Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DraconPyrothayan

Post-midnight bolt-out-of-bed mad scientist moment. RE: Fortress

Recommended Posts

If I were playing a tournament vs someone who flew this fortress I'd just make a 99 pt fleet and circle on my side of the map until time expired and win on pts 99-98.

Are you aware of the fact that that is not how it works? A match where neither side have destroyed or lost any ships will end in a draw and give each player 1 point.

In the knock out (Championship bracket) a draw will result in a win to the player with initiative:

Tournament Rules page 3:

"If a game ends in a Draw during a championship bracket round, the winner is the player with initiative."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I were playing a tournament vs someone who flew this fortress I'd just make a 99 pt fleet and circle on my side of the map until time expired and win on pts 99-98.

Are you aware of the fact that that is not how it works? A match where neither side have destroyed or lost any ships will end in a draw and give each player 1 point.

In the knock out (Championship bracket) a draw will result in a win to the player with initiative:

Tournament Rules page 3:

"If a game ends in a Draw during a championship bracket round, the winner is the player with initiative."

 

 

Provided that the guy that did the fortress during a tournament round is not disqualified for intentional stalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If I were playing a tournament vs someone who flew this fortress I'd just make a 99 pt fleet and circle on my side of the map until time expired and win on pts 99-98.

Are you aware of the fact that that is not how it works? A match where neither side have destroyed or lost any ships will end in a draw and give each player 1 point.

In the knock out (Championship bracket) a draw will result in a win to the player with initiative:

Tournament Rules page 3:

"If a game ends in a Draw during a championship bracket round, the winner is the player with initiative."

 

 

Provided that the guy that did the fortress during a tournament round is not disqualified for intentional stalling.

 

 

Ahh, yes, but that wasn't in the post or how charlesanakin suggested he would win. He simply stated that he would win on points, which he wouldn't.

 

Now don't get wrong, I am no advocate nor fan of any "Fortress", not because I believe it to be illegal, but purely because I find it to be fundamentally against what this game is/was meant to be. And also because it basically gives the opponent(s) a tremendously poor gaming experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of you seem to be defending this fortress idea and this 4 Alpha + Howl list in particular... But no one seems to have ever tried it?

A lot of the top lists these days have the firepower to drop a single-action Interceptor in one round, even with Autothrusters. Most of them also have repositional abilities that are likely to get them out of these "kill zones" you intend to create after breaking the fortress.

A lot of lists/strategies seem very potent on paper, but fall apart in practice. I seem to think this is one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If I were playing a tournament vs someone who flew this fortress I'd just make a 99 pt fleet and circle on my side of the map until time expired and win on pts 99-98.

Are you aware of the fact that that is not how it works? A match where neither side have destroyed or lost any ships will end in a draw and give each player 1 point.

In the knock out (Championship bracket) a draw will result in a win to the player with initiative:

Tournament Rules page 3:

"If a game ends in a Draw during a championship bracket round, the winner is the player with initiative."

 

 

Provided that the guy that did the fortress during a tournament round is not disqualified for intentional stalling.

 

 

Ahh, yes, but that wasn't in the post or how charlesanakin suggested he would win. He simply stated that he would win on points, which he wouldn't.

 

Now don't get wrong, I am no advocate nor fan of any "Fortress", not because I believe it to be illegal, but purely because I find it to be fundamentally against what this game is/was meant to be. And also because it basically gives the opponent(s) a tremendously poor gaming experience

 

 

As a case study its an interesting setup and I do not consider it poor gaming experience if a friend did it. In fact, in a fly casual day, I would be interested to go against it to see whether it works in a game too or only in theory.

 

If someone did this in a tournament though, I am calling the TO right away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

If I were playing a tournament vs someone who flew this fortress I'd just make a 99 pt fleet and circle on my side of the map until time expired and win on pts 99-98.

Are you aware of the fact that that is not how it works? A match where neither side have destroyed or lost any ships will end in a draw and give each player 1 point.

In the knock out (Championship bracket) a draw will result in a win to the player with initiative:

Tournament Rules page 3:

"If a game ends in a Draw during a championship bracket round, the winner is the player with initiative."

 

 

Provided that the guy that did the fortress during a tournament round is not disqualified for intentional stalling.

 

 

Ahh, yes, but that wasn't in the post or how charlesanakin suggested he would win. He simply stated that he would win on points, which he wouldn't.

 

Now don't get wrong, I am no advocate nor fan of any "Fortress", not because I believe it to be illegal, but purely because I find it to be fundamentally against what this game is/was meant to be. And also because it basically gives the opponent(s) a tremendously poor gaming experience

 

 

As a case study its an interesting setup and I do not consider it poor gaming experience if a friend did it. In fact, in a fly casual day, I would be interested to go against it to see whether it works in a game too or only in theory.

 

If someone did this in a tournament though, I am calling the TO right away.

 

On what grounds?  I am a TO for many local tournaments in my area.  There is nothing illegal about bumping into your own ships.  Does it sound like fun?  No... but not illegal.  Think of it as bunting in baseball.  As the defending infield, when the batter shows bunt you cheat forward to defend.  

I never understood those that complained about this tactic.  If the round in 60 minutes long, and you have the initiative, then you too play keep away for 60 minutes.  Or, put yourself in a good position in the last round to defeat more points than your opponent can.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call the TO for what, bumping his ships? Well if we're going to start calling TO's over for playing >>legal<< things we think are fundamentally against what the game should be, I'm calling the TO over when my opponent plays Super Dash. Playing against Super Dash is a negative play experience for me. A ship should not be able to fire an HLC as a turret and should be affected by obstacles. Ships should have to get other ships in arc to attack them, turrets are fundamentally against the nature of what the game was meant to be.

A fortress player isn't going to slow play you. Once his dials are set once he doesn't need to reset them, and he doesn't get any actions. He could just simultaneously flip all his dials, both players could agree that np ships are moving, and then the opponent moves all of his ships provided they are of a higher PS.

IMO that hero that flew his XXXZ as a fortress when faced with a Phantom played something less broken and against the spirit of the game than the pre-Nerf Super Phantom. It was literally his only hope of winning against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English is not my first language so I might have misunderstood the rules, so what consists "abusing an infinite combo"?

 

Unsportsmanlike Conduct
Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to
play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling
a game for time, placing components with excessive force, abusing an infinite
combo, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy
or respect, etc. Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly
forbidden. The TO, at his sole discretion, may remove players from the

tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English is not my first language so I might have misunderstood the rules, so what consists "abusing an infinite combo"?

 

Unsportsmanlike Conduct

Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to

play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling

a game for time, placing components with excessive force, abusing an infinite

combo, inappropriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy

or respect, etc. Collusion among players to manipulate scoring is expressly

forbidden. The TO, at his sole discretion, may remove players from the

tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct

Using a combination of abilities triggering infinity, hence an infinite combo... There's nothing at all that is a combo or infinite about a fortress build, I could achieve the same effect of doing the same maneuver every turn with a 2 hard turn near the middle of the board.

The infinite combo clause is a safeguard for if they mess up and make some abilities that can trigger forever, but they haven't yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Hey, I'm just playing what's best and in every competitive game certain things will rise to the top. Fortresses don't ruin the game, you just need to adapt and play better. *trollface* "

 

"I'm just playing what's best" -

- means you're not playing a fortress.

Being a strategy allowed within the rules of the game doesn't make it a sensible strategy. Fortresses kill your action economy and telegraph your next maneuver (nowhere) to your opponent every round. Neither are things you really want to do.

 

 

 

Wow, it's like you didn't read the actual thread.

Having autothrusters and a howlrunner reroll, and being able to maybe do one cool manuever if they get close to you doesn't exactly invalidate his point. I'm sure by fortress standards this thing is really neat and well thought out, but there's a good reason fortresses aren't ruining the world. It would take all of 5-10 mins for a dash drive by to murder one ship and then you HAVE to chase me, and well, good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is why I think the Invisible Fortress is the way to go. Better when you spring the trap. You try to drive by, the candy canes happen, and then the hurt starts.

Because when I think of things that are great against Dash, I think of low ps generic pilots (in this case phantoms)  :rolleyes: . But maybe it will work better than other fortress ideas against more conventional ships coming in. But dash is hardly the only high ps ship that could avoid the lowbies' arcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of fortressing, but this is an interesting idea, waiting for the enemy to come to you.....

 

 

 

Dracon, have you actually played any games with either of the fortresses?

Edited by YwingAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 attacks of 4 is quite potent. I've one volleyed a Firespray with 4 Phantoms before. I've also stripped a 2400 of most of its health before in one volley.

 

It wasn't as a fortress but it's quite devastating.

 

Invisible Fortress isn't really a fortress build, it's (on paper) just a better way to play 4x Phantoms. It's already a good build, a fortress opening just allows you to be more reactive, so you could go over the top pre-emptively once you see your opponent commit one way or the other. It's like a red zero opening for a Lambda just carried to an extreme.

 

Or you could cloak your fortress and stay put lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it's like you didn't read the actual thread.

 

You've got a reroll from Howlrunner and some Range 3 autothrust. That's still no actions, unfocused arcs and still telegraphed maneuvers. Is it better than Howlrunner and four alphas played normally? I doubt it.

 

Plus the TIE interceptor can generate such tight turns you're probably better off separating your merry-go-round of interceptors a bit and executing hard 1s every turn. Then you get your actions.

 

Invisible Fortress isn't really a fortress build, it's (on paper) just a better way to play 4x Phantoms. It's already a good build, a fortress opening just allows you to be more reactive, so you could go over the top pre-emptively once you see your opponent commit one way or the other. It's like a red zero opening for a Lambda just carried to an extreme.

 

If it's any good and is adopted to any significant extent then it will be brutally killed by FFG.

Edited by TIE Pilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it's like you didn't read the actual thread.

 

You've got a reroll from Howlrunner and some Range 3 autothrust. That's still no actions, unfocused arcs and still telegraphed maneuvers. Is it better than Howlrunner and four alphas played normally? I doubt it.

 

Plus the TIE interceptor can generate such tight turns you're probably better off separating your merry-go-round of interceptors a bit and executing hard 1s every turn. Then you get your actions.

 

Invisible Fortress isn't really a fortress build, it's (on paper) just a better way to play 4x Phantoms. It's already a good build, a fortress opening just allows you to be more reactive, so you could go over the top pre-emptively once you see your opponent commit one way or the other. It's like a red zero opening for a Lambda just carried to an extreme.

 

If it's any good and is adopted to any significant extent then it will be brutally killed by FFG.

In this hypothetical world, how do you propose they do that? No more than 3 of the same ship? Bumping your own ships doesn't happen anymore? Cloak functions differently than now? Nothing in the invisible fortress bends the rules even a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it's like you didn't read the actual thread.

 

You've got a reroll from Howlrunner and some Range 3 autothrust. That's still no actions, unfocused arcs and still telegraphed maneuvers. Is it better than Howlrunner and four alphas played normally? I doubt it.

 

Plus the TIE interceptor can generate such tight turns you're probably better off separating your merry-go-round of interceptors a bit and executing hard 1s every turn. Then you get your actions.

 

Invisible Fortress isn't really a fortress build, it's (on paper) just a better way to play 4x Phantoms. It's already a good build, a fortress opening just allows you to be more reactive, so you could go over the top pre-emptively once you see your opponent commit one way or the other. It's like a red zero opening for a Lambda just carried to an extreme.

 

If it's any good and is adopted to any significant extent then it will be brutally killed by FFG.

In this hypothetical world, how do you propose they do that? No more than 3 of the same ship? Bumping your own ships doesn't happen anymore? Cloak functions differently than now? Nothing in the invisible fortress bends the rules even a little bit.

Fortressing is one of those things that would be hard to ban with a ruling. It's one of those, "We'll know it when we see it" sort of things.

In other words, even if there was a rule against Fortressing it would be completely unenforceable, and even if caught doing it all the player would have to do is stop doing it and receive no actual consequence for it. Just like how slow playing is now.

"I'm not fortressing, I was going to break up the formation after turn 4!"

Is fortressing your ships for one turn against the rules? What about two turns, or three? Is hard one turning Fat Han repeatedly a fortress? Is Wingman parking a Lambda with a Defender in front of it repeatedly 4 K Turning a fortress? I'm not fortressing, one of my ships is moving!

If you park 4 Cloaked Sigmas into a fortress, fine, I'm fortressing. But what if I only fortressed 3 of them, and kept one nearby cloaked and hard one turning in a square repeatedly?

There is too much gray area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this hypothetical world, how do you propose they do that? No more than 3 of the same ship? Bumping your own ships doesn't happen anymore? Cloak functions differently than now? Nothing in the invisible fortress bends the rules even a little bit.

 

At the moment, no. Fortresses are completely legal. And they're legal because they're not very good: they don't pose a big enough threat to player enjoyment of the competitive format to be worth designing rules to stop. They are, however, in the words of Alex Davy, "a negative play experience," and not something anyone wants to see the game at large devolve into. Right now there's no risk of widespread adoption because they're less effective than playing the game, for need of a better word, "properly." With a few exceptions fortress tactics are pretty much only designed by people who find enjoyment in finding wild and creative ways to subvert the game rules, not used in practice by people trying to maximise their chances of winning. So long as it stays that way fortressing is fairly harmless to the state of the game as a whole.

 

They could do it any number of ways, they don't want to because of the effects it could have elsewhere in the game. The example Alex Davy gave was a hypothetical rule that if none of your ships moved for three rounds in a row you automatically lost. That would deal with fortresses, but there are ways around it (have a TIE fighter flying in circles next to it for example) and potentially a situation could arise where someone forces a win by causing a traffic jam: massive starfighter pileups do happen.

It's a case of weighing the benefit (elimination of fortressing) against the possible side effects of any ruling. Right now fortressing is sufficiently rare and ineffective such that the risks of changing the rules to kill it off outweigh the benefit of killing it off. Were that to change, were fortressing to become a problem, then the designers would look into ways to kill it while minimising side effects.

Edited by TIE Pilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...