Ladle 33 without holes

[sinewav]

I feel like 'holing' hasn't anywhere near been perfected enough yet for it to be removed

I think I can agree with that. Let's shrink the holes and make "holing" a true art form.

[Concord]

or we could get better at defending against them.

[ppotter]

The reason attacking skill isn't as important anymore isn't because of holing techniques, it's because of the new style of defense where you hide 10 miles behind your tail. On the "old" type of defense a good attacker could enter the zone without losing any people. While holing was also a possibility back then (I seem to remember in ladles 26 and 27 or so, some teams used holing but no one used insa's def style) it was much more preferable to enter through a good attack. However, now, it is basically impossible to enter.

Also, while it is possible to shrink, it doesn't take much skill and also takes a sh*tload of time, and usually during this time, the other team does something to get into your base.

Shortening tail length a little would make it harder to play so defensive as def, it would take less time to shrink, which would hopefully force defenders to step out of their tail once in a while.

[apparition]

Today, a couple dozen people played in DS Mega with smaller holes (1m I think) and no one complained; some people preferred them. This is a good sign for those seeking change.

I remember doing this about a month ago. I'd never played without holes so I requested it. It was weird, but actually didn't seem to make a huge difference at the time. When we dropped the hole size down it got very interesting. I think a lot of people liked it better that way, too. If ever there was a universal change to holes, I think make them smaller, but don't eliminate them.

[theroze]

Today, a couple dozen people played in DS Mega with smaller holes (1m I think) and no one complained; some people preferred them. This is a good sign for those seeking change.

I remember doing this about a month ago. I'd never played without holes so I requested it. It was weird, but actually didn't seem to make a huge difference at the time. When we dropped the hole size down it got very interesting. I think a lot of people liked it better that way, too. If ever there was a universal change to holes, I think make them smaller, but don't eliminate them.

Agreed. Small ones are more challenging your reactions, because they are harder to enter.

[7575757575]

I like the idea of smaller holes, why not?

[Puuquie]

I think no matter how small are the holes, because you always have the death tail of the player that has died for riding it and going inside the def easily.
I have played fortress onslaugh (very small holes) a lot of times and i didnt see any difference. Holing is easy too.

No holes and shorter tails would be nice, at least we could try it.

[Olive]

Smaller holes make unintentional holing less common, nevertheless intentional holing ('torping') can still easily be executed.

[Goodygumdrops]

I feel like 'holing' hasn't anywhere near been perfected enough yet for it to be removed

agreed, there is much unexplored territory here

[gawdzilla]

saying no holes was a bit too fast, I didn't say for every ladle though, it'd just be interesting to me how a ladle would work without holes. but I suppose it would make it a lot longer.. maybe shorter tails and no holes, or normal tails and smaller holes. anyway, just throwing it out there.

[Mecca]

Would be interesting to see tails shortened to the extent where it would require two people to def (no holes).

[sinewav]

I would really, really try to stay away from shortening trails. It's already hard enough to cored dump a fool with 400m trails. Remember the Crosseyed & Painless tournament? Short trails make the game tedious. If anything, change the zone radius from 40m to 45m or something.

There will be a Ladle vote soon enough. Let's be sure to include holes in the vote.

[Gonzap]

also it would be much strager to play with shorter tails than with smaller holes, i mean, we NEVER played with shorter tails in a fortress match before (or i dont remember that) and it really SHOULDNT be tested at first in a ladle

[Mecca]

I would really, really try to stay away from shortening trails. It's already hard enough to cored dump a fool with 400m trails. Remember the Crosseyed & Painless tournament? Short trails make the game tedious. If anything, change the zone radius from 40m to 45m or something.

There will be a Ladle vote soon enough. Let's be sure to include holes in the vote.

Yes but this is not an LMS tournament. If you just 180 and run away, someone will capture the zone and you will lose...

[sinewav]

Yes but this is not an LMS tournament. If you just 180 and run away, someone will capture the zone and you will lose...

No no, you're not thinking with enough detail. Imagine the last two players are fighting in a zone for the round win. With shorter trails, two good players can fight for several minutes. That's not too fun. Also, good sweepers are already hard to kill. Shorter trails would make them practically invincible. And finally, most importantly, shorter trails = slower overall speeds. The initial grind may also suffer in unknown ways.

Now, who wants a slower game where "mazers" bore the crap out of everyone? Not I.

If someone wants to try shorter trails, then remember this: 360m trails will let a defender trace the outside of a zone without overlapping his trail. Anything smaller and the zone is instantly ganked in a 2v1. 360m is only 40m smaller than the current trail length. Lightcycles routinely travel at speeds between 30-40 mps, so why bother? (Notice how I'm vehemently against it? The shorter your trails, the more "anti-tron" your game is. Same goes for rubber increase.)