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

[Cody]

I say we put this to a vote. I think fort should only be called fortress when you truly taken over the base.

[ppotter]

Like I said on playfortress, implement it in pickup and see how it goes, before making an essentially meaningless poll.

[dariv]

You can only moan about holes if your team dies or sucks at sweeping, because that's the only times when you will get holed...

And 2v2 conq is not a problem caused by zones... its a problem in itself, doesn't make any sense to me and leads to bizarre situations where the sweeper must attack in a 2v2 when def falls.

[Kijutsu]

The ladle has lost its spark for some people because it isn't easy to get kills or to cut someone's defence anymore. People's skills in fortress have dramatically increased from when I first started, so it's logical people invent better tactics to make it really difficult for the other team to even come close to their win (the zone).

For me, this isn't a bad thing and I'd really hate to see settings changed over this fact. Instead of complaining here, think of new agressive tactics to beat the defensive style most teams have adapted to.

[INW]

Ya. 2v1 in the zone is totally taking it over.

2 times as many enemies as allies.

Would be a sad day for fortress is this were to pass.

[DDMJ]

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.

That was the whole point of my post. I kept it extremely short and vague. I really just wanted to spark a discussion.

From Blades of Glory (also sampled in Kanye/Jay-Z's new album):

Jimmy: I don't even know what that means.
Chazz: No one knows what it means, but it's provocative...It gets the people going!

I've played in something like 40-45 of the Ladles so there's a reason I always show up each month. For the last time, stop flaming me, I just wanted to spark a discussion about fortress (from competitive tactics, to teamwork, to organization, etc.).

it makes the entire course of a round actually matter. Rounds shouldn't end at 1v3.

I 100% disagree. If you're the defender and 5 of your teammates have died, but only 3 enemies, you deserve to lose my friend.

---

I have a bold suggestion: increase the number of players per team. Sure, it might lag more, but if we have more players, the chances of a big players advantage for one team increases, hopefully decreasing the length of rounds since they will be able to attack and win quicker. (Quick counter argument to that: what would the extra players be doing? Roaming in the midfield all round? (Counter-counter argument: they can be used to hole sweep boxes and defenses, etc, etc.)).

[pike]

Like I said on playfortress, implement it in pickup and see how it goes, before making an essentially meaningless poll.

+1

I have a bold suggestion: increase the number of players per team.

7v7 games would kill sweepbox strategies for good IMO, but the number of teams in Ladles would probably decrease a bit, so let's wait with this

I played my 31st Ladle last Sunday and I'm always very excited and nervous before every match, maybe because I don't play many sumo tournaments So Ladles are sort of monthly "serious" games for me.

[Titanoboa]

7v7 would make more interesting strategies. I know I've suggested this before somewhere. Or maybe I just agreed to someone suggesting it, like now. I actually think it was Concord

[Concord]

A team who kills 5 enemy players and manages to only lose 3 obviously outplayed the enemy and deserves to win the round.
Of course a 3v1 ends the round quick with an easy hole and keep everything moving.

They deserve to, but they shouldn't be guaranteed it. This is like saying that a team that is up by two touchdowns entering the fourth quarter deserves to win, so we'll just call the game and not play the quarter. We all have better things to do anyway. Or a team that is up 3 runs entering the ninth inning deserves to win, so let's just skip the ninth. Just because you deserve to, doesn't mean you will. To win you must kill 6 or conquer the zone.

[Overrated]

@insa: Explain to me what will it change? I'm just curious. Will it make it so we have 4 attackers at start instead of a basic, normal 3? Are we going to do instant holes to get the def before it's setup? Are we going to make it so there's a crowded attack base? I don't know what you're expecting that changes what we have now. You'll still see holes. Why? Because you'll get probably half the zone if done right, then you can just surround the defender and win. What is that doing other than making the rounds longer than they have to be?

No defensive tactics? What do you mean? A team can still keep 2 or 3 sweepers back. They can still sweepbox. Isn't a main point from most of us that the sweepbox is very boring and annoying to get around? Why will changing the conquer rate change that from happening? It won't. It still gives time for attackers to attack... I don't think defensive tactics will change at all.

Anyway, I am still opposed to 7v7, mainly because, as of right now, there are a lot of complaints about lag and the last thing we want to do is add more to it. If we get more reliable servers, sure, I'll try it. But some teams will end up missing out, and it will also change the dynamic we have set now. That may be what we need though to make this more entertaining and fun for others who don't seem to be having it, though.

And sweepbox still might live on in 7v7, just that it'd be harder for it to be completed since more opportunities for deaths I'd guess. The only real way you could get rid of it is by banning it or by having a gentlemen's agreement between opposing teams.

[-*inS*-]

@Over Concord's change would eliminate sweepboxes pretty much, because holing's benefit is reduced. It makes killing the other team a lot more attractive. People would hole less, so instead of a sweepbox it would promote aggressive sweeping, killing off the attackers. That in itself causes much more player interaction which shortens rounds. Also you probably would need a 4th attack to gank if you managed to cut the defender quick. The only thing this lengthens is sumo which is relatively short (think a center attack situation where your whole team rushes your zone and dies). Concord rule doesn't ban sweepboxing, it reduces its benefits to a point there are better ways to sweep.

@Durrr 3v1 is an advantage in itself. You could still nph and kill the def, shrink the def 3v1, or do a number of things, the new rule would effectively remove the "3 foot gimme" of fortress. The way the current settings are, it basically says oh you got close enough to the hole so it automatically counts it in (think golf not fort). Yeah that doesn't happen. If you can kill 5 players losing 3, you should be able to kill a 6th no problem.

Also 5v5 > 7v7, you can still effectively sweepbox in 7v7, really are we just planning on holing a sweepbox with the 7th player on each team lol. I bet I could find a way to use him defensively that beats your holer, and that will be the end of that. Sure someone might die sooner, but are you really going to hole a sweepbox with 1+ man? Adding to the fact that the 7th man on the other team might be sweeping, it will be harder to hole. Really they just cancel out everything. 7v7 blah.

In 5v5 what are you going to do, sweepbox with 3 people? Yeah then you can hole for one person vs 4 other people...hmmm...

[Concord]

it's sad that in a 1v3, the most the 1 can do to impact the game is to suicide.

[DDMJ]

A team who kills 5 enemy players and manages to only lose 3 obviously outplayed the enemy and deserves to win the round.
Of course a 3v1 ends the round quick with an easy hole and keep everything moving.

They deserve to, but they shouldn't be guaranteed it. This is like saying that a team that is up by two touchdowns entering the fourth quarter deserves to win, so we'll just call the game and not play the quarter. We all have better things to do anyway. Or a team that is up 3 runs entering the ninth inning deserves to win, so let's just skip the ninth. Just because you deserve to, doesn't mean you will. To win you must kill 6 or conquer the zone.

Your analogies support my claim. I never said they were guaranteed a win. It's like, (using a football analogy again), if a running back is running through the defense and in front of him are 3 defenders. They should be able to take him down if they don't do anything stupid. Similarly, in fort, in a 3v1 situation, the team of 3 should be able to win the round, but they could mess up or the defense could cover the hole in time. I've seen it happen a decent amount of times.

@Insa: 5v5 is too small. It's hard to get a big player advantage when the number of players per team decreases.

[-*inS*-]

@Durka nnonoononononononono

Getting 2 kills without any of you dying is equally likely both.. However if 1 person dies (which will happen at some point), it will give you a bigger advantage in 5v5 vs 7v7.

Extreme example: in 2v2 one dies 2v1 = large advantage, in 99v99, one dies 99 vs 98 = not really any advantage. Sure 5v5 and 7v7 are closer together, but the point is the same.

EDIT: In 7v7 it is possible to build a 7v3 advantage, but the odds are the same of getting 5v1 in 5v5 fortress = unlikely.

[Concord]

durka, you are arguing that the defender has sufficient control over the outcome of a 1v3. I am arguing he does not.

Regardless, this wasn't solely motivating my proposal.

Other reasons 1v2 unconquerable is preferable are that it reduces the value of player advantage encouraging more risk taking and rewarding player skill. Currently, how good the players on the grid does not matter enough and how many of them there are matters too much. This settings change affects that balance. It gives greater weight to player skill.

Making 1v2 unconquerable also adds a lot of value to capturing the entire zone (through a good cut or a good hole) or to killing the defender on a cut or hole. It raises the standards for holing. If you're still going to hole, you might as well get the whole zone. It reduces the correlation between dying on the defenders wall (holing) and winning. This is an odd correlation to begin with.

Thirdly, it reduces the need or purpose of a sweepbox or similar methods.