Ranking/Seed System for future ladles

[noob_saibot]

As for teams that change rostas, I think Luci/woned/z-man picked a right number with 4. Although 3 could be considered. A good example would be the last 3 ladle winning team/teams. free kill is the only one to feature every time and including him, each time the team has had 3 repeat appreances from the previous ladle. So under a system where you need to keep 4 players, jos and binary wouldn't have been seeded. That also makes spteamshufflegate seem silly since on these terms inglourious basterds wouldn't be classed as the same team.
BUT would clans be exempt from this rule? If so what's to stop Plus+, for example, from saying that they're now a clan to get passed this Therefore in order to keep a seeding this rule should apply to all teams on the board.

I agree, and don't see why it would apply to clans, reason being clans tend to have more depth to their roster than teams. And of course starting rosters will vary ladle to ladle for most clans, but a few minor changes shouldn't mean the clan not be seeded. So yeah, if this were the case, team binary and jos would not be seeded. But if a team like plus+ were consistent with their roster, and performing in ladles, they could be seeded.

2. Teams need to have 4 or more players from the previous challenge board on their team to get the seed.

2. I'd say 1 player is enough.

In this case, providing free kill plays next ladle, his team will be no.1 seed. However what if he doesn't turn up for some reason (knowingly or unexpected), should the 6 that do play really be seeded first? This is too flexible imo. BUT even if it is set at 4, what if one of those 4 doesn't play (again knowingly a few days beforehand or unexpected on the day) and they use a sub thus only having 3 from the last ladle...This seems like a minor issue but if the teams are judged on consistent members what's the point if it's not covered.

I don't think one person alone merits a seed. But 3-4 sounds fair, and even if one of the four players happened to drop out I do not think that should be an issue. But appointing some sort of threshold, be it 3 or 4 players, and then enforcing it is the right thing to do. So yeah, I guess in that case team freekill will not be seeded.


Also what is the minimum number of ladles a team must play in order to be considered a seed? 2-3? Maybe i missed this point somewhere...

[Lucifer]

1. It's only going from the last ladle, so a team need only have played that one and earned a seed.

I'd say, for the other issues about no-shows, go the path of least resistance. Don't go changing the brackets around at the last minute, resulting in utter chaos, if the seeded team suddenly drops below the 4 player threshold. But if they drop before that threshold before the brackets are finalized, then they can lose the seed.

Keep in mind that if they use players in the actual competition that aren't as good as the ones when they earned the seed, they won't be able to keep the seed anyway for the next ladle. And teams know that. So, I don't expect to see much lawyering of the system (e.g. where they sign up the four players that earned the seed, then drop three because they weren't really committed and sub on the day, just to keep the seed). Sure, there will be *some* abuse, but if the team loses its seed because of their abuse, then they screwed themselves and someone else wins anyway. But if they keep their seed in spite of the abuse (e.g. they still win to a comparable rank that they get seeded in the next ladle), then you could argue they would have earned it anyway even if they'd lost the seed because of their antics. The end result is still the same.

This all assumes that the way the seeds actually work doesn't guarantee a seeded team to finish in a seed position for the next ladle. They *do* need to be able to lose their seeds, otherwise we may as well just have 4 specific teams and none others.

Teams that can keep themselves seeded will add some stability to the tournament as a whole. They now have a strong incentive to stay together as a team, and to keep improving. So they also have a strong incentive to work out any problems that happen on the team, and to avoid any rule-lawyering that might cause them to sit out a ladle. I would expect that teams that consistently keep their seeds will also wind up being fairly well-behaved so they don't lose their seeds. Other teams, let's call them wanna-be seeds, will have incentive to work harder themselves so they can at least earn a seed. That becomes a new milestone in the ladle. "Hey, we finally earned a seed, maybe next time we'll even get to the finals!"

Similarly, the captains of the seeded teams have an even stronger reason to represent their teams in any voting that takes place. Because, if they don't, then 4 players from the seeded team can go re-form into another team and take the captain's seed from him. Captains now get more power and responsibility, and that added bit of accountability. At least, for the teams that can stay seeded. That's an appropriate check for the recent SP drama. As players finally became aware of what happened, they could fire their captain and keep the seed, and the captain says "Oh shit, I really screwed up, now I lost my badass team!" Instead, we had players who really felt bad about it, but had no ladle-oriented way to deal with it (obviously they have internal clan-oriented ways, but that mostly doesn't satisfy the regular ladle-goers).

Whether or not seeds make the competition itself better, I don't know, but I can see lots of ways that seeds will make the tournament run smoother and help to take care of problems before they start. So, politically, I would say it's worth a shot.

[sinewav]

So, you guys have this seeding thing figured out yet? It would be nice to vote on it this month. Maybe if you can come up with one or two succinct definitions, we can choose to try them out in Ladle 37 or 38 (assuming that seeding itself passes)?

[noob_saibot]

1. It's only going from the last ladle, so a team need only have played that one and earned a seed.

I'd say, for the other issues about no-shows, go the path of least resistance. Don't go changing the brackets around at the last minute, resulting in utter chaos, if the seeded team suddenly drops below the 4 player threshold. But if they drop before that threshold before the brackets are finalized, then they can lose the seed.

Keep in mind that if they use players in the actual competition that aren't as good as the ones when they earned the seed, they won't be able to keep the seed anyway for the next ladle.

This answered my last question, and I don't see any reason to object to any of this. So we base seedings off previous ladle in the case of a new team or open team. And we established clans will be exempt from this rule, being the entire clan is seeded and they have an entire roster to work with for starting ladle lineup.

[Tremor]

Not enough info to really have a seeding system. We only really thought of this because the team-switching thing. So keep randomization...it has been working so far.

[Titanoboa]

We only really thought of this because the team-switching thing.

orly?

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 26#p224526
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 66#p219566
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60#p213260
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 25#p211025
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 67#p206367
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 57#p206657
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 02#p203302

it's been mentioned before.


Main reason I think it's important is because the tournament takes too many hours to complete as of now. The teams that are likely to end up in a final should get a bye in the first round if there's more than 16 teams playing.
It has oh so many pros and I can't find any other con than the fact that it'll never be implemented unless people start using their thinking devices.

[INW]

Main reason I think it's important is because the tournament takes too many hours to complete as of now. The teams that are likely to end up in a final should get a bye in the first round if there's more than 16 teams playing.
It has oh so many pros and I can't find any other con than the fact that it'll never be implemented unless people start using their thinking devices.

I haven't read up much about this topic but here's a point on this statement. In COD or similar war games; people who get 'kill streaks' get 'kill streak rewards'. It basically makes it easier for people who already have a bunch of kills to get even more. Giving the better/best teams byes rewards the good teams and makes it easier for them to win. I have never understood why people rewards other people who have accomplished things by giving them something in which will help them accomplish more and more. Why not give the lesser teams a chance to pull an upset. Doing any kind of this seeding to me just lessens the interest of the lesser teams.
You can't compare this to any MLB playoffs if you try...don't even try. Pro teams are for the money not the win. Of course everyone wants to win but making it nearly impossible for lesser teams to get to the finals is not what I would like to see. I'm sure I have missed all the pros to it but I am not sure what exactly makes it a good thing to every team in the tourney.

[-*inS*-]

Main reason I think it's important is because the tournament takes too many hours to complete as of now. The teams that are likely to end up in a final should get a bye in the first round if there's more than 16 teams playing.
It has oh so many pros and I can't find any other con than the fact that it'll never be implemented unless people start using their thinking devices.

I haven't read up much about this topic but here's a point on this statement. In COD or similar war games; people who get 'kill streaks' get 'kill streak rewards'. It basically makes it easier for people who already have a bunch of kills to get even more. Giving the better/best teams byes rewards the good teams and makes it easier for them to win. I have never understood why people rewards other people who have accomplished things by giving them something in which will help them accomplish more and more. Why not give the lesser teams a chance to pull an upset. Doing any kind of this seeding to me just lessens the interest of the lesser teams.
You can't compare this to any MLB playoffs if you try...don't even try. Pro teams are for the money not the win. Of course everyone wants to win but making it nearly impossible for lesser teams to get to the finals is not what I would like to see. I'm sure I have missed all the pros to it but I am not sure what exactly makes it a good thing to every team in the tourney.

You are missing his point! The ladle will most likely eventually expand beyond 16 teams adding another game to the tourney. People don't want to play tron for 6 hrs in a row. Seeding fixes all this by giving the best probability that no one has to play more games than we already do (which is long, trust me). It's not just about oh you can't stare at the screen that long you must be weak, it's that people have other things to do and for some of us (me included) the ladle requires some juggling of schedules and stuff.

So here is the basics

Seeding will:

1. Make it most likely no one will have to play more than 4 games (good thing).
2. It means most of the weaker teams won't have to face the super good teams their first game! Yay! This creates closer matches in the opening round, and some teams will inevitably move onward where they might not have if they had faced another team.

Not enough info to really have a seeding system. We only really thought of this because the team-switching thing. So keep randomization...it has been working so far.

Yes it works well now. But will it work as well in the future?

[INW]

Main reason I think it's important is because the tournament takes too many hours to complete as of now. The teams that are likely to end up in a final should get a bye in the first round if there's more than 16 teams playing.
It has oh so many pros and I can't find any other con than the fact that it'll never be implemented unless people start using their thinking devices.

I haven't read up much about this topic but here's a point on this statement. In COD or similar war games; people who get 'kill streaks' get 'kill streak rewards'. It basically makes it easier for people who already have a bunch of kills to get even more. Giving the better/best teams byes rewards the good teams and makes it easier for them to win. I have never understood why people rewards other people who have accomplished things by giving them something in which will help them accomplish more and more. Why not give the lesser teams a chance to pull an upset. Doing any kind of this seeding to me just lessens the interest of the lesser teams.
You can't compare this to any MLB playoffs if you try...don't even try. Pro teams are for the money not the win. Of course everyone wants to win but making it nearly impossible for lesser teams to get to the finals is not what I would like to see. I'm sure I have missed all the pros to it but I am not sure what exactly makes it a good thing to every team in the tourney.

You are missing his point! The ladle will most likely eventually expand beyond 16 teams adding another game to the tourney. People don't want to play tron for 6 hrs in a row. Seeding fixes all this by giving the best probability that no one has to play more games than we already do (which is long, trust me). It's not just about oh you can't stare at the screen that long you must be weak, it's that people have other things to do and for some of us (me included) the ladle requires some juggling of schedules and stuff.

So here is the basics

Seeding will:

1. Make it most likely no one will have to play more than 4 games (good thing).
2. It means most of the weaker teams won't have to face the super good teams their first game! Yay! This creates closer matches in the opening round, and some teams will inevitably move onward where they might not have if they had faced another team.
/quote]
I get the point now. You know what...it makes more sense after that explanation. (:

[owned]

Seeding also:
1. Gives the greatest chance that the most highly skilled games are in the finals and semifinals, letting spectators watch the best games.
2. It gives teams a reason to try harder. A team might not care about making the semifinals, but if you add in seeds, they have an added incentive to do well. This leads to better quality games.

@INW Having to play one more match doesn't really make it harder or easier for a team. It just makes it more tedious. One of the main reasons for the ladle is to provide a fun tournament that everyone can participate in. So anything that decreases tediousness should be welcome.

Edit: I started this post before INW had written his


Back to seeding:

I think there are two main parts of seeding that are in dispute.

1. The number of seeds (or none at all)
2. What a team needs to do/have to retain their seeds in the previous ladle.

For 1, I think that four is by far the best number of seeds. It's better than no seeds for reasons stated by me and previous posters. It's also better than 2 seeds because that has too small of an effect on the tournament. That leaves 4 and 8 seeds as an option.
I think what I stated earlier in the topic is a good argument against 8 seeds:

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.

However, I doubt everyone is convinced by this, so we should still put it up for a vote.

1. How many seeds do you think should be used from ladle to ladle?

No seeds | 4 seeds | 8 seeds (because of the nature of the vote, no seeds needs to beat both 4 and 8 combined in order to win, similar to how in dlh's vote, not banning needed to beat a ban for one ladle and a ban for two ladles combined in order to win)


The second question is a lot more complicated to deal with. I and a lot of other people have come up with a certain number of people needed to play on a team for it to be seeded, and a bunch of rules for exceptions, but in reality, the best option is simplicity.

The best rules in my opinion would be this:
1. The team needs to keep the name they used when they got the seed in the previous ladle. (within reason- adding an a or a 1 or taking away that shouldn't make a difference)
2. The team needs to have at least three players from the previous team that got the seed.

Given the sheer number of different rule systems that could be implemented, I'm not sure if it's possible to put this in a vote. Maybe this is something that could be agreed upon, like how dlh, kyle, and flex and sine made the guidelines?

[sinewav]

Maybe this is something that could be agreed upon, like how dlh, kyle, and flex and sine made the guidelines?

Yes, that's the best route in my opinion. I really think owned has the best plan so far. I like the idea of 4 seeds, and requiring the seeded team to retain the same name and a minimum of 3 players. This seems totally reasonable and easy to implement. If you guys can agree to it, we can vote for it to be used in Ladle-38.

[owned]

There's one more thing I forgot.

Should seeding, if voted in, take effect this ladle or next ladle?

I'm undecided on this because rules shouldn't be applied retroactively, but on the other hand, when people vote for something, they want it in action in the following ladle.

[sinewav]

Should seeding, if voted in, take effect this ladle or next ladle?

As for seeding, that involves a great deal of work from our current system of creating the brackets to a new system that would support seeding when creating brackets. For that reason, If that does pass during this vote, I think that should not be effective until ladle 38. This is because I won't put time to something that may potentially be useless, If someone else wants to that's fine, But when the voting thread would end and the challenge board gets set, there is not enough time to rewrite it.

[Lucifer]

So we base seedings off previous ladle in the case of a new team or open team. And we established clans will be exempt from this rule, being the entire clan is seeded and they have an entire roster to work with for starting ladle lineup.

I don't see why clans should be exempt. They still have to meet the requirements just like any other team, and for each team they want to field.

Why do so many people in clans think clans should get special treatment?

[owned]

So we base seedings off previous ladle in the case of a new team or open team. And we established clans will be exempt from this rule, being the entire clan is seeded and they have an entire roster to work with for starting ladle lineup.

I don't see why clans should be exempt. They still have to meet the requirements just like any other team, and for each team they want to field.

Why do so many people in clans think clans should get special treatment?

Saibot actually isn't in a clan.

But I agree with you that they shouldn't be exempt.