Twenthieth TRONIC Ladle
Moderator: Light
-
DDMJ
- Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:15 am
- Location: LA, CA, USA, NA
- Contact:
Compguygene never played in the AFL and hasn't played in many Ladles either.
Solely based on experience, 6v6 really is more competitive. As Concord said, it's not as crowded as 8v8 and there aren't so many players on defensive.
One another plus to 6v6 is that it reduces the likelihood of cheap holing tactics. Less players = less attackers = less chance of ganking by intentional holing.
As for the MCP idea, I have mixed feelings at the moment, but I feel that it won't be ready for the next Ladle.
Also, I'm against the 200 point match idea.
Ask Lack, he will testify for me.
This is a somewhat decent parallel:
In the Wild West Sumo Tourney a few weeks ago, we were deciding whether to have the finals be 1 match up to 2000 or best of 3 matches with each being up to 1000. We decided to take the best of 3 route because we figured that everyone could have "bad matches" and if they were in an early deficit, it would be hard to climb back out if it was only 1 match up to 2000. And, coincidently, that was exactly the case. I won the first match to 1000 with ease, with the next highest score at about 500 points. But, then it was a new match up to 1000. After having a poor first match, Lack then rebounded and won the next 2 matches.
Therefore, I'm against the 200 points idea and all for the best of 3 rule that we've always had.
Solely based on experience, 6v6 really is more competitive. As Concord said, it's not as crowded as 8v8 and there aren't so many players on defensive.
There, you said it right there. That's essentially 5 defensive-minded players, at least at the start. Then, if the midfielders attack, that's 5 attackers. It honestly gets too crowded and at that point it's not even about strategy anymore.compguygene wrote: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?
One another plus to 6v6 is that it reduces the likelihood of cheap holing tactics. Less players = less attackers = less chance of ganking by intentional holing.
As for the MCP idea, I have mixed feelings at the moment, but I feel that it won't be ready for the next Ladle.
Also, I'm against the 200 point match idea.
Ask Lack, he will testify for me.
This is a somewhat decent parallel:
In the Wild West Sumo Tourney a few weeks ago, we were deciding whether to have the finals be 1 match up to 2000 or best of 3 matches with each being up to 1000. We decided to take the best of 3 route because we figured that everyone could have "bad matches" and if they were in an early deficit, it would be hard to climb back out if it was only 1 match up to 2000. And, coincidently, that was exactly the case. I won the first match to 1000 with ease, with the next highest score at about 500 points. But, then it was a new match up to 1000. After having a poor first match, Lack then rebounded and won the next 2 matches.
Therefore, I'm against the 200 points idea and all for the best of 3 rule that we've always had.
-
2020
- Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
- Location: the present, finally
Re: Twenthieth TRONIC Ladle
easiest solution by farConcord wrote:Where to start...
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.
let's not start sliding to accommodate players between rounds
they get there or they don't
timing is the central conditional factor
agreedWe need to tighten up our process if we are going to conduct bigger and bigger events on a schedule.
and we have found that forums are not the right tools to assist in this...
alternativelyIt 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.
each regular team doubles its ranks and fields two teams
or in line with your thinking
mentors another team
andPart 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.
well saidThings 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.
hold the line
-
2020
- Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
- Location: the present, finally
forums are not the right format for this kind of discussionowned wrote: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.
we had three weeks to discuss rules and it just frays
and we must be careful we do not make decisions by the "loudest" or most popular posters
yupsinewav wrote: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.
sounds good
and then the thread gets too complicated to trace individual points
for/against
(hence http://franc2.mit.edu:8000/ci/invite?KC ... RUFERVIiKQ**)
i think the solution is somewhere in here
since there are plenty of good suggestions
and plenty of passion too
as well as plenty of confusion as to why we are coming up with these suggestions --
is it to just have a bigger competition
or is it to have a better competition?
+ compguygene:
i believe we stick to 8v8 since that gives rise to complex play
+ various bods
and either a single match 10min limit or total points after 30mins
+ ed
and the mcp idea is kind of cool in a weird kind of way
ignore me if you want
as what happened when i first suggested tronic progression three years ago
looks like i will have to wait another 3 years
well actually because people learn faster
say 2 years maybe even 1 year
before people learn for themselves that
FORUMS ARE NOT THE RIGHT PLACE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS!
when are we going to learn to trust one another?
we do so on the grid with our teammates
and we are doing so between teams to self-organise the ladle
we are soooooooooooo close to getting this right
hold the line
what's with the strange times?Concord wrote:Challenge Board
@sine Yep I did say that 6 or 7 players would make the best fortress teams.
I 4th concord's motion of 6v6 games.
On the timing, I think we should stay exactly how it is. There are tons of little problems that can occur with a time limit, and it wouldn't be fair to the losing team. Early matches usually take around 1 hour, with the final take 1 1/2, so I suggest we do the round of 32 on Saturday at 2, the round of 16 at 3, the quarters at 4, then the semis at 2:30 on Sunday, with the finals at 4.
I 4th concord's motion of 6v6 games.
On the timing, I think we should stay exactly how it is. There are tons of little problems that can occur with a time limit, and it wouldn't be fair to the losing team. Early matches usually take around 1 hour, with the final take 1 1/2, so I suggest we do the round of 32 on Saturday at 2, the round of 16 at 3, the quarters at 4, then the semis at 2:30 on Sunday, with the finals at 4.
Maybe with 6v6 time will be less of an issue, and really, I think that was the only problem with L-19. But I'm still for LIMIT_TIME if the community feels it's necessary later on. I don't think having four less players on the grid will necessarily make the matches shorter, especially if both teams are really good (or really bad). But it's less players to organize, which will help a lot.
I'm just slightly against a single 200 point match after reading Durka's argument. And I'm equally intrigued and creeped-out by the MCP - definitely worth investigating though.
I'm just slightly against a single 200 point match after reading Durka's argument. And I'm equally intrigued and creeped-out by the MCP - definitely worth investigating though.
-
compguygene
- Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 2346
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:09 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio
- Contact:
I can see your point, thank you for clear reasoning concord.
Upon reflection, I do agree that when I have played 6v6 it was probably a better experience.
And yes, Durka, I would be the first to speak up at my lack of tourney experience! I just needed somebody to give me a good reason why!
So, ok, I can be reasoned with. But, I don't see the problem with 8v8 or whatnot. I can see your point of matches potentially being quicker. But, if that's the only reason why, that could be accomplished by changing the scoring, limiting time, etc.
Ok, I acknowledge that you people have done 19 of these things and I have done 2. But let me ask you this, were the first 17 ok with 8 person teams and now it doesn't work, was it always flawed, or did you all just decide to change your minds because you've become jaded.
Now I am not trying to be insulting, especially being a noob and all. But, for about 9 days now I have heard from a number of well experienced players like yourselves how "its just not fun anymore" and I can't help but wonder if perhaps you have become a little jaded from all the success that you've had.
I know that my voice counts, but I also fully recognize my noob status. Yet, I hope, that my fresh viewpoint might be considered.
Ok, take away the 2 midfield positions...gone!
What does that mean to me?
Well, I have been recruiting and training people on the basis of an 8 player team. I eventually plan to have enough people playing fortress in the Wild West Clan that we can field an Alpha and Bravo team. So, we just will field two teams quicker. So, maybe it benefits me.
And, I totally understand the viewpoint of the efficacy of not playing with those 2 unnecessary people! Cmon, its not like I don't play fortress every day of the week! I may never have played in the AFL. I may have only played in 2 ladles. I may not have your mad skillz. But gosh darn it, WHEN YOU TAKE THOSE 2 PEOPLE AWAY, YOU TAKE AWAY A WHOLE LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY OF THE GAME!
Yeah, a whole level of complexity! Ever been the midfielder that has won a round by staying alive and taking the fortress, I have. Oh, that was a round in the ladle.
What about the converse argument, we have to much trouble getting more than 4 players together...let's change to 4 player teams. Well, thats why I have started a thread about the fact that I would like to start a regular Fortress For Four Tourney!
I see your point about 6v6..but I don't really get it. Not because I have never played it. Not because I don't see how it could work. But because I have a fundamental belief that 8v8 works better than you guys seem to have already decided. That's why I am writing a book here.
If your so convinced that 8v8 is so bad, the explain to me the history that I don't know that proves your point. Because, I keep playing 8v8 with my team outside of the ladle and in other servers, and having positive, fun experiences. This makes me wonder if you guys aren't just getting tired of playing!
Upon reflection, I do agree that when I have played 6v6 it was probably a better experience.
And yes, Durka, I would be the first to speak up at my lack of tourney experience! I just needed somebody to give me a good reason why!
So, ok, I can be reasoned with. But, I don't see the problem with 8v8 or whatnot. I can see your point of matches potentially being quicker. But, if that's the only reason why, that could be accomplished by changing the scoring, limiting time, etc.
Ok, I acknowledge that you people have done 19 of these things and I have done 2. But let me ask you this, were the first 17 ok with 8 person teams and now it doesn't work, was it always flawed, or did you all just decide to change your minds because you've become jaded.
Now I am not trying to be insulting, especially being a noob and all. But, for about 9 days now I have heard from a number of well experienced players like yourselves how "its just not fun anymore" and I can't help but wonder if perhaps you have become a little jaded from all the success that you've had.
I know that my voice counts, but I also fully recognize my noob status. Yet, I hope, that my fresh viewpoint might be considered.
Ok, take away the 2 midfield positions...gone!
What does that mean to me?
Well, I have been recruiting and training people on the basis of an 8 player team. I eventually plan to have enough people playing fortress in the Wild West Clan that we can field an Alpha and Bravo team. So, we just will field two teams quicker. So, maybe it benefits me.
And, I totally understand the viewpoint of the efficacy of not playing with those 2 unnecessary people! Cmon, its not like I don't play fortress every day of the week! I may never have played in the AFL. I may have only played in 2 ladles. I may not have your mad skillz. But gosh darn it, WHEN YOU TAKE THOSE 2 PEOPLE AWAY, YOU TAKE AWAY A WHOLE LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY OF THE GAME!
Yeah, a whole level of complexity! Ever been the midfielder that has won a round by staying alive and taking the fortress, I have. Oh, that was a round in the ladle.
What about the converse argument, we have to much trouble getting more than 4 players together...let's change to 4 player teams. Well, thats why I have started a thread about the fact that I would like to start a regular Fortress For Four Tourney!
I see your point about 6v6..but I don't really get it. Not because I have never played it. Not because I don't see how it could work. But because I have a fundamental belief that 8v8 works better than you guys seem to have already decided. That's why I am writing a book here.
If your so convinced that 8v8 is so bad, the explain to me the history that I don't know that proves your point. Because, I keep playing 8v8 with my team outside of the ladle and in other servers, and having positive, fun experiences. This makes me wonder if you guys aren't just getting tired of playing!
Last edited by compguygene on Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Armagetron: It's a video game that people should just play and enjoy
https://bit.ly/2KBGYjvCheck out the simple site about TheServerPharm
https://bit.ly/2KBGYjvCheck out the simple site about TheServerPharm
LOL!
Ok now I have to change my response to compguy, because he changed his post
Gene's signature summarizes (for me) why he believes 8v8 is best.
There is not a right answer and its an age old question: Offensive or Defensive.
I'm in favor of trying it out for Ladle 20, seeing how it goes, and re-evaluating for the Bowl and for the future.
Ok now I have to change my response to compguy, because he changed his post
Gene's signature summarizes (for me) why he believes 8v8 is best.
There is not a right answer and its an age old question: Offensive or Defensive.
I'm in favor of trying it out for Ladle 20, seeing how it goes, and re-evaluating for the Bowl and for the future.
Last edited by Concord on Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
At least, it's working by now, but what are we supposed to do there with read only access?2020 wrote: (hence http://franc2.mit.edu:8000/ci/invite?KC ... RUFERVIiKQ**)
I like it, but how do we handle the extra-signups?Lacrymosa wrote:6vs6 for next ladle, even if you are against it, I suggest you give it a try.
For example, if it's 6 vs 6 I signup arrow-1 +arrow-2
Adding a extra round will probably take to much time...
Crazy Tron Addict since : October 2002 <--- Beat that
-
radian
- Core Dumper
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 4:14 pm
- Location: http://myspace.com/tonysaxbones
- Contact:
++ for the six man teams
++ for the six man teams-
it still contains all the relevent aspects we expect from a game of fortress-
three attackers-two midfields/sweep---and def--
and its much easier to get six players to turn up, than eight
prob resulting in more open teams turning up
and then there,s the benefit of the reduced round time--
and smoother server gameplay
this is not going to be a popular decision
but i urge players to vote/post yes in time for the 20th ladle
if it really dosent work / we can get round the table again
but lets try it
it still contains all the relevent aspects we expect from a game of fortress-
three attackers-two midfields/sweep---and def--
and its much easier to get six players to turn up, than eight
prob resulting in more open teams turning up
and then there,s the benefit of the reduced round time--
and smoother server gameplay
this is not going to be a popular decision
but i urge players to vote/post yes in time for the 20th ladle
if it really dosent work / we can get round the table again
but lets try it
i just love it
-
2020
- Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
- Location: the present, finally
@compguygene
can't agree with you more
just like sumo is a practice ground for a particular aspect of fortress
let's make fourtress a practice ground too
@z-man
ok
i thought it was wise to have read only for the first visit
and authorship if requested
since i was given these links by mark the guy who is using it
it's his scaling of editorialship
here's authorship link:
http://franc2.mit.edu:8000/ci/invite?KC ... VVRIT1IiKQ**
and people can be upgraded to editors if they are active...
is that a better way of doing it?
all the points made here
and in previous posts on alternative threads
could be contained there
and we would have something like wikipedia
but not relative to content crystallisation
but with respect to collective decisioning
that is
a good point
whether for or against
remains
and won't get lost in multiple post blaa blaahs
can't agree with you more
just like sumo is a practice ground for a particular aspect of fortress
let's make fourtress a practice ground too
@z-man
ok
i thought it was wise to have read only for the first visit
and authorship if requested
since i was given these links by mark the guy who is using it
it's his scaling of editorialship
here's authorship link:
http://franc2.mit.edu:8000/ci/invite?KC ... VVRIT1IiKQ**
and people can be upgraded to editors if they are active...
is that a better way of doing it?
all the points made here
and in previous posts on alternative threads
could be contained there
and we would have something like wikipedia
but not relative to content crystallisation
but with respect to collective decisioning
that is
a good point
whether for or against
remains
and won't get lost in multiple post blaa blaahs
hold the line