Ladle 37

[wildcat]

Teams also should have a min of 6 players. Most matches drag out b/c a team is short on players so they defend with all players on their team. Makes for a very boring match. IMO, if you cant organize 6 players, you prob shouldnt have a team. If not 6, at least 5.

[syllabear]

Its not neccessarily putting fun at a back seat. I think the Tu-DS match was probably the longest, and its representative of a few things:

Firstly, the teams were fairly balanced under the circumstances, so the game took 3 matches instead of 2.

Then each match was very close, for example the first was 100-90 or something like that, and the others were equally close.

Then, our teams aren't as good as other ladle teams: We can't easily cut enemy defence, and so we have to depend on killing off sweepers and wearing down the defenders.

Its nothing to do with lack of fun, or deliberately going slow, or starting late. Its that we can't really do much if its a close match and we aren't highly skilled and able to do fast rounds...

[sinewav]

Hmmm... That's a very good observation sylla.

[pike]

That was really good Ladle, congrats to Rogues and uNks for great semifinals. Final looked a bit like last Ladle - CT won 1st match with some nice advantage, then lost 2nd and 3rd one was really close. SP played really aggressive - both in attack and sweep, but in the end my slaps finally worked - Zap woke up and won the game

[gawdzilla]

Teams also should have a min of 6 players. Most matches drag out b/c a team is short on players so they defend with all players on their team. Makes for a very boring match. IMO, if you cant organize 6 players, you prob shouldnt have a team. If not 6, at least 5.

^ This.

Not to complain about dBd because I do support new teams trying out the ladle, but it was just a mess. Their members showed up quite late and it wasn't fun to me at all, playing a team that wasn't organized and scrambled together at the last second. Sorry to say that, but its the truth. I fully encourage teams/clans signing up for the ladle but IF you do, make sure you're at least organized out of respect to the other teams.

[Nelhybel]

I mentioned before that Ladle matches would probably go faster if we returned to teams of eight players (8v8) - it's how the team size was when the time-frame was determined.

I like that idea! I always feel that the more players involved, the more intense it is! =D


As for starting times, and stuff: I think this idea may have been presented before and wasn't too well received, but maybe we could check it out again.
That is, making Ladle a two day event (Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoon, New York time).

If we start earlier, you're going to be cutting out a lot of people from the matches who will be going to Church instead. I'm not saying the entire tournament times should be changed for this group of people, but this is just one factor.

As more and more teams sign up, we can't just keep pushing the tournament earlier and earlier, and letting it run later and later - at some point, spreading it over two days is going to be inevitable.

Maybe this isn't relevant when we still only have a 16 team bracket, or even a 32 team bracket (even though didn't the last one go on until like 2 in the morning for some Euros?). But once we hopefully some day get to a 64 team bracket, Ladle will have to become a multi-day event, be it Saturday and Sunday, or one Sunday then the next Sunday, or whatever.

Not to complain about dBd because I do support new teams trying out the ladle, but it was just a mess. Their members showed up quite late and it wasn't fun to me at all, playing a team that wasn't organized and scrambled together at the last second. Sorry to say that, but its the truth. I fully encourage teams/clans signing up for the ladle but IF you do, make sure you're at least organized out of respect to the other teams.

I understand what you mean, but I disagree. I encourage everybody and anybody to get on a Ladle team. I do think that there should be a minimum player count (imho 5 people on grid with 6 player team, 6 people with 8 player team), and that if a team doesn't reach that minimum player count on time (isn't that why it's called the starting time? You're supposed to be ready to start at that time), the team should be disqualified. BUT I feel that saying a team is not organized enough is like saying they aren't skilled enough, which should not be a ladle prerequisite. Getting the 5/6 people to show up on time is organization enough.

Also, gz to uNk and R making it to the semis, and nice work to SP and especially CT for winning it! =)

[PsYkO]

Wake me up when the ladle takes 8 hours to complete and then I'll maybe consider voting for 2 days. Although I would vote for the round of 32 and round of 16 on the first Sunday of the month and the rounds of 8, 4, and 2 on the next Sunday

[INW]

I'm sure if a match time limit was added or even the limit_score was set to 80...the time problem would easily be resolved. For matches starting late; simply disqualify a team 5 min late to the server. Maybe set a team limit to a ladle to 32. I don't see why this 'time' issue is such a pain in the arse. There are so many alternatives as stated above.

[sinewav]

I'm sure if a match time limit was added or even the limit_score was set to 80...the time problem would easily be resolved. For matches starting late; simply disqualify a team 5 min late to the server.

We've been over all those before (you we not around I guess). The solution isn't as easy as you think. Each one of those suggestions has pros and cons to them. Time limits and changing scores has always been shot down in the past, but there is no reason we can't try and stimulate a discussion around them. You never know when we'll have a collective stoke of genius.

Oh, and simply disqualifying a team that's 5 minutes late is not "simple" at all, hahaha! I personally would never, ever say to a team "too bad, you guys are 5 minutes late. I'm claiming victory for my team!" As you know, this would be a job for a Global Moderator (GM) for which we currently have zero employed.

If I can find a previous discussion about time and score changes I'll link here later. Keep in mind, the FPL was an attempt to experiment with time and score settings and had mixed results.

Also, it's hard to get people motivated to make these changes because the majority of Ladles are on time, mostly. It's only a couple a year that drag out too long.

[INW]

I'm sure if a match time limit was added or even the limit_score was set to 80...the time problem would easily be resolved. For matches starting late; simply disqualify a team 5 min late to the server.

Oh, and simply disqualifying a team that's 5 minutes late is not "simple" at all, hahaha! I personally would never, ever say to a team "too bad, you guys are 5 minutes late. I'm claiming victory for my team!" As you know, this would be a job for a Global Moderator (GM) for which we currently have zero employed.

If I can find a previous discussion about time and score changes I'll link here later. Keep in mind, the FPL was an attempt to experiment with time and score settings and had mixed results.

Hmm the more I look at it, I totally understand how hard it would be to disqualify a team 5 min late. And I was around during the FPL, I just wasn't around in fortress at the time so I am a little late on the old voting results.

So what does it say now? I could not really follow anymore .. anyway i had the idea to just count the first match as a loss for the team who is not able to start in time ... would shorter the match and the team would not be totally disqualified.

I like that idea actually.

[-*inS*-]

Teams also should have a min of 6 players. Most matches drag out b/c a team is short on players so they defend with all players on their team. Makes for a very boring match. IMO, if you cant organize 6 players, you prob shouldnt have a team. If not 6, at least 5.

bad idea.

SP actually only had 4 people the opening round due to FoFo not being able to make the ladle last minute, and viper was late. However, we played our match normally and after the opening round, viper showed up and we recruited eggcozy which worked out well.

Having less people doesn't guarantee a slow match, in fact SP finished before TU v DS and SP v R semis (which took the longest amount of match space it possibly could) finished wayyyyyy before the other side. And SP only started with 4 players...

Seems like we stay true to our name

[Titanoboa]

in bed


jokes aside, insa has a point.


R started the R vs SPD match, 6v4, "by force" after giving SPD 5+ minutes to get more players. That worked out.

I think the current system is ok. It's in every team's interest to get 6 players for obvious reasons.. It's better to use carrots than punishment, primarly, imo.

[dreadlord]

So what does it say now? I could not really follow anymore .. anyway i had the idea to just count the first match as a loss for the team who is not able to start in time ... would shorter the match and the team would not be totally disqualified.

I like that idea actually.

Rather refer to this now and discuss about it. I think this should be done in that topic: http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 7&start=60

[INW]

You will also be redirected to that topic if you click on your quote in my above post (:

[wildcat]

bad idea.

SP actually only had 4 people the opening round due to FoFo not being able to make the ladle last minute, and viper was late. However, we played our match normally and after the opening round, viper showed up and we recruited eggcozy which worked out well.

Having less people doesn't guarantee a slow match, in fact SP finished before TU v DS and SP v R semis (which took the longest amount of match space it possibly could) finished wayyyyyy before the other side. And SP only started with 4 players...

I dont see whats so bad about making teams be accountable. I mean teams should have subs b/c life happens every ladle causing someone to be late or not show.
Plus, I dont like the idea of recruiting during the ladle. Maybe thats just me though