Ladle 34: Voting Thread (CLOSED)

[Gonzap]

never do that holes again -.-

[Concord]

perhaps we could consider some type of seeding that would produce brackets like these consistently.

[Titanoboa]

Then we've had our last "epic" ladle final. I want more epic finals! Unseeded works fine until we're consistently more than 16 teams, no?


I don't know if this has ever been brought up, but once we're more than 16 teams we should have qualifications.. As in having the ladles locked to 16 teams and having some of the teams qualifying for a spot in the ladle. I can explain my suggestion further if anyone's interested..

[sinewav]

I don't know if this has ever been brought up...

Ah, that's right - you're still a bit new to Fortress. Yes, the scalability of Fortress has been brought up in the past. Ladle 22 had more than 16 teams (the start time was pushed back 45 minutes). Seeding doesn't fall apart if there are more than 16 teams, and the purpose of seeding is to make more exciting matches and "epic Ladles."

perhaps we could consider some type of seeding that would produce brackets like these consistently.

The other day I though we could just go to a point system based off match wins. My friend's soccer league works well that way, and it would be super easy to get started here.

From L-34 for instance:
JoS: 8
uNK: 6
DS: 5
CT: 4
PRU: 2
ID: 2
SP: 1

Now, these points obviously don't reflect the skill of the teams, but cumulatively over the course of several Ladles they would begin to. When Ladle time comes, we can seed accordingly using this point system. The only drawback is new teams would always start at 0 points, even if they were made of pros from other teams.

[PokeMaster]

Bump, I think.

I think that a system like sine mentions above is a great idea, except for the the fact that the non-clan teams are always changing names or whatnot (at least I think? I'm new to this "ladle.") So how do you count wins for teams that are not only changing names constantly, but also players? Even if you said something like, "a team remains the same as long as 50% of its players remains the same," then a change greater than 50% could occur over the time of 2 or more ladles, so cumulative wins couldn't really be counted.

Nonetheless, even if sine's "matches won" idea doesn't work, I think that we could still consider other methods involving long-term scoring for seeding.

[Concord]

each player that played for the team (not just listed on the roster) gets 1/6 of the team's points. Assign team points from last Ladle as sine described. Calculate player points and from that add the player points of each team's roster in the next Ladle. Seed. Player points could be cleaned every Ladle or every 3 or something.

for example
each JOS player would be score 8/6 points and regardless of what team they play on in Ladle 35, their team gets those 8/6 added to its score.

[PokeMaster]

or even more simply, don't divide by 6, no need. the total will just be 6 times greater, but it doesn't matter.

But what about when people want to play with aliases. Do they just get 0 points? If somebody has 0 points, then they'll face the harder teams earlier right? So they kind of pay the price for going on alias, which is fair. (I don't have anything against aliases, but it wouldn't be good to be rewarded for using an alias).

And also, what about subs? What if a sub is on a team, but never plays during the entire ladle, or only plays in like half a match. How do you keep track of that?

[Titanoboa]

Or just give points to team/clan [names], and if a team feels like switching names, they'll have to deal with starting from 0. Seems fair to me.

Adding individual points (that actually matter.. unlike score points that are decorative), or at least heading towards that, might motivate competitive people to come up with smart stuff to work the system.. dunno if that's a good thing.
Obviously, if we keep the system very simple, we don't need to waste time and energy on blocking oh so many loopholes etc. (Individual points is an example of a not so simple system..)

Edit: There can of course be a system to enable teams to switch names without losing points, if the community finds it necessary..

[Lord Pein]

How exactly would a seeded tournament bracket look?

[INW]

On the top half...to make the bracket small...8 teams
-For first round-
1 seed plays 8 seed on top half of bracket. Then 4 seed plays 5 seed on top half. 2 seed plays 7 seed on bottom half. 3 seed players 6 seed on bottom half.


I say keep the ladle how it has always been. No need to introduce new ways of changing 'the system'. The way brackets are set up now gives everyone a fair chance of playing anyone else but seeding will trash that equal chance. Didn't we all agree that randomization was the better idea?

[PokeMaster]

I say keep the ladle how it has always been. No need to introduce new ways of changing 'the system'. The way brackets are set up now gives everyone a fair chance of playing anyone else but seeding will trash that equal chance. Didn't we all agree that randomization was the better idea?

Well does two things:
1) It rewards the "better" teams by giving them an easier spot to the finals (by having them face easier teams)

2) Saves the "epic matches" for the finals.

So why shouldn't the good teams be rewarded? I think it's fair. And to make sure that no team(s) dominate(s) the seedings consistently, we can reset the ranks every 3, 6, or 12 months, or something to that effect. That way each season could be a fresh start for all teams.

[LucK]

I say keep the ladle how it has always been. No need to introduce new ways of changing 'the system'. The way brackets are set up now gives everyone a fair chance of playing anyone else but seeding will trash that equal chance. Didn't we all agree that randomization was the better idea?

Well does two things:
1) It rewards the "better" teams by giving them an easier spot to the finals (by having them face easier teams)

2) Saves the "epic matches" for the finals.

So why shouldn't the good teams be rewarded? I think it's fair. And to make sure that no team(s) dominate(s) the seedings consistently, we can reset the ranks every 3, 6, or 12 months, or something to that effect. That way each season could be a fresh start for all teams.

heh I don't really agree with your logic. To me I see a lot of the "weaker" teams losing interest in the ladle if we change to this. What reason does a team have of signing up if they have virtually no chance of making it past the first round. Why do the better teams need even more help to get to the finals? They are the best teams let them get there on their own.

[dreadlord]

I agree, and if the "best" teams don't reach finals they are not the "best" ...

[Lackadaisical]

There has been discussions about seedings for a long time now, I searched and I found that a really big discussion started around/after ladle 17:

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60&t=18803
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60&t=18836
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60&t=19033

I'm really glad we have the voting thing in place so we can make some decisions without arguing for 10+ pages in 3+ topics. Anyway we should split this topic into a Ladle 37+(?) voting thread.

Having a good seed system would require a better tracking of who actually played/subbed, which might be a bit too much responsibility for some teamcaptains

[Titanoboa]

First we need to establish why we would want or need seeded brackets..

/.../ once we're more than 16 teams we should have qualifications.. As in having the ladles locked to 16 teams and having some of the teams qualifying for a spot in the ladle.

It takes a whole lot of time to play a ladle. The final teams are usually both in their 4th hour of non-stop fortressing and most are hungry/grumpy/tired. Playing more than 4 rounds (aka reaching the finals in ladles with more than 16 teams) on a regular basis would do no good. I think all other finalists can back me up and say 4 (rounds) is enough..

So how do we deal with this when there's more than 16 teams? Easy! The teams that are likely to reach finals don't have to play until the 1/8-finals (now called Opening Round).
So how do we know what teams are likely to reach the finals? By seeding of course.

Here I've made a bracket that holds 24 teams, where 16 teams are unseeded and 8 are seeded. Those 8 are the previous ladle's quarter finalists. Teams 1-16 are randomized, Seeds 1-8 can be randomized (but I personally like the 1-8 2-7 3-6 4-5 idea better, simply because it prevents the previous finalists from facing eachother early on).
To decide who's on place 3/4 and 5-8, we simply look at who they lost to and where that team finished.
For example the standings in Ladle 34 would be Jalapeños on sticks!, Team Unknown, Crazy Tronners, DarkSyndicate, Rogue Tronners, uNa, Immortal Dynasty, PRU.
Not only does this system prevent teams from being tied, but it serves another nice function: You won't have to face the team that knocked you out until the round after the one you lost in last time. So ID won't have to meet CT until the semis, and CT won't face JoS until the finals.