Ranking/Seed System for future ladles

[PsYkO]

*Keanu reaves* whooooaaa

this stuff is getting complicated. I don't think there is a need for by laws for every exception or possible scenario. I hate lawyers. Keep it simple and the team leaders can vote when need be before the ladle.

[Hoax]

There's a lot of discussion on how to seed but the argument for it has been pretty weak

[-*inS*-]

There's a lot of discussion on how to seed but the argument for it has been pretty weak

My main thought is that if the ladle expands (to 20-24 teams), seeding would have a few benefits:

It's more likely that no team would end up playing more than 4 rounds (since the seeded teams would be first to get byes), also the weaker teams are more likely to get an opponent of their level seeing as they don't have to face the seeded teams the opening round.

Right now, the random system works, but I don't think it will be an effective if we move past 16 team/4 round ladles.

[sinewav]

There's a lot of discussion on how to seed but the argument for it has been pretty weak

Yeah, but a really good system kind of sells itself, right? It's good the "seeding crowd" is working out the details. We've never been this close to having a good system yet (I don't think).

[noob_saibot]

What's with all these crazy ranking system suggestions?

For one, it'll make it harder for new teams to fight their way into the system (yearly rankings? wtf, yeah sure that'll motivate noob teams).

If we take the rankings from the previous ladle alone, that'll make not only keep the seedings up to date, but also make it possible for a noob team to become seeded if only for one ladle. Then they'll have to fight to remain seeded. Competition is good.

Or if you'd rather want a league (which will naturally give you yearly statistics), stop shooting all the league ideas/suggestions down.

Ranking I guess would be excessive, but it would be strictly to determine the seeds lol. I guess that is a bit overboard, and the seedings can be implemented much simpler and faster.

I guess, for simplicity sake, having the seeds based solely on the previous ladle is a good idea for now at least, just to get this up and running. But I visualize a more stable and honest system for the long run, not just "oh you won last ladle you're #1 seed."

[PsYkO]

There's a lot of discussion on how to seed but the argument for it has been pretty weak

Ya never know till you try it! (this goes for both sides of the argument)

[Hoax]

Nice point ins
The main advantage of seeding I see is that the later stages will be more of a spectacle. What happened to streaming some of the matches? (You know, with the scouse guy) It almost seemed like the final between unk and jos killed the momentum. I presume everyone thought it would be one sided and not worth viewing? (no offense to unk) If we have seeding the best 2 teams will always end up in the final


As for teams that change rostas, I think Luci/woned/z-man picked a right number with 4. Although 3 could be considered. A good example would be the last 3 ladle winning team/teams. free kill is the only one to feature every time and including him, each time the team has had 3 repeat appreances from the previous ladle. So under a system where you need to keep 4 players, jos and binary wouldn't have been seeded. That also makes spteamshufflegate seem silly since on these terms inglourious basterds wouldn't be classed as the same team.
BUT would clans be exempt from this rule? If so what's to stop Plus+, for example, from saying that they're now a clan to get passed this Therefore in order to keep a seeding this rule should apply to all teams on the board.

Inglourious Basterds

Code: Select all

 free kill     ------     ------     -------------     1200     Luzifer     Olive    ------     Titanoboa     wap     --------

Team binary

Code: Select all

free kill     newbie     madmax     Lackadaisical     1200     Luzifer     ----     ------     ---------     ---     --------

Jalapeños on sticks!

Code: Select all

free kill     newbie     ------     Lackadaisical     ----     -------     Olive    freako     ---------     ---     MaZuffeR

*I hope the challenge board is correct x_x

2. Teams need to have 4 or more players from the previous challenge board on their team to get the seed.

2. I'd say 1 player is enough.

In this case, providing free kill plays next ladle, his team will be no.1 seed. However what if he doesn't turn up for some reason (knowingly or unexpected), should the 6 that do play really be seeded first? This is too flexible imo. BUT even if it is set at 4, what if one of those 4 doesn't play (again knowingly a few days beforehand or unexpected on the day) and they use a sub thus only having 3 from the last ladle...This seems like a minor issue but if the teams are judged on consistent members what's the point if it's not covered.

Perhaps it should just be

3. No, the one with the identical name gets the seed.

Regardless of who plays

[syllabear]

Perhaps identical name (within reason, i.e. CT-A and CT-B), and the same team captain since this is supposed to be the most important player.

[Magic]

I think most of us could generally agree on the top 4 teams at any given ladle does it really have to come down to a formula

[noob_saibot]

As for teams that change rostas, I think Luci/woned/z-man picked a right number with 4. Although 3 could be considered. A good example would be the last 3 ladle winning team/teams. free kill is the only one to feature every time and including him, each time the team has had 3 repeat appreances from the previous ladle. So under a system where you need to keep 4 players, jos and binary wouldn't have been seeded. That also makes spteamshufflegate seem silly since on these terms inglourious basterds wouldn't be classed as the same team.
BUT would clans be exempt from this rule? If so what's to stop Plus+, for example, from saying that they're now a clan to get passed this Therefore in order to keep a seeding this rule should apply to all teams on the board.

I agree, and don't see why it would apply to clans, reason being clans tend to have more depth to their roster than teams. And of course starting rosters will vary ladle to ladle for most clans, but a few minor changes shouldn't mean the clan not be seeded. So yeah, if this were the case, team binary and jos would not be seeded. But if a team like plus+ were consistent with their roster, and performing in ladles, they could be seeded.

2. Teams need to have 4 or more players from the previous challenge board on their team to get the seed.

2. I'd say 1 player is enough.

In this case, providing free kill plays next ladle, his team will be no.1 seed. However what if he doesn't turn up for some reason (knowingly or unexpected), should the 6 that do play really be seeded first? This is too flexible imo. BUT even if it is set at 4, what if one of those 4 doesn't play (again knowingly a few days beforehand or unexpected on the day) and they use a sub thus only having 3 from the last ladle...This seems like a minor issue but if the teams are judged on consistent members what's the point if it's not covered.

I don't think one person alone merits a seed. But 3-4 sounds fair, and even if one of the four players happened to drop out I do not think that should be an issue. But appointing some sort of threshold, be it 3 or 4 players, and then enforcing it is the right thing to do. So yeah, I guess in that case team freekill will not be seeded.


Also what is the minimum number of ladles a team must play in order to be considered a seed? 2-3? Maybe i missed this point somewhere...

[Lucifer]

1. It's only going from the last ladle, so a team need only have played that one and earned a seed.

I'd say, for the other issues about no-shows, go the path of least resistance. Don't go changing the brackets around at the last minute, resulting in utter chaos, if the seeded team suddenly drops below the 4 player threshold. But if they drop before that threshold before the brackets are finalized, then they can lose the seed.

Keep in mind that if they use players in the actual competition that aren't as good as the ones when they earned the seed, they won't be able to keep the seed anyway for the next ladle. And teams know that. So, I don't expect to see much lawyering of the system (e.g. where they sign up the four players that earned the seed, then drop three because they weren't really committed and sub on the day, just to keep the seed). Sure, there will be *some* abuse, but if the team loses its seed because of their abuse, then they screwed themselves and someone else wins anyway. But if they keep their seed in spite of the abuse (e.g. they still win to a comparable rank that they get seeded in the next ladle), then you could argue they would have earned it anyway even if they'd lost the seed because of their antics. The end result is still the same.

This all assumes that the way the seeds actually work doesn't guarantee a seeded team to finish in a seed position for the next ladle. They *do* need to be able to lose their seeds, otherwise we may as well just have 4 specific teams and none others.

Teams that can keep themselves seeded will add some stability to the tournament as a whole. They now have a strong incentive to stay together as a team, and to keep improving. So they also have a strong incentive to work out any problems that happen on the team, and to avoid any rule-lawyering that might cause them to sit out a ladle. I would expect that teams that consistently keep their seeds will also wind up being fairly well-behaved so they don't lose their seeds. Other teams, let's call them wanna-be seeds, will have incentive to work harder themselves so they can at least earn a seed. That becomes a new milestone in the ladle. "Hey, we finally earned a seed, maybe next time we'll even get to the finals!"

Similarly, the captains of the seeded teams have an even stronger reason to represent their teams in any voting that takes place. Because, if they don't, then 4 players from the seeded team can go re-form into another team and take the captain's seed from him. Captains now get more power and responsibility, and that added bit of accountability. At least, for the teams that can stay seeded. That's an appropriate check for the recent SP drama. As players finally became aware of what happened, they could fire their captain and keep the seed, and the captain says "Oh shit, I really screwed up, now I lost my badass team!" Instead, we had players who really felt bad about it, but had no ladle-oriented way to deal with it (obviously they have internal clan-oriented ways, but that mostly doesn't satisfy the regular ladle-goers).

Whether or not seeds make the competition itself better, I don't know, but I can see lots of ways that seeds will make the tournament run smoother and help to take care of problems before they start. So, politically, I would say it's worth a shot.

[sinewav]

So, you guys have this seeding thing figured out yet? It would be nice to vote on it this month. Maybe if you can come up with one or two succinct definitions, we can choose to try them out in Ladle 37 or 38 (assuming that seeding itself passes)?

[noob_saibot]

1. It's only going from the last ladle, so a team need only have played that one and earned a seed.

I'd say, for the other issues about no-shows, go the path of least resistance. Don't go changing the brackets around at the last minute, resulting in utter chaos, if the seeded team suddenly drops below the 4 player threshold. But if they drop before that threshold before the brackets are finalized, then they can lose the seed.

Keep in mind that if they use players in the actual competition that aren't as good as the ones when they earned the seed, they won't be able to keep the seed anyway for the next ladle.

This answered my last question, and I don't see any reason to object to any of this. So we base seedings off previous ladle in the case of a new team or open team. And we established clans will be exempt from this rule, being the entire clan is seeded and they have an entire roster to work with for starting ladle lineup.

[Tremor]

Not enough info to really have a seeding system. We only really thought of this because the team-switching thing. So keep randomization...it has been working so far.

[Titanoboa]

We only really thought of this because the team-switching thing.

orly?

http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 26#p224526
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 66#p219566
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60#p213260
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 25#p211025
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 67#p206367
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 57#p206657
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 02#p203302

it's been mentioned before.


Main reason I think it's important is because the tournament takes too many hours to complete as of now. The teams that are likely to end up in a final should get a bye in the first round if there's more than 16 teams playing.
It has oh so many pros and I can't find any other con than the fact that it'll never be implemented unless people start using their thinking devices.