Ladle 17

DDMJ · Post by **DDMJ** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:52 am

The only problem is who gets the bye?

If there was a way to do it so only 2 teams get 1 bye each, then it would be simple and we could just assign the byes to the winner and runnerup of the previous Ladle.

I like B) but then how do we chose the 6 that get byes?

Monkey · Post by **Monkey** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:29 pm

Option 'B' is obviously the only sensible way to go.

As far as how to choose who gets a bye:

*If* we are seeding some teams then they should obviously get a bye and the rest of the positions should obviously be chosen randomly. If we are not seeding any teams then the positions should obviously be chosen randomly. It's obviously all obvious except for one decision that we have yet to make. That decision is:

Are we going to be seeding any teams?

Lackadaisical · Post by **Lackadaisical** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:44 pm

I'm personally in favor of seeding teams. (in particular the way that i proposed in this topic before) I also still think having four rounds (which is the minimum of rounds you need to have for 9-16 teams) is a bit too long, but I don't have a good solution for it.

In the tourney channel it was mentioned that signups are closed 00.00 am GMT the day of the ladle, but I (and those that were around) think this should be earlier, so we can do the draw and have a filled challenge board a couple of days up front. I propose closing the signups exactly one week earlier, and do the draw that same night (in our case saturday 29th on sunday 30th).

owned · Post by **owned** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:48 pm

I'm in favor of seeding too.

K-Yo · Post by **K-Yo** » Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:23 pm

yeah, let's take lack's Idea
If anyone doesn't think it's good, let us hear why

I though of a module in arma for matches, competitions etc.

http://wiki.armagetronad.net/index.php? ... tor_module

we could implement a system to randomize teams according to their previous results just like lackadaisical proposed?

still, the match coordinator module won't be created really soon, but I think we should think of the Ideas now, and write them down

DDMJ · Post by **DDMJ** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:12 am

K-Yo wrote:yeah, let's take lack's Idea
If anyone doesn't think it's good, let us hear why

The last time I tried to convince someone (epsy) why their idea (score_hole) wasn't a good one, I pretty much got ignored, along with many other people.

So, with that being said, I'm not even going to waste my time trying to convince you guys that picking 6 random teams to get a bye while 4 others have to play an extra game, is a bad idea.

Goodygumdrops · Post by **Goodygumdrops** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:39 am

DDMJ wrote:
K-Yo wrote:yeah, let's take lack's Idea
If anyone doesn't think it's good, let us hear why
The last time I tried to convince someone (epsy) why their idea (score_hole) wasn't a good one, I pretty much got ignored, along with many other people.

So, with that being said, I'm not even going to waste my time trying to convince you guys that picking 6 random teams to get a bye while 4 others have to play an extra game, is a bad idea.

The problem with what you are saying, durka, is that we have to run the tournament somehow. There isn't really a perfect way to do it with 10 teams, but claiming that the discussion here is anything like what happened with score_hole in the tst is ridiculous.

If you think you have a better solution than what is being proposed, I would love to hear it.

Corn1 · Post by **Corn1** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:03 am

DDMJ wrote:
K-Yo wrote:yeah, let's take lack's Idea
If anyone doesn't think it's good, let us hear why
The last time I tried to convince someone (epsy) why their idea (score_hole) wasn't a good one, I pretty much got ignored, along with many other people.

So, with that being said, I'm not even going to waste my time trying to convince you guys that picking 6 random teams to get a bye while 4 others have to play an extra game, is a bad idea.

So i'll do it for you

Why not just expand the bracket, add another round and use around 2 byes instead of 6... What you guys are trying to do is cope with the expansion of interest in fortress with the use of byes, that doesn't work because it leaves people sitting around even more and they get mad because they're waiting for their bye to be over instead of fighting the other teams that are waiting on their byes themselves. The best way to do this is use 2 or 3 byes and instead have another round added to the tournament to make a smaller matchup not just pretend they cant fight eachother. Because think of it this way, why cant those people sitting in their byes fight against eachother rather then wait for the next round?

The only reason a team should be waiting on a bye is because there is no one for them to play in the current round.

owned · Post by **owned** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:18 am

that doesn't make any sense, there'll still be a lot of byed teams your way.

Corn1 · Post by **Corn1** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:09 am

In what way? unless you had people not show or you had an odd number of teams it wouldn't. And using the ideal number of 10 bying 6 people isnt the way to go.

1200 · Post by **1200** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:14 am

Less byes we have is fairer and i think minimum number of byes that we can have is two.

If we choose all team positions randomly who ever gets the bye will be a matter of luck so it'd be fair....
If you want seeding may be finalists from the last Ladle could take up Teams 1 & 10. Semi Finalists could take up Team 3 and Team 6.

Goodygumdrops · Post by **Goodygumdrops** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:30 am

1200, in your idea, winner of team 7/8 v team 9/10 will get a bye in the semi-final round straight into the finals

1200 · Post by **1200** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:44 am

Goody thats right. They will be in the finlas having won two rounds of battle. So it'll be their 3rd round in the finals.
Team 1 or 2 would also be in the finals after winning two rounds of battle as well if they keep winning so its the same.
In previous ladles if you won 2 rounds of battle you were in the finals so i don't think that should be a problem.

The disadvantaged positions in this arrangement would be teams 3-6 cos they would need to win 3 rounds of battle to get in the finals.

Concord · Post by **Concord** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:30 pm

that's an advantage, in my opinion, they get to play more matches.

hoop · Post by **hoop** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:49 pm

The only way to let all teams have the same chances is counting the scores. That's a painful way, I know but... maybe it's the fairest way.
so we'd have 5 games at start. Each 3 matches must be played to take the real score
for example, the results of team A vs team B might be
100 - 85
91 - 100
100 - 40
team A's score is 291.
After this first round we'd have then 5 winners: the team with the lower score will be discarded and we'd just continue with semifinals
Just an idea