Ladle 53

[Cody]

go re-watch the whole final, you got cut a lot or you shrunk so much you finally let them in.

[owned]

Stats ~snip~

Some other random facts:
SP and CT have been to the most ladles in all. SP leads with 45 ladles and CT is in second with 43 (42 if you exclude the first ladle where ct didn't show up.) Tx is in third with 32.
Ct has been in the most ladles in a row. We've shown up since Ladle 13 so that makes 41 in a row. In second, Tx has shown up to the last 32 ladles since Ladle 22. It seems like SP and UnK are tied for third, both having participated in 20 ladles in a row since Ladle 34.

The clan/team with the best ladle win percentage (discounting teams that only formed for a few ladles and won) is arrow, winning 3 times out of their 10(30%) efforts.
Second place is Tronners Under the Influence with 2 out of 8(25%) ladle wins.
Second place could also be mym. If you just count when their name was mym on the ladle challenge board, they won 2 out of 8(25%) times. If you also include collective in the count, then they've won 2 out of 12(17%) times.
If you include collective, then it seems like third place would fall to ct with 9 out of 43(21%) ladle wins. SP is close behind with 9 out of 45(20%)

For clans/teams, the top Ladle winners are as follows:

1.Speeders: 9
1.Crazy Tronners: 9
3.Twixted Xats: 5
4.Arrow: 3
4.X: 3

This makes sense, since the top three teams on this list are also the three longest lasting.

Of course, there's all of this stuff with KOD making a team and changing their name at times, but that's a whole can of worms I don't want to open right now.

I didn't recheck the stuff I posted here so it's possible I missed something. Feel free to tell me of any mistakes if you catch them.

[sinewav]

Hmm, it seems we're almost at a point where a wiki page could be dedicated to Ladle stats/records, amirite? Does that interest anyone? Should we make a thread for categories? We could add a "stats" link to the wiki next to the "results" link. We'll need someone clever with wiki code to make an attractive, easily updatable page.

(I'm busy with some other projects right now otherwise I'd volunteer. Or, you can just wait severl weeks until I have time.)

[owned]

I made a topic a while back with this post. It seems like the only thing holding us back from getting statistics is someone who has both the time and the will to gather them.

If you could do it in several weeks that would be great.

Edit: I think the hardest goal that is still manageable would be to make a list of the top ladle winning players. This brings up the problem that it's hard to tell when a person played: should they be on the wiki? should we have a record of them playing some time in the ladle?

Concord made an effort at it here. I can't say i know what it's based on. CT has a list of ladle winners as well, with the criteria being that the player had to have played at least one match in the Ladle. But that's only for the ladles that CT won. As far as I know, the players with the most ladle wins right now are in SP. I think it's Flex and some other guy(Fofo?), both with about 12 wins.

Also, it seems like playfortress has new posts.

[Overrated]

Just wanted to say grats CT on winning the first ladle of the year. Nice way to start off, and hope you guys will stay competitive.

Also gm's... Sort of mym. That server was terrible, and I died at least 6 or 7 times just because of slides. I wish that wasn't the case though, because it was interesting near the end. Wish we could have forced a 3rd match so we could change servers but it's meh. Gm's, hope to see you next ladle.

[INW]

mym needs to make finals next ladle to tie for the most consecutive finals appearances in a row!

2) unlike some others I didn't comment when you couldn't expand after the sweepboxers were already gone (see aarecs if you need further proof). It just seemed to me you kept shrinking when they were still there and left lots of room for you and then, at some point, you'd start to expand and put them under pressure so they interrupt the sweepbox. That seemed to mess you up.

I would expand and "interrupt" the sweepbox on purpose. We actually coordinate when to stop the sweepbox and break off. When the time is right, I extend into the box and it breaks off. If you watch the recordings, you will see me give them room now and again when the box was still alive. I only pressured it when we were breaking it off

1) and 3) So you're saying you just wanted to survive? Then why is it wrong to say that you're helpless without a sweepbox (not criticizing the strategy itself but the notion that it's bad to say what you played like, especially since you admit it here )?

I defended the way I did because we had a sweepbox. If I don't shrink with it, it doesn't last at all. So I did have to shrink a little bit ahead of time for them. When it broke off, I shrunk faster in hopes of trapping the CT attackers while they tried to gank down numbers on their attack.

The real point of the sweepbox is to prevent holes (which CT did a bad job doing anyway) and to give our attack time to hole. Our attack did bad, real bad. If you watch the recordings, you will noticed the first person to die every round was one of our attackers. The sweepbox was really pointless but was still used nonetheless.

[PokeMaster]

I made these stats for R about a week ago.

Picture 2012-01-09 at 2.52.12 PM.png (33.38 KiB) Viewed 3541 times

[INW]

And I have all of these stats:

http://wiki.armagetronad.org/index.php/User:INW

[sufy]

@sufy:

Nice try in faking me. My name is ct_Cronix. My color is not likes Gonzaps color. And FAIL!

Haha, guess I assumed it was x. The color thing is actually an issue with how I saved the cropped file, though.

[PokeMaster]

yeah individual stats would be cool. i bet gridstats could be utilized for both that and team records

[Word]

I would expand and "interrupt" the sweepbox on purpose. We actually coordinate when to stop the sweepbox and break off. When the time is right, I extend into the box and it breaks off. If you watch the recordings, you will see me give them room now and again when the box was still alive. I only pressured it when we were breaking it off

Well, I usually do it the exact other way round and begin to shrink and step-def properly when the sweepboxers are gone. Of course that's efficient but not very spectacular. At the time you broke it off you already had lost like 2/9 of the zone, temporarily occupied by the sweepers who were suddenly surrounded by the CT attackers from all sides, outnumbering them while your sweepers didn't want to give them this piece of the zone and died like you wish the CTers would if you leave them a minimum of room. And another reason deaths near the def wall aren't good unless it's 1v1: holes. As a defender, I usually try to redirect attackers so they crash elsewhere and abstain from killing them when it could indirectly help them to gank us.

I defended the way I did because we had a sweepbox. If I don't shrink with it, it doesn't last at all. So I did have to shrink a little bit ahead of time for them. When it broke off, I shrunk faster in hopes of trapping the CT attackers while they tried to gank down numbers on their attack.

I can't speak for all but I'd find it better to use all room you have as long as you can, and letting the sweepers go away as soon as they cause you to shrink. Such a strategy is usually more successful because the attackers often notice too late that the sweepers stop going round in circles and come for them. Just based on experience, though.

The real point of the sweepbox is to prevent holes (which CT did a bad job doing anyway) and to give our attack time to hole. Our attack did bad, real bad. If you watch the recordings, you will noticed the first person to die every round was one of our attackers. The sweepbox was really pointless but was still used nonetheless.

Can't really provide a counterexample for this because CT didn't attempt to hole your sweepbox a single time. Had they dared to do that, I'm certain it wouldn't have been too difficult to just gank and/or kill you after a few minutes (and by the way, they'd also stop criminalizing it...). As soon as your sweepers were down (and that took indeed too long for a good attack) the rest was easy.

Maybe there will be a paradigm one day and some team will start to systematically use holes to conquer sweepboxes, who knows.
Then this 'real purpose' would become futile and the only thing that 'justified' (given that you're really trying to win) a sweepbox would be to prolong the time your team has to win or lose. Sweepboxes should provoke holes, not prevent them.

I had the impression that MYM was as good as always at holing, you lost whenever your sweepbox was down because you shrinked with them and as a result of that they seemed to get pressure from both sides, even if you made room for them. That just complicated things because it also meant more freedom for CT to gank and causing some chaos. I think every team, even CT, has the problem that their attackers die first. That doesn't say anything about the defense quality whatsoever.

[INW]

Well we really didn't use the sweepbox to prevent holing my def from CT. Had we just left my def open. CT would have hole failed many more times.

Had we actually had an active defender defend for us, liz and I would have holed CT much quicker and would have had all the pressure on the CT def, not mine.
Too bad our attack couldn't communicate.

Dread was drunk, liz deprived of sleep, and akira playing terrible.

[Hi.dTp]

I'm not hating you, I just said you're a bad def to provoke Hi a bit.

x.x

no hard feelings but that was pretty annoying.

[compguygene]

I will have to go through the records, but I am betting that ID has the most Ladle appearances without getting past the Semi-Finals.

[Kijutsu]

Word has turned into an aliased troll who worries far too much about other people's skill, strategies and clans. If you put this much effort into pRu, maybe it wouldn't have died and you could've gotten past opening round sometimes.