Ladle 49

[-*inS*-]

Yes but that is rarer and still happens in 6v6, take away 2 players, you take away the first 3 minutes of each round.

Because this does happen every round.

edit: @ sine

Why? With more players you have more flexibility for increasingly complex defensive schemes. Sure you can hole more, but there will be another layer of defense in addition to what's there already.

What it boils down to is that teams have found playing defensively > playing offensively. Give teams more players and there's no reason to think they (I say they including myself) will suddenly reverse this philosophy, I would guess rounds would last longer.

[INW]

But what two players do you chose to kill?

Wouldn't having 2 players die at the start of a round completely screw up the tactics of that team that might have happened if the server did not crash?

Can my team just chose for the 2 worst players to suicide? I am sure the exact players alive and dead won't be taken note of.

The server crashing while Team A had more players alive is just chance. That could have easily happened when Team B had the player advantage. Just a roll of the dice.

[Slickster]

Gz mYm, well played.

Vgms tx and Sp.

Sp: 1-1 in last 2 ladles since I took a cptning spot o:

(rivalRy?)

[sinewav]

Why? With more players you have more flexibility for increasingly complex defensive schemes. Sure you can hole more, but there will be another layer of defense in addition to what's there already.

The point is teams will still reach 100 points faster. One or two deaths per round add up fast, plus more players means less room and more interaction, increasing the chance of kills and not tk/suicide. Though it doesn't help lag, I don't see reducing players to 5v5 or 4v4 making that significant a difference either. It's usually not the server load, but the quality of the connection.

But what two players do you chose to kill?

I think the idea is kill the players who died previously. But if the server is in the process of crashing anyway, how can you absolutely say the deaths right before the crash were the result of player error and not the server. We can go on for days picking this apart and getting nowhere.

[dariv]

good match SP , for the record, CT LIV is the best ladle server I've yet played on, not a single slide in a good 50 minutes 6v6 + at least 6 spec.

[Olive]

fort is like football, the competitors should enjoy the spectators.

AND 4 TEH YOU ES VOLX, I MEEN SOKKA NOT AMEWIKAN FUTBAL!

[owned]

I argue that restoring player imbalance fulfills both goals.

Slippery slope. The problem with that is we assume player imbalance always translates to advantage. Imagine 4v3, each team with 2 attackers. You might think the team with 4 has the advantage until you realize that the team with 3 has both attackers in the opponent's zone and are quickly forcing the rest out when the server crashes. I can imagine any number of scenarios like this. That's why this is so tricky, you have to draw a line somewhere (hey, a pun ).

You could make the exact same argument with scores, couldn't you? A team up 98-90 before the server crashes might actually be about to lose. You might think the team with 98 has the advantage until you realize that the team with 90 has 2 attackers in the opponent zone and are quickly forcing the rest out while the server crashes. I can imagine any number of scenarios like this.
Just like a team with a higher score, a team with a higher number of players is much more likely to have an advantage in the round (or in the case of the higher score, the match overall).

The only time restarting the round fresh becomes an issue is when the game is really close like ours was. Any other time this has happened it was just like "oh well, redo." And that's actually the attitude we need to have because server crashes, like lag, are just something we have to deal with. Besides, starting a round with an imbalance is not at all like an imbalance gained mid-round.

First I don't want you to think that I'm talking about this because we lost today. I was originally going to post a quick reactionary post about this on the forums but i decided to wait a little bit and post after I thought more about it. And of course, starting a round with an imbalance is not like an imbalance gained mid-round, but it is much more like it than starting a round with an equal number of players. In the end, we just want to fulfill the two goals I stated in my post, and starting with an imbalance best accomplishes that.

Finally, a single round might determine a match, but it certainly won't determine the outcome of 2 or 3 matches.

Even though it won't have a huge lasting impact in the game most of the time, the fact that it does in some situations i think is proof that it's better to have it.

[-*inS*-]

Why? With more players you have more flexibility for increasingly complex defensive schemes. Sure you can hole more, but there will be another layer of defense in addition to what's there already.

The point is teams will still reach 100 points faster. One or two deaths per round add up fast, plus more players means less room and more interaction, increasing the chance of kills and not tk/suicide. Though it doesn't help lag, I don't see reducing players to 5v5 or 4v4 making that significant a difference either. It's usually not the server load, but the quality of the connection.

Ah, very good point, I was looking at it from the perspective of shortening rounds, yet didn't notice that 4v4 has the side effect of requiring more rounds. That's perplexing.

As far as servers go, we really should have some feedback system to know which servers are most/least reliable for ladles. Not that we can afford to be choosy about servers in the opener, but later in the ladle we can. Personally none of the servers were bad for me this ladle but I have an insane connection.

Just wondering, does anyone have lag issues in the CT MBX server (Same with the MBX pickup server), I have never heard a complaint about it - seems very reliable.

[theroze]

lolx gz mYm

[Concord]

winning is the most vulgar way of getting the recognition of your peers.

[þsy]

Gz mYm, your strategy was great and your playing really clinical - you deserved to win this ladle

Server issues:

As Sine made it clear, we can't afford to drop any servers as we're pretty tight on them as it is. However..

We could rank servers, so that the servers with bad connections get used up in the early rounds and are then not used, so that the better servers are used more towards the end of the tournament over the bad ones

For example, there have been complaints about CT USA and CT INW, so they could be ranked last. CT LIV on the other hand was beautiful to play on (as dariv said), so this alongside CT MBX could be ranked higher and therefore used more frequently than the crappy servers.

I know there needs to be an equal divide between EU and US servers and that we need to alternate the server location between the two, so maybe rank the best to worst EU servers and the best to worst US servers.

Please don't overlook this post, I think it's an easy, fair and agreeable solution that will improve future ladles

[matchbox53]

gz mym its nice to see you guys winning and hope to see you winning more in the future

[syllabear]

@woned and sine

Unfortunately there's currently no way to recreate exactly the conditions of a round before a crash. However, thankfully, a crash only happens extremely infrequently, especially in competitive armagetron.

The best solution, taken into account the fact that ladle is supposed to be about fun and sportsmanship, is for both teams to simply accept the fact that random, rare crashes are part of the game, a part which you cannot plan for, but must endure all the same. Resetting the scores should be fairly easy with the number of spectators, so thats probably not an issue. Resetting the players: Well in my opinion, it should take into account the sportsmanship that ladle represents, and the players who were dead before the crash know they were dead before the crash. So a simple solution, but not perfect, would be for both teams to have a set period of no-interaction time to complete the grind (no centering), set up defence, get tails out of the way etc. and then the players who were dead can be either /killed or suicide to ensure the previous balance.

And yes I know this cannot account for the exact circumstances, but unfortunately thats probably the fairest and best solution (as far as I can see).

And hopefully, after congratulating the winners, the losers can have a good chat and a laugh about the match with them, without any hard feelings.

[kyle]

good match SP , for the record, CT LIV is the best ladle server I've yet played on, not a single slide in a good 50 minutes 6v6 + at least 6 spec.

heh and it was not but a few months ago everyone was saying never again to CT liv.


I think it is just the luck of day weather the server will be good or bad.

[[SC]]

my conglaturations to mYm.