Discussion about ladle 107

[compguygene]

I do know what you are talking about. My thought is that it worked for Pickup, why not for this.

[Z-Man]

Teeny PSA, not really affecting the organization: I'll very likely be
1. on the beach (when it starts, anyway)
2. without proper internet
3. without a PC
during the next ladle. Don't expect recordings.

[misterplayer]

totally for this idea

[compguygene]

Can someone point me to the bot that Racthet created so I can check it out and maybe setup the bot on a VPS. A search of these forums on my part went nowhere.

Edit:
I woke up this morning and found the bot on github. I wasn't able to build it. However, I am offering a user account on a VPS of mine to a trustworthy person that will build it. Once built we can make sure that it is going to work for a new Ladle format. I think that it will, based on the wiki page of commands. http://wiki.armagetronad.org/index.php? ... t/Commands

[sinewav]

Before we get to writing a bot we should outline what it is we are trying to do.

#Pickup was very successful. Some people don't like the idea of using IRC for managing events. Is IRC any more troublesome than forcing players to edit a wiki? How can we use the two together for maximum efficiency?

I think the most important thing to consider is what to do with the random number of drop-in. We only had three teams for L-106, but there were nearly enough subs for a 4th team. Whatever system we create needs to flex comfortably because every player is important.

Here are some ideas floating in my head:

• Abandon the elimination bracket for a round-robin system.
• Ensure we have an even number of teams, always, even if that number is two!
• Team sizes need to flex for every event based on the number of players who show up. I would rather the team minimum be 5 players, but 4v4 is still fun. Let's not rule out 8v8 or 9v9 matches because those are also fun.
• Adopt a pickup style system where captains pick teammates. Every team in Ladle 106 had subs. Even with a team captain situation there will still be players consistently on the same teams, which is Ok if the teams are balanced. This means clan loyalty still has a place in the game.

If you have time, read my rant in the AoT subforum. Let's expand our ideas past Ladle and come up with a system we can use for the whole community, not just Fortress players.

I really want to hear more input from the guys in m&m and WTF. And for the record, I have no reservations about halting Ladle or abandoning it completely while we work on a new system for the future. There is a future.

[Ratchet]

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... ot#p297729

"I am certainly willing to re-code it and/or modify it to fit whatever needs you may have for future ladles. I may have written instructions for it for the FFA but I don't have the time at the moment to go and see if I made a page. Assuming this idea is put into place, I also wouldn't mind writing an instructions page for its use. Just get together an idea of what you guys need out of a bot and I'll do it"

@Compguygene: yep, that's it.

Also, the main page for the FFABot is actually very helpful. I provided a detailed explanation of each command on the commands page as well as instructions for using the bot on that page. Damn. I'm proud of myself.

@General:
With that being said, I still wouldn't mind helping out. I do have the code and I am certain that the most recent commit worked and ran perfectly on a ubuntu VPS. It has been an extraordinarily long time since I've been able to sit down and mess around with programming so it would probably take me a moment to troubleshoot any errors you have regarding getting it up and running on a specific machine. Again, many of you are much more knowledgeable than I so you could probably figure it out anyways.

I've said it before, but: if you have any knowledge of C#, feel free to clone the project and do what you wish to it.

[kyle]

"I am certainly willing to re-code it and/or modify it to fit whatever needs you may have for future ladles."

in a real programming language please

[Ratchet]

"I am certainly willing to re-code it and/or modify it to fit whatever needs you may have for future ladles."

in a real programming language please

Shove it.

Also, the more I think about it... how exactly is this grand new idea any different from the FFA? I can't answer that question myself. It looks like you guys are trying to do the same thing while calling it the Ladle.

[sinewav]

Also, the more I think about it... how exactly is this grand new idea any different from the FFA? I can't answer that question myself. It looks like you guys are trying to do the same thing while calling it the Ladle.

It looks like someone wants their ego stroked.

Ratchet, this is NOT a grand new idea and neither was FFA, which got wide support because it was just like Fortress Brawl. One of the defining features of Ladle is it's malleability. Ladle has always strived to be the best Fortress game in Arma and has gone through many, many changes. You could just as easily say that the ideas we are talking about now are similar to how the very first Ladles were run. I give absolutely zeros shits about the name Ladle or "branding" a Fortress event. I care about having the best possible Fortress game for the current community, as I always have.

But in answer to your question "how is it different?" well, we haven't come up with anything yet so there is nothing to base a comparison on. This is a discussion. One thing I would like to see is a tournament structure that is game agnostic, meaning you can use it for any team game in Armagetron. That opens the door to bringing back CTF, TST, Incam, and any other thing we can imagine. I want a framework that allows us to organize games almost instantly.

My extended vision would include a central repository of settings and authorities so that players with the proper privileges can transform regular use servers into tournament servers on the fly. An example might be guys like Gene and I setting up servers for public use, just like Light has. If at anytime a few players feel like having a tournament, they simply visit one of those servers, login, include the config files, and play an ad-hoc based on a predefined framework. (Key words here are extended vision, we should start with Fortress as a testbed.)

I'm happy you want to contribute. FFA is a good format, but I think we should challenge ourselves to go beyond. Future events might even involve custom team-management commands that run in the server like #pickup's /ready and /vote referee. Let's get it all on the table and sort it out.

[Ratchet]

Also, the more I think about it... how exactly is this grand new idea any different from the FFA? I can't answer that question myself. It looks like you guys are trying to do the same thing while calling it the Ladle.

It looks like someone wants their ego stroked.

It probably doesn't help that it's 1am, but I stopped reading there.

I don't give two shits about my "ego." This is the internet. I've never aggressively advertised the FFA nor have I ever suggested that it was revolutionary. Your bitchy response reminds me of what Jericho mentioned when you were doing the same whining in his Trench thread. I think it's you who has the ego problem.

I'm not looking for approval or worship from any of you. It was a genuine question because the more I offered to help code a bot for any potential Ladle changes, the more I realized the proposed Ladle changes seemed to be exactly inline with the current functionality of the bot.

But, I'm glad you reminded me that I shouldn't waste my time. After all, this has absolutely no affect on my outside life; why should I waste my time trying to help you guys? I hope someone else feels like doing it

Peace, thread!

[compguygene]

Ratchet, I can understand why you feel offended. Please understand that in no way does sinewav's views neccesarily represent the views of most people here. I also saw the obvious paralells between the FFA and the potential new Ladle format. It seemed to me that the bot that you made might not even need much if any re-coding. I would just like to ask you to move on from the offence, if possible, and help us tweak the code. This community has chased off other programmers in the past. Please guys, let's not do it again. Open Source Software is supposed to be about collaboration and community not egos and agendas. Just because sinewav is sharing a wider vision for things does not mean he is in charge. None of us are in charge. The Ladle was founded with the idea of a free collaborative effort. Let's keep it that way.

[Word]

Your bitchy response reminds me of what Jericho mentioned when you were doing the same whining in his Trench thread. I think it's you who has the ego problem.

Come on, Jericho and Durf say that about virtually everyone they don't like (most recent example), instead of, you know, proving them wrong. Don't be like that.

This community has chased off other programmers in the past.

While I agree we shouldn't tear each other apart over this just because our opinions about the progress of ladle vary, this seems like a misrepresentation of what Durf did and how most others tried to react responsibly, and what he still does...(see link above)
Or are you referring to someone else?

[sinewav]

Ratchet I'm sorry I offended you. Sometimes you come across as "too cool for Tron" just like I come across as an insufferable dickhead. I think the FFA format has a place in the new Arma tournament landscape, but I don't think it goes far enough to address problems on a management level. If were to implement a system like that today, as is, it would simply be a short-lived bandage for Ladle.

The future of Arma needs to account for a less organized community and one that exists in "real-time." That is, people can't be bothered with getting a team together or even signing up on a wiki. Half the people in Ladle 106 were not on the wiki and only a few of us even looked at it. I think the wiki should be abandoned as an organizational tool and used only as a reference for how a tournament should proceed (and maybe for recording the results). IRC seems like the best tool for organization since we can use bots. UNLESS there is a way to get the same benefits of IRC INSIDE a server (or link the IRC and a server in some way).

Is it possible to write a server script that functions like a #pickup bot? Can we imagine a Mega-Fort server people can play in while waiting for others to arrive, then have a bot break the players into teams once a certain criteria is met? Here is a possible scenario:

A server with 32 slots allows players to join and play. While playing they can announce their intention to have a tournament and whether or not they would like to be a captain. At a specified time, the server bot sends everyone to spectator mode and announces who the captains are, the team size, and which server to play in (here or there, we'll only have 4 teams and 2 servers in most cases). Captains proceed to pick teams then go to the appropriate server and play. After this it is simply a matter of following tournament guidelines on the wiki, most likely a round-robin event.

Does anyone see this as feasible? Even if it takes several weeks to write and test it may be worth the time if we can use the tool for years. If we can use #pickup's /ready and /vote referee we can also reduce the need for authority files and improve on the time wasted between rounds. If the custom server script works, then we can us it on use it on many servers, create a redundant network that is resilient to problems, and extend the bot's capabilities to make it event agnostic (meaning it can load up different game modes).

[Light]

IRC seems like the best tool for organization since we can use bots. UNLESS there is a way to get the same benefits of IRC INSIDE a server (or link the IRC and a server in some way).

I disagree, but I would have suggested a webpage where you can drag and drop people to your team and whatnot, but ...

Is it possible to write a server script that functions like a #pickup bot? Can we imagine a Mega-Fort server people can play in while waiting for others to arrive, then have a bot break the players into teams once a certain criteria is met? Here is a possible scenario:

A server with 32 slots allows players to join and play. While playing they can announce their intention to have a tournament and whether or not they would like to be a captain. At a specified time, the server bot sends everyone to spectator mode and announces who the captains are, the team size, and which server to play in (here or there, we'll only have 4 teams and 2 servers in most cases). Captains proceed to pick teams then go to the appropriate server and play. After this it is simply a matter of following tournament guidelines on the wiki, most likely a round-robin event.

Does anyone see this as feasible? Even if it takes several weeks to write and test it may be worth the time if we can use the tool for years. If we can use #pickup's /ready and /vote referee we can also reduce the need for authority files and improve on the time wasted between rounds. If the custom server script works, then we can us it on use it on many servers, create a redundant network that is resilient to problems, and extend the bot's capabilities to make it event agnostic (meaning it can load up different game modes).

That's actually not a bad idea. I mean, it's not too complex, and it would be simple to set up the base. I'm sure it would get tweaked and changes would be made as things were tested out, but it appears it would work. With 32 slots in a server, it feels like there would be plenty of room, but that would be my only concern. If the server's full, people will not be able to participate, and they don't have chosen spots in a tournament, so any teams that still exist would possibly get broken up, which may not be such a bad thing.

Your result would basically be a fully automated tournament. It could post the results to a webpage so you have a history and whatnot as well. If you set it up more specifically for a single type of tournament, you could even create cross-server tournament that could remain automated, automatically knowing who should be where, who's missing, etc. simply based off of name and IP. I think a basic "don't change your name mid-tournament" rule would suffice, unless you forced GID, which may not be as friendly.

Not so sure I feel like writing it, but it is possible and not overly difficult. Maybe when I didn't just get home from work I'd be more into coding some. lol

[compguygene]

@Word:
I was referring to others that were here long before Durf.