my noobiness compared to all of you, perhaps awarding 1 point for winning the round is the real solution, and not rewarding individual kills. Not only would it speed things up. But smart teams would still teach people to survive and work the fortress formula of MORE PLAYERS ALIVE KILLING OTHER TEAM UNTIL ONLY GOALIE LEFT USUALLY = WON FORTRESS!

ed · Post by ed » Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:04 pm

I'm on the side of the fence that thinks 6v6 is the best number for the greatest matches.
How about best of one match, but it's first to 200. This should help solve the timing issue.

Oh crumbs, I'm about to go off on one again...
Armathentication is used on these forums right? So if these forums (or at least the user database behind it) were used to sign up/create teams etc, there would be a database of all teams and their members for the competition.
Now there would be some kind of Master Control Program who controls the whole event.
He is given a list of which servers are to be used, he then takes the final enrollment data and randomises the starting lineup (or uses seeding, whatever) and will create a settings_custom.cfg for each server. This would contain settings, obviously, but also a starting time and a list of which players are allowed to play on that server, hopefully being able to add players automatically to their correct team.
At the given time the match will start regardless of whether the teams are full or not. MCP is very strict about this.
If the given limit is not reached in say 40 mins, victory would go to the highest scoring team.
All scores are sent to MCP at the end of each round.
At the end of each match, scores and results are fed back to MCP who will then organise the next bouts by creating the relevant settings_custom.cfg's. The servers, of course, use everytime.cfg to update their settings_custom.cfg (or similar method) so the next battles are ready to begin.
Naturally, as the servers are updated the MCP can be accessed via a friendly webpage which will keep everyone updated on current scores. In realtime and for future reference.

What could possible go wrong?

pike · Post by **pike** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:38 pm

ed wrote:I'm on the side of the fence that thinks 6v6 is the best number for the greatest matches.

I may be wrong, but isn't 8v8 faster? I played 5v5 yesterday and it was long as hell. It sure looks good with 2 skilled teams, but in other case it may look not so well.

The idea of MCP is great

compguygene · Post by **compguygene** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:43 pm

Ed, I may not agree on team size, I never will.

But, love the idea of using Armathentication in the manner described!
I bet that could make the Tournament Administrators Jobs much easier. I hope someone can run with this one!

Durka,

I have no idea What the Wild West =Fortress= server is being used for...it just sits there. I keep telling the Ww fortress players not to go there because the settings are so out of date. This is why I am hosting the Wild West =Fortress Practice Server=. When I catch my players there, I chase them out!
Unfortunatly, I had to set up that server with a binary that does not have Armathentication enabled because some of my players, and Destiny just aren't quite there yet. But, I want them to be able to admin a practice.
Also, manta has stated that he does not want to allow any of the Wild West Servers to accept credentials from outside authorities! He will not implement Armathentication until he implements his own authority.
So, that's what going on in the larger sense of things. I am trying to fill in the gap with a few servers, with Destiny's blessing, that will support Armathentication, but be accept credentials from external authorities and carry the Wild West name.
I think that Durka is %150 correct also about the server names and having a huge tourney chat room. It would work so much better!

Website · Post by **Z-Man** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:24 pm

Hmm, this MCP thing would require serious serverside changes. First, tournament games would need to be completely in the hand of the server, not the admin. My evil patch does that, and it works, but it's ... evil and I don't want it anywhere near the official code base. Communication between server and MCP needs to be reasonably secure, we can't have random servers report wrong results and throw everything off. Maybe fork this stuff off into a separate thread, it's probably completely irrelevant for ladle 20

Edit: Fork.

++ on the single match, 200 score limit idea.

Lacrymosa · Post by **Lacrymosa** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:06 pm

I prefer Durka's suggestions. 6vs6 matches during the AFL were really fun to play. I also do not see why "the most fun tactics" require 8 players per team. Just as Durka said, it is more competitive, less chaotic and leads to shorter rounds.

With that being said, I would not touch the score system when playing 6vs6, a timelimit could be added, though.

Concord · Post by **Concord** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:43 pm

6v6 would actually be awesome, I think that's a great solution.

Compguygene, I understand why you are dead set against it, on my first read I was too, but thinking of the positives, well, there just too much.

Fortress becomes much more balanced with 6v6 because there are not 3 players blocking on each side and there are not 3 or 4 sweepers either. The offense/defense balance is better than with 8, where it is toooo defensive.

I'd like to make a motion to establish officially that Ladle 20 will have 6 player teams.

Any one to second the motion?

I think we'll leave the decision open for 1 week before doing a poll, unless there is a clear overwhelming majority.