Public Fortress 2013

General Stuff about Armagetron, That doesn't belong anywhere else...
User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6333
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Public Fortress 2013

Post by sinewav »

Since it has been mentioned recently, I want to start a discussion on what a truly public Fortress server should look like in 2013. The popular method is to slap ladle.cfg on a server there and forget about it. Let us take a look at the things we like about authority and what we miss about Fortress in the past while looking to the future of Fortress.

What is the minimum authority settings we need to keep Fortress "open" yet still allow for decent management of the server? Suspend? Shuffle? Silence? Can we break the current ladle.cfg into "settings" and "management?" What might a public management scheme look like?

How many administrators do we need? Speak up if you are interested in becoming one because, as you might predict, this thread will most likely result in the AoT UK Ladle server transforming into this public Fortress between events.

What settings should deviate from the norm? Probably not many besides team size, which my favorite is 7v7. I think at one time MegaFort was 15v15. What feels good for 2013?

And finally, what about a name? Is there anything we should cover?

User avatar
delinquent
Match Winner
Posts: 728
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:07 am

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by delinquent »

I speak highly of the "cvs_test/fortress-complete.cfg" map, with the addition of smaller holes. I would, however, like to see the map become a touch bigger, seeing as the number of possible players is increasing.

I tried it on a home server, latency was nasty but the settings are really smooth. Plus, it's pretty light on the server. IMO, it's the best candidate with one or two tweaks.

And I am interested in administrating also.

Hoax
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 892
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:24 pm
Location: UK

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by Hoax »

No req auth, player police/mods, ladle map & physics, 8v8 min

It's all good just do it sine

Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by Vogue »

Please, do 6v6 or at max 7v7. Higher than that and it becomes an unenjoyable clusterfuck.

Gonzap
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:08 pm

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by Gonzap »

i have to agree, max 7v7 else it's bs :s

Concord
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1661
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:24 pm

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by Concord »

just like the first 19 ladles.

User avatar
vov
Match Winner
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by vov »

Do you want yet another unified settings base for all the 20 fort clones out there, or just help with your server? If it's help with your server, sure I will try to. Otherwise, BLEH.
For me, the settings I posted on the other topic do it. If you want more, read the settings files that ship with the game (e.g the fort file) or search for commands that do it (e.g about shuffling enter "shuffle" into game console (or /admin shuffle on servers) and you will be presented with settings that control that and in most cases with a message what they do (which is cool btw, wd to the developers).

The fortress_complete.cfg file is broken up into the submodules you mentioned. Look into the folder and see for yourself. There's even settings about votes included.

Now about what public fort is. "Public" means to me that I hit the "Enter" button on the server list and can immediately play, in this instance fortress. Nothing more to it than that. CTWF is open for example. The current "Mega Fortress PRO" servers (omg yes so PRO they are... :|) are not because I have to log in and join a team manually.
So, any settings that do that are public fort. There can be 13 grid axes, custom maps, 150 speed, no rubber, and 500 points per kill but as long as there are fortresses and settings which allow people to play it's public fort.
A secondary trait of public fort is usually it can run without mods on, which means votable suspends for removing afks (as well as automatical removal of afks which may not be included in fortress_complete.cfg, idk) and usually no shuffling up as that may lead to shuffle wars. Which would be my proposal of additional settings to your server.
And while of course you can make people moderators on your server, imo if should be able to run without anyone logging in.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6333
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by sinewav »

vov wrote:If you want more, read the settings files that ship with the game (e.g the fort file) or search for commands that do it (e.g about shuffling enter "shuffle" into game console (or /admin shuffle on servers) and you will be presented with settings that control that and in most cases with a message what they do (which is cool btw, wd to the developers).
Haha, Ok man, I've got a handle on how all that works. I've been playing over 5 years now and have hosted servers for almost that long. 8)
vov wrote:For me, the settings I posted on the other topic do it.
And I'm glad you did. I'm aware of them and will probably use most of it. The purpose of this thread was to get a feel for what the Fortress climate is like and how people feel about "public" Fort in contrast to pickup (settings and stuff).

I think we all agree logins should not be required to play. However, I've always liked the idea of logins for acquiring the ability to shuffle. Can we think of other incentives to login? Should logins be forced into public view?

User avatar
delinquent
Match Winner
Posts: 728
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:07 am

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by delinquent »

I think requiring logins to shuffle and vote is a good idea.

User avatar
Titanoboa
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1791
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:07 pm

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by Titanoboa »

I disagree with Vogue & Gonzap. 8v8 or 9v9 is most fun for casual play

epsy
Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 2006
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:02 pm
Location: paris
Contact:

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by epsy »

Logging in for the ability to create a vote or to shuffle up seems to be a good idea, if only for traceability.

User avatar
vov
Match Winner
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by vov »

epsy wrote:Logging in for the ability to create a vote or to shuffle up seems to be a good idea, if only for traceability.
Heh, that's a good argument for that, /me agrees.

At the people who complain about mega fortress' player number, here comes some experimental stuff which you might like more than current megafort:
delinquent wrote:I speak highly of the "cvs_test/fortress-complete.cfg" map, with the addition of smaller holes. I would, however, like to see the map become a touch bigger, seeing as the number of possible players is increasing.
That's an interesting idea, I just quick tested with the attached 700x800 map, quite cool. I also increased the fortress size a bit for more players to attack or sumo and stuff. Maybe make walls longer and increase it even more (make wall length about 9-10 times the fort radius for traditional defending, or whatever else you want :p).
If someone wants to use it on his server he can change what he wants and upload it to some repository to play it, or ask me if you want it and don't know how/where to upload ;)
Suggestion for some kind of megafortress: map about similar to the attached one, 400-430 wall length (9-9.5*fort radius), >8 players per team. Do what you want with it though!

This is an idea which just gives more space to play on with a lot of people, with me understanding your posts as "there is not enough space on the fort map for a 9v9". If your problem is not the space but the player number itself, just lower that of course.
Attachments
bigfort-0.1.0.aamap.xml
(1.33 KiB) Downloaded 54 times

Gonzap
Shutout Match Winner
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:08 pm

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by Gonzap »

there's a difference between casual and a total mess/unplayable (laggy) games.

User avatar
orion
Match Winner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by orion »

There are a lot of public Fort servers to play in, you can find server with a max of 6 players per team, and others server that you could play 8v8 or more. I think owner of each server should decide what they want with his server.

Personally I like 6v6
Image

Goodygumdrops
Round Winner
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:39 am

Re: Public Fortress 2013

Post by Goodygumdrops »

Gonzap wrote:there's a difference between casual and a total mess/unplayable (laggy) games.
I can't believe we're still hearing this 4 years later.

If your connection/computer/brain can't handle 16-player fort, get better connection/computer/brain already.
The once and future "I told you so."

Post Reply