Twenthieth TRONIC Ladle

[owned]

I was looking at the wrong board. Lol.

[DDMJ]

I know the Ladle starts in a few days, but I've been thinking about it and I've come to the decision that I'm strongly against 2v2 being unconquerable, especially since this Ladle has a reduced number of players (6v6).

If it's 2v2 and your attacker breaks into the other team's zone, under the current settings, your defender should stay back and not attack since 2v2 is unconquerable anyways. This leaves your attacker to get double teamed, which often ends up in him dying. After breaking into the other team's zone, this person is now dead and is watching his defender fight against 2 attackers.

However, if we went back to the old settings where 2v2 was conquerable, the attacker would get awarded by breaking into the defender's base since his teammate would come help him and they would capture the zone.

Just my thoughts...

[DDMJ]

Piggybacking off of my last post...I also feel strongly against the 6/4 scoring system. If a defender holds off a 3v1, 2v1, or even 1v1 attack, that takes a lot of skillz...but he only gets 6 points? Whereas...if the attackers gank him, they get 10 (6 points for winning the round + 4 points for conquering the zone)? On the other hand (and this happens a bunch), the attackers might kill the defender, but the hole is in a place kinda far away from them, so they can't get inside and get the +4 bonus of capturing the zone.

It just doesn't make sense to have varying degrees of "winning" a round. In my opinion, if you win the round, whether it be by capturing your opponents zone, or killing all of your opponents, you should get a guaranteed 10 points. Not a "maybe" 10 points, only if I'm the attacker.

Defense is just as important as offense and some people use the argument, "oh well the people on the defender's team shouldn't have died, to give him a 3v1, or 2v1 disadvantage." But, that goes both ways, "oh the stupid attackers should've been able to break the defender's defense when it was 2v1, but instead they didn't and they lost the round," but does it really cost them that much? Shouldn't the defender get a 4 point bonus too?

Again, these are just my thoughts, but until someone can present an argument that's for the 6/4 scoring system, I will still be against it. A win is a win, no matter how ugly or how pretty it is. You should get 10 points, period.

[Z-Man]

I vehemently don't care about 2vs2 It just doesn't matter in practice. You don't get two of each team constantly in the zone for the required ten seconds.

About the score split, we've been through this. It's a team game. If it ends up with three attackers and one defender, that defender's team failed to attack, and no level of awesomeness changes that. Plus, the score split encourages offensive play, the plain game rules don't: defense is always a bit easier than offense.

[sinewav]

... I'm strongly against 2v2 being unconquerable, especially since this Ladle has a reduced number of players (6v6).

I too have been thinking about this lately. A while I'm not "strongly against", I have been leaning toward the 2v2 conq side of the argument.

And as far as 6/4 goes, can someone point me to the thread that led to it? I've been unsuccessful finding it and I'd like to read it.

[epsy]

the plain game rules don't: defense is always a bit easier than offense.

That's what 2v2 conquerable is for.

[DDMJ]

About the score split, we've been through this. It's a team game. If it ends up with three attackers and one defender, that defender's team failed to attack, and no level of awesomeness changes that. Plus, the score split encourages offensive play, the plain game rules don't: defense is always a bit easier than offense.

I wouldn't necessarily say it encourages offensive play, but I do agree with the fact that it rewards offensive play since I also agree that offense is harder than defense.

the plain game rules don't: defense is always a bit easier than offense.

That's what 2v2 conquerable is for.

Agreed, but now, after reading what Z-Man wrote, I think it's fair to give the offense those 4 extra points.

In the scenario that it's 2v1 against the defender, let's imagine the score being 50-50. The defender kills both of them to win the round (new score: 60-50 (if it was 3v1: 62-50)). If the attackers kill the defender and capture the zone, new score: 62-50. I guess it evens out right? .

To sum it up: changes of thought:
*6/4 scoring: YES (boo 10/0 scoring)
*2v2 UNconquerable: NO (should be conquerable)

[epsy]

Also, defender gets his 4 points by killing two attackers anyway.

[DDMJ]

Also, defender gets his 4 points by killing two attackers anyway.

That's what I said in my post -.-

[epsy]

Oh, you got me confused, sorry.

[1200]

With center attacks becoming rampant i hope that doesn't make the zone too easy to conquer.

Since we're on the setting topic i have a couple of questions hopefully someone can answer....

1) if 2vs2 is conquerable, are 3vs3, 4vs4.... etc. also conquerable?

2) Does CYCLE_RUBBER_MINDISTANCE_RESERVIOR, allow a player who has used "no rubber" to dig much deeper than a player who has used "some rubber"? In another words can a player (i'm talking about the center attacker) who digs 4.9 just once beat a double grinder who also did 4.9 on the 180?

[sinewav]

Well now that we've opened up a discussion about rules again, I looked over the last two arguments for 2v2 un/conquerable.

In this ladle rules thread the argument seemed to end in a tie:

Code: Select all

4 unconq (owned, sine, 1200, hoop)
4 comq (epsy, corn, hoax, durka)

But in one post lack pointed out the ladle-16 thread, which had rules picked by team captains, nearly all voting for unconquerable:

Code: Select all

4 unconq (CT, MC, TR, KOZ)
4 comq (X)

I really like how rules were decided on the ladle-16 thread. It reminds me of this similar idea I had for the wiki. I think something like this would reduce these circular discussions. I know it's very close to the event, but I wouldn't be opposed to changing to 2v2 conquerable.

Oh, and I really liked the idea on page one about generalized server names.

[Z-Man]

1) if 2vs2 is conquerable, are 3vs3, 4vs4.... etc. also conquerable?

Depends on whether 1vs1 is conquerable. The x vs x conquerability is a linear function. In the typical conquerable settings, where 1 vs 1 is not conquerable, all x vs x with x >= 2 are automatically conquerable, too.

2) Does CYCLE_RUBBER_MINDISTANCE_RESERVIOR, allow a player who has used "no rubber" to dig much deeper than a player who has used "some rubber"? In another words can a player (i'm talking about the center attacker) who digs 4.9 just once beat a double grinder who also did 4.9 on the 180?

Not really. The value that matters is the current reservoir and that is the same for both 4.9 digs. Plus, the double grinder would have used up only a tiny portion of his rubber on the first grind anyway.

[Corn1]

I too believe 2v2 should be conquerable (As I always have.)

There are several reasons;
• It encourages a more interesting game by making everyone actually take part in action rather than having a defender circle around their base guarding against nothing except the idea that one of the members of the opposing team will capture their base if they leave (Even though the described possible attacker is battling on the complete other side of the grid.)

• One of the most popular servers, Fortress Café has this 2v2 Conquerable setting turned on. I have yet to see a compelling reason why the setting differs from what we play outside of tournaments. Although this isn't a very strong point as it could be changed pretty handily, it is based on lack of consistency throughout regular servers and tournament servers.

• As Durka pointed out, with the decrease in players on the grid, there needs to be more discernment for a successful break into the defense to positively affect one's team.

Also the poll taken before Ladle 16 had a limited amount of teams. Even then, only team leaders were allowed to vote, clouding what regular team members would prefer. Also the poll was taken several months ago, and between then and now the Ladle settings have changed as well as more teams taking part in the tournament. I think the general census has changed and we should at least have a revote on whether or not zones should be 2v2 Conquerable, if not completely reconsider the things voted on before Ladle 16.

[epsy]

1) if 2vs2 is conquerable, are 3vs3, 4vs4.... etc. also conquerable?

Yes. In Ladle 16's settings which are 2v2 unconquerable 3v3 is conquered in 3.3 seconds.