Ladle 36 Voting Discussion

[Titanoboa]

The whole idea is that teams vote whatever value they want, and the median is chosen. right? Be it 1.618 or a plain 0.5.

A roof of 2.0 does sound like a good idea though.

[Jonathan]

A sane majority should do.

You can't cheat by voting strategically ("hole size 100, lulz" will, provided everyone else votes sensibly, only count as "holes as big as possible" ) there.

[sinewav]

We can just say something like: 0.75m | 1.25m | 2.00m | other

I'm pretty confident the team leaders will do their best.

[PokeMaster]

Okay so everybody picks a value between 0 and 2.0. Got it.

[owned]

Maybe in hole sizes we could do what sine said, but the rationale for the choices too

.75(current hole size)| 1.4(best hole size according to (link here))|2.0 (old hole size)| other

[sinewav]

Yes. I think owned is on to something there.

[PokeMaster]

I read the explosion radius topic for 1.4 and all I have to say is ew. You get one shot at taking a hole (if unplanned), why allow the readjustment? You get one shot, just don't blow it, or play smart.

0.75 for life

[Goodygumdrops]

i'm sorry, maybe i missed this, but what were we accomplishing by changing the hole size? this is doing nothing to stop well-played intentional holing

a more interesting change would be to make holes bigger

0.75 | 1.4 | 2.0 | 2.6 | 3.25

[PokeMaster]

i'm sorry, maybe i missed this, but what were we accomplishing by changing the hole size? this is doing nothing to stop well-played intentional holing

Why get rid of well-played intentional holing? It's trying to cut down on unintentional holing due to a fallen attacker, and make those holes more difficult to enter.

[Lackadaisical]

There was a suggestion some time ago about increasing the zone size, is there any possibility to test this out?

[Tobe]

That would be weird imo becuase increased zone size would be completely beneficial to the attackers and completly tragic to the defenders; it makes holes, center attacks, and dead tails, and provides easier defense reduction and thus ganks leading to it being much more difficult to recover from anything. To me, that would be unfair seeing as defense is supposed to be easier with the 4/6 (6/4?) rule awarding attackers with more points for attacking.

[owned]

The defense is WAY too strong already, I don't see anything wrong with weakening them, and that's part of the reason why I think we should make holes bigger again, to (imo) 1.4. Right now, with a good defense, there is absolutely no way to get in without holing, making holes smaller or keeping the status quo just leads to boring rounds and boring matches.

Also, right now, the distribution is 6/4, which, while attackers get more points than a defender does for holding the zone, the difference isn't nearly as big as 4/6.

[Titanoboa]

When intact, the defender has a clear advantage. When invaded, the defending side has a disadvantage (has less breathing space since attackers can leave the zone and the defenders usually can't, plus that points reward attackers more). I think it's balanced enough as it is. If you just want faster rounds, turn 2v2 conq back on. Or just prohibit defending at all. (by settings of course. needing referees is a bad idea)

Are we sure that this whole quest of reaching the "perfect balance" isn't just another case of the classic "the grass is greener on the other side"?
All suggestions on weakening the defender have so far had obvious (bad) side effects. If anyone (unlikely) finds a "solution" without said obvious side effects, I think there'll still be some.. just not obvious ones.

I'm personally content with the current balance. Defending against bad attackers is easy, attacking bad defenders is easy. Defending against good attackers is difficult, while attacking good defenders is.. you guessed it: difficult. That sounds balanced to me.

There's still the case of the defender hiding "miles" behind his tail. That obviously prolongs the rounds, but it makes it easier for the attackers to neutralize the sweepers, since they never have to worry about the defender trapping them. I've never played in a ladle match that wasn't intense due to the rounds being too long.. long rounds just add suspense as long as it's a close match, and if the match is one-sided the long rounds aren't very common.
If our only problem is too long matches, we should consider a time limit as a complement for the limit_score.

Edit since woned mentioned hole sizes: I agree that 0.75 is too small. It narrows down the possibilites of unprepared holing (note: not unintentional). It was definitely worth trying, but it didn't turn out as good as we had hoped. At least not in ladle matches.

[newbie]

All the talk "it's ok to hole" isn't about how easy people can hole, but whether it is appropriate and it is appropriate to hole all 3vs1 situations.

Smaller explosion radius isn't only about cutting down holes, but about making them a calculated part of the game and not a random factor. Getting through holes and using them is skillful only when they are small, not big. And small holes didn't change the game for the better teams. They changed it for the weaker teams only.

So if someone wants a hole, just grind each other. Big holes vs small holes issue is in the end a simple 'everyone can hole' vs 'only better teams will hole'. It turns out, that all those super attackers cracking defenses left and right stopped getting results.

[owned]

All the talk "it's ok to hole" isn't about how easy people can hole, but whether it is appropriate and it is appropriate to hole all 3vs1 situations.

Smaller explosion radius isn't only about cutting down holes, but about making them a calculated part of the game and not a random factor. Getting through holes and using them is skillful only when they are small, not big. And small holes didn't change the game for the better teams. They changed it for the weaker teams only.

So if someone wants a hole, just grind each other. Big holes vs small holes issue is in the end a simple 'everyone can hole' vs 'only better teams will hole'. It turns out, that all those super attackers cracking defenses left and right stopped getting results.

No. With bigger holes, there are holes on the defense from killed attackers and messed up sweepers that are not there with smaller holes.