the301stspartanSalamancerThe competitive community's ideas are very important. One thing they stressed was that they didn't want to implement a pick/ban mode into their lobby system if all the official leagues like UGC and ETF2L used a different system than what was implemented. They want there to be one source of truth, and they want it to reflect what works best for us.
This kind of supports what I suggested before.
-Have the current UGC or CEVO whitelist be always allowed
-Let the competitive community decide about a few global must-bans
-Leave other unlocks up to the lobbie creator
I believe this would support the pub community in finding their own unlocks and creating new strats on one hand and have appropriate games from the get go without having to worry about unlock picking on the other hand.
They want a system that doesn't require a white list so they don't have to update it. Don't ask me why.
What's difficult about this is trying to make a system that would work at all levels of play; from disorganized lobbies to league matches. In a lobby there's no team leader to make the picks/bans, so the system should probably have some sort of vote e.g. for each ban everyone picks a weapon and the weapon with the most votes is the team's ban.
Another thing is whether to do picks or bans (or both). Bans would be closer to the current whitelist, but it doesn't really make a weapon meta since there's still so much choice. Picks makes more of an impacts, but is that a good thing? Also I'm assuming stock is allowed by default and picks mean both teams can use the weapon.
[quote=the301stspartan][quote=Salamancer]The competitive community's ideas are very important. One thing they stressed was that they didn't want to implement a pick/ban mode into their lobby system if all the official leagues like UGC and ETF2L used a different system than what was implemented. They want there to be one source of truth, and they want it to reflect what works best for us.[/quote]
This kind of supports what I suggested before.
[b]
-Have the current UGC or CEVO whitelist be always allowed
-Let the competitive community decide about a few global must-bans
-Leave other unlocks up to the lobbie creator[/b]
I believe this would support the pub community in finding their own unlocks and creating new strats on one hand and have appropriate games from the get go without having to worry about unlock picking on the other hand.[/quote]
They want a system that doesn't require a white list so they don't have to update it. Don't ask me why.
What's difficult about this is trying to make a system that would work at all levels of play; from disorganized lobbies to league matches. In a lobby there's no team leader to make the picks/bans, so the system should probably have some sort of vote e.g. for each ban everyone picks a weapon and the weapon with the most votes is the team's ban.
Another thing is whether to do picks or bans (or both). Bans would be closer to the current whitelist, but it doesn't really make a weapon meta since there's still so much choice. Picks makes more of an impacts, but is that a good thing? Also I'm assuming stock is allowed by default and picks mean both teams can use the weapon.
J6_SteveSalamancer#111 That is definitely something to suggest. But by "playtesting" what I mean right now is, get some HL pugs running and just work through a pick/ban round with captains. Start tonight. Valve aren't going to send us the code for a dozen different systems, we simply have to field our own rules and refine them.
But how seriously will valve take a bunch of puggers who said this weapon is op and that weapon needs a buff if they have no proof to back it up ?
They will take us seriously. We are the only source of information they have.
[quote=J6_Steve][quote=Salamancer]#111 That is definitely something to suggest. But by "playtesting" what I mean right now is, get some HL pugs running and just work through a pick/ban round with captains. Start tonight. Valve aren't going to send us the code for a dozen different systems, we simply have to field our own rules and refine them.[/quote]
But how seriously will valve take a bunch of puggers who said this weapon is op and that weapon needs a buff if they have no proof to back it up ?[/quote]
They will take us seriously. We are the only source of information they have.
If they're looking at the UGC lists, a lot of the recent bans are only because of bugs rather than being unbalanced. Then again there's the pompson. I feel that comp players will be able to offer actual nerf/buffs than the devs as the way the weapons currently are will never get unbanned from a test pug.
If they're looking at the UGC lists, a lot of the recent bans are only because of bugs rather than being unbalanced. Then again there's the pompson. I feel that comp players will be able to offer actual nerf/buffs than the devs as the way the weapons currently are will never get unbanned from a test pug.
So basically, each team will ban a set number of weapons each match, and over a few months valve will collect enough data to nerf or buff certain weapons. There seem to be two main ways of deciding weapon bans: having the host decide, or letting the players vote. Unfortunately, both of these possibilities will most likely lead to arguments among some players. Those who are skilled with and utilize the 'OP' weapons, and those who find them annoying. Just look at the numerous reddit threads on mini sentries - the community is divided by like %50. Players will join up expecting to be able to play jarate sniper, only to troll/rage because their only 'fun' loadout is banned.
TL; DR, until there is a set ban list in place, it'll be just an angry pub.
So basically, each team will ban a set number of weapons each match, and over a few months valve will collect enough data to nerf or buff certain weapons. There seem to be two main ways of deciding weapon bans: having the host decide, or letting the players vote. Unfortunately, both of these possibilities will most likely lead to arguments among some players. Those who are skilled with and utilize the 'OP' weapons, and those who find them annoying. Just look at the numerous reddit threads on mini sentries - the community is divided by like %50. Players will join up expecting to be able to play jarate sniper, only to troll/rage because their only 'fun' loadout is banned.
TL; DR, until there is a set ban list in place, it'll be just an angry pub.
trogThey want a system that doesn't require a white list so they don't have to update it. Don't ask me why.
What's difficult about this is trying to make a system that would work at all levels of play; from disorganized lobbies to league matches. In a lobby there's no team leader to make the picks/bans, so the system should probably have some sort of vote e.g. for each ban everyone picks a weapon and the weapon with the most votes is the team's ban.
Another thing is whether to do picks or bans (or both). Bans would be closer to the current whitelist, but it doesn't really make a weapon meta since there's still so much choice. Picks makes more of an impacts, but is that a good thing? Also I'm assuming stock is allowed by default and picks mean both teams can use the weapon.
By whitelists I am talking about unbannable weapons. Aka all stock weapons plus unlocks that the community has deemed best by test.
Global bans for the worst weapons known to man and all the other unlocks in question are up to the players.
However, it looks like valve is going for a completely community-voted ban system. I am okay with that, it will just make the early lobbies chaotic until valve actually has enough feedback and data to do what needs to be done and rebalance.
[quote=trog]They want a system that doesn't require a white list so they don't have to update it. Don't ask me why.
What's difficult about this is trying to make a system that would work at all levels of play; from disorganized lobbies to league matches. In a lobby there's no team leader to make the picks/bans, so the system should probably have some sort of vote e.g. for each ban everyone picks a weapon and the weapon with the most votes is the team's ban.
Another thing is whether to do picks or bans (or both). Bans would be closer to the current whitelist, but it doesn't really make a weapon meta since there's still so much choice. Picks makes more of an impacts, but is that a good thing? Also I'm assuming stock is allowed by default and picks mean both teams can use the weapon.[/quote]
By whitelists I am talking about unbannable weapons. Aka all stock weapons plus unlocks that the community has deemed best by test.
Global bans for the worst weapons known to man and all the other unlocks in question are up to the players.
However, it looks like valve is going for a completely community-voted ban system. I am okay with that, it will just make the early lobbies chaotic until valve actually has enough feedback and data to do what needs to be done and rebalance.
Derpusafraid random pubbers are gonna join and do random shit.
and also no 6s ;_____;
thats the point, hopefully they can improve and enjoy some comp tf2
[quote=Derpus]afraid random pubbers are gonna join and do random shit.
and also no 6s ;_____;[/quote]
thats the point, hopefully they can improve and enjoy some comp tf2
InzilSo basically, each team will ban a set number of weapons each match, and over a few months valve will collect enough data to nerf or buff certain weapons. There seem to be two main ways of deciding weapon bans: having the host decide, or letting the players vote. Unfortunately, both of these possibilities will most likely lead to arguments among some players. Those who are skilled with and utilize the 'OP' weapons, and those who find them annoying. Just look at the numerous reddit threads on mini sentries - the community is divided by like %50. Players will join up expecting to be able to play jarate sniper, only to troll/rage because their only 'fun' loadout is banned.
TL; DR, until there is a set ban list in place, it'll be just an angry pub.
How about this: The host can "suggest" a number of weapons for vote and the teams can vote y/n. Since there are 9 players in each team, we simply exclude the host from the voting and there will always be a definite conclusion and players who don't like it will deal with it because democracy has spoken. Weapons that are not included in the vote are automatically in the game.
I imagine a list of weapons to be displayed for all 17 players with a cross and a checkmark and players just have to click it. It's as easy as it gets!
[quote=Inzil]So basically, each team will ban a set number of weapons each match, and over a few months valve will collect enough data to nerf or buff certain weapons. There seem to be two main ways of deciding weapon bans: having the host decide, or letting the players vote. Unfortunately, both of these possibilities will most likely lead to arguments among some players. Those who are skilled with and utilize the 'OP' weapons, and those who find them annoying. Just look at the numerous reddit threads on mini sentries - the community is divided by like %50. Players will join up expecting to be able to play jarate sniper, only to troll/rage because their only 'fun' loadout is banned.
TL; DR, until there is a set ban list in place, it'll be just an angry pub.[/quote]
How about this: [b]The host can "suggest" a number of weapons for vote and the teams can vote y/n.[/b] Since there are 9 players in each team, we simply exclude the host from the voting and there will always be a definite conclusion and players who don't like it will deal with it because democracy has spoken. Weapons that are not included in the vote are automatically in the game.
I imagine a list of weapons to be displayed for all 17 players with a cross and a checkmark and players just have to click it. It's as easy as it gets!
First...
I totally understand why Valve wants to do a highlander lobby system over a 6v6 system. You'll bitching about it is making me crazy. Simply put, highlander is much easier to understand and sit down and play. You can hate UGC or highlander as a format (I don't, it can be pretty damn fun if you make it so), but realize that it is much easier on the new player and much closer to what they are used to.
Realize that this is great for the community. People will play some lobbies, starting to search for "highlander tf2 strategies" or "competitive tf2 strategies". Suddenly they will find sites like this, ugc, etc and will be introduced to true comp tf2. Be honest with your self, if Valve suddenly released a 6v6 lobby system, would you play that or the same pugs you normally play? This would never really be the place for competitive players to play, but will consistently grow the comp tf2 community.
Obviously, some might argue that the type of people who find comp TF2 through this is just pub noobs who we don't want to join the community. If so, this may be valid. But we need to grow the scene if it will continue to survive. This is a 6 year old game that still has a strongish comp community.
First...
I totally understand why Valve wants to do a highlander lobby system over a 6v6 system. You'll bitching about it is making me crazy. Simply put, highlander is much easier to understand and sit down and play. You can hate UGC or highlander as a format (I don't, it can be pretty damn fun if you make it so), but realize that it is much easier on the new player and much closer to what they are used to.
Realize that this is great for the community. People will play some lobbies, starting to search for "highlander tf2 strategies" or "competitive tf2 strategies". Suddenly they will find sites like this, ugc, etc and will be introduced to true comp tf2. Be honest with your self, if Valve suddenly released a 6v6 lobby system, would you play that or the same pugs you normally play? This would never really be the place for competitive players to play, but will consistently grow the comp tf2 community.
Obviously, some might argue that the type of people who find comp TF2 through this is just pub noobs who we don't want to join the community. If so, this may be valid. But we need to grow the scene if it will continue to survive. This is a 6 year old game that still has a strongish comp community.
let's assume the players in these lobbies are trying to be competitive with each other. banning weapons means you ban the most powerful unlocks, right? obvious choices like the pomson, wrangler, huo long heater, phlog and bazooka go immediately, but what's next is things like the degreaser, the basher, and the gunboats. these are powerful unlocks, but not overly powerful; they contribute to the overall balance of the game, as the community has found.
this obviously doesn't give any insight onto which weapons need to be fixed; it just gives insights onto the best weapons. plus, it makes playing less fun (who the fuck wants to play highlander pyro without the degreaser)
let's assume the players in these lobbies are trying to be competitive with each other. banning weapons means you ban the most powerful unlocks, right? obvious choices like the pomson, wrangler, huo long heater, phlog and bazooka go immediately, but what's next is things like the degreaser, the basher, and the gunboats. these are powerful unlocks, but not overly powerful; they contribute to the overall balance of the game, as the community has found.
this obviously doesn't give any insight onto which weapons need to be fixed; it just gives insights onto the best weapons. plus, it makes playing less fun (who the fuck wants to play highlander pyro without the degreaser)
Even if the introduction of a lobby HL lobby system doesn't get people into competetive, I would /very/ much be happy to have it included, because it'd let me pub in a more structured and fun format.
I love 6s a lot, it's the most fun format to watch in my opinion, but HL is also a worthy format, as well.
Baby steps.
Even if the introduction of a lobby HL lobby system doesn't get people into competetive, I would /very/ much be happy to have it included, because it'd let me pub in a more structured and fun format.
I love 6s a lot, it's the most fun format to watch in my opinion, but HL is also a worthy format, as well.
Baby steps.
droughtlet's assume the players in these lobbies are trying to be competitive with each other. banning weapons means you ban the most powerful unlocks, right? obvious choices like the pomson, wrangler, huo long heater, phlog and bazooka go immediately, but what's next is things like the degreaser, the basher, and the gunboats. these are powerful unlocks, but not overly powerful; they contribute to the overall balance of the game, as the community has found.
this obviously doesn't give any insight onto which weapons need to be fixed; it just gives insights onto the best weapons. plus, it makes playing less fun (who the fuck wants to play highlander pyro without the degreaser)
People will not ban powerful unlocks. People will ban unlocks that they feel uncomfortable playing with or playing against. Nevertheless, I also believe that there should be a selection of weapons that cannot be banned. This correlates with the voting system that I suggested before.
[quote=drought]let's assume the players in these lobbies are trying to be competitive with each other. banning weapons means you ban the most powerful unlocks, right? obvious choices like the pomson, wrangler, huo long heater, phlog and bazooka go immediately, but what's next is things like the degreaser, the basher, and the gunboats. these are powerful unlocks, but not overly powerful; they contribute to the overall balance of the game, as the community has found.
this obviously doesn't give any insight onto which weapons need to be fixed; it just gives insights onto the best weapons. plus, it makes playing less fun (who the fuck wants to play highlander pyro without the degreaser)[/quote]
People will not ban powerful unlocks. People will ban unlocks that they feel uncomfortable playing with or playing against. Nevertheless, I also believe that there should be a selection of weapons that cannot be banned. This correlates with the voting system that I suggested before.
valve really needs to bring pro tf2 players in to help design this system and rebalance weapons like they did with csgo.
valve really needs to bring pro tf2 players in to help design this system and rebalance weapons like they did with csgo.
the301stspartandroughtlet's assume the players in these lobbies are trying to be competitive with each other. banning weapons means you ban the most powerful unlocks, right? obvious choices like the pomson, wrangler, huo long heater, phlog and bazooka go immediately, but what's next is things like the degreaser, the basher, and the gunboats. these are powerful unlocks, but not overly powerful; they contribute to the overall balance of the game, as the community has found.
this obviously doesn't give any insight onto which weapons need to be fixed; it just gives insights onto the best weapons. plus, it makes playing less fun (who the fuck wants to play highlander pyro without the degreaser)
People will not ban powerful unlocks. People will ban unlocks that they feel comfortable playing with or playing against. Nevertheless, I also believe that there should be a selection of weapons that cannot be banned. This correlates with the voting system that I suggested before.
People also forget that bans would likely affect both teams. Would I vote to ban degreaser if I know that my pyro also can't use the degreaser?
In fact, in Robin's eyes it's more interesting when a person is worried his weapon might be banned, so he must practice outside the typical meta.
[quote=the301stspartan][quote=drought]let's assume the players in these lobbies are trying to be competitive with each other. banning weapons means you ban the most powerful unlocks, right? obvious choices like the pomson, wrangler, huo long heater, phlog and bazooka go immediately, but what's next is things like the degreaser, the basher, and the gunboats. these are powerful unlocks, but not overly powerful; they contribute to the overall balance of the game, as the community has found.
this obviously doesn't give any insight onto which weapons need to be fixed; it just gives insights onto the best weapons. plus, it makes playing less fun (who the fuck wants to play highlander pyro without the degreaser)[/quote]
People will not ban powerful unlocks. People will ban unlocks that they feel comfortable playing with or playing against. Nevertheless, I also believe that there should be a selection of weapons that cannot be banned. This correlates with the voting system that I suggested before.[/quote]
People also forget that bans would likely affect both teams. Would I vote to ban degreaser if I know that my pyro also can't use the degreaser?
In fact, in Robin's eyes it's more interesting when a person is worried his weapon might be banned, so he must practice outside the typical meta.
This actually might be a good opportunity to try out some of the more recent unlocks, honestly I've never seen half of the stuff used because "It's just how it is, deal with it." Never know, they might produce those sick strats they wants.
Show Content
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/Glados.png
Though TBH, I think They want to give HER something to do...
This actually might be a good opportunity to try out some of the more recent unlocks, honestly I've never seen half of the stuff used because "It's just how it is, deal with it." Never know, they might produce those sick strats they wants.
[spoiler][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/Glados.png[/img]
Though TBH, I think They want to give HER something to do...[/spoiler]
Thanks Robin + TF2 team. this sounds awesome.
If anyone sets up these beta test pugs, add me (/id/koobadoobs) I want to try this out.
Thanks Robin + TF2 team. this sounds awesome.
If anyone sets up these beta test pugs, add me (/id/koobadoobs) I want to try this out.
also wanted to add that people who are upset that they don't care about 6v6 at the moment, please give this a chance. they will probably add 6v6 support if this proves to be a success. not sure if the weapon ban/pick thing is a good idea but it's worth a shot if valve wants to try it.
also wanted to add that people who are upset that they don't care about 6v6 at the moment, please give this a chance. they will probably add 6v6 support if this proves to be a success. not sure if the weapon ban/pick thing is a good idea but it's worth a shot if valve wants to try it.
Here's the best template we have for unlocks: http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Competitive_item_restrictions
For example you can ban all weapons banned by "UGC Highlander Season 10," while allowing all weapons in "ESEA 6v6 Season 13." All other weapons can then be considered unlocks. At the beginning of each round let each player ban 1 "unlock" weapon. After all 9/6 players have chosen what weapons to ban, each player will then choose 1 "unlock" to allow.
If someone has a better idea please post it.
Edit: There is no room for "stalemates." Read the post.
Here's the best template we have for unlocks: http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Competitive_item_restrictions
For example you can ban all weapons banned by "UGC Highlander Season 10," while allowing all weapons in "ESEA 6v6 Season 13." All other weapons can then be considered unlocks. At the beginning of each round let each player ban 1 "unlock" weapon. After all 9/6 players have chosen what weapons to ban, each player will then choose 1 "unlock" to allow.
If someone has a better idea please post it.
Edit: There is no room for "stalemates." Read the post.
seems like robin thinks that esea sets to many limits for players, and highlander to a lesser degree. hmmmmm.....
seems like robin thinks that esea sets to many limits for players, and highlander to a lesser degree. hmmmmm.....
marioHere's the best template we have for unlocks: http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Competitive_item_restrictions
For example you can ban all weapons banned by "UGC Highlander Season 10," while allowing all weapons in "ESEA 6v6 Season 13." All other weapons can then be considered unlocks. At the beginning of each round let each player ban 1 "unlock" weapon. After all 9/6 players have chosen what weapons to ban, each players will then choose 1 "unlock" to allow.
If someone has a better idea please post it.
The problem with this is that players from opposing teams can vote "against" each other, resulting in stalemates. This is even likely to happen considering that there's 9 classes, each having some very good unlocks that may be nominated both for approval and for bans. Also Sal said that most likely, Valve will not want to use a predefined ban list.
That is why I came up with this idea:
How about this: The host can "suggest" a number of weapons for vote and the teams can vote y/n. Since there are 9 players in each team, we simply exclude the host from the voting and there will always be a definite conclusion and players who don't like it will deal with it because democracy has spoken. Weapons that are not included in the vote are automatically in the game.
I imagine a list of weapons to be displayed for all 17 players with a cross and a checkmark and players just have to click it. It's as easy as it gets!
[quote=mario]Here's the best template we have for unlocks: http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Competitive_item_restrictions
For example you can ban all weapons banned by "UGC Highlander Season 10," while allowing all weapons in "ESEA 6v6 Season 13." All other weapons can then be considered unlocks. At the beginning of each round let each player ban 1 "unlock" weapon. After all 9/6 players have chosen what weapons to ban, each players will then choose 1 "unlock" to allow.
If someone has a better idea please post it.[/quote]
The problem with this is that players from opposing teams can vote "against" each other, resulting in stalemates. This is even likely to happen considering that there's 9 classes, each having some very good unlocks that may be nominated both for approval and for bans. Also Sal said that most likely, Valve will not want to use a predefined ban list.
That is why I came up with this idea: [quote]
How about this: [b]The host can "suggest" a number of weapons for vote and the teams can vote y/n.[/b] Since there are 9 players in each team, we simply exclude the host from the voting and there will always be a definite conclusion and players who don't like it will deal with it because democracy has spoken. Weapons that are not included in the vote are automatically in the game.
I imagine a list of weapons to be displayed for all 17 players with a cross and a checkmark and players just have to click it. It's as easy as it gets![/quote]
drmtcseems like robin thinks that esea sets to many limits for players, and highlander to a lesser degree. hmmmmm.....
what that says is that tf2 has a lot of retarded and unnecessary unlocks, and to some extent a few of these weapons could be considered overpowered. from the bug where minisentries have more range than they are supposed to (and even they they need a nerf) to silly unnecessary weapons like the pomson and the bazooka, a lot of weapons need rethinking and rebalancing.
also i wish tf2 had a "watch" tab like dota where people could watch live tf2 streams and games. they do something like this with csgo, why not tf2?
[quote=drmtc]seems like robin thinks that esea sets to many limits for players, and highlander to a lesser degree. hmmmmm.....[/quote]
what that says is that tf2 has a lot of retarded and unnecessary unlocks, and to some extent a few of these weapons could be considered overpowered. from the bug where minisentries have more range than they are supposed to (and even they they need a nerf) to silly unnecessary weapons like the pomson and the bazooka, a lot of weapons need rethinking and rebalancing.
also i wish tf2 had a "watch" tab like dota where people could watch live tf2 streams and games. they do something like this with csgo, why not tf2?
Valve needs to create a customizable lobby system that would (possibly) give rise to more diverse, community-created formats. Of course there would be lots of silly "slappers only"-type lobbies, but let people have fun with it, it's what holds people's interest. If anything, it will bring players BACK to TF2.
Valve needs to create a customizable lobby system that would (possibly) give rise to more diverse, community-created formats. Of course there would be lots of silly "slappers only"-type lobbies, but let people have fun with it, it's what holds people's interest. If anything, it will bring players BACK to TF2.
what i have taken away from this thread:
valve doesnt know the first thing about comp tf2
after years of ruining the game with broken items/updates, they have decided that the best format for comp tf2 which has remained largely unchanged for ~4 years is now too different from the game that pubbers play, and so the competitive format needs to adapt to the game, and not the other way around.
what i have taken away from this thread:
valve doesnt know the first thing about comp tf2
after years of ruining the game with broken items/updates, they have decided that the best format for comp tf2 which has remained largely unchanged for ~4 years is now too different from the game that pubbers play, and so the competitive format needs to adapt to the game, and not the other way around.
Trekkiewhat i have taken away from this thread:
valve doesnt know the first thing about comp tf2
after years of ruining the game with broken items/updates, they have decided that the best format for comp tf2 which has remained largely unchanged for ~4 years is now too different from the game that pubbers play, and so the competitive format needs to adapt to the game, and not the other way around.
this is why they need to hire someone from the community and have them design the system. would dota 2 be as good without icefrog behind the reins? no, because valve didn't know the first thing about dota-likes when they picked up the game.
[quote=Trekkie]what i have taken away from this thread:
valve doesnt know the first thing about comp tf2
after years of ruining the game with broken items/updates, they have decided that the best format for comp tf2 which has remained largely unchanged for ~4 years is now too different from the game that pubbers play, and so the competitive format needs to adapt to the game, and not the other way around.[/quote]
this is why they need to hire someone from the community and have them design the system. would dota 2 be as good without icefrog behind the reins? no, because valve didn't know the first thing about dota-likes when they picked up the game.
there is a very fundamental problem with highlander that I don't think the valve team has acknowledged:
it requires 18 players.
it's going to be a logistical nightmare to organize that many people in an automated matchmaking setting on top of the strict highlander constraints (1 of each class).
there is a very fundamental problem with highlander that I don't think the valve team has acknowledged:
[b]it requires 18 players[/b].
it's going to be a logistical nightmare to organize that many people in an automated matchmaking setting on top of the strict highlander constraints (1 of each class).
Trekkiewhat i have taken away from this thread:
valve doesnt know the first thing about comp tf2
after years of ruining the game with broken items/updates, they have decided that the best format for comp tf2 which has remained largely unchanged for ~4 years is now too different from the game that pubbers play, and so the competitive format needs to adapt to the game, and not the other way around.
Pretty much my opinion in a nutshell. I mean, I'll be the first person to defend items and unlocks, but man they've really dropped the ball over time.
[quote=Trekkie]what i have taken away from this thread:
valve doesnt know the first thing about comp tf2
after years of ruining the game with broken items/updates, they have decided that the best format for comp tf2 which has remained largely unchanged for ~4 years is now too different from the game that pubbers play, and so the competitive format needs to adapt to the game, and not the other way around.[/quote]
Pretty much my opinion in a nutshell. I mean, I'll be the first person to defend items and unlocks, but man they've really dropped the ball over time.
SalamancerThe competitive community's ideas are very important. One thing they stressed was that they didn't want to implement a pick/ban mode into their lobby system if all the official leagues like UGC and ETF2L used a different system than what was implemented. They want there to be one source of truth, and they want it to reflect what works best for us.
6v6
vanilla + med unlocks
or
vanilla
elegant
[quote=Salamancer]The competitive community's ideas are very important. One thing they stressed was that they didn't want to implement a pick/ban mode into their lobby system if all the official leagues like UGC and ETF2L used a different system than what was implemented. They want there to be one source of truth, and they want it to reflect what works best for us.[/quote]
6v6
vanilla + med unlocks
or
vanilla
elegant
Imagine if its like the MvM lobby system where you need tickets to enter and you compete for items and hats! Valve will be selling lobby tickets on the Mann Co. Store. You know it's gonna happen.
Imagine if its like the MvM lobby system where you need tickets to enter and you compete for items and hats! Valve will be selling lobby tickets on the Mann Co. Store. You know it's gonna happen.
what i'm thinking is a server browser type. click on one to get to this screen
http://i.imgur.com/R1fyL2v.jpg
click on a logo then a team (red/blue of course)
then wait for other people with roughly the same amount of lobbies and lobby wins to join.
basically tf2lobby inside the game, and hopefully less stacked.
what i'm thinking is a server browser type. click on one to get to this screen
[img]http://i.imgur.com/R1fyL2v.jpg[/img]
click on a logo then a team (red/blue of course)
then wait for other people with roughly the same amount of lobbies and lobby wins to join.
basically tf2lobby inside the game, and hopefully less stacked.
rlineSalamancerThe competitive community's ideas are very important. One thing they stressed was that they didn't want to implement a pick/ban mode into their lobby system if all the official leagues like UGC and ETF2L used a different system than what was implemented. They want there to be one source of truth, and they want it to reflect what works best for us.
vanilla + med unlocks
or
vanilla
WE AIN'T GOIN BACK TO 1998 NO MATTER HOW GOOD ICE TEA LOOKS!!
[quote=rline][quote=Salamancer]The competitive community's ideas are very important. One thing they stressed was that they didn't want to implement a pick/ban mode into their lobby system if all the official leagues like UGC and ETF2L used a different system than what was implemented. They want there to be one source of truth, and they want it to reflect what works best for us.[/quote]
vanilla + med unlocks
or
vanilla[/quote]
WE AIN'T GOIN BACK TO 1998 NO MATTER HOW GOOD ICE TEA LOOKS!!
you know what is really killing competitive tf2?
capture points
how many times has an exciting fast-paced match full of airshots, big demo bombs and epic scout flanks been ruined because some idiot decided to go spy and backcap last when no one was looking? capping points takes no skill, its just standing in one place for 10 seconds, a 3 year old could do that
if valve really wants to support competitive tf2 they should make a game mode with no capture points (or capture point-like gimmicks such as payload carts and flags). come on guys it's a shooter. it should be about shooting people.
you know what is really killing competitive tf2?
capture points
how many times has an exciting fast-paced match full of airshots, big demo bombs and epic scout flanks been ruined because some idiot decided to go spy and backcap last when no one was looking? capping points takes no skill, its just standing in one place for 10 seconds, a 3 year old could do that
if valve really wants to support competitive tf2 they should make a game mode with no capture points (or capture point-like gimmicks such as payload carts and flags). come on guys it's a shooter. it should be about shooting people.