Is it possible to get a citation on that? I tell this to people all the time but I can't actually back it up aside from telling the person to look at how effective these classes are.

So today is saturday. Some people suggested that there should be some sort of casted match between respectable players using the pick/ban system.

Will this be happening?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh_ItF1wOT0&list=SPB332A9F8BB5E150B&t=12m53s

Yeah, that is where the terms came from. Somebody saw that interview, heard Walker casually drop these throwaway made-up terms to explain a more complex issue, posted it on SPUF, constantly repeated it in threads and over time people thought the terms actually had a deep meaning.

Well they don't. Have never once seen anyone able to define them. By the logic of most explanations, Scout is less of a "generalist" than Sniper but you won't hear anyone admit that. Scouts can be countered more easily than Sniper. Just check out any pub or any HL game. That Scouts are super good in 6s is only because there are way fewer players than is standard.

Likewise "specialist" only means the class is, on average, simply less viable an option. It's more an excuse comp likes to use to explain away underpowered classes than intended design.

But that's off topic anyway and I agree with the rest of #540

Unfortunately the comp scene also isn't exactly known for accepting new maps. Especially not ones with gimmicks. The fact most "new" maps being discovered by UGC lately are like 2-3 years old is symptomatic of that. There are tons of maps that have never been given a chance.

Even the recent cp_harbour, a pretty normal 5cp but with a water canal under its 2nd point (think of cp_well's), was made fun of because "water is dumb". Despite it being a completely optional 4th route.

On top of that there's Quickplay not allowing any custom maps and mappers not getting any money for their work when adding a single hat gives you thousands of dollars

#545:
1) Generalist and specialist weren't even being used as terminology there, they're just a word being used for categorization. Yes, it's perfectly legitimate for people to use them as jargon despite the fact that this wasn't intended; the only thing that is important is that there exists such a concrete difference between how the classes work out.

2)
>Well they don't. Have never once seen anyone able to define them.
That's a dangerous statement to make, and purely anecdotal.

3)
>By the logic of most explanations, Scout is less of a "generalist" than Sniper but you won't hear anyone admit that.
Doesn't the fact that there are "explanations" to have a "most" of directly defy the previous statement?

4)
>Scouts can be countered more easily than Sniper. Just check out any pub or any HL game. That Scouts are super good in 6s is only because there are way fewer players than is standard.
I'm going to address this point by point.
- Scouts can be countered more easily than Sniper
What does this have to do with the generalist/specialist balance? If scout can be countered in more ways or situations or with less skill than sniper, doesn't that mean that he must make up for being able to be shut down in plethora ways -- like having plethora powers?
- Just check out any pub or any HL game.
My experience with pubs and HL cement scout as an extremely versatile DM and objective class in general, directly contrary to what you're suggesting. Please give real evidence instead of "look for yourself".
- That Scouts are super good in 6s is only because there are way fewer players than is standard.
Really? I thought Scouts were super good in 6s because of the defining traits of the class -- high free mobility... extreme 1v1 potential... second for disposability in a gamble after the roaming soldier... None of which powers are in fact individually counterable once an opportunity presents itself to them. This is my experience and I know I'm making a statement, but I'm not going to pretend that pulling up whatever random game will make it obvious with clarity that this is fact.

5)
>Likewise "specialist" only means the class is, on average, simply less viable an option. It's more an excuse comp likes to use to explain away underpowered classes than intended design.
- Likewise "specialist" only means the class is, on average, simply less viable an option.
That's a pointless statement because it's literally definition. Something that is more specialized is more useful in fewer situations. When applying "average" to that it literally comes down to semantics and how you define viability.
- It's more an excuse comp likes to use to explain away underpowered classes than intended design.
I have never seen anyone use it as an excuse to explain away being underpowered. By our definition around here, heavy and engineer are specialized classes; but they are not "underpowered" by any average sense of the term, because they do have places where they are extremely useful and harder to counter than the generalist classes in the same situations. Sniper is designed bottom up to be an assassin good at taking out individual targets. He's not especially good at other things. Does this make him underpowered? No, and in fact it's one of the most common 6s offclasses because their utility isn't hurt by their low mobility.

(cont.)

(continued)

6)
>Unfortunately the comp scene also isn't exactly known for accepting new maps. Especially not ones with gimmicks. The fact most "new" maps being discovered by UGC lately are like 2-3 years old is symptomatic of that. There are tons of maps that have never been given a chance.
- Unfortunately the comp scene also isn't exactly known for accepting new maps.
* Gullywash
* turbine_pro (during its time)
* Snakewater
* Metalworks (contentious)
* pro_viaduct (debatable relevancy)
* Process
* Edifice
I have said this time and time again but because I don't have mapping street cred nobody gives a shit. 6s players don't hate maps just because they're "new". 6s players want to try out new things if they have any promise of improving on what came before. Gullywash, Process, and Edifice are perfect examples of that. Yes there are people who vocally dislike these things but that is true of all of the tf2 community.
- Especially not ones with gimmicks.
Why would competitive players be excited about something gimmicky?
- The fact most "new" maps being discovered by UGC lately are like 2-3 years old is symptomatic of that.
Extremely unfair point: UGC's popularity is novel. Of course now that they're more important they're going to care about looking for new maps to play, especially since the only unanimously good map for them is badwater and the community is massive and whines at their admins for making them play ctf dear god no not ctf how could you do this you sadistic monsters.
- There are tons of maps that have never been given a chance.
Most maps do have yet to be discovered by the comp community, this is true. Particularly old ones like you said. In that case the relevant forces at hand are the state of the community back when the maps were being created. And don't forget how long it took for people to "figure out" TF2 map making. I'm sure there are a lot of gems of old maps that weren't publicised to comp players, but especially at this point in the game making them as good as the ones that are already played competitively would take work and I doubt anyone would prefer fixing an old map to making a new one (cough coughcp_ obscure).

(cont.)

(continued)

7)
>Even the recent cp_harbour, a pretty normal 5cp but with a water canal under its 2nd point (think of cp_well's), was made fun of because "water is dumb". Despite it being a completely optional 4th route.
- Even the recent cp_harbour
Adding for context because I have to split the sentence up into smaller "points": http://teamfortress.tv/forum/thread/6042-cp-harbour-5cp
- a pretty normal 5cp but with a water canal under its 2nd point (think of cp_well's), was made fun of because "water is dumb".
It does seem like a normal 6cp map. It also got mostly positive feedback from the community (see above link) before they even played it, which is a really extremely positive thing and entirely contrary to the tone of this section of your post. I pointed out that having a cap point on a bridge over water was probably going to be awkward, but that wasn't making fun of it and nobody in this thread even said "water is dumb" -- they did have a short debate about it and that's good! No map designer should leave the worries of part of their audience unaccounted for! It was resolved properly and there was no bad blood or shitty ultimate hate for water, the map was not made fun of and people were only expressing their worries. From tf2maps, here are some short (and yes I know they're out of context) points about the water:
* The water drop down thing: not sure thats a good idea. The three maps that i can think of with it (freight, well, and waste) that pathway almost always ends up useless. I would consider making it possible to both enter and exit the water entrance. (feedback from a prolific comp mapper who made what I think is the best custom map for competitive tf2)
* Pushing second thru water is useless most of the time because, while you might surprise the enemy, they'll probably have height advantage on you when you pop out.
* Something else i was joing to suggest is making the cp 2 bridge lower- at water level. So players can jump out of the water direct onto it.
* If your defending second, the path to the left of the bridge (not the water one but the one with the handrails) seems really strange. I mean, I walk into that room and anticipate being able to walk right towards mid immediately, but you've got these handrails that make jumping up there impossible. Having to walk a lot further because of some oddly placed props doesn't feel great and it makes a walk to mid from there pretty lame. The water route is actually faster to get to pretty much the same place.
...I see no bad blood, mockery, or shitty jokes here. Tell me if I'm missing something but I legitimately can't find your supposed mockery anywhere, especially not from the competitive community which is the supposed context.

Not on forums. Just have had bad experience with what players said ingame/right after playtests.

Just want to repost this so it doesn't get buried in these long off topic posts I shouldn't have incited, sorry

I've been seeing far too many negative nancies on here... If you are scared that any changes to items will effect your competitive play, remember that the servers used for competitive play can always adjust items back to what they were before the changes were made. If you think these efforts by Valve won't matter, or are going in the right direction, offer constructive criticism; I'm actually physically tired after reading this thread from seeing people just complaining that it won't work for XYZ reason. It reminds me of children who refuse to eat [insert interesting food item here] because it isn't what they are used to, and frightens them.

I may not be a competitive player, but I find competitive very interesting. I mostly watch 6v6, and I do enjoy it, but the argument that unlock usage will hinder the advancement of more skilled teams in a competitive environment seems flawed to me.. Teamwork and DM are very important factors in the competitive scene, but there is an unnecessary fear of new things it seems. I would like to see the ability to adapt get rewarded more often, and the repetition of a small group of strategies tends to prevent this. More unlocks= more strats? doesn't mean 6v6 needs to suddenly accept everything, but as updates come out and items are balanced in small groups, they could be slowly reintroduced into play as seen fit.

PS: PLEASE don't angrily nitpick numbers that people use as examples in their posts, such as "WTF 12 bans is WAY too many, there should only be 8.35318917 bans per match!!1", when they are in fact trying to convey an idea or theory; numbers can be changed pretty easily once a system is put into practice (AKA balanced).

Now, I actually do have some ideas for how the lobby system could be set up. Not saying every one of these has to be followed, but I think some people might agree with some of these things..

Pick/ban
-player's choices made while waiting in the lobby, saved in settings
-rating screen similar to loadout change: pick class, get a list of available items organised by slot
-each player then picks 5 items that need nerfing and 5 that need buffing
-when the match starts, all items picked by more than one player are listed
-players rank their top three overpowered and underpowered ones
-players are only allowed to use an OP/ban item if they also have a weak one in their loadout
can't mix UP/OP items from their own picks
-players rank loadout effect after match X/5
-valve stats should note results by map
-Stock items not safe from bans
-runs risk of wasting a ban and facing broken unlocks
-all unlock items available to those who don't have them
-excitement over newly accessible item=interest
-unowned unlocks that are used more often get a higher chance of dropping for the player

Lobby waiting system
-Show current needs for classes (# of servers needing spies/snipers vs # needing solly/scout)
-choose from list what classes you want to play

Ranking
-X/5 voting by teammates
-dropout without reconnect gives an instant rank of 1 for the match
-most recent 10(?) votes count toward placement
-MVPs picked each round
-MVPs grouped together when possible
-HL lobby strange badge (counts games played total, and MVP ranks as secondary)
-random item drops scaled by rank/MVP

$2.49 Pass for access
-Tradable
-drops every X hours played
-Lobby badges and coach badges could count as the pass?
UGC/CEVO/ESEA/ETF2L league members provided special coach badges/passes
-teams rank coaches
-coach pins strange quality, carry ratings for successful coaching
-special drops for good coaching?
Separate scoring system for lobby/comp points(no trade server farming)
Spectator mode option from lobby
-spec chat separate from game chat, link at end of round
-spec votes on MVP/rank
Match logs (http://logs.tf/45234) available after round
Allow server hosts to place ads for TFTV/VTV/etc.. (they carry responsibility for possible content)

Couldn't there be servers allocated to pre-test possible item nerfs for the valve dev/balance team? Have a notice upon entering the server with the newly balanced weapons described, and they are banproofed. only players with a rating above X are allowed the option to playtest these from lobby. discussion available after for ups/downs of the balance, and how effective it was.

To me the only weapons that need balancing is Unlocks.
All of the stock weapons in TF2 are perfectly balanced.

Weapon unlock examples:
Pretty boys pocket pistol: Fall damage is reduced by 50%, 30% bullet damage vulnerability on wearer.
Enforcer: 20% damage increase only when disguised.

I'll add to this list later.

The Pocket Pistol makes the Sandman viable for aggressive plays since it puts your health back at 125 at the cost of fire vulnerability and having a slower cleanup weapon, giving the Scout 30% bullet vulnerability would make it even less viable than the Candy Cane, and the idea is to expand the active weapon list. It sounds like this is the sort of thing that Robin was talking about: there's interesting strategies and combos for people to experiment, play with and counteract but instead of trying them out they'd rather trim things to suit their comfort. There are lots of weapons that need balancing- and the Pocket Pistol having no visual indicator of a health boost is one of them, as it conflicts with every other health-boosting item in the game- but if you want to see a weapon re-statted entirely then a pick/ban system will produce real data on what gets banned and how what gets used performs under clever abuse.

Instead of saying that X weapon needs to do Y and Z instead for no other reason than you think so- something Valve has undoubtedly heard a trillion times without any data to back it- play with and against these weapons and let them see the impact these weapons have on a match, and then they have solid ground to make changes from.

I've honestly never had more fun with this game than in the wake of Robin Walker calling it boring, where people are starting to set aside their hangups and experiment with weapons they were afraid to use to make really cool new plays their opponents aren't expecting. It's a wild west era and I hope it grows into something wonderful, and I really hope the people who would fight against it don't kill it before it can blossom.

See here is what is hanging people up though:

6s is more popular right now than it has ever been. There are more teams/players than ever, prize pool is bigger than ever, more viewers than ever (and way more viewers than Highlander), etc. Current 6v6 competitive TF2 as we know it is "blossoming".

This is something unknown that, if switched to in full force, will kill the current effort (which is so well loved i46 happened and now i49 is gonna have Australia there even!) and might not be as well liked and be smaller than the current scene.

It's risky, risks bother people. What if we switch to this and it isn't as attractive as thought to people at large? Could always go back to what we have now but stuff would essentially have to be rebuilt.

This ^

From right at the beginning of the thread. It's OK to discuss this/that/the other weapons, as usual that's where the bulk of replies come. But what about Valve's RANDOM CRITS.

I'm not against trying to fight any unlocks, but if there are CRITS flying around that will just make it a farce.

Obviously crits will be disabled on pug servers. Aside from class limits, that is basically the feature that separates pubs from comp.

So where are all the logs all these lobbies/matches should have generated? Which weapons were banned most often?

Pomson and Vitasaw IIRC.

That's not the point of our PUGs. The point of our PUGs is to come up with a /system/ that people like, not weapon data; the weapon data is valve's job.

Soooooo Valve want to turn the peoples creation of something they find fun and love into a testing platform and will only ever support one platform even though we said highlander can never be big because, well it's 9 people. And all because Robin Walker (one person) person finds this stale? I'm done. And seriously who found comp boring and stale before this?

Playing comp is fun obviously. Thats why so many people play it. But from the perspective of a spectator who only pubs, its really easy to understand why they would find it boring.

why do I get -frags I just replied correctly

Right. It'd still be nice to see the results of some of these pugs listed even if they only show a rough general idea

Regardless, how close are we to a consensus on what the most likely to work systems are?

And good question, and where do we report our findings? To whom? And how do they get to Valve?

Of course people on pubs find comp boring. They literally have no clue how this game works. Mass medics & demos with a few heavies waiting on uber would be the pub metagame

How do we get in-game lobbies?

Make fake ratings on Metacritic

So much for our hopes and dreams

Does this mean valve lied to us?

I think everyone just gave up.. not too sure though. It would still be nice if this could happen.