Ladle 36 Voting Discussion

[sinewav]

Here are some potential topics for discussion, starting with issues from L-35:

Impostors. Shall we set ACCESS_LEVEL_PLAY 15 and require players to login? This is not an ultimate solution, but a step in the right direction. A majority of Fort players are already used to logging in on G5's Mega Fort, so this isn't a stretch. Any players without accounts can be /op'd and smurfs will create new accounts, just like they already do.

Date changes. I think we should set some guidelines regarding date changes for Ladle. I think a lot of people feel that an individual country's holiday is not a good reason to change, but international holidays are (like Christmas). Maybe we can flush out all the reasons to move the date and even look ahead to future problem dates.

Holes. If any of you want to revive the hole arguments again, please do it now. There have been few complaints about holes lately, but that doesn't mean it's not worth voting on (after all, 6v6 is continually brought up even thought it always wins by a large margin).

Feel free to bring up any other concerns, like disciplinary action for violators or something.


And please, please remember to keep it cool everyone. Let's have a good discussion without calling so-and-so a stupid-face, K?

[newbie]

4/6 scoring distribution (as opposed to 6/4), attack is more complex and difficult, so it should get more points. That's the correct way to go, statistics have shown, that the average arma player conquers only [edit: less than] 1 zone per the whole match (and that's the conquering with other teammates only, cutting the defense most of the time isn't possible and if someone even manages to make it twice in a match, that's a really good result way above the average)

[dreadlord]

Good point. Perhaps a rule that every match has to start at least 10 minutes after the supposed beginning, to avoid delays that we had in the last ladle (our semi-final ended at 20:20 gmt cause we could not always start at the on ladle board supposed beginning). A possibility would be to disqualify the team which does not want to start then.

[Word]

server-related:
can we change

Code: Select all

SERVER_NAME 0x7fff7fLadle 35 0xff7f7f(0x7f7fffPlayer 1's Server0xff7f7f)

to something like

Code: Select all

SERVER_NAME 0x7fff7fLadle Server 0xff7f7f(0x7f7fffPlayer 1's Server0xff7f7f)

and keep it like that? So the ladle servers look still homogeneous and it saves time for the server owners.


Perhaps some server owners forget to update the authorities.cfg and you're not able to see it at first glance, since the questionable server's name doesn't look obsoletely.

[dlh]

I suggest a revote on Ladle 21's ambiguous “team signups - list players? (do they have to play with the name listed? is there a size limit? can teams recruit on the day of?) don't list players?” issue. The question and choices were poorly worded, as shown by how many different results there are—not one team used the wording from the question in their vote. Even the tallied result isn't a choice from the question.

The wiki has better worded version (but it doesn't reflect the actual question and result):

players use name on Challenge Board: yes, no

[AI-team]

players use name on Challenge Board: yes, no

No.
I think it works quite well without that

[INW]

One thing that Z-Man brought up before is how new matches should be started. I think if one team leader starts a new match with confirmation of the other team leader...it is a good enough start to count as a match...we all know why this is brought up and I think a definite process should be created like the one above.

[apparition]

Aliases - Does the impostor login/OP/authority solution do anything about this?
Servers - TSP in particular, Ladle 32, Ladle 34
Time Limit - Ladle 34
Mandatory Ladle Stats - this is common now, but I think it's a good thing to have them available
Walls Stay Up Delay - Discussion thread here
Ladles Every Month/Every Other Month - Discussed for Ladle 32 here.
Global Mods
How to start an official Ladle match

[Gonzap]

please, let's vote holes again, they are sickly tiny

[PokeMaster]

Punishments are a good idea, because otherwise what's the point of rules if they're not going to be enforced? I say that impostering gets a ban for x number of ladles, and being on 2+ teams gets a ban for y number of ladles. I think that x > y though.

[apparition]

Yeah, so add Disciplinary Action to the vote, too lol

How to swap players most effectively, meaning immediately. This probably has to do more with coding or whatever than anything, but it's super annoying that you can't swap players in and out easily during a round and all that has to occur in the few seconds between rounds. CTa ran into this in two situations that left us with 5 instead of 6 unnecessarily.

[PokeMaster]

How to swap players most effectively, meaning immediately. This probably has to do more with coding or whatever than anything, but it's super annoying that you can't swap players in and out easily during a round and all that has to occur in the few seconds between rounds. CTa ran into this in two situations that left us with 5 instead of 6 unnecessarily.

I don't think being able to swap within rounds is necessary. That sounds like it would involve "stitching" the incoming player onto the outgoing player, if that's what you mean.

I think what's more important, is being able to get incoming players in and shuffled before the new round starts (unless this is already possible?). One way that I could think of (that would require what I imagine as a little bit of work from the devs) would be to let "join team _______" allow players who are invited to join right away, as long as team_max_players stays in effect. This would give incoming players the time to shuffle correctly before the new round.

(Sorry if I we got off topic here. You can split it into another thread if you'd like).

[ppotter]

How to swap players most effectively, meaning immediately. This probably has to do more with coding or whatever than anything, but it's super annoying that you can't swap players in and out easily during a round and all that has to occur in the few seconds between rounds. CTa ran into this in two situations that left us with 5 instead of 6 unnecessarily.

I don't think being able to swap within rounds is necessary. That sounds like it would involve "stitching" the incoming player onto the outgoing player, if that's what you mean.

I think what's more important, is being able to get incoming players in and shuffled before the new round starts (unless this is already possible?). One way that I could think of (that would require what I imagine as a little bit of work from the devs) would be to let "join team _______" allow players who are invited to join right away, as long as team_max_players stays in effect. This would give incoming players the time to shuffle correctly before the new round.

(Sorry if I we got off topic here. You can split it into another thread if you'd like).

That's what he meant, being able to sub players and shuffle all within 1 round, so that next round the team is fully organised, rather than the currentformat where the new player will take pos 6 for at least one round.

[sinewav]

can we change...to something like

Code: Select all

SERVER_NAME 0x7fff7fLadle Server 0xff7f7f(0x7f7fffPlayer 1's Server0xff7f7f)

and keep it like that? So the ladle servers look still homogeneous and it saves time for the server owners.

That's a really neat idea. Maybe we can add "SERVER_OPTIONS Lade XX settings..." to the authorities.cfg so it becomes obvious if a server has been updated correctly? As it stands, only a few servers currently have a setting for SERVER_OPTIONS anyway.

I suggest a revote on Ladle 21's ambiguous “team signups - list players?

Yeah, that vote was sketchy. It looked like a direct result of the thread "new rule about aliases." Maybe we can tie this into the authenticate-to-play discussion and kill two birds with one stone?

[DDMJ]

4/6 scoring distribution (as opposed to 6/4), attack is more complex and difficult, so it should get more points. That's the correct way to go, statistics have shown, that the average arma player conquers only 1 zone per the whole match (and that's the conquering with other teammates only, cutting the defense most of the time isn't possible and if someone even manages to make it twice in a match, that's a really good result way above the average)

Fantastic point newbie, I agree 110%.

Also, what about SCORE_HOLE -1? I've been pushing for this for a while!

I'm considering putting up a test server with SCORE_HOLE -1, EXPLOSION_RADIUS 1.0, and newbie's 4/6 scoring distribution idea.

can we change...to something like

Code: Select all

SERVER_NAME 0x7fff7fLadle Server 0xff7f7f(0x7f7fffPlayer 1's Server0xff7f7f)

and keep it like that? So the ladle servers look still homogeneous and it saves time for the server owners.

That's a really neat idea. Maybe we can add "SERVER_OPTIONS Lade XX settings..." to the authorities.cfg so it becomes obvious if a server has been updated correctly? As it stands, only a few servers currently have a setting for SERVER_OPTIONS anyway.

I disagree. I never read the fine print. It's clear as to what server owner hasn't updated. Just get on their ass.

ACCESS_LEVEL_PLAY 15 should be a must and we should be allowed to take a special vote for it.

As for fast team switching, this is how you do it!

Let's say I want to join TX and I'm in spec mode. I'm subbing in for JJBean.

JJBean shift+esc's, Hoax /unlock's, I create-new-team. Finally, JJBean rejoins server.

Pros: Fast team switching and ability to shuffle before new round.
Cons: JJBean's score is lost upon quitting...the rare possibility that someone else joins TX while it's unlocked for a millisecond (admin can just kick this person (this brings up the disciplinary action debate again))...the not quite so rare but maybe rare possibility of someone joining before JJBean can rejoin, resulting in JJBean getting locked out of the server