That was taken on October 28, 2016. Too bad I missed by two seconds the screenshot of a vote that failed this week to change fortification to atcs by a large margin.
Regarding Niveus, it already occurs in the rotation and is kinda overplayed a bit imo, it is also too large for rotation 2. Nexus 6 is a good map imo, it does have a place in the rotation, but imo is too large for rotation 2, but possibly could use a slot in rotation 3, sfum I’m not sure about, it is an interesting map, but idk if it would be rotation worthy, we could try it.
Just because some people complain about Fortification, and/or vote for a map change when Fortification is up, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a good map for the rotation. There are a lot of people who do enjoy playing it. Also a lot of people do complain about atcs, as well as niveus, but they aren’t going to be removed from the rotation. In my experience, there are always at least some people who don’t like any given map.
I wouldn’t remove Fortification from the rotation completely, as besides for the above reasons, Fortification is of a very decent quality in game play, allows for a variation in interesting strategies even for 1.1 vanilla, and support “upper small” to mid sized matches. But what we could do is change the frequency at which fortification appears in the rotation.
Too bad this rotation system doesn’t support time period based rotations. I have noticed a variation in map preferences based on the time of the day.
Okay, look. I do not want to get into a big Menace/DevHC debate here, but you can’t make this claim
w/o explaining said strategies.
Look to my post (39/43) for a good summary of fortification
Furthermore, it promotes insane jetcamp that even treecannon would be proud of and it offers no dynamism to alien builders/base spots.
Sparky. I get that you want to support mapmakers no matter how crooked (Matth). However, we have to draw the line when the quality of said mapmaker’s maps starts to decline. I respect you as a developer and as a leader of this community but I cannot reasonably take YOUR input on gameplay balance/strategies. Sorry if this comes off as boorish but I have been playing competitive tremulous far longer than you my friend and fortification is not pub worthy let alone scrim worthy.
Additionally, ‘sfum’ is a moderately balanced atcs-sized map for both humans and aliens. It offers new hallways to pub smash in and viable base options for both races. My only complaint about ‘sfum’ is the weird clipping that allows you as an alien to see humans on radar that are in the lower hall/upper hall vice versa. Also the weird clipping makes it so that a human can hear an alien taunt from the opposite hallway (I would have to show you in game, hard to explain.).
Pubs are by no means about the guy who can get the highest score, but even seasoned pub smashers experience huge declines in kill/time margins on fortification because of how campy the map gets at latter stages and how disproportionate it is making encounters feel awkward. Please set up a poll regarding the stay of fortification in the rotation, and while we’re at it let’s include other controversial maps to kill multiple birds with one stone.
Hey @bird@dGr8LookinSparky I can see why bird and others may not like the map with the reasons:
Too bright and others I won’t list them all really
but @dGr8LookinSparky does have sort of a point players do complain about atcs at the same time they complain about fortification, it isn’t that hard to /callvote map a new one if enough players hate it will switch? If not then you’ll have to deal with it or find a way to easily win after all not all players like atcs either but its famously picked. So saying this it seems like both maps that wan’t to be commonly picked and removed are balanced in some ways.
Also, jets were implemented in the game for a reason to help humans as well as rants if any map does provide mass jet camp in an unfair balanced way, a /callteamvote admit_defeat can fix that. Rant’s are also a good and easy way to deal with it.
OK people, I have been extremely exploring logs because of this claimings about fortification.
Here is the deal with fortification in the last 3 months:
Numbers of times Played 251.
Number of Times People called a vote to change to fortification: 52
• Passed – 13
• Failed - 39
Number of Times people called a vote to next map fortification: 97
• Passed – 34
• Failed – 63
Number of times with a change map vote during fortification to any other map:
• Passed – 97
• Failed – 122
We must remember that having to get 65% or more positive votes, they tend to fail more.
As we can see, only 97 times from 251 times plays, the map was changed to another one.
With this info I don’t think EVERYBODY hates fortification. Important note: I can’t know how many times was the map changed when there was 4 players online for example or how many times the map was there with anybody playing, so this info may not be precise, but we can see a tendency. Important note 2: We need a map selecting intermission screen, like I mentioned in this post
What we can take from this is that when fortification is /callvote map/nextmap’d it seldom gets passed (meaning the majority of the server DOES NOT want to play on fortification immediately or after their current map ends).
However, while it is seldom passed - ‘fortification’ is not often switched off of (meaning when fortification occurs whether naturally or called, it does not immediately get changed often.)
My view -
Sure, the map usually stays on when it occurs naturally or on the off chance it occurs via /callvote, but it’s lack of passage for both /callvote map and nextmap votes is concerning and clearly it isn’t favored by the vast majority.
umm, you should add to this one the amount of plays where map change wasnt even called, making it 38%. That means 62% didn’t want a map change or wanted to change it in the first place in the last 3 months. (which is less because fortification was released like 2 months ago.)
Those are interesting stats @Woodbury , even given the fact that the voting system is very messed up and can be easily exploitable (something that would be more interesting would be to see how these stats vary with the time of the day, but I don’t think you can make that determination from the info in the logs).
@Woodbury , for comparison would you be interested in determining the corresponding stats of ATCS, Niveus, and other maps in the rotation (maybe also mission one as that seems to be a popular called map even though it isn’t in the rotation, not that it should be in the rotation)?
What is that? I’m picturing this:
If anything I would say that Fortification is very anti jet camp, especially outside in most situations, as the outside structures always allows you to take a path to avoid the jet campers, additionally the outside structures do make the jet campers relatively reachable if you do decide to approach a jet camper.
Aliens have viable options to build in either of the defaults, in either of the lookouts, in the underground halls, and even in the upper halls. Humans can build in any general area.
Even in 1.1 vanilla successful base moves seem more successful for either team than many other popular maps. Also decent forwards seem to be common.
From anywhere on Fortification, there are many flanking options for both teams, as well as many escape routes.
It seems that in the default base, humans can’t build a nearly impenetrable camp fest like they can in atcs, I even see rant hopping the rc as a relatively common thing on fortification .
Regarding balance, @woodbury could you collect stats on how many times aliens won, how many times humans won, how many times there was a draw, and how many times it reached the time limit?
Fyi, the map was put on the rotation and remains on the rotation because it is worthy as such, not because of who made it. @Menace13 even ultimately suggested that it would be a good map on the rotation after it was improved and underwent many public game tests.
@Matth did lower the bp down to 140 after that suggestion, and @Menace13 did not indicate any objections that I’m aware of when Fortification was added to the rotation shortly after. I don’t know however if @Menace13 still feels that it should be in the rotation.
I also added it to the rotation because imo it is a fun map to play, as well as for the reasons I mentioned above, and many other people have/do enjoy(ed) playing it.
To “pub smash” is to gain as many kills as possible in the shortest amount of time possible on any given map in the public server, or to achieve victory in the quickest way possible.
Do not get me wrong, I enjoy the additional BP and you are right it does promote viable forward bases but in general there is not much a granger can do on this map. They can build in default sure. However lookouts are not safe once humans achieve S2 due to jets peering through lookout slits and that small compact hall is easily nadable. The underground hallways and dome are not viable for aliens as they are too wide, tall, and open. If you haven’t noticed, humans excel in ranged weaponry and they WILL use said weaponry to melt an alien base to nothing in those long, exposed tunnels/hallways. The default on fortification is admittedly more viable than maps like sharp or Tremor, but this coupled with extra BP is not enough to justify this map’s playability.
251 games happened, so 32 games didnt have a callvote change map in it, that must be counted as people didnt want to change the map which is the same as vote fail because the map didnt change.
Only fortification took me hours, since I searched each instance of each day where fortification was loaded and searched for a map change inside those lines and what was the result, doing ATCS, Niveus and other maps is gonna take forever.
Ahhhhh okay I see, Thank you. But I think that would be a separate statistic in itself, because this is solely based on /callvote map SUCCESS rate, not the total number of times the map has been played WITHOUT a /callvote map.
To reiterate, the statistic I was talking about refers to ONLY when /callvote map is used.
It does NOT refer to when fortification is played through entirely without a /callvote map
I enjoy playing Fortification, but currently I don’t feel the need to call it often since it comes back on the server soon enough, I even tolerate an atcs match if necessary before playing fortification. A map can be enjoyed without having to play it all day everyday (I would not want to play any map that much). With that said, as I mentioned, the frequency at which fortification shows in the rotation could be reduced a bit.
But regarding the stats, keep in mind that often when a failed map is called, there are usually multiple attempts to change a map.
Chances are that number of games that a map change was not called is much larger, for the above reason that failed votes are often attempted multiple times in the same match.
Something else to consider, how many different unique players called the failed votes?
This is the [quote=“bird, post:51, topic:673”]
The underground hallways and dome are not viable for aliens as they are too wide, tall, and open.
I was referring to.
This was not spoken on in post #51 but these halls are simply too tall. In a match between a dretch and rifle (of exact same skill level respectively) the rifle should always win. The halls are too tall making mazey dretch wall runs harder and allowing humans to backpedal or strafe you easier. Compared to the hallways on ATCS, these are much harder for aliens. Also the sloped triangular edges on both sides of the hall do not favor goons when they are trying to chomp a dancing helmet.
I have built many forwards and even the main alien base in that location, and we won most of those times. also the parallel hall to the left can make a good location for the OM and other things. Another thing to keep in mind is that these forwards and even the main base can be built there temporarily for recovery or strategic positioning, and then move somewhere else later.
This is true and I appreciate you noticing something strategic like this but sadly you and I both know that these days it is hard to find a competent builder who will dedicate himself to the reparation and potential mobilization of a base at any given time. Not many builders today have the foresight to actively move/touch up the base according to the human’s patterns. I personally would build all the time but as I’ve made threads about before in the past, there is no real incentive to building (at least for me). I appreciate stats or visible scores and unfortunately both building classes don’t have a lot to show for their good work, all the more reason to incentivize building through designation protection or some sort of modification to the scoreboard.
Actually I really enjoy building in trem (besides the combat), although 1.1 vanilla is far more limiting in terms of what you can do strategically than in other game plays, Fortification is one of those maps where you can see a lot more variation and dynamics in game play even for 1.1 vanilla. ATCS, especially in 1.1 vanilla, almost always results in the same general base layouts/locations, and in 1.1 vanilla you rarely see much forwarding nor significant moving.
As a side note, this might be a bit off topic, but I personally don’t care at all about my score, I’m more interested in figuring out ways to strategically win, which can include strategic building, strategic killing, strategic rushes, and killing enemy buildables strategically. I can significantly contribute to winning the game with even a single digit kill score. But yeah, scoring should more accurately reflect this kind of game play, and forwarding/moving should be a lot more viable in the game play (requiring much less time/attention).
I haven’t played the map (or Tremulous in general) since the BP was reduced, but I see absolutely no reason why it could not be just 100 BP. If it’s a map in rotation 2, with some already insanely good base locations, 140 BP is definitely still too much for a map that is in rotation 2.
My opinion in this situation is irrelevant, since I am not one of the 15 people who still plays Tremulous.
No, it promotes making even harder to kill bases with the 140 BP. Extra BP will never be enough to encourage building forward bases. GPP did a great job of promoting small forwards with the change to Repeaters, but in 1.1, increasing the BP just makes bases stronger and harder to kill.