A New Hole Size

[Corn1]

So, I was thinking about the recent hole size discussion/argument and decided to find a equivalent of a golden ratio for hole sizes.

What I came upon was that what I believed would be the perfect hole size would be the distance of an adjustment in a default fortress climate.

I based it off of a speed of 30(.95) in relation to a cycle going 30 speed then making a turn. This comes out to 28.5 units a second.

Then I looked at the cycle_delay, which is .1 in order to find the smallest adjustment space that one could preform. With the rate of speed for the cycle and time in between turns I got 28.5*.1 equaling 2.85.

Finally to find the radius of that (for explosion size) I got 2.85/2 equaling a hole size of 1.425.

[sinewav]

Adding brake while turning would reduce this number further, right. But I guess we shouldn't consider brakes since some people don't even have them bound. I'd really like to try this size out, so maybe we can get together one afternoon/evening and do it.

Can anyone well-versed in Arma's inner workings double check the math and see if something is wrong/missing? Maybe this could solve the hole size issue once and for all (assuming the foundation correct)?

[Goodygumdrops]

why would this be the perfect size? i don't follow your reasoning at all

also all that crap about the golden ratio is bs, too

[Corn1]

The reason it would be perfect is because it allows you to adjust to get in so it is always possible to get in but not too easy. When I was saying it was the golden ratio I wasn't being serious. It happens to at the same time be a near midground between the current and small (.75) hole sizes.

[sinewav]

The idea behind this is pretty solid I think. Also, it seems like a good compromise for those who think 0.75m holes are too small.

One of the frustrating things about super small holes is the amount of time it takes to align yourself with them. I'm sure by now, some of you have tried to go through a hole in DS Mega, noticed you weren't going to make it, quickly adjusted, and completely overshot the opening. Having a hole the width of the cycle's turn radius makes it almost impossible to overshoot when correcting.

After playing with smaller holes for a few weeks now, these 1.4m holes look HUGE. It would be great to get some in-game feedback on this size. Anyone want to offer a server?

It may turn out that 1.4 is not significantly different from 2.0 and still too big for some players.

[Concord]

what was wrong with 2 again? I forget

[sinewav]

what was wrong with change again? I forget

[Corn1]

Well, really it came about because the skill level has heightened in the last few months and a change is necessary to keep things running smoothly.

[Mkay1]

Well, really it came about because the skill level has heightened in the last few months and a change is necessary to keep things running smoothly.

This is my twisted view of how people have "got better". Armagetron 'Pimps' have learned to have the arma 'bitches' hole for them, so their team can gank and win.

[sinewav]

Armagetron 'Pimps' have learned to have the arma 'bitches' hole for them, so their team can gank and win.

THE LOL!

I think it's hard to pinpoint the nature of this change. There has been an increase in holing tactics (the degree of which is debatable), but enough that some have called this "the age of holing." However, the decrease in size really does nothing to stop tactical holing (but possibly reduces the impact of unintentional holes). I think the added attention holes are getting lately has caused people to reevaluate them and their role in the game. And, as mentioned before, the overall skill level is higher than ever. Is the reduction in size really the result of the desire for greater challenge and an increased sense of security? If so, is that so bad?

Concord and I talked extensively about strategy when we were in Plus. You wouldn't believe some of the wacky ideas we came up with - some of them so impractical as to be nearly impossible to execute, haha! But I can't think if a single one of those tactics that couldn't be done with smaller holes. In fact, the smaller holes would actually help some of the offensive tactics we had (well, except for one actually, which might be harder to pull off).

I think the change is hole size is much less important than, let's say, 2v2 conq or the 6v6/8v8 debate. But for some reason, holes are getting TONS more attention. Why? They are less fundamental than wall_shrink IMO, so why not bring that up too? (actually, don't bring it up in this thread )

[apparition]

So is Corn's idea to find the perfect amount of easiness to get through a hole or to compromise between the two currently used hole sizes?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but... The point of reducing the hole size is to increase the margin between skill and chance.

[Lackadaisical]

what was wrong with 2 again? I forget

Personally I think it wouldn't hurt if going through the hole would be easier, but in the same league (skill-wise) as doing other attacks on defense.

[Magic]

yes?