Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

[ppotter]

I agree, get rid of seeds. Double elimination is bad for reasons already covered. I don't think a league format would work personally, the reason people turn up for ladle moth after month is because each month is a clean slate; everyone has a chance of winning on the day (however unlikely).

[orion]

Sine, I think like seeds or not is mostly about tastes. You like to see new teams "grow" winning some games against another noob team. Some people, including myself, dont care about how far a noob team reach or dont think it makes sence. Both opinions are respectables I guess

[Monkey]

As a member of a clan/team that doesn't usually do well, I'll give my opinions.

I actually agree with what orion has just said. As a noob team, we shouldn't be getting further in a competition than we deserve. I like having seeding and what it achieves. I have played several sports at competitive levels and they always had seeding.

I also think that we need to be very careful about changing anything in-game, such as zones, holes, mines or whatever.

Now, some sports that I have competed in also had a consolation competition that is only for teams that lost in the first round (similar to what theo suggested). I think that a consolation competition is what we need. This would mean that everyone gets to play at least two matches, at least one of which would probably be against a team of similar skill (especially if seeding is used).

[Soul]

Wildcat brings up a good point. Ladles aren't meant for practicing. I mean, sure, it is good practice but if thats the only thing a newer team is doing for practice then they deserve to lose first or second round.

I hate to bring them up again, but Phoenix is the perfect example of what is wrong in Ladle Fortress. They had a large roster, practiced all the time, and after more than a year of playing never even reached the finals, let alone won a Ladle. RoadRunnerZ did it, once, but only after it became an obsession that left the clan in shambles.

The removal of seeds won't fix this. The mentality of "everyones a winner" doesn't work. As monkey just said, I don't think the weaker teams would want to be handed advancement into the tournament. I feel there is a greater feeling of accomplishment when you break through the traditional way.

Regardless of if we take out seeds or not the weak teams will still lose early and face a "strong" team early on anyway.

Yeah, but at least they can have some fun before they get eliminated. I don't want to beat any team by 80-90 points. It's a waste of everyone's time. I would think all you big winners out there would agree. Do you even want to bother playing a new team in the opening round or wouldn't you rather fast-forward to the semi-finals? Yet this is what happens every Ladle. A seeded team plays some rookies and no one get's any real enjoyment out of it (unless you are sadistic). There is a better way to have more people playing the game, having better competition, and having fun.

What you're not understanding is that the teams that make the finals and semi finals will statistically have the same matchups they do now, just in a different order. (Maybe a harder first round, but the second round will be an easy and boring round)

In my opinion, like orion, I'd prefer to have the competition get harder as you progress -- not the other way around.

[Concord]

yes the problem with the league idea is that it would be easy for a lot of bad things to happen like
a) teams drop out halfway through a match day, leaving their opponents with no one to play
b) matches not be taken seriously enough

at the end of the day, one cannot add more matches that are equally meaningful to the ones we have (other than something like double elim). This is because the bracket/tournament structure is already designed to determine a winner through an process where each and every game is meaningful.

By meaningful I just mean that each match directly relates to crowning a winner. Each match gives information to more important matches, is one way of thinking about it.

[sinewav]

The removal of seeds won't fix this. The mentality of "everyones a winner" doesn't work.

That's not at all what I'm proposing. No where did I even suggest that in the slightest. "Consolation competitions" like Monkey described are the "everyone's a winner" mentality. The outcomes of Ladle will remain the same. The differences will be important in the earlier rounds where better match-ups happen. The better match-ups will increase competition and will make the game more fun for everyone. (Well almost everyone. There are those "good" teams who are too afraid to lose in the opening round against a rival. God forbid they don't get to advance. ) The top teams have nothing to lose by giving up seeding. The weaker teams have everything to gain.

As monkey just said, I don't think the weaker teams would want to be handed advancement into the tournament. I feel there is a greater feeling of accomplishment when you break through the traditional way.

Except the ability to advance grows harder each month instead of easier because of the current distribution of talent. You know who gets handed advancement in a tournament? Seeded teams, that's who. Without seeds every team has to try their hardest to reach the next round (unless you get a lucky draw). Removing seeds will reduce the number complete blowouts in the opening round, because right now we can count on at least 4 blowouts per 16 team Ladle. Would be nice if it were only 3 or 2, or zero. Also, I think it is weird you hold this opinion of "breaking through the traditional way" since this was never practiced by Redemption. You guys pretty much recruited your way to the top.

What you're not understanding is that the teams that make the finals and semi finals will statistically have the same matchups they do now, just in a different order. (Maybe a harder first round, but the second round will be an easy and boring round)

I perfectly understand what happens when you remove seeding. I was there before we had it, remember? The different order of winning is better for the Fortress community as a whole. Everyone here seems to be focused on an exciting final, but it's only exciting for an increasingly small number of people. This is the problem. If we want Fortress to be better in the future we need to take steps now to make that happen.

In my opinion, like orion, I'd prefer to have the competition get harder as you progress -- not the other way around.

Give me a break. We've all seen semi-finals that were way harder than finals, with seeding and without. I can only think of one time in the pre-seeding era where the brackets were totally lopsided. It was Ladle 34, four months before we incorporated seeding. Looking back at the randomized Ladles, they were all fairly even when it came to the semi-finals and finals.

[ppotter]

Wildcat brings up a good point. Ladles aren't meant for practicing. I mean, sure, it is good practice but if thats the only thing a newer team is doing for practice then they deserve to lose first or second round.

I hate to bring them up again, but Phoenix is the perfect example of what is wrong in Ladle Fortress. They had a large roster, practiced all the time, and after more than a year of playing never even reached the finals, let alone won a Ladle. RoadRunnerZ did it, once, but only after it became an obsession that left the clan in shambles.

The removal of seeds won't fix this. The mentality of "everyones a winner" doesn't work. As monkey just said, I don't think the weaker teams would want to be handed advancement into the tournament. I feel there is a greater feeling of accomplishment when you break through the traditional way.

Who is getting handed anything? They still have to win games to advance. And non-seeded ladle is 'traditional', if anything.

Regardless of if we take out seeds or not the weak teams will still lose early and face a "strong" team early on anyway.

Yeah, but at least they can have some fun before they get eliminated. I don't want to beat any team by 80-90 points. It's a waste of everyone's time. I would think all you big winners out there would agree. Do you even want to bother playing a new team in the opening round or wouldn't you rather fast-forward to the semi-finals? Yet this is what happens every Ladle. A seeded team plays some rookies and no one get's any real enjoyment out of it (unless you are sadistic). There is a better way to have more people playing the game, having better competition, and having fun.

What you're not understanding is that the teams that make the finals and semi finals will statistically have the same matchups they do now, just in a different order. (Maybe a harder first round, but the second round will be an easy and boring round)

In my opinion, like orion, I'd prefer to have the competition get harder as you progress -- not the other way around.

The team that wins will have to beat the same people overall, but it's nice to have an underdog progress further than the first round for once.

[woof]

The team that wins will have to beat the same people overall, but it's nice to have an underdog progress further than the first round for once.

Why? So they can get beaten badly in a later round? If they were going to lose to the "better" teams in the first round, the result would be no different in a later round - the only difference would be that the "better teams" potentially were paired up in the first round, making for a likely lopsided final.

Also, I think it is weird you hold this opinion of "breaking through the traditional way" since this was never practiced by Redemption. You guys pretty much recruited your way to the top.

This is pretty irrelevant and doesn't make any sense. Most teams these days have players that have already been filtered throughout multiple clans through the years...Redemption having older players and not having started from the bottom (shoutouts to drizzy) with brand-new players isn't non-traditional at all...they won their way to the top. In fact, it's identical (conceptually) to the way mYm did it, a clan you were a part of later (insert provoking wink)

[sinewav]

The team that wins will have to beat the same people overall, but it's nice to have an underdog progress further than the first round for once.

Why? So they can get beaten badly in a later round?

YES! SO THEY CAN PLAY LONGER! This is the point you kids can't seem to get into your head. Winning Ladle is fun, but so is advancing. I just don't understand this rather selfish and pessimistic attitude. I get the feeling that, given the opportunity, some of you guys would just ban the weaker teams from playing because "they ain't winning anyway so why bother?"

Also, I think it is weird you hold this opinion of "breaking through the traditional way" since this was never practiced by Redemption.

This is pretty irrelevant and doesn't make any sense. In fact, it's identical to the way mYm did it.

It is relevant because Soul is arguing from a position he has no experience with. He has no idea if it's better to break through "the traditional way" (which is through random seeding, btw) and thinks new teams don't want to be handed matches (which is exactly what the seeded teams get, handed matches). Also, at no time ever have I claimed that starting with brand new players and "breaking through" was ideal. But if you must know, there is this one team I was on who made it to finals in our second Ladle with a bunch of nobodies before we recruited veteran players.

And as I pointed out above, there was only one lopsided Ladle final out of 37 due to randomization. That risk is a small trade off for the benefits to the community. Chances are most of you reading this sentence will not play long enough to see a lopsided final in the future.


More history: mYm was the final product of a group of people who had been playing together for years under evolving team names. The reason I joined was actually because of CTF, since they were the only Fort team that played other than Rogue Tronners.

[wap]

I'm for removing seeds. Now that I think of it, it does seem pretty selfish for stronger teams to support this system.

[bilbo baggins]

the way i look at it is there are 5 or 6 top teir teams out there capable of winning a ladle and then another 3 or 4 on any given day who could beat some of those top teams, removing seeding and having a ladle of say 16 teams means that even if all the top teams and the strong teams are put on one side of a bracket (creating your so called "lop-sided bracket") there would still be teams capable of beating you/giving a strong fight, so your idea of a final that is a complete blow-over is ridiculous, and even with the seeding there have been in the past few ladles a couple of final blowouts where one team has completely destroyed the other. also the probability of this happening as sine has said is extremely low.

and might i also ask, why is it more of an acheivement to beat a strong team in a final instead of an opening round? if RD plays UNK in an opening round they will still have the same players as they would have in a final. the only difference is you win a (virtual) trophy afterwards and the honours of being champions for that month. congratz, your parents must be proud.

I see a lot of teams here who want to win everything and keep winning at all costs, when you should just be enjoying the fort that you are playing on ladles, ive played a fair few now and had a couple of complete walkovers by the stronger teams, and even tho it was a little embaressing i still enjoyed playing, even though i lost

i just think this fort community is trying to stab itself in the back and will eventually bleed to death.

[Soul]

All im saying is removing seeds won't change the outcome for most teams. I don't care one way or another, as I already said. If I was positive this would actually help the newer teams I would be all for it, I just don't see it. Carry on though!

Also, just for clarification, I played with CTB (<3) for a few ladles as well as a couple other "noob" teams, keep digging sine.wav

[Vogue]

More history: mYm was the final product of a group of people who had been playing together for years under evolving team names. The reason I joined was actually because of CTF, since they were the only Fort team that played other than Rogue Tronners.

Don't worry Sine, woof is wrong. The first time MYM was created, we came from the bottom and came out on top with inexperienced players, it was all due to eckzellent teamwork. Now, the reincarnation of MYM is an entirely different story; we stole every player basically.. but that was when we already had a winning rep. : )

tl;dr remove seeding pls ty

[theo]

Lots of nice ideas.

- tournament: I like it. Pros: You get to play everyone. Cons: it's likely that bad ranked teams will lost motivation fast and forfeit further matches.
- Seedings: I'm all for removing them.
- Number of players: I like 6 better. But that's probably because I'm used to it. It could be fun to try 7 again from time to time. Like that tournament (I don't remember the name).
- Matches for losers (Obviously I'm pro, that was my idea).
- Maybe it's time to bring back Fortress for all? The aim was to mix people and talents. Exactly what ladle is not doing (anymore?).
- Mines: Cool idea. Everything should be tried. Maybe not in ladle tho.
- 2vs2 conq like pickup? Idk, just another random idea.

I hate to bring them up again, but Phoenix is the perfect example of what is wrong in Ladle Fortress. They had a large roster, practiced all the time, and after more than a year of playing never even reached the finals, let alone won a Ladle.

Also half of the active member left, mainly because of the lack of success. Some of them joined (or are considering joining) top clans.

Which tend to validate your hypothesis: It's almost impossible to win a ladle (or even make it to the finals) with a new clan. At some point, people will only join successful clans. Ladle will only be filled by 3 or 4 clans, each sending 2 or 3 teams.

[ppotter]

6v6 or 7v7 is good, the extra player can lead to some interesting tactics, any more than 7 on a team and it gets overcrowded though.

The team that wins will have to beat the same people overall, but it's nice to have an underdog progress further than the first round for once.

Why? So they can get beaten badly in a later round? If they were going to lose to the "better" teams in the first round, the result would be no different in a later round - the only difference would be that the "better teams" potentially were paired up in the first round, making for a likely lopsided final.

Yes, but the key point is they get the chance to play more than 2 matches. Who cares if there is a lopsided final once in a blue moon, and for the record, the only truly lopsided brackets pre-seeding that sine refers to, didn't exactly create a washout final.

All im saying is removing seeds won't change the outcome for most teams. I don't care one way or another, as I already said. If I was positive this would actually help the newer teams I would be all for it, I just don't see it. Carry on though!

Also, just for clarification, I played with CTB (<3) for a few ladles as well as a couple other "noob" teams, keep digging sine.wav

Obviously it won't change the overall winner, the best team on the day will win, but I'm pretty sure most weaker teams would jump at the chance of making it through a round or two, rather than being beaten 100-30 x2 in 20 minutes.