Ladle rule change discussion: substitutes from other teams

[Z-Man]

I think that ladle rule 2, the last sentence, is overly strict. Here it is: "You may only play for one team each Ladle."
Imagine the following situation: Team A has only six players to begin with and made it to the quarter finals. One of them has to leave unexpectedly to deal with real world stuff. They are now one program down. There were two open teams that hoovered up all free agents, there are no suitable substitute players available except the ones from the opening round loser teams, but they can't play. They are now forced to play with five, and unless they are exceptional, that reduces the fun of the next match for everyone involved since they get pretty much squished.
(Yes, I'm neglecting that one of the losing teams would surely have someone from their substitute roster available to step in, they have not played yet.)
Now, if the rule would be softened a bit and a limited number of substitutes that had already played would be allowed, that substitute player, team A and its opponent in the quarters would all have a better time with no harmful side effects.

"But wait", you say. "Didn't you say yourself that every rule is there for a specific reason, some jerk exploiting a hole in the existing rules?" I did, strange unknown person. My memory is hazy, but I think in this particular instance the main reason for the rule was the fear of "super-teams" where the best players from teams that already lost would all join the same team still in the running. Or CTA and CTB combining once one of them is knocked out. Such a thing would suck for their opponents AND the ostensibly weaker players getting replaced by the superstars. See: The Simpsons. I think it is sufficient to limit the number of players you can add that way. It still sucks getting replaced, but team morale management is the job of the team leaders, not the ladle rules.

So, proposition draft:
Change rule 2 to:
"Team Leaders must list their Global ID on the Challenge board. Players can not be signed up under multiple teams."
Add another rule (I'd squeeze it in after rule 9 about substitutes, or amend that rule):
"At most x substitutes per team may have already played for a different team on the same Ladle."

I'd pick x to be 1 and think it should not be larger than 2.

Of course, you can see where I might be going with this. But please, first discuss this on its own merits.

[blondie]

unless the 2nd team is strictly limited to a designated Substitutes open team, this idea threatens to seriously degrade the integrity of the Ladle and Ladle results.

It is not at all unconceivable, and not even unethical, for the best player on a given team to be designated to sub for another top level team. It's exactly what I would do. If my first team gets knocked out, I'd just go play, legally, for top team B. This more than doubles my chances of winning ladle, playing more fort matches, etc. If it was legal and every team was allowed to reap the advantages of it, it wouldn't be unethical. The end result is the most skilled players play more matches and the less skilled players on good teams end up getting subbed out in semis and finals.

The only way this idea works is if the designated substitute can play for his or her original team and the designated open team.

[theo]

For what it worth (I'm mostly inactive now. So who cares what I might think?), I don't see any reason to change that rule.

First of all, that is a really hypothetical situation. During ladles there are a lot of specators. Sure, sometimes in the first round we can see 2 teams of 4 players having hard time getting 4 subs at once. But it's usually cause it's a causual team (teams like CT or Rogue always have enough) and never in the finals.

And in your example "Team A [...] made it to the quarter finals". Well, this only means winning the first match or having a bye. I haven't seen more than 16 teams in a while.

Also, there is this rule

After the semi-finals begin, a team needs the approval of the opponent to add a substitute.

I think voting for such a rule would change the way the ladle will be played.

Suppose we allow 1 already used sub per team that already played. In this case what prevents people to make plans before ladles? "Ok play for team X but then play for us. Of course, don't write that on the wiki".

[Z-Man]

Valid points, of course. Note, however, that the upper limit on players you can switch around like that limits the abuse potential.
If you plan such a switching scheme ahead of time, yes, the players doing the switching increase their chances of winning. But who loses most? Their opponents will face a stronger team after the switch, true. But the players that are planned to be dropped are the ones losing the most, their chances of playing and winning the final are zero. By exploiting this, you are hurting one of your teammates most.

[blondie]

Sacrificing the desires of an individual member to increase the team's chances of winning is literally the definition of teamwork.

We can't rely on bad teamwork to prevent abuse of this system.


and from a purely selfish standpoint, I would love if this had existed all along. Instead of marvelling that Dread has won one fifth of all ladles (18/90), we would be talking about someone having a 50% individual Ladle win rate.

Z-Man, I respect you a great deal, and am certainly tremendously grateful for both your work on the game in general, but especially the recordings you have constantly maintained of Ladles, which is without question the single greatest contribution anyone has made to the event. That said, you, somewhat ironically, have less understanding the dynamics of Ladle teams and substitution management than the great majority of Ladle players, from the simple fact that you never play on teams.

I don't say this to qualify your proposal, but rather to qualify my own. Knowing how teams work, there is no chance this won't be abused. And it should be. That it would certainly be abused is not a bad reflection on teams, rather it is a good one. It shows they are competitive and they respect the game and their opponent enough to take every legal edge they can. That is the sign of healthy competitive environment, and I would be disappointed in any 'competitive' Ladle team if they did not try their hardest to win the match. Failing to abuse this would be failing to maximize your legal ability to win fortress matches, and teams would not fail in that regard, nor should they be expected to.

[Monkey]

Assuming that I'm understanding the proposed rule change correctly, I dislike it strongly.

[Z-Man]

Heh. Ok. I guess that's why I usually let you guys do your own thing. I still think the rule is restrictive, but see now that to relax it, waaaaay too many safeguards would need to be put in place to prevent ill effects, some of them impossible to put into formal verifiable rules (like, don't plan this ahead of time). Thanks, blondie!

[vov]

Quick idea: What about your opponent has to approve the sub?
Or even they choose a sub for your team - from all current spectators that are not still in the tournament but signed up* (and then the sub and your team have to agree of course). Of course, competitively, they'd not choose the top players. Newbies would get to play more, teams would be full. I see these both as good.

* We could also use a Substitutes section for this on the signups, for if you aren't on a signed up team. Has been done in past tournies.

[blondie]

i'd rather play with five than have my opponent choose my sixth player.

seems like it creates a whole other set of problems regarding sabotage.

your first idea is fine in theory, but semis and onward, teams already never ask if they can sub in players as they are supposed to. Last ladle, for example, WW never asked RD if they could use over as a sub. He just joined midmatch and everyone kept playing. It was fine, but it seems hard to enforce that teams must ask permission. It's too messy to stop and restart if their sub just joins. It could be used as a way to take a timeout. Sub in an reused player. If your opponent gives permission, then great you got your supersub. If not, then you get a timeout and a reset.

[Overrated]

I don't recall joining until RD said it was ok. Something along the lines of a comment saying sure go ahead or really small and simple did it for me. I might not remember correctly but I would have asked before doing it otherwise.

Edit: +1 to Blondie if you need my input. Other teams choosing subs is rather horrendous although in the spirit of competition I could see people letting more skilled players play for a bigger challenge.

[vov]

Yes, it would rely on everyone being nice. Competitive but nice. If that's not the case (I know it isn't always), the team that needs the sub can still refuse it. Still better than "LOL they're five let's refuse any subs".
Maybe with multiple sub suggestions. Maybe both teams alternate suggesting subs? There'd be the problem of "it takes too long" though.

[Lucifer]

The other team would only get to approve the sub if it's someone who's already played in a team that lost. Other subbing as it stands would be unaffected, I suppose.

I do see that other safeguards would have to be put in place. It seems to me that perhaps we should consider how to make the game server something that can help enforce these rules.

[Titanoboa]

Hey. I'm sorry that I'm late to the party.

Z-man's proposal is probably not a good one for reasons already stated. However, this got me thinking about the rule of asking for permission to sub someone in during the semis or later. I think we should revise this rule. If we arrive upon the conclusion that we want to keep it, that's fine. But is it needed? Or rather: is it still relevant?


Let's pretend my team is in the finals, and Durka shows up from out of nowhere. One of our players is sliding about and we don't have any subs, and Durka seems fit enough. So we ask if we may use him as a sub, but our opponents respectfully decline our request and the match goes on. All according to the rules, of course.

But what good reason would there be to deny him of playing, other than personal issues? And why should personal issues be allowed to interfere in this situation? He hasn't played on any other team, so the simple technicality of him not being put on the roster before the semis started is all the difference.
The rule was originally made to prevent freelancers from sniping their way into the finals. This rule doesn't necessarily stop that, as long as said sniper is a liked person. Maybe the rule has been serving its purpose all along (we'll never know). Or maybe it's a useless, potentially bad, rule. It hasn't caused trouble that I know of, so changing it no questions asked is uncalled for, but looking at it a bit closer seems appropriate to me.

[sinewav]

Quick idea: What about your opponent has to approve the sub?

This is already the case. Rule #9 is a backup measure against abuse. You can realistically soften the rule saying you can't play on more than one team as Z-Man suggested because Rule #9 leaves any subs to the discretion of your opponent after the semi-finals start (when it matters the most).

This is the first discussion of Ladle rules I've seen where everyone is right! Hurray! \o/