Ladle 44

A place for threads related to tournaments and the like, and things related too.

Moderator: Light

Post Reply
Spook
Round Winner
Posts: 307
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:06 pm

Re: Ladle 44

Post by Spook »

Oh yea one more thing i was looking at the times on the wiki and it says that the first round starts at 17gmt? is that right
Image

User avatar
þsy
Match Winner
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:52 pm

Re: Ladle 44

Post by þsy »

Sorry I've only just had a chance to get on here!

Thank you very very much to both DS and the LOL team for agreeing to play us! We're now set to play DS, so thanks a lot for helping us out :D

As far as the rules go, I think some re-working to be done as this has been a bit chaotic. Having said that, it was my fault entirely, so maybe we should just try avoiding doing this again.

Anyway, thanks for agreeing to play us. See you tomorow!

User avatar
compguygene
Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 2336
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:09 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Ladle 44

Post by compguygene »

Spook, I saw that you are scheduled to play in ID Chicago, so I added [email protected] as team leader, so you can have team leader for the ladle in that server.
Armagetron: It's a video game that people should just play and enjoy :)
https://bit.ly/2KBGYjvCheck out the simple site about TheServerPharm

milan
Average Program
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 5:47 pm
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Re: Ladle 44

Post by milan »

þsy wrote:Anyway, thanks for agreeing to play us. See you tomorow!
Np, cu

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6299
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 44

Post by sinewav »

þsy wrote:As far as the rules go, I think some re-working to be done as this has been a bit chaotic.
I agree. Take a look at my previous post...
sinewav wrote:Let's talk briefly about the late-comer rule. It was created back when we only had enough teams to barely fill a 16-slot bracket. We're talking 1-3 byes at most to go through if any at all. But we've had a couple consecutive 32-team brackets, which leaves a late-comer over a dozen byes to go through. This is unreasonable in my opinion.

In cases such as this, should we add something that says:

"... you may ask the team with the first bye for permission to fill the open slot. If they refuse, go through the byes in order... or you may take the first bye offered voluntarily."

Or maybe it should say "highest bye offered voluntarily before 12:00 GMT Ladle day."

Anyone see a problem with this? Should we write it in?
This seems like a good way to go about it. Perhaps simply requiring the late-team to post a request on the forum is enough to get the ball rolling? We can simplify it to say "Late-comers should post a request to play and can take any bye offered voluntarily." Sound good?

So far, no team has ever been denied entry to Ladle. And seeing that one of the best teams in Fortress successfully entered late, I have faith that people will continue to volunteer byes in the future (especially if Ladle remains at it's current size).

syllabear
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:37 pm
Location: UK/HK

Re: Ladle 44

Post by syllabear »

I think going through it bye by bye is sufficient punishment for anyone not bothered enough to sign up in time. If one month is not enough time, then obviously that team will not be organised enough to win, and I can't see how they care enough to take part.
The Halley's comet of Armagetron.
ps I'm not tokoyami

owned
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 876
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Ladle 44

Post by owned »

I agree with sylla's answer, not sylla's reasoning. Sine, your solution leaves the system up for abuse. Two teams could collude together to get the best spot, or maybe a clan could put up multiple teams, with some of the teams only there to give the best team the best spot. Honestly I see no problem with the current system. If you're worried about it being too complicated or taking too long, we can make it go like this:

If a team doesn't enter on time, they make a new topic stating that they would like to join the ladle. Then, each team leader posts whether they would let the team play against them in the first round. If a team leader does not respond within a day, it is assumed that the answer is no. One day after the topic is made, the entering team plays the team with the lowest bye that offered a spot.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6299
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle 44

Post by sinewav »

Yeah I don't agree with sylla's reasoning either. The goal has never been to punish late-comers, but to not place an unfair burden on the teams that make the cut-off.

I think you're on to something owned. You're right, there is potential for collusion with my idea. And keeping the "lowest bye" rule is good too. But instead of such a narrow time restriction, maybe we can extend it until the hour before Ladle? I mean, one day is rather short and there is really no reason we shouldn't use the entire weekend, if necessary. I don't like the idea of telling a late team 24 hours after their post "sorry, can't play."

How about: "Late teams can request permission to join by posting on the forums, but must take the lowest bye offered up. The thread should remain open until one hour before Ladle starts."

Flex
Round Winner
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:44 pm

Re: Ladle 44

Post by Flex »

So why was this made into such a big deal? (Explain your moronic actions clearly so everyone can understand why they're giving you freedom to do this.)

Was there a very serious need to remove SP from the brackets and mess the whole ladle up for no ******* apparent reason other than finding an error within the rules?

Why not just bring it up next time and fix it or improve on it, rather than this stupid irresponsible and irrational decision?

Why have a solution for it AFTER removing Speeders from the brackets? The damage has already been done and you have a bright idea for a solution to this AFTER?

So what if psy forgot to properly do the SP roster? What do you think this is?

You base your argument on following rules and abiding by them, then your own team's last addition/edit was illigally done by none of the captains and it also passes 18:00 GMT before a legit edit after the cut-off. Here's the log: http://wiki.armagetronad.net/index.php? ... ldid=31921 The roster consists of TBA. So by that definition, BOTH unknown teams do not deserve a position on the brackets.

The rule was never included to screw over regular/old teams, but to dis-engage phantom teams that were filling up the ladle team roster with no-shows and one/two man teams. To avoid over-complicated rules to compensate for the possible mis-use of the rule by affecting regular teams, it was decided not to have extra rules, but to use COMMON SENSE and just respect shit like this can happen and we should ignore it.

If you were so concerned with rules being followed, a friendly reminder to psy would have sufficed. The fact that SP has a seed, and was signed up regularly each ladle, and considering 2-3 team set-ups and none of those players being on the ladle brackets means there's at least 12 players not even signed up yet, and he wants to conclude that Speeders is a none existent team? Where is the logic in that.

Common sense is the key here and massively lacking. The only solution to this is to revert the changes done or you've again systemically ****** over the ladle.

It's not up to you on how it works. You can suggest to fix flaws rather than abusing them, but you can't follow it yourself. If you don't like it, go do your own tournament where you can freely decide which rules and how it should work. The ladle is a community run event, dus you can't remove a team from the brackets when it's a legit team completely abiding by the rules, just simply not remember to update its roster. You completely mis-used the rule and took advantage of it.

I know, because I wrote it.

syllabear
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:37 pm
Location: UK/HK

Re: Ladle 44

Post by syllabear »

Flex wrote:If you were so concerned with rules being followed, a friendly reminder to psy would have sufficed.
I reminded several SP members directly and indirectly on the grid with phrases like "Oh no, SP still not signed up for ladle yet" and "When are SP gonna sign up for ladle" in the lead up to the randomisation.

As I said again, ladle is now srs bsns, and if 18 other teams can be bothered to take one f***ing minute to sign up a team, I don't know why other teams can't. Sure I don't mind letting teams play if they miss sign up, but an experienced team like speeders shouldn't be missing the deadline.

And Flex, its fairly obvious the rule is there to prevent speeders stacking one team. We know you didn't mean to do it, but its not fair to get special treatment because we "knew" that you didn't want to do this.
The Halley's comet of Armagetron.
ps I'm not tokoyami

User avatar
þsy
Match Winner
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:52 pm

Re: Ladle 44

Post by þsy »

I don't want this discussion to continue. As far as Speeders is concerned, we are very grateful to DS for the opportunity to participate and we want to focus on our performance on the grid, nothing more and certainly not this matter.

Let's leave this for a Ladle 45 discussion thread! Thanks :D

User avatar
Z-Man
God & Project Admin
Posts: 11365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: Ladle 44

Post by Z-Man »

Flex wrote:You base your argument on following rules and abiding by them, then your own team's last addition/edit was illigally done by none of the captains and it also passes 18:00 GMT before a legit edit after the cut-off. Here's the log: http://wiki.armagetronad.net/index.php? ... ldid=31921 The roster consists of TBA. So by that definition, BOTH unknown teams do not deserve a position on the brackets.
I hate to say this, but Flex has a point here. At randomization time, the uNk teams were in exactly the same signup stage as the speeders. Instant Karma (or was it?) matched them up in the first round, so no harm done, I'd say.

User avatar
dreadlord
Match Winner
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:26 am
Location: Germany

Re: Ladle 44

Post by dreadlord »

All right, I agree to psy, let's end this discussion.

Good luck and have fun to everyone.

User avatar
ElmosWorld
Match Winner
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:38 pm

Re: Ladle 44

Post by ElmosWorld »

Isn't
Revision as of 03:55, 31 March 2011
before 1800GMT?

As for Pr3 adding players to the other uNk team, are you suggesting that he punished?
Last edited by ElmosWorld on Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
Slov
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 934
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:32 pm

Re: Ladle 44

Post by Slov »

psy sacrifising and working hard to get that nicest player award haha
.pG (only like, the best clan ever)

my mixtape fire tho

Post Reply