Fortress Test Server

For things that have to do with those crazy test servers... and yeah. By request of z-man, and, of course, you gotta obey...

Moderator: Z-Man

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

Post by epsy »

Concord wrote:huh?

why is "Holes"
in quotes
in the title

isn't the fix
to set
Cycle_Explosion_Radius 0
its been said before
try to build up a server with no holes and no ganking maybe

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

Post by Concord »

and maybe a hourly tourney
two teams start
after 3 rounds
the losing team-
goodbye
and the winning team
is split
in half
3 rounds pass
lather
rinse
repeat

or maybe
if you could swing it
some neutral players
who swing to which ever
team is losing

or spawns
off set
all the way
to one side of the base

its easy
to come up
with bad ideas
i can keep going

User avatar
Rain
Round Winner
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: a random empty server playing with bots

Post by Rain »

@wrtlprnft & Lucifer: you are really nice offering your space. it would be wonderful to set-up FTS in wrtl's again, IF this do not create any problem to other servers already up. Otherwise we could try on Lucifer's.
i am moving soon to a mac and in last months i changed like 3 os. so my side of ssh access was lost. maybe we could open another and delete the old one? Let's do it when my computer arrive.

@epsy & Concord: thanks for the inputs, i hope we will be able to try everything related to fortress there and then fix some setting step by step.

kisses,

rain
END OF LINE

User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Post by Lucifer »

I would argue that even if I have low bandwidth for the task, it would be useful to use it for testing anyway, since we need to test in low bandwidth conditions. For me it's all about how much time I have to help set it up.
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

User avatar
ed
Match Winner
Posts: 613
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:34 pm
Location: UK

Post by ed »

epsy wrote:try to build up a server with no holes and no ganking maybe
That is a very good plan. If you are on the that side of the fence.
It would be great to give these antiholing antigankers a place all of their own so they can't complain every time they fail to defend properly or are let down by their team.
I don't really think it's taking the game forward though :(

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

Post by epsy »

i just want to see how does a game look like without holes and gank possibility...

And maybe one day...
No-Holes No-Gank kills gameplay.

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

Post by Concord »

maybe try
not
allowing
double binding

or allow
only
double binding

best to worst,
in terms of affecting the
overall round:

Code: Select all

otk- opponent kills opponent
cd- teammate kill opponent
os- opponent kills self
s- teammate kills self
ocd- opponent kills teammate
tk- teammate kills teammate
maybe the best to worst
scoring
should be

Code: Select all

otk- +1
cd- +1
os- +1
s- -1
ocd- -1
tk- -1
therefore every action
affects the score
by giving one team 1 pt
and subtracting 1
from the other

its a different way
to split up scoring


only ending a round
when one team is
all dead
but giving giving more
points for first
captured zone

another scoring suggestion

Code: Select all

4-  hz- hold zone
1/4-  ohz- opponents hold zone
2-  coz- capture opponents zone
1/2-  ocz- opponents capture zone
1- ad- all dead
1-  oad- opponents all dead
where the point values for the events are multiplied

Code: Select all

hz+ohz= 1 pt
hz+coz= 8 pts
ohz+ocz=1/8 pt=counts as 0
coz+ocz=1 pt
hz+oad=4 pts

Luke-Jr
Dr Z Level
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:03 pm
Location: IM: [email protected]

Post by Luke-Jr »

Is there really anything left that debugging recordings will help?
My hosting service layer supports automatic recording and a bot to record the T-value of BUG cries would be trivial.
I'd be willing to try doing this free of charge on the condition that someone is actually making use of the recordings for debugging and such on a regular basis.

User avatar
philippeqc
Long Poster - Project Developer - Sage
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:55 am
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

Post by philippeqc »

Concord wrote:...therefore every action
affects the score
by giving one team 1 pt
and subtracting 1
from the other...
Orginal idea and model. There is one aspect you might want to consider when planning a scoring scheme, which I have formulated as a sarcasm for jest:

Traditionally, fortress players have shown such a great tolerance toward players that negatively affected their winning chances, I'm sure they wont mind to see their score go toward negative values either.

Keep on the good work.

/ph
Canis meus id comedit.

User avatar
Rain
Round Winner
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: a random empty server playing with bots

Post by Rain »

i think phil didn't visit fortress recently :)
most things in previous posts were tried day by day in old FTS. we are surely going to try everything again. you can start, if you are interested, to read the feedbacks from players, about those setting (they are somewhere in this board).
END OF LINE

User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Post by Lucifer »

Heh. I think the sarcasm didn't reach rain as quickly as the rest of phil's post did. ;)
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

User avatar
Rain
Round Winner
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: a random empty server playing with bots

Post by Rain »

...it is because he has a peculiar accent...

/me is just stupid
END OF LINE

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

Post by Concord »

i did some reading
of other posts
in this thread
and stuff

i like the idea of
separating
individual score completely
from the team score
because score is not the
best indicator
of contribution
to the win

and no matter
how many
core dumps
one player has
if the team still
loses then it really
didn't matter
so the individual numbers
aren't very descriptive

in my estimation
the only way to evaluate
would be to have every
player play on a team with every
combination of
teammates
and see which player
had the best record
the players would have
to be ignorant
of this
of course

example

Code: Select all

round 1
team 1: p1, p2, p3,
team 2: p4, p5, p6
team 1 wins

round 2
team 1: p1, p4, p3,
team 2: p2, p5, p6
team 1 wins

round 3
team 1: p1, p4, p2,
team 2: p3, p5, p6
team 1 wins

round 4
team 1: p1, p4, p5,
team 2: p2, p3, p6
team 1 wins

round 5
team 1: p1, p4, p6,
team 2: p2, p5, p3
team 1 wins

round 6
team 1: p1, p5, p2,
team 2: p4, p3, p6
team 1 win

. . .
you get it
the trend would go
on
and maybe
if things went
as they looked to be going
p1 would have the best record

User avatar
Rain
Round Winner
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: a random empty server playing with bots

Post by Rain »

The idea is interesting, but there are two things i cannot agree with:
- the confusion created by continuous change in teams and positions
- the loss of the membership feeling that define teams competitiveness
In facts, you will probably get the opposite you look for.
A player that changes team every round will play ONLY for him/herself.
I think that working on scoring system is one of the best way to influence players behaviour in team work and actually I would agree with a scoring system where only teams score appears.
The sadness here could be to see that there are more players playing fortress interested to personal score than team one.
Probably the extolled propensity of fortress players in fair play and team work is not so concrete.
END OF LINE

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

Post by Concord »

yeah I'm
not actually
saying that it should
be implemented

it would be a disaster
and if the players
new what was going on. . .
even worse
+
+
+
I am suggesting
to lower rubber
maybe 2
or 3
in an effort
to remove
'digging'
from fortress
I don't particularly
think that core dumps
and rounds
should be decided by
how close to a wall
someone got
it seems like
a principle
that last
man
standing
is built one
Fortress should distance
from the rubber
diggers
in my opinion

with 2 or 3
rubber
close grinding
would become
difficult
and change the
style of play
from speed
and strength
to wile and
maneuvering

the center grind
that starts
each round
would be most effected
less double
binding
may be a result

I don't know
I just dislike
how quickly
rounds can be
decided
by
the center grinding

I'm not sure
if lowering the rubber
will achieve
this
but I'd like to see
it implemented

Post Reply