Attributing points in fortress after a suicide?

[INW]

Quit contradicting yourself sine.

If winning a match isn't the purpose of fortress, what is?

And yes, most sports' objective is to defend. You don't need to attack to win, just wait for your enemy to mess up.
You obviously aren't getting my point of defense > attack.

[ppotter]

Quit contradicting yourself sine.

If winning a match isn't the purpose of fortress, what is?

And yes, most sports' objective is to defend. You don't need to attack to win, just wait for your enemy to mess up.
You obviously aren't getting my point of defense > attack.

Yes you do, if you don't attack in football all you are doing is avoiding defeat, you need to attack to score goals. The most succesful sides are always sides who focus on their attacking a la Barca.

[Mecca]

Quit contradicting yourself sine.

If winning a match isn't the purpose of fortress, what is?

And yes, most sports' objective is to defend. You don't need to attack to win, just wait for your enemy to mess up.
You obviously aren't getting my point of defense > attack.

Really? The objective of most sports is to defend?

Bowling
Cheerleading
Track & Field
Cross Country (running and skiing)
Golf
Equestrian
Gymnastics
Dance

What are you trying to defend in those sports???

[sinewav]

However wouldn't it be great if more aggressive holing (note: not more frequent, that's what NPH makes) was encouraged, and if the lone defender was encouraged to speed up and cover holes?...I've seen luffy win 1v3's and even a few 1v4+'s in ladles (note: that was against teams who didn't safely NPH by habit), and it was always fun to watch because he's a good defender who can make incredible saves. Opinions?

Uh, no. Dude seriously, it sounds like you are trying to turn Fort into CTF. I'm against holes in Tron generally, so I don't want to encourage more of it. I just don't think it needs to be taken away. Big difference.

And how are you guys under the illusion that suicide gives no points? Sure, not by a settings, but every lost player brings you closer to losing the round because at higher skill levels Fort is a numbers game. And remember this very important point: when a defender suicides in 3v1 he gives up 6 points. You want him to give up more? For what reason? Why not just kill score_win and make zones worth 10 like pickup/original fort?

some nonsense

You're completely out of your mind, but thanks for the laugh.

[Mecca]

And how are you guys under the illusion that suicide gives no points? Sure, not by a settings, but every lost player brings you closer to losing the round because at higher skill levels Fort is a numbers game. And remember this very important point: when a defender suicides in 3v1 he gives up 6 points. You want him to give up more? For what reason? Why not just kill score_win and make zones worth 10 like pickup/original fort?

Suicide directly denies the enemy team of points (0 points are awarded to either team).

However, suicide may help determine the outcome of a round.

When a defender suicides to avoid having to fight an uphill battle against (usually) multiple attackers, the attacking team is denied of a chance to take the base when their team outplayed their opponents (well... that could be debatable in some cases) that round.

[INW]

I should have been more specific mecca.

Team competitive sports.
Cheerleading and dance aren't competitive sports. That isn't an opinion, it is a fact. Google the cheerleading court case.

[Kijutsu]

You're completely out of your mind, but thanks for the laugh.

+1

[INW]

Why not just kill score_win and make zones worth 10 like pickup/original fort?

Good job. You don't even understand how pickup works.

10 points for a win. No points for the zone.

Admitting defeat is laughing at your enemy. Hmmk.

[Overrated]

Code: Select all

ENEMY_TEAMMATE_PENALTY 999999.5
ENEMY_SUICIDE_TIMEOUT                1000000.0

Makes screwups at the start of the round still count as no-point suicides or teamkills, but every death after only a little bit of enemy contact will result in points for the enemy team. NPHs are still possible, but the holer would need to avoid going near any enemy wall for the entire round before. Yeah, those points will be attributed to a seemingly random player on the enemy team. Anyone complaining about that needs a stern reminder that this is a team game mode.

Didn't know about that. Nice info.

back to Over (and sine): would you still argue against it, if it's like Z-man posted? Even if I don't like the idea of not taking 2 points for screwing up the grind out of pity, I can fully accept it. However wouldn't it be great if more aggressive holing (note: not more frequent, that's what NPH makes) was encouraged, and if the lone defender was encouraged to speed up and cover holes? And did it even strike you that without NPH's, some teams would most probably try to shrink/cut and gank? That or speedhole (which is harder, and not always a safe win like NPH, since the goal is to kill the defender).

I don't see how this makes holes occur less? It just makes it so more points are given up. And define more aggressive? This puts us in the same situation we are in now. Why would you be more aggressive when you can do the same thing except avoid the hassle of setting up a nph? Sounds like easier holing to me.

In addition, the defender could still reserve their right to suicide at the end, if they make sure to stay inside their tail the entire round. This would of course make him shrink faster, and he'd be giving up the right to suicide pretty much as soon as he has to expand. (Oh and defenders can still try and die strategically at the end, giving the enemies a tough hole to force them to make mistakes and possibly miss the zone points)

So you're saying wait until he has three attackers near him, then just die when he has to expand? At that point he's better off hoping for an enemy mistake.

Edit: This asks for less aggressive defending too...

I dunno. Imagine a 2v0 breakaway in football, where it's just the goalkeeper left. It SHOULD be a goal for sure, but sometimes the goalkeeper makes an incredible save, or an attacker screws up. What if the goalie just decided to sit down and watch them score. What kind of entertainment value is that (for players and spectators)? How ridiculous wouldn't that be? I've seen luffy win 1v3's and even a few 1v4+'s in ladles (note: that was against teams who didn't safely NPH by habit), and it was always fun to watch because he's a good defender who can make incredible saves. Opinions?

In our current situation, most teams know how to nph and hole safely and efficiently. You're bringing up options of a, so to say, lesser-knowing team (at the time, possibly?) vs a well skilled defender. That doesn't convince me otherwise.

That comparison, imo, seems irrelevant. Of course the goalie is going to try, because he has no other option. If he sits back and does nothing, he loses his job. We're in a game where it's a strategy to give up that round to give your team a better chance to win. Are you saying we should all just do speed box defenses at all times?

*e.g. if you're boxed in you can currently just stay inside ur tail so IF you die, you don't give up points, basically wasting the time of the one trapping you. Not done often, but possible.

Just going to say that I don't see that sort of suicide occur often enough to think it's a fair point in changing the suicide/tk points. That player avoided death to the enemy by staying within his own tail. I would say that person tried pretty hard to get to that point. The person boxing them could always slightly open the gap to go in and trap the person even more.

[sinewav]

Good job. You don't even understand how pickup works.

You're right I don't, I've made it clear here several times I don't have a strong interest in pickup. But the point I made is still the same and accomplishes essentially the same thing regarding suicides. But that doesn't matter to you because you have nothing to contribute and are just arguing for the sake of it, like when you obsess over Phytotron, haha. Keep it up kid, we get good laughs out of it.

[Titanoboa]

And remember this very important point: when a defender suicides in 3v1 he gives up 6 points

Of course the goalie is going to try, because he has no other option. If he sits back and does nothing, he loses his job. We're in a game where it's a strategy to give up that round to give your team a better chance to win. Are you saying we should all just do speed box defenses at all times?

Exactly what I'm trying to say, and exactly why I want it changed. That's why I made the football analogy. What if the goalie had something to gain(read:less to lose) from giving up? That would obviously make him give up to save points. That's why fort defenders shouldn't lose more points if they put up a fight and try to win the round.

So you're saying wait until he has three attackers near him, then just die when he has to expand? At that point he's better off hoping for an enemy mistake.

No I'm just trying to point out how rare the def suicides would be, and if a defender still wants to be able to suicide without giving up points, he would have to give up on expanding his def.

Edit: This asks for less aggressive defending too...

How??

I don't see how this makes holes occur less? It just makes it so more points are given up. And define more aggressive? This puts us in the same situation we are in now. Why would you be more aggressive when you can do the same thing except avoid the hassle of setting up a nph? Sounds like easier holing to me.

More aggressive holing = using timing and speed to kill the def while entering the hole. That should be obvious to you! You're a good player, don't you know about speedholes? Me and poke were working on speedholes quite a bit back in R, but we never really used them because, well, you know, NPH's are cheaper, safer and easier.
Hassle of setting up a nph?! What world do you live in? It's the most basic thing ever. It requires very basic teamwork, and you have to make sure the defender isn't exactly where the hole is. People don't really try to make it more advanced than that, because there's no need. If you had to give up 2 points for holing, people would have to figure out a way to bring down enemies while holing, that'd be much more interesting (and no you wouldn't see holes as often... quality > quantity, don't you agree?).

Uh, no. Dude seriously, it sounds like you are trying to turn Fort into CTF. I'm against holes in Tron generally, so I don't want to encourage more of it. I just don't think it needs to be taken away. Big difference.

I don't understand. I'm not trying to encourage more frequent holing. Exactly the opposite.. I'm trying to encourage people to put effort into their holing rather than settling for a NPH as soon as you have an advantage. Don't you think there's a connection between longer matches and the discovery of the NPH? (note that i'm not saying that's the only reason). As soon as it's 2v4 or 1v3 in a ladle, you've lost the round. That means it's more important to stay alive than to kill your enemies (weird logic huh? but it's true.) And that makes longer matches and more conservative play. How do you not see a connection there?

You want him to give up more? For what reason? Why not just kill score_win and make zones worth 10 like pickup/original fort?

I want him to give up as many points by giving in as he would by losing. How is that not the obvious choice for you? I'm curious.
I believe the 6/4 vs 10/0 discussion is a different topic, but for the record I don't mind 10/0 except for times where both teams are ganking and one team gains 10 and the other 0, instead of 4 (which they deserve, for sure).

[sinewav]

I've lost interest in the uninteresting thread and I can't focus enough on your post to understand what you are saying but I did see this...

Don't you think there's a connection between longer matches and the discovery of the NPH?

I haven't noticed matches getting longer at all. If anything they've gotten shorter. Titan, before you started playing Fort there was a period where nearly every other Ladle was a marathon session and that's when we got the idea of timed fortress which was used in the FPL. NPH's and 3v1 suicides are making the game shorter in a good way. I wouldn't want to mess that up.

Ok, I can't read this stuff anymore I've got stuff to do. Someone should go through this thread and make a pro-con list with bullet points so people can test it in public/pickup fort. Good luck.

[INW]

...like when you obsess over Phytotron, haha. Keep it up kid, we get good laughs out of it.

I don't.
He starts argueing with me, I grab the bait and continue to argue with him.

People like you take the situation and exaggerate it.

Regardless of what rule(s) changes in fortress, it will effect something negatively.
You have to take the risk of ruining one thing to help another.

[ppotter]

To begin with I was against losing points due to suicide, but over the course of this thread I'm coming round to it, I'd summarise but I'm fartoo tired/ I'll do it tomorrow if someone else hasn't by then..

[Overrated]

Exactly what I'm trying to say, and exactly why I want it changed. That's why I made the football analogy. What if the goalie had something to gain(read:less to lose) from giving up? That would obviously make him give up to save points. That's why fort defenders shouldn't lose more points if they put up a fight and try to win the round.

It's not "giving up." It's taking the best option you have. That 1 v 3 situation, a good majority of the time the 3 wins. And with the expanding of the talent level, you'll rarely see someone make such a mistake as to lose if you're the 3. I don't see why you'd make it so that team with 1 left has virtually no chance unless playing a team rather new to fort. In my opinion, there's nothing to gain from it. Leaving that option to suicide still gives the other team points for winning the round.

So you're saying wait until he has three attackers near him, then just die when he has to expand? At that point he's better off hoping for an enemy mistake.

No I'm just trying to point out how rare the def suicides would be, and if a defender still wants to be able to suicide without giving up points, he would have to give up on expanding his def.

Um, either way the def is giving up points in this new system. Either his team loses two, or he gives two to the others unless he lets them in and runs away.

Edit: This asks for less aggressive defending too...

How??

The point I was making to yours, the only way to get the suicide points would be to stay within your own tail for the ENTIRE round.

I don't see how this makes holes occur less? It just makes it so more points are given up. And define more aggressive? This puts us in the same situation we are in now. Why would you be more aggressive when you can do the same thing except avoid the hassle of setting up a nph? Sounds like easier holing to me.

More aggressive holing = using timing and speed to kill the def while entering the hole. That should be obvious to you! You're a good player, don't you know about speedholes? Me and poke were working on speedholes quite a bit back in R, but we never really used them because, well, you know, NPH's are cheaper, safer and easier.
Hassle of setting up a nph?! What world do you live in? It's the most basic thing ever. It requires very basic teamwork, and you have to make sure the defender isn't exactly where the hole is. People don't really try to make it more advanced than that, because there's no need. If you had to give up 2 points for holing, people would have to figure out a way to bring down enemies while holing, that'd be much more interesting (and no you wouldn't see holes as often... quality > quantity, don't you agree?).

I'm well aware of speed holing, etc etc. The nph (-2ph) now becomes rather useless imo, so now they don't need to bother setting one up and wasting any sort of time with it (it can take time). So, why put yourself further away from winning in setting it up when you can have all 3 players grind together and torp the defense and put yourself just as close? And people can still work on speedholes without this system. Why does this rule change that being used? When a team speedholes, they give up two points to the other team and aim to get the two back by killing the defender, isn't that what they do now? Why do we NEED the suicide points to change that? Where does the quality of play increase when people can just do that now.

(Sorry if I sound like I'm making no sense, busy and trying to type my points fast)