Ladle 37 - Discussion Thread

[arilou]

EDIT: keep everything as is

[INW]

I haven't read much on this topic but one idea keeps popping up in a lot of topics: that idea is Team Seeding...my opinion on this is that it is not a very good idea and will be very difficult to make fair/correct. Changing a few rules to prevent problems is all that is needed. Keep the tournament the way it is. If we want to test the 'seeding thing'...test it in Tr2n not here; it would destroy the ladle.

[syllabear]

The way seeding works is that you aim for the best players/teams to meet in the finals...

E.g. with 8 seeded teams, first round lineups would be 1v8, 3v6, (so 1v3 in semis), 2v7 and 4v5 (so 2v4 in semis), leading to 1v2 in finals.

This would be exactly the opposite of what you propose, since then all the worst teams would get thrashed in the first round.

The other way of placing teams so that all the worst teams are in one half of the bracket is simply horribly unfair to the better teams. I'm not sure about other teams, but getting to the quarters or semis is more fun than just losing to a very good team in the first round. And a slightly better-than-average team placed in the tougher brackets would likely get kicked out prematurely, when, in random allocation, they might have faced against a team from the easier bracket and won, getting to the quarters or maybe semis...

[apparition]

With some slightly more tightened rules and a quick once over of teams by someone like 2020 , Kyle, Z-man, Pink Tomatoes, G5 or someone else perceived as neutral I think the calamity of a middle management committee could be avoided. Problem solved.

What problems are you saying rules and a once over will solve? I don't think you've considered all the pros and cons of making a Ladle Committee. Some issues come up quickly and unexpectedly, others are just difficult to keep biases/prejudice out of when trying to resolve (i.e. Ladle 36). Tightened rules and a once over of the Challenge Board won't quickly resolve issues that require a quick vote or something. Right now, tallying individual votes, issuing a team vote, and then following through with the decision requires a lot of time.

And don't we all give the Challenge Board more than a once over already? Until the next quarterly vote, how do we prevent possible volatile changes to the Challenge Board/brackets from happening right before the tournament? As of right now, nothing has changed since Ladle 36 (even it has been less than a week ).

Before the next quarterly vote we should have a thorough discussion of both a "Ladle Committee" and "Bracket Randomization vs Seeding". We should also once and for all instate a rule that will counteract potential volatile changes once the brackets have been filled in. Going even further, I think the Ladle is progressing so quickly and has become so popular and scrutinized that a quarterly vote just isn't enough anymore.

[Lucifer]

This would be exactly the opposite of what you propose, since then all the worst teams would get thrashed in the first round.

I always thought the point of giving byes to teams who have shown they are very good was to give everybody a better shot at advancing.

I think I suggested byes at one point. If not, I was definitely thinking it. The only catch is that the team that gets the bye has to have mostly the same players it had when it earned the bye.

The point of seeding is to make the last couple of rounds very competitive by eliminating as many bad teams as possible early on. So I'd rather go with the bye option, or make a separate round for teams that are new or have never advanced past the first round.

[syllabear]

The point about competitive last rounds was what I was getting at there with the quote you took... Especially since theres one round before the quarters, as there won't be more than 16 (full) ladle teams playing for a while I think...

EDIT: There is one way I can think of to make it a bit more 'even' especially with the notable disparity between the strength of competing teams at present.

Unfortunately, it fundamentally changes the way ladles would be played.

Firstly, we would need to ensure there are as close to 16 teams as possible. More would be worse than less probably.

Then the initial stages of randomisation would plot the 16 teams into 4 groups of 4.

You probably see where I am going with this, but read on anyway.

In the interests of keeping the ladle down to a reasonable length of time, the group-games (lets call the teams A, B, C and D) would only consist of one match (instead of the normal 3), between A-B and C-D, then A-C and B-D and finally A-D and B-C. The scoring would be the same as a normal ladle match, and the winning team awarded a point, the losing team no points.

It's entirely possible the results are 2-2-2-0, so the points-difference for each match is added, and the two teams with the biggest positive scores go to the upper bracket.

After all 3 matches have been played, you would hopefully get a result like A: 3 points, B: 2 points, C: 1 point, D : no point. Top two teams are placed into a bracket of 8, made up of the 'top teams'. The bottom two placed in another bracket with the bottom teams.

Essentially you wouldn't really play more matches than before, since the opening rounds would be 3 matches, and normally its 2-3 anyway.

[Word]

I have a low opinion of this system, or at least i question its relevance for the ladle.
When we play, we want to improve. When you always play the same two or three noob teams, you won't get any better, and it's just boring.
It would also eliminate surprises: where's the fun when you don't have the chance to send the odds-on favourites home after the very first round?
Plus a teams' strength depends heavily on the players who (don't) show up.

edit: HEY HOOP; WB!

[hoop]

edit: HEY HOOP; WB!

hey!

[apparition]

Not to be nitpicky, but could someone move most of the most recent posts in this topic to the Ranking/Seed System for future ladles thread? Good points are being made and many of them repeated.

I'm kind of beating a dead horse that no one wants to give much attention to... But I don't want to make a new thread about establishing a Ladle Committee unless we're actually going to vote because we already have 2+ threads that have discussed it (unless a mod deems it necessary).

Yo hoop

[Lucifer]

@apparition: if nobody else gets to it, I'll do it after dinner. I'm freaking hungry, and having trouble concentrating right now.

[Phytotron]

Ya'll need to stop fooling around and just set up an actual organised league. Have static teams instead of making up new teams every ladle. Here I don't refer to the collection/roster of players, rather something analogous to a school or professional franchise Team. There should be a method for establishing a team so they can't be created willy-nilly, and each team should have a static owner/general manager/director/coach/captain/whatever. Players could move between teams, but there should be an attempt at retaining a core of players in each team—that may overlap into all new players over time, just as an actual sports team does—and a 'legal' procedure of adding, removing, and moving players between teams (including, possibly, trades, if you wanna do that for fun). Yes, there should be a commissioner (whom could be elected) and ruling committee.

The point being, set up an actual league (and, depending on how many teams, possibly divisions within the league). Then play round-robin matches (every team plays every other team once or twice). Those would make up the 'season,' which would obviously take place over a period of time, not on a single day. Matches could be scheduled by convenience, so long as they fit within the predetermined length of the season (e.g., a month or two).

No new teams added during the season, no en masse roster changes, no renamings, etc. Subs could be allowed (analogous to temporarily promoting someone from AAA or a practice squad) if a player couldn't make a match.

The win-loss results of the season would determine the seeding of the tournament, in a typical seeding method as syllabear described. Have the tournament, have an off-season to make any changes to teams and rosters and so forth that may be necessary, and start a new season. Teams (i.e., the team name, GM, and core players; e.g., "Clan XYZ") should carryover as much as possible from one season to the next.

This would also solve a lot of the other stupid problems you all have had lately, with respect to player and team names and renames, the swapping of players, etc., and several other potential ones.

Of course, as usual , I suggested something along these lines 4 years ago: http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 063#p45063

Like Kamp says in the subsequent post, there's no need to reinvent the wheel. It ain't like you're doing anything novel or unusual here, and it ain't complicated. Existing sports leagues, both amateur and professional, have already set models for you. And they work quite well. People have been playing, competing, and enjoying organised sports with plenty of fun for centuries.

Ignore 2020's silliness, as it's not based on pragmatism or practicality, but lofty, deluded pseudophilosophy.

[syllabear]

I'm not sure about others, but I'd probably not want to participate in such a league Phyto:

Currently, clans or teams have a certain camaradare. There is no simple "trading" of players. People play for who they WANT to play for, friends, allies, whatever you want to call it.

I don't want to play in some materialistic, premier-league-esque (thats the UK football league for you yanks) competition.

Not to mention, it's been tried, and fails due to there not being commitment in this game.


EDIT: Word I have the same reservations about my idea. But on more thought, it doesn't really pose too much of a problem. I will pose three team scenarios for you: A bottom-of-the-line clan (Team A), a middle clan (Team B), and a top-end, tournament winner (Team C).

Lets presume that randomisation gives each of the 4 groups a range of 4 different teams.

Team C will get to play against at least one good team, and probably end up bottom or next to bottom of their group. They then enter the lower league, and either get eliminated immediately or next round. Already this team has played more matches than they would have normally

Team B will have a dilema. With an easy grouping they could make it to the top league, but would probably get eliminated from it quickly. Alternately, they could *throw* their matches in the group to be given a good spot in the lower league, with a good chance of winning it. Either they have a very difficult challenge, by playing seriously to the top league, or they get to win a tournament, a recognition of their slightly-better-than-average ability.

Team A will basically destroy the group stage, might throw a match in order to get a better position in the upper league stage, but unlikely due simultaneous playing of matches. Then they fight the other top teams in the knockout stages of the top league.

So basically this just improves the fare of lower and middle teams, while not really affecting the top tier teams, who play and win the most matches (generally, excluding flukes like L34)


If people do feel this is worth trying out, possibly we could talk it over before/during the next quarterly and have a trial run of it around Ladle 40?

[kyle]

I've taken some time to think about what's been said, about a committee and whatnot, Sure a committee could be a good idea as i thought it would be, However I also read 2020's post And he has a pretty valid complaint against it. So I came up with an idea that may be the best of both worlds.

First of all, the voting and discussion threads. It always seams like something needs to be discussed after the ladle and usually results in some sort of vote. So why not make them every month. In doing this It eliminates most of the needs of a committee. However sinewav Brought up yet another valid point Even if we do make these voting/discussion threads.

Sinewav's point was what do we do if something needs acted on very quickly. Most cases I think would come up before the ladle starts. So Why not have all team leaders meet on IRC, say about 15-30 minutes before the ladle. This way any potential wrongdoing (as in SP's team switch[Please This is not the place to debate that]) can be discussed and voted on before playing.

With a monthly ladle vote and a team captain discussion before the event I feel that that would eliminate 99% of what a committee would do, Which i feel is good enough to secure the ladle for many more years to come.

Now onto seeding, I still stand that the best way is for randomization. I think it is a pretty common idea that we don't want to have strong teams knock each other out in the start We want to see a strong final. But to go about seeding is a bit hard because teams do change as Lucifer pointed out. For that reason alone, I feel that randomization is still the best that we can do.

[Lucifer]

Ya'll need to stop fooling around and just set up an actual organised league.

What was the AFL?

Ignore 2020's silliness, as it's not based on pragmatism or practicality, but lofty, deluded pseudophilosophy.

Why? His "lofty, deluded pseudophilosophy" has created the most popular and longest-running competition this game has ever had.

Or, you could keep ignoring actual facts, if you'd like. Whatever floats your boat.

[Phytotron]

I'm not sure about others, but I'd probably not want to participate in such a league Phyto:

Currently, clans or teams have a certain camaradare. There is no simple "trading" of players. People play for who they WANT to play for, friends, allies, whatever you want to call it.

Er, that's exactly what I was suggesting. I didn't suggest anything about some authority creating the teams for you, but just having more-or-less static teams that carry over, at least throughout a season if not from one to the next. The part about doing trades was just incidental, if anyone were to find it fun; not the least bit significant or crucial to the rest of the proposal, so no need to focus on that as the basis of your disagreement.

With respect to commitment, isn't it for the most part all the same people participating from one ladle to the next?

I don't know what materialism has to do with anything.

Ya'll need to stop fooling around and just set up an actual organised league.

What was the AFL?

The [American, Arena, or Australian] Football League? Those work(ed) quite well as a format. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean, or what you're getting at.

Ignore 2020's silliness, as it's not based on pragmatism or practicality, but lofty, deluded pseudophilosophy.

Why? His "lofty, deluded pseudophilosophy" has created the most popular and longest-running competition this game has ever had.

And how many players actually subscribe to, care about, or are even aware of the "lofty, deluded pseudophilosophy" that underpinned it, and see the Ladles et al as part of some larger social-ideological movement to change the world and bring about anarchic utopia? Or, how many just play because they want to play fortress and compete on teams/clans* (and I think we generally agree on the appeal of clans to teenage boys) in tournaments because they think that's just fun (and provides more bragging opportunity)? Come on, now.

* Speaking of which, it seems to me that the Ladle and clans have been symbiotic, mutually built and sustained. Clans are ready-made teams that have fed the ladles, and in exchange they're now longer-lasting than the inconsequential fly-by-night clans that used to come and go on a regular basis. Both have been bolstered as well by the availability, affordability, and ease of commercial server hosting and administration nowadays. Without clans, the ladle prolly would've gone nowhere for long. And without the ladle a clan like SP prolly would've reached its expiration date some time ago, or at least splintered and spun-off (itself a spinoff, after all) then fizzled. So I figure the Ladles' success is more attributable to that than 2020's...stuff.

Or, you could keep ignoring actual facts, if you'd like. Whatever floats your boat.

Ignoring actual facts about what? I wasn't aware we were arguing anything, or that any "unfactual" assertions were made. Fercrissakes, I only suggested a format for organised league play, something I think would be a) easily implemented, b) solve a lot of the stupid problems and controversies encountered recently, and c) fun (for those who like fortress tourneys, anyway).

Oh well.