if the ladle was 8vs8 and now 6vs6
26 points per round max vs the 22 points per round max
LIMIT_SCORE is 100 in both places, but lets say 8vs 8 was right at 100
so
22/26 =x/100
that means x is about 85
so maybe it should be first to score 85 and keep 6 vs 6
just another idea
Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
Moderator: Light
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
Nah, no need, this is the 'what are the issues' thread, it's meant to be a little chaotic.kyle wrote:maybe z-man can split out the relevant posts
-
2020
- Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:21 pm
- Location: the present, finally
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
the reason why the ladles work is precisely because of timing
it radically altered how people thought an event could work
(check what happened to the spoon for comparison...)
in terms of the original design
it is all about timing
since we are only dealing with the ladle with 100 players or so
it doesn't matter too much
but a solution for bowl or cup won't scale unless people keep to the time
one of the chronic problems that arises in some form throughout has been timing
we've just had ladle 41
are we not confident enough to try things out?
and the arguments comparing to most sports don't hold --
most have one-point attention
eg a ball
which can be held up in some way
it radically altered how people thought an event could work
(check what happened to the spoon for comparison...)
in terms of the original design
it is all about timing
since we are only dealing with the ladle with 100 players or so
it doesn't matter too much
but a solution for bowl or cup won't scale unless people keep to the time
one of the chronic problems that arises in some form throughout has been timing
we've just had ladle 41
are we not confident enough to try things out?
and the arguments comparing to most sports don't hold --
most have one-point attention
eg a ball
which can be held up in some way
hold the line
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
The basic problem is being voiced by a minority as far as I'm aware. Where is the evidence of people complaining about it taking too long?
pLxDari - Challenge us!
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
that seems to fit the problem best. cuts game time, but keeps players per teamkyle wrote: so maybe it should be first to score 85 and keep 6 vs 6
red
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
Ok new guy, we heard you. Extended Ladle times are a reoccurring problem. You can read the old Ladle threads in this subforum for the "evidence" you need. And Ladles used to be 8v8, so switching to 7v7 isn't a crazy idea.dariv wrote:The basic problem is being voiced by a minority as far as I'm aware. Where is the evidence of people complaining about it taking too long?
We take great care in maintaining a fair democracy here. Everyone gets a voice, everyone gets a vote; minority or not. These threads sometimes get really bloated with highly polarised opinions, but in the end, the votes really do reflect what is best for everyone at that time - just the way it should be.
Please take a look at the voting history and see that even though we've voted several times to make Ladle something other than 6v6, it's always been shot down hard, haha. Then again, so was seeding at one time...
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
heh I am against changing it to 7v7 from 6v6 mainly because of lag.
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
^^^ !!THEred wrote:that seems to fit the problem best. cuts game time, but keeps players per teamkyle wrote: so maybe it should be first to score 85 and keep 6 vs 6
-
PokeMaster
- Match Winner
- Posts: 638
- Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:36 am
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
For the record, I do notice the lag in g5's compared to Ladle servers (disregarding crappy servers). I also notice a jump in lag when matches go from around 6v6 all the way up to 9v9. Lagometers enlarge quite a bit, and my playing style gets sloppy (feels like more of a result of excessive ping_rubber and possibly small slides than my own doing).sinewav wrote: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.
Maybe I'll take screenies of lagometers with different amounts of people playing.
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
sinewav wrote:Ok new guy, we heard you...<snip>dariv wrote:The basic problem is being voiced by a minority as far as I'm aware. Where is the evidence of people complaining about it taking too long?
Also, I am intrinsically against making the score limit 85. Fort is 100. Deal with it
The Halley's comet of Armagetron.
ps I'm not tokoyami
ps I'm not tokoyami
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
well, 7v7 does not necessarily shorten matches. Neither does 85 pt limit. We're ignoring the tactical implications of adding a player, 7v7 makes sweepboxing much more viable.
The question we ought to ask ourself is, how many rounds of fortress are necessary to determine a deserving winner?
This answer is currently answered as, it depends. The closer the teams are in ability, the longer we expect the matches to go. That's the true reason Ladle 41 was extraordinary and one could look at this being the reason for the wave of complaints following Ladle 22 (the bowl).
The format we currently have has evenly matched teams playing longer. Their individual matches ought to be closer, with more total points scored and more rounds played. In addition they very well might split the first two matches, and play a third, "extra match" to determine a deserving winner.
When teams become closer in skill, like they were on Sunday, the Ladle is longer. There were 5 games on Sunday that went to 3 matches. I don't have statistics available to me, but I would assume the average match length was long too. Often the rounds are long too when teams are even. Having a more competitive and level playing field is a very good thing, it just has a rather unpleasant kickback, perhaps felt by Europeans Monday morning.
Here's a solution! Matches have a 500 point limit. Core dumps are worth 11 points, zones are worth 22, won rounds are worth 33 points. This means, for every point you scored last Ladle, you could have scored 10% more! Ladles could be 10% shorter, just like that. Now this does mean that we change our requirements of how long it takes to determine a deserving winner by 10%.
(Here's an example. Take the available stats from players common to both Jalapenos on Sticks and Team Binary. These players are chosen because more Ladle stats are available on them than anyone else. They won 16 matches between L34 and L35. The took on average 7.5 rounds to win a match, scoring in these matches an average of 13.3 points a round before winning. Had these ladles been played with my scoring, they would have taken just 6.8 rounds to win. A 9.3% decrease. Not bad. If yesterdays Ladle took 283 minutes for most teams - I based this upon when the final scores were reported - it could have taken just 254 minutes. That's a full half hour, without much altering the game.)
This method is, in my opinion, far superior to cutting the score limit by 10%. Setting it at 90 means that the value of each point-generating action changes with respect to each other. For example, a team could take time to maximize the number of points they gain each round, by not conquering the zone until every opponent is dead. Doing this, with a 90 point limit, would mean they have to win only 4 rounds and get a core dump. With a hundred point limit, there is minimal advantage to this method since, there is not round advantage to earning 22 or 20 points around. A strong team still maximizes points, however, at the instance in which maximization is possible, it is already 4+ v 2 or 3+ v 1. In these instances, maximization is worth drastically less than it would be with a 90 pt limit. It is plausible that a well managed 90-pt fortress match last longer than a well managed 100 pt match. The points have perverse effects on tactics, and we ought to consider these.
The larger issue with setting it at 85, like kyle suggested and others echoed, is it just doesn't help that much. This shortens lopsided matches by a minimal length and does nothing to shorten close matches, where, as I pointed out above, things take a turn for the worse. Lopsided winners tend to have to wait for winners of close matches anyway, and indeed only a few close matches as key points in the bracket slow everything down. Team Unknown's matches, for example, could have taken longer without making the ladle any longer. All that matters is the longest matches at key points. These happen when closely matched teams meet.
My solution, the 10% increase across the board in point values, does not offset the situation we already have, where it takes 5 rounds regardless of whether one is perfect or only near perfect. It actually decreases that threshold. With the current model, having 5 sub-victory rounds (18 or fewer points) gains 90 points, brings one 90% of a victory. With my scoring model, having 5 sub-victory rounds, (99 or fewer points) gains one 495 points, 99% of the necessary total for victory.
If people want shorter Ladles, there are several options. Become much better or much worse at the game or adopt something ridiculous like 11 point core dumps or lower your standards on what determines a deserving win. The last would be a real shame, surely.
The question we ought to ask ourself is, how many rounds of fortress are necessary to determine a deserving winner?
This answer is currently answered as, it depends. The closer the teams are in ability, the longer we expect the matches to go. That's the true reason Ladle 41 was extraordinary and one could look at this being the reason for the wave of complaints following Ladle 22 (the bowl).
The format we currently have has evenly matched teams playing longer. Their individual matches ought to be closer, with more total points scored and more rounds played. In addition they very well might split the first two matches, and play a third, "extra match" to determine a deserving winner.
When teams become closer in skill, like they were on Sunday, the Ladle is longer. There were 5 games on Sunday that went to 3 matches. I don't have statistics available to me, but I would assume the average match length was long too. Often the rounds are long too when teams are even. Having a more competitive and level playing field is a very good thing, it just has a rather unpleasant kickback, perhaps felt by Europeans Monday morning.
Here's a solution! Matches have a 500 point limit. Core dumps are worth 11 points, zones are worth 22, won rounds are worth 33 points. This means, for every point you scored last Ladle, you could have scored 10% more! Ladles could be 10% shorter, just like that. Now this does mean that we change our requirements of how long it takes to determine a deserving winner by 10%.
(Here's an example. Take the available stats from players common to both Jalapenos on Sticks and Team Binary. These players are chosen because more Ladle stats are available on them than anyone else. They won 16 matches between L34 and L35. The took on average 7.5 rounds to win a match, scoring in these matches an average of 13.3 points a round before winning. Had these ladles been played with my scoring, they would have taken just 6.8 rounds to win. A 9.3% decrease. Not bad. If yesterdays Ladle took 283 minutes for most teams - I based this upon when the final scores were reported - it could have taken just 254 minutes. That's a full half hour, without much altering the game.)
This method is, in my opinion, far superior to cutting the score limit by 10%. Setting it at 90 means that the value of each point-generating action changes with respect to each other. For example, a team could take time to maximize the number of points they gain each round, by not conquering the zone until every opponent is dead. Doing this, with a 90 point limit, would mean they have to win only 4 rounds and get a core dump. With a hundred point limit, there is minimal advantage to this method since, there is not round advantage to earning 22 or 20 points around. A strong team still maximizes points, however, at the instance in which maximization is possible, it is already 4+ v 2 or 3+ v 1. In these instances, maximization is worth drastically less than it would be with a 90 pt limit. It is plausible that a well managed 90-pt fortress match last longer than a well managed 100 pt match. The points have perverse effects on tactics, and we ought to consider these.
The larger issue with setting it at 85, like kyle suggested and others echoed, is it just doesn't help that much. This shortens lopsided matches by a minimal length and does nothing to shorten close matches, where, as I pointed out above, things take a turn for the worse. Lopsided winners tend to have to wait for winners of close matches anyway, and indeed only a few close matches as key points in the bracket slow everything down. Team Unknown's matches, for example, could have taken longer without making the ladle any longer. All that matters is the longest matches at key points. These happen when closely matched teams meet.
My solution, the 10% increase across the board in point values, does not offset the situation we already have, where it takes 5 rounds regardless of whether one is perfect or only near perfect. It actually decreases that threshold. With the current model, having 5 sub-victory rounds (18 or fewer points) gains 90 points, brings one 90% of a victory. With my scoring model, having 5 sub-victory rounds, (99 or fewer points) gains one 495 points, 99% of the necessary total for victory.
If people want shorter Ladles, there are several options. Become much better or much worse at the game or adopt something ridiculous like 11 point core dumps or lower your standards on what determines a deserving win. The last would be a real shame, surely.
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
lol analytical much.
-
ElmosWorld
- Match Winner
- Posts: 610
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:38 pm
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
Another option is to start ladle 1 hour earlier. Start at 1745 GMT for a 16 team bracket and 1700 GMT for a 32 team bracket.
This is 945AM for people on the west coast of the US. Not too early in my opinion.
Ladle would end an hour earlier. Would that work?
This is 945AM for people on the west coast of the US. Not too early in my opinion.
Ladle would end an hour earlier. Would that work?
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
Another solid idea, but that doesn't solve the problem of long matches.ElmosWorld wrote:Another option is to start ladle 1 hour earlier. Start at 1745 GMT for a 16 team bracket and 1700 GMT for a 32 team bracket.
This is 945AM for people on the west coast of the US. Not too early in my opinion.
Ladle would end an hour earlier. Would that work?
I still like the 85 pt idea
-
Discosuperstar
- On Lightcycle Grid
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:14 am
Re: Ladle 42 Voting Discussion
Just throwing out an idea with the time limit here.
Instead of the team w/ highest points winning in case time runs out, make the win condition something more volatile. For example, after time runs out, next team to lose a player (whether suicide or kill) automatically loses the round. That way neither team has a real advantage to stalling due to the risk of losing the round due to one death.
Instead of the team w/ highest points winning in case time runs out, make the win condition something more volatile. For example, after time runs out, next team to lose a player (whether suicide or kill) automatically loses the round. That way neither team has a real advantage to stalling due to the risk of losing the round due to one death.