Ladle 46

[þsy]

That's an interesting observation desolate, I think I'm inclined to agree with it - the best counter-attack to a conservative defence is a very offensive tactic, and thus the cycle continues

I think this theory mixed with Concord's theory about the next breakthrough technique/stragety dominating the ladle gives a good insight into the equations needed to provide an updated ladle team. I'd argue that eventually, teams will become balanced, some more attacking and some more defensive. The team that wins will be the team that can counteract the other teams strategy, and in order to do this, a wide vocabulary of moves would be required and the brains to know when would also be necessary (as in, fluent in all the various techniques, without any other new ones to develop). I think this started to happen with R when they won their two ladles in a row, when their tactics changed dramatically mid-games, and I think it's thanks to this that they won those ladles. However, until all the techniques have been understood, tried and tested, we'll always be playing in a level of uncertainty until we reach a balance, which could take years.

Bring on next ladle!

[Concord]

R never won two ladles in a row. When did you mean?

(I'd point at when R won their first)

[þsy]

Ah yeah I got confused in ladle 39 where they lost to CT, I remembered them as winning that for some reason