Twenthieth TRONIC Ladle

compguygene · Post by **compguygene** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:41 pm

Well for the ammount of page views that I have seen on my new thread about fourtress and the gazillion posts here, I wonder if you see my point about growing the game mode. People aren't naturally jumping from sumo to fortress as was hoped. Fourtress would allow existing clans and friends that are already groups of 4 to easily form.

Last I checked my math book, 4+4=8

It's a natural progression to combine clans/teams etc.

It's clear that I am probably pushing a minority position and the next ladle we will be trying 6v6, if so, np. But I will continue to play devil's advocate.

Frankly, it will be easier for me to field a team of 6 great players, maybe 2 teams.

kyle · Post by **kyle** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:14 pm

I agree with durka

6 on 6 is much better of a battle, To be honest I've never really liked 8 on 8, was laggy and not very fun for me anyway.

Server names Standardize them I don't agree on your naming though Drurka

lets to Something like
0x333366Ladle Server - 0xff6600CT's
0x333366Ladle Server - 0xff6600Pink Tomatoes
0x333366Ladle Server - 0xff6600Lounge (which i think i can put up to replace ct ladle 2 if ct ladle 2 is not needed) Someone (Concord) Please PM me the night before if so.

Min members in team 6
max number in team playing 6
Max members of a team 9
(basically what i did for the spork)

compguygene · Post by **compguygene** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:27 pm

Ok, fine, I get it. I just got done talking it over with a few of my Euro clan members.

Concord, you read my sig rite! Sometimes, I must confess, my focus on Def is my weakness, and it blinds me to other possibilities!

6v6 OK.

I guess I never realized just how laggy 8v8 really is.

1200 · Post by **1200** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:29 pm

da compguy wrote:

But because I have a fundamental belief that 8v8 works better than you guys seem to have already decided.

I don't agree with everything you say but i can relate to how you feel. I wouldn't say it works better but something is more appealing about 8vs8 over 6vs6. Its like saying 3vs3 basketball is better than 5vs5. Its just a different game.
I actually love it when zones get super crowded and there is mad chaos. You could say with 6vs6 that it doesn't get crowded and chaotic and is boring.....i'm just looking at both sides of the coin.

Also i don't think 8vs8 or 6vs6 has anything to do with being offensive or defensive its dependent on the preference of the team/players & the situation. Your team could be offensive with 8vs8 by just sending more players to attack thats all.

But from lag aspect its definitely better. I do remember playing in the AFL and it was definitely less laggy. So to me benefit of 6vs6 is mostly from the timing & lag aspects i don't think it makes one game more exciting than the other. i guess its a preference thingy, simple vs complex, shorter vs longer, bigger party vs smaller party.

But hey even if i don't like it i wouldn't mind experimenting so why not try...

1200 · Post by **1200** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:33 pm

da compdood wrote:

Concord, you read my sig rite! Sometimes, I must confess, my focus on Def is my weakness, and it blinds me to other possibilities!

Don't think its weakness. It's just preference. You just need to have the vision to know when to defend and when to attack thats all.
In basketball they say defense wins championships....

Monkey.D.Luffy · Post by **Monkey.D.Luffy** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:53 pm

6vs6 sound good, i always had more fun in fortress café with 6 players than 8, and thats more competitive in my opinion because all the positions are important. When too many players play, sometimes i feel useless

Also that will be easier for the new fortress teams to play, beacause they find with difficulty, or never, 8 fort players with enough skills to play a Ladle.

owned · Post by **owned** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:58 am

Ok, so we all agree. And look at this:

http://forums.armagetronad.net/viewtopic.php?t=18211 LOL.

Concord · Post by **Concord** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:29 am

ok, lets leave it open for a day or two more, so we don't get the angry people yelling (that we'll probably get any way)

Laughing at my response in that thread ^^, I think I was talking about complaining about lag. My whole first 4 months on the forums were completely un-understandable.

Flex · Post by **Flex** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:54 am

I definitely agree with generalising the server names, to make it clear what is happening and to distinguish which are the Ladle servers and which are not (for the players and for the public). I actually named my server "(Ladle 19) Flex's server". If anybody noticed? I think I mentioned it a few hours before the Ladle to Concord.

The majority should vote on which server the finals will be held at in advance so that everyone is happy with it and there's no performance issues. This is to simply ensure that all finals stay fair and the server stays consistent and stable for every Ladle. If of course everyone wants another server as the finals, we can all vote. Ladle is all about majority in my opinion, so the majority should control where they play for the finals and not by random shuffles.

Things should be simple and slowly change, if major changes happen there will most likely be chaos and unhappy people. Those are my two suggestions, for now.

kyle · Post by **kyle** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:11 am

Voting on final server could be a good idea also

I just don't think the ladle Number is important enough to add in server name. just something that needs changed month to month.

DDMJ · Post by **DDMJ** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:54 am

I never said that taking away 2 players meant taking away 2 midfielders. Besides, different teams have different strategies. But, according to your logic (comp), why shouldn't we have 10v10? That adds even more players to the game and makes it more strategic right?

&Flex: Yea, I noticed that, which is why I modeled my suggestion based on it.

compguygene · Post by **compguygene** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:08 am

I officially end my objection to 6v6 here and now. I like it.

As I said, I can be reasoned with.

You guys are right and I am wrong...i like the idea better, lets try it!

kyle · Post by **kyle** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:19 am

Another thing we need to decide is on Time. The time will be changing for everyone that observes Daylight savings time, for most it will be this Sunday. So will the GMT start time change or will the other times change to meets the GMT times?

compguygene · Post by **compguygene** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:21 pm

Even though I live in a country that implements Daylight Savings time..I think we should stick with GMT.

Flex · Post by **Flex** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:48 pm

I think using Z-Mans server (the server used last time for the final. Also used for the final in Ladle 18 too.) is the best choice and till we have a better performing server, we should be happy with it.

kyle wrote:I just don't think the ladle Number is important enough to add in server name. just something that needs changed month to month.

Because there's a lot of servers out there with the name "Ladle" From old to new. So I believe it's necessary, and even a bonus. Is it necessary to argue about every little detail like a number? Maybe that's why these threads are so long.