Direct questions to the fully charged thread, that's where we're taking them from
sandhillcelticok a question for the podcast- will there be more advanced tutorials added with matchmaking for things like rocket jumping and the competitive meta?
I see you're a new user here, and probably to competitive tf2, there is a wiki over at comp.tf which pretty much tries to encompass all the information regarding to competitive tf2 and the competitive meta specifically. Altough it's not anything official we (I and all the contributors) try to keep it as tidy as possible. Although I would be psyched if valve reached out to the wiki.
I see you're a new user here, and probably to competitive tf2, there is a wiki over at comp.tf which pretty much tries to encompass all the information regarding to competitive tf2 and the competitive meta specifically. Altough it's not anything official we (I and all the contributors) try to keep it as tidy as possible. Although I would be psyched if valve reached out to the wiki.
I don't really see anything of value coming out of matchmaking. 6s lobbies already really suck and that's with people who kind of know what they're doing on 6s maps with 6s whitelists. I have no faith in Valve balancing 100+ unlocks (if Valve never hired Icefrog, Dota 2 would probably be an imbalanced mess). There are already enough players for leagues to exist and I doubt we're going to explode CSGO style and suddenly have international lans every few months. /pessimisticrant
RoyceI don't really see anything of value coming out of matchmaking. 6s lobbies already really suck and that's with people who kind of know what they're doing on 6s maps with 6s whitelists. I have no faith in Valve balancing 100+ unlocks (if Valve never hired Icefrog, Dota 2 would probably be an imbalanced mess). There are already enough players for leagues to exist and I doubt we're going to explode CSGO style and suddenly have international lans every few months. /pessimisticrant
6s lobbies really suck because everyone throws in 6s lobby. In a matchmaking system where people have to earn ranks and could rise higher people would treat it seriously just like in csgo
6s lobbies really suck because everyone throws in 6s lobby. In a matchmaking system where people have to earn ranks and could rise higher people would treat it seriously just like in csgo
RoyceThere are already enough players for leagues to exist and I doubt we're going to explode CSGO style and suddenly have international lans every few months.
ESEA was about to drop TF2 before this and still dropped lans
???
ESEA was about to drop TF2 before this and still dropped lans
???
saamRoyceThere are already enough players for leagues to exist and I doubt we're going to explode CSGO style and suddenly have international lans every few months.
ESEA was about to drop TF2 before this and still dropped lans
???
Does every other community TF2 league in the world suddenly no longer exist?
ESEA was about to drop TF2 before this and still dropped lans
???[/quote]
Does every other community TF2 league in the world suddenly no longer exist?
RoycesaamDoes every other community TF2 league in the world suddenly no longer exist?RoyceThere are already enough players for leagues to exist and I doubt we're going to explode CSGO style and suddenly have international lans every few months.
ESEA was about to drop TF2 before this and still dropped lans
???
u speak as if ugc 6s is serious
ESEA was about to drop TF2 before this and still dropped lans
???[/quote]
Does every other community TF2 league in the world suddenly no longer exist?[/quote]
u speak as if ugc 6s is serious
JunktronMore people reporting on matchmaking
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/04/30/team-fortress-2-matchmaking/
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/04/30/matchmaking-reportedly-en-route-to-team-fortress-2
IBP did one too. Said their writer was super handsome too, not sure why that's applicable...
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/04/30/team-fortress-2-matchmaking/
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/04/30/matchmaking-reportedly-en-route-to-team-fortress-2[/quote]
IBP did one too. Said their writer was super handsome too, not sure why that's applicable...
http://blog.ibuypower.com/blog/2015/05/01/saving-team-fortress-valve-confirms-competitive-match-making-headed-to-beloved-title/
So I had this idea for item/class limiting...
A couple of concerns that were mentioned concerning banning were:
*it shouldn't take too long
*Valve doesn't want it to limit the meta the way 6s is played now
So I had this idea where each team gets 3 bans. A ban would limit the usable weapon of a certain weapon slot to the stock item.
An example of the bans of 1 of 2 teams:
Engineer slot3 ban (only stock wrench allowed, would be popular to prevent combat engies)
Sniper slot2 ban (only SMGs allowed, would prevent snipers using the Darwin's Danger Shield)
Pyro slot1 ban (only stock flamethrower allowed, no degreaser. Wouldn't matter too much if it's to defend last when it comes to airblasting)
Other examples would be Heavy slot3 to prevent rollouts with Golves of Urgently Running, Spy slot1 (mainly for the enforcer, though I don't think a ban like this would be a priority)
I think this method of banning would not limit the meta too much, but would give the teams the option to get rid of some of the more annoying weapons people don't want to be used.
Ofcourse it's not perfect. It would still take some time for people to discuss what they want banned and people might troll with this (for example banning soldier slot2 to annoy roamers).
So it should probably require a majority vote from the team to ban something to prevent trolling if it's just 1 guy trying to vote for bans like that. Banning should have a time limit (no banning after the server has been full for x minutes) so it doesn't take too long.
If it should still take too long, maybe have only 2 bans per team. or have 3 bans that are voted on by both teams.
Maybe it can also be used as a class limiter. Instead of banning a certain slot of a class the class limit is lowered to 1. This would be a good option to have when a team wants to play the classic 6s classes with just 1 medic and 1 demo.
Just a concept I had in my head. Haven't really thought of how to make it work as good as possible that much. mainly just wanted to hear what you guys would think of such a system
A couple of concerns that were mentioned concerning banning were:
*it shouldn't take too long
*Valve doesn't want it to limit the meta the way 6s is played now
So I had this idea where each team gets 3 bans. A ban would limit the usable weapon of a certain weapon slot to the stock item.
An example of the bans of 1 of 2 teams:
Engineer slot3 ban (only stock wrench allowed, would be popular to prevent combat engies)
Sniper slot2 ban (only SMGs allowed, would prevent snipers using the Darwin's Danger Shield)
Pyro slot1 ban (only stock flamethrower allowed, no degreaser. Wouldn't matter too much if it's to defend last when it comes to airblasting)
Other examples would be Heavy slot3 to prevent rollouts with Golves of Urgently Running, Spy slot1 (mainly for the enforcer, though I don't think a ban like this would be a priority)
I think this method of banning would not limit the meta too much, but would give the teams the option to get rid of some of the more annoying weapons people don't want to be used.
Ofcourse it's not perfect. It would still take some time for people to discuss what they want banned and people might troll with this (for example banning soldier slot2 to annoy roamers).
So it should probably require a majority vote from the team to ban something to prevent trolling if it's just 1 guy trying to vote for bans like that. Banning should have a time limit (no banning after the server has been full for x minutes) so it doesn't take too long.
If it should still take too long, maybe have only 2 bans per team. or have 3 bans that are voted on by both teams.
Maybe it can also be used as a class limiter. Instead of banning a certain slot of a class the class limit is lowered to 1. This would be a good option to have when a team wants to play the classic 6s classes with just 1 medic and 1 demo.
Just a concept I had in my head. Haven't really thought of how to make it work as good as possible that much. mainly just wanted to hear what you guys would think of such a system
This might be a bit wacky and is basically a complete overhaul but hear me out.
What if we redesigned the tf2 class mechanic to mirror the system of Dota 2 and basically divide each class into "heroes". Since basically we have this already in the form of "loadouts", certain weapons work well with others in certain slots. e.g. sticky jumper ullapool caber combo; degreaser axtinguiser et.c. This would mean that Valve could just use the pick/ban system of heroes without having a monstrous amount of unlocks to pick/ban in a matchmaking system which would likely put a lot of people off. This would limit combinations but would allow the game to be more predictable when it comes to unlocks i.e. you have some idea of what is coming rather than just getting destroyed by a random unlock that you had no idea your opponent was using. Maybe each class picks x amount of loadouts that they can switch to at any time in the game? Again, this is a complete redesign of the current system of picking weapons at will but just wanted to throw the idea out there and see what people thought.
What if we redesigned the tf2 class mechanic to mirror the system of Dota 2 and basically divide each class into "heroes". Since basically we have this already in the form of "loadouts", certain weapons work well with others in certain slots. e.g. sticky jumper ullapool caber combo; degreaser axtinguiser et.c. This would mean that Valve could just use the pick/ban system of heroes without having a monstrous amount of unlocks to pick/ban in a matchmaking system which would likely put a lot of people off. This would limit combinations but would allow the game to be more predictable when it comes to unlocks i.e. you have some idea of what is coming rather than just getting destroyed by a random unlock that you had no idea your opponent was using. Maybe each class picks x amount of loadouts that they can switch to at any time in the game? Again, this is a complete redesign of the current system of picking weapons at will but just wanted to throw the idea out there and see what people thought.
Just imagine a competitive tf2 and valve doing it right.......*pop*
Yea me neither
(But lets hope after the End of the Line update they can bring it back)
Yea me neither
(But lets hope after the End of the Line update they can bring it back)
Class limits reasoning, based off "class groups" already in tf2:
Scout, soldier, pyro - offense class limit 2
Demo heavy engie - defense class limit 1
Medic sniper spy - support class limit 1
This is almost the same as 6s, you just wouldn't be able to run 2 snipers or 2 spies
Scout, soldier, pyro - offense class limit 2
Demo heavy engie - defense class limit 1
Medic sniper spy - support class limit 1
This is almost the same as 6s, you just wouldn't be able to run 2 snipers or 2 spies
I'd much rather have valve make a separate set of weapons only usable in a competitive game. That way it's easier to make balanced weapons (without fear of upsetting some pubbers for ruining their already existing weapons), everybody gets all of those weapons by default upon entering matchmaking and everybody fights on even ground and if you still want to go with this pick/ban nonsense, it would be much easier to do it with weapons specifically targeted to the competitive environment.
I'd want to see a 5v5 cl1 tournament to be honest.
Then you get one of each of the cookie cutter lineup; scout, soldier, demo, and medic and still have room for a permanent off-class such as pyro or something. This forces some creativity and innovation since you need to be constantly switching your offclass depending on whether or not you're attacking or defending and to counter whatever offclass the other team is running.
I have a suspicion that in practice it might tend towards a new cookie cutter lineup of scout, soldier, demo, medic, sniper though. If the other team runs a sniper then you need a sniper to counter their sniper and at that point there's usually a sniper up so both teams still need a sniper.
Looking longer term, (if we somehow managed to change the entire competitive scene to this format) I think this would also be a more favourable format for LANs and sponsors as they are more used to 5v5 in other games and it's one less player to sponsor.
Then you get one of each of the cookie cutter lineup; scout, soldier, demo, and medic and still have room for a permanent off-class such as pyro or something. This forces some creativity and innovation since you need to be constantly switching your offclass depending on whether or not you're attacking or defending and to counter whatever offclass the other team is running.
I have a suspicion that in practice it might tend towards a new cookie cutter lineup of scout, soldier, demo, medic, sniper though. If the other team runs a sniper then you need a sniper to counter their sniper and at that point there's usually a sniper up so both teams still need a sniper.
Looking longer term, (if we somehow managed to change the entire competitive scene to this format) I think this would also be a more favourable format for LANs and sponsors as they are more used to 5v5 in other games and it's one less player to sponsor.
i'd kinda like to see people choose 4 or so unlocks each before the game starts so you actually have some idea of which of the hundreds of weapons you'll be playing against
blendtecyou just wouldn't be able to run 2 snipers
Thank god.
Thank god.
I really like the idea behind 559. It would need some fleshing out but it's actually the first semi-reasonable method for doing pick/ban in TF2 I've heard of.
562 I would like if valve could give us group limits instead of class limits. Say you could have up to 4 offense, 2 defense (or maybe 1!) and 2 support, for example. You could give flexibility but always require that teams decide to give up a valuable class option to run an engine or heavy.
562 I would like if valve could give us group limits instead of class limits. Say you could have up to 4 offense, 2 defense (or maybe 1!) and 2 support, for example. You could give flexibility but always require that teams decide to give up a valuable class option to run an engine or heavy.
xerokos Since basically we have this already in the form of "loadouts", certain weapons work well with others in certain slots.What you basically want to do is divide weapons in "items sets" (like this https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/1_Fan).
Am i right?
Yeah basically, I'm just trying to think of a way of removing the randomness of unlocks like worms said above and still have some variability. Of course this would assume you have all unlocks available in matchmaking and not just ones in your backpack. They could even tie this in with hats (again, just for matchmaking) to give visual clues and some personality to the item set. In the same way as in the item set you've linked you have to have a Bonk Boy hat.
What you basically want to do is divide weapons in "items sets" (like this https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/1_Fan).
Am i right?[/quote]
Yeah basically, I'm just trying to think of a way of removing the randomness of unlocks like worms said above and still have some variability. Of course this would assume you have all unlocks available in matchmaking and not just ones in your backpack. They could even tie this in with hats (again, just for matchmaking) to give visual clues and some personality to the item set. In the same way as in the item set you've linked you have to have a Bonk Boy hat.
DavidTheWinI'd want to see a 5v5 cl1 tournament to be honest.
Then you get one of each of the cookie cutter lineup; scout, soldier, demo, and medic and still have room for a permanent off-class such as pyro or something. This forces some creativity and innovation since you need to be constantly switching your offclass depending on whether or not you're attacking or defending and to counter whatever offclass the other team is running.
I have a suspicion that in practice it might tend towards a new cookie cutter lineup of scout, soldier, demo, medic, sniper though. If the other team runs a sniper then you need a sniper to counter their sniper and at that point there's usually a sniper up so both teams still need a sniper.
Looking longer term, (if we somehow managed to change the entire competitive scene to this format) I think this would also be a more favourable format for LANs and sponsors as they are more used to 5v5 in other games and it's one less player to sponsor.
While any suggestion of this is just theory crafting, as we haven't seen a whole lot of it, I am a huge proponent of 5v5, for that very reason of supporting the pure cookie cutter meta while ensuring an off class wheel of checks and balances. It may boil down to snipers as 5th, at first maybe, but teams who run a heavy will have major damage advantage. The choice for a team to try and counter that heavy with sniper, or counter his productivity with another heavy starts spinning the off class wheel, and might spice up the game immensely. Heavies might produce counter snipers or spies (of which become much more viable in a land where there is 1 less player to get around, and exact class lineups arent as set in stone—which would make disguises more convincing), spies might produce pyros which might produce engineers, all of which might spurr a 2nd soldier instead, which might cause for a 2nd scout, which might then produce a heavy and you start all over.
It could very well just be 5v5 with 2 scouts all day, but I think having the lower team build creates a very interesting meta for certain players involved. Seeing players switch from soldier to scout to sniper, or soldier to heavy to scout, would expand the meta and thought process that went into each play. It would give spectators a more exciting experience as they see how teams both react to dealing with an unexpected class, and use the off class to sway a fight/push/stalemate. It would also create hype for situations where a player who normaly plays soldier or scout, switches to an off class they are particularly good at, like when someone who doesnt awp much in CS but is great with it, has the weapon in their hands.
5 player teams also make more teams, and gives everyone the perfect opportunity to cut that player on the roster they secretly can't stand. So win win really.
But I doubt after all the parades it would turn out that valve implements a comp format no one is really used to.
Then you get one of each of the cookie cutter lineup; scout, soldier, demo, and medic and still have room for a permanent off-class such as pyro or something. This forces some creativity and innovation since you need to be constantly switching your offclass depending on whether or not you're attacking or defending and to counter whatever offclass the other team is running.
I have a suspicion that in practice it might tend towards a new cookie cutter lineup of scout, soldier, demo, medic, sniper though. If the other team runs a sniper then you need a sniper to counter their sniper and at that point there's usually a sniper up so both teams still need a sniper.
Looking longer term, (if we somehow managed to change the entire competitive scene to this format) I think this would also be a more favourable format for LANs and sponsors as they are more used to 5v5 in other games and it's one less player to sponsor.[/quote]
While any suggestion of this is just theory crafting, as we haven't seen a whole lot of it, I am a huge proponent of 5v5, for that very reason of supporting the pure cookie cutter meta while ensuring an off class wheel of checks and balances. It may boil down to snipers as 5th, at first maybe, but teams who run a heavy will have major damage advantage. The choice for a team to try and counter that heavy with sniper, or counter his productivity with another heavy starts spinning the off class wheel, and might spice up the game immensely. Heavies might produce counter snipers or spies (of which become much more viable in a land where there is 1 less player to get around, and exact class lineups arent as set in stone—which would make disguises more convincing), spies might produce pyros which might produce engineers, all of which might spurr a 2nd soldier instead, which might cause for a 2nd scout, which might then produce a heavy and you start all over.
It could very well just be 5v5 with 2 scouts all day, but I think having the lower team build creates a very interesting meta for certain players involved. Seeing players switch from soldier to scout to sniper, or soldier to heavy to scout, would expand the meta and thought process that went into each play. It would give spectators a more exciting experience as they see how teams both react to dealing with an unexpected class, and use the off class to sway a fight/push/stalemate. It would also create hype for situations where a player who normaly plays soldier or scout, switches to an off class they are particularly good at, like when someone who doesnt awp much in CS but is great with it, has the weapon in their hands.
5 player teams also make more teams, and gives everyone the perfect opportunity to cut that player on the roster they secretly can't stand. So win win really.
But I doubt after all the parades it would turn out that valve implements a comp format no one is really used to.
blendtecyou wouldn't be able to run 2 spies
how else are are teams supposed to play badlands/gully last?
how else are are teams supposed to play badlands/gully last?
BLoodSire
While any suggestion of this is just theory crafting, as we haven't seen a whole lot of it, I am a huge proponent of 5v5, for that very reason of supporting the pure cookie cutter meta while ensuring an off class wheel of checks and balances. It may boil down to snipers as 5th, at first maybe, but teams who run a heavy will have major damage advantage. The choice for a team to try and counter that heavy with sniper, or counter his productivity with another heavy starts spinning the off class wheel, and might spice up the game immensely. Heavies might produce counter snipers or spies (of which become much more viable in a land where there is 1 less player to get around, and exact class lineups arent as set in stone—which would make disguises more convincing), spies might produce pyros which might produce engineers, all of which might spurr a 2nd soldier instead, which might cause for a 2nd scout, which might then produce a heavy and you start all over.
My issue with the "off-class wheel" is that I don't see it making a full rotation. I don't expect teams to counter spy with pyro, if they expect a spy I would imagine it'd be easier just to keep their eyes peeled and maybe have a scout checking for one. Same thing with pyro, if one team runs a pyro it'd be much easier for a scout to focus him than for the other team to run an engineer. So the wheel starts turning, but a couple of rotations in you just get to a point where a scout will be the best option the majority of the time. I don't have an issue with that because I like double scout play in TF2, but if you're trying to get all of the classes involved I don't necessarily see that happening. 5v5 as a format does sound like an interesting option though, certainly better than 4s and 5-man teams seem to play well with FPS titles.
While any suggestion of this is just theory crafting, as we haven't seen a whole lot of it, I am a huge proponent of 5v5, for that very reason of supporting the pure cookie cutter meta while ensuring an off class wheel of checks and balances. It may boil down to snipers as 5th, at first maybe, but teams who run a heavy will have major damage advantage. The choice for a team to try and counter that heavy with sniper, or counter his productivity with another heavy starts spinning the off class wheel, and might spice up the game immensely. Heavies might produce counter snipers or spies (of which become much more viable in a land where there is 1 less player to get around, and exact class lineups arent as set in stone—which would make disguises more convincing), spies might produce pyros which might produce engineers, all of which might spurr a 2nd soldier instead, which might cause for a 2nd scout, which might then produce a heavy and you start all over.[/quote]
My issue with the "off-class wheel" is that I don't see it making a full rotation. I don't expect teams to counter spy with pyro, if they expect a spy I would imagine it'd be easier just to keep their eyes peeled and maybe have a scout checking for one. Same thing with pyro, if one team runs a pyro it'd be much easier for a scout to focus him than for the other team to run an engineer. So the wheel starts turning, but a couple of rotations in you just get to a point where a scout will be the best option the majority of the time. I don't have an issue with that because I like double scout play in TF2, but if you're trying to get all of the classes involved I don't necessarily see that happening. 5v5 as a format does sound like an interesting option though, certainly better than 4s and 5-man teams seem to play well with FPS titles.
Mapleyou just get to a point where a scout will be the best option the majority of the time.
hence the one player limit on each class, meaning 2 scouts would be disallowed. you are right about the cycle not actually cycling, but worse than the 5th always being scout and therefore essentially going back to 6s, the 5th would in most cases be either a sniper or a heavy, depending on context. and no one wants to play against full time sniper, much less heavy (especially in matchmaking where successfully focusing a heavy would be near impossible). heavy/sniper would probably be so viable that i could easily see the scout offclassing to the other as well, and engineer/pyro on lasts.
hence the one player limit on each class, meaning 2 scouts would be disallowed. you are right about the cycle not actually cycling, but worse than the 5th always being scout and therefore essentially going back to 6s, the 5th would in most cases be either a sniper or a heavy, depending on context. and no one wants to play against full time sniper, much less heavy (especially in matchmaking where successfully focusing a heavy would be near impossible). heavy/sniper would probably be so viable that i could easily see the scout offclassing to the other as well, and engineer/pyro on lasts.
The way the classes are inherently designed in TF2 is that some classes are generally better overall while other classes are better for niche purposes. The classes that are better overall tend to be combat classes capable of winning 1v1's against every class except possibly themselves. Given this, there is some sense in having the generalist classes having a class limit of 2 while all others have a limit of 1, because these classes will be used in general purposes. This also serves to prevent unbeatable last holds with either two heavies or two engies. If valve chooses to go in this direction, the class selection screen should be reorganized into different categories: Combat, Support, Pick, and Defense, where combat includes scout soldier, support includes demo medic, pick (or some better title) includes spy and sniper and defense includes pyro, heavy and engineer. Players would be more accustomed to what these classes would do simply by having the classes be organized in this manner and it would make more sense than the current system.
I think 6v6 currently provides some pretty strong groundwork for a solid system in TF2 and valve should attempt to support it in a manner that makes sense; there is nothing wrong with 6v6 and a lot of players currently unaware to the gameplay and the metagame just need to be primed and prepared for it.
I think 6v6 currently provides some pretty strong groundwork for a solid system in TF2 and valve should attempt to support it in a manner that makes sense; there is nothing wrong with 6v6 and a lot of players currently unaware to the gameplay and the metagame just need to be primed and prepared for it.
My gut feeling is that having those expendable scouts and soldiers on your team is what makes the game dynamic and exciting.
They can afford to make the risky plays because they come in duplicate. Only having one of each sounds like a total grind where pushing becomes less and less the favourable option.
Suddenly when half your team is slow as fuck aggressive holds become a huge gamble, because the window of time for transitioning between good positions is even larger.
Your only soldier died? OK I guess we can't control a choke point or pressure the enemy medic for 20 seconds. What is our play? Hold or retreat.
Your only scout died? OK we can't chase down weak players or backcap for 20 seconds. What is our play? Hold or retreat.
Even though we have two scout and two soldiers all four of those players tend to play very distinct roles in the prevalent passive/aggressive pocket/roamer setup. When you start replacing those roles with the ridge utility classes a lot of your teams decisions become binary choices because they are painfully ineffective in the majority of situations.
They can afford to make the risky plays because they come in duplicate. Only having one of each sounds like a total grind where pushing becomes less and less the favourable option.
Suddenly when half your team is slow as fuck aggressive holds become a huge gamble, because the window of time for transitioning between good positions is even larger.
Your only soldier died? OK I guess we can't control a choke point or pressure the enemy medic for 20 seconds. What is our play? Hold or retreat.
Your only scout died? OK we can't chase down weak players or backcap for 20 seconds. What is our play? Hold or retreat.
Even though we have two scout and two soldiers all four of those players tend to play very distinct roles in the prevalent passive/aggressive pocket/roamer setup. When you start replacing those roles with the ridge utility classes a lot of your teams decisions become binary choices because they are painfully ineffective in the majority of situations.
Honestly, I think it is far less complex than all of this discussion about class limits and stuff like that. When MvM was released there were no class limits, no weapon bans, and no established meta game. But now not only is there an expected class composition that is rarely deviated from, but there are accepted weapons and even an accepted order of upgrade purchases for a lot of the classes (though there is more deviation accepted in upgrades than in the other areas).
When it was new people learned this through experimentation, then from getting matched with people who had more experience, reading online guides, or watching streams. People learned the expected classes, they learned the accepted weapons, they learned the rolls that each class fills, and they learned the most effective order of upgrade purchases. And such, there is always the occasional new player who doesn't understand. Often they are kicked outright, or someone takes the time to teach them. Or they keep trying and failing until they learn in the same way that everyone before them learned.
And sometimes there is the experienced player who pulls out a less used class because they have discovered a way to make it viable, and often they are still expected to perform or their team will ask them to switch (or, more often, they will switch or leave on their own).
I think 6s can work without hard coded limits on class and team composition. I think that the same basic reasoning the allowed this format to refine itself to the current meta will still apply (mobility, more than anything else, wins in this game right now - ability to kite, to chase, to dodge, to quickly change position in in a hold or transition). Add to that the stream integration, the easy access to strong examples of the strength of that format and casual players will gravitate towards it.
If you want to be certain, cue with teammates, or friends. Stomp matches with the familiar classes and team composition. Players will, by nature, emulate the things they see working in streams or the things that they are beaten by first hand.
I'd like to believe that the meta that has existed for so many years already is not just the product of arbitrary bans and class limits. And I'd like to believe that regardless of how broken some of the weapons in tf2 currently are they will not be over powered enough that 6 random players can be expected to beat a group of 6 already veteran players adding up together.
When it was new people learned this through experimentation, then from getting matched with people who had more experience, reading online guides, or watching streams. People learned the expected classes, they learned the accepted weapons, they learned the rolls that each class fills, and they learned the most effective order of upgrade purchases. And such, there is always the occasional new player who doesn't understand. Often they are kicked outright, or someone takes the time to teach them. Or they keep trying and failing until they learn in the same way that everyone before them learned.
And sometimes there is the experienced player who pulls out a less used class because they have discovered a way to make it viable, and often they are still expected to perform or their team will ask them to switch (or, more often, they will switch or leave on their own).
I think 6s can work without hard coded limits on class and team composition. I think that the same basic reasoning the allowed this format to refine itself to the current meta will still apply (mobility, more than anything else, wins in this game right now - ability to kite, to chase, to dodge, to quickly change position in in a hold or transition). Add to that the stream integration, the easy access to strong examples of the strength of that format and casual players will gravitate towards it.
If you want to be certain, cue with teammates, or friends. Stomp matches with the familiar classes and team composition. Players will, by nature, emulate the things they see working in streams or the things that they are beaten by first hand.
I'd like to believe that the meta that has existed for so many years already is not just the product of arbitrary bans and class limits. And I'd like to believe that regardless of how broken some of the weapons in tf2 currently are they will not be over powered enough that 6 random players can be expected to beat a group of 6 already veteran players adding up together.
The problem with lack of class limits is that the composition we are used to in 6s isn't the most powerfull one if you remove class restrictions. We will be seing teams with 2 medics, 3 soldiers, 2 demos... which are too strong and might remove a lot of the fun we have in 6s. So you can say bye bye to our meta and welcome to the double-ubers-teams-that-will-make-the-game-not-fun overlords.
I like the idea of limiting 2 of each offensive classes and 1 of each support and defensive classes.
I like the idea of limiting 2 of each offensive classes and 1 of each support and defensive classes.
DougThe problem with lack of class limits is that the composition we are used to in 6s isn't the most powerfull one if you remove class restrictions. We will be seing teams with 2 medics, 3 soldiers, 2 demos... which are too strong and might remove a lot of the fun we have in 6s. So you can say bye bye to our meta and welcome to the double-ubers-teams-that-will-make-the-game-not-fun overlords.
I like the idea of limiting 2 of each offensive classes and 1 of each support and defensive classes.
I'm not trying to theory craft what the strongest composition would be without class limits (though I am still inclined to believe that, at least in the current world of tf2, scouts are too strong for good teams to cut them in favor of another soldier or even another medic. I've no doubt that without class limits we would see more dynamic class changing, the creation of pocket strats that use unexpected combinations, and things of that nature. But at the end of the day, I think the current spread is likely the most ideal composition you could have for a generalist role).
At the end of the day, valve is going to want simple and easy to understand. Creating a whole system of coded logic around class limits, and when/how often you can off class. That would be a nightmare to code, and worse it would create potential obstacles to entry for new players.
I can't pretend to know what valve would do. But speaking as a programmer I could not imagine anything but the most simplistic of class limits/weapon bans making it into the first iterations of the match making system. After that, maybe more complexity can be added if the system proves ineffective, or if the meta that evolves is too static/stalemate-y to create good, interesting games.
I like the idea of limiting 2 of each offensive classes and 1 of each support and defensive classes.[/quote]
I'm not trying to theory craft what the strongest composition would be without class limits (though I am still inclined to believe that, at least in the current world of tf2, scouts are too strong for good teams to cut them in favor of another soldier or even another medic. I've no doubt that without class limits we would see more dynamic class changing, the creation of pocket strats that use unexpected combinations, and things of that nature. But at the end of the day, I think the current spread is likely the most ideal composition you could have for a generalist role).
At the end of the day, valve is going to want simple and easy to understand. Creating a whole system of coded logic around class limits, and when/how often you can off class. That would be a nightmare to code, and worse it would create potential obstacles to entry for new players.
I can't pretend to know what valve would do. But speaking as a programmer I could not imagine anything but the most simplistic of class limits/weapon bans making it into the first iterations of the match making system. After that, maybe more complexity can be added if the system proves ineffective, or if the meta that evolves is too static/stalemate-y to create good, interesting games.