Belenus: Thanks for the WoW comparison
I haven't thought about it that way yet. Don't worry, it's only a setting and will definitely default to zero by the "don't change default gameplay behavior in minor revisions" rule.Experimental change: finite cycle width
Moderator: Z-Man
"inside defending" by doing a long spiral of death is lame anyway. To me, fighting against a defender who does this is always a perfect excuse to sit and wait for the winzone. Trying to squeeze in was almost impossible before, too, and not worth the risk (to me).
Belenus: Thanks for the WoW comparison I haven't thought about it that way yet. Don't worry, it's only a setting and will definitely default to zero by the "don't change default gameplay behavior in minor revisions" rule.
Belenus: Thanks for the WoW comparison
I haven't thought about it that way yet. Don't worry, it's only a setting and will definitely default to zero by the "don't change default gameplay behavior in minor revisions" rule.
likely it must not be a mistake by the defence. I myself got killed by psyko once without making any mistake at all. just because he had much more speed an managed to squeez through. all in all armagetron is a game which lives beside mistakes and very good risky actions. these new settings kill much off the risky ones, which would have suceed before, but fail now. this makes the game far less interesting at my opinion.it is possible to overthrow a +4 grind of pos2 btw, just get close inside db back you can do a 4.5. forget about that now, you ll squeze.MaZuffeR wrote:Was impossible against good players before too, all it took was a 4+ grind by the player left of the middle, I have killed lots of people just by grinding tight enough in that position. (though it beats me why it was so difficult for most people to understand to grind that hard)oO.k3nNy wrote:what i try to say is that its a (technical) skill loss.
you depent on the outside grinder whether you get squeezed when you db at start, so thats the skill of the other player not yours.
a few skill-loss points:
- gettin through mid at start (mostly pos. 1); almost impossible now. (a plus for the defender)
The situations were you could get inside in without a mistake by the defender were very rare before the change, not a big difference here imho- sb who is inside-defending is amlost unbeatable: actually only holes work now. Without these settings you may manage to get back in at high speed between the attackers cycle and his tail. So a 1 on 1 against a inside-defender would be quite boring because the attacker can only circle him, and circle him... hoping he dies. (a plus for defender)
-
Lucifer
- Project Developer
- Posts: 8640
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: Republic of Texas
- Contact:
Ummm, ok. Haven't tried it yet, but if I'm reading this right, if the two guys to the side of center grind tight they'll kill the center when they pass? Umm, wouldn't they die when they hit the back of the center's cycle?
On doublegrinding, I will somewhat shamefully admit it's worked its way into my own set. I've found when I'm second from center I can get the doublegrinder to do sensible things just by reminding him that I can beat his grind anytime he gets out of line. The result so far has been that a few doublegrinders have worked out attacks with me. You just do your typical wingman attack, where you go in with a wingman (me) and do the things you'd expect to do anyway, just faster. So the doublegrinder should be trying to get back to the other team's big load of walls and keeping defenders from me, in exchange I keep defenders from him. Then, if we can both go into the zone, we do it. If not, we split up, and he leaves me room to go around the back of the zone so I can attack it from another side, or I'll engage the outer defender and get him away so the doublegrinder can attack, or whatever.
I've also found that occasionally doublegrinding is useful and do it myself (usually hitting my doublegrinding is lame chat so everyone knows I know I'm doing something lame). It still doesn't beat having a good, tight grind on both sides of the center, but it can compensate for other conditions.
Anyway, that's all beside the point. If y'all want a quick win, you came to the wrong place, for the most part. I'm getting kinda tired of these quick wins, even when I'm on the winning team, that result through a use of tricks rather than tactical superiority. I love a quick win when it's because of superior tactics and team play, but when it's just tricks, I'd rather play spades. And if MaZufer is right (he probably is, he's a smart guy), the only thing that changes is that players that previously sucked but managed to be passable through the use of tricks are going to hate this, but most players aren't going to care either way. Some of us that use really tight tunnels to keep our speed up when we attack the zone (having found that we can still consistently hit even a tiny gap in the goalie's defense) are going to have to rework those tunnels, but otherwise, nothing changes, right?
Haven't tried it yet, but if I'm reading this right, if the two guys to the side of center grind tight they'll kill the center when they pass? Umm, wouldn't they die when they hit the back of the center's cycle?On doublegrinding, I will somewhat shamefully admit it's worked its way into my own set. I've found when I'm second from center I can get the doublegrinder to do sensible things just by reminding him that I can beat his grind anytime he gets out of line.
The result so far has been that a few doublegrinders have worked out attacks with me. You just do your typical wingman attack, where you go in with a wingman (me) and do the things you'd expect to do anyway, just faster. So the doublegrinder should be trying to get back to the other team's big load of walls and keeping defenders from me, in exchange I keep defenders from him. Then, if we can both go into the zone, we do it. If not, we split up, and he leaves me room to go around the back of the zone so I can attack it from another side, or I'll engage the outer defender and get him away so the doublegrinder can attack, or whatever.I've also found that occasionally doublegrinding is useful and do it myself (usually hitting my doublegrinding is lame chat so everyone knows I know I'm doing something lame). It still doesn't beat having a good, tight grind on both sides of the center, but it can compensate for other conditions.
Anyway, that's all beside the point. If y'all want a quick win, you came to the wrong place, for the most part. I'm getting kinda tired of these quick wins, even when I'm on the winning team, that result through a use of tricks rather than tactical superiority. I love a quick win when it's because of superior tactics and team play, but when it's just tricks, I'd rather play spades.
And if MaZufer is right (he probably is, he's a smart guy), the only thing that changes is that players that previously sucked but managed to be passable through the use of tricks are going to hate this, but most players aren't going to care either way. Some of us that use really tight tunnels to keep our speed up when we attack the zone (having found that we can still consistently hit even a tiny gap in the goalie's defense) are going to have to rework those tunnels, but otherwise, nothing changes, right? Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
no there are no reworking tunnels. It dont work at all.
The quick tricks dont usually work. For every trick now ppl have found a way to counter. It does work a few rounds but mostly ull fail. Ive spent ages learning how to go thru the centre and survive. Now there is no real difference between a pro and a newbie, if the good player gets caught between or trapped by an average player hes dead, no more grinding tight or anything. It does kill people have have spent many hours practicing and playing, and helps newbies who come in for 10 mins and then quit the game all togeather. I know that i wudnt have continued to play if this was introduced when i started. I only really found cvs fun and i played to get as good as the good guys. An aim if u like. This law changes all that and levels the playing field too much. Defence is already easy enough and this makes it even easy
The quick tricks dont usually work. For every trick now ppl have found a way to counter. It does work a few rounds but mostly ull fail. Ive spent ages learning how to go thru the centre and survive. Now there is no real difference between a pro and a newbie, if the good player gets caught between or trapped by an average player hes dead, no more grinding tight or anything. It does kill people have have spent many hours practicing and playing, and helps newbies who come in for 10 mins and then quit the game all togeather. I know that i wudnt have continued to play if this was introduced when i started. I only really found cvs fun and i played to get as good as the good guys. An aim if u like. This law changes all that and levels the playing field too much. Defence is already easy enough and this makes it even easy
Last edited by omega on Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
With other settings, yes, but not with the ones in effect. As long as the constraint CYCLE_RUBBER_MINDISTANCE * 2 >= CYCLE_WIDTH is fullfilled, you can't be squished from behind by single grinders, because each of them won't get closer than MINDISTANCE. Now, DGing potentially gets you a little closer if your first grind already was tight, but then you die yourself in your own tunnel.Lucifer wrote:Ummm, ok.
As long as you don't try to outgrind someone, you should be safe. At least, that's the intended behavior, anything else is worth a bug cry.
I'm in the "don't care either way" camp really. Otherwise, I whouldn't have promised a poll later
I like the possibility this new setting gives: it's the one that can make you allow adjusts, but forbid wall 180s on your server. OTOH, I'm proud that the "cycles are point particles" principle works and plays that well, despite all its quirks. I like both ways. Both give unique strategies.
Once being the keyword, I said very rare. I have beaten the defender without him/her doing an (obvious) mistake a few times. (that's a few times during the seven months I've played fortress). In the situation you describe there is usually enough room to squeeze through even with the new settings.oO.k3nNy wrote: likely it must not be a mistake by the defence. I myself got killed by psyko once without making any mistake at all. just because he had much more speed an managed to squeez through. all in all armagetron is a game which lives beside mistakes and very good risky actions. these new settings kill much off the risky ones, which would have suceed before, but fail now. this makes the game far less interesting at my opinion.
there are many good defenders who keep it thight. ofc most of the defenders leave enough space, but a pro gamer doesnt get the thrill from beating an open defence. he gets his exitement from beating awesome defenders or do awesome risky stuff. these settings kill a part of that, and that kills a part of the fun i have at this game!MaZuffeR wrote:Once being the keyword, I said very rare. I have beaten the defender without him/her doing an (obvious) mistake a few times. (that's a few times during the seven months I've played fortress). In the situation you describe there is usually enough room to squeeze through even with the new settings.oO.k3nNy wrote: likely it must not be a mistake by the defence. I myself got killed by psyko once without making any mistake at all. just because he had much more speed an managed to squeez through. all in all armagetron is a game which lives beside mistakes and very good risky actions. these new settings kill much off the risky ones, which would have suceed before, but fail now. this makes the game far less interesting at my opinion.
well i signed up this forum because i fear for my daily fortress fun...
going thru tight tunnels is a very old game feature and when i first played it the amargoshdarn server was still up. all improvements made eversince always added something to the game, being the fortress one of the most genious additions. this is the first time an improvement actually takes away something from the game: the ability to pass between two walls whatsoever.
i remember when i first played this game, i thought i'd need space for the cycle between walls - lol. and now i need it?
This change creates a totally different game feeling. Some will like it, others will get used, others won't. i hate it.
i get squeezed on a visible gap (visible at 1280px) - hell, how is this realistic? your cycle has a width but it is not the width it has on screen, it is something you can't see or feel.
i just don't understand the purpose of this change at all, unless it is specifically designed to kill the center down attack.
I mean, such an important change to gameplay must have a purpose. The fortress has a purpose, the hexagonal etc. field has a purpose, maps have a purpose, etc.
I haven't seen yet any purpose being discussed - just workarounds for some game features that were better off without the change (doublegrind, mazing) and yes, some people agree it's a good thing that center attacks became impossible.
So it looks to me like something specifically designed to kill the center down attack because for the rest of the gameplay it's a Bad Thing. If I am wrong, please enlight me: what else or what exactly is the purpose of having thick cycles in this game?
if i am right in assuming this, i ask: so why you want to eliminate center attack? it's a good thing. defenders have developed skills to kill the center attacker if he comes in a second too soon or too late, otherwise the attacker can conquer maybe a quarter of the base. by doing this, he gets the attention of at least 2 or 3 defender's and if he's lucky some backup from his own team before he gets squeezed. hell yes, lots of fun, crowded zones, lots of mazing. and very often the defenders win.
then, many center players have started to seal the access to the center line touching their left wing's wall having a dogfight with the center attacker and hopefully killing him. it was quite interesting - what would have come next?
now what's left?
the goalie has always enough time to set up a perfect square. he doesn't even need to seal the tails, he can just start to go around.
all other fight it out in the open field or around the bases
then, one or two attackers left, the final part: trying to squeeze the defender.
in other words, what has been half the games now it's all the games. the other half is lost. it was the half i liked better which doesn't mean that i don't like to play the other half as well.
i will wait for the poll and i will vote NO, and after that i won´t play on a server with thick cycles any more, regardless the poll result.
going thru tight tunnels is a very old game feature and when i first played it the amargoshdarn server was still up. all improvements made eversince always added something to the game, being the fortress one of the most genious additions. this is the first time an improvement actually takes away something from the game: the ability to pass between two walls whatsoever.
i remember when i first played this game, i thought i'd need space for the cycle between walls - lol. and now i need it?
This change creates a totally different game feeling. Some will like it, others will get used, others won't. i hate it.
i get squeezed on a visible gap (visible at 1280px) - hell, how is this realistic? your cycle has a width but it is not the width it has on screen, it is something you can't see or feel.
i just don't understand the purpose of this change at all, unless it is specifically designed to kill the center down attack.
I mean, such an important change to gameplay must have a purpose. The fortress has a purpose, the hexagonal etc. field has a purpose, maps have a purpose, etc.
I haven't seen yet any purpose being discussed - just workarounds for some game features that were better off without the change (doublegrind, mazing) and yes, some people agree it's a good thing that center attacks became impossible.
So it looks to me like something specifically designed to kill the center down attack because for the rest of the gameplay it's a Bad Thing. If I am wrong, please enlight me: what else or what exactly is the purpose of having thick cycles in this game?
if i am right in assuming this, i ask: so why you want to eliminate center attack? it's a good thing. defenders have developed skills to kill the center attacker if he comes in a second too soon or too late, otherwise the attacker can conquer maybe a quarter of the base. by doing this, he gets the attention of at least 2 or 3 defender's and if he's lucky some backup from his own team before he gets squeezed. hell yes, lots of fun, crowded zones, lots of mazing. and very often the defenders win.
then, many center players have started to seal the access to the center line touching their left wing's wall having a dogfight with the center attacker and hopefully killing him. it was quite interesting - what would have come next?
now what's left?
the goalie has always enough time to set up a perfect square. he doesn't even need to seal the tails, he can just start to go around.
all other fight it out in the open field or around the bases
then, one or two attackers left, the final part: trying to squeeze the defender.
in other words, what has been half the games now it's all the games. the other half is lost. it was the half i liked better which doesn't mean that i don't like to play the other half as well.
i will wait for the poll and i will vote NO, and after that i won´t play on a server with thick cycles any more, regardless the poll result.
I guess it all depends on your style of play.
Me, I hardly notice the change, except when I "squeeze" a doublegrinder.
But, like wrtl stated, if you're the central man with an eager doublegrinder either side, you really have no chance. So, I don't think that's such a bad thing.
And I'm not one who spends his time looking for a route down the centre into the opponents fortress. Sometimes it has found me and I've taken it, but it feels like a cheap victory.
I'm all for the change. Admittedly, some will have to adapt.
Me, I hardly notice the change, except when I "squeeze" a doublegrinder.
But, like wrtl stated, if you're the central man with an eager doublegrinder either side, you really have no chance. So, I don't think that's such a bad thing.
And I'm not one who spends his time looking for a route down the centre into the opponents fortress. Sometimes it has found me and I've taken it, but it feels like a cheap victory.
I'm all for the change. Admittedly, some will have to adapt.
Omega: at least one player, Supertard, left because he was annoyed by your constant bickering
Weclome, route, I have to say your post is the most thoughtful analysis of the "Hate it" side yet. If nothing else good comes out of this, getting the forum some new members (I guess you won't be the only one) is
As to the why:
First, it's a setting. It's active on the test server for, well, testing. That's what the server is for. It won't be active by default in 0.2.8.3.
It increases "Movie Accuracy". See the first item on Luke's list here: http://beta.armagetronad.net/design/tron.html . Some admins will activate it only for that.
It is one of the two logical and codable ways we could come up with that can kill you if you do a 180 against a wall, but let you adjust to a wall just fine. The other way is to give "left-right" turn combinations a different CYCLE_DELAY setting than "left-left" combinations; that, however, is not possible to achieve without clientside changes. We'll probably do it anyway, though, later.
Tight seals. Some people, and that includes me here, think that deep grinding is not an interesting skill. Sure, it requires timing, but that's not very interesting all by itself. With pointlike cycles, no matter how well I seal a passage, another player can always squeeze through. I think I have more interesting things to do that to 180 repeatedly just to get that extra bit of sealing. Finite cycle width gives me that.
Although veterans are used to pointlike cycles, new players aren't; it's just counterintuitive. A noob friendly server may want to use it to meet nooby expectations.
Edit: the poll was added to this thread. It runs for a week in total and the earliest time I'm considering to act on preliminary results is Friday morning.
Weclome, route, I have to say your post is the most thoughtful analysis of the "Hate it" side yet. If nothing else good comes out of this, getting the forum some new members (I guess you won't be the only one) is
As to the why:
First, it's a setting. It's active on the test server for, well, testing. That's what the server is for. It won't be active by default in 0.2.8.3.
It increases "Movie Accuracy". See the first item on Luke's list here: http://beta.armagetronad.net/design/tron.html . Some admins will activate it only for that.
It is one of the two logical and codable ways we could come up with that can kill you if you do a 180 against a wall, but let you adjust to a wall just fine. The other way is to give "left-right" turn combinations a different CYCLE_DELAY setting than "left-left" combinations; that, however, is not possible to achieve without clientside changes. We'll probably do it anyway, though, later.
Tight seals. Some people, and that includes me here, think that deep grinding is not an interesting skill. Sure, it requires timing, but that's not very interesting all by itself. With pointlike cycles, no matter how well I seal a passage, another player can always squeeze through. I think I have more interesting things to do that to 180 repeatedly just to get that extra bit of sealing. Finite cycle width gives me that.
Although veterans are used to pointlike cycles, new players aren't; it's just counterintuitive. A noob friendly server may want to use it to meet nooby expectations.
Edit: the poll was added to this thread. It runs for a week in total and the earliest time I'm considering to act on preliminary results is Friday morning.