Ladle 17

[owned]

well I think the decision goes down to monkey (or freako, or whoever's doing it) considering there's no way to have a closed poll on this forum.

[Concord]

well I think the decision goes down to monkey (or freako, or whoever's doing it) considering there's no way to have a closed poll on this forum.

not very ladle-ish, perhaps just flip a coin between the methods?

[Hoax]

Edited the challenge board based on 4 rounds..ie Plan B according to goody. I think this is the best way which everyone agrees with?..just no one can agree on who gets the byes?

Seed Pot
CT, X, KoD, WW, TR, DS (Based on Ladle 17 results) Will occupy Teams 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.

Unseeded Pot
SP, NM, Shadow, REP Will occupy Teams 7, 8, 9 & 10.

The structure is there, just things like start times, sign-up close time and maybe anything I've missed could be discussed here if needed. IE. First round start time leaves enough time? etc.

Easily reversed on the wiki if this system ('B') is rejected

Note that this is just for 10 teams, not room for an 11th based on this structure if another team signs up

[owned]

I agree with hoax.
Maybe we should add 3rd place rounds?

[kyle]

why should we seed 6 teams? That is crazy. That basically takes random assignment our of the picture. I agree with the format just not the seeding of 6 teams. I think there should only be a maximum of 2 seeds if any. If anything the seeded teams should have to play the extra rounds as they have proven to do well in the past, they should be able to take the extra round. I'm more for randomly picking all 10 slots though.

[1200]

I think this discussion is goin in circles at times.
What needs to be decided is, are teams gonna be seeded or not. Having a poll seems a good idea. If someone was gonna decide on its own why are we having all this discussion in the first place???

Lacka already came up with a good system of allocating teams its just a matter of figuring out if we gonna have seeding and if so how many teams will be seeded etc...

[DDMJ]

why should we seed 6 teams? That is crazy. That basically takes random assignment our of the picture. I agree with the format just not the seeding of 6 teams. I think there should only be a maximum of 2 seeds if any. If anything the seeded teams should have to play the extra rounds as they have proven to do well in the past, they should be able to take the extra round. I'm more for randomly picking all 10 slots though.

I think what would be best is if they're not seeded (those 6 teams), but rather they are the teams with byes. And...their seeds are chosen randomly.

[Monkey]

WW > SP ? The lol.

I'm with kyle and 1200 on this one. I've also never heard of a tournament that has more seeded teams than non seeded teams.

[Concord]

What about this:

1 finalist out of a bracket of 4

3 potential finalists out of a bracket of 6. They play a round robin, just 1 match to 100 against another semifinalist, winner stays on, first team to 2 matches won moves on. Max 4 matches.

Code: Select all

a.) 1 v 2
b.) winner of a.) v 3
c if needed.) 3 v loser of a.)
d if needed.) winner of c.) v winner of a.)

The problem would be having 8 players in spectator all the time, and reorganizing teams when matches end. However, this could be managed well with a adept admin on site and/or kicking the teams where they need to be.

[Hoax]

Maybe we should add 3rd place rounds?

Yeah it would be cool to add 3rd place play off between the two losing semi finalists

why should we seed 6 teams? That is crazy. That basically takes random assignment our of the picture. I agree with the format just not the seeding of 6 teams. I think there should only be a maximum of 2 seeds if any. If anything the seeded teams should have to play the extra rounds as they have proven to do well in the past, they should be able to take the extra round. I'm more for randomly picking all 10 slots though.

I think what would be best is if they're not seeded (those 6 teams), but rather they are the teams with byes. And...their seeds are chosen randomly.

The 'seeded' teams arn't in any order..they are just the top 6 teams (if that, more like just teams that were in the last ladle) & it's a simple way to decide who skips the first round.
What's the issue here, I think you all taking the 'seeded' concept too seriously
If the sign up format wasn't changed in the first place everyone could just sign up where they wanted & chose to start in the first round if they wanted & it would have been a first come first serv situation, which, if none of the 'seeded' teams wanted to actually start in the first round..would have pretty much ended up like how it's proposed at the moment ^^

[owned]

i still think at least the top 4 teams should be seeded. The top seeds will get byes. If any more are needed, they will be chosen randomly.

[DDMJ]

Maybe we should add 3rd place rounds?

Yeah it would be cool to add 3rd place play off between the two losing semi finalists

why should we seed 6 teams? That is crazy. That basically takes random assignment our of the picture. I agree with the format just not the seeding of 6 teams. I think there should only be a maximum of 2 seeds if any. If anything the seeded teams should have to play the extra rounds as they have proven to do well in the past, they should be able to take the extra round. I'm more for randomly picking all 10 slots though.

I think what would be best is if they're not seeded (those 6 teams), but rather they are the teams with byes. And...their seeds are chosen randomly.

The 'seeded' teams arn't in any order..they are just the top 6 teams (if that, more like just teams that were in the last ladle) & it's a simple way to decide who skips the first round.
What's the issue here, I think you all taking the 'seeded' concept too seriously
If the sign up format wasn't changed in the first place everyone could just sign up where they wanted & chose to start in the first round if they wanted & it would have been a first come first serv situation, which, if none of the 'seeded' teams wanted to actually start in the first round..would have pretty much ended up like how it's proposed at the moment ^^

Hoax, I'm agreeing with you.

This is by far the best way to do it.

6 teams need byes, so they will be the top 6 teams from Ladle 16. They will each be assigned a random team # and be awarded byes the first round. The other 4 teams will also receive random team #s, but will not get byes the first round.

Simple.

[Hoax]

oui durka. kyle 1200 corn conc ? You guys seem to be active here, can we agree this is the simplest way?

& atm first round teams have 45mins to get their matches done, I guess this could be changed to half past (1hr) to make sure they're definitely finished before the quater finals start if it's needed?

[owned]

so the new ladder is up! (who made it?)

I just changed the first round text to Round of 16.

Suggestions:
1.Add more rows so the ladder looks nicer.
2.Add 4 more teams to make a full 16 team ladder.
3. Put the team numbers in the way lacka put them in his plan.



and anyways, /me still goes with seeding.

[Lackadaisical]

I don't see how we can have six seeded teams when only 5 of the teams in ladle 16 are playing in ladle 17. Also why do teams who lost their first and only match in the last ladle get to be seeded*?

I think we have to accept that there is no way to prevent that some teams are just going to have a bit more luck in their placement in the brackets (in hoax example it's KoD)



*note that this can be either taken as 'getting a bye' as well as real seeding where (among some other things) CT won't be playing X unless they meet in the finals