Ladle 36 Voting Discussion

[syllabear]

What about that setting which allows the end of your tail to keep moving, if you are using up rubber (by going into it), which defenders need to do most of their tactics which involve hiding inside/behind their tail? I'm not saying remove it completely, so its back to the days where if you run into the end of your own trail you die, but how about somewhere inbetween, which makes it a bit harder.

I've noticed, especially with higher ping, I can get my tail to travel quite far just by using up rubber, which allows me to turn out and trap attackers, even if I am inside my own defence.

[Titanoboa]

so now you want to give a disadvantage to the defenders who like to go outside of their tail to take a risk once in a while? The only unaffected player with cycle_rubber_wall_shrink 0 is the one who is hiding behind his tail to the end anyway.

[newbie]

No. With bigger holes, there are holes on the defense from killed attackers and messed up sweepers that are not there with smaller holes.

For some players there are holes. For some others there aren't. And I have seen players getting through them without grinding walls. 'everyone holing randomly' vs 'teams holing in calculated manner'. That's the big vs small implication. The second option is the answer for all the problems in previous ladles regarding cheap holing. If someone wants them back (big), he wants those issues back whether they were justified or not. Small holes don't make holing a random factor anymore. The less randomness in the game, the better. And it is not a 'advantage vs disadvantage' issue. It is 'random vs nonrandom', because proper holing is as easy as it always was. Just grind each other or grind dead tails. This 'random vs nonrandom' transfers also to random and nonrandom winning. Also settings which make good skills and bad skills look the same aren't good settings. Try holes at 6 and you will see, that there will be no difference between people playing 5 years and people playing 1 day.

The funny thing is, suddenly it turns out that all the teams were winning with holing most of the time only and now they have troubles pushing things forward.

so now you want to give a disadvantage to the defenders who like to go outside of their tail to take a risk once in a while? The only unaffected player with cycle_rubber_wall_shrink 0 is the one who is hiding behind his tail to the end anyway.

Classic fort was pretty clear about one thing. Goalie is like a goalkeeper in soccer. He's never meant to be winning alone. Shrink was 0 and in a 1vs2 situation defense alone was being owned due to expanding or failing pretty quickly due to being squeezed.

Edit: Heh, i will update my views on the wall shrink. I think I'm moving to the dark side slowly. Enough to enjoy sitting on defense and doing circles. I feel the powers more than Sidious has ever felt them. I feel the powers of being untouchable and I feel its position very strongly, a position of being untouchable and (in the same second of being untouchable) of being able to kill opponents.

As far as I know, madmax as one of the better players still wants it be lower than 1. Just in case anyone being interested in making wall shrink less than 1.

[Goodygumdrops]

i'm not sure i see how smaller holes equate to no randomness

smaller holes make attacking a tiny bit harder, or defending a tiny bit easier

does explosion_radius .75 eliminate unplanned holing?

[Tobe]

....does explosion_radius .75 eliminate unplanned holing?

No. Not for good players only the undeserving ones. which I think is what newbie is saying. The smaller the hole, the less likey any bad player will use it (or die trying). So it means only the person who is skilled at holing will try it instead of some low skill player, helping to further the margins between luck and skill.

[owned]

It is 'random vs nonrandom',

There's nothing random with pinning their sweeper against the defense's wall to kill them, leaving a hole for you to go through. There's also nothing random with timing your attack so if the other defender is hiding too far behind their tail causing you to die, your teammate can go into the hole caused by your explosion. With reduced size holes, explosions are almost always too small and don't reach the defender's wall in these situations.

Stop trying to frame the debate like small holes automatically make wins based on skill while bigger holes make the luck factor bigger. That simply isn't true.

The second option is the answer for all the problems in previous ladles regarding cheap holing.

What 'problems' are you talking about? The only thing I remember people complaining about was purposeful holing. And that was only because it was a new tactic that no one was used to and SP used it to dominate. As you said yourself, smaller holing does absolutely nothing to eliminate this and only makes the defense stronger.

[Goodygumdrops]

The only thing I remember people complaining about was purposeful holing. And that was only because it was a new tactic that no one was used to and SP used it to dominate. As you said yourself, smaller holing does absolutely nothing to eliminate this and only makes the defense stronger.

exactly

[newbie]

Stop trying to frame the debate like small holes automatically make wins based on skill while bigger holes make the luck factor bigger. That simply isn't true.

It is true. Small holes stop random easy holing. And easy holing is about having no skill. Your gameplan seems to be to get lucky attacking or hole after being out of luck. And when the holes get small, you have troubles winning. That's how it looks like.

What 'problems' are you talking about? The only thing I remember people complaining about was purposeful holing. And that was only because it was a new tactic that no one was used to and SP used it to dominate. As you said yourself, smaller holing does absolutely nothing to eliminate this and only makes the defense stronger.

In the end all holes are purposeful. If you know, you won't get in, don't do it or do an easy hole right away. Don't waste yourself trying. Waiting for people to die attacking to use later their holes? Come on, hole right away, if you can't attack. There were so many good attackers and MVPs and what not, and now they can't win without big holes? I can answer to their attacking skills 'lol' only.

Just start the voting.

About SP 'holing', talk with free kill, he will tell you whether small holes minimized whatever SP was doing.

[sinewav]

I'm going to get us back on topic. The merits of holing have been discussed in numerous threads - we're trying to decide on sizes here. Having some popular suggestions and "other" should be enough to get a good feel for what the community wants.

I would like to start the voting thread by Thursday, so please bring up any other suggestions (like, if you want a larger zone, suggest a radius). We've had a great discussion this time and have a good number of topic to vote on already. Good job everyone.

Here is a preliminary list of topics for the vote:

SETTINGS
Require players to login for Ladle: yes | no ...(G5 Mega PRO Style)
Hole size: 2.00 | 1.40 | 1.25 | 0.75 | other ...(final size determined by median of results)
Fortress conquered/win scores: 6/4 | 4/6 (current)

DATES
Ladle 36: August 1st | August 8th | Don't Care
Ladle 37: September 5th | September 12th | Don't Care
Ladle 38: October 3rd | October 10th | Don't Care

MANAGEMENT
Purposeful rule breakers get shunned/IP baned for the following Ladle: yes | no ...(example: playing on 2 teams during Ladle)

[dreadlord]

Fine, that's a well listed overview for all topics we should vote on. In my opinion there is no more topic to add to vote on, well done sinewav voting starts on thursday?

[gawdzilla]

Can I have my own personal zone?

[sinewav]

Yes. But it will have to be in the shape of a triangle and you won't be able to see it on your screen. The other players will see it though, and they will be sure to stay out of it (because who want's girl-germs?).

[owned]

Here is a preliminary list of topics for the vote:

Well there is actually no real rule about not playing on two teams in the lade iirc. We should vote about it (and I'm pretty sure everyone will vote that it should be illegal)
Also, we should vote on if you can use aliases in the ladle.

So we should add this:
Should players be able to play on two or more teams in the ladle? Yes|No
Do players need to use the names they wrote down on the challenge board? Yes|No

Stop trying to frame the debate like small holes automatically make wins based on skill while bigger holes make the luck factor bigger. That simply isn't true.

It is true. Small holes stop random easy holing. And easy holing is about having no skill.

What do you mean by easy holing, you never define it and just assume we should know what it means. I'm guessing it means one of two things:
1. Someone makes a hole, and it's easy to enter it because the hole is so big. As a response to that, I say that almost everyone can enter both .75 and 2.0 holes so that point is moot. Also, most of the time, you can just grind your teammate's dead line to get in so even noobs can get in in this situation.
2. When a sweeper dies by mistake they make a hole on their own defense. If a player makes a mistake, I think there should be more ramifications that go with it than just a loss of two points. If a sweeper messes up next to their defense, they deserve to have a hole in it.

Your gameplan seems to be to get lucky attacking or hole after being out of luck. And when the holes get small, you have troubles winning. That's how it looks like.

No, that's how you want to characterize it as. The techniques I mentioned are based on SKILL not on luck, and I personally have a great precision turn when I'm playing to win, so small holes actually help me more than other players. Stop trying to make it look like I'm only enlarging holes to help myself.

Come to think of it, I can make unfounded statements too! Newbie only wants small holes because he has trouble winning without them!!!!!!!

What 'problems' are you talking about? The only thing I remember people complaining about was purposeful holing. And that was only because it was a new tactic that no one was used to and SP used it to dominate. As you said yourself, smaller holing does absolutely nothing to eliminate this and only makes the defense stronger.

In the end all holes are purposeful. If you know, you won't get in, don't do it or do an easy hole right away. Don't waste yourself trying. Waiting for people to die attacking to use later their holes? Come on, hole right away, if you can't attack. There were so many good attackers and MVPs and what not, and now they can't win without big holes? I can answer to their attacking skills 'lol' only.

It's not that we can't win without big holes. I think that small holes however, in my opinion take away a lot of tactics from the game, make the defense too strong for a good game, and doesn't solve anything.

Just start the voting.

Agreed.

[PokeMaster]

Your gameplan seems to be to get lucky attacking or hole after being out of luck.

I think newbie means here, that in a 2v1 situation, 1 person will attack, and if they don't have enough skill, then they will die and hole, at which point the other attacker can enter the hole. Smaller holes diminish this tactic, because the holes might not always hole the defense. So you get lucky if you break the def, and if you get lucky and die, then there's a hole anyway. (And I don't think he meant specifically you, woned, when he made that statement.) With that:

2. When a sweeper dies by mistake they make a hole on their own defense. If a player makes a mistake, I think there should be more ramifications that go with it than just a loss of two points. If a sweeper messes up next to their defense, they deserve to have a hole in it.

Like newbie said, what if an attacker dies? Why should the enemy defenders face the ramifications of the attackers messing up?

1. Someone makes a hole, and it's easy to enter it because the hole is so big. As a response to that, I say that almost everyone can enter both .75 and 2.0 holes so that point is moot.

No, there's a large difference in the necessary skill to enter those two different hole sizes, especially since 1.4 and above allows for the sidestep turn correction. Also, things get even harder with smaller holes if a sweeper covers the hole, and you try to grind between him and the def to get to the hole.



And yes, let's vote.

[sinewav]

Well there is actually no real rule about not playing on two teams in the lade iirc. We should vote about it (and I'm pretty sure everyone will vote that it should be illegal) Also, we should vote on if you can use aliases in the ladle.

Yeah I just checked the wiki and those rules aren't written. And I guess we should add the one about aliases since it's technically different that the question about authentication - plus it clears up the L-21 vote (as dlh mentioned earlier). We can have auth'ed players and still use aliases.

Players can be on more than one team in Ladle: Yes | No
Players must use the names written on the Challenge Board: Yes | No


I hope all the team captains are watching this thread closely so they can explain the details to their teams. Let's make this vote smooth. There are a lot of topics.