Bowl 2 Discussion

[Soul]

Yeah agreed, because technically i was on a winning ladle team this year, so why would i not get to play?

To discourage clan hopping, which is pretty much what happened to all the teams with different lineups.

I guess it determines the best clan not only skill-wise, but loyalty-wise.

[Gaz]

To discourage clan hopping, which is pretty much what happened to all the teams with different lineups.

I guess it determines the best clan not only skill-wise, but loyalty-wise.

Yeah but in some player's cases they didnt clan hop because they wanted too lol, they could've had problems internally and just wanted to get away from all the drama.

[DaGarBBaGeMAN]

I feel like Sine should be the one to make the ultimate call on this, because, to be fair, he had these rules clearly defined and laid out a year ago, so technically speaking there should be no complaints. However, I do see how some teams might be getting screwed over (I mean you can't fully control who enters and leaves your clan over the course of 9 months). If a team can't field 6 players, then we should talk about exceptions to the rules, but I feel like the rules are fair otherwise. Just my opinion; I'm fine with basically whatever gets decided.

[-*inS*-]

In my head I always assumed the bowl would be some grand yearly event. At the moment it looks exactly like a ladle with handicapped rosters. (Aka no one will remember it apart from any other ladle).

If I was organizing this, I'd probably group the teams into 2 pools of 4. The first weekend make them play everyone in their group (top 2 teams in each group advance to the next week). Then next week just have the semis and the finals (each best of 5). If this thing is only once a year, no reason to constrain it to only 1 week.

As far as the whole player rule thing, it's to prevent people from making a stacked team and trashing the competition. (Although it would be awesome to watch a few teams with the best players fight, I always felt those were the best matches [to play and to watch], where everyone on the grid was considered a massive threat.) Anyways perhaps the guidelines are a little too stringent. When rules like this reduce the quality of the competition, it's time to rethink them.

[sinewav]

I guess it determines the best clan not only skill-wise, but loyalty-wise.

Mostly, yes.

First, I want to say playing in the Bowl is voluntary. If you don't like how this is going you can just bail out. Second, this tournament is experimental. There are going to be problems and these discussions are helpful if we want to have this event again.

The Super-Ladle (Bowl) is supposed to be a small, short, intense competition. It is not just a measure of skill, but team stability. You will see the number 5 is key. This is because the season is 9 months long and five is more than half the season. Teams have to play more than half the Ladles and players need to play at least 5 times with the same team. This is totally reasonable, don't you think? How can we determine who is best at the end of the season if anyone can play anywhere? How can we say a team that bulks up their roster in the last months are "the best?"

If you look at the standings they really do reflect performance over the last 9 months. I don't think there is any question that Rogue Tronners was the hottest team of the year. I don't think there is any question that Revolver and Redemption were brutal to play against and that RoadRunnerZ deserves their seed. If you remember the earlier discussions, we originally planned the Bowl to be the top 6 teams, not 8.

I know the "2nd squad doesn't count toward 1st squad standings" seems strange, but look how the stats are recorded. There is no way to make them count without giving larger clans an unfair advantage. In fact, I believe large clans generally have an advantage in Ladle because of the larger talent pool. This evens things out.

Unfortunately, we only have the Challenge Board to use as a player reference. But again, reading over elmo's work on the previous page (I haven't had time to double check it) this is about how I would expect the rosters to look.

In my head I always assumed the bowl would be some grand yearly event. At the moment it looks exactly like a ladle with handicapped rosters. (Aka no one will remember it apart from any other ladle).

It's not a handicap for the hard-working, stable teams at the top who kept this event in mind over the last nine months. And they will remember the event as bloody brutal because they will sweat in the semi-finals, and the final will be hard as hell.

I hope you all keep the discussion going, but please consider playing the Bowl as is. Changing / adding rules now would be unfair. This is why we resisted changing the scoring formula months ago.

[Cody]

Sine is the one taking his time organizing this, so his rules should be followed. Gaz you don't get to play in bowl, you should of played with mym for 5 ladles. If we take "well Im not on the roster but I'm playing in semifinal" , why didnt your teamleader add you to the roster? You just look like a sub if you're not on the roster. Sine's tournament, Sine's rules.

[dreadlord]

Although I understand your reasons I'm really sad that I won't get to play. Well, I suppose that's my own fault. I liked insa's suggestion, having two groups and so on makes the tournament more interesting.

[Vogue]

Yeah, it's a bummer we won't get to play for uNk but if that's how sine wants it then fine. Not like uNk did this to bulk up their roster, or whatever. What about Speeders? They barely have members and some of them haven't played 5 times, they don't get to play at all?

[ElmosWorld]

Not sure why everyone's blaming sine because they can't play. When he proposed this a year ago nobody said anything. But now that it's an inconvenience to them people have a problem with it.

[Titanoboa]

Not sure why everyone's blaming sine because they can't play. When he proposed this a year ago nobody said anything. But now that it's an inconvenience to them people have a problem with it.

[þsy]

It's a bit absurd to give SP a spot, but only allow them five players (!?)

A fair few players on that list have also retired from tron. I think a set up such as this only works if players register for a tron season, and see it through to the end - staying active and only in one team/clan. But players have been quitting tron, moving in between clans willy-nilly, being active for periods and then inactive for other periods etc. I myself haven't been able to play for months at a time due to my studies, but have always come back online when I've been able to. Not all of us have the liberty to play tron so frequently!

If you look at SP, 3B is no longer in SP and FoFo hasn't played in months. Insa has also retired, but is still kicking around. So assuming neither 3B or FoFo play, that leaves SP with 3 players, one of which isn't an active member of the clan any more. Don't get me wrong - this isn't a personal cry for help as I left SP a couple of months ago and wouldn't be playing for them if I did qualify

Not sure why everyone's blaming sine because they can't play. When he proposed this a year ago nobody said anything. But now that it's an inconvenience to them people have a problem with it.

I appreciate these rules were set a while ago, but having seen the outcome of the rules, it's fairly obvious they haven't worked very well at all. Not to blame sine, they just haven't worked

[Venijn]

Not sure why everyone's blaming sine because they can't play. When he proposed this a year ago nobody said anything. But now that it's an inconvenience to them people have a problem with it.

Also @ psy, bit unfair to suggest they haven't worked.

As has been said above, everyone knew the rules. Sine had nothing to do with the clan changes, to suggest the rules don't work because of inconveniences isn't right, especially considering there are so many more people it doesn't inconvenience at all.

It's a system which rewards activity and loyalty, and one I agree with.

[þsy]

How can we suggest, even for a second, that the rules have worked if we are now proposing a competition in which one of the teams is not allowed to even enter a full team? It's an absolutely ridiculous notion

And as I said, there are many players who are as active as real life allows them. There's being loyal to a team, and then there's having limited time to play video games - the two are very different, but these rules punish both groups

The last Bowl I remember playing in was like ladle but a lot BIGGER with loads of teams, not a smaller and more exclusive ladle

[Pr3]

Not sure why everyone's blaming sine because they can't play. When he proposed this a year ago nobody said anything. But now that it's an inconvenience to them people have a problem with it.

Most rules don't change until there is a problem. Sine made a good point, we should play this bowl with these rules but discuss changing them for next time. I appreciate the time Sine is putting into organizing the tournament and by no means is this an attack on him.

[orion]

I thought the bowl was supposed to be a "best team of the year" thing. If you use just the current rosters, its just another ladle.

Well then Bowl shouldnt be entire right because the ladder scores you count are based on teams that changes players and roster.. (clear example: unk won last ladle with new players)