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

[Kijutsu]

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.

didn't your team get beaten by the open team

maybe you should blame the noobs on your team for leaving you alone with 3 attackers in the first place

[DDMJ]

There's no point to let a good player defend the zone when all he does is waiting to get holed.

I agree. It's not hard to teach someone how to make a step def or some very conservative def. IMO, the actual defender is not that important anymore (read: as he/she used to be*).

[Word]

maybe you should blame the noobs on your team for leaving you alone with 3 attackers in the first place

I was one of the attackers this time, and even 1v6 conquerable wouldn't have helped. I got the zone a few times, but by the time I was inside our defense got already holed. We were outnumbered from the start so they just had to kill one, hole and gank (funny that they were so proud that "they beat pru with 5" - we had 4 for the most time. We managed to win the first match and then people started to lag and someone's pc died.). Proves my point (guess why I didn't defend? I knew I'd get nph'd the whole time).
I'm glad the ladle victory has made a better person out of you.

[MrsKsr]

Uncalled for, really.

[Desolate]

Yes exactly, you are saying that more skill is required. In a 1v1 tournament, this would indeed be the case. Less skill is required, and the teams that play together the best are the ones that win.

[Kijutsu]

maybe you should blame the noobs on your team for leaving you alone with 3 attackers in the first place

I was one of the attackers this time, and even 1v6 conquerable wouldn't have helped. I got the zone a few times, but by the time I was inside our defense got already holed. We were outnumbered from the start so they just had to kill one, hole and gank (funny that they were so proud that "they beat pru with 5" - we had 4 for the most time. We managed to win the first match and then people started to lag and someone's pc died.). Proves my point.
I'm glad the ladle victory has made a better person out of you.

yes I was waiting for your new excuse, boohoo we had 4, boohoo pc issues, boohoo internet issues and my favorite one of all boohoo hamar and sixzero weren't there but if they were omg you guys we'd have totally beaten any team!!!11

instead you lost to the open team and now you're so butthurt that you think 1 defender should beat 3 attackers, complete garbage logic

[MrsKsr]

Yes exactly, you are saying that more skill is required. In a 1v1 tournament, this would indeed be the case. Less skill is required, and the teams that play together the best are the ones that win.

No. I am saying the two types of skill are not the same, not that one is more credible than the other in general. In a team game, however, it's quite obvious that one has an advantage over the other.

[Word]

instead you lost to the open team and now you're so butthurt that you think 1 defender should beat 3 attackers, complete garbage logic

I said before the ladle that we won't come far.
Please show me a statistic that proves my garbage logic. I've killed 3 attackers when they didn't hole, and sometimes i got lucky and could kill 3 in the zone without making it collapse (of course I wasn't alone in the zone, but I killed them.)

Yes exactly, you are saying that more skill is required. In a 1v1 tournament, this would indeed be the case. Less skill is required, and the teams that play together the best are the ones that win.

No. I am saying the two types of skill are not the same, not that one is more credible than the other in general. In a team game, however, it's quite obvious that one has an advantage over the other.

That doesn't exclude anything 1v2 does with the game. If you really think it destroys the team skill, the only thing you perceive as such is holing.

[MrsKsr]

Are you stupid or what? If a pair of sweepers kills 3 attackers leaving the other teams def alone, do they not deserve to be able to go over there, shrink and gank? This has nothing to do with holing...

[Word]

Are you stupid or what? If a pair of sweepers kills 3 attackers leaving their def alone, do they not deserve to be able to go over there, shrink and gank? This has nothing to do with holing...

Come down from your high horse. Then read my previous posts.

[-*inS*-]

lol can someone post a valid argument why this is such a bad idea, it shouldn't even be tested?

I'm all ears, convince me 1v2 unconquerable is a bad idea and I'll change my opinion.

[MrsKsr]

I think you're the one who needs to come off your high horse Word; Always telling people how they ought to play fortress and playing the victim. Why don't you take your own advice. I'm done arguing w/ you because it's like talking to a brick wall and this topic is going nowhere. Jip put these settings in uNk fort, maybe you ought to try them before acting like you have something to prove here.

[Word]

Yeah, I've played the victim for 31 ladles. I guess I shouldn't take part in the next one. It would be healthier for me to just stay away and do something more productive than repeating myself for Liz and you. I do honestly not give damn what you think as long as you're behaving as respectful as a pre-pubertal chav (and you've already tried to psychoanalyze Concord in the same way). Since you're so keen to accuse people and tell them how stupid they are for trying to improve the tournament, why don't you look in the mirror just once?
It's a mystery to me why you come here and flame everyone instead of just giving reasons for your point of view. I'll happily lose 30 more ladles if it doesn't make an impolite dick out of me. You don't prove your points by calling other people stupid. Note that I don't play a lot of fortress anymore because it bores me to death. Ladle wins aren't worth anything when it's only a predictable result of used strategies and the number of players.

[DDMJ]

lol can someone post a valid argument why this is such a bad idea, it shouldn't even be tested?

I'm all ears, convince me 1v2 unconquerable is a bad idea and I'll change my opinion.

Here's one reason (it's similar to why with 2v2 unconquerable, if there are 2 people left on both teams and 1 attacker breaks into the def, his teammate won't attack):
If 1v2 is unconquerable, 4v2 (with the attacking team having 4) is not even an advantage anymore. Presumably, the player on the team of 2 will go back and sweep his defender. The defender on the team of 4 will stay back "just in case." Now, if they hole and get into the zone, it's 2v2 in the zone until the defender comes up to help. But why would he come to help? 2v3 is unconquerable. Furthermore, if it was 5v2 instead of 4v2, it'd end up being 2v3 in the zone (unconquerable) and if the defender comes up to help, it'd be 2v4 (also unconquerable? I could be wrong about that).

So you're telling me that's fair? If you only manage to kill one player on the opposing team and they kill all but two of yours, you still have a pretty good shot at saving your zone? No way man, I object. I could go on for days about this, but as akira said earlier, it's not worth the time to argue this. (Side note: 2v2 conquerable would speed up games.)

[ppotter]

4v2 would be conquerable.