Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
Moderator: Light
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
1vs2 unconquerable would be a useful suggestion if everybody was holing and zones were helpless, but they're not, because last ladle was won with the use of sweepboxing, which prevents holing and that's exactly why it was thought of. This idea is about 3-4 ladles late and it didn't require the game to be changed. You asked for Fortress evolution and you got it. Holing was the problem and now there's a solid strategy against it. The first time SP was beat by holes, was the moment we sat down to figure out what to do against it, and from double defending to sweepboxing was SP's solution. Give it some time and the next game changer will come.
Some complained about holing without ever mentioning holes in their threads, and now people will complain about this, like you're doing now, without ever mentioning sweepboxing.
Last ladle (49) was one of the best ladles I've taken part in (I got knocked out in the first round). Strategy wise, it was impressive. One of the few times SP has been beat purely on strategy and mostly because mYm used the strategy SP was using, but did better at it. Even though the finals was an anti climax, mYm did better against SP than CT, and CT was very close to beating mYm. If CT had reached the finals, I think SP would have won (just my opinions, it's not a fact don't worry).
Last ladle was won by strategy, and the only thing left now is tactics. I've always thought of the ladle/fortress being in the stone ages, but i think it's now leaped to the bronze age and 50 is a good number.
1vs2 unconquerable doesn't help anything now and would just make things more stagnant, by the looks of it.
Some complained about holing without ever mentioning holes in their threads, and now people will complain about this, like you're doing now, without ever mentioning sweepboxing.
Last ladle (49) was one of the best ladles I've taken part in (I got knocked out in the first round). Strategy wise, it was impressive. One of the few times SP has been beat purely on strategy and mostly because mYm used the strategy SP was using, but did better at it. Even though the finals was an anti climax, mYm did better against SP than CT, and CT was very close to beating mYm. If CT had reached the finals, I think SP would have won (just my opinions, it's not a fact don't worry).
Last ladle was won by strategy, and the only thing left now is tactics. I've always thought of the ladle/fortress being in the stone ages, but i think it's now leaped to the bronze age and 50 is a good number.
1vs2 unconquerable doesn't help anything now and would just make things more stagnant, by the looks of it.
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
I like dlh's settings. Many people in the server said it would be better to just slow 1v2 conquering down instead of removing it.
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
I don't know if it makes sence or if it's feasible but if the idea is to promote attack against defence or more precisely passive defence (like stepdef or sweepbox), it might be interesting to add a mechanism to detect and flag cycles constantly grinding their own wall or the same teammate wall so you can exclude them from influence list ie from scoring...
Therefore an attacker dying on a sweepbox will give no point to enemy unless a sweeper/defender actively take part in his death.
Of course it will favor holing but it will also promote active defence/sweeping and attack against passive defence.
Therefore an attacker dying on a sweepbox will give no point to enemy unless a sweeper/defender actively take part in his death.
Of course it will favor holing but it will also promote active defence/sweeping and attack against passive defence.
-
- Round Winner
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:39 am
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
No. Assuming comparable skill level, it's significantly less likely for 4 of 5 people to die than for 4 of 7 people to die.-*inS*- wrote:@Durka nnonoononononononono
EDIT: In 7v7 it is possible to build a 7v3 advantage, but the odds are the same of getting 5v1 in 5v5 fortress = unlikely.
Really? The bolded part terrifies you, doesn't it?DDMJ wrote:No, more like -2.INW wrote:+2akira wrote:There is a simple physical change which would dramatically improve the fortress experience for the better: lower rubber to a value between 2-3.
More deaths, faster shrinks, rising skill-level, less adjusts etc.
PS: 1v2 unconquerable is so stupid, I just refuse to post any argument about it.
If that's the case, players with 130+ pings will be at such a disadvantage, unless you increase ping rubber.
Akira's idea sounds great, but unfortunately it seems to lack support.
Okay, you've got to be kidding with this. If all three players are good, the attackers each only need a small amount of space -- maybe 15-20% of the zone each, and that's still high for most good players -- to gank. So unless you're setting this example thinking of attackers who are awful at staying in the zone and need a ton of space or a defender who sumos horribly and dies when he still has 60%+ of his zone, you're insane.-*inS*- wrote: Once a defender is shrunk enough that you could gank 2v1, it takes only a little more effort to shrink him to the point of killing himself.
It's loads easier to gank 2v1 conquerable than it would be to kill a defender in an uncut zone with 2v1 unconquerable.
The best idea I've seen so far in this thread is to raise the number of players in the ladle but OMG LAG we can't do that.
The once and future "I told you so."
-
- Round Winner
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:39 am
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
Upon further reflection, this isn't so obvious. Actually what I said was completely true, but it ignores the fact that with 7 players on the opposing team, one of them is more likely to die than when there are 5 players on the opposing team. Will think about this more when I have more time.Goodygumdrops wrote:No. Assuming comparable skill level, it's significantly less likely for 4 of 5 people to die than for 4 of 7 people to die.-*inS*- wrote:@Durka nnonoononononononono
EDIT: In 7v7 it is possible to build a 7v3 advantage, but the odds are the same of getting 5v1 in 5v5 fortress = unlikely.
The once and future "I told you so."
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
Ok, perhaps a slight exaggeration on my part, but I think people are unreasonably scared that 2v1 would be a stalemate which clearly isn't the case.Goodygumdrops wrote:Okay, you've got to be kidding with this. If all three players are good, the attackers each only need a small amount of space -- maybe 15-20% of the zone each, and that's still high for most good players -- to gank. So unless you're setting this example thinking of attackers who are awful at staying in the zone and need a ton of space or a defender who sumos horribly and dies when he still has 60%+ of his zone, you're insane.-*inS*- wrote: Once a defender is shrunk enough that you could gank 2v1, it takes only a little more effort to shrink him to the point of killing himself.
It's loads easier to gank 2v1 conquerable than it would be to kill a defender in an uncut zone with 2v1 unconquerable.
Flex wrote:One of the few times SP has been beat purely on strategy and mostly because mYm used the strategy SP was using, but did better at it.
Anyways changing things preemptively won't work I suppose. If the ladle evolves into an 8 hr long event where lag is the main culprit for deaths, then we'll revisit this (and I'll say I told you so ), but there's no point debating this any longer when it's clear there isn't enough support for a change to be made.
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
There was no wall shrink at that time. Defenders had to make gaps before opening or closing the zone. Attacking was about predicting when and where the gap will take place and it had to happen sooner or later, if def wanted to make some corrections or to attack. Now there are no gaps anymore, because they can transport their cycles through their tail ends. Anyway I would test out walls stay up delay at 0.FoFo wrote:Thats crazy the difference between how ladle was and how it is now , i remember before , until sagelord/durka used step def , every teams who had a good attacker had a HUGE advantage to win cause defenses were pretty easy to cut if you had good speed/timing , so ladle was all about how good you were at cutting a defense , attackin ect ...
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
Flex is making the most sense. CT didn't use a sweep-box and did better against mYm than SP did. The CT matches were extremely close and had a lot of action. Personally I don't care if spectators find the matches boring to watch. People watch golf too. And I know the massive defenses are tiring to play against, but Fortress as always been about endurance as much as skill. Remember when finals used to be best of 5? I can't say that L-49 was the longest ever, can you?
The truth is, there are many different types of defenses and they get used all the time. Not every team employs the sweep-box, even when the stakes are high (some teams still can't figure out how to make one anyway, haha). And as we've seen, it's cautious play that makes matches drag -- not the special tactics. This has always been the "problem", you are just seeing it through it's most recent manifestation.
One reason I'm against upping the conquer time is the end of round zones. If a lone defender dies in his zone while being attacked, that zone should fall if there is even a single attacker in it. Period.
The truth is, there are many different types of defenses and they get used all the time. Not every team employs the sweep-box, even when the stakes are high (some teams still can't figure out how to make one anyway, haha). And as we've seen, it's cautious play that makes matches drag -- not the special tactics. This has always been the "problem", you are just seeing it through it's most recent manifestation.
One reason I'm against upping the conquer time is the end of round zones. If a lone defender dies in his zone while being attacked, that zone should fall if there is even a single attacker in it. Period.
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
You know what would effectively prevent sweepboxes as well? Shorter walls. And Im sure no one wants that.
Reigning champion of: Sir-spam-a-lot 2011apparition wrote:You being able to kill so many players that quickly and efficiently is evidence that the community skill level must be dropping... Sad
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
This is always the case as long as decay is below conquest. Period.sinewav wrote: One reason I'm against upping the conquer time is the end of round zones. If a lone defender dies in his zone while being attacked, that zone should fall if there is even a single attacker in it. Period.
Anyway, how about slowing down the 1v2 conquer? Still conquerable, but takes a bit longer.
- apparition
- Match Winner
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:59 am
- Location: The Mitten, USA
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
Play in a Pickup match and you'll experience this It really makes conquering 2v1 or 3v1 difficult. Maybe the change only seems drastic because we all have the timing ingrained in our brains and it's jarring when the zone doesn't fall.Concord wrote:This is always the case as long as decay is below conquest. Period.sinewav wrote: One reason I'm against upping the conquer time is the end of round zones. If a lone defender dies in his zone while being attacked, that zone should fall if there is even a single attacker in it. Period.
Anyway, how about slowing down the 1v2 conquer? Still conquerable, but takes a bit longer.
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
Yeah let's forget about 2 disconnects + most our team lagging out (me being the exception). I don't want to take anything away from your win but really, leave it alone dude, I take offense to that.sinewav wrote:Flex is making the most sense. CT didn't use a sweep-box and did better against mYm than SP did.
On another note, I support newbie's wall delay 1 and dlh's conquer rules.
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
That's all very interesting, but does it accomplish the goal of fewer sweep-boxes, faster rounds, and more attacking?apparition wrote:Play in a Pickup match and you'll experience this It really makes conquering 2v1 or 3v1 difficult. Maybe the change only seems drastic because we all have the timing ingrained in our brains and it's jarring when the zone doesn't fall.
- apparition
- Match Winner
- Posts: 628
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:59 am
- Location: The Mitten, USA
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
I don't really know what you're trying to say to me. I'm just saying if you want to experience a slower conquer, play in Pickup.
Re: Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?
That's what I said but it got buried due to the page breakConcord wrote:This is always the case as long as decay is below conquest. Period.sinewav wrote: One reason I'm against upping the conquer time is the end of round zones. If a lone defender dies in his zone while being attacked, that zone should fall if there is even a single attacker in it. Period.
Anyway, how about slowing down the 1v2 conquer? Still conquerable, but takes a bit longer.
here's some kind of compromise (dlh made me think of that):
If we want to leave the (un)conquerable thing as it is and upvalue the "real" defenders again without devalueing holes, we just have to change the time that is needed to shrink the zone. I'd change it to something like 2 or 3 minutes so the defender has enough time to kill both, but still loses if they do their job right. And it's more than enough time for the sweepers to come and help, if there are any. But I don't know whether that will make classic cuts more popular again.
As I said, it's a compromise. I'd still favor 1v2 UC.