Ladle 42 Voting Discussion

[Word]

this discussion is getting more and more absurd. can't we just keep everything as it is

[Olive]

@hoax; simple misunderstanding then. Seemed to me as you thought mentioning the topic was already superfluous. Somehow my posts always get interpreted as if I'm 'heated' when I'm certainly not. But ey, dont people notice capital letters first, though it's not easier to read. But when they are interested enough and take the time it's not so hard to read in caps.

[þsy]

An argument for some people having previously desiring a time limit:

people's stances to those settings do differ (look into past ladle discussions, enough examples there)

What we think of those desires:

I honestly couldn't care less about past' complaints

I think the point is, the vast majority do not want a time limit for the next ladle, and so this general time limit issue shouldn't be discussed here, but in a seperate thread - with a view to possibly implement in a future ladle some time.

I am open to the idea personally, but I think it'd need to be properly tried and tested before we think about doing it. So lets discuss other potential changes to the settings for Ladle 42

[kyle]

maybe z-man can split out the relevant posts, i did not think that this would bring up some much conversation.

I'll say this, you've convinced me that a time limit is not the way to go about this, but maybe less points or more per team could change the amount of time.

[sinewav]

7v7 would go someway to shortening matches, over the potential 10 rounds that's 20 extra points available for either team.

Yes. I mentioned this a few months ago.

I'm in the "it's not broken, don't fix it" category, however, the time it takes to play Ladles is a reoccurring problem. I did a little forum research and found out the point where people started complaining about the length of Ladle. It was Ladle 18, the point where we made the jump to a 16-team bracket (note: L-17 had a "play-in" round).

Personally, I think adding a time limit might be too drastic. We may be able to make smaller changes in other areas to achieve our goals. Here are some observations I've made:

Just like in G5 Mega Fort, extra players mean extra points. Currently, the maximum amount of point you can get in a Ladle round is 22. Adding an extra player (7v7) makes it 24 and may cause matches to be shorter by at least one round or more. Is it worth the lag? Maybe. I don't notice more lag in casual games at G5's than in Ladle.

We may be able to tweak the win/conquered settings slightly. Adding 2 points here or there might make a tremendous difference in match time. Even setting score_win to 8 instead of 6 could have a big impact on time without disturbing the game.

Looking over the past year of Ladles I found that only 27% of meets end with a 3rd match. That goes along with what Z-man says about "only one in three ladles goes so much overtime that it gets a little painful." His suggestion about a shortened 3rd match is a good one. I think 50 points instead of 100 would help out a lot. A little complicated in practice, but not impossible to manage.

[dariv]

We struggled as a new clan to get 6 players playing. Increasing that to 7 gives mature clans with a large player pool another advantage over us. It's not a newbie-friendly policy.


This matter aside, what are the opinions on the choice of final server? I think it should always be one with at least 50 places. G5's in the EU has 60. Does it seem acceptable to say we will use that in the finals of 42? (If it is still available etc.)

[syllabear]

Limit round lengths (either by an instantly expanding DZ with 0 kill points, or a setting of some kind), to maybe 8-10 minutes. That way, rounds where attackers keep attacking passively for 10-20 minutes until the defender pisses himself from boredum are gone, and the matches should flow faster.

[þsy]

Points might be a good idea, or - as potter suggested - 7v7 meaning a lot more points on the table = quicker matches, though this does come with lag issues for some

[Cody <3]

I'm opposed to adding any sort of time limit to ladle.

I'm all for adding 7v7 though

[Magic]

wouldnt 5v5 also shorten the round length less players means more attacking the def right? also one kill would mean player advantage possibly holing afterwards

and teams would have to choose if they want to be attack oriented(three attack one sweep one def)
or more defense oriented(two or 1 attack rest sweep and def maybe a midfeilder?)

[Desolate]

5v5 would definitely not shorten the match.

[Magic]

Pics or it didn't happen

[Olive]

The thing with 5v5's is, a team basically prefers playing 3v2 on the defending side and 2v3 on the attacking side that the other way round. Meaning a more defensive approach hence more conservative play. 7v7 is interesting because - as I stated before - the midfield position will come into play. Putting the extra man on sweep would simply cause overcrowding of the defense and massacres. More deaths = quick player advantage = agressive play = quick rounds, funny equation.

@psy really, before bickering please read my post thoroughly, this will be my last post concerning the topic as it doesn't seem much appreciated.

[sinewav]

We struggled as a new clan to get 6 players playing. Increasing that to 7 gives mature clans with a large player pool another advantage over us. It's not a newbie-friendly policy.

Ironically, this is also one of the reasons 7v7 will be hard to pass. The super-teams (SP, CT, and now uNk) are more likely to vote for 6v6 because it is very hard for any clan to provide 12 players on Ladle day, let alone 14. Making Ladle 7v7 will cause an inordinate amount of substitutes looking to form ad hoc teams, thus reducing the overall competitiveness of Ladle (I think). The long term effects, I imagine, are players leaving large teams to form new ones, and possibly no more occurrences of "A-teams/B-teams" on the brack... hey wait... that actually solves a few problems. Hmm...

[dariv]

We struggled as a new clan to get 6 players playing. Increasing that to 7 gives mature clans with a large player pool another advantage over us. It's not a newbie-friendly policy.

Ironically, this is also one of the reasons 7v7 will be hard to pass. The super-teams (SP, CT, and now uNk) are more likely to vote for 6v6 because it is very hard for any clan to provide 12 players on Ladle day, let alone 14. Making Ladle 7v7 will cause an inordinate amount of substitutes looking to form ad hoc teams, thus reducing the overall competitiveness of Ladle (I think). The long term effects, I imagine, are players leaving large teams to form new ones, and possibly no more occurrences of "A-teams/B-teams" on the brack... hey wait... that actually solves a few problems. Hmm...

So... we increase the number and these are the agreed results:

1. Games are shorter, so players get less playing time per match.
2. Inability to form A/B teams means good players face the decision to either sub, or quit their clan
3. New clans find it even harder to participate



Can I remind everyone that half the teams in the ladle go out in the first round, and I can tell you it would suck to have your playing time cut, just because people who have the benefit of frequently reaching the later stages want an early bed-time.