Ladle 36 Voting Discussion

[syllabear]

Then not neccessarily a 'no hole'?

How about 2.1, 1.4 and 0.7?

[Hoax]

All these random values; people will just vote what they know. I don't see people specifically going and testing all these sizes except hole geeks like poke. Maybe each voting option can have a day of use in G5's fort server, whenever they're decided.

I hope all the team captains are watching this thread closely so they can explain the details to their teams.

/me expects a summary from a certain juiced testudine

[dreadlord]

--> sinewav

[newbie]

0.75 holes were tested in a few thousand matches already and there's no point in making them bigger. If a weak team wants to hole, just grind each other. 0.25 holes would be best, they will separate real attackers (who can win 1vs1) from attacko-holers holing the def under the impression of taking risks.

[owned]

2.0 holes have been tested in tens of thousands of matches already and there was no point in shrinking them that far. If a strong team wants an advantage, they should find it in another way than shrinking the hole size which actually does nothing to reduce luck. 1.4 holes would be best, because they shrink the hole as much as possible without reducing the speed of the game.

[newbie]

2.0 were not tested, they were the standard setting. Holing has nothing to do with attacking. 1vs1 is about attacking. Small holes showed something important. Fort has an entire generation of players relying on cheap holing and that's sad. And they showed also, that the differences in skill between players are enough big for making division A and division B settings.

0.25 | 0.75 | 1.25 | 2

[PokeMaster]

I don't see people specifically going and testing all these sizes except hole geeks like poke.

You're half right; I didn't test hole sizes, but I am a geek.

[akira]

Nice condescending posting, newbie.

Imho, no one actually thought that holing implies taking risks - no idea why you add that.
In any case, I would like somewhat smaller holes too - 0.75 seems to be a good balance.

But what I read in your posts that your favor the duel aspect of attacker vs defender over the teamplay aspect of proper holes or the act of defending vs them - which would take attentive sweepers trying to spot possible torpedos or cut-off situations.
For me, fortress is primarily a team-game, so I lean to settings strengthening it. So no holes would be a no-go for me.

Also cut-off holes (what almost no one does) are indeed somewhat risky (because the defender can evade the cut or a sweeper can follow and kill the attacker) from a team viewpoint and imply a certain amount of understanding with your fellow attackers.

0.25 / 0.75 / 1.5

[noob_saibot]

0.25 holes would be best, they will separate real attackers (who can win 1vs1) from attacko-holers holing the def under the impression of taking risks.

you mean a-hole-ers (noun): one who has that annoying team chat "/team Follow me! I'm going to hole!" coughAKIRAcoughSPcough

just a joke Akira don't flip a monkey, i know you tend to flip monkeys

[akira]

Reinforcing your reputation as a troll, eh?

[Goodygumdrops]

But what I read in your posts that your favor the duel aspect of attacker vs defender over the teamplay aspect of proper holes or the act of defending vs them - which would take attentive sweepers trying to spot possible torpedos or cut-off situations.
For me, fortress is primarily a team-game, so I lean to settings strengthening it. So no holes would be a no-go for me.

Also cut-off holes (what almost no one does) are indeed somewhat risky (because the defender can evade the cut or a sweeper can follow and kill the attacker) from a team viewpoint and imply a certain amount of understanding with your fellow attackers.

why should sweepers pay attention? they must just drive around, wait for their base to succumb to an uncoordinated hole attack, then complain about how much luck there is in fort

and really akira, that 'cut-off' hole only has the guise of being risky...if you had real fort skill you'd ask the sweepers and other attackers to stand back so you could 1v1 the def

[gawdzilla]

I like fortress + the hole size just the way it is atm.

*hides*

[newbie]

People were complaining about making holes, but that's the only thing, that was making them win. And attacking without holing is generally difficult for players (blame wall shrink). So it looks like holes will have to stay. And since 0.75 is the lowest that can be entered in a fair amount of attempts, it's either 0.75 or 2. (1.25, 1.4 etc they are all equally easy to 2)

[sinewav]

Reinforcing your reputation as a troll, eh?

Aw c'mon, that was kind of funny though, right? And that's the least troublesome thing he's posted in forever (he even smiley'd it as a joke).


Also, I can't believe this hole argument is still going on. I'm glad we got a good discussion about votes and don't need this thread anymore, so PLEASE carry on. Drive the hole argument into the friggin' ground already!

[newbie]

Also, I can't believe this hole argument is still going on. I'm glad we got a good discussion about votes and don't need this thread anymore, so PLEASE carry on. Drive the hole argument into the friggin' ground already!

that's called holing the topic