Time based Fortress?

[Flex]

No doubt, someone has probably mentioned this idea or thought about it, too. Because I've been thinking about it ever since I first played a competitive match in Fortress. This idea isn't to change Fortress completely, but to add an addition to Fortress to those who wish to play like this. To make Fortress more competitive and maybe a bit more complicated or in fact more easy by adding actual real-time stratergy.

The Idea?
How about we create a Attackers vs Defenders? (Names subject to change, just using it as an example. Could be maybe something to do with Fortress's.)

How it works?

• - The team Attacking has a time limit of 3 minutes (Time subject to change, just using it as an example.) to infiltrate the enemy base or the round victory goes to the the Defenders.
  - Same score system.
  - Basic round victory rules apply. Zone capturing or killing all the enemies.
  - The round is either won for the Defenders if they capture the Attackers Zone or they keep their own Zone alive, long enough for the time limit to run out.
  - The round is either won for the Attackers if they capture the Defenders Zone or kill all enemies alive. (Extra points for the taking the zone point.)

How to decide which team Attacks or Defends first?
Simple! A coin toss is the easist and laziest way, but we don't have that in-game, so another solution is to use ONE round to decide who plays first. The winner of that ONE round decides if they wish to Attack or Counter-Attack. (I don't mean a whole match, I just mean 1 round, which has no time limit.) To be specific; Once both teams have agreed they are ready to start. The "Decider Round" starts. After that, the game is reset and the match starts with the decided team Attacking or Counter-Attacking.

Pros?

• - It ensures that we have a fixed time on how long a potential match can last. If 10 rounds has a maximum duration of 3 minutes, then we have maximum of 30 minutes PER match. This helps us by keeping games on time, as soon as they start. So that we can plan events based on a fixed time table.
  - Fits in with "Fortress" as in someone is "Defending" it and "Attacking" it. :p

Cons?

• - Might make Fortress too different than what we want it to be, regarding having those last man standing things.

Changes & Benifits?

• *With this addition we can develop some real-time strategy and not just mindlessly wait for the round to end.
  *Make sure our tournaments run exactly how we planned, by the minutes.

Nothing changes, we still have two Zones and if the Defending team wishes to COUNTER-ATTACK just as hard as the Attackers, it's a logical strategy. I myself will employ. Why? because if you have 6 Defending & Sweeping, you're going to get torped. hehe.

[Mkay1]

So it would be like a basketball game, where players on the court, or grid take turns attacking and defending, right? I like how it would be scheduled in a specific time limit... unlike the last bowl, where all the euros had gone to bed on the two remaining teams

For the game type would there only be one zone... to prevent possible cheaters?

I am nuetral to the idea... if it has more people playing fortress then great... but idk if it will work, and the effort it would take to make it happen

[Flex]

No, nothing changes. Both teams have a Zone to defend. It won't be cheating if you decide to counter-attack. If you think you're going to win by having 6 Defenders and Sweepers, you'll find out that torpedoing is a bitch. It's logical to have a normal set up, just so you can keep the game equal on all fields. If you win the Defending round, you want to make up the lead for when you're Attacking.

Set ups can change. Positions can change. Complete strategies can be made for defending and attacking. This would make it almost different to how we play Fortress today.

[Cosmic Dolphin]

That is a really cool idea, in my opinion. Of course, I could never see it applying to every fort. I thought of an idea in an odd way for names... a def with 6 ppl would be nearly as impossible to get to as the Death Star in Star Wars. Name teams Fighter Pilots and Death Stars.

Ok, that was a goofy idea, but I like it in a way. That set-up could also really help train people. Feel good about your attack but need practice on your defensive skills? Switch to the defensive side. The opposite could be true. I really like the idea, as long as it's made a sub-style of fort, not integrated in EVERY fort.

[Z-Man]

So, basically, the change from regular fortress is that there's a time limit, and when that runs out, the defenders win? While yeah, that would solve the issue of tournaments running forever, it would also make the defenders win most of the time in those tournaments, and matches get decided by kill counts. Think about it: the reason the rounds can go for so long is that the defense of BOTH teams manages to hold of the attackers for so long. Add the time limit and the defense is almost guaranteed to hold.

If you want to make the game asymmetric, I think it's best to go all the way. Don't give the attackers a zone to defend at all. Give them infinite respawns, but not the defenders. Award the defenders points for each second they manage to hold the fortress and for each enemy killed. Balance it so that it's better for the attackers to risk death in exchange for a quick victory. Switch sides every round, and make sure each match goes an even number of rounds. Voila, Onslaught Mode. Probably works best for small teams, max of four. I wanted to code this for a long time, but our game mode code sucks.

[ed]

Z-Man, that sounds like fun!
Aside from small tweaks I think you've got the basic game structure spot on.
I can't see anything there that sty+ct and a neat little script can't accomplish.
I'll get right on it

[Z-Man]

<3 ed. Did I already suggest to hand over the project to you? I think I did.

[owned]

If you want to make the game asymmetric, I think it's best to go all the way. Don't give the attackers a zone to defend at all. Give them infinite respawns, but not the defenders. Award the defenders points for each second they manage to hold the fortress and for each enemy killed. Balance it so that it's better for the attackers to risk death in exchange for a quick victory. Switch sides every round, and make sure each match goes an even number of rounds. Voila, Onslaught Mode. Probably works best for small teams, max of four. I wanted to code this for a long time, but our game mode code sucks.

That's what I thought flex was saying when I read the first part of his post. My idea is to give each player a certain amount of respawns (probably somewhere 1-3) and there is a time limit (make it 4 minutes.) The attackers have to risk to get in, but they also have to play as a team. Another idea is to have this on regular fort servers, it just alternates between the two every match.

[Flex]

My idea is still flawed. The idea was to keep Fortress the same, but take away the unlimited side of things. Another game mode is cool, but Fortress seems flawed, right now.. or is was unlimited time never a flaw?

[ed]

The idea was to keep Fortress the same

Nah, this creates a new game mode heavily based on Fortress.

Did I already suggest to hand over the project to you? I think I did.

I thought that's what you were getting at
See it as a prototype, if you think it's worthwhile you can add it as you wish.

"Fortress Onslaught" has been born.

It's 5 a-side.
The grid and physics are straight from fortress classic (except holes that are smaller - subject to change).
It follows Z-man's model except after testing all players now get respawned, not just attackers.
Before this it was a case of wear down the defenders until they crumble. Now they can come back to help and keep busy.
All players are respawned from the attacking team's zone (which is really small and unconquerable).
The attackers have 3 minutes to infiltrate the enemy base before they are all destroyed, I would like to say humanely.

It's not fully tested so any comments/ideas are welcome.
I haven't given scoring much thought for now. I'd like to see what patterns emerge.
It's friday night drinking, but the wife's spent the night on the phone with her friend who's had a baby so I'm stuck here sharing wine, making servers and listening to girly talk, so if my slurring in incoherent I apologise.

Here's hoping to play at Fortress Onslaught (nice name Z) with a full house!
After a few matches testing I think it will make a great fortress practice (maybe even beginners) server if nothing else.

[sinewav]

The idea was to keep Fortress the same, but take away the unlimited side of things. Another game mode is cool, but Fortress seems flawed, right now.. or is was unlimited time never a flaw?

Unlimited time isn't a flaw in the game, it just becomes a problem in a one day tournament with a lot of teams. The solution to that is as easy as LIMIT_TIME 15. Actually, I'd like to suggest a time limit for the next round of Ladle voting, just so we can get it out there.

And a lot of people will complain and offer both sides to the argument that a time limit either makes a game more exciting or boring. To me, it's the players attitudes and playing style that make the game exciting or boring, regardless of time. Fortress as a game isn't broken and doesn't need to be "fixed" - Fortress Tournaments, however, could use a little work to smooth things out.

But aside from that, this new "Fortress Onslaught" new game mode is pretty cool, so everyone should be happy about this work so far.

[Z-Man]

Before this it was a case of wear down the defenders until they crumble.

That sort of was the main idea But yeah, without the ability to add score based on how long it takes before the defense crumbles, respawns for both probably is better.

[Van-hayes]

I like the new mode, adds a nice twist on fortress. Now saying that I've noticed a few things that are wrong with it imo. 1, the attacker's small zone can be conquered by the defenders pretty easily, I'm guessing this wasn't planned but all the defenders have to do is die right away and then just keep in the small zone respawning all the time and they can conquer it before the attacking team even gets to the defenders, maybe make the attackers zone as small as you can with it still being able to respawn. 2, It is rare if the round is ever won by a defender, except if the defender uses #1, usually it is always the attackers who take the round. The reason for this might be the holing or mayabe because the defenders respawn at the other end of the arena with the attackers, my suggestion would be to get rid of holes all together first then if its still a bit one-sided try a different respawn zone for the defenders, closer to their base.

Other then those little things I think its a really fun mode and makes for a great practice server where you either play your positions correctly and use teamwork or you lose, fast.

[epsy]

I might point out that AFK people really flaw the game.

[2020]

onslaught
sounds good

sinewav is right about fortress being a classic
and the drama that ensues in a nail-biting final round in a 1-1 match game
is one of the highlights of the tournament
it would be foolish for us to think it a fault

improvement was built into the tournament design from the beginning:
as we get better at handling the self-organising principle
we inform ourselves so we can make practical jumps to the next level which is bowl;
timing is a recurring issue

sinewav's simple suggestion of a max of 15mins for a match is a simple one
if a match hasn't finished by that time
the highest score wins
which might turn the final round into a hunt and kill mission for a narrowly-trailing side