Attributing points in fortress after a suicide?

[Phytotron]

The original topic title—"Sup"—clearly indicated the sincerity of this thread and its creator.

It strays from fortress in my opinion.

Nothing other than changing the fundamental zone behaviour would stray from fortress. I would like to think that one of these days people are going to start putting up fortress and sumo servers with varying game physics, and this ridiculous, non-sequitur-ish mentality that inextricably links special game modes with game physics (and scoring values) will finally be broken asunder once and for all. (Granted, I would really like to think that these special game modes might pass by the wayside altogether.)

[dariv]

Nothing other than changing the fundamental zone behaviour would stray from fortress.

In the same way that playing golf will tennis balls is still, conceptually, golf. But I can't imagine it being very fun, and having played with golf balls for so long, not many people would want to switch.

[Phytotron]

Well, no. Golf balls are specific and inherent to golf. Tennis balls are specific and inherent to tennis. Replacing golf balls with frisbees isn't still called golf, it's called Disc Golf. Replacing tennis balls with funny little things called shuttlecocks and a raised net, or the rackets with paddles and court with a table, isn't still called tennis; it's called badminton or ping-pong.

CYCLE_SPEED 30 and _ACCEL 10 are not specific or inherent to fortress or sumo—they just happen to be the default physics settings*, which Z-Man just happened to use when he put up the first fortress, and later sumo, test servers. That is, to test the fortress code**, which is independent of the physics. Change any of the physics, and it's still fortress. And, in fact, he did change at least one: basic _RUBBER.

Likewise, change the velocity at which someone smacks a golf ball or tennis ball, or the materials your clubs are made from, or the formulation of the tennis ball's rubber, or the composition of the court—and they're still golf and tennis.

And guess what, the world won't end, either. In fact, it'll be a good thing for the game. But, for all the absurd and just plain factually incorrect accusations flung at me about supposedly being "resistant to change and innovation," I find that the sumo and fortress players are at least as entrenched in their particular conception of their particular game mode.

(Hell, go look at the old CVS/Bugfarm threads for a real larf. That server was explicitly a testing server, but any time Z-Man changed something the fortress kids threw a damn fit. I was going to link to specific threads, but you can just browse the entire subform. Start at the bottom for chronology, obviously. Oh, look, the 5th one from the bottom. Who's that and what's he saying? The cycle_width one is good too, and, what do you know, there's me defending innovation. OMG!)


* And, by the way, those default settings are new to 0.2.8.x—that is to say, those settings aren't even inherent to Armagetron. Prior to that, CYCLE_SPEED was 10. I still believe it should be returned to that. If it had never been changed (and I still don't know why it was), all the fortress and sumo servers would have a speed of 10 now, and very probably a proportionally smaller arena, shorter cycle walls, and smaller zones to compensate. And possibly _RUBBER 1, since 5 wouldn't be called-for for the higher speed. Oh my god, it's like an apocalyptic counterfactual allohistory!

** You do realise that fortress hasn't always existed, right?

[Titanoboa]

I agree with sine that there shouldn't be negative scoring in fortress.

I still argue that it'd be fair to everyone if the enemy team were awarded 2 points for a suicide/tk. And to those who still say that it's unfair because of mistakes/lags/slides etc, I'm just wondering why a player/team should be rewarded for their mistakes/lags/slides. Can anyone clarify that for me? I really can't figure it out. Thanks.

(& yeah it would require a brand-new setting, and the people who are able to create it are ever busy, but if there's a public request for it I'm sure someone will gladly create it sooner or later.)

And as far as tactics and teamwork goes, all the NPH does is delaying the development of speedholes/aggressive holing. Those require much more of a team to pull off, and you won't see them in ladles (yet) because NPH are so much easier and more convenient.

[sinewav]

And as far as tactics and teamwork goes, all the NPH does is delaying the development of speedholes/aggressive holing. Those require much more of a team to pull off, and you won't see them in ladles (yet) because NPH are so much easier and more convenient.

That's true, those speed-holes are nearly impossible even after hours of practice. One day someone will unlock the secret, then we'll have defenders suiciding on 2v1 instead of 3v1 because you'll be sure as dead anyway, haha.

[INW]

Me and liz has the speed hole pretty set down on how to start the circle process and knowin when to turn without any communication.
Well that went when we split different ways.
That's not the point. The point is yes, NPH just delay the practice and attention to them speed holes.

What is better off?
A) Losing 2 points for committing suicide
B) giving the enemy 2 points for committing suicide

You give the enemy 2 points for dying.
Committing suicide would give them 2 more.
So basically, anytime you die, you give the enemy 2 points.

I like that.

[sinewav]

So basically, anytime you die, you give the enemy 2 points.

I like that.

Here's the problem with the whole "points for suicide" argument. It doesn't give your opponent any incentive to attack you. The game is then centered around attrition warfare where any team can just play conservatively and grind down the opponent. Good "survivors" can easily win a match without ever taking a zone, which of course defeats the purpose of Fortress. Duh. It's the kind of play we already try to avoid, the kind that makes Ladles last much longer than anyone wants to be playing in a night.

Seriously, get over it. It's a bogus idea.

[INW]

Seriously, get over it. It's a bogus idea.

And that's an opinion. One I am barely considering.

And isn't the purpose of fortress to defend your "fort"?
I thought the mode was all about defense.
Because you can win if your enemy dies, you don't even have to attack their base!
Fortress onslaught takes that's away. How come the ladle isn't fortress onslaught?
Hell, I've been thinking of trying to start a fortress onslaught tourney. That would have better gameplay than the ladle will ever have.

A good defense is a great attack?
Defense wins championships?

[sinewav]

Seriously, get over it. It's a bogus idea.

And that's an opinion. One I am barely considering.

It is an opinion, a damn good one based on careful thought. We all know that's not something you do a lot of; you mostly like to just say stuff to be seen.

And isn't the purpose of fortress to defend your "fort"?

Isn't the goal of futbol to stop the ball from going into your net? Isn't the goal of racing to not come in second through last? Isn't the goal of chess to not have your king captured? Isn't the goal of volleyball to not let the ball fall on your side too much? Way to see half the picture, guy. Open the other eye and be amazed at the world around you. Also, if defending your fortress was the goal then the scoring would probably be more like this:

Code: Select all

SCORE_WIN 0
FORTRESS_CONQUERED_SCORE 0
FORTRESS_HELD_SCORE 10

...Which of course, it clearly isn't.

Hell, I've been thinking of trying to start a fortress onslaught tourney. That would have better gameplay than the ladle will ever have.

Attempted in 2009. Though, I would support this idea because it's a good game, so please do that after TST/WST/Whatever it is you do.

[Mecca]

+1 to Sine (stating that defending is not the complete objective of the game)

You can lose a match and still never let the other team capture your zone. The point of fortress is to score 100 points before the enemy team, or have more points than the enemy team after the max amount of rounds (which is usually 10 if I remember correctly).

[Overrated]

I still argue that it'd be fair to everyone if the enemy team were awarded 2 points for a suicide/tk. And to those who still say that it's unfair because of mistakes/lags/slides etc, I'm just wondering why a player/team should be rewarded for their mistakes/lags/slides. Can anyone clarify that for me? I really can't figure it out. Thanks.

Personally, I disagree with that. If someone lags/slides at the beginning of a round, they're already down one, possibly two people (depending where and when they die at in the beginning). That seems like a disadvantage to me, and to give 2 (possibly 4) points to the other team... Sounds like you're pouring more salt in the wound for a team that can't control it. Mistake? Same thing. You're just adding an even bigger disadvantage. And even if that happens mid-round, isn't possibly giving/giving up a player advantage a potential loss to a team bad enough? Don't let a ladle end that way...



Anyway, about suicide points for tk/suicide. Doesn't sound good to me. As stated above; if it's at the start when someone dies, then a team is already at a disadvantage. Why hurt them even more for something possibly uncontrollable? Situation: you're down 3 vs 1 near the end of the round. It's your own team's fault for getting put in that situation. So, if the other team ends up doing a nph, then you were outplayed. You're going to cost a team points for playing better than their opponent? Also, if you (the 1) suicide, then it's a proper strategy to suicide to help your own team out and reduce the damage done. You're going to hurt that team for making the decision that's best for their team? Think about this. If the defender suicides, other team gets a net gain of 8 points. If a team nph's and ganks zone. They get a net gain of 8 points. Um... Sure, it gives the defender a better chance to win a round, but then it's taking away an aspect of the defender's game (suicide). It's also making the nph (now 2ph), useless and you'll just see more regular holes instead. Doesn't solve the problem I'm seeing. And personally, I'd like the option to decide whether I feel I'd have a chance in a 1 vs 3 situation than becoming an even bigger sitting duck with the change proposed.

[dariv]

Well, no. Golf balls are specific and inherent to golf. Tennis balls are specific and inherent to tennis.

CYCLE_SPEED 30 and _ACCEL 10 are not specific or inherent to fortress or sumo—they just happen to be the default physics settings*,

But you agree, the only difference between hitting a tennis ball and a golf ball is physics? The elasticity, density, size and surface are the only difference. The physics. The goal is still the same- get the tennis ball in a hold with a club in the minimum number of strokes. Semantics don't come into it. Just like the goal of fort is "take the enemy fort", whatever cycle_speed is.

I think it's a pretty fair analogy.

[Z-Man]

Code: Select all

ENEMY_TEAMMATE_PENALTY 999999.5
ENEMY_SUICIDE_TIMEOUT                1000000.0

Makes screwups at the start of the round still count as no-point suicides or teamkills, but every death after only a little bit of enemy contact will result in points for the enemy team. NPHs are still possible, but the holer would need to avoid going near any enemy wall for the entire round before. Yeah, those points will be attributed to a seemingly random player on the enemy team. Anyone complaining about that needs a stern reminder that this is a team game mode.

[Kijutsu]

And guess what, the world won't end, either. In fact, it'll be a good thing for the game. But, for all the absurd and just plain factually incorrect accusations flung at me about supposedly being "resistant to change and innovation," I find that the sumo and fortress players are at least as entrenched in their particular conception of their particular game mode.

So what? At least we're not posting in every LMS topic that the game mode has to disappear.


Anyway, you should never be punished for being strategic, period.

[Titanoboa]

Over: good post
Z-man: onice, I knew about the possibility of that but didn't think it was so easy.

back to Over (and sine): would you still argue against it, if it's like Z-man posted? Even if I don't like the idea of not taking 2 points for screwing up the grind out of pity, I can fully accept it. However wouldn't it be great if more aggressive holing (note: not more frequent, that's what NPH makes) was encouraged, and if the lone defender was encouraged to speed up and cover holes? And did it even strike you that without NPH's, some teams would most probably try to shrink/cut and gank? That or speedhole (which is harder, and not always a safe win like NPH, since the goal is to kill the defender).

In addition, the defender could still reserve their right to suicide at the end, if they make sure to stay inside their tail the entire round. This would of course make him shrink faster, and he'd be giving up the right to suicide pretty much as soon as he has to expand. (Oh and defenders can still try and die strategically at the end, giving the enemies a tough hole to force them to make mistakes and possibly miss the zone points)

I dunno. Imagine a 2v0 breakaway in football, where it's just the goalkeeper left. It SHOULD be a goal for sure, but sometimes the goalkeeper makes an incredible save, or an attacker screws up. What if the goalie just decided to sit down and watch them score. What kind of entertainment value is that (for players and spectators)? How ridiculous wouldn't that be? I've seen luffy win 1v3's and even a few 1v4+'s in ladles (note: that was against teams who didn't safely NPH by habit), and it was always fun to watch because he's a good defender who can make incredible saves. Opinions?

and sine: I don't know exactly how you think it would affect play (other than the situations addressed above, sorry if I missed anything obvious), because we're at a level where people just don't make mistakes on their own. Sure lots of players make mistakes in ladles, but only when (more or less) pressured by the enemy. Taking away the possibility of suiciding* should just encourage players to be less conservative! The change doesn't affect most gameplay at all, it only removes cowardly methods to save points (as below). I might be wrong in my prediction, but I don't really think so at the moment.

*e.g. if you're boxed in you can currently just stay inside ur tail so IF you die, you don't give up points, basically wasting the time of the one trapping you. Not done often, but possible.