Ladle 40

[Z-Man]

BUG cry roundup. There were three incidents:
1. Mkay1 dropped out of the game and seemed unhappy about it. Turned out he must have activated spectator mode.
2. ppotter was kicked for being an unworthy spectator before he had a chance to log on. My bad, one check there was the wrong way round.
3. There were several big 'lags' at the beginnings of rounds. Those aren't actually lags, but caused by wrong timer readouts, the physics update takes the time, then does stuff, then progresses the game logic using the time. 'do stuff' can apparently take quite a while and include the whole process of ending the round, cleaning up, rebuilding the world and starting the new round. So the time reading used at the beginning of the round can actually be the time from the end of the previous round. And it's game time, not real time, so it's 70 seconds instead of 0. Whoops.

[Mkay1]

Correct z-man, my fault. I was just iratable because oof my parents making me keep leaving.

[Ratchet]

<offtopic>
I don't want everyone to get an orgasm over my brainstorming topic, but;

Holing... I don't know. Reading around, I'd be VERY interested to seeing a fortress match with the hole explosion radius at 0, making it require raw talent to break a defense. Anyone have similar interests... maybe, just MAYBE, this can happen for a future tournament/ladle/anything? Anyone think it would be a good idea? Just requesting interesting input

</offtopic>

[PokeMaster]

<offtopic>
I don't want everyone to get an orgasm over my brainstorming topic, but;

Holing... I don't know. Reading around, I'd be VERY interested to seeing a fortress match with the hole explosion radius at 0, making it require raw talent to break a defense. Anyone have similar interests... maybe, just MAYBE, this can happen for a future tournament/ladle/anything? Anyone think it would be a good idea? Just requesting interesting input

</offtopic>

I agree it would be interesting, but then stepdef would win the day. It's becomes incredibly hard to cut that def once the defender gets a ways in. Then it's just a game of patience. A long one.

[-*inS*-]

<offtopic>
I don't want everyone to get an orgasm over my brainstorming topic, but;

Holing... I don't know. Reading around, I'd be VERY interested to seeing a fortress match with the hole explosion radius at 0, making it require raw talent to break a defense. Anyone have similar interests... maybe, just MAYBE, this can happen for a future tournament/ladle/anything? Anyone think it would be a good idea? Just requesting interesting input

</offtopic>

I agree it would be interesting, but then stepdef would win the day. It's becomes incredibly hard to cut that def once the defender gets a ways in. Then it's just a game of patience. A long one.

I think that'd be really fun, I love 2v1s for that reason...looking back iirc the idea of no holes has been shot down before, but perhaps it could be tried in some unofficial match pickup game.

One side to no holing is it makes numbers less useful, a team of 3 has a chance against a team of 6. Which can be good or bad I guess.

[Pr3]

I agree it would be interesting, but then stepdef would win the day. It's becomes incredibly hard to cut that def once the defender gets a ways in. Then it's just a game of patience. A long one.

I agree, when we reduced the size on the hole we increased the difficulty of holing. Which led to more coordinated holing, and then the increase of NPH. The NPH, is significantly more difficult than regular holing, and required even more of an increase tactics/chats. In truth, I feel the option of holing (reduced size) has actually furthered the progress of the game. However, without holing, the game would undertake a drastic alteration; quick matches will turn into hours as any great defender becomes more impenetrable. No longer will 3+vs1 become a threat/ tactics like pressure will become implemented (which take time). Holing in itself can be blocked with increased teamwork, and it is my belief holing has become part of fortress, and it shouldn't be removed.

Pr3

[THEred]

quick matches will turn into hours

[sinewav]

Removing holes only means other settings need to be tweaked accordingly, like wall_shrink.

[compguygene]

Removing holes only means other settings need to be tweaked accordingly, like wall_shrink.

And by the time you are done, it really won't be fortress anymore, but some other, similar game. If people really want to try this, I would be willing to put up a server that several in the community, like sine, could tweak the settings. Interested?

[dariv]

I don't understand- what is wall_shrink? Can't you get rid of holes without changing other things?


Also, the problem about the game taking a long time is not fundamentally due to hole sizes- it's because any logical attacker will realise he is under absolutely no pressure to attack, which I feel is a slight flaw in the game which (thankfully) manifests itself rarely (most often a weak attacker vs a strong defender). He can make shapes near the enemy zone, and if the defender is stuck circling the zone endlessly because he can't try and take the opponent's zone.

Holes remedy this by generally speeding up games... in my opinion, holes are treating the symptoms, not a cure.

[Z-Man]

I don't understand- what is wall_shrink? Can't you get rid of holes without changing other things?

It's what makes your tail shrink a bit as you use rubber. Specifically, if you hit your own tail right at the end, you use a bit of rubber, your tail shrinks, and you can safely pass. It's existence strengthens defense, so if you strengthen defense by removing holes, you probably should compensate in some way, and lowering the shrink is a possibility.

Also, the problem about the game taking a long time is not fundamentally due to hole sizes- it's because any logical attacker will realise he is under absolutely no pressure to attack

Apart from the enemy attacker simultaneously working on the other zone. As long as both zones are under attack, there is sufficient pressure. Quickening the rounds when one attack team failed was attempted in the form of the Winzone (which the surviving attack team can claim), but it wasn't well received. I think all other plans are doomed as well, the players on the field themselves WANT to battle it out. Respawning may work.

[compguygene]

Also, the problem about the game taking a long time is not fundamentally due to hole sizes- it's because any logical attacker will realise he is under absolutely no pressure to attack

Apart from the enemy attacker simultaneously working on the other zone. As long as both zones are under attack, there is sufficient pressure. Quickening the rounds when one attack team failed was attempted in the form of the Winzone (which the surviving attack team can claim), but it wasn't well received. I think all other plans are doomed as well, the players on the field themselves WANT to battle it out. Respawning may work.[/quote]


Good point, Z-man. Perhaps a scripted respawn, like Fortress Onslaught uses, 3 lives only.

[apparition]

Perhaps this deserves a fork?

Fortress works because there are holes. Yeah the game would be longer and boring without them, but that's not the reason why holes exist. Breaking a def isn't just about raw talent. It's about teamwork, coordination, skill, strategy, speed, precision, patience. If an attacker takes a risk, just like in any game/sport it affects both the attacking team and the defending team. Attack loses a man and defense has a small, but not complete breach. By the same argument, fortress works because there is no respawn.

[Olive]

only activate holes in a 3v1 situation

[ppotter]

No holes with a slightly larger zone and/or shorter tails, making it much quicker/easier to shrink could work.