Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

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

Moderator: Light

User avatar
sinewav
Graphic Artist
Posts: 6334
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:37 am
Contact:

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by sinewav »

My only complaint about 0.4 is that I max about 25 fps. I can get a full 60 on 0.2. Until that changes, I will not upgrade.

User avatar
Magi
Match Winner
Posts: 633
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:35 pm

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by Magi »

sinewav wrote:My only complaint about 0.4 is that I max about 25 fps. I can get a full 60 on 0.2. Until that changes, I will not upgrade.
I get anywhere from 150-400 fps on 0.4 where I averaged about 200-400 fps on 2.8. I agree that 0.4 definitely ends up having less fps on average but from what I've noticed in my experience of the two is that 100 fps on 0.4 is still favorable for me and I don't notice it that badly but when I'm playing on 2.8 and I'm getting less than 200 fps I really notice it and feel 'laggy'. Which I mean, honestly I don't think I would want to play tron with only 60 fps so I can imagine why going from 60 to 25 is even more of a put-off for you.
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Image

bye

User avatar
theo
Round Winner
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:06 am

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by theo »

Redisining the website is a nice idea.

But I think something is way more important: Rethinking the server browser. And the way people are guided through playing to the game.

Try to imagine someone that just downloaded armagetron for the first time.
"play game" -> "multiplayer" -> "oh, cool, an Internet mode, let's try that!"

wot? I can see a list of more than 100 servers. Most of them are empty. Ok I'll join the busiest one. Bad luck it's pickup. But I can't play. I'm clever I know I can talk with 's' . But it doesn't work. I'm not allowed to talk. Ok this sucks, rq.

I think the server browser can be improved a little on several points:
* Only show the non-empty server by default (it would be possible to switch and see the empty servers from the server list or to make it default in the client settings)
* Allow people to search a name. Rather than browsing dozens of servers, be able to specify a pattern (eg: I want to play ladle, I just write /ladle, and I see all servers with ladle in the name. Or /pickup. Or /sumo, etc.).
* Allow servers owners to add tags to their servers. So that you can easily list servers with the mentioned tags. For instance I want to play pickup tst. I write /sumo. I don't find it (sumo doesn't appear in the server name). A tst pickup server owner could add tags like sumo, tst, pickup, etc. CTWF could have tags like CT, wild fortress, octa, nano, chico, sumo, fort, crazy and pretty much everything besides ctf.
Magi wrote:Most of our current fortress players know how to play and know the tactics so trying to make yourself better at fort by playing pickup doesn't seem like you would gain any more from it than playing public fort.
Exept that in public fort, people go afk.
Pleople can't decide whever it's winner attack, regular, altnernate. Beginners doesn't even understand what that means. They just take an empty zone and everybody is angry (in that aspect, public fort is not better for beginners than pickup).
People join & leave. So people don't really care if they win of lose except if the end is close and it's a tie. eg: if you join and the score is 92-50, will you really try? Or wait for the next match?
Sometimes you get tkers, or idiots, that you can't kick, because there are not enough. Or because people are too stupid to vote. Also the other team is too stupid to undestand that it's pointless to attack a non-set def if you have a troll in your team.
In Classic fort teams are sometimes really unballanced. Sometimes, the rounds are all the same : A begginer (or several) have no clue what to do, they don't grind, they roam around. The other team don't let def set up and sumo 3vs2 or something. Round ends in 30 seconds. The next round is the same, and the one after that. Not really untertaining.

Pickup is not perfect. There a lot of flaws. Classic is better in a lot of aspects. But I don't think we can say that classic fort is as competitive as pickup. Sumo on the other hand, can be.

Also, classic fot is definitly *not* nooby friendly.

Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by Vogue »

lol, Good luck with your dead & boring game. I predict 6 pages and nothing will come out of it. That's what this community is; all talk and no action.

Where'd clockwork go...? Another dead-end project.

User avatar
kyle
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1867
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by kyle »

Vogue wrote: That's what this community is; all talk and no action.
But we already have went someplace, If you look at the serverlist, public fortress servers are the most populous right now.


also @compguy, 0.4 does not have to have sty+ct and probably won't have sty+ct
Image

Word
Reverse Adjust Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 4196
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:13 pm

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by Word »

Vogue wrote:lol, Good luck with your dead & boring game.
Your own irrelevance isn't contractual by the way, you could do something useful despite your ban, and you wouldn't have to be angry because there's no appeal process for you. You apparently have enough time on your hands every first sunday of the month. :)

Vogue
Match Winner
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:50 pm

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by Vogue »

Word wrote:
Vogue wrote:lol, Good luck with your dead & boring game.
Your own irrelevance isn't contractual by the way, you could do something useful despite your ban, and you wouldn't have to be angry because there's no appeal process for you. You apparently have enough time on your hands every first sunday of the month. :)
:ghost: :ghost: :pacman: :sdot: :sdot: :sdot: :sdot:

jstaylor101
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by jstaylor101 »

Blah blah blah another ******* bullshit post with nerds using big words and shit and will do nothing about it 2 days later. If anything the problem is keeping new players to stay in tron point black period.

jstaylor101
On Lightcycle Grid
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by jstaylor101 »

Vogue wrote:

Where'd clockwork go...? Another dead-end project.
Clock worked was a ****'N dumbass idea. They basically made a new game type to attract sumo/fort players rather than new players. You imbecile ***** need to think out the ****'N box an stop being stuck on the same ol sumo settings. I wouldn't give 2 shits let alone 1 fux if ladle died based on how you treat new players.

User avatar
Gazelle
Match Winner
Posts: 651
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:06 am

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by Gazelle »

jstaylor101 wrote:
Vogue wrote:

Where'd clockwork go...? Another dead-end project.
Clock worked was a ****'N dumbass idea. They basically made a new game type to attract sumo/fort players rather than new players. You imbecile ***** need to think out the ****'N box an stop being stuck on the same ol sumo settings. I wouldn't give 2 shits let alone 1 fux if ladle died based on how you treat new players.
Who even are you? Take your pathetic attitude somewhere else, please. Clockwork was a good attempt at bringing a new mode to a dead community in order to revive it. If you want something different then go make it yourself, but don't sit behind your keyboard and flame others for attempting to do good for this community.

User avatar
Rudycantfail
Average Program
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by Rudycantfail »

[Edit]--I realize after posting this that this text ended up being a lot longer then I intended it to be. It is a subject that I feel pretty passionate about however so if you feel the same way about fortress please take the time to read through it as I would love to hear your opinion.



Browsing through this thread I have seen two specific issues arise;

1) The fortress meta-game has become stale.
2) The fortress community lacking any kind of growth .

Even though these issues are related, I will do my best to address them individually and offer what suggestions I can to potentially improve on the situation. I believe this discussion to be very important to the future of the fortress community and armagetronad as a whole, considering fortress has become the largest competitive organization within the game. There is no question that the number of players on the grid are diminishing, and it has become increasingly harder to find a casual game to drop in on whenever one of us has some free time to spend on tron. As someone who has grown up playing armagetron and fortress, I have many fond memories of playing this game, and would be greatly saddened to see it reduced to nothingness. This will inevitably happen if changes aren't made and acted on, and without some effort this will be impossible. Therefore it's important for this discussion that we stay focused on the goal of developing fortress and armagetron, and not run off on random tangents (such as liz ban, name calling, etc.), as this thread could potentially decide how the game is played in the next few years.

Without further ado, let's cut to the core of the issue:

1) The fortress meta-game has become stale.


How to develop fortress? This is a question that has often been asked in the past few months but without a clear direction. In order to successfully improve the game there needs to be a clear target, and that target should be to allow more strategy opportunities. The "golden age" of fortress as Concord would describe it was one where we were all still figuring out the game. The most enjoyable aspect of fortress was thinking up new creative tactics and strategies in order to play the game most efficiently, which in turn allowed us to effectively beat other teams. Right now the game is pretty balanced, some may believe that center attacks are dominating the game, but they will soon realize that there is already a plethora of tactics already available to counter these attacks. Teams such as rogue tronners know these tactics and use them to their advantage. The truth is that for every strategy ever thought up for fortress, whether it is holing, unconventional defending, or centering, the community has always always bounced back with several counter strategies. This is what has made the game fun and exciting to play. However we now find ourselves in a stalemate situation where no new strategies are being created. Perhaps because of lack of creativity or possibly because all the really good strategies have already been thought up. What the community needs right now is a nudge in the right direction to get people thinking creatively once again.
The ideas suggested in Concord's article are:
ogo wrote:Remove holes: This would be the most significant change, and would hopefully send us back to the simpler times that existed before holing became the dominant strategy. Cutting, an almost lost art, would come back to the fore
Make tails shorter: This would remove some of the impact centering has without removing it completely from the game. It would also make tunneling easier and consequently cutting as well. It would make defending harder with the current zone sizes, which may or may not be a good thing
Add rim accel: Adds to cut and kill potential, offers another dynamic aspect to the Fortress experience. Is it necessary? Might be a fun addition
Remove kill points: Probably the least popular of the suggestions, but an important one. So much of current Fortress strategy boils down just outsurviving the enemy. This is partly tied to having a player advantage in order to hole - something we're considering removing here - but is also a product of a reluctance to try risky moves due to the fear of giving away points. Removing or at least reducing kill points will help remove an overly passive team mentality
"Removing holes", "Making tails shorter" and "Removing kill points" are not suitable changes to the game because they miss out on the key goal of fortress development which is to encourage potential strategies and tactics. Each of these setting changes will hinder already existing gameplay.
Making tails shorter- As mentioned above, center attacks can already be countered easily and effectively with the right strategies, and shorter tails will take away other gameplay elements such as the ability to wrap and squeeze opponents in order to secure a kill.
Removing holes- Hole gameplay is and will always be an essential part of fortress play, without holes a defender would literally have the most boring job in the world and skilled players could just drives turtling rectangles around a zone without any threat for long periods of time, dragging games on forever and making them less exiting.
Removing kill points- Taking objectives away from a objective-driven game is never a good idea, and in this case would completely destroy fortress. How many of us have played close 96-98 games trying to gain an edge over the other team with that teeth-grinding last extra kill? These are what make fortress worth playing. Besides, I can just see fortress turning into a pure torp-fest with zone capture as the only objective.

"Adding rim accel" is however, a great idea for the fortress community. This will add a whole new set of dynamics to the game, while also increase game pace and speed (and we all love speed). Wingers will now have the job of defending outside walls during the split, lest they give the other team a runway to their zone, and sweeper tactics could once again be innovated and drastically diversified. This could be the game change the community needs to make the game interesting once again, and should definitely be pursued.

Various other ideas are also possible for improving the game, and this is where the community can take part with creative suggestions and not be afraid of trying new things. I suggest a fortress "testbug" be brought back in order to try out these new changes. Yet for that we will need a constantly active bunch of players, which brings me back to the second major issue facing fortress.

2) The fortress community lacking any kind of growth .

This is a serious issue as there seems a rapidly decreasing number of players joining fortress and now casual fortress games have become a rarity. Pickup fortress seems to be the only option for spontaneous practicing nowadays and pickup in itself is just incredibly impractical. As Concord states, the downtime pickup is it's greatest downfall. The amount of time it takes to wait for players to sign up, join the server and organize teams is almost always equal to if not longer than the game itself. This makes pickup an overall dreadful process for casual fortress players and changes a spontaneous fortress drop-in into a several hour proceeding (which we almost never have time for). Also there is the issue of new players never able to observe and learn the game because even if they happen to drop in right on time for a pickup game, they are told to shut up as soon as they drop a peep of “how do you play this” since the current match is deemed as “competitive”.

Fortress needs a drop in server that is constantly being manned by players coming in and out, thats the only way new players could possibly possibly learn the game. Also, Jaystaylor does have a point in saying that fortress players are extremely rude to newcomers, and this sadly has become fortress tradition. The first time I joined fortress I asked how to play and someone told me to shift+esc, which I proceeded to do. This didn't deter me from starting up the game once again to rejoining the server, and I have been playing fortress ever since. Unfortunately this is not the case for many players and many people are being discouraged because of this behaviour. As experienced players of the game it is pretty much our responsibility to teach and encourage newcomers to join, and we should all try and make a conscious effort to be inviting and respectful to beginners.

To summarize, in order to develop the fortress meta-game and grow the community once again. Game development should focus on encouraging new strategy such as rim accel which should be immediately tested and potentially implemented. A casual test server needs to be set up to try out these new settings, and novice players should be encouraged to come play and treated with respect. Additionally to all this, more thinking should be done on how to advertise the game and increase the influx of players. Revamping the armagetronad site and making it more clear (and possibly adding a fortress ruleset) is a good start.

I don't think fortress is in any way dead yet and with the community's help it can even be returned to it's glory days.
Last edited by Rudycantfail on Wed Oct 22, 2014 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Just another fortress nerd.

User avatar
ogo
Average Program
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:48 pm

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by ogo »

This idea that fortress is about innovating new strategies and tactics - it's always felt like that, but is it really the case? As Concord notes in the article, all tactics used today are just refined versions of tactics that have been around for over 50 ladles (double defence, sweep box etc). Are we just kidding ourselves when we say it's about innovation?

I think the suggestion to remove holes is a reluctant one, as it will remove some of the complexity in regards to strategy. But combined with the other suggestions, it would bring back some of the skill (i.e. cutting). So we'd be sacrificing some of the strategy to bring back a higher skill cap, and i think that's what we need. Because right now, in competitive play, it's about outliving your opponent and waiting for a player advantage - encouraging an exceptionally passive playstyle. The suggested changes would make it more aggressive, more skill-based at the cost of a little strategy.

Whether they're the best changes or not I don't know, let's hear some more ideas

User avatar
Rudycantfail
Average Program
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by Rudycantfail »

Fortress is a team based game and should be designed as one. If you are looking for gameplay solely based on individual skill that already exists: it's called sumo.

Besides, changing the settings is not necessary to make "cutting" relevant. Cuts are still used in nearly every ladle match once space is opened up on the defense. Even in a 6v6, all you need to do is coordinate your attackers to open some space in the sweeper defense in order set up a successful cut.

Let's not change the game settings as a shortcut for lazy trivial gameplay.
-Just another fortress nerd.

User avatar
Rudycantfail
Average Program
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by Rudycantfail »

While talking about cuts we should also assess the current problem 1v1 scenarios in fortress. Once a defense gets cut no real advantage is given as both players just drive around in the zone waiting one another to make a mistake and die. This results in an extremely boring situation for both spectators and players alike and tends to drag matches on forever. A possible solution would be to have 1v1 conquerable so that once a defense is cut by an attacker, the attacker wins. Or even have a small winzone in the center of the zone that if reached causes the zone in question to be conquered. Food 4 thought..
-Just another fortress nerd.

User avatar
kyle
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1867
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:33 pm
Location: Indiana, USA, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe, Multiverse
Contact:

Re: Ladle & Fortress (RIP?)

Post by kyle »

if length is a concern we could always bring back the deathzone :)


I don't see a winzone in the middle of the fort zone something that would be fair + it would require additional code.
Image

Post Reply