Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Anything about how you get those awesome core-dumps, or why you don't get them...
szopin
Average Program
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:12 pm

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by szopin »

takburger wrote:So you're telling me you want to be on a fort server and do a 2v1, grind and get in the zone before the other guy set up?

I think it will be very funny indeed.
It is possible to set up def reliably on even 1 deffing vs 3 attackers. Even if they grind as hard as they can. Just turn back right at start and do corrections later, of course holing in such case is winner, but... yeah 2v1 is impossible to grind out for sure

szopin
Average Program
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:12 pm

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by szopin »

Tadd wrote:[...]
Your argument is that win att is not really a fort mode, but what happens if you center at a 2vs2? [...]
Same when someone centers on 7v7? You seal it or lose it (grind/bottle whichever you prefer). Or both sides play until there is strategic advantage of 2v1. Just like it plays out with 7v6 and down. The beauty of original fort is no scripting needed. Additions of (ok maybe it is courtesy rule but people really get up in arms about it, being not server enforced it is not 'fort') extra rules depending on numer of players etc is just silly. Btw, how much does hosting a server for a month cost?

edit: btw another idea how to enforce classic: as long as number of players in a team >1 make the zone sumo-like so it needs reviving by a player every now and then, only when opposing side has single player left it would become safe to leave it (backside would be classic def totally outisde of zone would result in losing... hmm... yeah all this scripting is kind of counter productive, original fort rules are simple and the emergent gameplay covers all, until people come and enforce courtesy rules as 'follow it or else':()

User avatar
takburger
Match Winner
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by takburger »

szopin wrote:
takburger wrote:So you're telling me you want to be on a fort server and do a 2v1, grind and get in the zone before the other guy set up?

I think it will be very funny indeed.
It is possible to set up def reliably on even 1 deffing vs 3 attackers. Even if they grind as hard as they can. Just turn back right at start and do corrections later, of course holing in such case is winner, but... yeah 2v1 is impossible to grind out for sure
I always do like that and I can tell you it is not fast enough for 1v2 if they are not polite and go for it they can.
szopin wrote:
Tadd wrote:[...]
Your argument is that win att is not really a fort mode, but what happens if you center at a 2vs2? [...]
Same when someone centers on 7v7? You seal it or lose it (grind/bottle whichever you prefer). Or both sides play until there is strategic advantage of 2v1. Just like it plays out with 7v6 and down. The beauty of original fort is no scripting needed. Additions of (ok maybe it is courtesy rule but people really get up in arms about it, being not server enforced it is not 'fort') extra rules depending on numer of players etc is just silly. Btw, how much does hosting a server for a month cost?

edit: btw another idea how to enforce classic: as long as number of players in a team >1 make the zone sumo-like so it needs reviving by a player every now and then, only when opposing side has single player left it would become safe to leave it (backside would be classic def totally outisde of zone would result in losing... hmm... yeah all this scripting is kind of counter productive, original fort rules are simple and the emergent gameplay covers all, until people come and enforce courtesy rules as 'follow it or else':()
Your edit requires scripting.

On 7v7.. Well there is a center player who get a normal go and that can seal or do any kind of center play. On 2v2 if one want to seal then he is too slow to go and protect the def.
Image

User avatar
Titanoboa
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:07 pm

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by Titanoboa »

szopin wrote:It is possible to set up def reliably on even 1 deffing vs 3 attackers.
False. Assuming the 3 attackers use their speed correctly there is no chance for the lone defender. In 1v2, however, the defender can always set up safely (but with small margins).

And, like others have said before me, "winners attack" is just something we do while we wait for enough players so that we can play proper fortress. Nobody (that I know of) actually prefers "win atk".
2v2 or 3v3 around one zone, with the other zone empty, simulates proper fortress better than 2v2 or 3v3 spread out across the whole map, like it or not. (Sure, there's 2v2 or 3v3 across the entire map in proper fortress endgames. But it becomes tedious to play it over and over again.)

PS. I personally am not a fan of alternating/winners attack, but it's the best we've got while the server is filling up.

User avatar
vov
Match Winner
Posts: 566
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by vov »

[opinion] In my opinion "winner attacks" is stupid at any time, and "alternating" with any more than 2v2, MAX. 3v2, is exceptionally lame as well. When someone says "hey lets do winner attacks" I just always say "nope". If it doesn't work, I'll just treat it like an empty fortress server, which it kinda is, and abandon ship. [/opinion]

Giving the [opinion]noobs[/opinion] who play it on 3v3 or even 4v4 an extra server won't help though, they'll very likely just continue using the normal ones. I don't see many players going sand fort when their server gets low on players.
Problem with it is also: "hey, we got 5 guys on megafort, lets move to sandfort" - a bit later: "hey now we have 6 playing sandfort, this game is cool" - meanwhile, in the other server: "hey we got 5 guys on megafort".
Instead: What about a server where you're able to vote between settings? I imagine that would work better than 2 different servers running 2 different games, and it wouldn't require scripting, just some clever voting settings.

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

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by Hoax »

Settings aren't the problem here, people skills & lack of etiquette are.


& there hasn't been an onslaught server up for a while

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6348
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by sinewav »

!promote kotf3



:P

Tadd
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:13 pm

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by Tadd »

Vov: What's the point of voting between the maps? That's exactly what players do in a server where not enough people are there yet. If I got it right you'd say it's perfect to have "sand of the fortress" or "kotf3" until a 4vs4 match happens. Yeah, that's exactly what we "noobs" do when we play win att until we have enough players.

Szopin: High fun on doing a bottle on 2vs2. There is no way that could work. the only way to protect centers in a 2vs2 match is when one team is relly defensive and doubles back right when the def starts his circle to seal it. And then there's nothing different than win att.

Normally I don't like to argue but until this point, I didn't read any comment which could convice me to make anything different than the most "noobs" do.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6348
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by sinewav »

Tadd wrote:Szopin: High fun on doing a bottle on 2vs2. There is no way that could work.

Works... But the center player needs to surround to zone at the correct distance to help the defense set up properly and quickly.
Attachments
2-player-bottle.png
2-player-bottle.png (3.77 KiB) Viewed 2432 times

User avatar
takburger
Match Winner
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by takburger »

sinewav wrote:
Tadd wrote:Szopin: High fun on doing a bottle on 2vs2. There is no way that could work.

Works... But the center player needs to surround to zone at the correct distance to help the defense set up properly and quickly.
do a bottle like that anybody can get in and survive.

ps: but in any case, there will be the team that start super defensive and the other will see that and attack. So it is a win attack. Then it will just be not so evenly spread.

Basically, I agree to not do winner attack, only if you let someone set. Because all those fast setting strategy suck: either it simply do not work. Or it does work (tadd's way) but require people that actually know about the correct way... And it is asking too much. We just ask politeness and you guyz ask for super proness with teamplay etc.

I thought people wanted noobs to play this game and expand this so small community. I feel I've never been so wrong...
Image

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6348
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by sinewav »

takburger wrote:do a bottle like that anybody can get in and survive.
Anybody? Well then I challenge you to defeat my 2-player-bottle. When do you want to meet me?
takburger wrote:Because all those fast setting strategy suck: either it simply do not work. Or it does work (tadd's way) but require people that actually know about the correct way... And it is asking too much.
God forbid someone actually learn how to set up a defense properly. :roll: I remember the first time I learned how to do it properly. It took exactly one try. Let's put it this way, if a n00b can't handle at least that much they won't make it in the Fortress world anyway. It's not an easy game, only simple in principal. That's is why it is so successful.

User avatar
takburger
Match Winner
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by takburger »

sinewav wrote:
takburger wrote:do a bottle like that anybody can get in and survive.
Anybody? Well then I challenge you to defeat my 2-player-bottle. When do you want to meet me?
takburger wrote:Because all those fast setting strategy suck: either it simply do not work. Or it does work (tadd's way) but require people that actually know about the correct way... And it is asking too much.
God forbid someone actually learn how to set up a defense properly. :roll: I remember the first time I learned how to do it properly. It took exactly one try. Let's put it this way, if a n00b can't handle at least that much they won't make it in the Fortress world anyway. It's not an easy game, only simple in principal. That's is why it is so successful.
I have no idea when, but if we meet online, lets go. I doubt you can manage to get someone understand what to do at the correct time.

Well you learned to set up in one try, some people understand they have to grind in one try too... But some of our tronners there are here for years and don't grind all the time or do not know some basics. It happen, just that going so hard on a public fort server may not fit to the casual play style there.
Image

Elysium
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:22 pm

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by Elysium »

Personally i find the idea for a second server to be just winner attacks quite stupid. the new players are not saying " i only wanna winner attack gtfa". These players are looking up to older members and go with the flow and are trying to play and learn as to have fun while not trying to interrupt others playing. There are some players that be assholes dont listen and just be a general nubbish troll. but that is why we have the kick suspend option in servers or the login option.

The winner attack fort is a waiting game for a casual game, for practice and is generally just common courtesy of players to wait for the other team to set up. this enabling the loosing team practice on attacking a def 2v3 1v3 ect as it so often happens in reg fort. it helps set up for different situations. This is also saying wait till we get more people for a serious match.

If that server was made nobody would play in it. From what i can see nobody plays in any of the non-regular fort servers. theres an occasional game here or there but its not worth the time and money to put more up when there are so many other readily available.

Tadd
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:13 pm

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by Tadd »

Sine: Imagine your have a great sweeper who's able to do that. What happens if i make a late center? No way if I'm a good player he can defend that. If you still think that's an option, I'm up to meet you and prove you wrong. By the way: 2 of your clanmates fought me and plee in a mini fortress clanfight and even my tactic, which I consider the more reliable one failed.
Also, exactly what tak mentioned earlier: That's exactly what this topic is about. "your" team is defensive, the other team attacks. If you do this 3 rounds, the def will follow because it has nothing else to do and double penetrate the sweeper. If we're speaking of good players, he will have no chance to get in a position where he can properly attack the enemy defense. -->Kind of a win-attack round.

Why am I against different servers?
No way this would work. Everyone I know prefers normal/regular fort to win/att rounds. But most of the players say a regular fort game only will take place when it's 4vs4. A win/att server will only take the possibility away to have a regular (4vs4+) fort game, because not enough people will show up in the regular server. Also, until the win/att server is popular, a lot of time will be wasted and everyone says to himself "well, until now it worked, why should I switch servers? I prefer a reg match but until it could take place I just play win/att."

Why am I against a regular match if it's less than 4vs4?
In my opinion, fort became a lot about strategy. Reading many blog articles about fort, I feel myself confirmed. Again, in my opinion, the strategy starts with 4vs4. The defense could decide to speed up one wing, the center can even have a proper fight against the enemy center, the others can decide if they want 3 attackers or 2 att and 1 sweep. If you have 2 sweepers and get center attacked, you still can have one attacker who puts pressure on the enemy def and cause troubles. Playing with good players will be a lot of fun.

What happens with bad players?
If we speak about total noobs: They can even be a pain in the ass in a 8vs8. Speaking about noobs who can double bind but don't understand a lot of the tacitcs: I think in a win/att round you can teach them way more than if a 2vs2 round where they attack. In a win/att round at first have to tell them if they have to attack or not. Then you can start slowly with sweeping, glancing, do proper grinds, come back, ......... In a 2vs2 round you just tell them to attack, if he takes the wrong way you ask your enemy to wait. If he takes the right way, you ask your enemy to not center because he didn't grind hard enough. If you get him to make a perfect split in the beginning until you set your defense, you're never able to teach him how to attack. I remember one time when I got a total fortress noob to make a sweepbox. It took him 5 rounds but i was able to teach him because we had enough players to help when he did a mistake.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6348
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Win attacks - 'fort' type server

Post by sinewav »

Tadd wrote:Sine: Imagine your have a great sweeper who's able to do that. What happens if i make a late center?
What about any late center with any sized team? In either case you need good timing. That is part of Fortress.

Post Reply