Ladle Rules

owned · Post by **owned** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:48 pm

Ok so we agree on unconquerable 2v2. So lets do it this way. Let's discuss each topic by itself, starting with the simplest.

So what time do you guys think the ladle should start? I personally think that it should start at 18:30 GMT, with 1 hour being allowed for the semis. (For the current 16 team setup.) If 32 (or over 16) teams are reached, then we should play on adjacent Sundays (It would allow for good tactics and therefore better matches. It would also create hype for who is gonna win.) With the 1st, and 2nd rounds (20:15 and 21 GMT) on the first and the quarters, semis and finals in a classic ladle style (19:15, 20:00, and 21:00 GMT) on the following Sunday.

Post by **epsy** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:50 pm

owned wrote:Ok so we agree on unconquerable 2v2.

I don't. I don't see why in the first place we would use different settings than what we play "everyday" since CVS test. Ladle is a fortress tournament, not an experimental settings tournament.

PS: And I find a teamcaptain vote irrelevant.

sinewav · Post by **sinewav** » Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:22 pm

2v2 unconquerable.

It makes sense to me, since 1v1 is unconquerable and 2v2 is just 2(1v1). there is more decision making involved when the teams are whittled down to 3v2 or 2v2, and I think it's more exciting. If 2v2 conquerable is so great, why was it challenged? Someone link to the thread, I'm feeling lazy and don't want to look for it.

owned · Post by **owned** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:44 am

Ok so change of plan. We'll deal with this first and then ladle times.

epsy wrote:
owned wrote:Ok so we agree on unconquerable 2v2.
I don't. I don't see why in the first place we would use different settings than what we play "everyday" since CVS test. Ladle is a fortress tournament, not an experimental settings tournament.

PS: And I find a teamcaptain vote irrelevant.

Actually nearly every fort server not counting cafe has 2v2 inconquerable. Just because fortress cafe hasn't changed doesn't mean it should hold everything else back with it.

1200 · Post by **1200** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:09 am

Is there anyone besides Epsy thats in support of 2vs2 conquerable???

Corn1 · Post by **Corn1** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:43 am

sinewav wrote:2v2 unconquerable.

It makes sense to me, since 1v1 is unconquerable and 2v2 is just 2(1v1). there is more decision making involved when the teams are whittled down to 3v2 or 2v2, and I think it's more exciting. If 2v2 conquerable is so great, why was it challenged? Someone link to the thread, I'm feeling lazy and don't want to look for it.

Isn't it more exiting when its 2v2 conquereable? I mean you take the risk when its 2 players on each team left to leave your defending when there is a big chance your teammate will die while you go over there leaving your base unguarded? At least i think its more interesting...

owned · Post by **owned** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:56 am

Corn1 wrote:
sinewav wrote:2v2 unconquerable.

It makes sense to me, since 1v1 is unconquerable and 2v2 is just 2(1v1). there is more decision making involved when the teams are whittled down to 3v2 or 2v2, and I think it's more exciting. If 2v2 conquerable is so great, why was it challenged? Someone link to the thread, I'm feeling lazy and don't want to look for it.
Isn't it more exiting when its 2v2 conquereable? I mean you take the risk when its 2 players on each team left to leave your defending when there is a big chance your teammate will die while you go over there leaving your base unguarded? At least i think its more interesting...

Isn't it more exciting with more speed so games will be faster? Isn't it more exciting to have gigantic holes so people can get in easier? Isn't it more exciting to make cycle_accel 100 so matches can be fast paced?

The point isn't whether its more exciting, but whether it is better with the game that we're playing. Of course we need to make it more exciting in some areas, but that shouldn't be the sole basis of a decision.

Hoax · Post by **Hoax** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:59 am

I think the only reason I would be/am for 2v2 conquerable is that it would prevent teams from sitting back & just defending..which is quite frankly just boring. An incentive to attack will liven things up maybe. You should win ladles with a good defence and attack.

owned · Post by **owned** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:00 am

Hoax wrote:An incentive to attack will liven things up maybe.

Wasn't that kinda the point of splitting the match win points into 6 and 4?

1200 · Post by **1200** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:12 am

Corn Wrote:

Isn't it more exiting when its 2v2 conquereable?

How is 2vs2 conquerable exciting when you know who is gonna win when 2vs2 takes place???

owned · Post by **owned** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:39 am

I'm guessing corn meant fast-paced.

1200 · Post by **1200** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:52 am

Yes. Fast-paced but not more exciting...

Post by **epsy** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:38 pm

owned wrote:
Hoax wrote:An incentive to attack will liven things up maybe.
Wasn't that kinda the point of splitting the match win points into 6 and 4?

So split win points to liven up attack but do the opposite move for 2v2 conquerable? lol?

Lackadaisical · Post by **Lackadaisical** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:38 pm

Well, if people really want it changed just poll it. I think this is much more of a taste issue, and arguing on about it isn't going to change anyones mind, let alone change the settings for future ladles.

sinewav · Post by **sinewav** » Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:03 pm

Actually, I was thinking of making a whole page of polls with all the relative issues on it. But I thought maybe that could be exploited. Then I thought about making a wiki page with all the different options, and a space for "signatures". You would go to the page and put your name under the option you agree with, and the rules with the most signatures win. Sound like a good idea?

This thread might take forever to solve anything, and now look - I'm debating the method of solving. Sorry!