Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?

[INW]

I must admitt, the CT and SP matches were the most stressful fortress matches I have ever played.

You must focus every round and ya, my head was hurting by the end.

But I like it.

As for the 1v2 thing, ehhh. That means a 3v1 situation won't always end in a hole and 1v2 gank. I don't like the idea because of that. This will only make the 1 person still alive in a 1ve situation camp the base more in hopes the enemy attacker will kill themselves trying to kill the camping defender.

I don't like it at all

[Slov]

^ yeah no matter what you change in settings, there will always be a new tactic that most of players won't like.

[Jip]

If sweepbox is such a problem why not take care of why we have it?

-holes

If 2v2 conquerable is such a problem why not take care of why we have it?

-zones

In ladle 2v2 is unconquerable. 3v3 is though.

[kyle]

Let me say I really only read the first 15 posts here and I have not played the ladle in, well I'm not sure how long. But I lost my spark for the ladle a while ago. I've played parts of it sense them but here is how i honestly feel. Too many teams, to many people bending "common sense" just to get a win. Too many rules kind of restricting me from deciding to play last minute. So many new strategies just to protect or attack a base. Too many cruel strategies just to achieve a win. A lot more lag in the internet. It takes around 4 hours to crown a winner each month.

Maybe there should be some sort of division. Like minor and major league baseball. It could be played at the same times and maybe twice a year both leagues meet. This gives new and weaker teams a chance to develop and become good. but it also allows for stronger teams needing to be on the top of their game in order to advance because they would not be able to have the luck of getting easier teams to get to the finals. It also reduces the overall length of the event. There would have to be a set way to determine who moves up and who might move down in the leagues. I believe it is something that could be worked out. if the players/team leaders think it would be better. I'm sure some people could work together to draft out a more detailed plan that should be fair to all.

[Concord]

As for the 1v2 thing, ehhh. That means a 3v1 situation won't always end in a hole and 1v2 gank. I don't like the idea because of that. This will only make the 1 person still alive in a 1ve situation camp the base more in hopes the enemy attacker will kill themselves trying to kill the camping defender.

Why should the defender and attacker's skills be irrelevant just because it's a 1v3?

[INW]

make 1v2 unconquerable

I disagree with the part about reducing hole size didn't change attacking or holing at all.

It did. People "hole fail" all the time. If you do not practice entering holes, you will almost always miss a hole at this size if u do not grind the suicider's wall into the zone.

Even then, people fail *cough* liz *cough*.

Holes were too big and decreasing hole size increased the skill required to enter a hole. If a torp is attempted and the grind is lose, more than 1 hole may be created and the torp will fail.

[INW]

As for the 1v2 thing, ehhh. That means a 3v1 situation won't always end in a hole and 1v2 gank. I don't like the idea because of that. This will only make the 1 person still alive in a 1ve situation camp the base more in hopes the enemy attacker will kill themselves trying to kill the camping defender.

Why should the defender and attacker's skills be irrelevant just because it's a 1v3?

Your idea will reduce the likely hood of a simple NPH. It will do nothing but make rounds, and in turn the ladle, much longer. We don't want the ladle to be boring and longer now do we?
Also, I've noticed that playing in the ladle is still fun, but watching it is soooo much more boring than it used to be.
All I got to say is get good so you don't have to watch?

[Concord]

it makes the entire course of a round actually matter. Rounds shouldn't end at 1v3.

[-*inS*-]

make 1v2 unconquerable

I was prepared to type some long statement I can no longer remember, but now it all seems futile after having read that.

The one problem I see is say if it's 3v3, there's a 2v2 battle in team gold's zone, while blues defense is set up and being attacked by one person. The gold attacker dies, but manages to kill blue's defense as well, then one gold could leave the zone and attack blue's empty zone. Actually that's not really even a problem I suppose, just a new way of playing fort that contradicts the old rationality.

@Over - no, it really changes everything.

On the topic of sweepboxes:

Anyways, yeah making arbitrary rules left to players to enforce (and not the game) is bad. So outlawing any kind of tactic is bad, we don't want fort to turn into DF/CTF where people rage if you seal/lock them out of their res zone. It leads to various interpretations of the rules and ultimately a breakdown in the game mode as no one agrees about anything. Not saying if we banned sweepboxes, fort would suck, but it would set a bad precedent.

Reminds me of how people were unhappy with my def, then realized it wasn't even that good and moved on. Same thing will happen with sweepboxes eventually.

On the topic of tournaments:

I like the ladle monthly, sure it would be more prestigious to win if it was a big annual event, but it serves it's purpose, a tool to see who was the best fortress team of the month.

Also there's way too many sumo tournaments, I don't even pay attention to them anymore haha. It's akin to winning a bugfarm tourney, "gz cu at the next one in 50 minutes!" Maybe there should be another fourway fort or fortress brawl. Also isn't fortress cup or whatever it was called coming up?

[apparition]

Let me say I really only read the first 15 posts here and I have not played the ladle in, well I'm not sure how long. But I lost my spark for the ladle a while ago. I've played parts of it sense them but here is how i honestly feel. Too many teams, to many people bending "common sense" just to get a win. Too many rules kind of restricting me from deciding to play last minute. So many new strategies just to protect or attack a base. Too many cruel strategies just to achieve a win. A lot more lag in the internet. It takes around 4 hours to crown a winner each month.

I totally agree with you Kyle. I would love for the Ladle to be less rigid rule based and more flexible. A big reason why the Ladle is crazy is how long it is. It would be cool to have the Opening Round, Sweet Sixteen, and the Elite 8 played the first Sunday of each month per usual and then the Semi-Finals and Finals played the second Sunday of each month. I don't know if that would breathe life into the Ladle, but it would help me enjoy it more, that's for sure.

[FoFo]

that ladle was my 42nd , i still enjoy it and i will enjoy the future one

so i disagree with ya durka.

[INW]

it makes the entire course of a round actually matter. Rounds shouldn't end at 1v3.

A team who kills 5 enemy players and manages to only lose 3 obviously outplayed the enemy and deserves to win the round.
Of course a 3v1 ends the round quick with an easy hole and keep everything moving.

[Cody]

I'm with Concord.

I would love to see a ladle where in a 1v3 situation they don't get to gank the zone unless that player is dead or completely out of the zone.

to me I believe if a team still has players in the zone and their keeping space, they shouldn't deserved to get ganked. To me that's what a true fortress game type is all about. I've played many other games online and there is this one i played a couple months back. They called it "Fortress" and you could only conquer the base when the primary color of that fortress team has been killed & completely out of the base. let me tell you, it made up for some of the most intense matches i've ever played online.

I'm all for a "true" conquer base fort. It won't get rid of NPHing and such but it will make for better matches in my opinion.

If Someone Could tell me the Server Side Commands to make this happen, I'll host a cfg for this type of tournament.

[-*inS*-]

it makes the entire course of a round actually matter. Rounds shouldn't end at 1v3.

A team who kills 5 enemy players and manages to only lose 3 obviously outplayed the enemy and deserves to win the round.
Of course a 3v1 ends the round quick with an easy hole and keep everything moving.

A team with as much skill as you are describing should have no problem winning 3v1.

Also rounds would not be longer as tactics would change at the beginning of rounds as well as the end, making rounds shorter.

[ppotter]

The ladle has personally lost some of it's spark, but then fort has as a whole. I dunno if it's because nearly every fort game seems to be semi competitive lately (ie pickup), meaning the ladle seems less unique. Maybe it because I've been playing in ladles for nearly 2 years, the novelty has worn off, for me the most enjoyable ladles were the ones about this time last year, it used to be entertaining to continue watching even after you'd been knocked out. But again, I don't know if that's because of the latest tactics, or just me personally.