Where is the Ladle (and Fortress) heading in the future?

[sinewav]

This is always the case as long as decay is below conquest.

Thanks for pointing that out, I did not know.

I don't want to take anything away from your win but really, leave it alone dude, I take offense to that.

Whoa, dude, chill. I wasn't taking a shot at SP. I was agreeing with Flex's view on Ladle (which would be the opposite of taking a shot at you). I'll make the point again by saying there is no tactic that guarantees a win, it's the execution of what tactics you decide to use. I know SP had some unfortunate problems in the 2nd match. Those things affect execution and they effect everyone. It's something we all have to deal with. I never said mYm was a better team than SP or that SP sucked. I said CT did better against us using a different strategy because their execution was better than SP's (this time only). I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I have nothing against SP, or any other team for that matter. Why would I? Seriously, what could I possibly have against you?

It's my belief that we are at the point where Fort players are so good and tactics so refined that just about anyone can win if lag and luck are on their side. This is why I don't think settings need to be changed. It's fixing a problem that doesn't really exist.

[Flex]

No it wouldn't be the opposite, because what you're saying is different to what I even said. So no you're not quite agreeing with me.

mYm did better against SP than CT

CT didn't use a sweep-box and did better against mYm than SP did.

Maybe I could have been more clear, but I was referring to mYm playing even better against SP than it did with CT. So no, not what I said.

Also I made it clear sweepboxing was a big factor, and without it you wouldn't have managed to beat CT. And that's why I said if it was CT Vs. SP, it would have been in SP's favour.

[Kijutsu]

Flex is making the most sense. CT didn't use a sweep-box and did better against mYm than SP did.

Yeah let's forget about 2 disconnects + most our team lagging out (me being the exception). I don't want to take anything away from your win but really, leave it alone dude, I take offense to that.

You had all 6 in the first match and were still about 50 points down.

To be fair though when CT realized they couldn't stop our holing, they made wap double def which lasted longer than our sweepbox so it's not like they didn't use an extra def like everyone else. I think sine forgot about this.

[sinewav]

Maybe I could have been more clear, but I was referring to mYm playing even better against SP than it did with CT. So no, not what I said.

Oh Ok, I re-read your post and I understand it better. Thanks for clarifying. There are a lot of ideas in this thread to keep track of, haha.

Also, I get the feeling that, even if the zone was set to 2v1 unconq we would still see teams playing the same way. Just because the zone is stronger is really not enough reason to stop using sweep-boxes and working the number advantage. In fact, because you need even greater numbers to take a zone this might make things worse.

Alright, I don't have anything more to say, not that I said much anyway.

[PokeMaster]

Also, I get the feeling that, even if the zone was set to 2v1 unconq we would still see teams playing the same way. Just because the zone is stronger is really not enough reason to stop using sweep-boxes and working the number advantage. In fact, because you need even greater numbers to take a zone this might make things worse.

All about the mentality. A small settings change won't change anything. Nor will a substantial one, likely.

[Gonzap]

Well it's quite annoying the amount of times CT is named here. We lost to mYm, but we were closer to the win. More than SP. The rest, all are conjecture.
And yeah of course, we had to use a defensive strategy, fort evolution you called that. Well that's what it is. You play defensive or lose in the first round.
I also personally think we could have beat SP if we passed mYm. But again conjecture.

Let's talk about facts like 2v1 unconq won't help anything and will contribute a little more on destroying that old fort I always miss.

[Slickster]

So I haven't read any of this really but I wanted to point something out...

A bunch of people have been complaining about not having enough fort tournaments (just the ladle). Well Flex's Fortress Cup is coming up and there r only 2 teams signed up...

[Desolate]

There's 8 teams signed up

[Slickster]

There's 8 teams signed up

who didn't update their teams on the last day possible.

[epsy]

Here's a little tool to help you choose/compute the different FORTRESS_DEFEND_RATE / FORTRESS_CONQUEST_RATE / FORTRESS_CONQUEST_DEACAY_RATE values. Just edit the config and hit the button.

http://epsy.net46.net/stuff/fortress_conquest.html

Here you can see it showing settings previously mentionned in this thread.

[matchbox53]

Here is my personal opinion about whats happening in here :


Why do we have to change fortress settings to a way that it could help in anti hole or what so ever ?. Is the server settings changes would help us accomplish a better fortress ?

The way i see it is that there are always ways to help fortress improve but it has nothing to do with changing any server settings rather more tactical or strategical . If you guys want to win figure out a better ways to win.

Whatever changes has been that dlh have proposed are more sumo wise than a fortress wise. It is true that somehow sumo helps u to become a better fortress but nevertheless it shouldnt play a vital role .

[Mecca]

Question for active fort players:

If the WALLS_LENGTH (is that the setting? o.o) was 5/8s or 11/16s of what it is now, how do you think the game would change?

[Word]

It'll be more difficult to defend, sweepboxes will be more popular, it's more difficult to keep someone boxed in if the speed stays the same, most 'sweeping strategies' become useless (the sweepbox is more a defense strategy). You cant really use the defender's wall to box someone in on an entire side, you now have to have luck to keep your opponent in a small area somewhere inbetween. It will get more difficult to shrink a defender because he has always more room left and the attacker can't always hide outside of his trail end while he's trying to shrink him (he already can't do that, but now the defender can escape whenever he feels like it). Enough? It's not a bad idea, but I'd also reduce the zone/arena size and the speed then. then again it wouldn't change anything at all.

[Slov]

I'm sure clans will figure out how to break speedbox sooner or later (I'm sure uNk already has a plan lol), they just don't want to share it with others on a public forum.

[apparition]

This thread is all over the place. Ladle losing its spark, mym/ct/sp, # vs. # conquerability, sweepboxes and defensive tactics, where fort is heading... It's like, "Ahhhh!" We should have separated the discussion of some of these things

I think, though, that the fortress/Ladle losing its spark is a ridiculous idea when seeing all the crazy discussion here. Well done starting the discussion Durka. Ladle 50 ftw!