Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

[vov]

I don't want a bye, I want to play fort tourney.

[Concord]

why don't we just play 3 or 4 league matches instead of tournaments for a 9 month season and then do a best of 5, double-elimination Bowl with the best 4 teams at the end of the season. Every team would get to play 3 or 4 rounds every Sunday, regardless of how good or bad they are. You would be guaranteed at couple good matches every "Ladle." Teams could change and sign up just like they do now, but for the purpose of the Bowl season, there would be some fixtures for each month, as well as some randomized match ups.

[sinewav]

I think double-elimination is a non-starter for exactly the reasons Titanoboa mentioned. Those of us who remember Wild West CTF tournaments knew what a drag that was. More often than not, the top team usually had a very long and boring wait just to collect an easy victory from the loser bracket. Yawn. However, double-elimination is a fantastic idea for a situation like Concord described:

why don't we just play 3 or 4 league matches instead of tournaments for a 9 month season and then do a best of 5, double-elimination Bowl with the best 4 teams at the end of the season. Every team would get to play 3 or 4 rounds every Sunday, regardless of how good or bad they are. You would be guaranteed at couple good matches every "Ladle." Teams could change and sign up just like they do now, but for the purpose of the Bowl season, there would be some fixtures for each month, as well as some randomized match ups.

What a great idea. We are already keeping performance data. It wouldn't be too hard to come up with a system that meets the following criteria:

• Allows similarly ranked teams more opportunities to meet
• Allows new and ad hoc teams to enter seamlessly every month
• Is scalable (though this is less of a concern than the above)

The Pros: Everyone gets to play 3 rounds. Ladles get shorter while people actually play more.

The Cons: A "Ladle victory" would be based on points scored that day, not winning a final. That is, unless we can figure out a way to do both. I don't think it is necessary to have a tournament-style event every month.

Personally, just going back to full randomization would be a step in the right direction. But if you want to take a leap instead of a step, let's think of how to get more people in the game for longer (more fun!).

[Concord]

every team would play 3 opponents. If you beat the opponent, you get their winning percentage for the season (or over the past 3 ladles, perhaps) added to your day's Ladle score. Top 2 day scores play a "final," and 3rd and 4th day scores play a consolation final. These would guarantee good teams a very high level game each Ladle, as well as give us a semi-tournament that could be won each month.

some of your 3 matches each ladle would be randomized, some would be scheduled in accordance with the needs of the bowl season.

[Soul]

Please no double elimination. We had to wait over an hour last ladle just to play the finals.

I'd definitely be for no seeds. However, I'm not entirely sure how much it would change the diversity that much considering how relatively small the brackets already are.

[Gazelle]

I don't want a bye, I want to play fort tourney.

+1

And also, i like the idea of double elimination, but last ladle lasted what, 4-5 hours? double elimination would just lengthen that.

I do believe that 6v6 is the best fort.. I dont think we should switch it.

[sinewav]

However, I'm not entirely sure how much it would change the diversity that much considering how relatively small the brackets already are.

Diversity would increase by 25%, that's how much. Currently, rookie teams have a 50% chance of meeting a seeded team in the opening round. If we eliminate seeds that drops to about 1 in 4. It would be a big deal for most of the teams.

Since seeding only benefits a small minority I feel confident it's removal will pass a vote easily. Still, I think was can do even better by converting Ladle to a league-style event. The idea that everyone get's to play three rounds a month, win or loose, is really cool.

[orion]

Seed and no seed have both pro and contras depending where you look at it. Personally I like seeding, it guarantee you each round pass is harder and tighter meaning the final would be the best match as it used to be.

[wildcat]

How does random brackets help struggling teams? It only delays the inevitable. I mean if a bad team beats another bad team only to lose to RD, CT Etc. How does that help them? How about practice before? Plan wars. There's a month to do it.

As for double elimination, I'd vote no. Ladles are soon long now. They don't need to be any longer. Why not have a loser bracket to decide 3rd/4th place teams?

I'm on my way back from nyc so pardon any typos.

[Gazelle]

1) Ladle should stay once a month the way it is (no league)
2) 6v6
3) No seeding

[sinewav]

Personally I like seeding, it guarantee you each round pass is harder and tighter meaning the final would be the best match as it used to be.

But that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Seeding does not make a good final. All it does is make the winning teams win more and the losing teams lose more. Pretty much every seeded team gets a "free win" at the beginning of each Ladle. That is not good for anyone. Lately the most exciting (best) matches are not in the finals, but in the quarters and semis when there is more uncertainty in the outcome.

How does random brackets help struggling teams? It only delays the inevitable. I mean if a bad team beats another bad team only to lose to RD, CT Etc. How does that help them? How about practice before? Plan wars. There's a month to do it.

Fully random brackets help the teams because they get more opportunities to work on their ideas against opponents of similar strength. Those matches are more exciting because they are not a blowout. Yesterday KS beat Ww 102-12. How is that fun for either team? It unfairly helps KS because we can experiment without risk -- we were going to win no matter what. It hurts Wild West because they don't get the opportunity to work things out in competition. You are smart enough to know "practice" doesn't have the same emotional weight as serious competition. That is the time when your temper and your ability to focus is challenged. That's when the moves count. Wild West never got to experience that because they were completely beat down right from the start. Even the teams that have dedication of Phoenix have an increasingly difficult time because of the talent divide.

Why not have a loser bracket to decide 3rd/4th place teams?

We tried that a few years ago and exactly zero teams showed up. No one cares about 3rd place. We already have 3rd and 4th seeds anyway.

My proposition is not to change the outcome of Ladle. You are right, it is inevitable. What I suggest is making it more fun for everyone. That means creating more opportunities for rookie teams to play each other. And you know all about practice. Wars don't happen anymore because the community is different. We are smaller with less commitment to the game. We need to adapt the Ladle or this whole thing is going to come crumbling down (see my articles on Tron Times).

[Gazelle]

Tbh though, i didnt know ladle was for "fun" i thought it was a competitive competition to determine the best team of that month? Or am i wrong? lol..

I mean if these clans want to have "fun" they are more than willing to schedule wars vs other teams, i know RD would love to have some wars sometime.

[Soul]

Wildcat brings up a good point. Ladles aren't meant for practicing. I mean, sure, it is good practice but if thats the only thing a newer team is doing for practice then they deserve to lose first or second round.

Regardless of if we take out seeds or not the weak teams will still lose early and face a "strong" team early on anyway.

With that said, I wouldn't mind leaving them or getting rid of them.

[sinewav]

Tbh though, i didnt know ladle was for "fun" i thought it was a competitive competition to determine the best team of that month? Or am i wrong? lol..

If this is how you really think of Ladle we are in worse shape than I thought. There is a bigger picture here a lot of you aren't seeing. Competition is fun. When the competition is too lopsided, it is not fun for anyone. This is what we are facing today. Yes there will always be good teams and bad, but never in Fortress has the divide been so great. Adjustments are needed.

Wildcat brings up a good point. Ladles aren't meant for practicing. I mean, sure, it is good practice but if thats the only thing a newer team is doing for practice then they deserve to lose first or second round.

Teams deserve a chance to have fun. The way it is right now, rookie teams are facing players that have been playing Fortress for several years. That's like having a game that is stuck on the hardest level of difficulty. I hate to bring them up again, but Phoenix is the perfect example of what is wrong in Ladle Fortress. They had a large roster, practiced all the time, and after more than a year of playing never even reached the finals, let alone won a Ladle. RoadRunnerZ did it, once, but only after it became an obsession that left the clan in shambles.

Regardless of if we take out seeds or not the weak teams will still lose early and face a "strong" team early on anyway.

Yeah, but at least they can have some fun before they get eliminated. I don't want to beat any team by 80-90 points. It's a waste of everyone's time. I would think all you big winners out there would agree. Do you even want to bother playing a new team in the opening round or wouldn't you rather fast-forward to the semi-finals? Yet this is what happens every Ladle. A seeded team plays some rookies and no one get's any real enjoyment out of it (unless you are sadistic). There is a better way to have more people playing the game, having better competition, and having fun.

[woof]

Five hours was long enough. No double elimination. I don't have too strong of an opinion about the seeding issue at the moment; however, do note that if the top teams end up in the same side of the bracket, it could make for a very boring final. Who wants to see a weaker team get stomped in a 10 minute final?