SuperLadle Discussion - cont. from time change thread

[Concord]

I like the idea of a yearly tournament.

Here's a thought. To build off of insa's idea of a tournament like march madness, what if we make the 12th ladle of the year (or a separate tournament altogether, idrc) into that sort of setting. Use standings based off of the yearlong results of the ladles and set a bracket up that way. By my understanding, there's usually around 15-16 teams. So maybe 4 brackets of four putting the top 4 teams in separate brackets? With seeds 1-4 and such. Might be a bit difficult to manage, but it's definitely something I'd be interested in seeing.

Nice. I was hoping someone would suggest that. There are a number of people who complain about Ladle losing it's importance. Having an annual tournament where the year's performance becomes a factor is very interesting I think. Should that be a separate matter than a Saturday tournament?

merited a thread of it's own I think


I think there's two general approaches to a super-tournament regardless of the exact format.

The first approach is that it should include everyone and differ from the Ladle in format, maybe more matches and spread over two weekends (sunday 1: group play round robins, like the FIFA WC)(sunday 2: two teams advance from each pool, single elimination proceeds).

The second approach is that we limit the event to the top teams, but lengthen each match-up to give more definitive results. (an example: take the top 6 teams of the year in total matches won and final's matches count double, then do two pools of 3, single match round robin in european server, then single match round robin in american server, top 2 teams play best of 7, in a 2-2-1-1-1 server format with american and european servers.)

I'm in favor of the latter, or perhaps some mix, but I think if you're going to do this, the important matches cannot just be best of 3. They need to be more definitive.

[sinewav]

Yes, I like the second option. Although, I think it's important to make sure the format doesn't take too long to play in an evening. Surely the teams will be proceeding with great care and matches will me loooong. Regarding the first option, I don't see a reason to have all the same teams play over multiple days. That's the equivalent of a needlessly long Ladle and doesn't increase the value of the previous months.

I'm sure some people will see the exclusion of low-performing teams as more "Fort Elitism," but I think the opposite. I think it's the natural evolution of Fortress competition. It creates a new dynamic. In the beginning it was raw skill that won Ladles. Then, tactics and strategy became deciding factors. In the future, it may be a team's ability to persevere through internal struggles too; to stay together, work hard, commit to each other, and win. Just because you are a good player doesn't mean you'll be on a team long enough to make the finals.

Hey Conc, call it the Bowl and have it in December?

[PokeMaster]

Idea +1
Bowl +1
December -1

From what I've seen, it seems like the winter months seem to be the dullest part of the year in terms of activity and general hullabaloo surrounding fort. Probably sometime in the summer would be best, methinks.

I think (though not too strongly) that this tournament should be something outside of the ladle, given sine's recent efforts to maintain a ladle stats page and raw team statistics. These are awesome, and I think having one ladle a year (or however often) that's altered in format from the other ladles diminishes the meaning of these statistics. So to keep those statistics cool and meaningful, I support the idea that we keep this "Bowl" as a separate tournament outside of but dependent on the ladle.

[Titanoboa]

I support the idea that we keep this "Bowl" as a separate tournament outside of but dependent on the ladle.

+1

pretty much paraphrasing Overrated from the other thread: Qualifying to this tournament by doing well in the ladle would be most interesting in my opinion. And adding: What if it's only the top 8 teams from the past 12 ladles? Two pools (= 3 matches per team, best of 2 or 4 to make ties possible), then an hour's break for eating/resting/chilling, then semis and finals best of 5. (7 is overkill)

[Concord]

I'm hesitant about counting a whole year's worth of matches because I think it adds another friction to players changing teams.[1] Suppose instead we count just 6 ladles and then there is a period that doesn't count. Sort of a season and an offseason, as the bowl is concerned. This allows a period of time for people to switch around teams, for new teams to get started, and for teams to get prepared for "bowl season."

[1] Players changing teams is a good thing. It mixes ideas and allows for gameplay to progress. It also means that we are not simply playing the same opponents with the same teammates into perpetuity.

Titan, I'll admit I didn't think much about the numbers I chose, and you're probably right about best of 7, [2] [3] though the pools of 3 would work fine as long as we add in a tiebreak procedure. All round robin pools have the potential to end in a tie. I favor 6, at the moment, because Ladles seem to average about 16 teams, and I am not crazy about setting the standard at 8, which basically says if you consistently make the quarterfinals, you play in the bowl. 6 sets a higher standard.

[2] Though it would be freaking epic to go to a 7th match
[3] Although every major american sport that has series uses a best of 7 format for it's championship, they also pay players players to do it. Furthermore, those extra games can make the league a lot of money, which is surely a factor in their being played. Basically, I don't think we should use their 7 as an example


The biggest potential problem with the idea generally is how to handle teams that would be included but no longer exist. For example, if the Bowl were this Sunday, Meet Your Maker would be a participant. Anyone have ideas on that?

[sinewav]

I like the idea of a season, somewhere between 6-9 months. 6 is good. 6 teams in Bowl is a good number for our size. Maybe we can pick a percentage of the average Ladle size? That might be weird. 6 teams is roughly 38% of 16. IDK.

The biggest potential problem with the idea generally is how to handle teams that would be included but no longer exist. For example, if the Bowl were this Sunday, Meet Your Maker would be a participant. Anyone have ideas on that?

Just forget about the lost team and take the next in line? It might not make things too imbalanced, but I understand why that's hard to deal with.

Good ideas so far.

[Soul]

I agree with having the whole year of ladles being like a "season" and this "superladle" being like the "playoffs". As Concord said, many variables would come into play like clans dieing or players swapping teams. On the other hand, this could lead to the formation of more solid and consistent teams. Some rules would need to be established obviously, but i think it could work and give ladles more meaning.

To qualify for this, maybe base it off of a point system from each ladle-

Ex.
Ladle winning team recieves 3 points
Reaching the finals is 2 points
Reaching semis is 1 point

Then set an overall point value requirement to qualify.

[Titanoboa]

Suppose instead we count just 6 ladles and then there is a period that doesn't count. Sort of a season and an offseason, as the bowl is concerned.

I thought of exactly that but didn't include it in my post earlier, and I think it'd be cool. (I didn't include it because I thought everyone would disagree and I wouldn't have bothered standing up for it). Anyway, 100% support it and agree with your reasoning.

Also, 6 teams does indeed seem better than 8 in many ways. For example, because of what you two said; that the standards would be higher and the size more fitting in proportion to ladle. It doesn't necessarily reduce the time the round robin takes. It's 2 matches each instead of 3, but you can only play 1 match per group simultaneously instead of 2. That's positive though imo.

The schedule would be like this:

a. 2 pools of 3 teams, every team plays 2 best-of-threes. Only 2 servers are needed. Should take 45*3 minutes (2h15).
b. Possible tie-breakers. (Best of 1 or best of 3?) 45 minutes.
c. (should we have semis or should the group stage winners go directly to final?)
d. Finals, best of 5.

Huge plus for 6 teams: Only 2 servers have to be used. 4 if we're picky about using both EU and US as equally as possible.

[Concord]

slightly different arrangement,

2 pools of 3, pool a, pool b
pool a round robins in European server, just 1 match though, not best of 3.
pool b round robins in American server

pools switch server, and round robin again.

If there are any ties, the third match of what has now become a best of three is played in a server chosen by the better seed.

and then finals.
this pool structure balances servers, and ensures that no time is "wasted" on a best of 3 played between teams that place 2nd and 3rd in a pool. timing wise you're looking at around 4 hours maximum, which is being very generous. I think there's probably room for a half hour break between pool play and the final.

[Lucifer]

Um, count up the ladles from January -> December, and have the Bowl happen in March, timed to hit spring break for everybody as much as possible (which it isn't).

[PokeMaster]

+1 for 6 month seasons (and I'd also agree with anywhere up to 9).

Personally, I don't really think a break in the middle of a 4 hour session is necessary, other than maybe 5 or 10 minutes for a pee break. It just means that the overall thing will take a larger chunk of time, and if you can't play for 8 hours straight, then you're a pansy.

[Lucifer]

Anyway, my personal opinion is that a tournament seeded from ladle results would be awesome, and that to an extent, limiting the ladle teams that can advance to this tournament would provide an avenue of growth for the ladle itself. The bigger the ladle, the more people that can advance to the bowl. It would also make the last few ladles before the results are counted that much more competitive.

This could lead to something like a 4 year cycle of tournaments where the results from the previous four bowls advance to the salad platter.

[Concord]

yeah, I mean imagine for example a Ladle quarterfinal between the 6th and 7th placed teams in the last Ladle before the Bowl, and they're separated by only a couple matches.

I also think it puts a spotlight on some really high level matches, considering there is a maximum of two matches being played at once, lots of opportunity for spectatorship.

[Phytotron]

My previous contributions and suggestions: 2006, 2010 Take'em or leave'em, in whole or in part.

And note the other advantage of a league/season-type dealio, which relates to your time change discussion as well, is that it would allow teams to schedule their games with each other at their convenience, including spontaneously.* That goes for the order of games, too. So long as all games are played by the conclusion of the predetermined season period. Any games not completed could just go down as a forfeit for both teams in the loss column.

* It would make sense to allow each team's roster to include a couple extra players than would actually play in a match. That would allow more flexibility with scheduling. (You could even go so far as to consider them the "bench," allowing them to sub in at any point during a match so someone can have a rest. I'd be kinda surprised if you don't do that already, actually.)

[Lucifer]

My previous contributions and suggestions: 2006, 2010 Take'em or leave'em, in whole or in part.

And note the other advantage of a league/season-type dealio, which relates to your time change discussion as well, is that it would allow teams to schedule their games with each other at their convenience, including spontaneously.* That goes for the order of games, too. So long as all games are played by the conclusion of the predetermined season period. Any games not completed could just go down as a forfeit for both teams in the loss column.

* It would make sense to allow each team's roster to include a couple extra players than would actually play in a match. That would allow more flexibility with scheduling. (You could even go so far as to consider them the "bench," allowing them to sub in at any point during a match so someone can have a rest. I'd be kinda surprised if you don't do that already, actually.)

Heh, all of this was discussed and used in the SPOON, where the conclusion was we needed a central authority to push things along. So that's what I did with the AFL, I became the central authority. It ran twice, I ran one, and then Durka ran the second one. Nobody's had the time to step up and run a third, but I think building on the ladle itself and on its structure would turn a league out just fine.