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

[Word]

Is there really any need for fortress so become any more defence oriented than it already is? If a team leaves their defender alone, and the other team has player advantage, they deserve to be able to take the zone...

Think about it: if the team leaves the defender alone because they know he can easily handle 2 attackers, they attack. What Concord tries to do is making the teams LESS defensive. I don't see why any team with a decent defender would use sweepboxes. In a 3v1 holes become meaningless, because there will still be the defender who can kill both remaining players. Holes make only sense when they're done early in the game, or to escape from somewhere. But they wouldn't be virtually the only way to get a zone anymore. The defenders can become more aggressive too.

[-*inS*-]

@Lackadaisical That's a common misconception, I can make the exact same defense and shrink at the same rate with 3 rubber instead of 5. Players can "ride" the maximum rubber and not die unless they do a hard dig and actually hit a wall. And that's assuming it takes a lot of rubber to defend in the first place, isn't true either.

@Dariv Ok, I'll be really blunt with you, not trying to be an asshole but the fact that vov had an mvp performance and you guys still lost both matches (neither amazingly close either) should set off alarm bells in your head. Either the rest of you failed utterly, or perhaps your tactics were inferior? At least consider the possibility...

@Mya Long matches are a problem in themselves. Yes indeed higher skill = less deaths = longer matches. But skills impact is very minimal compared to the stagnation that occurs when both teams are using sweepboxs. I think in a 2v1 sumo situation it should be relatively easy to kill the 1 if the 2 players work in coordination. Yay teamwork!

@Vogue I think the hole still has its place in the game, you can still tactically hole, but now it isn't as appealing as it was before.

Anyways! I agree with psy, we should have this implemented in a server and try it out. The idea sounds good in theory, so I think seeing how some competitive matches go with 1v2 unconquerable would be the next step in testing.

[epsy]

Think about it: if the team leaves the defender alone because they know he can easily handle 2 attackers, they attack. What Concord tries to do is making the teams LESS defensive.

Team attackers which will find themselves in an inferior position. ZZZ. So now we've got two of the teams actually attacking. And none of them winning forever. And if the defender was free to go attack, he wouldn't be able to, because the other team could dispatch a player to stall the defender while the zone is still safe.

[-*inS*-]

Think about it: if the team leaves the defender alone because they know he can easily handle 2 attackers, they attack. What Concord tries to do is making the teams LESS defensive.

Team attackers which will find themselves in an inferior position. ZZZ. So now we've got two of the teams actually attacking. And none of them winning forever. And if the defender was free to go attack, he wouldn't be able to, because the other team could dispatch a player to stall the defender while the zone is still safe.

Once a defender is shrunk enough that you could gank 2v1, it takes only a little more effort to shrink him to the point of killing himself. If that isn't to your liking, the options of speedholing (teamwork!) or cutting the defense are still there.

[Word]

Think about it: if the team leaves the defender alone because they know he can easily handle 2 attackers, they attack. What Concord tries to do is making the teams LESS defensive.

Team attackers which will find themselves in an inferior position. ZZZ. So now we've got two of the teams actually attacking. And none of them winning forever. And if the defender was free to go attack, he wouldn't be able to, because the other team could dispatch a player to stall the defender while the zone is still safe.

As an attacker I'd actually feel better when I know that the defender has less pressure and take more risks.

[dariv]

@Dariv Ok, I'll be really blunt with you, not trying to be an asshole but the fact that vov had an mvp performance and you guys still lost both matches (neither amazingly close either) should set off alarm bells in your head. Either the rest of you failed utterly, or perhaps your tactics were inferior? At least consider the possibility....

Well I considered your team to be pretty good. dreadlord, fofo, yourself, etc. So I don't take offence that you suggest our defence sucked. In reality they were close matches (final game was 100-92 I believe) and we killed a lot of your players, without resorting to any sweepbox tactics. Simple sweeping and trapping meant you only holed like once or twice.

For me holing is not a problem and without holing, defences will step defence, overlap more and all five will attack. The balance between defence/attack is lost.

[Word]

Not sure how to reply to that without hinting that you're a noob...

The popularity of the step defense was a direct result of the excessive holing around Ladle 20. Defenders were far more aggressive before that. The sweepbox trend started with Notorious Emoticons iirc (although I remember that freako and olive did it earlier).
Why would anyone make a step defense when there aren't holes? I'd just try my best to keep the zone, no matter which defense technique I use. Even if I make a step defense at start, I'd open it as soon 2 players are left to kill them both. That doesn't extend the duration of the match.

[MrsKsr]

A step defence does not defend against holes, it defends against cuts. They have been used long before holing was a widely used tactic. Sweep/Speedboxes have also been used long before but have recently became popular, whereas before they were rather 'abstract' tactics.
Also, you miss my point Word; As it is, fortress is very defence heavy and therefore attacking is already difficult without such settings being implemented. Not to mention that a 2v1 unconquerable zone wouldn't always gaurentee zone points at the end of the round which is the whole point of fortress...

[-*inS*-]

@Dariv Ok, I'll be really blunt with you, not trying to be an asshole but the fact that vov had an mvp performance and you guys still lost both matches (neither amazingly close either) should set off alarm bells in your head. Either the rest of you failed utterly, or perhaps your tactics were inferior? At least consider the possibility....

Well I considered your team to be pretty good. dreadlord, fofo, yourself, etc. So I don't take offence that you suggest our defence sucked. In reality they were close matches (final game was 100-92 I believe) and we killed a lot of your players, without resorting to any sweepbox tactics. Simple sweeping and trapping meant you only holed like once or twice.

For me holing is not a problem and without holing, defences will step defence, overlap more and all five will attack. The balance between defence/attack is lost.

Ok well I think I explained my point in game, you guys definitely don't suck! It was your tactics that gave you the disadvantage.

[FoFo]

Thats crazy the difference between how ladle was and how it is now , i remember before , until sagelord/durka used step def , every teams who had a good attacker had a HUGE advantage to win cause defenses were pretty easy to cut if you had good speed/timing , so ladle was all about how good you were at cutting a defense , attackin ect ...

Then to counter that , step defense appeared , sagelord used it when he was in TR and they won a ladle cause no one knew how to attack against that , i think it was around ladle 15 cant remember exactly , so ladle was more orientated on defense than attack and that was a real change in fortress since defenders started to make his team win and attackers just died on him since only few people knew how to attack/cut a step def.

People started to use step defense a lot and attackers used to die a lot , until hole tactic came up to counter that def , for 3 ladles , SP used that new tactic and won 3 in a row, cause no one knew how to defend against that, until NE used a new counter tactic called "sweepbox", since that moment , was around ladle 30 , ladle hasnt change so much and just mix both tactics (atk/def) , sweepbox/double def/speedhole/nph/normal hole ect...

In 4/5 yrs Ladle has changed , before it was more about individual skills and who is playing in your team , now its more about tactics/teamwork ect.. which is good too , ofc individual skill is important but now , everyone is able to win a ladle and there s much more competition than before.

What i want to say is ladle is how it is cause WE made it like this and i like it.

And as far as i can see , when i started playing ladle there was only 4 teams registered , now i can see there are around 16-20 every months so the ladle is much more attractive than it was before , why would we change something ?

Thats how it is , thats the evolution of things , its same for everything , Ladle is how it is now cause we made it this way and it wont change until a new crazy tactic comes up which will definitly happen... but when ??? See you on ladle 50

[Word]

A step defence does not defend against holes, it defends against cuts. They have been used long before holing was a widely used tactic. Sweep/Speedboxes have also been used long before but have recently became popular, whereas before they were rather 'abstract' tactics.

Never said that wasn't the case. But holes are what made teams more defensive.

Also, you miss my point Word; As it is, fortress is very defence heavy and therefore attacking is already difficult without such settings being implemented. Not to mention that a 2v1 unconquerable zone wouldn't always gaurentee zone points at the end of the round which is the whole point of fortress...

I'd argue that it's less difficult if the defender can always let me in when it's just a matter of time, luck and skill until one of us is dead. You have to fight for the zone points, but the "fight phase" begins sooner. You don't have to circle around the zone for hours.

edit: here's a reminder why we used 2v2 unconq. for so long
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... s&start=15
http://forums3.armagetronad.net/viewtop ... 60&t=20195
Tried to find this old CT vs SP (holes vs step def) argument but I'll need more time for that

[Desolate]

The level of skill is obviously higher

No, the skill is not higher, skill doesn't win games anymore. Skill to me involves cutting, killing people in skilled ways. Holing, and creating sweepboxes is not my view of higher skill. It's not hard to hole, and it is certainly not hard to create a sweepbox.

Concord is right in this sense, a skilled defender has basically no chance to win against 3 attackers, as they will simply hole and easily win the round. Mediocre attackers easily beat one of the best defenders in the game without much effort.

[MrsKsr]

That's ridiculous. Being a skilled player and a skilled team don't depend on the same things. If you have 2 skilled players on a team who only attack and pay no mind to their other players, their team will lose. You must play as a team in fortress, team work and team oriented strategies have made the game more interesting and enabled more people to be able to win ladles. I don't see what the problem is with giving people the opportunity to play well as a team and be rewarded by a ladle win. Shall we go back to having the same 2 or 3 teams winning every ladle? Sigh. If you want to work only on individual skill in fortress, do a 1v1 tourney. This is supposed to be a team game, where the best TEAM wins, not the team with the best attackers or best defenders. Taking team strategies out of the picture is stupid and quite unfair to those who spend a lot of time building up their team strats. At the end of the day, more teams are playing ladle now than ever, not all of them have been playing for years like a lot of you. Yet, they've been able to hold their own with good strategies and co-ordination. Where's the problem with that?

[ppotter]

It's not taking team strategies out, it's if anything, the opposite. You will actually need to to plan and execute a more complex strategy than simply running into the defenders line and camping until the zone is conquered. Whether it be coordinating a speedhole to kill the defender or just working as a team to kill/force the defender out.

This isn't just a reaction to the sweepbox imo, fort has been a numbers game for a long time, making 2v1 unconq would put more emphasis on both team and individually based skills.

Edit: I'm not necessarily advocating 2v1 unconq as the way forward, but I'd really like to at least try it, in theory it should make for more exciting fort.

[Word]

Taking team strategies out of the picture is stupid and quite unfair to those who spend a lot of time building up their team strats.

I find it more unfair if I've kept my defense stable for 10 minutes and then our zone gets holed and conquered by some noobs and I can't do anything although I'd beat all 3 if I had the time. They can still work together as a team to kill me. A defender can't pay a lot of attention to his members because every little distraction can cause a loss. It's the same in American football, soccer, hockey and every other team sport. There's no point to let a good player defend the zone when all he does is waiting to get holed.