Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
Moderator: Light
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
I support the no holes option (just because I've always thought holes in lightcycle trails were dumb in any game). We can vote on it anyway even though it's likely to be rejected. I'd also like to see the rubber reduced, but I'm not even going to suggest that seriously.
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
Shorter cycle wall lengths.
WALLS_LENGTH Could be changed from 400 to say; the maximum size possible to circle the zone so in most cases the defender is always capable of being ganked IF hiding behind the wall too much. This obviously would affect the way the defender is capable of keeping the enemy out. So in order to even out this reduction we could remove holes completely and just be done with the constant whining about holes (or make them smaller). If we don't wish to change Fortress and keep holes then the cycle wall length would have to be just right to please everybody and not just cripple the defender.
I think with this change the defender would really have to be tight on his turns and the skill level of a defender would be increased depending on how much shorter the wall length would be changed to, but in the long run it would make attackers focused on getting in the zone more often than killing the sweepers as the trend has been slowly turning to that since the Ladle 20's and above.
EDIT:
Oh and on the original subject of having Ladles every other month. After reading a few of the posts in this thread. It seems like it's kind of split between those who don't mind and those who are against it. There are some good points between the discussions and in my view the Ladle is limited to 32 teams and wouldn't be able to couple with any more than that. With that said; personally I would only choose the every other month option to allow other tournaments room to take place and a bit of a difference than exhausting Fortress till the point of getting bored of it (that's one negativity of having it every month).
But I agree with the points being made that having it every other month might have people stray way from the Ladle or get an influx of players/teams and have Ladles in chaos with over stretched time zones, but right now that's never the case as we're used to it and everything always runs smoothly on a 16 team bracket.
What would I vote for? Don't know yet, but I'm swaying to once a month just to not fix something not broken.
WALLS_LENGTH Could be changed from 400 to say; the maximum size possible to circle the zone so in most cases the defender is always capable of being ganked IF hiding behind the wall too much. This obviously would affect the way the defender is capable of keeping the enemy out. So in order to even out this reduction we could remove holes completely and just be done with the constant whining about holes (or make them smaller). If we don't wish to change Fortress and keep holes then the cycle wall length would have to be just right to please everybody and not just cripple the defender.
I think with this change the defender would really have to be tight on his turns and the skill level of a defender would be increased depending on how much shorter the wall length would be changed to, but in the long run it would make attackers focused on getting in the zone more often than killing the sweepers as the trend has been slowly turning to that since the Ladle 20's and above.
EDIT:
Oh and on the original subject of having Ladles every other month. After reading a few of the posts in this thread. It seems like it's kind of split between those who don't mind and those who are against it. There are some good points between the discussions and in my view the Ladle is limited to 32 teams and wouldn't be able to couple with any more than that. With that said; personally I would only choose the every other month option to allow other tournaments room to take place and a bit of a difference than exhausting Fortress till the point of getting bored of it (that's one negativity of having it every month).
But I agree with the points being made that having it every other month might have people stray way from the Ladle or get an influx of players/teams and have Ladles in chaos with over stretched time zones, but right now that's never the case as we're used to it and everything always runs smoothly on a 16 team bracket.
What would I vote for? Don't know yet, but I'm swaying to once a month just to not fix something not broken.
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
Changing physics just because a couple teams decided to play defensively is unwarranted at best. The physics in the Ladle should represent exactly the physics played in standard casual fortress games. (score_hole is not a physics setting, in any case). And it's not like defensive strategies are even winning Ladles. Everything shrinks, its about having the numbers to hole or/and the time to shrink.
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
This idea I think bridges the gap between Flex's suggestion and Concord's criticism: Make each zone 25-40% larger. Keep the wall lengths the same.
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
wall shrink was changed, 2vs2 unq tooConcord wrote:Don't change the settings to effect tactics, just change your tactics.
you're surprising meDDMJ wrote:Insa's def (and people who are now def'ing like him) would be unbeatable without holes
imho holes should stay
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
Smaller holes would make things more interesting and put more pressure on the potential holers.
No holes seems a little bit extreme.
And please don't bring in CTF into the discussion it's a whole different game (just happens to have similar graphics ^^).
Either way, it's more effective to defend as big as possible and expand when given the chance. People will realize that soon.
Btw, why isn't there a 2 point penalty for suiciding?
No holes seems a little bit extreme.
And please don't bring in CTF into the discussion it's a whole different game (just happens to have similar graphics ^^).
Either way, it's more effective to defend as big as possible and expand when given the chance. People will realize that soon.
Btw, why isn't there a 2 point penalty for suiciding?
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
And again people are missing the point.
What is happening in fortress is:
-players exploiting the inherent characteristics of the gamemode
-teams actually getting better at playing -together- (CT was the first there i suppose)
These 2 points together lead to the phenomenom of the iron defense, since it is the critical and most methodic part of the game. Now, what did not come to be yet are dedicated countermeasures.
Examples:
-dedicated torpedo of 3-4 players
-practising dumping attackers with overwhelming forces (Tx did this vs SP), extreme case abandoning any attack and just killing the opposing team one by one
-2-man torpedo in front of goalie while the other 1-2 attackers try to distract the sweepers
-Training and execution of exploitation of sudden opportunities arising ingame, like holes without announcing, ganging up on 1 enemy etc.
These scenarios are way harder to train and execute than the various iron defenses because the defense is way more schematic, even for the sweepers, not to mention those 2-3 circle defenses popping up lately.
edit: if you suggest removing holes without changing the rest of the physics you should be beaten with some large and heavy item.
What is happening in fortress is:
-players exploiting the inherent characteristics of the gamemode
-teams actually getting better at playing -together- (CT was the first there i suppose)
These 2 points together lead to the phenomenom of the iron defense, since it is the critical and most methodic part of the game. Now, what did not come to be yet are dedicated countermeasures.
Examples:
-dedicated torpedo of 3-4 players
-practising dumping attackers with overwhelming forces (Tx did this vs SP), extreme case abandoning any attack and just killing the opposing team one by one
-2-man torpedo in front of goalie while the other 1-2 attackers try to distract the sweepers
-Training and execution of exploitation of sudden opportunities arising ingame, like holes without announcing, ganging up on 1 enemy etc.
These scenarios are way harder to train and execute than the various iron defenses because the defense is way more schematic, even for the sweepers, not to mention those 2-3 circle defenses popping up lately.
edit: if you suggest removing holes without changing the rest of the physics you should be beaten with some large and heavy item.
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
i find it shameful to change the settings only because of fortress' current development.
SP won this ladle, the matches were good. There will be other winners. Some teams tried the same SP did in Ladle 30 and failed because of it. Keep it as it is.
You don't need to have an ultra-defensive team to avoid holes.
SP won this ladle, the matches were good. There will be other winners. Some teams tried the same SP did in Ladle 30 and failed because of it. Keep it as it is.
You don't need to have an ultra-defensive team to avoid holes.
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
It's strange how people seem to have gone from the 'next best tactic will conquer' idea to 'this tactic is undefeatable, we have to change the game mode itself'!
The 'step defense' is a solid defence yes, but it's not undefeatable at all, it's even possible to cut in a 1v1 situation with enough speed, good timing and skill.
I think what akira said about the team's just getting better at playing together is completely true as well. Look at the SP team: fofo + viper playing together from |x|, through arrow and into SP. Delta + PsYkO + Flex + Insa have been playing together for ages in SP.. The two combos have practised loads and as a result have done pretty well as a team.
New tactical ideas + skill + practice + luck = a victory for any ladle team
The 'step defense' is a solid defence yes, but it's not undefeatable at all, it's even possible to cut in a 1v1 situation with enough speed, good timing and skill.
I think what akira said about the team's just getting better at playing together is completely true as well. Look at the SP team: fofo + viper playing together from |x|, through arrow and into SP. Delta + PsYkO + Flex + Insa have been playing together for ages in SP.. The two combos have practised loads and as a result have done pretty well as a team.
New tactical ideas + skill + practice + luck = a victory for any ladle team
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
Not really; here's one recent exampleþsy wrote:It's strange how people seem to have gone from the 'next best tactic will conquer' idea to 'this tactic is undefeatable, we have to change the game mode itself'!
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
Change settings? lmao...this is a very bad idea.
All throughout former ladles people played the same, a standard cookie cutter team. Tactics didn't matter and skill is what won.
Now people have started innovating new creative stratagies such as Notorious Emoticons sweeping stratagy and a plethora of new types of defenses. This has changed the game into more of a chess match where you have to have a combination of skill and tactics to win! Obviously new tactics will arise to combat the ones we see today, the question is which team will invent them. My bet is on the team that doesn't have people bitching on this board, but is rather in a fort server testing what works.
You may think this era of fort is boring, well then you have ability to change that and find new creative solutions to win. Starting with SP and now other teams have caught on that to win players need to think and stratagize. There is no ultimate stratagy, you can make a counter to anything. Every stratagy has a weakness and it is your job to find it and exploit it.
In the future, I expect a branching out of stratagies from teams that work based upon what the members are good at. Obviously each team has a different skill set, so naturally they would possess a different game plan to maxmize the strengths of their team.
This is the evolution of fortress...
-insa
All throughout former ladles people played the same, a standard cookie cutter team. Tactics didn't matter and skill is what won.
Now people have started innovating new creative stratagies such as Notorious Emoticons sweeping stratagy and a plethora of new types of defenses. This has changed the game into more of a chess match where you have to have a combination of skill and tactics to win! Obviously new tactics will arise to combat the ones we see today, the question is which team will invent them. My bet is on the team that doesn't have people bitching on this board, but is rather in a fort server testing what works.
You may think this era of fort is boring, well then you have ability to change that and find new creative solutions to win. Starting with SP and now other teams have caught on that to win players need to think and stratagize. There is no ultimate stratagy, you can make a counter to anything. Every stratagy has a weakness and it is your job to find it and exploit it.
In the future, I expect a branching out of stratagies from teams that work based upon what the members are good at. Obviously each team has a different skill set, so naturally they would possess a different game plan to maxmize the strengths of their team.
This is the evolution of fortress...
-insa
-
DDMJ
- Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:15 am
- Location: LA, CA, USA, NA
- Contact:
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
When I say unbeatable, I'm obviously exaggerating. But seriously, it would just take a super long time to shrink him down. So long that I'd rather be doing something else to be quiet honest.newbie wrote:you're surprising meDDMJ wrote:Insa's def (and people who are now def'ing like him) would be unbeatable without holes
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
ins, word, akira and psy are all right on. Changing the settings is unwarranted.
newbie: those went along widespread changes in general fortress.
newbie: those went along widespread changes in general fortress.
Re: Future ladles and Ladle 32 discussion
I agree with this. With the current settings, rounds can last way too long. I had like a 9 minute round trying to shrink TX Deso (everyone but us had died)Van-hayes wrote:See its not that I lose due to my tactics, its that I have no fun playing against other people`s tactics if they include never leaving their tail, and the only way to win is to hole faster than the other team can. I mean you can wait it out and shrink them down, or hope they kill themselves but then the round lasts too long. If the only way to win is to take up these tactics it seems like I`d rather lose and have fun doing it. And again the worst part is that I've started seeing this type of def being used in regular play more and more lately. If this were any other mode the player would be kicked for camping.
I guess I'm just nostalgic for when the ladle was more about having fun competitive games than about just winning.
