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

[syllabear]

Wen you guys finally figure out its worth holing sweepbox about 10-20% of the time if done right (speedholes which can potentially disrupt the main defence because they aren't expecting it, or kill one of the sweep boxers) then it'll get a bit more interesting.

It's just gonna take a while and someone with balls to do it first (just like the sweepbox itself ironically)

And durka, you can't just open a thread, say something controversial with no evidence, little opinion, basically a bare bones post - and just expect a lively discussion to ensue.. you're lucky it did this time.

[Word]

Hell no


We've done the sweepbox a few times, and it was only successful when it didn't get holed or when the sweepers didn't suicide (obviously). And then we often haven't had a good attack. Sometimes our attackers died, the sweepbox became impossible to keep and the two sweepers just had to sweep normally, and then it was only a question of time until I got holed.
You've written a long, long post now but you don't seem to mention why the sweepbox has become so popular: HOLING. I wouldn't use sweepboxes if we had a center player like Woned or Potter, because then it's just more reasonable to have a faster, more flexible attack to put pressure on the opponent as early as possible.

I'm completely against supporting some codes of honor similar to those that are enforced in Dog Fight servers. If you forbid the sweepboxes, what strategy will come next? I wouldn't demonize it, I'd just get a better tactic to disrupt it from the start. There are many. Holing is one of them, as sylla said. SP just didn't do that in the ladle (again). Whenever we did a sweepbox I was surprised that nobody tried to hole us. And sometimes we got holed by accident while i wasn't prepared and lost. But it was never done on purpose. There's actually a positive side effect if you can hole and do speed attacks in the same game.

edit: this was directed at psy

[INW]

What's so great about ladles now is the intensity. It is HUGE when just 1 enemy dies. It is all about man advantage and the suspense of when someone will die next keeps me coming every month!

[Slov]

in few months, every organised team will be able to hole speedbox successfuly and then new ideas will come up etc. fort will change, just like everything in the world does.

[prettylights]

And durka, you can't just open a thread, say something controversial with no evidence, little opinion, basically a bare bones post - and just expect a lively discussion to ensue.. you're lucky it did this time.

its because people still care about the ladle. i wonder if this topic would have been made if tx had taken this past ladle- given that durka's original post didn't really have any substance, it really just came off as bickering. also, all these posts kinda seem off topic. durka wasn't saying about how fort is played, just that its played competitively too often (i guess?). still good discussions i guess

[Olive]

I haven't been around fortress long enough to declare myself a veteran or old-skewl. However, I have experienced many changes in competitive fort.

The ladle was always the most prestigious tournament to be won. The action is lower paced now. Teamwork being the essence of succes, as individuals have less impact on the game.

To me, the ladle has indeed lost part of its spark. Hopefully I will enjoy participating in ladles again, trying not to weep about the slow pace, but enforcing a faster pace by your teams' gameplay. Lets see what the future holds.

[þsy]

Thanks Word for taking the effort to 'direct a post' at me, but my undirected post was written in order to share some ideas, nothing more. And as I said a few times, I think any changes that may or may not be made should be done after next ladle after some careful consideration. In the meantime, let's share our thoughts and not attack people's posts!

INW: I agree, the intensity has definitely gone up. I'm not sure if I like that or not, I find it stressful having to concentrate so much every single round and my poor little brain can't handle it if it doesn't stop! But I can see why that's an appealing aspect of it.

Slov: Yeah I'm hoping that's the case, I have some ideas I'd like to share with you!

[ElmosWorld]

When TX won that ladle, I guess 6 ladles ago, everyone was in awe about the offensive tactics that TX used. So the teams got more defensive to counteract. At some point a team will go on the offensive again. And the process will start over again. I do believe that the tactics are cyclical.

[Concord]

make 1v2 unconquerable

[Word]

That would be really cool.


edit:

Thanks Word for taking the effort to 'direct a post' at me

just wanted to clarify that the "Hell no" part wasn't a reply to syllabear.

[þsy]

That's an interesting idea for sure, we should try it out

[Overrated]

make 1v2 unconquerable

The team of 4 would have two options in that situation imo. One, they can partially come back and sweep and if they end up killing fofo then have the 4v1 situation, or two, they can still attack with their 3 and hole the defender and get a majority of the zone and team up to kill the defender. It still leaves the defender defenseless in a well executed speed hole, where the team can afford to move one back as sweep anyway.

Also, your post suggests that 2v3 in the zone would also be unconquerable if a defender holds the value of two attackers. Would you need 5 attackers to gank a zone with 2 defenders in it (clarification)? If so, you could have up to 4 people attacking with no consequences other than a lot of crowding.

Side point, player advantage would be taken away near the end. Since when is player advantage a bad thing?

Anyway, I don't think it would change things too much. Teams will probably be more defensive as a result of the change, or more aggressive with their holing imo. Something we've already seen in ladles most recently. But again, it's a new idea I haven't heard before and I'd be willing to test it out. IF someone will go through with a new idea.

[Word]

Side point, player advantage would be taken away near the end. Since when is player advantage a bad thing?

It's team skill vs individual skill. I love situations when I can attack a defender and two sweepers, and possibly kill one after another. I can rarely do that when I'm defending, knowing that it will collapse when I'm playing too aggressively. That said, fortress is a team game - you should leave some for the others

[Concord]

Also, your post suggests that 2v3 in the zone would also be unconquerable if a defender holds the value of two attackers. Would you need 5 attackers to gank a zone with 2 defenders in it (clarification)? If so, you could have up to 4 people attacking with no consequences other than a lot of crowding.

well, 4. 2v4. You would need 5 to hole and gank.

Side point, player advantage would be taken away near the end. Since when is player advantage a bad thing?

Because it makes good players worse and bad players better.

Anyway, I don't think it would change things too much. Teams will probably be more defensive as a result of the change, or more aggressive with their holing imo. Something we've already seen in ladles most recently.

This contradicts you first point. If teams need a 2v4 to capture the zone, why would they be more defensive?

[teen]

If sweepbox is such a problem why not take care of why we have it?

-holes

If 2v2 conquerable is such a problem why not take care of why we have it?

-zones