Ladle 36 Voting Discussion

[Lackadaisical]

So if we vote for both aliases on challenge board and authing, do we also have to put the arma-id on the challengeboard?

[owned]

So if we vote for both aliases on challenge board and authing, do we also have to put the arma-id on the challengeboard?

That could be voted about too.

[PokeMaster]

Also, if we have to auth, are we allowed to hide it?

[sinewav]

Also, if we have to auth, are we allowed to hide it?

No.

So if we vote for both aliases on challenge board and authing, do we also have to put the arma-id on the challengeboard?

I think no. The main reason for requiring authentication is to protect teams from impostors. It's probably enough to see someone login, or for the team leader to type /players. Besides, many players have auth names that are the same as their nick, so it seems redundant for the majority of teams (not using aliases) - wouldn't you agree?

I suggest we do this incrementally. If auth alone works well, we probably don't need to write in our GID's on the Board. If a problem arises, we can require listing GID's later. The problem I see with focusing too much on the Board is the fact teams can substitute unlisted players on Ladle day. I can easily see someone saying "well, so-and-so wasn't on the Board so their team should be disqualified." We should be conservative with rules and only make them for serious/reoccurring problems.

[PokeMaster]

We should be conservative with rules and only make them for serious/reoccurring problems.

Yes yes.

Also, are there any rules currently about adding to your roster the day of the ladle?

[syllabear]

As far as my experiences in open team show, there was a consensus that adding players last minute was ok, and there is nothing in the rules against this.

The major problems come with adding a team last minute, but even this *can* be overcome (by adding into a bye with the permission of the other team).

However, maybe with the new auth rules, this might need to be looked at again. Perhaps a limit on the number of on-the-day players per team?

[owned]

1. Someone makes a hole, and it's easy to enter it because the hole is so big. As a response to that, I say that almost everyone can enter both .75 and 2.0 holes so that point is moot.

No, there's a large difference in the necessary skill to enter those two different hole sizes, especially since 1.4 and above allows for the sidestep turn correction. Also, things get even harder with smaller holes if a sweeper covers the hole, and you try to grind between him and the def to get to the hole.

The difference in skill is the difference between being a noob (who can't enter 2.0) and being below average (who can't enter .75). We almost never get people from either of those groups in the ladle. Of course someone could die some distance from the wall, causing a tiny hole, but that happens with 2.0 and .75 alike. As for a sweeper blocking, I see your point, but the effect isn't as large as you make it out to be.

And besides, why does this matter? Following both yours and newbie's logic, we should make holes .01, because those holes take A LOT of skill to enter. While it does take slightly more skill to enter .75 holes, I thinking the costs outweigh the benefits, because small holes eliminate other tactics that can only be used with large holes. Another cost is those few times that small holes actually do make a difference, they make the defender stronger, even though he/she is too strong already.

Also, are there any rules currently about adding to your roster the day of the ladle?

No.

[sinewav]

Perhaps a limit on the number of on-the-day players per team?

Nah. Two Ladles ago, teen created an open team and didn't sign up any players. At the last minute, Concord and I hijacked the team with another player - teen never showed up. So, that was 3 replacements on the day of. And, I think there have been a few instances where an open team was comprised almost entirely of unsigned players on Ladle day.

We want as many people to play as possible. Let's give open teams that flexibility. And let's give clans with huge rosters and tiny commitment as much freedom as possible.

[dlh]

The defender isn't too strong already. The defender must be alive the longest, and they're the most vulnerable player on the grid. That's why they'll be so far behind their wall in the beginning of a round. I don't like a defender being there the whole round—I usually try to expand and be more aggressive during high probability win situations like 3 vs. 2 (the 1 spare enemy decides to attack), or 2 vs. 2. Playing aggressive in other situations means you will most likely lose.

The majority of holes in the defender's wall are from dead attackers and not sweepers. The sweepers are there to cover an attacker's mistake. With the explosion radius at 2.0 I think the attack were given an easy pass to enter the zone when they messed up. At 0.75 a mistake is less likely to dent the defense (but still possible). Unintentional deaths by an attacker are not a tactic, it's a lucky break (if you can get in). Owned seems to be arguing that a 0.75 explosion radius minimizes the luck factor too much, and I disagree with him there.

About explosion radius size choices

I would include 1.0, and also restrict the other option to a range (0.0-2.0).

Explosion radius: 2.00 | 1.40 | 1.25 | 1.0 | 0.75 | other (Your vote must be in the range of 0.0 to 2.0. Final size determined by median of results)

[Goodygumdrops]

Also, things get even harder with smaller holes if a sweeper covers the hole, and you try to grind between him and the def to get to the hole.

you should hope for sweepers to leave this open

the sweep should have driven through the hole and blocked from inside def's wall

[owned]

Owned seems to be arguing that a 0.75 explosion radius minimizes the luck factor too much, and I disagree with him there.

Once again, someone is mischaracterizing my point. I NEVER said that it minimizes the luck factor too much. I said that while it takes more skill to enter a hole, and it shrinks the luck factor in that respect, it also takes away other tactics that are based on skill, not luck.

[newbie]

"we were winning due to our attackers failing at attack", as funny as it sounds, it's not a joke entirely, new insta chat

[PokeMaster]

it also takes away other tactics that are based on skill, not luck.

I remember when we voted on hole sizes in the ctf community (arguing between 2 and 4), I wanted 4 because the larger blast radius allowed one to hole both defenders in a double defense if they were within a reasonable distance from one another, so yeah, woned has a point there. There are tactics that are only possible with larger holes.

[7575757575]

I guess Im not the first one with that idea and i can imagine that others suggested that before, but what do you think about a random hole size.
33% chance for a 2.0 hole, 33% chance for a 0,75 hole and 33% chance for no hole. it could solve problems like organized holes and i also think that it will be funny and increase the "luck-factor".

[dreadlord]

Nah, i am against everything that makes holing to a luck-action. For example if you are in ladle and want to hole somebody who is a really good defender and then you get "no hole"; that would be the end for clans who have just started playing fort etc. because they sometimes need holes for entering and - holing is part of the game