CTF BRAWL 18 [ Brackets posted ]

[PokeMaster]

It sounds like you want another player on each team, tomb, so that the consequence of losing a teammate isn't as large. You see teams like U though (or maybe just U), who recognize this, and play very safe and structured, so that the other team reaches that disadvantage before they do. I'm not arguing either way about it, but why is diminishing that consequence a good thing? (Haven't followed your links yet sine, so let me know if you've already addressed that).

As with any suggestion, it'd probably be best to get a server running with those settings so people can test it out in serious play. Ww CTF will not suffice.

[Jonathan]

I have >90% packet loss from my ISP

That's only as far as the traceroute to those routers is concerned. Note that the modus operandi of passing packets works fine, or the routers down the line wouldn't have zero loss. And that's what really matters. Besides, if you have 90% loss you might as well cut your wire; it can't accomplish anything at all.

It seems to be fairly common for routers to respond slowly to traceroutes. I suppose it acts like a pipeline bubble. It's also possible there's some rate limiting. Did your traceroute fire off its 75 packets rapidly?

And yeah, home connections aren't ideal. They're just of lower grade, much easier to perturb accidentally. An interesting question is how that would stack up against the unreliability of a VPS.

[sinewav]

It seems to be fairly common for routers to respond slowly to traceroutes. I suppose it acts like a pipeline bubble. It's also possible there's some rate limiting. Did your traceroute fire off its 75 packets rapidly?

It sends one packer per second. Is that fast? I don't know. And I've use the traceroute on a few connections over the last twoyears and there is a definite difference in feel when packet loss is occurring and when it is not. Right now I slide all over the place and precise turns are a near impossibility. My previous ISP connection had very few occurrences of packet loss, but there would be massive lag at two routers in Dallas. Either way, my connection is, has been, and will be very bad. Oh well. Maybe one day I'll move to Europe where you have good Internetz.

[Jonathan]

Hmm. The trace actually looks pretty good. But then it wasn't much of a stress test. Networks can behave very differently once you send more and larger packets through them. I've had a similar problem for a while, except I didn't see much of anything in synthetic tests at all.

[Wind]

I'm not disagreeing that there seems to be a structure set for 2 def 2 attack, but with 5 it makes things even easier.
With 5 players the extra person would simply be there to basecamp or to respawn their own team. I could be wrong but we would have to test it out.

U hardly participated in any of the Ww ctf tournies (maybe one on tr2n) so I'm having trouble remembering if those were 4v4 or 5v5.

[Word]

They used to be 5v5 but that was changed when teams got better at holing.


[nostalgia](I think PRU's first two or three tourneys were still 5v5, then the new rules came - of course I'm not implying that PRU played a role in that but iirc it was 'necessary' because some teams complained about the - at that time - big advantage that some teams got from teamspeak and being more organized at holing, while the most part of the participants were comparably unorganized. This either seemed unfair to them or the Wwers didn't want to lose their monopoly*...and in the ctf community new clans were founded and disbanded so quickly that a tourney following the ladle format was completely unthinkable). [/nostalgia]


*used in the most positive sense