Ranking/Seed System for future ladles

[Nelhybel]

I think that's a great idea.

The seeding could/should take place through some sort of clan wars set up by a central organization that ranks clans based on a point scale, sort of like the USCF (US Chess Federation - I think somebody may have mentioned this before?).

[noob_saibot]

It will also prevent any mishaps from happening. 1 and 2 will be on opposites, while 3 will be in seed 2's half, and 4 will be in seed 1's half. So on and so on. Therefore, a #1 seed cannot switch his/her team with a non-seed (we will catch them!) and there will be no reason to do so because as #1 seed you are "on top of the drawer!"

And yes, however the community would like to work to pts. system for rankings, thats up for debate...

[PsYkO]

Seeding only the top 4 teams would work out well IMO



1 v Random*
Random v Random
4 v Random*
Random v Random
3 v Random*
Random v Random
2 v Random*
Random v Random

This is good for up to 16 teams, and 20 teams if you added in byes for the top 4 seeds. Notice the Randoms with the asterisk playing the top 4 seeds...these would be the last to fill the bracket and give the seeds more time to practice/get ready.

This bracket also allows for a higher chance that the top 2 teams play in the final...making it, for all intents and purposes, the best match to watch.

[Tremor]

I don't think making seeding teams will work. Reason being:

Tournaments that seed teams...March Madness, NFL and NBA playoffs have some sort of "worksheet" or information to develop the seeds. There is something you go off to seed the teams. We don't have that. You could go off how each team did in the last ladle but that wouldn't be enough. Plus it doesn't help when different and new teams enter in the next ladle.

Also seeds work in the manner that the highest, number 1, faces the lowest rank in the beginning. I don't think a new fort team/clan wants to go against the best every single time. It would just make them frustrated and make them hate fort/ladles.

The only thing seeds are good for is rewarding teams for their body of work in the season by giving them what they deserve. Which in the NFL is bye in the first round, or in March Madenss, facing a low rank team that they should easily beat.

We also can't make the seeds so that all the tough or "good" fort teams face each other on one side of the bracket, and then new or "easy" fort teams face each other on the other side. All this would do is make the finals a David vs Goliath fight where we already know who is going to win and make it boring.

Randomization is what work the best. We have been having good finals and even good semi-finals because of it. Maybe a new way of randomizing the teams. Like a new program or website.

Just my two cents.

[Nelhybel]

Also seeds work in the manner that the highest, number 1, faces the lowest rank in the beginning. I don't think a new fort team/clan wants to go against the best every single time. It would just make them frustrated and make them hate fort/ladles.

I think this is where Psyko's idea becomes great. That way we keep the top four teams from fighting each other early on.

Although I think it should be:
1 v Random*
Random v Random
3 v Random*
Random v Random
2 v Random*
Random v Random
4 v Random*
Random v Random

Not too much of a difference.

Possibly it would make sense to say, try out seeding for three ladles, then go back to normal if it isn't working out. The Ladle committee could renew seeding every three months or something, or simply make it permanent if it's going well. If it isn't going well, we could just go back to normal after the test period.
Or maybe even seed every other ladle, which would give the thinkers time to work out the tweaks and fix bugs in the methodology.

Also:

All this would do is make the finals a David vs Goliath fight where we already know who is going to win and make it boring.

That analogy could go either way - I'd/we'd expect Goliath the giant to win, but in the story, the young David wins.

[PsYkO]

Personally, I am for the random brackets. I just posted that idea because I think it would be the easiest to implement and be a good halfway between randomization and full on seeding.

There isn't any other way than to do a test run ladle using seeding to see if it is beneficial or not. Everything else is purely hypothetical.

[Z-Man]

I also like Psyko's setup (Identical to how I interpret Lucifer's 'bye' suggestion in the other thread). It's a good compromise. It still gives new/weak teams the chance not to be eliminated by the top teams in round 1, but makes sure the top teams get to meet each other as late as possible. For determining the top teams, I'd say this should work:
The top team is the winner of the most recent ladle that still participates.
The second top team is the winner of the most recent ladle that still participates and isn't the top team.
The third top team is the winner of the most recent ladle that still participates and isn't the top team or second top team.
etc.
Of course, the condition 'that still participates' needs elaboration and fixing. Having two thirds of the original, actually active players on its roster sounds about right.

[Lucifer]

There isn't any other way than to do a test run ladle using seeding to see if it is beneficial or not. Everything else is purely hypothetical.

Truly it must be the end of days and armageddon is near when PsYkO and I are agreeing so much, but this last part can't be forgotten.

Nobody has any idea how a Ladle will go with any seeding method until you actually run one.

Edit: PsYkO: Since we're of like minds, should I or shouldn't I continue to pursue the girl that's not really a girlfriend, but is freaking hot (in the way that women my own age are hot and considered hot by younger men), really smart, an all-around awesome girl, but is turning into more and more a pain in the ass?

[syllabear]

If you are looking for a way of seeding:

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60&t=20424

I should be able to get around to properly organising this around the 12th August...

[noob_saibot]

So who would be in charge of implementing this? And would seeds be strictly determined by the most recent ladle results? Or is there going to be some kind of points system (I guess similar to the ATP Tour Ranking System aka tennis [mens])? This is all stuff that could be handled and recorded electronically, maybe something similar to dlh's stat system...

But I like the idea of start with 4 seeds, and yea if their is an "off" number of teams we will start to give the seeds bye's in the opening rounds.

[Titanoboa]

Here I found a post I wrote a while ago. Note that by adding just one round before the unseeded stage, it holds up to 40 teams, so it'll be usable for at least a couple of years from now.
Having all quarter finalists seeded will give all the weaker teams something to fight for (being seeded is good). I know me and my team (_~R~_) will put up as a goal to be seeded for 3 straight ladles if this system is implemented, and I don't think that'll be too easy.

If a team uses a different name from the previous ladle, it'll automatically become unseeded. If a team uses the same name but replaces up to 100% of the members, they'll still be seeded, but it's very unlikely that those new nabs will defend their title as seeded team. It's foolproof!

If you don't feel like reading the explanation, just skip to the image at the bottom.
It's basically what psyko suggested, but it's better to seed 8 teams than seeding 4 teams.

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.

Attached image

[PsYkO]

I thinkit largely depends on whether you describe yourself as a simple man or one that can deal with stress and complications well. She seems like a good one minus the pain in the ass part (sounds like most women... Ayyyyooooo!!!!).

Also it depends if you are like most guys and are comfortable with ditching her after you enjoy the honeymoon phase of the relationship. I am not like most guys and love my simple life, which is getting complicated by girls I just need to say no to.

So yeah, ask yourself those two personality traits about yourself, and you'll find your answer.


And of course, very best of luck, sounds like you'll need it either way!

[owned]

We have enough teams playing consistently, that not having a ranking/seeding system is just stupid. Another point: why should the current top 2 fortress teams have to worry about playing each other in the first round on any ladle...doesn't make much sense to me....

Well the problem is that it's been voted down every time it's been put up to vote. But given the positive responses to this topic, maybe it'll pass this time.

I think that's a great idea.

The seeding could/should take place through some sort of clan wars set up by a central organization that ranks clans based on a point scale, sort of like the USCF (US Chess Federation - I think somebody may have mentioned this before?).

I personally think that we should use a simpler system. Given the huge turnover among clans, I think it would be impractical imo to rank teams like that. There would also be a lot of people angry at whatever rating system we choose, saying it makes it too hard to move up or needs you to be too active. Because of this, I think that we should get 4 seeds from the previous ladle. Unless we start doing a third place match, the 3rd seed would be the team that lost to the 1st place team while the 4th seed would be the team that lost to the 2nd place team.

Seeding only the top 4 teams would work out well IMO



1 v Random*
Random v Random
4 v Random*
Random v Random
3 v Random*
Random v Random
2 v Random*
Random v Random

This is good for up to 16 teams, and 20 teams if you added in byes for the top 4 seeds. Notice the Randoms with the asterisk playing the top 4 seeds...these would be the last to fill the bracket and give the seeds more time to practice/get ready.

This bracket also allows for a higher chance that the top 2 teams play in the final...making it, for all intents and purposes, the best match to watch.

First, I'd just like to say this system technically works for an infinite number of players, all you need to do is put those four teams in separate quarters and give them byes in the first round if there are any and it works.

Your second point is the main reason I like seeding. In my opinion, the semifinals and the finals should be between the top four and the top two teams respectively, not only because that's what the ladle is for, but it also lets the people who lost earlier in the tournament watch the best matches.

The way I see it, it can go two ways. 8 seeded or 4 seeded teams. Any more would be too complicated, and any less would be too useless to make much of a difference.

It's basically what psyko suggested, but it's better to seed 8 teams than seeding 4 teams.

I now think it's impractical to seed 8 teams. Looking between Ladle 35 and Ladle 36, we see only 4 quarterfinalists returning (you can include ot and ib, but ot has almost all new players and ib has many new players.) However, during the same period of time, we have 3 semifinalists (4 if you count ib.) returning. Of course these numbers would go up if you included seeding, but I still don't think then quarterfinal number would raise enough to make 8 seeds a viable option. On the other hand, the teams in the semifinals almost always return.


The hardest part about implementing a seed system is determining what a team needs in order to maintain the seed they got from the last ladle. Do they need to have the same name? More than half the players from the old team? More than half the people who actually played from the old team?

I think a good start for the rules would be this:
1. Teams need to have the same name as the last ladle to get the seed (with an exception, you are allowed to add or take away a letter or number from ladle to ladle so ct to cta would work, tx1 to tx would work, etc.)
2. Teams need to have 4 or more players from the previous challenge board on their team to get the seed.
3. If 2+ teams have 4 or more players from the previous challenge board on their team, then the team with more players gets the seed.
4. Teams are allowed to forfeit a seed if they so choose.

These rules are far from perfect, so feel free to take them apart if you want.

[-*inS*-]

ok woned, i'll to build on that.

- if a team chooses to give up their seed, they must post publicly on the forums at least a day in advance of bracket creation
- if a team gives up their seed, all other seeded teams are moved up a seed and the ladle continues with only 3 seeded teams
-if the ladle encompasses more or less than 16 teams, the brackets are adjusted as follows:

less: the highest seed gets a bye, this gives them an advantage and helps worse teams from being overwhelmed the first round. if only 14 teams, the second seed gets a bye too and so on...

more: seeded teams are immune from having to be in a play in game.

this is a bit more complicated

also the play in game(s) get added into each section (there are 4) into the 4 seeds section, then 3 then 2 then 1. if there are over 20 teams, then repeat and add another play in to then 4,3,2,1 (as there are 2 opening games in each seed's 'section')

[Titanoboa]

I think a good start for the rules would be this:
1. Teams need to have the same name as the last ladle to get the seed (with an exception, you are allowed to add or take away a letter or number from ladle to ladle so ct to cta would work, tx1 to tx would work, etc.)
2. Teams need to have 4 or more players from the previous challenge board on their team to get the seed.
3. If 2+ teams have 4 or more players from the previous challenge board on their team, then the team with more players gets the seed.
4. Teams are allowed to forfeit a seed if they so choose.

These rules are far from perfect, so feel free to take them apart if you want.

1. Why not say it has to be 100% identical? That'd avoid many discussions I'm sure. Bigger clans that vary between having 1 and 2 teams from ladle to ladle can just name their first team "Clan team" instead of "Clan team A", and the occasional other team "Clan team B".
2. I'd say 1 player is enough.
3. No, the one with the identical name gets the seed.
4. Sure, by changing name.

Guys, this isn't as complicated as you make it out to be.