Looking ahead - Ladle 21 - "Rules"

[owned]

We had a ton of close matches with teams in the early rounds (Tr, X) that could've easily made the semis.

Heh, sorry for arguing about seeding.. again, but I'd just like to note that Tr wouldn't have been seeded and that, judging by the matchscores, X was you're easiest opponent

Well what I meant to say is that over time, the best teams will gather up in the semifinals. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say tr could be seeded by July.

@sage I agree. Some of the rounds in our quarterfinals match were completely ridiculous. I think it was a problem with the new pause system as the server basically stopped receiving for 100 ms or so. I ended up just not grinding many walls and staying as safe as possible.

[sinewav]

Last time I checked the Ladle was once a month, and as far as I'm concerned is fine like that.

Oops, my bad. I got my dates mixed up. Plus there was talk of doing it bi-monthly in the past to avoid tournament burn-out (please don't ask me to search for the threads for it, the new search function stinks).

So maybe voting on rules quarterly is best. I guess we can add that as a rules to vote on for L-21.

[kyle]

• team_max_players - 6v6? 7v7? 8v8?

6v6, more teams, less lag

• score_hole - yes (+1 point), no (0 points)

No, I like the setting for some applications, but i don't like it for this.

• 2v2 - unconquerable? conquerable?

Maybe conquerable over a long time like 30 seconds

• scoring distribution - score_win 6, fortress_conquered_score 4? or score_win 10, fortress_conquered_score 0?

#No comment

• brackets - random teams, seeded teams (top 2? top4?)

I do not believe in seeding, only because look at this last ladle. what 4 teams will be seeded as you probably assume x and tr are 2 strong teams that will now get left to randomized slots now. This is what I don't like it a good teem can still get left unseeded. also players may very. what if CT decides to have 2 teams next time and half of the ladle 20 players are on 1 team and the other half are on the other? which one of us will be seeded? The closer we get to having a 32 team ladder the more I'm thinking Lucifer playoff idea my be a better option. playoffs to get into the top 16 and then go from there. Could you refresh our memory of this idea Lucifer.

• servers - random? balance of Euro/American? (like Ladle 20)

/*No comment*/

• finals - always Z-Man's? rotate between Z-Man's and American Server? (TR Fort? Server Pharm? PinkTomato's?)

I can see arguments both ways. I like my high ping I'd stay with z-mans.

• server names - normal? (all different) coordinated? (like Ladle 20)

Duh, nice to have them all the same.

• team signups - list players? (do they have to play with the name listed?) don't list players?

I think players should be known, you're a coward if you wanna hide behind some bogus name

[DDMJ]

I do not believe in seeding, only because look at this last ladle. what 4 teams will be seeded as you probably assume x and tr are 2 strong teams that will now get left to randomized slots now. This is what I don't like it a good teem can still get left unseeded.

Yes, but that would only have to happen once. Then the seeds will be more realistic.

[hoop]

• team_max_players - 6v6? 7v7? 8v8?
  6v6: well balanced
• score_hole - yes (+1 point), no (0 points)
  no
• 2v2 - unconquerable? conquerable?
  unconquerable
• scoring distribution - score_win 6, fortress_conquered_score 4? or score_win 10, fortress_conquered_score 0?
  6/4
• brackets - random teams, seeded teams (top 2? top4?)
  I prefer random.
  In case we decide seeding, I'd only seed the 2 top available teams from last ladle
• servers - random? balance of Euro/American? (like Ladle 20)
  idk
• finals - always Z-Man's? rotate between Z-Man's and American Server? (TR Fort? Server Pharm? PinkTomato's?)
  rotate between euro/US only when final teams have opposite preferences
• server names - normal? (all different) coordinated? (like Ladle 20)
  coordinated works perfectly
• team signups - list players? (do they have to play with the name listed? is there a size limit? can teams recruit on the day of?) don't list players?
  list players, play using the listed name.
  no size limit. teams can recruit on they day of

[Z-Man]

About my server:
There's no pride attached to it. Well, a bit. But it's weighted against the time it takes to manage the finals every time. So, just in case: decide what's best for the ladle.

About the performance: I moved the server over a month ago from the Uni PC to a VPS. It's still on debug mode and recording all the time, that may be a little too much for the poor VPS (I checked, CPU loads were around 50%). The original reason for the move was that the PC hosting the server usually has been in repair for several months and only came back fully repaired Friday last week. That, and that I feel bad abusing Uni resources. There's two things I can do there to increase the performance: I can move the tournament server back to the Uni PC now, or I can disable debugging and recording. Or, what I think I'll do: just disable debugging. In ladle 19, having recording enabled was crucial for the elimination of the invulnerability bug.

[Puuquie]

team_max_players -
6v6, less lag, more teams.

score_hole - yes (+1 point), no (0 points)
I dont mind.

2v2 - unconquerable? conquerable?
Conquerable. In all games, real or not, the attack has to be rewarded.

scoring distribution - score_win 6, fortress_conquered_score 4? or score_win 10, fortress_conquered_score 0?
I like 6-4, like now. You can get 4 points although you lose your zone. Attack has to be rewarded, as i said.

brackets - random teams, seeded teams (top 2? top4?)
Seeded teams. Maybe we can to point the winners, finalist and semifinalist of the ladles 1-20, and order the teams, as FIFA's does.

servers - random? balance of Euro/American? (like Ladle 20)
Balanced

finals - always Z-Man's? rotate between Z-Man's and American Server? (TR Fort? Server Pharm? PinkTomato's?)
Balanced. Rotate server except if final teams dont want.

server names - normal? (all different) coordinated? (like Ladle 20)
I dont mind.

team signups - list players? (do they have to play with the name listed? is there a size limit? can teams recruit on the day of?) don't list players?
Dont list players. The only rule. One player cant play in 2 teams.

[Puuquie]

But if you want to know what people think, you cant do open questions. Maybe a poll with some options would be better.

[epsy]

is it an each man for himself poll or only one vote per team?

[sinewav]

is it an each man for himself poll or only one vote per team?

I thought is was one per team. Wasn't this just supposed to be a discussion of rules and which ones should be included? I thought the voting would happen on the Ladle 21 thread when it was created.

[hoop]

mmm I thought it was like "vote if you're intersted"
if it was one vote per team, mine doesn't count then
btw, how can it be by team if we don't know which team will play yet

[DDMJ]

The idea is that once you create a team or are on a team, you discuss the rules with them. You can then place your team's official vote in the Ladle 21 thread. The deadline will be the Sunday before the Ladle. If your team's vote isn't in by then, then too bad, your vote doesn't count.

What it looks like so far is that most of the settings will have big majorities one way or another. Hopefully, if there are no close votes, we can just call it the official (v2) Ladle settings and keep them for at least the next 3 Ladles.

[compguygene]

OK. I would like to open up another can of worms. ARMATHENTICATION!
I think that on every team, a team captain, or 1 or 2 others should registered with some authority and be able to moderate the server, and start a new match. This would allow for more "self organization".

Epsy might even be persuaded to implement something like he has for TST administrators. Alternatively, it shouldn't be that difficult for server admins to add the appropriate permissions to their servers. Of course, it would necessitate an additional registration step. However, most ladle teams/clans are ongoing ventures. Once registered as a "team captain" or "moderator", this registration could be maintained, and updated the week before each Ladle.
The main hassle would be the initial registration and training. If we start in the next week or two, it wouldn't be much of a problem. This would go a long way toward increasing the "self organizing" nature of the Ladle.

Also, if we can't get every team on board, we could at least get most teams on board and make this the "transition ladle" where some admin presence is required.

[DDMJ]

I like the idea, but let's just make it simple and only require the team captains to post their GID's on the Challenge Board so the server admins know who to give admin powers to. Example:

{{Ladle Team External|Twisted Rats|'''Durka (DDMJ@forums)''', Corn, CuRbSidE, Goodygumdrops, JJBean, man2d, mist, SageLord, stax, W33D|http://twisted-rats.co.cc}}

[Z-Man]

I'm a bit worried about the scalability of that approach. Sooner or later, (the more this reality bends around 2020's imagination, the sooner) there's going to be an asshat team leader abusing his powers on servers he's not even meant to play on. Shouldn't there rather be a list of trusted referees? Kind of like that armatrator thing scaled down? I would be much more comfortable giving admins of other ladle servers admin rights on mine than giving those rights to all team leaders, and it's perfectly possible for a single non-playing admin to care for two or three games at once.