zone save!

Edit: Change in procedure. Rather than attaching your name and IP to each rating, each rater will now get a code, registered to your name, Global ID, email address and IP address. These four criteria for identification should make falsifying ratings almost impossible, and give us a lot of different ways to confirm true identifies should we need to. It also gets rid of rater names attached to their ratings. I was going to strip that anyway when publishing results, but this allows me to publish mixed intermittent results allowing each of you to identify your ratings but your ratings alone. (Ratings that have already been submitted are fine and valid. No need to resubmit)

First, get a rating code.

Then start rating.

(To clarify, evaluate as many players as you know, not just one)

1.) Number of teams in Ladle 54 – 17.5

2.) Number of clans with two teams – 2.5

3.) Time of completion – 5 hours

4.) Matches won by Crazy Tronners – 6.5

5.) Matches won by Meet Your Maker – 8.5

6.) Matches won by Speeders – 5.5

7.) Closest margin of victory in a match – 5 points

8.) Largest margin of victory in a match 61 points

The last time we actively tried to grow fortress, we needed to get a new bracket. We jumped from about eight teams in Ladle 16 to about 16 in Ladle 17. The approach was simple. Contact already existing clans and teams in other game modes, and invite them to play. A previous approach had targeted individual players and fitted them into new teams. That approach failed because the players didn’t know their teammates and didn’t enjoy playing with them. Approaching already existing teams did work. Fortress is a team game and the teammates can make the game fun or unbearable.

There won’t be a hundred thousand teams in 2012. There won’t be a thousand or even a hundred. But let’s set that same goal as in the Spring of 2009. Let’s double the number. Let’s fill up our 32 team bracket.

This shouldn’t be our only goal, though. Recently it seems many in the community have transformed from fortress players to Ladle players. The only fortress game going with any consistency is in CTWF. That’s a good server, and it has an important place in the fortress landscape, but there needs to be more.

Casual fortress used to be the core of the community, and Ladles were an added bonus. A more serious competition played once a month. Today, a good casual game is the bonus.

I think one of the strongest trends in the history of fortress is the stiffening of personnel. More Players stay on the same team longer than they used to. The idea behind this is, I think, that people stay with the same teammates for a long period of time to build intuitive understanding of each other. The idea that this works is ludicrous, because it never has. A successful team needs good chemistry and a coherent approach to winning, but fortress isn’t the type of game where intuitive knowledge of one’s teammates is all that important. At least not yet. One isn’t passing them a ball. They don’t need to get open. For the most part, techniques and tactics do not yet exist where non-obvious teamwork is important. Players have different levels of awareness of their teammates, and that is important. A player has high awareness or low awareness or something in between, but it doesn’t matter who are his teammates.

Something that I would welcome would be more shorter term teams, mixing players and ideas around a bit. Stirring the pot. It’s happened before. In Ladle 33, a team was formed of half Speeders and half Plus, just a couple months after the teams had met in the finals. Before this year, there was always good circulation of players, new combinations and formations. We need this more than ever, especially if there isn’t going to be any casual fort being played. Otherwise, we’re each only playing with the same small group of people.

The Ladle itself is becoming less significant. This will be the 53rd Ladle. It’s getting a bit absurd. They remain tough to win but how much does winning one really mean. I still think we compete in tournaments not necessarily to win but to gain the recognition of our peers. It’s the communal experience that makes it worth the time. When that community is just the size of a clan or a small team, it really isn’t worth it. The teams might be strong, and the competition might be stiff, but the fortress community is as weak as it was when there were four teams and the first round of the Ladle was the semi-finals.

I think we need raise our game. The Ladle does not provide the best forum for the best matches, because by the final, you’ve been sitting at the computer for three hours. League formats have failed in their last two attempts. The AFL had some success, but even then you got a lot of 5v5 matches that end up being 4v3 or 5v4 or something small-sided.

Let us leave the Ladle for the clans. Because of the inflexibility of time, clans generally need more than six players to consistently field a team. With varying degrees of activity, they sometimes field two, sometimes leave a lot out, sometimes do not field any. A perennial challenge to leagues is that they occur over a long time period and players’ activity fluctuates and flickers. Scheduling games also remains a constant challenge. The Fortress Premier League gave teams the control over when to play their matches, and most matches ended up not getting played. The league office scheduling a time often results in just as many no-shows. The tournament format works because it is infrequent. When you do get everyone together, playing many matches is easy. Of course 3/4 of the teams play just two rounds, despite being around and available for the rest of the afternoon or evening.

Ladles are themselves dragging down creativity in strategy. Teams have a month prepare for a Ladle, but potentially only a couple minutes to change things between rounds. This means that teams generally don’t experiment with tactics or strategies in any competitive  environment, since there are barely any wars any more either. Hell, it’s pretty hard to find a half-decent 6v6 casual match to test any individual or paired tactic on. Maybe the reason things have stagnated is simply because there is no opportunity to try anything anymore.

I think it’s time to rethink how the fortress competitive scene works. I think we need to strengthen the fortress community, and if it is at the expense of the Ladle then okay. I think fortress competition can move beyond the Ladle. I think there should be more matches directly between teams (i.e. wars). I think more fortress needs to be played. I don’t know the answers, but I know the question. What now?

So, it is winter again. Things have already begun to change. Pru died, Swift was born. With SP and mYm separating themselves from the pack this fall, a pack of solid teams has  solidified. This pack includes Unk, TX, CT, R, Swift (yet to be acronymed, it seems), and PL. Among these seven, there is great parity. They trade wins and defeats with each other. They play competitive matches. They beat the teams they are supposed to beat, but cannot seem to beat those teams they so wish to: each other and the perennial finalists, SP, mym.

Things will change. The current polarity of the Ladle cannot sustain itself, simply because neither mYm nor SP has any particularly overwhelming advantage. The win where teams of similar skill lose because they have a coherent plan. For SP, it remains a derivative of that gameplan of 29, fundamentally sound, time-tested, crystal clear. mYm has shown an impressive ability to adapt to their opponent while remaining a cohesive unit. They simply have their shit together. Those seven team that don’t; they lose.

If any of those seven get their act together, or even a team outside that pack (the United Noobs come to mind) they will join those two up on the pedestal. Both mYm and SP dropped a match in an earlier round of Ladle 52. The skill levels are too close for there to be any unsurmountable cliff between them and those below.

If any of that happened no one would be particularly surprised and no one, well besides that team, would particularly care. It would be change, but nothing like Ladle 18 or Ladle 29. In those winters, fortress changed. Holing fundamentally changed fortress. It made player advantage more important, it made sumo ability more important, it made old school defensive technique subordinate to the raw strength of the defensive tactic, it put a premium on coordination within a team’s attack, it either made the sweeper critical or got rid of him altogether in favor of a sweepbox. Holing changed things. The sweepbox hasn’t. No defensive tactic can. Defense can’t change the game because defense never threatens opponent’s with defeat. Defense prevents losing but it does actively pursue victory. Occasionally, not losing is good enough to win, but defensive tactics do not pose a danger to the opponent. He can simply not engage with them, wait, bide his time. He need not react, they pose no danger. Attack changes things. No attack more effective than the holing Speeders used in Ladle 29 has been discovered. Defenses are fighting a two-year old enemy.

Preventing holes doesn’t change the game, it just slows it down. Beating holes, through better recovery methods or simply increased skill, better sweeping, better playing, seems like an alternative. The result of this would be a more free form game, more organic, essentially a regression to pre-29 fortress. With the amount of sumobar being played, increased comfort with a broken zone seems like a real possibility. Casual fortress seems to be played with a lot of broken zone on both ends of the grid. Could this trickle up to the Ladle?

Or perhaps new tactics don’t arise to replace the old. The tactics simply get smaller. Perhaps coordination reaches a higher level of detail, becomes more specific and precise. Maybe teams become far more coordinated, and just get better. Maybe people win not by doing different things but by doing things better.

Or maybe everything changes. It is winter. And the more it changes, the more it’s the same thing.

Today’s defenses are a common topic. They are large, impressive and dominant. They are a response to the earlier primacy of holing. Teams stopped tasking their sweepers with killing and keeping attackers apart. They stopped requiring them to try to cover holes. The sweeper position dissolved into a second layer of defense. Who were they to sweep? The attackers had become holers. Both species went extinct, one after another.

Holing is surprisingly scary. While it involves sacrificing a player, and makes the ensuing sumo harder for the aggressor to win, it creates a situation where the third player to enter the zone, after the defender and the opponent who entered the hole, can determine who wins the round. Should the third be of the defender’s team, the round continues. If the third is an attacker’s, the zone can quickly fall.

My proposal is to simply make 1v2 unconquerable. A 1v3 advantage would be required to quickly conquer the zone. This change does several things for the strategy of fortress, without altering any of the game’s foundation or physics.

Firstly, it reduces the power of holing far more so than any suggestion I have heard. Holes appear everywhere on the grid, but they quite small. The shrinking of holes has been one of the worst changes in the game. It slowed down the midfield game, and did nothing about the holing of defense. Holes should be returned to their old size. The change in conquerability makes holing less attractive, since a fourth attacker is required to pull it off with the speed three used to be able to do it. Sumo is much more in the defender’s favor, which means defenders can afford to be more aggressive and can afford to take more risks. By bolstering the defense, we reduce the need for excessive defending.

Secondly, it dramatically reduces the importance of player advantage. One defender now carries almost as much value as two attackers. 2v3, 3v3, 3v4 are all equivalent. Player advantage emerged as an important theory because it related directly to holing, which related directly to winning. Before the prevalence of holing, player advantage meant little.

Let us imagine a 2v4 with the new zone. The two are insa and FoFo, while the four are average players. With the old zone, FoFo must return to defend, because insa will be holed. Even though insa is a great defender, and FoFo is a great attacker, they are relatively powerless to affect the outcome of the round at this point. That sucks. With the new zone, insa’s ability to defend and sumo matters, because should the opponents hole, the result will be an unconquerable 1v2, or should FoFo and the bad guy defender go to the zone, an unconquerable 2v3. FoFo can leverage his ability both as a sweeper and as an attacker. Actual ability matters much more. We are no longer just numbers.

In the entire course of a fortress game, players can take many more risks and possibly justify them. Should they? is another question. A question each team can consider. The strategic options in the game of fortress are greatly expanded. Player advantage no longer dictates strategy. We are no longer slaves to it. We can hole in other situations, we can risk our life center attacking. We can risk our life actually attacking. We no longer need to protect the zone like it’s an unhatched egg. Rather, a new era of fortress strategy is the unborn chick.

The first is some method of consistently disrupting it’s set up. That means some consistent means of center attack or killing an opponent directly off the grind. I can foresee ways of doing both these, but I do not think any team has found ways to justify the risks involved.

The second would be a effective method of holing the defense. Should this be developed and executed, the castle defense becomes less attractive. It is still the best call in my mind, but when it becomes easily holeable, the game returns to sumo war. Effective holing is a more likely reality than the center attack/grind kill tactic described above, but I do not think anyone is there yet. The castle defense should remain preeminent for a third Ladle, and that is something that its inventor should take a bit of pride in.

With a suitable answer to holing being provided, the game returns to an outfield 4v4. Once player advantage is won (outfield 4v3, total grid 6v5), the advantaged team will turn their defense over to a single man to materialize the advantage further (outfield 5v3, total grid 6v5). We should watch a lot of this type of player advantage manipulation and going for kills.

What I’m watching for is players taking big risks to flip the script on this. That means big gambles on center attacks, bad holes and actual cuts. In the run of a Ladle, that type of stuff rarely wins championships, but it wins admiration. And, sometimes, the recognition of one’s peers is an even greater prize.

First, what do you want play fortress to be? Should it be merely a dumping spot for my opinions and whims? Should we hold it to a higher journalistic standard? Should its arguments be fewer, longer, better researched and more thorough or shorter, opinionated, looser and more current? Daily blips or weekly plops? Should it be driven by the discussion in comments or by the posted content? Is a larger stable of writer desirable or a single steed enough?

Second, how should play fortress feel? Like a gaming website? A magazine? A junkie’s news feed? A cultish blog? A fortress server? What feeling does fortress give off?

Third, how often did you (when new stuff appeared on here) check the site? Did you ever re-read anything? Was any of the content a higher quality than you had a right to expect? Or did it all suck? (To jog your memory)

I appreciate the discussion, it’ll help me think about where this place goes and it gives me some sense of purpose. It’s motivating.

Ladle 2: Anarchic Wanderers
Vanhayes, Hay-lin, 2020, rain, Meriton

Ladle 3: Anarchic Wanderers
Wrtlprnft, 2020, MaZuffeR, Lackadaisical, Vanhayes, Sticky

Ladle 4: proNOOBz
newbie, sebol158, slash, Ady-Lucifer, Luzifer, Slayer

Ladle 5: Tronic Monkeys
2020, Legit, joda, zop, wrtlprnft, sasha, omega, kenny

Ladle 6: Team somethingsomething
MaZuffeR, Pez, pavelo, eggcozy, free kill, newbie

Ladle 7: SpeeDeRs
Psyko, kenny, freaky, Sasha, Speed, oblivion, cyclo, demon, viper

Ladle 8: Tronners Under the Influence
Crack, Shrooms, Luzifer, X, Goodygumdrops, GHß, SmAcK, f, purple kush, os, djt

Ladle 9: Team something something
newbie, nemostultae, pavelo, Pez, MaZuffeR, Lackadaisical

Ladle 10: Tronners Under the Influence
Crack, Shrooms, Luzifer, X, Goodygumdrops, GHß, SmAcK, f, purple kush, os, djt

Ladle 11: Fogies With Wheelchairs
PsYkO, wHaTuP, pavelo, newbie, eggcozy, madmax, MaZuffeR, Lackadaisical

Ladle 12: ¦×¦ Clan
Rico, Flex, Legit, FoFo, $ubz, Hoax, Lazer

Ladle 13: ¦×¦ Clan
Aeon, Dimbiman, Earplugs, Epsy, Flex, Fofo, Hoax, Infamous, Legit, Sticky, Subzero, Legionnaire

Ladle 14: Twisted Killer Rats
Curbside, dookatee, Goodygumdrops, hoop, freako (Knus), Luzifer, madmax, pavelo, Sagelord

Ladle 15: ¦×¦ Clan
Infamous, Flex, Sticky, Hoax, Subzero, Epsy

Ladle 16: Crazy Tronners
emmy, emphasis, K-Yo, safariskater, SeBoL158, sol, Woned, Ady-Lucifer, Tadd, kyle

Ladle 17: Twisted Rats
SageLord, Corn, Durka, Valium, Goody, man2d, Weed, wHaTuP, Curbside

Ladle 18: Bebe’s Boobs Destroy Society
Lackadaisical, madmax, MaZuffeR, Flex, dlh, Your Mom, akira

Ladle 19: Kill or Die
Akira, Flex, Lizmatic, Luzifer, Mazuffer, Pavelo, Vipers, free kill, Your_mom

Ladle 20: Crazy Tronners
Woned, Sebol, Safariskater, Puuquie, Emmy, Emphasis, Gonzap, Tadd, Voodoo, Sol

Ladle 21: Arrow Clan
hoop, freako, Xyron, olive, Totm, newbie, Hamar, a, Arks

Ladle 22: Twi¦×¦ted ¦×¦ats
CuRbSidE, Durka, Goodygumdrops, Hoax, SageLord, $ubzero, Corn, Dimbiman, DreadLord, JJBean, PlayerNuby, stax, WildCat, Terminator

Ladle 23: Twi¦×¦ted ¦×¦ats
CuRbSidE, Durka, Goodygumdrops, Hoax, Liza, SageLord, $ubzero

Ladle 24: Arrow Clan
freako, hoop, arks, newbie, viper, Xyron, Judders, Boo, Olive, a, Hamar, Schwuli, SixZero, Gaspard, Psy, ToTm

Ladle 25: Crazy Tronners
Woned, emphasis, Safariskater, Sebol, Tadd, K-Yo, kyle, Beer, emmy, Weed, Ady-Lucifer

Ladle 26: Speeders
Flex, PsYkO, Oblivion, demon, Sasha, akira, delta, Magic

Ladle 27: Arrow Clan
hoop, freako, olive, hamar, psy, a, viper, Xyron, dubstep, slashy, FoFo, boo, arks, SixZero

Ladle 28: Twi¦×¦ted ¦×¦ats
Corn, CuRbSidE, Durka, Goodygumdrops, Hoax, Liza, PlayerNuby, Roterbaron, SageLord, $ubzero, xs20

Ladle 29: Speeders
Flex, FoFo, Delta, insantiy, PsYkO,Viper

Ladle 30: Speeders
Flex, FoFo, Delta, insantiy, PsYkO,Viper

Ladle 31: Speeders
Flex, FoFo, Delta, insantiy, PsYkO,Viper

Ladle 32: Crazy Tronners
Woned, Gonzap, B3er, Puuquie, K-Yo, Xyron

Ladle 33: Vowel Appreciation Team
Olive, free kill, Titanoboa, newbie, MaZuffeR, Xyron

Ladle 34: Jalapeños On Sticks
Olive, freako, mazuffer, free kill, lackadaisical, newbie

Ladle 35: Team Binary
1200, free kill, madmax, newbie, Lackadaisical, Luzifer

Ladle 36: Speeders
Orion, Flex, Psyko, Viper, Insanity, FoFo, Roger_That, Judders, Nubilous

Ladle 37: Crazy Tronners
Woned, Gonzap, emmy, pike, wap, dreadlord, xyron, puuquie, emphasis, beer

Ladle 38: Rogue Tronners
Lackadaisical, Olive, Titanoboa, Concord, Matoso, Poke Master, Luffy

Ladle 39: Crazy Tronners
Woned, Gonzap, emmy, pike, xyron, puuquie, Voodoo, beer

Ladle 40: Crazy Tronners
Woned, Gonzap, emmy, pike, xyron, puuquie, wap, DreadLord, beer

Ladle 41: You In Danger Girl
Lizmatic, G5, eckz, teen, INW, 1200, freako

Ladle 42: Crazy Tronners
Woned, K-Yo, Xyron, Apparition, Dreadlord, Emmy, Wap, Beer, Gonzap, Puuquie, Safariskater

Ladle 43: Rogue Tronners
Titanoboa, Olive, Luffy, Matoso, Lackadaisical, Poke Master, Slick, Shoebat, Zinger

Ladle 44: Twi¦×¦ted ¦×¦ats
RudyCan’tFail, Hoax, Desolate, Durka, Speed, FroZen, Punk, Karma, Raph

Ladle 45: Twi¦×¦ted ¦×¦ats
RudyCan’tFail, Hoax, Desolate, Durka, Speed, FroZen, Karma, Raph, Corn

Ladle 46: Speeders
FoFo, þsy, Titanoboa, slov, viper, algid, nubi, flex

Ladle 47: Team Unknown
tls, Wildcat, fingerbib, Potter, Luzifer, 0ma, NoobSaibot, bmg

Ladle 48: Team Unknown
Pr3, MaZuffeR, Slash, FoFo, Dreadlord, DrHouse, noob13, jip

Ladle 49: Meet Your Maker
eckz, akira, chah, devicat, dimebag, envy, kairo, liz, pond, sine, toy, weed

Ladle 50: ________