Armagetron Forums

sinewav wrote:I believe the FFA is a reaction the impossibility of new players having any real success in Ladle due to the extreme gap in skill (...)

IMO for new players one could make a MiniLadle tournament, one week before the Ladle. Only players without any ladle wins would be allowed to play.

Now they're grumpy coz the noobs found out about it, gridstats disappeared and it's just as shit as public fortress/sumo. I have enjoyed a pickup game or two in my time, but I don't believe it should exist. You're spot-on. But the public games we played yesterday with other folks were far more frie...

wildcat wrote:If we didn't have pickup we'd basically play dbd sumo all night to 2000.

Ah ah this was nearly yesterday. I propose to send pickup on vacation. Two weeks.

I would even try 8v8 next time. And 1-2s delay for dead walls.

What happened to the idea of assigning players to teams based on their stats? Besides, sentimentally I've looked up the predictions for team somethingsomething & co 8) in ladle finals, and gridstats predicted nearly all of its outcomes. Sample 35 , 34 , 33 . It seemed to have a high skill concen...

i would say that there is a new def it's called 'sumo def' ;-) with cyclotron/karrote we got really good results by playing it there are 3 defenders, 2 of them stay inside the zone and keep it "slow" (one player left side, one right side), the third player is there for killing all attacke...

Thats crazy the difference between how ladle was and how it is now , i remember before , until sagelord/durka used step def , every teams who had a good attacker had a HUGE advantage to win cause defenses were pretty easy to cut if you had good speed/timing , so ladle was all about how good you wer...

Add 5vs5, 5vs5 means one player less to gank the zone. Also it means, that teams can't lose more than half of their players in order to play 3vs1.

5vs5 with bigger holes and everyone will be happy

About the time, just lower the score to 80, if that bothers anyone.

sinewav wrote: Also, I can't believe this hole argument is still going on. I'm glad we got a good discussion about votes and don't need this thread anymore, so PLEASE carry on. Drive the hole argument into the friggin' ground already!

that's called holing the topic

People were complaining about making holes, but that's the only thing, that was making them win. And attacking without holing is generally difficult for players (blame wall shrink). So it looks like holes will have to stay. And since 0.75 is the lowest that can be entered in a fair amount of attempt...

2.0 were not tested, they were the standard setting. Holing has nothing to do with attacking. 1vs1 is about attacking. Small holes showed something important. Fort has an entire generation of players relying on cheap holing and that's sad. And they showed also, that the differences in skill between ...

0.75 holes were tested in a few thousand matches already and there's no point in making them bigger. If a weak team wants to hole, just grind each other. 0.25 holes would be best, they will separate real attackers (who can win 1vs1) from attacko-holers holing the def under the impression of taking r...

"we were winning due to our attackers failing at attack", as funny as it sounds, it's not a joke entirely, new insta chat

Stop trying to frame the debate like small holes automatically make wins based on skill while bigger holes make the luck factor bigger. That simply isn't true. It is true. Small holes stop random easy holing. And easy holing is about having no skill. Your gameplan seems to be to get lucky attacking...

No. With bigger holes, there are holes on the defense from killed attackers and messed up sweepers that are not there with smaller holes. For some players there are holes. For some others there aren't. And I have seen players getting through them without grinding walls. 'everyone holing randomly' v...