if we're going to entertain this (genuinely awful and nonsensical by the way) analogy for some reason, what you're doing is more like taking marathoners and telling them that, actually, marathons from now on should replace a quarter of the 42km track length with a swimming section because, as we all know, humans can swim and therefore marathons can't possibly be a real type of a foot race unless the marathoners can display that they're also excellent endurance swimmers
TF Competitive 6v6 Class Restrictions
posted in
TF2 General Discussion
if we're going to entertain this (genuinely awful and nonsensical by the way) analogy for some reason, what you're doing is more like taking marathoners and telling them that, actually, marathons from now on should replace a quarter of the 42km track length with a swimming section because, as we all know, humans can swim and therefore marathons can't possibly be a real type of a foot race unless the marathoners can display that they're also excellent endurance swimmers
https://www.reddit.com/r/tf2/
hey man i think u clicked the wrong website sorry
https://www.reddit.com/r/tf2/
hey man i think u clicked the wrong website sorry
hey man i think u clicked the wrong website sorry
Refutation of the Argument Against Class Limits in TF2's 6v6 Competitive Mode
The argument against class limits in TF2's 6v6 competitive mode draws an analogy with triathlons and posits that the current rules favor Scouts and Soldiers at the expense of other classes. The analogy aims to illustrate that over-centralization on certain classes detracts from the competitive diversity and enjoyment of the game. Let's break down the points and address the flaws in this argument.
Triathlon Analogy
Analogy Misalignment: The triathlon analogy suggests that removing swimming would unfairly benefit runners and fundamentally change the nature of the triathlon. However, this comparison doesn't directly apply to TF2 because TF2's gameplay dynamics are not analogous to triathlons. Each class in TF2 has distinct roles and interactions that create a complex, multi-layered gameplay environment, unlike the linear, sequential nature of triathlon events.
Class Interdependence: In TF2, classes are designed to complement and counter each other in a dynamic balance. Limiting classes ensures that this balance is maintained, preventing any one class from dominating. Unlike a triathlon where each sport is separate, TF2’s classes interact simultaneously, making class limits essential for maintaining strategic depth and variety.
6v6 Competitive Rules
Current Meta: The current 6v6 meta with class limits (e.g., two Scouts and two Soldiers) has evolved over years of competitive play to balance mobility, damage output, and strategic versatility. Removing these limits could lead to over-centralization, where the most versatile and powerful classes dominate, reducing strategic diversity and making the game less competitive and enjoyable.
Adapting and Learning: The argument that limiting classes stifles learning and adaptation is flawed. Class limits actually encourage players to master multiple roles and strategies. For instance, players must learn to play different classes based on the team's needs and the unfolding match dynamics, fostering a deeper understanding and broader skill set.
Comparison with Highlander: Highlander (9v9 with one of each class) is a different format designed to ensure all classes are represented. The slower, more methodical gameplay of Highlander doesn’t directly translate to 6v6, which emphasizes faster-paced, high-stakes engagements. The dynamics and balance in 6v6 require different considerations to maintain a competitive environment.
Class Limits and Over-centralization
Class Stacking: Allowing unrestricted class selection in 6v6 would likely result in stacking the most powerful classes, such as multiple Medics or Soldiers, which would centralize the meta around those classes. This would reduce the need for diverse strategies and diminish the competitive complexity that class limits currently provide.
Specialist Classes: Specialist classes, like Heavy and Pyro, have narrow use cases in 6v6. Class limits force teams to strategically deploy these specialists in specific scenarios, enhancing the strategic depth. Without limits, the game could devolve into a meta where only the most versatile classes are viable, reducing the overall strategic variety and competitiveness.
Conclusion
The argument against class limits in TF2's 6v6 competitive mode misunderstands the intricate balance and dynamics of the game. Class limits are crucial for maintaining strategic diversity, ensuring all classes can play meaningful roles, and fostering a competitive environment where players must adapt and learn multiple roles. Removing these limits would likely lead to over-centralization, diminishing the competitive depth and enjoyment of the game. Thus, class limits are not only important but essential for the health and competitiveness of TF2's 6v6 format.
disclaimer: i did not read your post or this ai generated response
[h]Refutation of the Argument Against Class Limits in TF2's 6v6 Competitive Mode[/h]
The argument against class limits in TF2's 6v6 competitive mode draws an analogy with triathlons and posits that the current rules favor Scouts and Soldiers at the expense of other classes. The analogy aims to illustrate that over-centralization on certain classes detracts from the competitive diversity and enjoyment of the game. Let's break down the points and address the flaws in this argument.
[h]Triathlon Analogy[/h]
[b]Analogy Misalignment:[/b] The triathlon analogy suggests that removing swimming would unfairly benefit runners and fundamentally change the nature of the triathlon. However, this comparison doesn't directly apply to TF2 because TF2's gameplay dynamics are not analogous to triathlons. Each class in TF2 has distinct roles and interactions that create a complex, multi-layered gameplay environment, unlike the linear, sequential nature of triathlon events.
[b]Class Interdependence:[/b] In TF2, classes are designed to complement and counter each other in a dynamic balance. Limiting classes ensures that this balance is maintained, preventing any one class from dominating. Unlike a triathlon where each sport is separate, TF2’s classes interact simultaneously, making class limits essential for maintaining strategic depth and variety.
[h]6v6 Competitive Rules[/h]
[b]Current Meta:[/b] The current 6v6 meta with class limits (e.g., two Scouts and two Soldiers) has evolved over years of competitive play to balance mobility, damage output, and strategic versatility. Removing these limits could lead to over-centralization, where the most versatile and powerful classes dominate, reducing strategic diversity and making the game less competitive and enjoyable.
[b]Adapting and Learning:[/b] The argument that limiting classes stifles learning and adaptation is flawed. Class limits actually encourage players to master multiple roles and strategies. For instance, players must learn to play different classes based on the team's needs and the unfolding match dynamics, fostering a deeper understanding and broader skill set.
[b]Comparison with Highlander:[/b] Highlander (9v9 with one of each class) is a different format designed to ensure all classes are represented. The slower, more methodical gameplay of Highlander doesn’t directly translate to 6v6, which emphasizes faster-paced, high-stakes engagements. The dynamics and balance in 6v6 require different considerations to maintain a competitive environment.
[h]Class Limits and Over-centralization[/h]
[b]Class Stacking:[/b] Allowing unrestricted class selection in 6v6 would likely result in stacking the most powerful classes, such as multiple Medics or Soldiers, which would centralize the meta around those classes. This would reduce the need for diverse strategies and diminish the competitive complexity that class limits currently provide.
[b]Specialist Classes:[/b] Specialist classes, like Heavy and Pyro, have narrow use cases in 6v6. Class limits force teams to strategically deploy these specialists in specific scenarios, enhancing the strategic depth. Without limits, the game could devolve into a meta where only the most versatile classes are viable, reducing the overall strategic variety and competitiveness.
[h]Conclusion[/h]
The argument against class limits in TF2's 6v6 competitive mode misunderstands the intricate balance and dynamics of the game. Class limits are crucial for maintaining strategic diversity, ensuring all classes can play meaningful roles, and fostering a competitive environment where players must adapt and learn multiple roles. Removing these limits would likely lead to over-centralization, diminishing the competitive depth and enjoyment of the game. Thus, class limits are not only important but essential for the health and competitiveness of TF2's 6v6 format.
disclaimer: i did not read your post or this ai generated response
The argument against class limits in TF2's 6v6 competitive mode draws an analogy with triathlons and posits that the current rules favor Scouts and Soldiers at the expense of other classes. The analogy aims to illustrate that over-centralization on certain classes detracts from the competitive diversity and enjoyment of the game. Let's break down the points and address the flaws in this argument.
[h]Triathlon Analogy[/h]
[b]Analogy Misalignment:[/b] The triathlon analogy suggests that removing swimming would unfairly benefit runners and fundamentally change the nature of the triathlon. However, this comparison doesn't directly apply to TF2 because TF2's gameplay dynamics are not analogous to triathlons. Each class in TF2 has distinct roles and interactions that create a complex, multi-layered gameplay environment, unlike the linear, sequential nature of triathlon events.
[b]Class Interdependence:[/b] In TF2, classes are designed to complement and counter each other in a dynamic balance. Limiting classes ensures that this balance is maintained, preventing any one class from dominating. Unlike a triathlon where each sport is separate, TF2’s classes interact simultaneously, making class limits essential for maintaining strategic depth and variety.
[h]6v6 Competitive Rules[/h]
[b]Current Meta:[/b] The current 6v6 meta with class limits (e.g., two Scouts and two Soldiers) has evolved over years of competitive play to balance mobility, damage output, and strategic versatility. Removing these limits could lead to over-centralization, where the most versatile and powerful classes dominate, reducing strategic diversity and making the game less competitive and enjoyable.
[b]Adapting and Learning:[/b] The argument that limiting classes stifles learning and adaptation is flawed. Class limits actually encourage players to master multiple roles and strategies. For instance, players must learn to play different classes based on the team's needs and the unfolding match dynamics, fostering a deeper understanding and broader skill set.
[b]Comparison with Highlander:[/b] Highlander (9v9 with one of each class) is a different format designed to ensure all classes are represented. The slower, more methodical gameplay of Highlander doesn’t directly translate to 6v6, which emphasizes faster-paced, high-stakes engagements. The dynamics and balance in 6v6 require different considerations to maintain a competitive environment.
[h]Class Limits and Over-centralization[/h]
[b]Class Stacking:[/b] Allowing unrestricted class selection in 6v6 would likely result in stacking the most powerful classes, such as multiple Medics or Soldiers, which would centralize the meta around those classes. This would reduce the need for diverse strategies and diminish the competitive complexity that class limits currently provide.
[b]Specialist Classes:[/b] Specialist classes, like Heavy and Pyro, have narrow use cases in 6v6. Class limits force teams to strategically deploy these specialists in specific scenarios, enhancing the strategic depth. Without limits, the game could devolve into a meta where only the most versatile classes are viable, reducing the overall strategic variety and competitiveness.
[h]Conclusion[/h]
The argument against class limits in TF2's 6v6 competitive mode misunderstands the intricate balance and dynamics of the game. Class limits are crucial for maintaining strategic diversity, ensuring all classes can play meaningful roles, and fostering a competitive environment where players must adapt and learn multiple roles. Removing these limits would likely lead to over-centralization, diminishing the competitive depth and enjoyment of the game. Thus, class limits are not only important but essential for the health and competitiveness of TF2's 6v6 format.
disclaimer: i did not read your post or this ai generated response
enthrow but complaining makes you feel like you are better than the people actively putting in work to maintain that gamemode as well as the playerbase keeping it alive.
This is an innocuous discussion post about 6v6 class limits. People have been pretty nice when actually discussing this post and I have had no issues. We all wake up on the wrong side of the bed every now and then. It might be best for you to close the computer for today and come back tomorrow with a fresh mind. :)
[quote=enthrow] but complaining makes you feel like you are better than the people actively putting in work to maintain that gamemode as well as the playerbase keeping it alive. [/quote]
This is an innocuous discussion post about 6v6 class limits. People have been pretty nice when actually discussing this post and I have had no issues. We all wake up on the wrong side of the bed every now and then. It might be best for you to close the computer for today and come back tomorrow with a fresh mind. :)
This is an innocuous discussion post about 6v6 class limits. People have been pretty nice when actually discussing this post and I have had no issues. We all wake up on the wrong side of the bed every now and then. It might be best for you to close the computer for today and come back tomorrow with a fresh mind. :)
TynnyriHerpTimHow you gone have 3k hours in cs2 and be faceit level 2 tho.
This is creepy behavior. It is fairly okay (if a kind of sad) to look at people's accounts or other posts. It is weird and creepy to search extensively through different accounts as if you're trying to find something.
This extensive research has taken me 40 seconds tops
[quote=Tynnyri][quote=HerpTim]How you gone have 3k hours in cs2 and be faceit level 2 tho.[/quote]
This is creepy behavior. It is fairly okay (if a kind of sad) to look at people's accounts or other posts. It is weird and creepy to search extensively through different accounts as if you're trying to find something.[/quote]
This extensive research has taken me 40 seconds tops
This is creepy behavior. It is fairly okay (if a kind of sad) to look at people's accounts or other posts. It is weird and creepy to search extensively through different accounts as if you're trying to find something.[/quote]
This extensive research has taken me 40 seconds tops
HerpTimThis extensive research has taken me 40 seconds tops
That's even worse.
[quote=HerpTim]This extensive research has taken me 40 seconds tops[/quote]
That's even worse.
That's even worse.
if u didnt want people to see ur steam profile why did u make it public it takes like 3 clicks to hide it lilbro
if u didnt want people to see ur steam profile why did u make it public it takes like 3 clicks to hide it lilbro
Wandumif u didnt want people to see ur steam profile why did u make it public it takes like 3 clicks to hide it lilbro
I am not telling you to stop self-reporting, it's way better for everyone around you to know you're a creep and you should probably keep doing that. I am glad you're helping in keeping your communities safe.
[quote=Wandum]if u didnt want people to see ur steam profile why did u make it public it takes like 3 clicks to hide it lilbro[/quote]
I am not telling you to stop self-reporting, it's way better for everyone around you to know you're a creep and you should probably keep doing that. I am glad you're helping in keeping your communities safe.
I am not telling you to stop self-reporting, it's way better for everyone around you to know you're a creep and you should probably keep doing that. I am glad you're helping in keeping your communities safe.
do u understand how if u come to an enthusiast forum for a game making wild claims about how the game ought to be designed, without any real first hand experience playing the game yourself, people might not really take u seriously at all, and even find u comical or annoying?
do u understand how if u come to an enthusiast forum for a game making wild claims about how the game ought to be designed, without any real first hand experience playing the game yourself, people might not really take u seriously at all, and even find u comical or annoying?
brodya game making wild claims about how the game ought to be designed
Alright, thanks for the warning. I won't be doing that. TF2 is pretty much perfect in my eyes.
[quote=brody]a game making wild claims about how the game ought to be designed[/quote]
Alright, thanks for the warning. I won't be doing that. TF2 is pretty much perfect in my eyes.
Alright, thanks for the warning. I won't be doing that. TF2 is pretty much perfect in my eyes.
Incredible sekiro review, bro just didn't talk to the one npc in the room with him
Incredible sekiro review, bro just didn't talk to the one npc in the room with him
[img]https://i.gyazo.com/a36172d8ba2f671fac309f22e07807a3.png[/img]
[img]https://i.gyazo.com/a36172d8ba2f671fac309f22e07807a3.png[/img]
To get this back on topic:
I think from the get go your 'thesis' is inherently flawed. You have approached this discussion not to ask us why we have chosen the way we do things, but instead opted to present your theory as if its fact. Its clear that you do not have significant experience in the 6v6 environment and as a result are ignorant of the lengthy discussions for well over a decade on balancing (Weapon Bans, Class Restrictions) that have taken place. If you are 'new' to competitive TF2, its far better to engage with the space as is and then ask why things are the way that they are before you give your own perspective (aka doing your own research).
Some notes:
- Your Triathlon example falls apart pretty quickly when you consider how it works in the wider sport ecosystem, particularly Track & Field sports. Especially when you consider that rulings on how the sport operates is managed by Governing Bodies which in turn takes consultation from committees and athletes. In other words, athletes do have the ability to vote on how the sport operates. Not too dissimilar to how we do things.
- The 6v6 meta was not built around Scout and Soldier, but instead built around a playstyle that those classes just so happened to be the most effective at (high damage, high mobility, tug-of-war flow of play). We chose a playstyle first, then the meta developed from that.
- There have been so many attempts at a 6s gamemode with Class Limit 1, railroading strategy simply in the name of some 'equality' will not have a positive impact on 'competitiveness'. If all classes counts are the same, that does not mean that the mode is inherently more 'competitive'.
- I really want you to think here, but if these issues are something you can identify in less than a year - with recommendations as to a 'simple' fix. Why do you think that the hundreds of people who have organised events, tournaments, leagues, or things like that over the 17 years this game has had a competitive scene haven't figured that out - or why attempts at such things never took off? Is it because of solidified social norms or a sense of entitlement or elitism; or might it be perhaps that balancing competitive TF2 is far more complicated than simply unbanning the Scorch Shot or only running Class Limit 1.
I always welcome people to challenge the way that we do things, but if you are suggesting something as dramatic as a near overhaul of decades of precedent of course people are going to check whether you have any standing to speak with such authority.
To get this back on topic:
I think from the get go your 'thesis' is inherently flawed. You have approached this discussion not to ask us why we have chosen the way we do things, but instead opted to present your theory as if its fact. Its clear that you do not have significant experience in the 6v6 environment and as a result are ignorant of the lengthy discussions for well over a decade on balancing (Weapon Bans, Class Restrictions) that have taken place. If you are 'new' to competitive TF2, its far better to engage with the space as is and then ask why things are the way that they are before you give your own perspective (aka doing your own research).
Some notes:
[list]
[*] Your Triathlon example falls apart pretty quickly when you consider how it works in the wider sport ecosystem, particularly Track & Field sports. Especially when you consider that rulings on how the sport operates is managed by Governing Bodies which in turn takes consultation from committees and athletes. In other words, athletes do have the ability to vote on how the sport operates. Not too dissimilar to how we do things.
[*] The 6v6 meta was not built around Scout and Soldier, but instead built around a playstyle that those classes just so happened to be the most effective at (high damage, high mobility, tug-of-war flow of play). We chose a playstyle first, then the meta developed from that.
[*] There have been so many attempts at a 6s gamemode with Class Limit 1, railroading strategy simply in the name of some 'equality' will not have a positive impact on 'competitiveness'. If all classes counts are the same, that does not mean that the mode is inherently more 'competitive'.
[*] I really want you to think here, but if these issues are something you can identify in less than a year - with recommendations as to a 'simple' fix. Why do you think that the hundreds of people who have organised events, tournaments, leagues, or things like that over the 17 years this game has had a competitive scene haven't figured that out - or why attempts at such things never took off? Is it because of solidified social norms or a sense of entitlement or elitism; or might it be perhaps that balancing competitive TF2 is far more complicated than simply unbanning the Scorch Shot or only running Class Limit 1.
[/list]
I always welcome people to challenge the way that we do things, but if you are suggesting something as dramatic as a near overhaul of decades of precedent of course people are going to check whether you have any standing to speak with such authority.
I think from the get go your 'thesis' is inherently flawed. You have approached this discussion not to ask us why we have chosen the way we do things, but instead opted to present your theory as if its fact. Its clear that you do not have significant experience in the 6v6 environment and as a result are ignorant of the lengthy discussions for well over a decade on balancing (Weapon Bans, Class Restrictions) that have taken place. If you are 'new' to competitive TF2, its far better to engage with the space as is and then ask why things are the way that they are before you give your own perspective (aka doing your own research).
Some notes:
[list]
[*] Your Triathlon example falls apart pretty quickly when you consider how it works in the wider sport ecosystem, particularly Track & Field sports. Especially when you consider that rulings on how the sport operates is managed by Governing Bodies which in turn takes consultation from committees and athletes. In other words, athletes do have the ability to vote on how the sport operates. Not too dissimilar to how we do things.
[*] The 6v6 meta was not built around Scout and Soldier, but instead built around a playstyle that those classes just so happened to be the most effective at (high damage, high mobility, tug-of-war flow of play). We chose a playstyle first, then the meta developed from that.
[*] There have been so many attempts at a 6s gamemode with Class Limit 1, railroading strategy simply in the name of some 'equality' will not have a positive impact on 'competitiveness'. If all classes counts are the same, that does not mean that the mode is inherently more 'competitive'.
[*] I really want you to think here, but if these issues are something you can identify in less than a year - with recommendations as to a 'simple' fix. Why do you think that the hundreds of people who have organised events, tournaments, leagues, or things like that over the 17 years this game has had a competitive scene haven't figured that out - or why attempts at such things never took off? Is it because of solidified social norms or a sense of entitlement or elitism; or might it be perhaps that balancing competitive TF2 is far more complicated than simply unbanning the Scorch Shot or only running Class Limit 1.
[/list]
I always welcome people to challenge the way that we do things, but if you are suggesting something as dramatic as a near overhaul of decades of precedent of course people are going to check whether you have any standing to speak with such authority.
Tynnyri
I would define competitiveness as something along these pillars:
1. Interaction. (Players should have meaningful interactions with each other that affect the outcome of matches.)
2. Skill. (Players should always be improving their skills and expressing that skill is what should affect the outcome of matches.)
3. Community. (basically, be nice, have integrity, no cheating, etc.)
I think that's a reasonable definition.
TynnyriYou don't want to design around "fun" at the expense of competitiveness in a mode that tries to brand itself as the "competitive TF2" mode.
I think this is fine, as long as it's known that sometimes things that are not competitive are also not fun (i.e. that there is every combination of competitive/not competitive & fun/not fun).
TynnyriThats a weird inconsistency, though: Overcentralization is the intended outcome of having no class limits. But people disliked playing with medic overcentralization, so that was banned... And now, it's not anymore about how competitive the format can be, but how much the current fanbase "likes it".
See above though. Things can be viewed as not fun and not competitive. Double medic is one of those things; it's incredibly unfun but also uncompetitive because it seriously kills interaction. That's not a double standard, just confusion because ppl often use the phrase "not fun" to mean both "not fun and not competitive" as well as just "not fun". Double demo also follows a similar line of thinking. Overly strong defensive options are uninteractive more or less by design, and most people think uninteractive gameplay is both not competitive but also not fun.
To be honest I actually think the biggest problem with prolander type arguments is the existence of sniper. Sniper is incredibly strong into the overly defensive classes, but sniper as a class is definitely the least interactive in the entire game. However, the defensive classes are so strong that sniper becomes a necessary evil or else the gameplay loop is just incredibly stalematey. So everytime you invite the defensive classes in you also make sniper more and more of a necessity. This is actually the only reason highlander functions; highlander w/ sniper is hilariously oppressive at times because of the sniper class but highlander w/o it is even worse because you just can't break holds when enemy team has heavy/pyro/engineer.
In summary though, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that there is a certain potentially skillful aspect of the game being removed if you reasonably cannot swap to certain classes outside of last. But the format exists not because ppl just want to kill playstyles they find "unfun" but rather because those playstyles/classes are at least somewhat uncompetitive because of their low skill expression and because, in general, defensive play is just more uninteractive than offensive play. Couple that with the fact that the presence of defensive classes invites in the most uninteractive class in the game (sniper) and you reach the conclusion that most 6's enthusiasts reach which is that you sacrifice too much when you try to force class diversity.
[quote=Tynnyri]
I would define competitiveness as something along these pillars:
1. Interaction. (Players should have meaningful interactions with each other that affect the outcome of matches.)
2. Skill. (Players should always be improving their skills and expressing that skill is what should affect the outcome of matches.)
3. Community. (basically, be nice, have integrity, no cheating, etc.)
[/quote]
I think that's a reasonable definition.
[quote=Tynnyri]
You don't want to design around "fun" at the expense of competitiveness in a mode that tries to brand itself as the "competitive TF2" mode.
[/quote]
I think this is fine, as long as it's known that sometimes things that are not competitive are also not fun (i.e. that there is every combination of competitive/not competitive & fun/not fun).
[quote=Tynnyri]
Thats a weird inconsistency, though: Overcentralization is the intended outcome of having no class limits. But people disliked playing with medic overcentralization, so that was banned... And now, it's not anymore about how competitive the format can be, but how much the current fanbase "likes it".
[/quote]
See above though. Things can be viewed as not fun and not competitive. Double medic is one of those things; it's incredibly unfun but also uncompetitive because it seriously kills interaction. That's not a double standard, just confusion because ppl often use the phrase "not fun" to mean both "not fun and not competitive" as well as just "not fun". Double demo also follows a similar line of thinking. Overly strong defensive options are uninteractive more or less by design, and most people think uninteractive gameplay is both not competitive but also not fun.
To be honest I actually think the biggest problem with prolander type arguments is the existence of sniper. Sniper is incredibly strong into the overly defensive classes, but sniper as a class is definitely the least interactive in the entire game. However, the defensive classes are so strong that sniper becomes a necessary evil or else the gameplay loop is just incredibly stalematey. So everytime you invite the defensive classes in you also make sniper more and more of a necessity. This is actually the only reason highlander functions; highlander w/ sniper is hilariously oppressive at times because of the sniper class but highlander w/o it is even worse because you just can't break holds when enemy team has heavy/pyro/engineer.
In summary though, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that there is a certain potentially skillful aspect of the game being removed if you reasonably cannot swap to certain classes outside of last. But the format exists not because ppl just want to kill playstyles they find "unfun" but rather because those playstyles/classes are at least somewhat uncompetitive because of their low skill expression and because, in general, defensive play is just more uninteractive than offensive play. Couple that with the fact that the presence of defensive classes invites in the most uninteractive class in the game (sniper) and you reach the conclusion that most 6's enthusiasts reach which is that you sacrifice too much when you try to force class diversity.
I would define competitiveness as something along these pillars:
1. Interaction. (Players should have meaningful interactions with each other that affect the outcome of matches.)
2. Skill. (Players should always be improving their skills and expressing that skill is what should affect the outcome of matches.)
3. Community. (basically, be nice, have integrity, no cheating, etc.)
[/quote]
I think that's a reasonable definition.
[quote=Tynnyri]
You don't want to design around "fun" at the expense of competitiveness in a mode that tries to brand itself as the "competitive TF2" mode.
[/quote]
I think this is fine, as long as it's known that sometimes things that are not competitive are also not fun (i.e. that there is every combination of competitive/not competitive & fun/not fun).
[quote=Tynnyri]
Thats a weird inconsistency, though: Overcentralization is the intended outcome of having no class limits. But people disliked playing with medic overcentralization, so that was banned... And now, it's not anymore about how competitive the format can be, but how much the current fanbase "likes it".
[/quote]
See above though. Things can be viewed as not fun and not competitive. Double medic is one of those things; it's incredibly unfun but also uncompetitive because it seriously kills interaction. That's not a double standard, just confusion because ppl often use the phrase "not fun" to mean both "not fun and not competitive" as well as just "not fun". Double demo also follows a similar line of thinking. Overly strong defensive options are uninteractive more or less by design, and most people think uninteractive gameplay is both not competitive but also not fun.
To be honest I actually think the biggest problem with prolander type arguments is the existence of sniper. Sniper is incredibly strong into the overly defensive classes, but sniper as a class is definitely the least interactive in the entire game. However, the defensive classes are so strong that sniper becomes a necessary evil or else the gameplay loop is just incredibly stalematey. So everytime you invite the defensive classes in you also make sniper more and more of a necessity. This is actually the only reason highlander functions; highlander w/ sniper is hilariously oppressive at times because of the sniper class but highlander w/o it is even worse because you just can't break holds when enemy team has heavy/pyro/engineer.
In summary though, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that there is a certain potentially skillful aspect of the game being removed if you reasonably cannot swap to certain classes outside of last. But the format exists not because ppl just want to kill playstyles they find "unfun" but rather because those playstyles/classes are at least somewhat uncompetitive because of their low skill expression and because, in general, defensive play is just more uninteractive than offensive play. Couple that with the fact that the presence of defensive classes invites in the most uninteractive class in the game (sniper) and you reach the conclusion that most 6's enthusiasts reach which is that you sacrifice too much when you try to force class diversity.
DrHappiness Its clear that you do not have significant experience in the 6v6 environment
DrHappiness people are going to check whether you have any standing to speak with such authority.
I am glad I didn't use my TF2 account here, this community is wild. Not in the "fun party which you remember nothing" way, but in the sense I would probably not awake tomorrow way. I really hope the community doesn't only agree/disagree based on my playtime or my address, that's just sign of mild alexithymia and probably some spicier mental disorders.
DrHappiness our Triathlon example falls apart pretty quickly
Triathlon anecdote kind of went over everyone's head. The "sports" are meant to be classes. I thought it'd be obvious: If you arbitrarily choose to slowly remove some classes because they are not what you find most familiar/skilled/enjoyable, that's not a healthy competitive environment.
DrHappinessbut instead built around a playstyle that those classes just so happened to be the most effective at
The playstyle didn't naturally evolve. Double medic was banned and then... it stopped. There was still overcentralization, the same thing preventing double medic metas from growing, but the only difference, some players liked it. That's not healthy competitive environment. Imagine an alternative reality where double scout was banned instead, because the community would find that more fun. Does that reasoning sound competitive? Hopefully not.
DrHappinessIs it because of solidified social norms or a sense of entitlement or elitism; or might it be perhaps that balancing competitive TF2 is far more complicated than simply unbanning the Scorch Shot or only running Class Limit 1.
I don't really get what you're trying to say here. Balance doesn't really mean much when playing symmetrical maps. I have been pretty much only been discussing competitiveness. It is fine to say 6v6 shouldn't be competitive - And I would have to partly agree with that; It's hard to keep seriously competitive for the reasons I outlined before. As you said, 17 years of a competitive scene - and where is it now?
[quote=DrHappiness] Its clear that you do not have significant experience in the 6v6 environment [/quote]
[quote=DrHappiness] people are going to check whether you have any standing to speak with such authority.[/quote]
I am glad I didn't use my TF2 account here, this community is wild. Not in the "fun party which you remember nothing" way, but in the sense I would probably not awake tomorrow way. I really hope the community doesn't only agree/disagree based on my playtime or my address, that's just sign of mild alexithymia and probably some spicier mental disorders.
[quote=DrHappiness] our Triathlon example falls apart pretty quickly[/quote]
Triathlon anecdote kind of went over everyone's head. The "sports" are meant to be classes. I thought it'd be obvious: If you arbitrarily choose to slowly remove some classes because they are not what you find most familiar/skilled/enjoyable, that's not a healthy competitive environment.
[quote=DrHappiness]but instead built around a playstyle that those classes just so happened to be the most effective at [/quote]
The playstyle didn't naturally evolve. Double medic was banned and then... it stopped. There was still overcentralization, the same thing preventing double medic metas from growing, but the only difference, some players liked it. That's not healthy competitive environment. Imagine an alternative reality where double scout was banned instead, because the community would find that more fun. Does that reasoning sound competitive? Hopefully not.
[quote=DrHappiness]Is it because of solidified social norms or a sense of entitlement or elitism; or might it be perhaps that balancing competitive TF2 is far more complicated than simply unbanning the Scorch Shot or only running Class Limit 1. [/quote]
I don't really get what you're trying to say here. Balance doesn't really mean much when playing symmetrical maps. I have been pretty much only been discussing competitiveness. It is fine to say 6v6 shouldn't be competitive - And I would have to partly agree with that; It's hard to keep seriously competitive for the reasons I outlined before. As you said, 17 years of a competitive scene - and where is it now?
[quote=DrHappiness] people are going to check whether you have any standing to speak with such authority.[/quote]
I am glad I didn't use my TF2 account here, this community is wild. Not in the "fun party which you remember nothing" way, but in the sense I would probably not awake tomorrow way. I really hope the community doesn't only agree/disagree based on my playtime or my address, that's just sign of mild alexithymia and probably some spicier mental disorders.
[quote=DrHappiness] our Triathlon example falls apart pretty quickly[/quote]
Triathlon anecdote kind of went over everyone's head. The "sports" are meant to be classes. I thought it'd be obvious: If you arbitrarily choose to slowly remove some classes because they are not what you find most familiar/skilled/enjoyable, that's not a healthy competitive environment.
[quote=DrHappiness]but instead built around a playstyle that those classes just so happened to be the most effective at [/quote]
The playstyle didn't naturally evolve. Double medic was banned and then... it stopped. There was still overcentralization, the same thing preventing double medic metas from growing, but the only difference, some players liked it. That's not healthy competitive environment. Imagine an alternative reality where double scout was banned instead, because the community would find that more fun. Does that reasoning sound competitive? Hopefully not.
[quote=DrHappiness]Is it because of solidified social norms or a sense of entitlement or elitism; or might it be perhaps that balancing competitive TF2 is far more complicated than simply unbanning the Scorch Shot or only running Class Limit 1. [/quote]
I don't really get what you're trying to say here. Balance doesn't really mean much when playing symmetrical maps. I have been pretty much only been discussing competitiveness. It is fine to say 6v6 shouldn't be competitive - And I would have to partly agree with that; It's hard to keep seriously competitive for the reasons I outlined before. As you said, 17 years of a competitive scene - and where is it now?
springrollsyou reach the conclusion that most 6's enthusiasts reach which is that you sacrifice too much when you try to force class diversity.
This is incredibly good point and well expressed.
I would probably only add to that few things:
- I don't think all specialist classes are made equal. Heavy, pyro, and spy are completely fine in my book and do not slow the gameplay too much even in 5CP (unless both teams are incompetent)
- 5CP is a very brittle gamemode, and I don't think you can claim any of it's shortcomings as format issues. TC (that is just 6cp with rounds in between) would probably also stalemate very easily, but no way you'd say that's a format issue.
[quote=springrolls]you reach the conclusion that most 6's enthusiasts reach which is that you sacrifice too much when you try to force class diversity.[/quote]
This is incredibly good point and well expressed.
I would probably only add to that few things:
- I don't think all specialist classes are made equal. Heavy, pyro, and spy are completely fine in my book and do not slow the gameplay too much even in 5CP (unless both teams are incompetent)
- 5CP is a very brittle gamemode, and I don't think you can claim any of it's shortcomings as format issues. TC (that is just 6cp with rounds in between) would probably also stalemate very easily, but no way you'd say that's a format issue.
This is incredibly good point and well expressed.
I would probably only add to that few things:
- I don't think all specialist classes are made equal. Heavy, pyro, and spy are completely fine in my book and do not slow the gameplay too much even in 5CP (unless both teams are incompetent)
- 5CP is a very brittle gamemode, and I don't think you can claim any of it's shortcomings as format issues. TC (that is just 6cp with rounds in between) would probably also stalemate very easily, but no way you'd say that's a format issue.
TynnyriIt's hard to keep seriously competitive for the reasons I outlined before. As you said, 17 years of a competitive scene - and where is it now?
I mean you are coming in here shitting on a format that you clearly have never tried or played in a serious setting, people wont treat you seriously, especially when you are blaming the format for the scene being small which is genuinely the worst take you can have.
Anyways 6/10 ragebait, welcome back AimIsADick.
[quote=Tynnyri]It's hard to keep seriously competitive for the reasons I outlined before. As you said, 17 years of a competitive scene - and where is it now?[/quote]
I mean you are coming in here shitting on a format that you clearly have never tried or played in a serious setting, people wont treat you seriously, especially when you are blaming the format for the scene being small which is genuinely the worst take you can have.
Anyways 6/10 ragebait, welcome back AimIsADick.
I mean you are coming in here shitting on a format that you clearly have never tried or played in a serious setting, people wont treat you seriously, especially when you are blaming the format for the scene being small which is genuinely the worst take you can have.
Anyways 6/10 ragebait, welcome back AimIsADick.
Guys, I don't get why chess grandmasters don't just play the bongcloud every game. I think it's great fun and it offers unique strategies, and also they're too stuck in their simple-minded "chess theory". I beat everyone I play in elo 400 with the bongcloud!
Guys, I don't get why chess grandmasters don't just play the bongcloud every game. I think it's great fun and it offers unique strategies, and also they're too stuck in their simple-minded "chess theory". I beat everyone I play in elo 400 with the bongcloud!
Hi mate I used to be a sportsman, didn't really like cycling though so did Biathlon (swimming + running) instead of triathlon. Turns out not many people like Biathlon so they don't do it and it was easier to win things. If you like playing with class limits 1 you can probs host your own tourney and might have a shot at winning, cheers.
Hi mate I used to be a sportsman, didn't really like cycling though so did Biathlon (swimming + running) instead of triathlon. Turns out not many people like Biathlon so they don't do it and it was easier to win things. If you like playing with class limits 1 you can probs host your own tourney and might have a shot at winning, cheers.
in a triathlon swimming is the shortest and matters the least, while the bike is most important. I won't delve into the tf2 logic cuz op is trolling
in a triathlon swimming is the shortest and matters the least, while the bike is most important. I won't delve into the tf2 logic cuz op is trolling
- Your playtime is irrelevant, what is relevant is the time you have engaged in the Competitive Scene. If I walked into the CS:2 scene and said "The way you are doing things is wrong" of course I am going to get pushback especially since my experience with their competitive scene is limited.
- Good job comparing people giving critique to mental illness, really makes you seem like the reasonable one here.
- Your analogy didn't go over peoples heads, it made no sense. Restrictions in sport for the sake of competitive integrity and promoting skilled play is something that happens all the time.
- No-one is saying the playstyle didn't naturally evolve. The playstyle was chosen because it highlighted the characteristics of TF2 that we believed provided the best opportunities to demonstrate the desired balance of mechanics, gamesense, teamwork, and individual ability.
- By your own definition of 'competitiveness' there is nothing in those three pillars that provides any justification for changing the current class limits. We already have meaningful interactions with one another which affect the outcome of matches, through managing advantages, refining set plays, and individual mechanics. We have ways of improving skills and expressing said skill affects the outcome of the match. Finally, we have a dedicated community that has developed and maintained a competitive scene for years. By your own definition, there is nothing there about the representation of certain classes or strategies. It really just seems that you believe that a wider range of classes is somehow more competitive without really coming down with a good justification as to why thats the case.
- Even your definition of overcentralization makes little sense when you consider your recommendation for Class Limit 1. You highlight that double medic would be the meta if it was allowed, which is true. But Class Limit 1 won't get rid of that 'Centre', it would merely shift it. It would still be the Medic, Scout and Soldier as both Scout and Soldier can directly deal with each others direct counters and still retain all their strengths.
I guess my final point here is even by your own definitions and understanding of competitiveness and balancing, your suggestion of Class Limit 1 solves none of the issues you were initially claiming. 'Naturally occurring' metas aren't inherently better than 'artificially' made ones - they will still have the inherent balance issues. All that would change is how those issues are reflected.
[list]
[*] Your playtime is irrelevant, what is relevant is the time you have engaged in the Competitive Scene. If I walked into the CS:2 scene and said "The way you are doing things is wrong" of course I am going to get pushback especially since my experience with their competitive scene is limited.
[*] Good job comparing people giving critique to mental illness, really makes you seem like the reasonable one here.
[*] Your analogy didn't go over peoples heads, it made no sense. Restrictions in sport for the sake of competitive integrity and promoting skilled play is something that happens all the time.
[*] No-one is saying the playstyle didn't naturally evolve. The playstyle was chosen because it highlighted the characteristics of TF2 that we believed provided the best opportunities to demonstrate the desired balance of mechanics, gamesense, teamwork, and individual ability.
[*] By your own definition of 'competitiveness' there is nothing in those three pillars that provides any justification for changing the current class limits. We already have meaningful interactions with one another which affect the outcome of matches, through managing advantages, refining set plays, and individual mechanics. We have ways of improving skills and expressing said skill affects the outcome of the match. Finally, we have a dedicated community that has developed and maintained a competitive scene for years. By your own definition, there is nothing there about the representation of certain classes or strategies. It really just seems that you believe that a wider range of classes is somehow more competitive without really coming down with a good justification as to why thats the case.
[*] Even your definition of overcentralization makes little sense when you consider your recommendation for Class Limit 1. You highlight that double medic would be the meta if it was allowed, which is true. But Class Limit 1 won't get rid of that 'Centre', it would merely shift it. It would still be the Medic, Scout and Soldier as both Scout and Soldier can directly deal with each others direct counters and still retain all their strengths.
[/list]
I guess my final point here is even by your own definitions and understanding of competitiveness and balancing, your suggestion of Class Limit 1 solves none of the issues you were initially claiming. 'Naturally occurring' metas aren't inherently better than 'artificially' made ones - they will still have the inherent balance issues. All that would change is how those issues are reflected.
[*] Your playtime is irrelevant, what is relevant is the time you have engaged in the Competitive Scene. If I walked into the CS:2 scene and said "The way you are doing things is wrong" of course I am going to get pushback especially since my experience with their competitive scene is limited.
[*] Good job comparing people giving critique to mental illness, really makes you seem like the reasonable one here.
[*] Your analogy didn't go over peoples heads, it made no sense. Restrictions in sport for the sake of competitive integrity and promoting skilled play is something that happens all the time.
[*] No-one is saying the playstyle didn't naturally evolve. The playstyle was chosen because it highlighted the characteristics of TF2 that we believed provided the best opportunities to demonstrate the desired balance of mechanics, gamesense, teamwork, and individual ability.
[*] By your own definition of 'competitiveness' there is nothing in those three pillars that provides any justification for changing the current class limits. We already have meaningful interactions with one another which affect the outcome of matches, through managing advantages, refining set plays, and individual mechanics. We have ways of improving skills and expressing said skill affects the outcome of the match. Finally, we have a dedicated community that has developed and maintained a competitive scene for years. By your own definition, there is nothing there about the representation of certain classes or strategies. It really just seems that you believe that a wider range of classes is somehow more competitive without really coming down with a good justification as to why thats the case.
[*] Even your definition of overcentralization makes little sense when you consider your recommendation for Class Limit 1. You highlight that double medic would be the meta if it was allowed, which is true. But Class Limit 1 won't get rid of that 'Centre', it would merely shift it. It would still be the Medic, Scout and Soldier as both Scout and Soldier can directly deal with each others direct counters and still retain all their strengths.
[/list]
I guess my final point here is even by your own definitions and understanding of competitiveness and balancing, your suggestion of Class Limit 1 solves none of the issues you were initially claiming. 'Naturally occurring' metas aren't inherently better than 'artificially' made ones - they will still have the inherent balance issues. All that would change is how those issues are reflected.
wonderlandin a triathlon swimming is the shortest and matters the least, while the bike is most important. I won't delve into the tf2 logic cuz op is trolling
Nah the swim is pretty important, you need to be strong enough to get out in the first group so you can get on the bikes with the front group. Cycling is all vibes and conserving energy in the front pack, then it boils down to the run.
No point gassing it on the swim cause you can't abuse the aerodynamics in the cycle pack, but if you're not in that first group out the water you'll never catch them up. You do see some breakaways on the cycle but it's a big gamble to take leaving the nice comfy pack and often doesn't work out. There's a lot less influence from other competitors by the run, so that tends to be the racewinning area.
[quote=wonderland]in a triathlon swimming is the shortest and matters the least, while the bike is most important. I won't delve into the tf2 logic cuz op is trolling[/quote]
Nah the swim is pretty important, you need to be strong enough to get out in the first group so you can get on the bikes with the front group. Cycling is all vibes and conserving energy in the front pack, then it boils down to the run.
No point gassing it on the swim cause you can't abuse the aerodynamics in the cycle pack, but if you're not in that first group out the water you'll never catch them up. You do see some breakaways on the cycle but it's a big gamble to take leaving the nice comfy pack and often doesn't work out. There's a lot less influence from other competitors by the run, so that tends to be the racewinning area.
Nah the swim is pretty important, you need to be strong enough to get out in the first group so you can get on the bikes with the front group. Cycling is all vibes and conserving energy in the front pack, then it boils down to the run.
No point gassing it on the swim cause you can't abuse the aerodynamics in the cycle pack, but if you're not in that first group out the water you'll never catch them up. You do see some breakaways on the cycle but it's a big gamble to take leaving the nice comfy pack and often doesn't work out. There's a lot less influence from other competitors by the run, so that tends to be the racewinning area.
triathletes train like 10% of their time on the swim so its obviously not that important, and I'd argue if you're bad on the bike then you don't have legs/stamina for the run.
triathletes train like 10% of their time on the swim so its obviously not that important, and I'd argue if you're bad on the bike then you don't have legs/stamina for the run.
wonderlandtriathletes train like 10% of their time on the swim so its obviously not that important, and I'd argue if you're bad on the bike then you don't have legs/stamina for the run.
Well, I think we can agree that it certainly requires a balance of all 3 disciplines to have a successful and enjoyable race, with lots of nuance between athletes preferences, it would be a real shame if any of the disciplines weren't a part of it.
[quote=wonderland]triathletes train like 10% of their time on the swim so its obviously not that important, and I'd argue if you're bad on the bike then you don't have legs/stamina for the run.[/quote]
Well, I think we can agree that it certainly requires a balance of all 3 disciplines to have a successful and enjoyable race, with lots of nuance between athletes preferences, it would be a real shame if any of the disciplines weren't a part of it.
Well, I think we can agree that it certainly requires a balance of all 3 disciplines to have a successful and enjoyable race, with lots of nuance between athletes preferences, it would be a real shame if any of the disciplines weren't a part of it.
I don't really understand what's wrong with matches being dependent on which player is better, care to elaborate?
because sniper can easily one shot any class depending on if the charge is full, but also one shot light classes by quick scoping scout and medic. SO if a good sniper can just one shot anything easily (unless the snipers teammates are incompetent) then it'll just be who is the better sniper.
heavy is the same difference, because of his massive health pool and having a medic up their ass If a good heavy can position right and know when to go in on the entire team then it'll depend on who is the better heavy by just going forward and holding m+1.
[quote=I don't really understand what's wrong with matches being dependent on which player is better, care to elaborate?][/quote]
because sniper can easily one shot any class depending on if the charge is full, but also one shot light classes by quick scoping scout and medic. SO if a good sniper can just one shot anything easily (unless the snipers teammates are incompetent) then it'll just be who is the better sniper.
heavy is the same difference, because of his massive health pool and having a medic up their ass If a good heavy can position right and know when to go in on the entire team then it'll depend on who is the better heavy by just going forward and holding m+1.
because sniper can easily one shot any class depending on if the charge is full, but also one shot light classes by quick scoping scout and medic. SO if a good sniper can just one shot anything easily (unless the snipers teammates are incompetent) then it'll just be who is the better sniper.
heavy is the same difference, because of his massive health pool and having a medic up their ass If a good heavy can position right and know when to go in on the entire team then it'll depend on who is the better heavy by just going forward and holding m+1.
TynnyriAlright, thanks for the warning. I won't be doing that. TF2 is pretty much perfect in my eyes.
btw ppl are calling u aimisadick bc u refuse to read the posts u reply to
[quote=Tynnyri]Alright, thanks for the warning. I won't be doing that. TF2 is pretty much perfect in my eyes.[/quote]
btw ppl are calling u aimisadick bc u refuse to read the posts u reply to
btw ppl are calling u aimisadick bc u refuse to read the posts u reply to
If you like tf2 but only if you can play perma pyro, maybe you don't actually like tf2 at all and just like pyro
If you like tf2 but only if you can play perma pyro, maybe you don't actually like tf2 at all and just like pyro
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.