Introducing double elimination to ladles?

[Word]

We could need that now, couldn't we?

(the poll's only purpose is to provide the current relation of opinions. if there's an overwhelming amount of no-votes, there's no point to discuss this.)

[compguygene]

I know that for many people, they don't see the point. But, I see it as a way of increasing the fun. You don't just lose and you're out. Also, it allows weaker teams at least a second match to play, potentially against each other. When Wild West hosted CTF Tournaments this was done and there were times when a "loser" ended up winning.

[kyle]

because we only have 1 seed is why this has been brought up, This was discussed before we started to have seeds, never came up while we had 4 seeds, now that we are down to 1... I am starting to think increasing the seeds to at least 2 would help balance the brackets and eliminate the need for double elimination

Edit: Actually I think the seeds should be varied for the current ladle, so it is dependant on the number of teams playing in the ladle

0-4 teams -> no seeds
5-12 teams -> 2 seeds
13-24 teams -> 4 seeds
25-48 teams -> 8 seeds

[Word]

Well, the point was that the teams will be able to play more matches during the tournament although they are fewer and because they still have a considerable discrepancy regarding their skill levels. I can't see how seeds are going to help that, given their small number.

[Magi]

I could get behind this BUT team leaders would actually have to know how to edit the template and report scores, often I find myself at the end of a ladle filling in scores from round 1, editing the template is pretty easy, find where your round/team is, look below that for the score, put '''Team winner''' for name, then '''2''' for score then the losing team would be their normal name and then their team's score. Either this or a global moderator going around collecting scores and directing teams to the right places

[Ratchet]

I could get behind this BUT team leaders would actually have to know how to edit the template and report scores, often I find myself at the end of a ladle filling in scores from round 1, editing the template is pretty easy, find where your round/team is, look below that for the score, put '''Team winner''' for name, then '''2''' for score then the losing team would be their normal name and then their team's score. Either this or a global moderator going around collecting scores and directing teams to the right places

There's a point to be made about simplifying the process of reporting scores. Sure, "editing the template is easy," I agree. However, not everyone that plays tron is familiar with formatting code (or programming languages in general, if you want to call it that) and might not be familiar with where to put what inside the template code.

I think someone could throw together a quick web interface that we give the initial brackets (to automatically determine matchups) and having people navigate to a form of sorts to submit the scores. Ideally, this would also have a graphical bracket that automatically updates, telling teams who they play next. In order to provide security and reduce tampering (wrong people reporting the matches), we could link said form/website with forums logins so that only captains may report/submit scores.


So, just to be more precise:

Ladle web interface
- Be able to login using forums account
- Maybe contain an interface where a captain can register/edit their team by logging in, up until the registration deadline (automatically cuts off at a certain time)
- Interface to go to, login, report the outcome of a match (must be a captain)
- Brackets automatically updated (with a graphical representation)

Consider:
- A set group of "administrators" that can go behind-the-scenes and fix registration mistakes, ban people with malicious intents, manually designate seeds, etc.
- A bot/algorithm that can take the teams, realize which ones are seeded and how to treat them, and automatically construct the brackets after automatically closing registration


Just think of the possibilities. I know we have the web developer talent to automate the ladle process, why haven't we done it yet? Sure, we'd still need a few hands to make sure people didn't screw something up, but the burden of keeping track of so much information could be done automatically. It could be programmed to archive the data and automatically open for the next ladle on the following Monday. Bam, no need to reset the challenge board.

[LucK]

I'm down

[Pre]

let's make this happen please

[kyle]

@Ratchet http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60&t=23733 and http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60&t=20633

[vov]

Advantages and disadvantages of double elimination:
+ More fort for everyone.
+ If you lose one game you can still come back and win the tournament.
+ You can maybe get revenge on the team who beat you the first time.
+ There'd be an accurate "2nd place" to rank teams to.
- Tourney takes one round longer.

I don't like the idea of more seeds since it statistically makes it more likely to pair up stronger teams with weaker teams early on, giving the weaker teams less practice.

[kyle]

- Tourney takes two rounds longer.

correction there would be a match after the current final match to determine who advances to the final match.

[sinewav]

Given the current size of Ladle and the fact seeding has become a non-issue, I also motion for Double-Elimination.

I guess the first thing we need to do is take a look at the past dozen or so Ladles and get an idea of how many teams we have on average, how many of them are reoccurring, what percentage of these are making the finals, and estimate how long the matches are taking. Lately, I've noticed the biggest factor in game delay is players not showing up on time, not teams "playing safe." This is a big change in how Ladle is played and we might actually benefit with a switch in bracket design. Teams might be inclined to start on-time knowing that they get a second chance to play.

[Ratchet]

It would be neat to see this implemented in Ladle 100. It would then have only taken us 100 ladles to figure out losing in the first round sucks

[sinewav]

*Bump*

I know polls can be rigged, but there is a large number of people voting for double-elimination. Also, there hasn't been one solid argument against. With our smaller sized Ladle, time shouldn't be any more of a problem than when Ladle was larger, and those late Ladles were somewhat infrequent. The only real issue deals with our shitty, shitty Team Leaders who can't seem to edit the Challenge Board as they progress through the event. I really can't see anyone here taking the time to build a web-interface that connects to the wiki since lazy leaders will still be lazy after a tool is created. There is probably an easier way, we just have to think of it. But really, we need pressure from the bottom-up. Editing the bracket is everyone's responsibility. I recommend that players who come to the forums after being eliminated, in addition to your congratulations, please post the scores of your matches.

These past few months I have been trying to make more time for Arma, and I would like to be play Ladle regularly since my connection is decent right now (until I move in two months, but my new place might be good too). I'll make an effort to contribute to the event.

That said, let's get serious about double-elimination for Ladle 100. I think it will be super fun.

[Word]

But really, we need pressure from the bottom-up. Editing the bracket is everyone's responsibility. I recommend that players who come to the forums after being eliminated, in addition to your congratulations, please post the scores of your matches.

Yeah, just like the Ww CTF tournaments worked for years.