Fort Cafe Tournament 2

[Word]

I doubt anyone can benefit from such a tourney even if i like what Flex intentions are. Matches with comparably good teams last even longer when nobody holes and everyone tries to shrink solid defs to death.

[Gonzap]

what I mean is... is this what fort is becoming? do you really want it to be this way? is winning the only reason why we play? teams are becoming extremely afraid of losing, did you notice?

It all started with SP's safe step defense (not blaming you guys even if it seems this way) and now it moved on to a new level where playing an attacking role is totally senseless and useless. Cutting, taking speed, taking risks... all that has become a chimera. New forters laugh at your face when you try to cut a defense. Fortress has moved on to a new level... but is that a level up, or a step back? Don't you, oldies like me, remember past ladles? Didn't you enjoy it much more the way it was before? I'm seriously considering retiring of ladles, it just isn't funny anymore.
.
.
.
Just thinking out loud, hope i didn't harm anybody's feelings.

[Lacrymosa]

Totally agree with you Gonzap, during this tourney I imagined two teams who were both circling their zone without any attack at all. This does not mean that it was a bad tournament per se, but it just was not much fun to play.

[FoFo]

Fortress game has known a big evolution during tourneys , in the past , you would have won a ladle because you had the best players in your team , now you win a ladle cause you have a good strategy.

To be honest ladle was funnier before i enjoyed it better , thats true , it was all about gameplay and how you would be able to cut a defense and not hole it on purpose.
i dont think we should change something because this is how the game is now thats how we made it , and when someone will bring an other idea, something new , something different , it will change again thats how it is .

But we could think about a new kind of tourney , like the 2nd or 3 rd sunday of the month , based on gameplay , something without the holing tactic , i dont say no holes , but no hole strat, no nph, i dont know how to make it too , if we can make it, no need to double def , no need to sweep box , it would make the game as it was before .

[Word]

speaking of past ladles, i remember bigger holes and bigger teams, lots of torps/sacrifice points and no cutting at all

if you don't like the sweepbox def you simply need to think of an effective way to kill the center so it leaves a dead trail. or hole it and then try to cut the def in the traditional way (provided that holing doesn't count as 'traditional').

[þsy]

Okay, how about this...

Word made a good point - because teams will want to win they will play super safe and changing the physics a bit won't do much. So...

How about we make a casual tournament every third sunday. There are sign ups, but no deadlines (you can edit it how you like), and most importantly, instead of having a knock-out tournament, each team is assigned 3 other teams (or more?) to play competitve matches against and there is no overall winner. There are no holes and emphasis is placed on cutting/attacking.

It should be called the 'fort showcase' or something like that. It'd give people the chance to show off their skills and have a bit of fun, and it would give teams who never get passed the first round in ladles the chance to play a succession of games. It would be competitive because people would want to win, but because there would be no overall winner no one would be too fussed.

It'd also only require 4 teams to sign up in order to work!

What do you guys think? If we agree to go through with it, we can start discussing the best physics for such a 'showcase' /tourney

[INW]

Just face it...

losing sucks.

[Desolate]

The only reason so many teams implemented the sweep box idea this tournament was the fact that it had the huge holes we used to use in the ladle, as well as the 2v2 conq idea ever present. The presence of holes that could easily lead to a 2v2 conq situation was very common. You yourself did the same thing to our team multiple times, leading to you winning the round. I don't think the ladle is played with the same defensive style as this was, as one hole could lead to a lost round extremely easily, while a ladle would require more sumoing and fighting after the initial hole.

[Gonzap]

nowadays a hole is normally the meaning of a lost round. In the past, with casual holing, if a mate could catch the hole he had to survive agaisnt a defender and 2 sweepers alone. That was sumoing. What is it now? 3 players form a line, one holes and the other 2 gank before they even noticed the defense was holed... where is the effort there?

Yeah I holed too, because we can't fight fire if it's not with fire also, but i'd like it to be different, i'd like it to be better and funnier, more competitive, and more focused on skills than in a good (and usually deadly boring) strategy. More like a bunch of friends that decide to play a football match in the field behind one's house... why so complicated? just play and have fun, if you win great! you deserved it, if you lose, get better, and you'll win next time.

There are a lot of good attackers we don't even know of them, 'cause they have no opportunity to show what they can do... try to cut the straight lines sweepbox....

[Slov]

More like a bunch of friends that decide to play a football match in the field behind one's house

yeah, I like psy's idea.. if there's winning involved, it will always be more competitive (boring strategies).

[ppotter]

Can I just point out that tx won both the last two ladles with normal sweeping and fairly aggressive attackers?

[Jip]

A good played tactic is also skill. Although its more a team based skill.

[Desolate]

Can I just point out that tx won both the last two ladles with normal sweeping and fairly aggressive attackers?

Yeah, and most of the time, our holing sucks.

[sinewav]

You noobs are all talking like there is no countermeasure for the sweep-box. There is, and it's extremely disruptive. Team's aren't used to using it though, since the sweep-box hasn't been a standard tactic to use every round, yet. But if this strategy continues, you'll see the countermeasure more often.

Also, I don't think shorter trails are the answer in any case. Shortening trails is "anti-tron," remember? The better solution would be to decrease rubber (which is "pro-tron").

[syllabear]

sweepbox was for fort cafe, anyone who thinks its going to be commonplace in ladle is a fool.

As potter says, recently good attackers have been showing they are worth something. I personally attribute this to an interesting pattern:

-Defenders get good, so good they are almost impossible to cut
-Holing becomes by far the easiest way to get into a zone, despite the -1 man disadvantage, since good defenders are uncuttable
-Less people want to defend when all you do is fend off the occasional attack and essentially get holed every round
-Less good defenders means solid attackers are able to cut again
-Cutting becomes a more prevelent tactic (and some of those good defenders might become good attackers who are equally proficient at cutting, furthering this)


Defence is now weaker than it has been recently, and I wouldn't be surprised if this became a cycle (new defenders will realise defence is a good way to earn points by killing attackers, making holing more attractive again).

Centre has much less than it had to do with the game in mid 30s ladles with certain player's dominance, due to early split tactics, it may play a part in this too...