Twenthieth TRONIC Ladle

[epsy]

As you know, cafe has almost always been slow to change in the fortress community.

Ah, where does the 6/4 scoring system come from?

Nearly every other fortress server that I know of has (or at least had last time I played) 2v2 unconquerable.

Um, name them? I don't know any fortress server that runs that apart for AFL/Ladle. Fortress café has 2v2 conquerable, so does xfort. Even CTWF has 2v2 conquerable on most maps.

[DDMJ]

As you know, cafe has almost always been slow to change in the fortress community.

Ah, where does the 6/4 scoring system come from?

Nearly every other fortress server that I know of has (or at least had last time I played) 2v2 unconquerable.

Um, name them? I don't know any fortress server that runs that outside AFL/Ladle*. Fortress café has 2v2 conquerable, so does xfort. Even CTWF has 2v2 conquerable on most maps.

.:] Twisted Rats [:. Fortress
.:] Twisted Rats [:. Ladle Fortress Server*
Wild West =Fortress=
Wild West =Fortress Ladle Server=*
Wild West =Fortress Practice Server=*
Wild West EU =Fortress Practice Server=*
-=}ID< & -=VcL. 6v6 Fortress Server
Camelot
Crazy Tronners Ladle Fortress 1*
Crazy Tronners Ladle Fortress 2*
Pink Tomato Fortress Ladle*
The Server Pharm: Fortress Freedom!
The Server Pharm EU: Fortress Freedom!
...and maybe there's more?!

*Is this what you mean by "outside AFL/Ladle?"

[sinewav]

...and maybe there's more?!

PLUS+ Fortress. And I'm thinking of changing it to 2v2 conq. Gotta talk with the team of course, since some don't agree. Which brings me to this point again: we definitely should have voting on settings next ladle, done by team captains. This "should" give us a better feel of public opinion.

[epsy]

Or rather on how captains think. Or how they follow the "default" setting

[DDMJ]

Alright, for now we'll keep the settings, but don't forget to change TEAM_MAX_PLAYERS to 6!

Code: Select all

RINCLUDE ladle/official.cfg(http://durkas.info/resource/ladle/official.cfg)
TEAM_MAX_PLAYERS 6

[CuRbSidE]

So are we keeping it 2v2 unconq?

/me votes for 2v2 conq because the defense has already failed to defend if they let attackers in (after having the advantage over them like you guys have said), THEN not being able to kill the attackers after 10 seconds even with your sweepers and midfielders (most of the time). In my opinion thats a conquered base!

[Lacrymosa]

I prefer 2vs2 unconq, simply makes more sense to me. Are we going to have an "official" voting after this ladle?

[epsy]

Code: Select all

RINCLUDE ladle/official.cfg(http://durkas.info/resource/ladle/official.cfg)
TEAM_MAX_PLAYERS 6

Please please please name your resource properly, you're missing a version number there.

[Lackadaisical]

Yeah I personally prefer 2v2 unconq as well;

• less emphasis on the defender
• i just really like the hectics after the defender has been cut but the zone isn't lost yet

Ok I think it's best to get all pro's and cons and list them at the deliberatorium, in the end it will probably be just a matter of taste, but it would be good for keeping track of all the arguments and to clear up any confusion:
http://franc2.mit.edu:8000/ci/invite?KC ... VVRIT1IiKQ**
You can log in without any credentials.

I've added my own pro's for 2v2 unconq, and anyone who cares enough can add more (or change mine if you can rephrase it better, or put a con after my pro if you disagree). (note that you can put pros and cons on both ideas)


edit:

I think I broke it.. it seems to be pretty buggy anyway though

edit2:

We could of course just use the wiki, using the same sort of structure they use in the deliberatorium:

• issue (zone settings)
  • idea1 (2v2 unconq)
    • pro1
    • pro2
  • idea2 (2v2 conq)
    • con1
    • pro1
  • idea3 (alternative)
    • con1
    • con2

[1200]

@Zman

Thanx for the answers. I'd like to continue this discussion but i've diverted from the original topic on this thread so i guess i will start a new topic or PM you....

[Z-Man]

New topic, please, so we can point people there for future reference.

[2020]

agreed
lacka
the wiki should be able to handle it
but it requires that people comprehend a system...
even the challenge board was tricky for some at the start hehehehe
the idea of abstract discussion about the rules might be too much for most people
the chances of it getting messy real fast is not to be dismissed...

[Concord]

the board locks btw late saturday, right?

[DDMJ]

Code: Select all

RINCLUDE ladle/official.cfg(http://durkas.info/resource/ladle/official.cfg)
TEAM_MAX_PLAYERS 6

Please please please name your resource properly, you're missing a version number there.

...but it's the same settings...

EDIT: 1000th post! w00t!

[DDMJ]

Ok so it looks like we'll have 16 teams for the Ladle. We also have 8 servers:

• 1) Crazy Tronners Ladle 1
  2) Crazy Tronners Ladle 2
  3) ¦×¦ Fortress
  4) .:] Twisted Rats [:. Ladle Fortress Server
  5) {PinkTomato} Fortress
  6) Z-Man's
  7) Fortress Garden
  The Server Pharm: Fortress Freedom

[/list]

This has been discussed before and I know the Ladle is in 2 days, but this is a simple thing to change. We've been randomizing the teams and I'm totally for that...but doesn't randomizing the servers sound silly as well? What would seem fair is to have set servers before hand. This is my proposal:

http://wiki.armagetronad.net/index.php? ... 0Bracketv2

The most stable servers are used in the latter rounds. Also, this creates a pretty even balance of US:Euro servers even though there are just 3 US servers and 5 Euro ones (roughly 8/16 teams are "American" so this seems fair).

All that's left would be to randomize the teams and place them into the slots. Does anyone object?

EDIT: I can't seem to get rid of that extra [ / l i s t ]