Fortress Suggestion: lower WALLS_STAY_UP_DELAY

[2020]

had a thought
which might significantly change the dynamics of the game
in an interesting way:
reduce the time delay in wall dissolution

i'd like to try it in a non-ladle
if anyone is interested in testing it

my thought is
when def is breached
usually there is very little opportunity for a sweeper to make it into the zone since the keeper's wall remains up for too long...
though there are a lot of effects
eg
reduce the backup in midgrid in an 8v8
the problem caused to def if someone dies during launch/split
etc etc

perhaps this deserves a new topic...?
[edit: thanks z-man]

[Z-Man]

perhaps this deserves a new topic...?

It does I set my server to have zero delay.

[2020]

what's the current delay?

i think there should be some
but who knows...?

have you thought of this before?

[freako]

what's the current delay?

i think there should be some
but who knows...?

have you thought of this before?

Hmmm, I think the normal delay was set at 8, not sure though

[Lackadaisical]

This definitely cuts both ways It often happens that defense dies and I go through their hole to set up a new def, but the defenders walls disappear just before I can finish it and attackers come rushing in from all sides. I think it would actually make defending the base after the defender has died harder instead of easier.

Of course it wouldn't hurt actually testing this.

[Z-Man]

The current delay is 8, and just like many other things, there was no special reason for the choice. I personally like the idea of walls staying up for a bit to cause trouble, that's all.

It certainly will make filling in for a defender that accidentally died harder. But if the defender gets killed, the attacker usually enters in such a way that replacement defenders can't easily follow, so it *might* just make it easier to recover from deliberate defense kills.

While we're at it, it's also possible to make tails grow a bit in the beginning. it should be possible to make it so that when the defender completes his first round, the the walls of the other players are gone no matter what. Off to experiment...

[2020]

actually
i like the problem of having walls in the endzone at start
especially when players die in the launch/split
it adds a little vector of caution to uber-edge launch antics

yes
it is a bit of a game changer
cutting all kinds of ways perhaps...

btw
i also like the default value of 8
i always liked the minimal composition form
based on the embedded 8-bit idiom
and i look forward to a ladle when we re-instate the 8v8

[Z-Man]

With trails starting short and growing, you add the challenge of keeping the gap small during your second round with a tail end significantly slower than your cycle.

[sinewav]

How about setting the wall_delay to a value a little lower than the time it takes for one player to conquer a zone? This way, the dead walls retain some usefulness/annoyance and we use current settings to dictate other settings (like this thread on holes).

Code: Select all

# The basic rules are like this:
#
#    1 defender and 1 attacker: the fortress is unconquerable
#    1 attacker and no defenders: the fortress will be conquered in about 5 seconds

So, maybe 4 seconds?

Shorter wall_delay will affect the grind too. But it should also get the attack going faster too, which might reduce the number of super-long matches in Ladle (a reoccurring problem).

One thing a shorter delay will affect negatively, in my opinion, is the ability for a lone defender to suicide and save the zone. But then again, maybe a defender who does such a thing needs to be punished?

[Titanoboa]

Having a high WALLS_STAY_UP_DELAY reduces the luck factor (not only when a defender dies), and it takes more skill/experience to deal with it. I can't think of any reason to increase it, but I disagree with the reasons to decrease it.

[sinewav]

Update: With the approval of everyone else in the server, I had Slash change the wall_delay settings in DS Mega to 4 seconds. No one noticed a difference. We also changed the hole size to 1.425 and no one noticed that either. Go figure.

[Hoax]

The wall delay is far less noticable but I wouldn't say the holes were unnoticed..I think the rubber settings stole their thunder. Unless they remained there after and no one noticed

[Desolate]

and i look forward to a ladle when we re-instate the 8v8

I tried and failed to implement that last ladle

[sinewav]

and i look forward to a ladle when we re-instate the 8v8

I tried and failed to implement that last ladle

The reasons for the switch to 6v6 was 2-fold. First, fewer players reduce the server load and make for a less-laggy playing experience. Second, it's more likely to find 6 people reliable enough to make the Ladle than 8.

With better servers and better connections, lag should be less of an issue in the future. And the popularity of Fortress has increased to pool of reliable players. So maybe one day soon we can try again with 7 or 8 players and see if the Ladles are just as, or more epic.

[Desolate]

and i look forward to a ladle when we re-instate the 8v8

I tried and failed to implement that last ladle

The reasons for the switch to 6v6 was 2-fold. First, fewer players reduce the server load and make for a less-laggy playing experience. Second, it's more likely to find 6 people reliable enough to make the Ladle than 8.

With better servers and better connections, lag should be less of an issue in the future. And the popularity of Fortress has increased to pool of reliable players. So maybe one day soon we can try again with 7 or 8 players and see if the Ladles are just as, or more epic.

Exactly the points you were saying when I introduced my idea to you on msn. I think a switch back to 8v8 or up to 7v7 would add more fun and bring more excitement to the matches.