CoYoTeGoing off of what Gubbins said in that clip why has nuze been the only person ever since epsilon/suave left to have attempted to recreate their playstyle?
Hildreth said above that they don't want to or can't put in the time to practice to get there
[quote=CoYoTe]Going off of what Gubbins said in that clip why has nuze been the only person ever since epsilon/suave left to have attempted to recreate their playstyle?[/quote]
Hildreth said above that they don't want to or can't put in the time to practice to get there
It's really not that difficult if you were to teach people from the ground up, but the problem is that playing that style has a few very important differences to the current meta. There are a lot of habits that players of today's meta have that are in direct conflict with how the epsilon style works, and it becomes very hard to break those habits unless you have open minded adaptable players.
When we first started practicing for GA, there were many times where in stalemates we would get a pick, and papi would take the initiative to go and sac for the medic, but losing a player there is the opposite of what should happen in the aggressive playstyle, but it's become the norm so that's what people instinctively do (a big gripe I have with today's meta is it devalues the lives of flank classes). It took a while and some minor disagreements before we actually started making headway - a massive reason that it actually worked was that I was calling with 5 gamers that all had great attitudes and were willing to try something new, but that is not a common team structure.
Edit: I'd also say the reason I tend to call it the froyo style is that, despite epsilon being great at pushing every small advantage, froyo is more directly applicable because they do it with the demo being a low heal supportive role, whereas epsilon had the demo as the high heal carry role - this is ridiculously hard to do properly at a top prem/invite level after all the nerfs/buffs unless you have termo dm
It's really not that difficult if you were to teach people from the ground up, but the problem is that playing that style has a few very important differences to the current meta. There are a lot of habits that players of today's meta have that are in direct conflict with how the epsilon style works, and it becomes very hard to break those habits unless you have open minded adaptable players.
When we first started practicing for GA, there were many times where in stalemates we would get a pick, and papi would take the initiative to go and sac for the medic, but losing a player there is the opposite of what should happen in the aggressive playstyle, but it's become the norm so that's what people instinctively do (a big gripe I have with today's meta is it devalues the lives of flank classes). It took a while and some minor disagreements before we actually started making headway - a massive reason that it actually worked was that I was calling with 5 gamers that all had great attitudes and were willing to try something new, but that is not a common team structure.
Edit: I'd also say the reason I tend to call it the froyo style is that, despite epsilon being great at pushing every small advantage, froyo is more directly applicable because they do it with the demo being a low heal supportive role, whereas epsilon had the demo as the high heal carry role - this is ridiculously hard to do properly at a top prem/invite level after all the nerfs/buffs unless you have termo dm
nuzeIt's really not that difficult if you were to teach people from the ground up, but the problem is that playing that style has a few very important differences to the current meta. There are a lot of habits that players of today's meta have that are in direct conflict with how the epsilon style works, and it becomes very hard to break those habits unless you have open minded adaptable players.
When we first started practicing for GA, there were many times where in stalemates we would get a pick, and papi would take the initiative to go and sac for the medic, but losing a player there is the opposite of what should happen in the aggressive playstyle, but it's become the norm so that's what people instinctively do (a big gripe I have with today's meta is it devalues the lives of flank classes). It took a while and some minor disagreements before we actually started making headway - a massive reason that it actually worked was that I was calling with 5 gamers that all had great attitudes and were willing to try something new, but that is not a common team structure.
Edit: I'd also say the reason I tend to call it the froyo style is that, despite epsilon being great at pushing every small advantage, froyo is more directly applicable because they do it with the demo being a low heal supportive role, whereas epsilon had the demo as the high heal carry role - this is ridiculously hard to do properly at a top prem/invite level after all the nerfs/buffs unless you have termo dm
Perhaps you should go into more depth and make an episode of in depth tf2 about this playstyle
[quote=nuze]It's really not that difficult if you were to teach people from the ground up, but the problem is that playing that style has a few very important differences to the current meta. There are a lot of habits that players of today's meta have that are in direct conflict with how the epsilon style works, and it becomes very hard to break those habits unless you have open minded adaptable players.
When we first started practicing for GA, there were many times where in stalemates we would get a pick, and papi would take the initiative to go and sac for the medic, but losing a player there is the opposite of what should happen in the aggressive playstyle, but it's become the norm so that's what people instinctively do (a big gripe I have with today's meta is it devalues the lives of flank classes). It took a while and some minor disagreements before we actually started making headway - a massive reason that it actually worked was that I was calling with 5 gamers that all had great attitudes and were willing to try something new, but that is not a common team structure.
Edit: I'd also say the reason I tend to call it the froyo style is that, despite epsilon being great at pushing every small advantage, froyo is more directly applicable because they do it with the demo being a low heal supportive role, whereas epsilon had the demo as the high heal carry role - this is ridiculously hard to do properly at a top prem/invite level after all the nerfs/buffs unless you have termo dm[/quote]
Perhaps you should go into more depth and make an episode of in depth tf2 about this playstyle
nuzeIt's really not that difficult if you were to teach people from the ground up, but the problem is that playing that style has a few very important differences to the current meta. There are a lot of habits that players of today's meta have that are in direct conflict with how the epsilon style works, and it becomes very hard to break those habits unless you have open minded adaptable players.
Please stop comparing today's TF2 to how TF2 was played back when stickies dealt 150 damage, medic couldn't run away at scout speed from every bad position and crossbow didn't heal at a faster rate than the medigun and the general gameplan was "pencil jump into the pocket and get airshot". Going in works pretty well for us in scrims against bottom prem teams as well, but have fun trying "being open and adaptible" against 7 or Arctic Foxes (or us for that matter)
Also pushing out of badlands last is a joke when the attacking team spawns faster than the defending team and has an equal (or faster if u are soldier/demoman) travel time to the 2nd point area, and scouts can also just go sniper and lock down the entire spire area from the last defending team. The only way you are going to be pushing out of last if is the attacking team beefs massively and feeds like 4+ players along with the medic (which is very rare since medics can just heal a scout and run away at equal speed as any class trying to chase him).
Same logic applies to a lot of last points though, and some of the biggest issues are the facts that it's just impossible for a soldier or a demoman to chase the enemy in most situations since both of those classes just get fucked by a scout, and nowadays medics can run at scout speed for some reason so have fun trying to spend all of your rockets on soldier doing jumps to chase the medic (and getting killed by the scout) or spending all your health chasing the medic as demoman (and getting killed by the scout) and then losing last because you either 1) lost players chasing 2) didn't commit to the chase and took a regular fight instead while having to have players on the cap and constant pressure of a backcap/having to fight 5v6 if you have someone on last 3) got backcapped because you did neither.
Pushing is a mistake, and shortening the round timer won't make pushing not a mistake.
edit: i can also assure you that playing this style is not fun but the alternative is to lose and that's not very fun either
[quote=nuze]It's really not that difficult if you were to teach people from the ground up, but the problem is that playing that style has a few very important differences to the current meta. There are a lot of habits that players of today's meta have that are in direct conflict with how the epsilon style works, and it becomes very hard to break those habits unless you have open minded adaptable players.
[/quote]
Please stop comparing today's TF2 to how TF2 was played back when stickies dealt 150 damage, medic couldn't run away at scout speed from every bad position and crossbow didn't heal at a faster rate than the medigun and the general gameplan was "pencil jump into the pocket and get airshot". Going in works pretty well for us in scrims against bottom prem teams as well, but have fun trying "being open and adaptible" against 7 or Arctic Foxes (or us for that matter)
Also pushing out of badlands last is a joke when the attacking team spawns faster than the defending team and has an equal (or faster if u are soldier/demoman) travel time to the 2nd point area, and scouts can also just go sniper and lock down the entire spire area from the last defending team. The only way you are going to be pushing out of last if is the attacking team beefs massively and feeds like 4+ players along with the medic (which is very rare since medics can just heal a scout and run away at equal speed as any class trying to chase him).
Same logic applies to a lot of last points though, and some of the biggest issues are the facts that it's just impossible for a soldier or a demoman to chase the enemy in most situations since both of those classes just get fucked by a scout, and nowadays medics can run at scout speed for some reason so have fun trying to spend all of your rockets on soldier doing jumps to chase the medic (and getting killed by the scout) or spending all your health chasing the medic as demoman (and getting killed by the scout) and then losing last because you either 1) lost players chasing 2) didn't commit to the chase and took a regular fight instead while having to have players on the cap and constant pressure of a backcap/having to fight 5v6 if you have someone on last 3) got backcapped because you did neither.
Pushing is a mistake, and shortening the round timer won't make pushing not a mistake.
edit: i can also assure you that playing this style is not fun but the alternative is to lose and that's not very fun either
nuzeIt's really not that difficult if you were to teach people from the ground up, but the problem is that playing that style has a few very important differences to the current meta. There are a lot of habits that players of today's meta have that are in direct conflict with how the epsilon style works, and it becomes very hard to break those habits unless you have open minded adaptable players.
When we first started practicing for GA, there were many times where in stalemates we would get a pick, and papi would take the initiative to go and sac for the medic, but losing a player there is the opposite of what should happen in the aggressive playstyle, but it's become the norm so that's what people instinctively do (a big gripe I have with today's meta is it devalues the lives of flank classes). It took a while and some minor disagreements before we actually started making headway - a massive reason that it actually worked was that I was calling with 5 gamers that all had great attitudes and were willing to try something new, but that is not a common team structure.
Edit: I'd also say the reason I tend to call it the froyo style is that, despite epsilon being great at pushing every small advantage, froyo is more directly applicable because they do it with the demo being a low heal supportive role, whereas epsilon had the demo as the high heal carry role - this is ridiculously hard to do properly at a top prem/invite level after all the nerfs/buffs unless you have termo dm
Unfortunately epsi/froyo style has obvious and objective drawbacks :
-it does not help you to get the pick(s) you need in the first place. Against teams that don't make mistakes you're still pinned
-According to sigma's momentum guide and considering equal skill between two teams, it's not possible to make team pushes (=commit at least 4 players) consistently off one pick that is not demo or medic without the forward spawns advantage;
-the style is completely random when facing snipers; consider an area like process or badlands mid or snakewater 2nd; it's not possible to go in while avoiding a sniper completely and you have no way of knowing if the sniper's going to hit things or not. You're screwed both ways : either yolo it and commit your medic = risk losing your med "randomly", either don't commit your medic and put all your frag classes at a disadvantage for the push
-if you use a sniper to get the entry pick and then push 6v5 you have no way of knowing if your sniper will hit stuff during the push, and if he does not it's like pushing 5v5
-If something fails during a push you put yourself at a bigger risk than when you suicide a solo player because you are not set up properly to handle counter aggression
I'm not saying this can't be pulled off, but that the amount of knowledge required is much much higher. For each point, do you exploit a pick the same way regardless of what you killed? Do you engage the fight 6v5 or try to make it 6v4? Can you get your medic out if things go south? What if they have a sniper?etc...
It's not trivial to me (but i'm not prem lol)
[quote=nuze]It's really not that difficult if you were to teach people from the ground up, but the problem is that playing that style has a few very important differences to the current meta. There are a lot of habits that players of today's meta have that are in direct conflict with how the epsilon style works, and it becomes very hard to break those habits unless you have open minded adaptable players.
When we first started practicing for GA, there were many times where in stalemates we would get a pick, and papi would take the initiative to go and sac for the medic, but losing a player there is the opposite of what should happen in the aggressive playstyle, but it's become the norm so that's what people instinctively do (a big gripe I have with today's meta is it devalues the lives of flank classes). It took a while and some minor disagreements before we actually started making headway - a massive reason that it actually worked was that I was calling with 5 gamers that all had great attitudes and were willing to try something new, but that is not a common team structure.
Edit: I'd also say the reason I tend to call it the froyo style is that, despite epsilon being great at pushing every small advantage, froyo is more directly applicable because they do it with the demo being a low heal supportive role, whereas epsilon had the demo as the high heal carry role - this is ridiculously hard to do properly at a top prem/invite level after all the nerfs/buffs unless you have termo dm[/quote]
Unfortunately epsi/froyo style has obvious and objective drawbacks :
-it does not help you to get the pick(s) you need in the first place. Against teams that don't make mistakes you're still pinned
-According to sigma's momentum guide and considering equal skill between two teams, it's not possible to make team pushes (=commit at least 4 players) consistently off one pick that is not demo or medic without the forward spawns advantage;
-the style is completely random when facing snipers; consider an area like process or badlands mid or snakewater 2nd; it's not possible to go in while avoiding a sniper completely and you have no way of knowing if the sniper's going to hit things or not. You're screwed both ways : either yolo it and commit your medic = risk losing your med "randomly", either don't commit your medic and put all your frag classes at a disadvantage for the push
-if you use a sniper to get the entry pick and then push 6v5 you have no way of knowing if your sniper will hit stuff during the push, and if he does not it's like pushing 5v5
-If something fails during a push you put yourself at a bigger risk than when you suicide a solo player because you are not set up properly to handle counter aggression
I'm not saying this can't be pulled off, but that the amount of knowledge required is much much higher. For each point, do you exploit a pick the same way regardless of what you killed? Do you engage the fight 6v5 or try to make it 6v4? Can you get your medic out if things go south? What if they have a sniper?etc...
It's not trivial to me (but i'm not prem lol)
I'm currently working on a gamemode that would reduce stalemates by forcing losers to push out of last. Here's a quick overview of what it does.
Each control point your team owns generates 1 "influence point" per second. Additionally your team generates 1 influence per second passively. At 1200 influence, your team wins. Capturing last also wins the game immediately as before.
This means that if your team has less caps than the enemy, you want to remedy that ASAP, because if you just park the bus, you'll lose. Of course, this in turn means that the team that's ahead can park the bus, but this isn't as unhealthy because they've earned it by winning mid/taking 2nd, and the losers are far more motivated to push out without stalling than the winners would be to push into last in the current meta (they want to play it safe, so you see those long sieges and waiting for crucial picks before pushes).
And yes, I know pushing out of last onto spire is suicidal, but the whole idea for this gamemode is based on the assumption that if you've lost mid and 2nd, you'd better pull some miracle off if you still want to win.
It's still WIP, but you can download the badlands implementation here (it's completely contained within the .bsp, no plugins needed):
http://fakkelbrigade.eu/maps/5cp_badlands_a0.bsp
I'll make a prefab and post it to workshop soon enough, so if someone wants to put it in their map, they will be able to.
I'm currently working on a gamemode that would reduce stalemates by forcing losers to push out of last. Here's a quick overview of what it does.
Each control point your team owns generates 1 "influence point" per second. Additionally your team generates 1 influence per second passively. At 1200 influence, your team wins. Capturing last also wins the game immediately as before.
This means that if your team has less caps than the enemy, you want to remedy that ASAP, because if you just park the bus, you'll lose. Of course, this in turn means that the team that's ahead can park the bus, but this isn't as unhealthy because they've earned it by winning mid/taking 2nd, and the losers are far more motivated to push out without stalling than the winners would be to push into last in the current meta (they want to play it safe, so you see those long sieges and waiting for crucial picks before pushes).
And yes, I know pushing out of last onto spire is suicidal, but the whole idea for this gamemode is based on the assumption that if you've lost mid and 2nd, you'd better pull some miracle off if you still want to win.
It's still WIP, but you can download the badlands implementation here (it's completely contained within the .bsp, no plugins needed):
http://fakkelbrigade.eu/maps/5cp_badlands_a0.bsp
I'll make a prefab and post it to workshop soon enough, so if someone wants to put it in their map, they will be able to.
TF2 DOMINATION BOYS
So all i have to do to win is get the mid or the enemy 2nd then put a sentry and a sniper on it? It could work, but not on any existing 5cp map...
TF2 DOMINATION BOYS
So all i have to do to win is get the mid or the enemy 2nd then put a sentry and a sniper on it? It could work, but not on any existing 5cp map...
TwiggyTF2 DOMINATION BOYS
So all i have to do to win is get the mid or the enemy 2nd then put a sentry and a sniper on it? It could work, but not on any existing 5cp map...
More likely get the mid or the enemy 2nd, put a sentry and a sniper on it, watch the enemy fail a push, get the next point because 4 of them died, repeat until last is capped. It's basically what happens on lasts in the current meta, but with roles reversed and less downtime.
It also does a thing where perfect coordination & aggressive playstyle would be rewarded, either on the midfight or for a team than can push back from 2nd or last.
[quote=Twiggy]TF2 DOMINATION BOYS
So all i have to do to win is get the mid or the enemy 2nd then put a sentry and a sniper on it? It could work, but not on any existing 5cp map...[/quote]
More likely get the mid or the enemy 2nd, put a sentry and a sniper on it, watch the enemy fail a push, get the next point because 4 of them died, repeat until last is capped. It's basically what happens on lasts in the current meta, but with roles reversed and less downtime.
It also does a thing where perfect coordination & aggressive playstyle would be rewarded, either on the midfight or for a team than can push back from 2nd or last.
nuze... this is ridiculously hard to do properly at a top prem/invite level after all the nerfs/buffs unless you have termo dm
It also helps if your roaming soldier is possibly the best player in your entire continent, something both Epsilon and Froyo have shared.
[quote=nuze]... this is ridiculously hard to do properly at a top prem/invite level after all the nerfs/buffs unless you have termo dm[/quote]
It also helps if your roaming soldier is possibly the best player in your entire continent, something both Epsilon and Froyo have shared.
#65
I never said that the froyo/epsi style was perfect, I just think it offers very good solutions to most of the stalemate situations that teams find themselves in now, and there's a lot to be addressed with the questions you asked and that's why it's hard to give a detailed enough answer in a forum post (it's why I won't begin to respond to #64 because there's too much to say).
One of the aspects of the current meta is that its based around plays that are very likely to just reset the stalemate (sac -> counter sac, then sniper v sniper where one gets a pick -> sac..) and there's a lot of issues with this, but the biggest one is that it gets teams into the habit of not capitalising on advantages within the timeframe to do so (aggressive tf2 is like quake because you are constantly juggling advantages in strict timeframes) and as a result there are so many wasted advantages in today's tf2, but I am of the opinion that it works best within 5cp to capitalize on every advantage you can.
There is absolutely merit to the 7 playstyle because in the ruleset we use it makes sense to pressure the enemy for time if you are in the lead (look at Inter Milan under Jose Mourinho if you want a sports example of exactly the same approach to winning) but it doesn't address capitalising on advantages to the fullest because it is an under developed playstyle - kaido said this himself, I'm paraphrasing but the point I'm making is that the 7 style isn't the definitive way to play tf2 and people are treating it like it is just because they can't beat it but that's another issue entirely.
I've said time and again that it is harder to play aggressively to the same level but I have no concern for making tf2 easier to play because I think that defeats the point of a skill based game, if you can do something your enemies can't you should be rewarded for doing it properly.
Honestly, I think the objectively best style would be a combination of the 7 style and the froyo/epsi style, but the reason I try to promote playing aggressively so much is because it benefits the game in many ways:
1. It's more fun to play
2. It's more fun to watch
3. It rewards team play and coordination better than passive play
4. Aggressive play is really neglected in tf2 and I believe it will address underdeveloped skills in the majority of the playerbase
To name a few, and until we fix a lot more glaring issues with how the game is played I think it's silly to blame everything on the gamemode even if there are issues with it (which I'm not denying).
I could be wrong, I'm just trying to speak my mind and act on what I perceive to be true, I agree wholeheartedly with gubbins' thoughts from that clip and if you disagree please don't hold your tongue.
#65
I never said that the froyo/epsi style was perfect, I just think it offers very good solutions to most of the stalemate situations that teams find themselves in now, and there's a lot to be addressed with the questions you asked and that's why it's hard to give a detailed enough answer in a forum post (it's why I won't begin to respond to #64 because there's too much to say).
One of the aspects of the current meta is that its based around plays that are very likely to just reset the stalemate (sac -> counter sac, then sniper v sniper where one gets a pick -> sac..) and there's a lot of issues with this, but the biggest one is that it gets teams into the habit of not capitalising on advantages within the timeframe to do so (aggressive tf2 is like quake because you are constantly juggling advantages in strict timeframes) and as a result there are so many wasted advantages in today's tf2, but I am of the opinion that it works best within 5cp to capitalize on every advantage you can.
There is absolutely merit to the 7 playstyle because in the ruleset we use it makes sense to pressure the enemy for time if you are in the lead (look at Inter Milan under Jose Mourinho if you want a sports example of exactly the same approach to winning) but it doesn't address capitalising on advantages to the fullest because it is an under developed playstyle - kaido said this himself, I'm paraphrasing but the point I'm making is that the 7 style isn't the definitive way to play tf2 and people are treating it like it is just because they can't beat it but that's another issue entirely.
I've said time and again that [b]it is harder[/b] to play aggressively to the same level but I have no concern for making tf2 easier to play because I think that defeats the point of a skill based game, if you can do something your enemies can't you should be rewarded for doing it properly.
Honestly, I think the objectively best style would be a combination of the 7 style and the froyo/epsi style, but the reason I try to promote playing aggressively so much is because it benefits the game in many ways:
1. It's more fun to play
2. It's more fun to watch
3. It rewards team play and coordination better than passive play
4. Aggressive play is really neglected in tf2 and I believe it will address underdeveloped skills in the majority of the playerbase
To name a few, and until we fix a lot more glaring issues with how the game is played I think it's silly to blame everything on the gamemode even if there are issues with it (which I'm not denying).
I could be wrong, I'm just trying to speak my mind and act on what I perceive to be true, I agree wholeheartedly with gubbins' thoughts from that clip and if you disagree please don't hold your tongue.
I actually disagree with you on this nuze. It's all very well saying that teams should just improve whilst playing aggressively in an attempt to break se7en's playstyle but if teams have the objective of winning then it's far easier for them to play passively than play aggressively.
With the amount of incentive there is in TF2 and time that players are willing and able to put into the game of course they will attempt to take the path of least resistance to win. All teams that have contested (and even beaten) se7en have resorted to playing more slowly even if they don't do so vs other teams. Froyo and EVL games vs Se7en at rewind were significantly slower than games vs one another because both teams were taking fewer risks. This is pretty much the definition of a meta.
Even in much larger games, teams will play a style that has been demonstrated to be effective and although they might have differing styles, you won't see many teams playing in a way that goes entirely against conventional wisdom.
I think it's completely fine to alter the ruleset or gamemode to create a shift in meta. You see this done all the time in other games, large and small by developers. Valve only significantly updates the game once or twice a year but we do have the tools as a community to change things and then go back on them quickly if they prove to be catastrophic. The meta has shifted since 2014 to what we have currently exactly because of both valve and community based updates to our balance and gamemode.
5cp as a gamemode had an extremely good flow to it in the past and I think the entire current state of TF2 is a testament to what happens if you don't have frequent balance changes tailored towards creating a new way for people to play a format.
se7enslowdie.
I actually disagree with you on this nuze. It's all very well saying that teams should just improve whilst playing aggressively in an attempt to break se7en's playstyle but if teams have the objective of winning then it's far easier for them to play passively than play aggressively.
With the amount of incentive there is in TF2 and time that players are willing and able to put into the game of course they will attempt to take the path of least resistance to win. All teams that have contested (and even beaten) se7en have resorted to playing more slowly even if they don't do so vs other teams. Froyo and EVL games vs Se7en at rewind were significantly slower than games vs one another because both teams were taking fewer risks. This is pretty much the definition of a meta.
Even in much larger games, teams will play a style that has been demonstrated to be effective and although they might have differing styles, you won't see many teams playing in a way that goes entirely against conventional wisdom.
I think it's completely fine to alter the ruleset or gamemode to create a shift in meta. You see this done all the time in other games, large and small by developers. Valve only significantly updates the game once or twice a year but we do have the tools as a community to change things and then go back on them quickly if they prove to be catastrophic. The meta has shifted since 2014 to what we have currently exactly because of both valve and community based updates to our balance and gamemode.
5cp as a gamemode had an extremely good flow to it in the past and I think the entire current state of TF2 is a testament to what happens if you don't have frequent balance changes tailored towards creating a new way for people to play a format.
se7enslowdie.
Nerf the crossbow so people die when they should.
But in all seriousness, the round timer being dropped a bit could disincentivize the eternal hold which is far more prevalent in the European rule set - because their timer matters more.
In my primary role as a caster now, the most important thing is not to complain about there being a stalemate - because that's not fun for anybody. Maybe things that teams do are frustrating to me, but I'm typically not going to let the audience in on that unless there is movement occurring - because then it's part of the story "Oh! So and so made a big mistake! Now look at them!" that's fine, but "oh boy here is another stalemate!!!" sucks all of the fun out of everything.
So a few things:
During stalemates, it's ok to take a breather and not talk for a while - with E-sports casting in particular there is far too much emphasis on the casters *constantly* talking, there's nothing wrong with letting the game play out without people talking over it and pauses between casters.
If it's going to be a long obvious stalemate (particularly in bus park situations), have things to talk about that show off either the player's personality/history, or the casters' history/personality - because as a caster you *can* make a stalemate fun for the viewer by imparting those sorts of stories.
If a long pause occurs try to get in touch with somebody on one of the teams - usually that kind of sucks because lots of people simply go off-line when they play, so as a player, if your match is being casted, and the pause lasts longer than 3-5 minutes, it behooves you to go back online and get with *somebody* who can get in touch with the casters and let them know what is going on, because we should be more willing to cut it to music when a pause goes long. It keeps the casters fresh because a super long pause will exhaust their repertoire and they'll drown if they have to pause-talk for 15+ minutes and then have a stalemate immediately after (which in a lot of situations is the polite thing to do even).
Nerf the crossbow so people die when they should.
But in all seriousness, the round timer being dropped a bit could disincentivize the eternal hold which is far more prevalent in the European rule set - because their timer matters more.
In my primary role as a caster now, the most important thing is not to complain about there being a stalemate - because that's not fun for anybody. Maybe things that teams do are frustrating to me, but I'm typically not going to let the audience in on that unless there is movement occurring - because then it's part of the story "Oh! So and so made a big mistake! Now look at them!" that's fine, but "oh boy here is another stalemate!!!" sucks all of the fun out of everything.
So a few things:
During stalemates, it's ok to take a breather and not talk for a while - with E-sports casting in particular there is far too much emphasis on the casters *constantly* talking, there's nothing wrong with letting the game play out without people talking over it and pauses between casters.
If it's going to be a long obvious stalemate (particularly in bus park situations), have things to talk about that show off either the player's personality/history, or the casters' history/personality - because as a caster you *can* make a stalemate fun for the viewer by imparting those sorts of stories.
If a long pause occurs try to get in touch with somebody on one of the teams - usually that kind of sucks because lots of people simply go off-line when they play, so as a player, if your match is being casted, and the pause lasts longer than 3-5 minutes, it behooves you to go back online and get with *somebody* who can get in touch with the casters and let them know what is going on, because we should be more willing to cut it to music when a pause goes long. It keeps the casters fresh because a super long pause will exhaust their repertoire and they'll drown if they have to pause-talk for 15+ minutes and then have a stalemate immediately after (which in a lot of situations is the polite thing to do even).
nuze#65
I never said that the froyo/epsi style was perfect, I just think it offers very good solutions to most of the stalemate situations that teams find themselves in now, and there's a lot to be addressed with the questions you asked and that's why it's hard to give a detailed enough answer in a forum post (it's why I won't begin to respond to #64 because there's too much to say).
Their styles worked because their relavite competition was trash compared to them, which isn't the case for the current top teams. You can't expect "just be 50% better than the 2nd seeded team" to be a relevant argument, the issue here is that an equally skilled teams have extreme difficulty pushing against each other because defensive gameplay is so much easier to execute to a high level than offensive gameplay and nobody in this world is interested in putting 5+ evenings a week to practice playing aggressive (except that 1 guy who plays this game for a living) which you would need to contest a mid-prem defensive team. Sure it's fun to win while playing aggressively, but the effort required just to play aggressive is way too much for a team of 6 that usually consist of at least one or two people with day jobs and more with education to attend.
The game needs to be entertaining to play from the get-go, not after having put hundreds of hours into practice as a team. This is where the major design difference between the current FPS esports and TF2 lies, since in those games at least one team is forced to play aggressively and it's feasible to do so since you aren't punished by instantly losing a round if you fuck up one push (this is where KOTH shines in TF2 as well).
There's also not going to be a team just suddenly appearing out of nowhere and making the game aggressive because there are no 6 players in the game that would be good enough and mesh together well enough to be 50% better than the current competition, the issue isn't the players, it's the game. Not trying to make any change to the game (adjustments to outdated map designs, new rulesets, promod) will just lead into current players gradually dropping faster and faster since not many people are actually having fun playing the game at the top level.
[quote=nuze]#65
I never said that the froyo/epsi style was perfect, I just think it offers very good solutions to most of the stalemate situations that teams find themselves in now, and there's a lot to be addressed with the questions you asked and that's why it's hard to give a detailed enough answer in a forum post (it's why I won't begin to respond to #64 because there's too much to say).
[/quote]
Their styles worked because their relavite competition was trash compared to them, which isn't the case for the current top teams. You can't expect "just be 50% better than the 2nd seeded team" to be a relevant argument, the issue here is that an equally skilled teams have extreme difficulty pushing against each other because defensive gameplay is so much easier to execute to a high level than offensive gameplay and nobody in this world is interested in putting 5+ evenings a week to practice playing aggressive (except that 1 guy who plays this game for a living) which you would need to contest a mid-prem defensive team. Sure it's fun to win while playing aggressively, but the effort required just to play aggressive is way too much for a team of 6 that usually consist of at least one or two people with day jobs and more with education to attend.
The game needs to be entertaining to play from the get-go, not after having put hundreds of hours into practice as a team. This is where the major design difference between the current FPS esports and TF2 lies, since in those games at least one team is forced to play aggressively and it's feasible to do so since you aren't punished by instantly losing a round if you fuck up one push (this is where KOTH shines in TF2 as well).
There's also not going to be a team just suddenly appearing out of nowhere and making the game aggressive because there are no 6 players in the game that would be good enough and mesh together well enough to be 50% better than the current competition, the issue isn't the players, it's the game. Not trying to make any change to the game (adjustments to outdated map designs, new rulesets, promod) will just lead into current players gradually dropping faster and faster since not many people are actually having fun playing the game at the top level.
Muuki can you accept my friend request on steam cos I don't wanna make 20 posts at character limit on tftv when we could just discuss this over steam (path of least resistance xD)
Muuki can you accept my friend request on steam cos I don't wanna make 20 posts at character limit on tftv when we could just discuss this over steam (path of least resistance xD)
nuzeMuuki can you accept my friend request on steam cos I don't wanna make 20 posts at character limit on tftv when we could just discuss this over steam (path of least resistance xD)
Please continue in here! Im intrested in this conversation :D
[quote=nuze]Muuki can you accept my friend request on steam cos I don't wanna make 20 posts at character limit on tftv when we could just discuss this over steam (path of least resistance xD)[/quote]
Please continue in here! Im intrested in this conversation :D
albaPlease continue in here! Im intrested in this conversation :D
I second this. Conversations like that should be kept public.
[quote=alba]Please continue in here! Im intrested in this conversation :D[/quote]
I second this. Conversations like that should be kept public.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/cCfpgt7.png[/img]
Just to inject some objective data into the debate I've compared round counts between this season of ETF2L and Season 19 which took place roughly 2.5 years ago. Season 19 had a few teams drop out so the number of games is different, and the comparison is made with percentages. Season 19 included Suave, etc.
This season average rounds per map are about 1.3 lower (down to 4.9 from 6.2). This season only 2% of maps have had 9 rounds or more, season 19 had 17% of maps with 9 rounds or more. This season had 27% of maps with 3 or less rounds, season 19 had 14% of maps with 3 or less rounds. The most common number of rounds in a map is 5 in both seasons, but this season 7.7% of games were 5-0 whereas in season 19 8.3% were 5-0.
So it looks like both seasons were anchored around a 5 rounds per map common score but in Season 19 the maps that didn't conform to that were skewed upwards and this season they are skewed downwards. Also Season 19 was marginally more likely to produce a 5-0 roll. Maybe season 19 had more uneven results due to teams dropping, that's a possible criticism, and I'm not sure if the map pool or rules stimulated any difference. Maybe I could have picked a better season, ymmv.
This might be interesting for anyone looking at how micro changes have affected the 6v6 meta in the past couple of years, but just as no players are super committed enough to perfecting an aggro style after years of micro buffs to defensive options I can't be bothered to compare every season.
Just to inject some objective data into the debate I've compared round counts between this season of ETF2L and Season 19 which took place roughly 2.5 years ago. Season 19 had a few teams drop out so the number of games is different, and the comparison is made with percentages. Season 19 included Suave, etc.
This season average rounds per map are about 1.3 lower (down to 4.9 from 6.2). This season only 2% of maps have had 9 rounds or more, season 19 had 17% of maps with 9 rounds or more. This season had 27% of maps with 3 or less rounds, season 19 had 14% of maps with 3 or less rounds. The most common number of rounds in a map is 5 in both seasons, but this season 7.7% of games were 5-0 whereas in season 19 8.3% were 5-0.
So it looks like both seasons were anchored around a 5 rounds per map common score but in Season 19 the maps that didn't conform to that were skewed upwards and this season they are skewed downwards. Also Season 19 was marginally more likely to produce a 5-0 roll. Maybe season 19 had more uneven results due to teams dropping, that's a possible criticism, and I'm not sure if the map pool or rules stimulated any difference. Maybe I could have picked a better season, ymmv.
This might be interesting for anyone looking at how micro changes have affected the 6v6 meta in the past couple of years, but just as no players are super committed enough to perfecting an aggro style after years of micro buffs to defensive options I can't be bothered to compare every season.
Buff kritz until its run by default
Game will never be a snoozefest ever again
Buff kritz until its run by default
Game will never be a snoozefest ever again
Weird idea: You get x points for x point captures and maybe capping last gets you 2 points or something. Didn't think this too much but it sounds interesting.
Weird idea: You get x points for x point captures and maybe capping last gets you 2 points or something. Didn't think this too much but it sounds interesting.
MouldBuff kritz until its run by default
Game will never be a snoozefest ever again
kritz is not fun to play against :(
[quote=Mould]Buff kritz until its run by default
Game will never be a snoozefest ever again[/quote]
kritz is not fun to play against :(
syphWeird idea: You get x points for x point captures and maybe capping last gets you 2 points or something. Didn't think this too much but it sounds interesting.
An external incentive to award attacking play without messing around too much with the game mechanics is actually an interesting solution, if nothing else because it's much more viable than making custom maps or plugins to change the rules of the game.
[quote=syph]Weird idea: You get x points for x point captures and maybe capping last gets you 2 points or something. Didn't think this too much but it sounds interesting.[/quote]
An external incentive to award attacking play without messing around too much with the game mechanics is actually an interesting solution, if nothing else because it's much more viable than making custom maps or plugins to change the rules of the game.
syphWeird idea: You get x points for x point captures and maybe capping last gets you 2 points or something. Didn't think this too much but it sounds interesting.
Cool idea but it could lead into win mid > cap 2nd > put sentry and heavy and dont move because you are leading.
[quote=syph]Weird idea: You get x points for x point captures and maybe capping last gets you 2 points or something. Didn't think this too much but it sounds interesting.[/quote]
Cool idea but it could lead into win mid > cap 2nd > put sentry and heavy and dont move because you are leading.
Like it was suggested before, more aggro strats need to be played and tested if no major gameplay changes want to be made. That means, stop complaining when teams try strats such as: heavy to mid on viaduct, running a sniper full time, different unorthodox weapons, etc. Just because people aren't running the traditional meta, doesn't mean that its BM. If the demo starts running targe when its a 3-0 lead, that's BM. Teams need to learn that its not BM if its working, since an enemy team could do so in an official, and u cant baby rage from that unless you want a loss.
Albeit, there is a fine line between BM and innovative strats (in the eyes of many) but i feel without proper testing, all we can do is theory craft. Props to lowpander and other teams to start experimenting with these different tactics. This is, however, just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.
Show Content
Also Fuck The Cowmangler...
Like it was suggested before, more aggro strats need to be played and tested if no major gameplay changes want to be made. That means, stop complaining when teams try strats such as: heavy to mid on viaduct, running a sniper full time, different unorthodox weapons, etc. Just because people aren't running the traditional meta, doesn't mean that its BM. If the demo starts running targe when its a 3-0 lead, that's BM. Teams need to learn that its not BM if its working, since an enemy team could do so in an official, and u cant baby rage from that unless you want a loss.
Albeit, there is a fine line between BM and innovative strats (in the eyes of many) but i feel without proper testing, all we can do is theory craft. Props to lowpander and other teams to start experimenting with these different tactics. This is, however, just my opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.
[spoiler]Also Fuck The Cowmangler...[/spoiler]
So I don't really expect this idea for badlands to really be much, but I'll pitch it anyways.
Badlands is obviously an incredibly hard map to push out of. There have been plenty of good examples provided as to why it's nearly impossible to push out of last so I'm not going to echo what has already been said.
Is there any way (through map design or some other method of sorcery) to make it so that the forward spawn does not teleport you back to last when the enemy has your 2nd? My train of thought behind this was that there isn't a lot of distance needed to cover from last to battlements, so possibly having a sniper push out with the team to get the spire cap wouldn't be as bad considering the large sightline from battlements onto choke. However, the sniper would have to switch class to scout before the point is capped so he/she would not have to cover the distance between last and where his/her team is. Also, attempts at a forward hold by a team could possibly be discouraged if a heavy is brought along to break the forward hold.
I don't really expect this to go very far, but it's an idea and suggestion nonetheless
So I don't really expect this idea for badlands to really be much, but I'll pitch it anyways.
Badlands is obviously an incredibly hard map to push out of. There have been plenty of good examples provided as to why it's nearly impossible to push out of last so I'm not going to echo what has already been said.
Is there any way (through map design or some other method of sorcery) to make it so that the forward spawn does not teleport you back to last when the enemy has your 2nd? My train of thought behind this was that there isn't a lot of distance needed to cover from last to battlements, so possibly having a sniper push out with the team to get the spire cap wouldn't be as bad considering the large sightline from battlements onto choke. However, the sniper would have to switch class to scout before the point is capped so he/she would not have to cover the distance between last and where his/her team is. Also, attempts at a forward hold by a team could [i][b]possibly[/b][/i] be discouraged if a heavy is brought along to break the forward hold.
I don't really expect this to go very far, but it's an idea and suggestion nonetheless
I've always felt that in the game's current state, the correct course of action is to incentivize pushing quickly, as opposed to penalizing teams that take a while. As it is, if ubers are even and players on both teams have respawned, the cap usually marks the beginning of a stalemate. The attacking team will usually not be as healthy as the defenders, or will have to leave a player behind to finish the cap if they want to be aggressive. Trying to use the stick approach to keeping teams from stalemating means teams would be forced to take bad fights frequently, or potentially even cause more stalemates if waiting grants one side an advantage. Instead, you could encourage them to move by offering some kind of diminishing combat bonus to the cap itself. Overheals could be an easy, already in-game example of what I'm talking about: If capping a point granted an extra 25% health that drained at the same rate as an overheal (so, best case, you'd have soldiers with 350 health for a few seconds), the attackers would be more likely to just keep moving as quickly as possible into the defenders. It would additionally make fights much more conclusive, since a defending team is less likely to retreat and attempt to stalemate the next point after losing a small advantage if the attackers gain something from capping.
It doesn't totally eliminate stalemates (which I don't think should be the goal anyway; just to reduce their frequency). If losing a point grants the other team a sizable advantage, you could be less willing to do anything at all if your health ad does drain away. But I do think it makes stalemates less likely, and it also makes a team that wins mid much more likely to take it all the way to last. As long as teams are scoring, or one team holds a round advantage over the other, there will always be a towering incentive for the other team to push, no matter the cost.
also theres a fuckton of other ways to implement this that change the game in different ways, from just boosting the overheal cap, damage bonuses, all the way to granting a bonus just by touching the cap, or just bonusing the people who are actually standing on the thing. the point is that i think the solution lies in incentivizing pushing instead of pissing on people for stalemating
I've always felt that in the game's current state, the correct course of action is to incentivize pushing quickly, as opposed to penalizing teams that take a while. As it is, if ubers are even and players on both teams have respawned, the cap usually marks the beginning of a stalemate. The attacking team will usually not be as healthy as the defenders, or will have to leave a player behind to finish the cap if they want to be aggressive. Trying to use the stick approach to keeping teams from stalemating means teams would be forced to take bad fights frequently, or potentially even cause more stalemates if waiting grants one side an advantage. Instead, you could encourage them to move by offering some kind of diminishing combat bonus to the cap itself. Overheals could be an easy, already in-game example of what I'm talking about: If capping a point granted an extra 25% health that drained at the same rate as an overheal (so, best case, you'd have soldiers with 350 health for a few seconds), the attackers would be more likely to just keep moving as quickly as possible into the defenders. It would additionally make fights much more conclusive, since a defending team is less likely to retreat and attempt to stalemate the next point after losing a small advantage if the attackers gain something from capping.
It doesn't totally eliminate stalemates (which I don't think should be the goal anyway; just to reduce their frequency). If losing a point grants the other team a sizable advantage, you could be less willing to do anything at all if your health ad does drain away. But I do think it makes stalemates less likely, and it also makes a team that wins mid much more likely to take it all the way to last. As long as teams are scoring, or one team holds a round advantage over the other, there will always be a towering incentive for the other team to push, no matter the cost.
also theres a fuckton of other ways to implement this that change the game in different ways, from just boosting the overheal cap, damage bonuses, all the way to granting a bonus just by touching the cap, or just bonusing the people who are actually standing on the thing. the point is that i think the solution lies in incentivizing pushing instead of pissing on people for stalemating
albasyphWeird idea: You get x points for x point captures and maybe capping last gets you 2 points or something. Didn't think this too much but it sounds interesting.
Cool idea but it could lead into win mid > cap 2nd > put sentry and heavy and dont move because you are leading.
the only thing stopping people from doing that now is the fact that there's no money
if u keep the game in its current balance state and introduce money then every game will be a 0-0 or 1-0
[quote=alba][quote=syph]Weird idea: You get x points for x point captures and maybe capping last gets you 2 points or something. Didn't think this too much but it sounds interesting.[/quote]
Cool idea but it could lead into win mid > cap 2nd > put sentry and heavy and dont move because you are leading.[/quote]
the only thing stopping people from doing that now is the fact that there's no money
if u keep the game in its current balance state and introduce money then every game will be a 0-0 or 1-0
albasyphWeird idea: You get x points for x point captures and maybe capping last gets you 2 points or something. Didn't think this too much but it sounds interesting.
Cool idea but it could lead into win mid > cap 2nd > put sentry and heavy and dont move because you are leading.
A better option might be extra league points for hitting a round target or winning margin target
[quote=alba][quote=syph]Weird idea: You get x points for x point captures and maybe capping last gets you 2 points or something. Didn't think this too much but it sounds interesting.[/quote]
Cool idea but it could lead into win mid > cap 2nd > put sentry and heavy and dont move because you are leading.[/quote]
A better option might be extra league points for hitting a round target or winning margin target
GentlemanJonalbasyphWeird idea: You get x points for x point captures and maybe capping last gets you 2 points or something. Didn't think this too much but it sounds interesting.
Cool idea but it could lead into win mid > cap 2nd > put sentry and heavy and dont move because you are leading.
A better option might be extra league points for hitting a round target or winning margin target
That sounds really good.
[quote=GentlemanJon][quote=alba][quote=syph]Weird idea: You get x points for x point captures and maybe capping last gets you 2 points or something. Didn't think this too much but it sounds interesting.[/quote]
Cool idea but it could lead into win mid > cap 2nd > put sentry and heavy and dont move because you are leading.[/quote]
A better option might be extra league points for hitting a round target or winning margin target[/quote]
That sounds really good.