Ladle 18

freako · Post by **freako** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:56 pm

epsy wrote:Challenge Board is supposed to be locked today.

Isn't that only for the teams? (I thought we had atleast till Sunday 0.00 to change team members)

If not, next time I would like to know when rules get changed

Post by **epsy** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:00 pm

Then put the Ladle pages on your wiki watchlist, and hope people put decent edit messages.

Post by **epsy** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:12 pm

Guidelines do not match any decision taken on here. At all. Wtf?

1200 · Post by **1200** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:16 pm

Lacka Wroted

To be fair being the runner up in a random single elimination tournament doesn't really say anything more than "you're better than those teams in your bracket".

I think you can only say you're only better than the teams you beat. You can't say you're better than the other teams in the same brackets that lost because you may match up differently against them.

For instance: is there any reason to believe CT is better than the other teams that were beaten by TR? It seems to me you could say CT was lucky for not having to face TR early in the brackets last ladle, so why should they be lucky again?

Well CT didn't face TR early in the brackets last Ladle because they won Ladle 16. It's not luck they earned it. They will earn it again this Ladle for the same reason.

[/quote]

Lackadaisical · Post by **Lackadaisical** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:46 pm

There was no seeding last ladle...

1200 · Post by **1200** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:51 pm

Freakokoko Wroted

If not, next time I would like to know when rules get changed

What rules??? Are there any? I've asked on a number of occasions but nobody said anything so i assume there is no rules just guidelines...So i would say go ahead and change your roster its not locked yet.
I mean certain things like seeding and randomizing slots are about to become a rule so i wish somebody would make a rules page for Wiki.

pike · Post by **pike** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:51 pm

1200 wrote:
For instance: is there any reason to believe CT is better than the other teams that were beaten by TR? It seems to me you could say CT was lucky for not having to face TR early in the brackets last ladle, so why should they be lucky again?

Well CT didn't face TR early in the brackets last Ladle because they won Ladle 16. It's not luck they earned it. They will earn it again this Ladle for the same reason.

That's why it should be possible that 2 "seeded" teams could face each other earlier - in L18 case it's quarterfinals. Because if it stay the way it is, we will have more or less the same seeds every tournament. And the same winners (not that it's really bad, but now seeded teams have much easier way into the finals)

Hoax · Post by **Hoax** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:02 pm

freako wrote:
epsy wrote:Challenge Board is supposed to be locked today.
Isn't that only for the teams? (I thought we had atleast till Sunday 0.00 to change team members)

If not, next time I would like to know when rules get changed

I thought this too

1200 · Post by **1200** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:11 pm

Lacka Wrote:

There was no seeding last ladle...

Oh yea....thats right we randomized da whole damn thing...my bad.
But either way they got lucky the last time they earned it this time(if seeding implemented)...

Pike Wrote:

That's why it should be possible that 2 "seeded" teams could face each other earlier - in L18 case it's quarterfinals. Because if it stay the way it is, we will have more or less the same seeds every tournament. And the same winners (not that it's really bad, but now seeded teams have much easier way into the finals)

Well i guess you and Lacka are both for non-seeding policy, to randomize every team in the competition. Its kinda close to the comp but the only way to decide would be to have a poll like we did last Ladle. I hope this could have taken place earlier. We've been talking about seedings for Ladle 18 for a while now.

1200 · Post by **1200** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:14 pm

Hohohohohoax Wrote:

freako wrote:
epsy wrote:
Challenge Board is supposed to be locked today.

Isn't that only for the teams? (I thought we had atleast till Sunday 0.00 to change team members)

If not, next time I would like to know when rules get changed

I thought this too

I also thought that you could replace your roster with other players come the day of the tourny. This has been allowed in past Ladles. Which means that it doesn't really matter what you have written down on your roster you can just show up with anybody until somebody makes a rule about it.

Corn1 · Post by **Corn1** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:18 pm

1200 wrote:Corrrn Wroted:

Look I don't even see how it would be fair for a team that has a good chance of winning to not even make it past the first round just because of a crappy random system. As far as i'm concerned random doesn't accomplish anything but defeat the purpose of the finals when you know whos going to win because of the way the bracket was set up.
I don't understand your logic... explain. How is random slotting not fair? Its the only fair way imo.
If a team that has a good chance of winning does not get past the first round it wasn't a good team....

Because if the 2 best teams play eachother first then what you're saying is the team that lost sucks? Your logic doesn't make sense because what your saying is the better team is the one that gets lucky on the random seed. Theres a reason in other tournaments theres selective seeding, its because if the two best teams that should be in the finals if the seeding was correct play eachother the first round then that nullifies the finals.

The reason random slotting is unfair is because it works against the teams that if there was no seeding whatso ever would be in the finals but instead played another team was was excellent and didn't make to finals compared to the teams on the otherside of the bracket where 2 not as good teams went up against eachother.

The point of seeding is taking the teams that you know will get far further down in the equation to both limit the chance of a team that just signed up for the first time playing against the defending champion and losing without a chance. You seed so you can bring those great teams further down into the bracket where you know they will end up.

Pike wrote:

That's why it should be possible that 2 "seeded" teams could face each other earlier - in L18 case it's quarterfinals. Because if it stay the way it is, we will have more or less the same seeds every tournament. And the same winners (not that it's really bad, but now seeded teams have much easier way into the finals)

I disagree. This is essentially what happened in ladle 16. TR was knocked out first game even though they could have made it to the finals just as well. Doing what you said doesn't accomplish anything it's just doing it in a different way.

In my opinion the only real way to prevent this is having a losers bracket to make up for bad matching.

owned · Post by **owned** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:28 am

pike wrote: That's why it should be possible that 2 "seeded" teams could face each other earlier - in L18 case it's quarterfinals. Because if it stay the way it is, we will have more or less the same seeds every tournament. And the same winners (not that it's really bad, but now seeded teams have much easier way into the finals)

Well the definition of the semifinals is the 4 best teams play off. If there happens to be a team that is better than one of the seeds, they'll probably make the semis instead.

Lacka wrote:

It seems to me you could say CT was lucky for not having to face TR early in the brackets last ladle, so why should they be lucky again?

We played them in the first round of Ladle 16 so that doesn't really mean much.

To be fair being the runner up in a random single elimination tournament doesn't really say anything more than "you're better than those teams in your bracket". For instance: is there any reason to believe CT is better than the other teams that were beaten by TR

Obviously it's not 100% accurate that we're the 2nd best, but its the closest we can get. According to math, there's an approximately 50% or 75% chance we're the 2nd best, when considering the 3rd place match results. No other team is even close to that.

@Hoax when I said don't count the top 4 teams, I meant just keep them where they are. Don't randomly choose them.

When talking about seeding, we don't have enough time to do a good poll. We have to decide now.

Concord · Post by **Concord** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:29 am

yeah this is to be decided tonight, lets do it

Corn1 · Post by **Corn1** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 5:16 am

Well as my post states above I think it should be selective seeding based on previous placings and correlation between groups of players from previous teams.

Lackadaisical · Post by **Lackadaisical** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:12 am

owned wrote:
It seems to me you could say CT was lucky for not having to face TR early in the brackets last ladle, so why should they be lucky again?
We played them in the first round of Ladle 16 so that doesn't really mean much.

Yeah, but you're not basing these seedings on the results of Ladle 16 do you? It's not about being lucky once, but about basing seeding on a previous 'lucky' placement and then pretend it's somehow fairer.

owned wrote:Obviously it's not 100% accurate that we're the 2nd best, but its the closest we can get. According to math, there's an approximately 50% or 75% chance we're the 2nd best, when considering the 3rd place match results. No other team is even close to that.

I'd like to see the math that shows CT was better than any of the teams in the other half of the bracket.

But I guess I'm too late arguing anyway.