Ladle 36 Voting Discussion

[dreadlord]

Fullscreen_message in the middle of a round sounds like a terrible idea. That could kill people in tight spots, because they don't know when the round will be unpaused.

It would be used before the round starts. I hate it though. It always makes me think my client crashed.

Same here ...

[Titanoboa]

Doesn't matter if we vote about this particular problem in a quarterly vote, because no matter how hard we try to make ladle36.cfg fix it for us: it won't.
Discuss that issue here instead, and discuss actual ladle settings here.

I'm actually amazed it hasn't been brought up* before. Oh well. Moving on*brought up and fixed

[Shock]

Oh, I was wondering if the random spectator taking a spot in the server issue could be fixed by using custom connect ? Making the address an easy thing to remember, and the server to not appear on the master list is an idea. That way, anyone who shouldn't be there could not reach it unless knowing the address.

[sinewav]

Oh, I was wondering if the random spectator taking a spot in the server issue could be fixed by using custom connect ?

Wait, are you saying all the Ladle participants should custom connect to the servers and we take them off the Master List? Even though the spectators are 99% Ladle participants who have been eliminated and have the address anyway?

I don't understand.

[DDMJ]

The Ladle servers should always be on the master list. It's a great way to advertise the Ladle!

[PokeMaster]

Or we could just wait and see what the devs can do about it.

[Z-Man]

An automatic kick system could work. If someone tries to join a full server, then the server goes through the list of clients, kicking the one lowest on the following list:
- active players
- spectators invited to a team
- admins
- moderators
- team leaders
(basically, going down the access level list)
And clients connected the longest would be kicked first for a sort of spectator rotation, and to give newly connected players a chance to auth and get invited/oped. Of course, old school spectators (clients without player) would be treated like regular, unauthenticated spectators.

[Shock]

Wait, are you saying all the Ladle participants should custom connect to the servers and we take them off the Master List? Even though the spectators are 99% Ladle participants who have been eliminated and have the address anyway?

Wait wuhh?? Why would people that lose linger around? They afk or something? I thought videos were taken of the matches, right? Why can't they just watch those?

The Ladle servers should always be on the master list. It's a great way to advertise the Ladle!

Advertisement? As in, "Oh, there's another ladle? Cool." or "OOH WHAT"S LADLE?? I SHOULD GO IN THERE." ?

[DDMJ]

"OOH WHAT"S LADLE?? I SHOULD GO IN THERE." ?

Yea...if you pull up the server browser and see 100 players playing in 8 servers at the same time, all with similar server names, you become curious

[Goodygumdrops]

if you get so curious you just can't stand it, rico is waiting in uk

[dreadlord]

"OOH WHAT"S LADLE?? I SHOULD GO IN THERE." ?

Yea...if you pull up the server browser and see 100 players playing in 8 servers at the same time, all with similar server names, you become curious

I even have problems finding my mates when everybody has different names ^^

[sinewav]

Wait wuhh?? Why would people that lose linger around? They afk or something? I thought videos were taken of the matches, right? Why can't they just watch those?

Unlike the lame tournaments you play, whatever they are, Ladle participants support each other by cheering on their friends in other teams!

But seriously. Many Fort players find the Ladle to be very exciting and like to watch other teams play. Sometimes it's because they want to learn what the winning team does, strategy wise. Sometimes it's to watch excellence in action. And yes, many of the games are recorded, but I think a lot of people will agree when I say watching a recording of a game isn't as exciting as watching in real time, especially when you know the outcome.

Is there a problem with spectators/players in Ladle currently? I find it interesting no one wants to tackle the problems that have spawned recent threads (impostering/authentication, date changes, and holes).

[INW]

Wait wuhh?? Why would people that lose linger around? They afk or something? I thought videos were taken of the matches, right? Why can't they just watch those?

If you ever open your eyes during ladle days you will notice that the finals ladle server is always full (either 32 or 50 or 64 people in the server at one time). If you then put on some glasses you will notice almost every spectator is someone who has signed up for the ladle and obviously didn't make the finals. Try it one ladle.

[dlh]

About authentication:

The current system we use will not scale to authentication for players. That is, currently someone (kyle) takes all the team captain names a day or so before the Ladle and creates a ladle<n>_authorities.cfg file. It's filled with USER_LEVEL commands:

Code: Select all

USER_LEVEL dlh@generalconsumption.org 7
...

Extending this to include players is too much manual work, and teams add players the day of the Ladle and even right before they play. Having an admin around to /op everyone too lazy to sign-up is one solution, but then we're basically back to where we started. Fortunately, the authentication system is well designed, and there is a better way.

The solution is to create a @tournaments authority. There is an AUTHORITY_LEVEL command to automatically give users that authenticated from specific authorities a different user level. This allows us to do something like this:

Code: Select all

AUTHORITY_LEVEL tournaments/ladle/captain 7
AUTHORITY_LEVEL tournaments/ladle/player 8

When a player authenticates as <someone>@tournaments/ladle, they will be redirected to a subgroup and given the correct access level. Why a generic name like @tournaments and not @ladle? Well, I think other tournaments will want to use this.

We will need to create a way for players to register at the @tournaments authority. Personally, I don't want to deal with passwords and connecting registered @tournaments players with other accounts on other forums. Let's make @tournaments a mirror authority. I'm not sure this is technically possible, or if it is a good idea from a security point of view.

A player will create an account for @tournaments/ladle, but instead of providing a password and email for contact information they will provide another authenticated name they use (a @forums, or @ct account for example). The username could be auto-generated from the provided real username. When the player authenticates in game as <someone>@tournaments/ladle the @tournaments authority will communicate back with the user's real authority, and act as a proxy for authenticating.

A way to register teams and their players is needed. The current way we do this is on the wiki. We could create a full blown tournament registration website, and that would be the cleanest solution. However, it would also be the most work—and it's not even a fun problem to solve. It's just a CRUD website.

Another solution is to just continue using the wiki. Players continue to add themselves to teams on the wiki, but now they will use their real authenticated names—the real authenticated names are connected with @tournaments name. A script run on the @tournaments server would keep current what group a player belongs in, /captain or /player. The wiki also provides a way to diff changes, and revert them.

What pros would this new system actually provide? The first and most obvious is that user levels will not be manually maintained anymore. We also will have the ability to ban specific players from participating in the Ladle, by username and by IP. Note that players can get around both those obstacles, but at least we will have some control. Another benefit is that this system requires no source code changes to the game (servers will not need to update).

The cons: Time and effort. This actually needs to be created. And does this even provide a good solution? What level of control is needed for the Ladle?

[Lackadaisical]

As for the date changes, I mentioned in a previous thread I would like to just do date voting during every quarterly vote because I think people will otherwise get tired of voting (and arguing ) every ladle when someone wants to change the date (three times this year already). I'd also prefer it if you can only choose between three options: first sunday of the month, second sunday of the month or a blanc vote if you don't care. This because doing a ladle the third week of the month would make it too close to the next one.

So for this voting round I'd suggest:

Date of the 36th Ladle:

• 1st of August
• 8th of August
• Don't care

Date of the 37th Ladle:

• 5th of September
• 12th of September
• Don't care

Date of the 38th Ladle:

• 3rd of October
• 10th of October
• Don't care