Ladle 33 without holes

[kyle]

i mean, we NEVER played with shorter tails in a fortress match before

CTWF , But i don't think that counts, because the shorter is relative to the size of the map so it's still the same proportion.

And yes we has that CT vs CTWFers a year or so ago. Which would have been a tourney if more people signed up for it.

[owned]

and it really SHOULDNT be tested at first in a ladle

Agreed. I don't really think the ladle is a good spot to test new ideas. These should be tested on regular fort servers or new test servers.

[Mecca]

Valid point, Sine. Maybe we should try making the zones bigger (I think this was already mentioned but I am way too lazy to go back and see who).

G5! Increase the zone size in DS mega fort and PRO please!

Thanks!

[Concord]

we could adjust tactics like we always do.

[orion]

i think who dont want hole... just can dont hole..

[owned]

we could adjust tactics like we always do.

I don't personally agree with changing the settings in this situation, but who says that the current settings are the best? They've been changed and altered many times since the game mode was first created, so by this logic we should just go back to the original settings.

[sinewav]

...so by this logic we should just go back to the original settings.

That's not logic! I think the game should evolve with the needs and skills of the players. That's why we have the quarterly voting, and it's worked very well so far. Changing the explosion radius from 2 to 1 is quite subtle indeed, and there is no guarantee the proposition will even pass.

And if you want to bring back the original settings, you know, I love a good winzone!

[owned]

...so by this logic we should just go back to the original settings.

That's not logic! I think the game should evolve with the needs and skills of the players. That's why we have the quarterly voting, and it's worked very well so far. Changing the explosion radius from 2 to 1 is quite subtle indeed, and there is no guarantee the proposition will even pass.

And if you want to bring back the original settings, you know, I love a good winzone!

Nah, I was just responding to how concord implied there and has said before that we shouldn't really alter settings. I was pointing out that it's been done many times before, so who's to say that these current settings are the best. I then went on to finish that if he is really against changing settings, then by his logic, we should just go back to the original fortress settings.

[sinewav]

Oh, I get it now. Sheesh, I'm kinda dumb sometimes. Sorry owned.

[Concord]

there is no justification for changing them because of the present way teams play the game. Teams will change their strategic approach to winning, not because of the settings, but because of how well other teams stop them. Lest we forget that about half the fortress teams do not use a conservative defense and are not proficient in holing.
Developing better fortress settings is not done in the Ladle, it's done in a test server. And we should not change them for the reasons people are expressing here.

[sinewav]

there is no justification for changing them because of the present way teams play the game.

Somewhat agree. Personally, I think holes in cycle trails are anti-tron anyway, so you'll always see me on that end of the argument. But aside from my personal bias, I find smaller holes more challenging and more interesting. So my argument is a selfish one, that has less to do with current Fortress trends and more to do with my desire to be challenged. Of course, I'm the guy who always wants less rubber too.

[Mecca]

why is growing away from "Tron" a bad thing? This is Armagetron Advanced, not Tron.

[sinewav]

why is growing away from "Tron" a bad thing? This is Armagetron Advanced, not Tron.

"Armagetron Advanced: a Tron Clone in 3d " Armagetron is a multiplayer game in 3d that attempts to emulate and expand on the lightcycle sequence from the movie Tron.

There is a point where, through expansion, we are no longer emulating. I'm not against change at all, but this is a TRON game and should maintain those game play properties.

I think this topic is pretty much dead. Holes remain in L-33. We'll be sure to vote on a change when the time comes, agreed?

[Titanoboa]

So my argument is a selfish one, that has less to do with current Fortress trends and more to do with my desire to be challenged.

Same here. Even though I've been a silent spectator so far in this topic I'm all for smaller holes and definitely against "no holes".

I would like to hear one good argument in favor of explosion_radius 1 against explosion_radius 2, because I can't think of any.
"because it's been that way for a long time" is not a good argument IMO.

[G5]

G5! Increase the zone size in DS mega fort and PRO please!

Please note that I do not regularly read the forums.
So if really want me to test some settings, try to contact me directly (IRC, Skype, E-Mail, DS Forums etc.).
And some may have noticed, MF Pro for now has .75 holes.
If you want bigger zones, someone has to make and host a map for that (I think).

G5