Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

A place for threads related to tournaments and the like, and things related too.

Moderator: Light

Post Reply
User avatar
Titanoboa
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1791
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:07 pm

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by Titanoboa »

Concord wrote:
Titanoboa wrote:It would change double grinding a bit, but how and how much? Let's try it?
that's the whole reason the map would be expanded.
I'm aware. I'm discussing the alternative of expanding the map, which is to shorten the grind. I suppose you're implying reducing the length of the grind would be a bad thing, but as far as I know nobody has tried it yet. Why rule it out?


Also, if centers don't have to cover center and sweepers can cover the sides without worrying about late centers, positions 1-3 will be able to have a 3v3 battle in the center (no point in outflanking anymore). This will make it even harder to become a successful ladle attacker (right now wingers don't have to do much at the grind) and possibly widen the gap even more.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6303
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by sinewav »

Titanoboa wrote:I suppose you're implying reducing the length of the grind would be a bad thing, but as far as I know nobody has tried it yet.
I would think increasing it would be better because it the extra speed would make centering that much more deadly?

Unfortunately, I don't think we have many options besides the map. The bridge between Sumo and Fortress makes changing cycle physics difficult to impossible. They influence each other too much. On the other hand, it might be interesting to try out some experimental Fort physics in a Sumo environment.

Keep in mind these proposed map changes should be fairly subtle. No one wants to remove center attacks (I don't think), just reduce their power. Keep players starting inside the zone but a little bit forward. I guess the question is down to the length of the grind. How does shrinking it change center attacks? For better or worse?

I might be able to get a test server up later today. I'll give temporary owner permissions to Concord and Titan so maps can be called up freely. Who else wants to play in the sandbox?

Overrated
Match Winner
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:32 am

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by Overrated »

As a person who prefers center, it's really not that hard to stop the back-end of a center unless it's a really early. For the most part, just figuring out how to do a very tight bottle consistently, and having your wings play more defensively to stop the opposing wings to get there earlier, can stop the teammates following them. There's a LOT of tactics that can be done to stop centering, to say it's overpowered is wrong imo.

For example, bottles, all you have to do is force the center down them and they're dead. Light single grinds (LSG) cost you a side, but it makes it dangerous for the center to go down. Even splitting earlier can make it easier to block center. There's more tactics beyond these (which take more coordination), and what I'd like to emphasize is these are three very basic strategies. These are all something any team could do, and to say that a good center can control it entirely is false. It's a team not adjusting to what they are doing that is making these center players "over-powered."

That being said, I wouldn't mind experimenting with a few different options if it adds a little more interest to the community.
BRAWL dead. RIP.

Fort is like a box of knives, you never know when you're going to be cut.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6303
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by sinewav »

Overrated wrote:There's a LOT of tactics that can be done to stop centering, to say it's overpowered is wrong imo.
Yes, it is true there are many anti-center tactics. There are quite a few anti-holing tactics too. But the difference is, a failed center attack is way more devastating than a failed hole. It is disproportionate. I think many will now agree shrinking the hole size was a good idea. Can you imagine going back to 2 meter holes again? Holing would be a free-for-all. I suspect making a slight tweak to the spawn points would have a similar effect to center attacks.

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6303
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by sinewav »

TEST SERVER UP NAMED:
Ladle Spawn Tests

I made 6 map variations: 15m, 20m, & 25m with the grid resized and with a normal grid. Attached below are the map files for browsing and/or error checking. Take notice of the file naming:

spawn_test-1.15.1.aamap.xml
is resized.15 meters.version

spawn_test-2.25.1.aamap.xml
not resized.25 meters.version

Code: Select all

Resized:
turtle/fortress/spawn_test-1.15.1.aamap.xml
turtle/fortress/spawn_test-1.20.1.aamap.xml
turtle/fortress/spawn_test-1.25.1.aamap.xml

Not Resized:
turtle/fortress/spawn_test-2.15.1.aamap.xml
turtle/fortress/spawn_test-2.20.1.aamap.xml
turtle/fortress/spawn_test-2.25.1.aamap.xml
As it turns out, Concord's initial suggestion of 15 meters plus resizing seems to be the best. If you don't resize, the grind is sluggish and ends prematurely, trails are slow to leave, and there is basically no improvement. 15 meters with resizing is also very subtle. The map were spawns are pushed 25 meters ahead with grid resizing seems a little drastic after playing it locally. But you should judge for yourself. I gave Concord and Titanoboa level: owner so they can switch maps. I would like to give it to a few more people so everyone gets a chance to try this out.

Ok! Let's Play Fortress!
Attachments
spawn_test.zip
(4.31 KiB) Downloaded 37 times

User avatar
ppotter
Match Winner
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 12:45 am

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by ppotter »

theo wrote:
Concord wrote:I would suggest just moving the spawns up a little bit and maybe lengthening the grid as well. Just 15 m.
Oh please no. It's already boring to go from def to attack (or the other way around) when you have no initial speed.
bilbo baggins wrote:
ppotter wrote:Alternatively, reduce tail length by a small degree. This not only allows for tails to leave the zone quicker, but makes a "hiding" def quicker to shrink or easier to cut, depending on the defender.
^this has been the best suggestion so far imo, it doesnt remove centering but makes it that little bit easier for the late centre to be blocked by the sweepers whilst as potter said changing the dynamics of attacking a tiny bit
Unlike Concord's idea to move the spawn spot out of the zone, you're still screwed if you got a dead tail. It's easy to double center that def afterwards.

But that's part of the game I guess.
Having shorter tails would make splitting earlier easier. That being said, I don't really care about making centres less effective, they are easily countered as Over covered, and with enough communication/practice I think there are better ways than bottling as well.

I was more hopeful of a chance to make attacking more about cutting that holing to be honest. :D

User avatar
akira
Core Dumper
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Neo-Tokyo

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by akira »

Reduce rubber so adjusts become impossible. Suddenly you can't just adjust-kill attackers and cuts become alot more dangerous.

Dalsue
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:28 am

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by Dalsue »

Double Elimination is a good idea. There's also the idea of Swiss-System tournament styles for those of you who aren't aware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament

User avatar
Z-Man
God & Project Admin
Posts: 11382
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by Z-Man »

Oh, that's interesting. Obvious disadvantage: Increased interdependence of matches. You need to wait for more matches of the previous round to complete before you know where and whom to play next, and it requires more communication.
BUT: Check out the "Accelerated Pairings" section. Those are Anti-Seeds! They also accomplish what conventional wisdom tells you is impossible: they can determine an overall winner after less than log_2(number of teams) rounds. Provided the initial ordering was somewhat accurate. Huh. It rearranges matches you would play in knockout in time and gives the eventual winner some byes. Must... not... think about it too much.

Really, really think double elimination through before you implement it. Do not underestimate the number of additional rounds.

User avatar
Luiso
Average Program
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by Luiso »

I don't really have time to read all the ideas for new fortress, but I think that we shouldnt change the settings, really, fortress is fortress, you can change the ladle system, but don't really kill our lovely fortress
I am not responsible for the content of this message ;)

User avatar
woof
Round Winner
Posts: 231
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 6:58 am

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by woof »

Luiso wrote:I don't really have time to read all the ideas for new fortress, but I think that we shouldnt change the settings, really, fortress is fortress, you can change the ladle system, but don't really kill our lovely fortress

User avatar
orion
Match Winner
Posts: 782
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by orion »

woof wrote:
Luiso wrote:I don't really have time to read all the ideas for new fortress, but I think that we shouldnt change the settings, really, fortress is fortress, you can change the ladle system, but don't really kill our lovely fortress
Image

User avatar
vov
Match Winner
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by vov »

Will there be a vote for ladle? Like 7v7 and stuff like that? I don't remember all of this topic but I think a vote could still be good for some of it. And I want to test the new mappy stuff too!

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6303
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by sinewav »

vov wrote:Will there be a vote for ladle? Like 7v7 and stuff like that? I don't remember all of this topic but I think a vote could still be good for some of it. And I want to test the new mappy stuff too!
Yes, I will form a vote in the old tradition. And the maps are in the Ladle test server I mentioned earlier. I'll give you owner access and you can try and get a game going to test the different spawns/sizes.

kult
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: Ladle Fortress 2014 (Discussion)

Post by kult »

there should be a winner/ loser ladle.

I mean all winning teams play to final, and there s a traditonnal winner,
and the teams who lost in quarter fight each other for a seed.
so after quarter , 4 teams fight for ladle, and 4 teams fight for a seed..

After quarters , 2 new brackets:

Win A vs Win B - > Final 1 = ladle win
Win C vs Win D

Lost A vs lost B -> Final 2 = seed or smthing else
Lost C vs lost D

so maybe some teams can have more fun to a "second final" and can win something..

exemple on last ladle:

Quarter winners:
Unk vs killstreet-> Final 1
Rogue vd RD

and

Quarter losers:
Speeder vs CTA -> Final 2
Winning# vs Redemption2

just a suggestion.
ImageImageImageImage

Post Reply