try to build up a server with no holes and no ganking maybeConcord wrote:huh?
why is "Holes"
in quotes
in the title
isn't the fix
to set
Cycle_Explosion_Radius 0
its been said before
Fortress Test Server
Moderator: Z-Man
and maybe a hourly tourney
two teams start
after 3 rounds
the losing team-
goodbye
and the winning team
is split
in half
3 rounds pass
lather
rinse
repeat
or maybe
if you could swing it
some neutral players
who swing to which ever
team is losing
or spawns
off set
all the way
to one side of the base
its easy
to come up
with bad ideas
i can keep going
two teams start
after 3 rounds
the losing team-
goodbye
and the winning team
is split
in half
3 rounds pass
lather
rinse
repeat
or maybe
if you could swing it
some neutral players
who swing to which ever
team is losing
or spawns
off set
all the way
to one side of the base
its easy
to come up
with bad ideas
i can keep going
- Rain
- Round Winner
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:59 pm
- Location: a random empty server playing with bots
@wrtlprnft & Lucifer: you are really nice offering your space. it would be wonderful to set-up FTS in wrtl's again, IF this do not create any problem to other servers already up. Otherwise we could try on Lucifer's.
i am moving soon to a mac and in last months i changed like 3 os. so my side of ssh access was lost. maybe we could open another and delete the old one? Let's do it when my computer arrive.
@epsy & Concord: thanks for the inputs, i hope we will be able to try everything related to fortress there and then fix some setting step by step.
kisses,
rain
i am moving soon to a mac and in last months i changed like 3 os. so my side of ssh access was lost. maybe we could open another and delete the old one? Let's do it when my computer arrive.
@epsy & Concord: thanks for the inputs, i hope we will be able to try everything related to fortress there and then fix some setting step by step.
kisses,
rain
END OF LINE
That is a very good plan. If you are on the that side of the fence.epsy wrote:try to build up a server with no holes and no ganking maybe
It would be great to give these antiholing antigankers a place all of their own so they can't complain every time they fail to defend properly or are let down by their team.
I don't really think it's taking the game forward though
maybe try
not
allowing
double binding
or allow
only
double binding
best to worst,
in terms of affecting the
overall round:
maybe the best to worst
scoring
should be
therefore every action
affects the score
by giving one team 1 pt
and subtracting 1
from the other
its a different way
to split up scoring
only ending a round
when one team is
all dead
but giving giving more
points for first
captured zone
another scoring suggestion
where the point values for the events are multiplied
not
allowing
double binding
or allow
only
double binding
best to worst,
in terms of affecting the
overall round:
Code: Select all
otk- opponent kills opponent
cd- teammate kill opponent
os- opponent kills self
s- teammate kills self
ocd- opponent kills teammate
tk- teammate kills teammate
scoring
should be
Code: Select all
otk- +1
cd- +1
os- +1
s- -1
ocd- -1
tk- -1
affects the score
by giving one team 1 pt
and subtracting 1
from the other
its a different way
to split up scoring
only ending a round
when one team is
all dead
but giving giving more
points for first
captured zone
another scoring suggestion
Code: Select all
4- hz- hold zone
1/4- ohz- opponents hold zone
2- coz- capture opponents zone
1/2- ocz- opponents capture zone
1- ad- all dead
1- oad- opponents all dead
Code: Select all
hz+ohz= 1 pt
hz+coz= 8 pts
ohz+ocz=1/8 pt=counts as 0
coz+ocz=1 pt
hz+oad=4 pts
-
- Dr Z Level
- Posts: 2246
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:03 pm
- Location: IM: [email protected]
Is there really anything left that debugging recordings will help?
My hosting service layer supports automatic recording and a bot to record the T-value of BUG cries would be trivial.
I'd be willing to try doing this free of charge on the condition that someone is actually making use of the recordings for debugging and such on a regular basis.
My hosting service layer supports automatic recording and a bot to record the T-value of BUG cries would be trivial.
I'd be willing to try doing this free of charge on the condition that someone is actually making use of the recordings for debugging and such on a regular basis.
- philippeqc
- Long Poster - Project Developer - Sage
- Posts: 1526
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:55 am
- Location: Stockholm
- Contact:
Orginal idea and model. There is one aspect you might want to consider when planning a scoring scheme, which I have formulated as a sarcasm for jest:Concord wrote:...therefore every action
affects the score
by giving one team 1 pt
and subtracting 1
from the other...
Traditionally, fortress players have shown such a great tolerance toward players that negatively affected their winning chances, I'm sure they wont mind to see their score go toward negative values either.
Keep on the good work.
/ph
Canis meus id comedit.
i did some reading
of other posts
in this thread
and stuff
i like the idea of
separating
individual score completely
from the team score
because score is not the
best indicator
of contribution
to the win
and no matter
how many
core dumps
one player has
if the team still
loses then it really
didn't matter
so the individual numbers
aren't very descriptive
in my estimation
the only way to evaluate
would be to have every
player play on a team with every
combination of
teammates
and see which player
had the best record
the players would have
to be ignorant
of this
of course
example
you get it
the trend would go
on
and maybe
if things went
as they looked to be going
p1 would have the best record
of other posts
in this thread
and stuff
i like the idea of
separating
individual score completely
from the team score
because score is not the
best indicator
of contribution
to the win
and no matter
how many
core dumps
one player has
if the team still
loses then it really
didn't matter
so the individual numbers
aren't very descriptive
in my estimation
the only way to evaluate
would be to have every
player play on a team with every
combination of
teammates
and see which player
had the best record
the players would have
to be ignorant
of this
of course
example
Code: Select all
round 1
team 1: p1, p2, p3,
team 2: p4, p5, p6
team 1 wins
round 2
team 1: p1, p4, p3,
team 2: p2, p5, p6
team 1 wins
round 3
team 1: p1, p4, p2,
team 2: p3, p5, p6
team 1 wins
round 4
team 1: p1, p4, p5,
team 2: p2, p3, p6
team 1 wins
round 5
team 1: p1, p4, p6,
team 2: p2, p5, p3
team 1 wins
round 6
team 1: p1, p5, p2,
team 2: p4, p3, p6
team 1 win
. . .
the trend would go
on
and maybe
if things went
as they looked to be going
p1 would have the best record
- Rain
- Round Winner
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:59 pm
- Location: a random empty server playing with bots
The idea is interesting, but there are two things i cannot agree with:
- the confusion created by continuous change in teams and positions
- the loss of the membership feeling that define teams competitiveness
In facts, you will probably get the opposite you look for.
A player that changes team every round will play ONLY for him/herself.
I think that working on scoring system is one of the best way to influence players behaviour in team work and actually I would agree with a scoring system where only teams score appears.
The sadness here could be to see that there are more players playing fortress interested to personal score than team one.
Probably the extolled propensity of fortress players in fair play and team work is not so concrete.
- the confusion created by continuous change in teams and positions
- the loss of the membership feeling that define teams competitiveness
In facts, you will probably get the opposite you look for.
A player that changes team every round will play ONLY for him/herself.
I think that working on scoring system is one of the best way to influence players behaviour in team work and actually I would agree with a scoring system where only teams score appears.
The sadness here could be to see that there are more players playing fortress interested to personal score than team one.
Probably the extolled propensity of fortress players in fair play and team work is not so concrete.
END OF LINE
yeah I'm
not actually
saying that it should
be implemented
it would be a disaster
and if the players
new what was going on. . .
even worse
+
+
+
I am suggesting
to lower rubber
maybe 2
or 3
in an effort
to remove
'digging'
from fortress
I don't particularly
think that core dumps
and rounds
should be decided by
how close to a wall
someone got
it seems like
a principle
that last
man
standing
is built one
Fortress should distance
from the rubber
diggers
in my opinion
with 2 or 3
rubber
close grinding
would become
difficult
and change the
style of play
from speed
and strength
to wile and
maneuvering
the center grind
that starts
each round
would be most effected
less double
binding
may be a result
I don't know
I just dislike
how quickly
rounds can be
decided
by
the center grinding
I'm not sure
if lowering the rubber
will achieve
this
but I'd like to see
it implemented
not actually
saying that it should
be implemented
it would be a disaster
and if the players
new what was going on. . .
even worse
+
+
+
I am suggesting
to lower rubber
maybe 2
or 3
in an effort
to remove
'digging'
from fortress
I don't particularly
think that core dumps
and rounds
should be decided by
how close to a wall
someone got
it seems like
a principle
that last
man
standing
is built one
Fortress should distance
from the rubber
diggers
in my opinion
with 2 or 3
rubber
close grinding
would become
difficult
and change the
style of play
from speed
and strength
to wile and
maneuvering
the center grind
that starts
each round
would be most effected
less double
binding
may be a result
I don't know
I just dislike
how quickly
rounds can be
decided
by
the center grinding
I'm not sure
if lowering the rubber
will achieve
this
but I'd like to see
it implemented