SuperLadle Discussion - cont. from time change thread

[sinewav]

question though, What about the newer teams and stuff that want to participate, it does not seem as much as a fair advantage to them. even though they would want to do this.

I guess that depends on what you consider a "new" team. Here are a few types:

• Type I: New team of old players. Revolver is the best example, Meet Your Maker kind of looks like a 3rd generation attempt at a Fort team. These types of team form and compete with the best almost immediately.
  
  Type II: New teams from other games. Rogue Tronners and PRU started as CTF teams. It only took Rogue Tronners a few months before they were a powerhouse. PRU had a couple good wind but never quite got their game together.
  
  Type III: New team of new players. The most charming example is Team Unknown, who went a good year before they could take down a big team, then another year before they won Ladle. They are the opposite of UNA who has a current record of one match win and fifty losses.

We definitely want to keep the Bowl open to as many teams as possible. But a new team of new players (Type III) shouldn't have any expectations of being "the best" team in their first year. That's simply not realistic. So, we need to strike a balance between teams who should be honored for their commitment versus teams who should be honored for their skill. Requiring teams to play 5 Ladles in a season seems to bridge the gap between Type I and Type III teams. If a Type I team joined the season in the last three months, won all the Ladles, then went to the Bowl a lot of teams would feel cheated for sure. Any Type III team who plays a whole season at least has enough time to squeeze their way into the tournament. And if not, well, there is always next year!

[Jrotc2012]

Yes, but with that. For instance, what if rZ wanted to play. I mean or uNa anyone really. They show the necessary want and need to do it. Big deal if they face a big top team and lost OR maybe get lucky and win. I believe letting them adds potential in learning and going farther to it. Also this provides experience and a more variety competition.

[sinewav]

They show the necessary want and need to do it.

If you want it bad enough, win more, right? Here is one reason why I think Bowl teams should be limited (and I think it's a good reason): we want to see who is the best of the best in any given season. When two top teams meet each other, the matches generally take a lot longer to complete. Doubling the amount of teams would add extra time, needlessly. Seriously, why should (for example) UNA play against Speeders in a Bowl? It's a real waste of time. And the Bowl isn't fundamentally different from the Ladle. The only thing different is the requirement to play, so I can't see how this falls under "experience and variety of competition."

The only other thing I can think of would be a fully seeded tournament with all the teams, but make the opening rounds one match instead of best of three. Time will be a major issue, I guarantee.

[dreadlord]

Here is one reason why I think Bowl teams should be limited (and I think it's a good reason): we want to see who is the best of the best in any given season.

I thought this is the point of the Bowl, anyway: To find out which team is the best and also to counter the use of aliases by some players/teams.

[Soul]

Allowing every team to play in the Bowl would defeat the whole purpose of it...

Have you ever watched any sport season? The whole season the teams are competing to get into the playoffs. That creates competition throughout the whole year.

Doing what you (jrot) said, would mean that a team like Speeders could not show up to any ladle and then just show up to the bowl and win.

[Titanoboa]

Allowing every team to play in the Bowl would defeat the whole purpose of it.

This.

I don't think I've read the whole thread but Soul sums it up nicely.

[sinewav]

If we are going to have a Bowl season, it's got to happen now. I'm going to start recording stats as a season. In April, the top ranked teams will be invited to play The Bowl.

Of course, there is nothing you have to do to make this happen. I'll do all the work, you just play your ass off every Ladle and hope for the best.

[Soul]

Good job sine Thanks

[PokeMaster]

<-- mr. cool guy sine

[Cody]

what about if we had qualifier rounds? that way the top 4 teams can compete with each other for the top spot?

[sinewav]

what about if we had qualifier rounds? that way the top 4 teams can compete with each other for the top spot?

What are you talking about? Why do we need qualifier rounds?

[Cody]

what about if we had qualifier rounds? that way the top 4 teams can compete with each other for the top spot?

What are you talking about? Why do we need qualifier rounds?

Derp nevermind about that post, I dont know how i missed your top post lol

[Goodygumdrops]

To all of you: Do you allow teams to completely change up their rosters in the middle of the Ladle?

We definitely allow this, but only in certain cases.

[Concord]

what do people think about crediting teams that have a bye with a won round for purposes of bowl standings 1?

for the purposes of the bowl, having a bye robs a team of the potential to score points, and byes go to teams with seeds. It just seems silly that a team that didn't have a bye can outscore a team with a bye, without outperforming them. Then again, scores should represent performance, not ability.

practically, I think we should count byes as round wins. philosophically, I don't think they should count. So I'm divided. Who has a good argument on this?





1 the bowl standings are based on each team's score, which is found using this:

Code: Select all

( Round wins + Ladle wins ) * ( Match win / Match total )

[/size]

[sinewav]

practically, I think we should count byes as round wins. philosophically, I don't think they should count. So I'm divided. Who has a good argument on this?

This is a tough call. I went back through your musings on page 2 to see if we missed anything good. I too think we should focus on rewarding performance. Your 2nd such post (and on page 3) adds a modifier to the Ladle wins. While I think we might be going a little overboard with this (performance should be clear after 9 months), padding the Ladle wins to ensure a non-winning team doesn't slip into the upper spots on round wins would be a good measure. Adding a Ladle win modifier gives us the ability to tweak the system with more control and less work overall. Also, the presence of byes is extremely variable.

Code: Select all

( Round wins + ( Ladle wins * X )) * ( Match win / Match total )
X = 2? 1.5?