eXtineIf only 12 unlocks are being used in a highlander match, then that tells them something too.
But they don't need a ban system to see that. All they have to do is watch some highlander matches.
How to Get to In-Game Comp Lobbies
posted in
TF2 General Discussion
[quote=eXtine]If only 12 unlocks are being used in a highlander match, then that tells them something too.[/quote]
But they don't need a ban system to see that. All they have to do is watch some highlander matches.
But they don't need a ban system to see that. All they have to do is watch some highlander matches.
every class choosing the 1 weapon they use in a dota2-like lobby screen might be cool. might not be sufficient for pub players? and would this be a "stagnant meta" i would def. use the lobby system if this was the case and i didnt get too annoyed with the wrangler, since apparently it is necessary to make engy not totally a slow scout.
every class choosing the 1 weapon they use in a dota2-like lobby screen might be cool. might not be sufficient for pub players? and would this be a "stagnant meta" i would def. use the lobby system if this was the case and i didnt get too annoyed with the wrangler, since apparently it is necessary to make engy not totally a slow scout.
prestigeevery class choosing the 1 weapon they use in a dota2-like lobby screen might be cool. might not be sufficient for pub players? and would this be a "stagnant meta"
Medic gets one item? Soldier gets one item?
What about demo or scout? In 6v6 thats fine, hey scout chooses basher, demo gets pain train. But in Highlander? One item for scout would be borderline insane, given how many viable and interesting unlocks they have.
[quote=prestige]every class choosing the 1 weapon they use in a dota2-like lobby screen might be cool. might not be sufficient for pub players? and would this be a "stagnant meta"[/quote]
Medic gets one item? Soldier gets one item?
What about demo or scout? In 6v6 thats fine, hey scout chooses basher, demo gets pain train. But in Highlander? One item for scout would be borderline insane, given how many viable and interesting unlocks they have.
Medic gets one item? Soldier gets one item?
What about demo or scout? In 6v6 thats fine, hey scout chooses basher, demo gets pain train. But in Highlander? One item for scout would be borderline insane, given how many viable and interesting unlocks they have.
From what I can tell valve wants to use a system that they can control to determine what unlocks players really despise in a competitive environment. As opposed to just going on the word of the admins at UGC or ETF2L. I'd imagine that the popular bans will fall more or less in line with the already established comp banlists, but I think it makes sense for valve to want their own data to judge rather than the word of a relatively small amount of community members. Their time is quite limited after all.
Also a LOT of unlocks get used in HL. Soldier alone has about 7 or 8 that see regular use. I would say more in the range of 40-50 unlocks get used frequently.
From what I can tell valve wants to use a system that they can control to determine what unlocks players really despise in a competitive environment. As opposed to just going on the word of the admins at UGC or ETF2L. I'd imagine that the popular bans will fall more or less in line with the already established comp banlists, but I think it makes sense for valve to want their own data to judge rather than the word of a relatively small amount of community members. Their time is quite limited after all.
Also a LOT of unlocks get used in HL. Soldier alone has about 7 or 8 that see regular use. I would say more in the range of 40-50 unlocks get used frequently.
Also a LOT of unlocks get used in HL. Soldier alone has about 7 or 8 that see regular use. I would say more in the range of 40-50 unlocks get used frequently.
somebody please develop and support a good fps sometime soon
somebody please develop and support a good fps sometime soon
im not sure i understand. how would it be insane? you would only be able to switch between your stock and that one item. the only thing i could see being insane is the unlock itself.
im not sure i understand. how would it be insane? you would only be able to switch between your stock and that one item. the only thing i could see being insane is the unlock itself.
are people really upset that highlander was chosen over 6s? you really think that alienating anyone that wants to play spy/sniper/pyro/heavy/engie is a good idea? far more people play highlander than 6v6, it's a lot more of an appealing and understandable format for most the players out there.
besides, it's not like the people in this thread are ever going to give up playing in higher level irc pugs for an ingame lobby system rofl
are people really upset that highlander was chosen over 6s? you really think that alienating anyone that wants to play spy/sniper/pyro/heavy/engie is a good idea? far more people play highlander than 6v6, it's a lot more of an appealing and understandable format for most the players out there.
besides, it's not like the people in this thread are ever going to give up playing in higher level irc pugs for an ingame lobby system rofl
besides, it's not like the people in this thread are ever going to give up playing in higher level irc pugs for an ingame lobby system rofl
Salamancer 6v6, and even most forms of highlander, are currently too different from regular pub play
And Valve has only itself to blame for that. If they didn't flat-out encourage bad play for the last 4 years with there poorly balanced unlocks, horribly balanced maps, and generally just making a mess of the game this would not be the case.
Honestly there would be little difference in the base meta of pubs and hl/6s if the players where actually decent. The differences in playstyle arise when people know basic class mechanics.
Instead of trying to make comp more like your bastardized excuse of a game maybe you should instead try to make pubs more like comp.
[quote=Salamancer] 6v6, and even most forms of highlander, are currently too different from regular pub play[/quote]
And Valve has only itself to blame for that. If they didn't flat-out encourage bad play for the last 4 years with there poorly balanced unlocks, horribly balanced maps, and generally just making a mess of the game this would not be the case.
Honestly there would be little difference in the base meta of pubs and hl/6s if the players where actually decent. The differences in playstyle arise when people know basic class mechanics.
Instead of trying to make comp more like your bastardized excuse of a game maybe you should instead try to make pubs more like comp.
And Valve has only itself to blame for that. If they didn't flat-out encourage bad play for the last 4 years with there poorly balanced unlocks, horribly balanced maps, and generally just making a mess of the game this would not be the case.
Honestly there would be little difference in the base meta of pubs and hl/6s if the players where actually decent. The differences in playstyle arise when people know basic class mechanics.
Instead of trying to make comp more like your bastardized excuse of a game maybe you should instead try to make pubs more like comp.
pudding_cupFrom what I can tell valve wants to use a system that they can control to determine what unlocks players really despise in a competitive environment. As opposed to just going on the word of the admins at UGC or ETF2L. I'd imagine that the popular bans will fall more or less in line with the already established comp banlists, but I think it makes sense for valve to want their own data to judge rather than the word of a relatively small amount of community members. Their time is quite limited after all.
What I understand from what has been communicated in this thread, the system we would end up using would go something like this:
1) We implement a community based pick/ban system. We spend a ton of time (pug after pug after pug) figuring out a system that works, and that every highlander player would be okay with. We then start using that system.
2) Valve implements a matchmaking system that caters to that style of picking/banning, so that they can see what items are problematic and thus in need of adjustment. If Wrangler gets banned every pug/scrim/match then clearly it needs to be adjusted. They gather huge amounts of data from this, and competitive TF2 is bettered.
3) Highlander player's go along with this system, putting it into play in their leagues (I'm not sure if this is supposed to come before or after they implement the matchmaking system, but I'm assuming it comes before, or they wouldn't be comfortable splitting up the competitive community).
Here is why this is a huge problem:
As you may have figured out, I used to spend a great deal of time and energy trying to get map playtests going. I would try to convince high level players to come in, provide feedback, and adjust the map based off that feedback. Sometimes those playtests would be fairly low level (low im and open players pugging the maps), sometimes higher level (invite level players), etc etc.
It is almost impossible getting people to scrim maps. I mean, seriously, it is the most obxnoxiously difficult thing to get happening. Even just pugging new maps can be a chore for some people (can't we just play badlands???). And thats using the formats that people already know, that requires no second thought in terms of actually getting to the point where you are playing the map and seeing if its any good. All you have to do is pass around the download link (if the server doesn't already have fast download set up), load up whitelist, exec the config, pick teams, good to go.
Implementing an entirely new, untested pick/ban system? Holy shit. Those playtests are going to be HELL. Getting 18 people into a mumble, looking through a list of 200 items and making choices about what to use, what to ban, remembering what items are available/unavailable, who picked what, whose turn it is to pick. ETC ETC.
Tldr; If testing maps is almost impossible, testing a pick/ban system is going to be miraculous.
Regardless, I think there is still a completely ridiculous gap between implementing a pick/ban system, valve making a matchmaking system, and it being implemented in a league setting.
[quote=pudding_cup]From what I can tell valve wants to use a system that they can control to determine what unlocks players really despise in a competitive environment. As opposed to just going on the word of the admins at UGC or ETF2L. I'd imagine that the popular bans will fall more or less in line with the already established comp banlists, but I think it makes sense for valve to want their own data to judge rather than the word of a relatively small amount of community members. Their time is quite limited after all.[/quote]
What I understand from what has been communicated in this thread, the system we would end up using would go something like this:
1) We implement a community based pick/ban system. We spend a ton of time (pug after pug after pug) figuring out a system that works, and that every highlander player would be okay with. We then start using that system.
2) Valve implements a matchmaking system that caters to that style of picking/banning, so that they can see what items are problematic and thus in need of adjustment. If Wrangler gets banned every pug/scrim/match then clearly it needs to be adjusted. They gather huge amounts of data from this, and competitive TF2 is bettered.
3) Highlander player's go along with this system, putting it into play in their leagues (I'm not sure if this is supposed to come before or after they implement the matchmaking system, but I'm assuming it comes before, or they wouldn't be comfortable splitting up the competitive community).
Here is why this is a huge problem:
As you may have figured out, I used to spend a great deal of time and energy trying to get map playtests going. I would try to convince high level players to come in, provide feedback, and adjust the map based off that feedback. Sometimes those playtests would be fairly low level (low im and open players pugging the maps), sometimes higher level (invite level players), etc etc.
It is almost impossible getting people to scrim maps. I mean, seriously, it is the most obxnoxiously difficult thing to get happening. Even just pugging new maps can be a chore for some people (can't we just play badlands???). And thats using the formats that people already know, that requires no second thought in terms of actually getting to the point where you are playing the map and seeing if its any good. All you have to do is pass around the download link (if the server doesn't already have fast download set up), load up whitelist, exec the config, pick teams, good to go.
Implementing an entirely new, untested pick/ban system? Holy shit. Those playtests are going to be HELL. Getting 18 people into a mumble, looking through a list of 200 items and making choices about what to use, what to ban, remembering what items are available/unavailable, who picked what, whose turn it is to pick. ETC ETC.
Tldr; If testing maps is almost impossible, testing a pick/ban system is going to be miraculous.
Regardless, I think there is still a completely ridiculous gap between implementing a pick/ban system, valve making a matchmaking system, and it being implemented in a league setting.
What I understand from what has been communicated in this thread, the system we would end up using would go something like this:
1) We implement a community based pick/ban system. We spend a ton of time (pug after pug after pug) figuring out a system that works, and that every highlander player would be okay with. We then start using that system.
2) Valve implements a matchmaking system that caters to that style of picking/banning, so that they can see what items are problematic and thus in need of adjustment. If Wrangler gets banned every pug/scrim/match then clearly it needs to be adjusted. They gather huge amounts of data from this, and competitive TF2 is bettered.
3) Highlander player's go along with this system, putting it into play in their leagues (I'm not sure if this is supposed to come before or after they implement the matchmaking system, but I'm assuming it comes before, or they wouldn't be comfortable splitting up the competitive community).
Here is why this is a huge problem:
As you may have figured out, I used to spend a great deal of time and energy trying to get map playtests going. I would try to convince high level players to come in, provide feedback, and adjust the map based off that feedback. Sometimes those playtests would be fairly low level (low im and open players pugging the maps), sometimes higher level (invite level players), etc etc.
It is almost impossible getting people to scrim maps. I mean, seriously, it is the most obxnoxiously difficult thing to get happening. Even just pugging new maps can be a chore for some people (can't we just play badlands???). And thats using the formats that people already know, that requires no second thought in terms of actually getting to the point where you are playing the map and seeing if its any good. All you have to do is pass around the download link (if the server doesn't already have fast download set up), load up whitelist, exec the config, pick teams, good to go.
Implementing an entirely new, untested pick/ban system? Holy shit. Those playtests are going to be HELL. Getting 18 people into a mumble, looking through a list of 200 items and making choices about what to use, what to ban, remembering what items are available/unavailable, who picked what, whose turn it is to pick. ETC ETC.
Tldr; If testing maps is almost impossible, testing a pick/ban system is going to be miraculous.
Regardless, I think there is still a completely ridiculous gap between implementing a pick/ban system, valve making a matchmaking system, and it being implemented in a league setting.
prestigeim not sure i understand. how would it be insane? you would only be able to switch between your stock and that one item. the only thing i could see being insane is the unlock itself.
The insanity is that you've reduced the diversity of unlocks down to one option, while the system that valve is trying to implement wants to increase diversity.
Even in 6s you don't have any classes that have only one unlock available
[quote=prestige]im not sure i understand. how would it be insane? you would only be able to switch between your stock and that one item. the only thing i could see being insane is the unlock itself.[/quote]
The insanity is that you've reduced the diversity of unlocks down to one option, while the system that valve is trying to implement wants to increase diversity.
Even in 6s you don't have any classes that have only one unlock available
The insanity is that you've reduced the diversity of unlocks down to one option, while the system that valve is trying to implement wants to increase diversity.
Even in 6s you don't have any classes that have only one unlock available
Almost every HL player already has a pretty solid understanding of what every item does because when these items get released we have to decide whether or not they should banned. But you could be right, maybe the size of the list would take too much time for people to sort through and decide what to ban. That's something that can only be figured out by testing.
It's highly unlikely that any league would ever adopt this system of players/teams picking bans. It would purely be for valve's interest in acquiring data to focus their item reworking efforts. The affect to UGC/ETF2L would be in the form of a weapon like enforcer being changed in such a way that we would be ok with unbanning it. Or there is the possible risk that an item that we thought was fine the way it is could receive an unexpected nerf. That might be less likely but I suppose it's still a possibility.
In the end we might decide that weapon ban picking idea would be counter-productive to our interests as comp players or that it's just not a good idea period. Could anyone speak on how set valve is on implementing that specifically?
Almost every HL player already has a pretty solid understanding of what every item does because when these items get released we have to decide whether or not they should banned. But you could be right, maybe the size of the list would take too much time for people to sort through and decide what to ban. That's something that can only be figured out by testing.
It's highly unlikely that any league would ever adopt this system of players/teams picking bans. It would purely be for valve's interest in acquiring data to focus their item reworking efforts. The affect to UGC/ETF2L would be in the form of a weapon like enforcer being changed in such a way that we would be ok with unbanning it. Or there is the possible risk that an item that we thought was fine the way it is could receive an unexpected nerf. That might be less likely but I suppose it's still a possibility.
In the end we might decide that weapon ban picking idea would be counter-productive to our interests as comp players or that it's just not a good idea period. Could anyone speak on how set valve is on implementing that specifically?
It's highly unlikely that any league would ever adopt this system of players/teams picking bans. It would purely be for valve's interest in acquiring data to focus their item reworking efforts. The affect to UGC/ETF2L would be in the form of a weapon like enforcer being changed in such a way that we would be ok with unbanning it. Or there is the possible risk that an item that we thought was fine the way it is could receive an unexpected nerf. That might be less likely but I suppose it's still a possibility.
In the end we might decide that weapon ban picking idea would be counter-productive to our interests as comp players or that it's just not a good idea period. Could anyone speak on how set valve is on implementing that specifically?
ScorpiouprisingImplementing an entirely new, untested pick/ban system? Holy shit. Those playtests are going to be HELL. Getting 18 people into a mumble, looking through a list of 200 items and making choices about what to use, what to ban, remembering what items are available/unavailable, who picked what, whose turn it is to pick. ETC ETC.
1) Pick/ban is not completely new; it already exists in Dota. Yes, it's not exactly the same, but the general architecture already exists.
2) Mumble is most certainly not going to be involved in an official Valve lobby option.
Subsequently, the selection system is probably going to be much simpler than "everyone has to unanimously agree on all the choices."
3) Your example of testing a new map is not exactly the same. If Valve wanted to test a map, they could simply roll it out to all the players by adding it to the official map list.
An enormous amount of data would be gathered even if few people play the map because it sucks (which in itself is data!) without any sort of manual effort on the map tester's part.
This last part is precisely what Valve is trying to do with an official pick/ban system: collect a vast amount of data from the large and diverse player base.
[quote=Scorpiouprising]Implementing an entirely new, untested pick/ban system? Holy shit. Those playtests are going to be HELL. Getting 18 people into a mumble, looking through a list of 200 items and making choices about what to use, what to ban, remembering what items are available/unavailable, who picked what, whose turn it is to pick. ETC ETC.[/quote]
1) Pick/ban is not completely new; it already exists in Dota. Yes, it's not [i]exactly[/i] the same, but the general architecture already exists.
2) Mumble is most certainly not going to be involved in an official Valve lobby option.
Subsequently, the selection system is probably going to be much simpler than "everyone has to unanimously agree on all the choices."
3) Your example of testing a new map is not exactly the same. If Valve wanted to test a map, they could simply roll it out to all the players by adding it to the official map list.
An enormous amount of data would be gathered even if few people play the map because it sucks (which in itself is data!) without any sort of manual effort on the map tester's part.
This last part is precisely what Valve is trying to do with an official pick/ban system: collect a vast amount of data from the large and diverse player base.
1) Pick/ban is not completely new; it already exists in Dota. Yes, it's not [i]exactly[/i] the same, but the general architecture already exists.
2) Mumble is most certainly not going to be involved in an official Valve lobby option.
Subsequently, the selection system is probably going to be much simpler than "everyone has to unanimously agree on all the choices."
3) Your example of testing a new map is not exactly the same. If Valve wanted to test a map, they could simply roll it out to all the players by adding it to the official map list.
An enormous amount of data would be gathered even if few people play the map because it sucks (which in itself is data!) without any sort of manual effort on the map tester's part.
This last part is precisely what Valve is trying to do with an official pick/ban system: collect a vast amount of data from the large and diverse player base.
2-3 years ago this would be cool but there are just too many weapons at this point. You'd have to have a system simple enough that the draft wouldnt take 20 minutes but if you did something like only banning 1 weapon per class then you could argue that there are so many viable alternatives that the bans wouldn't have any real effect EXCEPT in cases like the Medigun, and at that point you're gonna start the debate about what should be excluded from the bans list and we'll basically end up asking for a UGC whitelist or something, and they'll say no because that complicates things even more.
Ugh I was hoping this was some actual good news for our community. This is really frustrating to hear. It sounds like they are unhappy with how the competitive communities have handled all the weapons that have been released, without considering the fact that their weapon balancing team is non existent or doesn't understand the term balance.
2-3 years ago this would be cool but there are just too many weapons at this point. You'd have to have a system simple enough that the draft wouldnt take 20 minutes but if you did something like only banning 1 weapon per class then you could argue that there are so many viable alternatives that the bans wouldn't have any real effect EXCEPT in cases like the Medigun, and at that point you're gonna start the debate about what should be excluded from the bans list and we'll basically end up asking for a UGC whitelist or something, and they'll say no because that complicates things even more.
Ugh I was hoping this was some actual good news for our community. This is really frustrating to hear. It sounds like they are unhappy with how the competitive communities have handled all the weapons that have been released, without considering the fact that their weapon balancing team is non existent or doesn't understand the term balance.
Ugh I was hoping this was some actual good news for our community. This is really frustrating to hear. It sounds like they are unhappy with how the competitive communities have handled all the weapons that have been released, without considering the fact that their weapon balancing team is non existent or doesn't understand the term balance.
I'm going to crash for the night. I'm not opposed to testing this in a pug setting, people should feel free to do whatever. But, with my experience running playtests and trying to get feedback on improving things for comp play, I have to say that this system doesn't seem destined for much success.
1) Valve is slow, glacially slow, when it comes to rebalancing weapons. Anyone who has played this game over the years knows this. We only just recently had the equalizer split, which people had been clamoring for since, what, ESEA LAN S6? Even with all the metric data in the world, it seems incredibly ridiculous to assume that they would be able to rush through a system where people would be able to play all weapons in highlander.
2) League players are resistant to change, and have been playing a version of this game much like the one we are currently playing for a long period of time. If anyone (Valve, Sal, people running Highlander leagues, pub players clamoring for a highlander ingame lobby system) expects the competitive community to latch on to a pick/ban system IN A WEEK (like seriously, until next Saturday??) they are delusional. Thats not even considering the possibility of getting that system implemented in any league whatsoever, let alone the time Valve would have to spend programming such a system and then fixing the bugs once it came out.
3) The unlocks that Valve has introduced over the years are not necessarily "broken" in the sense of leading to disproportionate victories (we won because we used Jarate!! or enforcer, etc etc) but they do stretch the gameplay of competitive TF2 in directions that many competitive players don't enjoy or care for. We put many items on the blacklist not because they break the game (disproptionate wins), but because they break the game that is Competitive TF2 by slowing it down or hindering it. I don't think there is a balancing redirection that Valve can do that would satisfy people, except on a select few items (wrangler, enforcer, pomson). I mean, we aren't going to let people use those god damn holiday boxing gloves. We have a philosophical problem here, not an imbalanced system in need of a few tweaks or adjustments.
I'm going to crash for the night. I'm not opposed to testing this in a pug setting, people should feel free to do whatever. But, with my experience running playtests and trying to get feedback on improving things for comp play, I have to say that this system doesn't seem destined for much success.
1) Valve is slow, glacially slow, when it comes to rebalancing weapons. Anyone who has played this game over the years knows this. We only just recently had the equalizer split, which people had been clamoring for since, what, ESEA LAN S6? Even with all the metric data in the world, it seems incredibly ridiculous to assume that they would be able to rush through a system where people would be able to play all weapons in highlander.
2) League players are resistant to change, and have been playing a version of this game much like the one we are currently playing for a long period of time. If anyone (Valve, Sal, people running Highlander leagues, pub players clamoring for a highlander ingame lobby system) expects the competitive community to latch on to a pick/ban system IN A WEEK (like seriously, until next Saturday??) they are delusional. Thats not even considering the possibility of getting that system implemented in any league whatsoever, let alone the time Valve would have to spend programming such a system and then fixing the bugs once it came out.
3) The unlocks that Valve has introduced over the years are not necessarily "broken" in the sense of leading to disproportionate victories (we won because we used Jarate!! or enforcer, etc etc) but they do stretch the gameplay of competitive TF2 in directions that many competitive players don't enjoy or care for. We put many items on the blacklist not because they break the game (disproptionate wins), but because they break the game that is Competitive TF2 by slowing it down or hindering it. I don't think there is a balancing redirection that Valve can do that would satisfy people, except on a select few items (wrangler, enforcer, pomson). I mean, we aren't going to let people use those god damn holiday boxing gloves. We have a philosophical problem here, not an imbalanced system in need of a few tweaks or adjustments.
1) Valve is slow, glacially slow, when it comes to rebalancing weapons. Anyone who has played this game over the years knows this. We only just recently had the equalizer split, which people had been clamoring for since, what, ESEA LAN S6? Even with all the metric data in the world, it seems incredibly ridiculous to assume that they would be able to rush through a system where people would be able to play all weapons in highlander.
2) League players are resistant to change, and have been playing a version of this game much like the one we are currently playing for a long period of time. If anyone (Valve, Sal, people running Highlander leagues, pub players clamoring for a highlander ingame lobby system) expects the competitive community to latch on to a pick/ban system IN A WEEK (like seriously, until next Saturday??) they are delusional. Thats not even considering the possibility of getting that system implemented in any league whatsoever, let alone the time Valve would have to spend programming such a system and then fixing the bugs once it came out.
3) The unlocks that Valve has introduced over the years are not necessarily "broken" in the sense of leading to disproportionate victories (we won because we used Jarate!! or enforcer, etc etc) but they do stretch the gameplay of competitive TF2 in directions that many competitive players don't enjoy or care for. We put many items on the blacklist not because they break the game (disproptionate wins), but because they break the game that is Competitive TF2 by slowing it down or hindering it. I don't think there is a balancing redirection that Valve can do that would satisfy people, except on a select few items (wrangler, enforcer, pomson). I mean, we aren't going to let people use those god damn holiday boxing gloves. We have a philosophical problem here, not an imbalanced system in need of a few tweaks or adjustments.
Great news on the front of competitive support in-game. It's really going to grow the scene for people who don't know much about it so far (yes, even 6v6 will gain popularity from it, don't worry).
Personally, I find the 6v6-based woes about Valve and what "terrible"things they're doing to the game pretty silly. I mean, here we are, with an actual opportunity for real implementation, by Valve, of support for competitive that will not only help to grow the comp community, but also help Valve balance weapons that need changes (read: you might be able to stop complaining about the gunslinger).
And something to keep in mind is that HL is more like pub play (I don't think this is such a bad thing). 6s is much more precious, with clear rules to stick to to do well. It does look stagnant. People wouldn't be immediately interested. They might be if they had experience of HL first.
So, please stop complaining about this opportunity. It's great for all of us involved.
Great news on the front of competitive support in-game. It's really going to grow the scene for people who don't know much about it so far (yes, even 6v6 will gain popularity from it, don't worry).
Personally, I find the 6v6-based woes about Valve and what [i]"terrible"[/i]things they're doing to the game pretty silly. I mean, here we are, with an actual opportunity for real implementation, by Valve, of support for competitive that will not only help to grow the comp community, but also help Valve balance weapons that need changes (read: you might be able to stop complaining about the gunslinger).
And something to keep in mind is that HL [i]is [/i]more like pub play (I don't think this is such a bad thing). 6s is much more precious, with clear rules to stick to to do well. It does look stagnant. People wouldn't be immediately interested. They might be if they had experience of HL first.
So, please stop complaining about this opportunity. It's great for all of us involved.
Personally, I find the 6v6-based woes about Valve and what [i]"terrible"[/i]things they're doing to the game pretty silly. I mean, here we are, with an actual opportunity for real implementation, by Valve, of support for competitive that will not only help to grow the comp community, but also help Valve balance weapons that need changes (read: you might be able to stop complaining about the gunslinger).
And something to keep in mind is that HL [i]is [/i]more like pub play (I don't think this is such a bad thing). 6s is much more precious, with clear rules to stick to to do well. It does look stagnant. People wouldn't be immediately interested. They might be if they had experience of HL first.
So, please stop complaining about this opportunity. It's great for all of us involved.
EBFScorpiouprisingImplementing an entirely new, untested pick/ban system? Holy shit. Those playtests are going to be HELL. Getting 18 people into a mumble, looking through a list of 200 items and making choices about what to use, what to ban, remembering what items are available/unavailable, who picked what, whose turn it is to pick. ETC ETC.1) Pick/ban is not completely new; it already exists in Dota. Yes, it's not exactly the same, but the general architecture already exists.
2) Mumble is most certainly not going to be involved in an official Valve lobby option.
Subsequently, the selection system is probably going to be much simpler than "everyone has to unanimously agree on all the choices."
3) Your example of testing a new map is not exactly the same. If Valve wanted to test a map, they could simply roll it out to all the players by adding it to the official map list.
An enormous amount of data would be gathered even if few people play the map because it sucks (which in itself is data!) without any sort of manual effort on the map tester's part.
This last part is precisely what Valve is trying to do with an official pick/ban system: collect a vast amount of data from the large and diverse player base.
1) Yes the general architecture exists, for a completely different game with completely different set of balancing mechanics. I already referenced DOTA 2 and TF2 weapon bans in another post.
2) Valve asked us to come up with a pick/ban system in a week through playtesting in pugs and scrims. Of course we are going to use mumble to implement that, unless some crazy wizard comes up with an IRC script in two days. Whatever system they end up using, we would have to construct it from the ground up. Of course the ingame system would be easier, but we have to come up with the system first before they put it into the game.
3) Who is talking about Valve testing a map? I'm talking about me and comp players testing a map, and highlander players playtesting the pick/ban system. Valve asked us to playtest and figure out something that works, they aren't just going to magically give us something to use.
4) Valve can't collect data from a pick/ban system if no pick/ban system exists!
[quote=EBF][quote=Scorpiouprising]Implementing an entirely new, untested pick/ban system? Holy shit. Those playtests are going to be HELL. Getting 18 people into a mumble, looking through a list of 200 items and making choices about what to use, what to ban, remembering what items are available/unavailable, who picked what, whose turn it is to pick. ETC ETC.[/quote]
1) Pick/ban is not completely new; it already exists in Dota. Yes, it's not [i]exactly[/i] the same, but the general architecture already exists.
2) Mumble is most certainly not going to be involved in an official Valve lobby option.
Subsequently, the selection system is probably going to be much simpler than "everyone has to unanimously agree on all the choices."
3) Your example of testing a new map is not exactly the same. If Valve wanted to test a map, they could simply roll it out to all the players by adding it to the official map list.
An enormous amount of data would be gathered even if few people play the map because it sucks (which in itself is data!) without any sort of manual effort on the map tester's part.
This last part is precisely what Valve is trying to do with an official pick/ban system: collect a vast amount of data from the large and diverse player base.[/quote]
1) Yes the general architecture exists, for a completely different game with completely different set of balancing mechanics. I already referenced DOTA 2 and TF2 weapon bans in another post.
2) Valve asked us to come up with a pick/ban system in a week through playtesting in pugs and scrims. Of course we are going to use mumble to implement that, unless some crazy wizard comes up with an IRC script in two days. Whatever system they end up using, we would have to construct it from the ground up. Of course the ingame system would be easier, but we have to come up with the system first before they put it into the game.
3) Who is talking about Valve testing a map? I'm talking about me and comp players testing a map, and highlander players playtesting the pick/ban system. Valve asked us to playtest and figure out something that works, they aren't just going to magically give us something to use.
4) Valve can't collect data from a pick/ban system if no pick/ban system exists!
1) Pick/ban is not completely new; it already exists in Dota. Yes, it's not [i]exactly[/i] the same, but the general architecture already exists.
2) Mumble is most certainly not going to be involved in an official Valve lobby option.
Subsequently, the selection system is probably going to be much simpler than "everyone has to unanimously agree on all the choices."
3) Your example of testing a new map is not exactly the same. If Valve wanted to test a map, they could simply roll it out to all the players by adding it to the official map list.
An enormous amount of data would be gathered even if few people play the map because it sucks (which in itself is data!) without any sort of manual effort on the map tester's part.
This last part is precisely what Valve is trying to do with an official pick/ban system: collect a vast amount of data from the large and diverse player base.[/quote]
1) Yes the general architecture exists, for a completely different game with completely different set of balancing mechanics. I already referenced DOTA 2 and TF2 weapon bans in another post.
2) Valve asked us to come up with a pick/ban system in a week through playtesting in pugs and scrims. Of course we are going to use mumble to implement that, unless some crazy wizard comes up with an IRC script in two days. Whatever system they end up using, we would have to construct it from the ground up. Of course the ingame system would be easier, but we have to come up with the system first before they put it into the game.
3) Who is talking about Valve testing a map? I'm talking about me and comp players testing a map, and highlander players playtesting the pick/ban system. Valve asked us to playtest and figure out something that works, they aren't just going to magically give us something to use.
4) Valve can't collect data from a pick/ban system if no pick/ban system exists!
@224
Completely agree, Valve expects something in the metagame to change due to their unlocks, when this has been being dealt with many a time now in various leagues. They hope to inspire unique play with these but the fact of the matter is that doing this wont really turn out for the best. Good to know that competitive is at least being considered.
@224
Completely agree, Valve expects something in the metagame to change due to their unlocks, when this has been being dealt with many a time now in various leagues. They hope to inspire unique play with these but the fact of the matter is that doing this wont really turn out for the best. Good to know that competitive is at least being considered.
Completely agree, Valve expects something in the metagame to change due to their unlocks, when this has been being dealt with many a time now in various leagues. They hope to inspire unique play with these but the fact of the matter is that doing this wont really turn out for the best. Good to know that competitive is at least being considered.
I like the mvm style matchmaking that came up earlier
play highlander
*click*
what classes
[]All
[x]scout
[]soldier
[x]pyro
[]demo
[]heavy
[]engineer
[x]medic
[]sniper
[]spy
like mvm, opting into more than one option, or specific options will allow you to get matched faster just based on how it works
and as for the weapon bans, in my opinion, I liked the idea that 301st came up with, lobby "leader" or just people in the each can bring up so many (5/6/idk) weapons up for dispute, and everyone else votes on whether or not they're banned or allowed
I like the mvm style matchmaking that came up earlier
play highlander
*click*
what classes
[]All
[x]scout
[]soldier
[x]pyro
[]demo
[]heavy
[]engineer
[x]medic
[]sniper
[]spy
like mvm, opting into more than one option, or specific options will allow you to get matched faster just based on how it works
and as for the weapon bans, in my opinion, I liked the idea that 301st came up with, lobby "leader" or just people in the each can bring up so many (5/6/idk) weapons up for dispute, and everyone else votes on whether or not they're banned or allowed
play highlander
*click*
what classes
[]All
[x]scout
[]soldier
[x]pyro
[]demo
[]heavy
[]engineer
[x]medic
[]sniper
[]spy
like mvm, opting into more than one option, or specific options will allow you to get matched faster just based on how it works
and as for the weapon bans, in my opinion, I liked the idea that 301st came up with, lobby "leader" or just people in the each can bring up so many (5/6/idk) weapons up for dispute, and everyone else votes on whether or not they're banned or allowed
This is awesome and Sal and Extine are the fucking men (mans) for helping make this happen.
Highlander is the obvious choice for a lobby system, because 6s is obviously way too different. Agree 120%.
I'm pumped for any type of lobby system, but I take serious issue with one of Robin's comments.
I want to see Vhalin's black box innovation happening once every 2-3 months.
Where exactly is this innovation supposed to come from, when this game hasn't seen a single weapon rebalance in years. The only time it happened was with the enforcer and Pomson, which were so ludicrously overpowered that even pub players refused to play with it. And even then they didn't solve the actual problems, just made them more tolerable for pubs.
What exactly are we supposed to do when one of Valve's only weapon in 6 months is the Loose Cannon? It's practically a clone of the grenade launcher except less useful. The Vaccinator was a nice try, but Euros held an entire tournament dedicated to testing it out and it was determined that it can't match up to Kritz or Uber. The weapons are tried and tested. 80% of them are too bad to use in 6's and 20% of them are too good. Arguable of course, and I would argue for the legalization of a lot of weapons already banned, but the point still stands.
But let's forget balance for a minute. Valve wants us to use as many weapons as possible in our games. So why are so many weapons explicitly designed to be crutches? Why the fuck is the Liberty Launcher still a thing? Why are mini sentries still the same, when they literally encourage the player NOT to play the game? These have NOTHING to do with balance. Comp is a skill based environment, HL or 6s, and they want us to use weapons that are practically anathema to skill. And it's not like AMAZING fixes haven't been proposed AND EVEN TESTED VIA TIGHTROPE. DR resistance dwindles over time. Doesn't that sound fucking perfect? My favorite is the LL getting 4 rockets, regular speed, less damage, and more knockback. Wouldn't that be fucking amazing for cc? Juggling people around for your teammates to focus? My point is that fixing these weapons doesn't require data from a lobby system. They are literally designed to be used by scrubs effectively. If they want them into comp then they'd better make some changes.
I love TF2. I pub as much as I play 6s, and it has always chafed me bad how there are never changes to existing weapons. So many of them encourage players to be shit at this game and never change. Half of them would gib upon setting foot in a comp format.
Now that that rant is out of the way, and we're talking about weapon bans, here's a list of weapons I think should be unbanned for 6s:
-Bonk!
-Crit-a-Cola
-Flying Guillotine
-Disciplinary Action
-Sandvich (maybe)
-Solemn Vow
-Danger Shield
-Carbine
-Heatmaker
I think that these weapons either A.)Don't make a big enough difference to justify banning them, or B.)Prevent legitimate strategies from evolving.
Scout's drinks are actual playmaking items, and I think swapping the Pistol for them is a pretty fair trade. I understand the arguments against them but I think theirs more to be gained than last for allowing them.
If a team wants to Disc Action a Heavy to mid, the other time can just run a Sniper or Spy back. It's a weapon that creates situations that regular 6's classes do NOT excel at, even though offclasses (Sniper/Spy) do. Heavy will do a number on Scouts and jumper, but he's a free pick for a Sniper.
Others are 'why not?' weapons.
Still excited though
This is awesome and Sal and Extine are the fucking men (mans) for helping make this happen.
Highlander is the obvious choice for a lobby system, because 6s is obviously way too different. Agree 120%.
I'm pumped for [i]any[/i] type of lobby system, but I take serious issue with one of Robin's comments.
[quote]I want to see Vhalin's black box innovation happening once every 2-3 months.[/quote]
Where exactly is this innovation supposed to come from, when this game hasn't seen a single weapon rebalance in [i]years.[/i] The only time it happened was with the enforcer and Pomson, which were so ludicrously overpowered that even pub players refused to play with it. And even then they didn't solve the actual problems, just made them more tolerable for pubs.
What exactly are we supposed to do when one of Valve's only weapon in 6 months is the [i]Loose Cannon[/i]? It's practically a clone of the grenade launcher except less useful. The Vaccinator was a nice try, but Euros held an entire tournament dedicated to testing it out and it was determined that it can't match up to Kritz or Uber. The weapons are tried and tested. 80% of them are too bad to use in 6's and 20% of them are too good. Arguable of course, and I would argue for the legalization of a lot of weapons already banned, but the point still stands.
But let's forget balance for a minute. Valve wants us to use as many weapons as possible in our games. So why are so many weapons explicitly designed to be crutches? Why the fuck is the Liberty Launcher still a thing? Why are mini sentries still the same, when they literally encourage the player [i]NOT[/i] to play the game? These have NOTHING to do with balance. Comp is a skill based environment, HL or 6s, and they want us to use weapons that are practically anathema to skill. And it's not like AMAZING fixes haven't been proposed AND EVEN TESTED VIA TIGHTROPE. DR resistance dwindles over time. Doesn't that sound fucking perfect? My favorite is the LL getting 4 rockets, regular speed, less damage, and more knockback. Wouldn't that be fucking amazing for cc? Juggling people around for your teammates to focus? My point is that fixing these weapons doesn't require data from a lobby system. They are literally designed to be used by scrubs effectively. If they want them into comp then they'd better make some changes.
I love TF2. I pub as much as I play 6s, and it has always chafed me bad how there are never changes to existing weapons. So many of them encourage players to be shit at this game and never change. Half of them would gib upon setting foot in a comp format.
Now that that rant is out of the way, and we're talking about weapon bans, here's a list of weapons I think should be unbanned for 6s:
-Bonk!
-Crit-a-Cola
-Flying Guillotine
-Disciplinary Action
-Sandvich (maybe)
-Solemn Vow
-Danger Shield
-Carbine
-Heatmaker
I think that these weapons either A.)Don't make a big enough difference to justify banning them, or B.)Prevent legitimate strategies from evolving.
Scout's drinks are actual playmaking items, and I think swapping the Pistol for them is a pretty fair trade. I understand the arguments against them but I think theirs more to be gained than last for allowing them.
If a team wants to Disc Action a Heavy to mid, the other time can just run a Sniper or Spy back. It's a weapon that creates situations that regular 6's classes do NOT excel at, even though offclasses (Sniper/Spy) do. Heavy will do a number on Scouts and jumper, but he's a free pick for a Sniper.
Others are 'why not?' weapons.
Still excited though
Highlander is the obvious choice for a lobby system, because 6s is obviously way too different. Agree 120%.
I'm pumped for [i]any[/i] type of lobby system, but I take serious issue with one of Robin's comments.
[quote]I want to see Vhalin's black box innovation happening once every 2-3 months.[/quote]
Where exactly is this innovation supposed to come from, when this game hasn't seen a single weapon rebalance in [i]years.[/i] The only time it happened was with the enforcer and Pomson, which were so ludicrously overpowered that even pub players refused to play with it. And even then they didn't solve the actual problems, just made them more tolerable for pubs.
What exactly are we supposed to do when one of Valve's only weapon in 6 months is the [i]Loose Cannon[/i]? It's practically a clone of the grenade launcher except less useful. The Vaccinator was a nice try, but Euros held an entire tournament dedicated to testing it out and it was determined that it can't match up to Kritz or Uber. The weapons are tried and tested. 80% of them are too bad to use in 6's and 20% of them are too good. Arguable of course, and I would argue for the legalization of a lot of weapons already banned, but the point still stands.
But let's forget balance for a minute. Valve wants us to use as many weapons as possible in our games. So why are so many weapons explicitly designed to be crutches? Why the fuck is the Liberty Launcher still a thing? Why are mini sentries still the same, when they literally encourage the player [i]NOT[/i] to play the game? These have NOTHING to do with balance. Comp is a skill based environment, HL or 6s, and they want us to use weapons that are practically anathema to skill. And it's not like AMAZING fixes haven't been proposed AND EVEN TESTED VIA TIGHTROPE. DR resistance dwindles over time. Doesn't that sound fucking perfect? My favorite is the LL getting 4 rockets, regular speed, less damage, and more knockback. Wouldn't that be fucking amazing for cc? Juggling people around for your teammates to focus? My point is that fixing these weapons doesn't require data from a lobby system. They are literally designed to be used by scrubs effectively. If they want them into comp then they'd better make some changes.
I love TF2. I pub as much as I play 6s, and it has always chafed me bad how there are never changes to existing weapons. So many of them encourage players to be shit at this game and never change. Half of them would gib upon setting foot in a comp format.
Now that that rant is out of the way, and we're talking about weapon bans, here's a list of weapons I think should be unbanned for 6s:
-Bonk!
-Crit-a-Cola
-Flying Guillotine
-Disciplinary Action
-Sandvich (maybe)
-Solemn Vow
-Danger Shield
-Carbine
-Heatmaker
I think that these weapons either A.)Don't make a big enough difference to justify banning them, or B.)Prevent legitimate strategies from evolving.
Scout's drinks are actual playmaking items, and I think swapping the Pistol for them is a pretty fair trade. I understand the arguments against them but I think theirs more to be gained than last for allowing them.
If a team wants to Disc Action a Heavy to mid, the other time can just run a Sniper or Spy back. It's a weapon that creates situations that regular 6's classes do NOT excel at, even though offclasses (Sniper/Spy) do. Heavy will do a number on Scouts and jumper, but he's a free pick for a Sniper.
Others are 'why not?' weapons.
Still excited though
So is Valve waiting on us to develop a draft pick/ban system from them to see how it could work?
So is Valve waiting on us to develop a draft pick/ban system from them to see how it could work?
AllealMy favorite is the LL getting 4 rockets, regular speed, less damage, and more knockback. Wouldn't that be fucking amazing for cc? Juggling people around for your teammates to focus?
The change was just smaller splash radius and extra knockback. It was taken out because the self-knockback increase was OP. But without that change, it was back to being a boring/useless weapon. Getting to any koth mid in 2 rocket jumps was super fun though.
[quote=Alleal]My favorite is the LL getting 4 rockets, regular speed, less damage, and more knockback. Wouldn't that be fucking amazing for cc? Juggling people around for your teammates to focus? [/quote]
The change was just smaller splash radius and extra knockback. It was taken out because the self-knockback increase was OP. But without that change, it was back to being a boring/useless weapon. Getting to any koth mid in 2 rocket jumps was super fun though.
The change was just smaller splash radius and extra knockback. It was taken out because the self-knockback increase was OP. But without that change, it was back to being a boring/useless weapon. Getting to any koth mid in 2 rocket jumps was super fun though.
-Bonk! <- It turned scout into a really retarded annoyance class.
-Crit-a-Cola <- Faster rollouts fuck up demoman too well, no incentive to come to mid fast.
-Flying Guillotine <- It takes a fair amount of skill, but bleed is generally annoying.
-Disciplinary Action <- Same as crit a cola.
-Sandvich (maybe) <- heavys being able to heal their medics whenever they want is one of the most annoying things about highlander.
-Solemn Vow <- Don't see why not. I didn't even know this was banned. Viable alternative to ubersaw in some cases.
-Danger Shield <- I like it, but I can understand why people don't. Getting fully buffed with the shield on makes sniper v sniper insanely stupid. Also its way to easy to walk right into last with your med healing you and pick their med. Sniper is supposed to be squishy.
-Carbine -> Get a frag with it an cross map noscope their medic? Seems like a silly mechanic that would turn the metagame into trying to feed kills to your sniper.
-Heatmaker -> Pretty hard to get your focus full in 6s (3 picks in one life is rare), so I don't think it would be OP. I don't think anyone would use it though, just because bodyshots are really important.
Just my 2 cents :P
-Bonk! <- It turned scout into a really retarded annoyance class.
-Crit-a-Cola <- Faster rollouts fuck up demoman too well, no incentive to come to mid fast.
-Flying Guillotine <- It takes a fair amount of skill, but bleed is generally annoying.
-Disciplinary Action <- Same as crit a cola.
-Sandvich (maybe) <- heavys being able to heal their medics whenever they want is one of the most annoying things about highlander.
-Solemn Vow <- Don't see why not. I didn't even know this was banned. Viable alternative to ubersaw in some cases.
-Danger Shield <- I like it, but I can understand why people don't. Getting fully buffed with the shield on makes sniper v sniper insanely stupid. Also its way to easy to walk right into last with your med healing you and pick their med. Sniper is supposed to be squishy.
-Carbine -> Get a frag with it an cross map noscope their medic? Seems like a silly mechanic that would turn the metagame into trying to feed kills to your sniper.
-Heatmaker -> Pretty hard to get your focus full in 6s (3 picks in one life is rare), so I don't think it would be OP. I don't think anyone would use it though, just because bodyshots are really important.
Just my 2 cents :P
-Crit-a-Cola <- Faster rollouts fuck up demoman too well, no incentive to come to mid fast.
-Flying Guillotine <- It takes a fair amount of skill, but bleed is generally annoying.
-Disciplinary Action <- Same as crit a cola.
-Sandvich (maybe) <- heavys being able to heal their medics whenever they want is one of the most annoying things about highlander.
-Solemn Vow <- Don't see why not. I didn't even know this was banned. Viable alternative to ubersaw in some cases.
-Danger Shield <- I like it, but I can understand why people don't. Getting fully buffed with the shield on makes sniper v sniper insanely stupid. Also its way to easy to walk right into last with your med healing you and pick their med. Sniper is supposed to be squishy.
-Carbine -> Get a frag with it an cross map noscope their medic? Seems like a silly mechanic that would turn the metagame into trying to feed kills to your sniper.
-Heatmaker -> Pretty hard to get your focus full in 6s (3 picks in one life is rare), so I don't think it would be OP. I don't think anyone would use it though, just because bodyshots are really important.
Just my 2 cents :P
Before I start, I'd like to make it clear I'm a EU UGC Silver/Plat Highlander Engineer and ETF2L 6v6 Div 6 Scout.
Firstly, this is fantastic news. A matchmaking system for Highlander will bring so much to the community, and make competitive TF2 much more accessible. It also opens up the doors to more fun, because Team Fortress's Competitive scene is without a doubt the most fun I've ever had in a video game, and I've made a lot of friends through it.
Next, to the issues at hand.
Valve has correctly identified that not all weapons are suitable for competitive TF2. This is where I feel Valve need to liase with the already-existing competitive community. Get them together and organise some discussions, and you'll quickly spot patterns as to the correct weapons to balance.
With this in mind, I'd be glad to volunteer my experience if Valve were ever to need a group of playtesters; and I know at least 50 people who would do the same. TF2's comp community is one of the most outgoing, so if Valve feel they need it, they will gladly step in to provide their valuable insight.
The next matter at hand is the "stagnant" aspect of competitive TF2. The fact is that we can only work with the tools we have been given. The Rescue Ranger, for example, has brought a new playstyle to Engineer over the last few months: it's a huge progression for us. But we can only innovate new playing styles where new tools are available, or, if one is re-discovered for use, such as the Black Box.
My point is, new playing styles and "plays" will increase as new weapons and features are added in an exponential fashion: some weapons compliment others, so a new weapon could bring new usefulness to old weapons shrugged aside from the competitive community.
Finally, I 100% support this system and wish Valve the best of luck. If done right, this will continue to fuel my love for the game that is Team Fortress for years to come.
Before I start, I'd like to make it clear I'm a EU UGC Silver/Plat Highlander Engineer and ETF2L 6v6 Div 6 Scout.
Firstly, this is fantastic news. A matchmaking system for Highlander will bring so much to the community, and make competitive TF2 much more accessible. It also opens up the doors to more [b]fun[/b], because Team Fortress's Competitive scene is without a doubt the most fun I've ever had in a video game, and I've made a lot of friends through it.
Next, to the issues at hand.
Valve has correctly identified that not all weapons are suitable for competitive TF2. This is where I feel Valve need to liase with the already-existing competitive community. [b]Get them together and organise some discussions[/b], and you'll quickly spot patterns as to the correct weapons to balance.
With this in mind, I'd be glad to [b]volunteer[/b] my experience if Valve were ever to need a group of playtesters; and I know at least 50 people who would do the same. TF2's comp community is one of the most outgoing, so if Valve feel they need it, they will gladly step in to provide their valuable insight.
The next matter at hand is the [b]"stagnant"[/b] aspect of competitive TF2. The fact is that we can only work with the tools we have been given. The Rescue Ranger, for example, has brought a new playstyle to Engineer over the last few months: it's a huge progression for us. But we can only innovate new playing styles where new tools are available, or, if one is re-discovered for use, such as the Black Box.
My point is, new playing styles and "plays" will increase as new weapons and features are added in an exponential fashion: some weapons compliment others, so a new weapon could bring new usefulness to old weapons shrugged aside from the competitive community.
Finally, I 100% support this system and wish Valve the best of luck. If done right, this will continue to fuel my love for the game that is Team Fortress for years to come.
Firstly, this is fantastic news. A matchmaking system for Highlander will bring so much to the community, and make competitive TF2 much more accessible. It also opens up the doors to more [b]fun[/b], because Team Fortress's Competitive scene is without a doubt the most fun I've ever had in a video game, and I've made a lot of friends through it.
Next, to the issues at hand.
Valve has correctly identified that not all weapons are suitable for competitive TF2. This is where I feel Valve need to liase with the already-existing competitive community. [b]Get them together and organise some discussions[/b], and you'll quickly spot patterns as to the correct weapons to balance.
With this in mind, I'd be glad to [b]volunteer[/b] my experience if Valve were ever to need a group of playtesters; and I know at least 50 people who would do the same. TF2's comp community is one of the most outgoing, so if Valve feel they need it, they will gladly step in to provide their valuable insight.
The next matter at hand is the [b]"stagnant"[/b] aspect of competitive TF2. The fact is that we can only work with the tools we have been given. The Rescue Ranger, for example, has brought a new playstyle to Engineer over the last few months: it's a huge progression for us. But we can only innovate new playing styles where new tools are available, or, if one is re-discovered for use, such as the Black Box.
My point is, new playing styles and "plays" will increase as new weapons and features are added in an exponential fashion: some weapons compliment others, so a new weapon could bring new usefulness to old weapons shrugged aside from the competitive community.
Finally, I 100% support this system and wish Valve the best of luck. If done right, this will continue to fuel my love for the game that is Team Fortress for years to come.
In my opinion first of all this can be a great step. Getting the public to play highlander can get them more interested about competitive TF2. If they like it they might start playing with their friends, find out about leagues (ETF2L, ESEA ...) which in their turn can get them interested in 6v6 as well.
Once highlander is in the game we / Valve can look into possibilities of implanting a 6v6 format as well with the eXperience gained from the in-game highlander lobby.
In my opinion first of all this can be a great step. Getting the public to play highlander can get them more interested about competitive TF2. If they like it they might start playing with their friends, find out about leagues (ETF2L, ESEA ...) which in their turn can get them interested in 6v6 as well.
Once highlander is in the game we / Valve can look into possibilities of implanting a 6v6 format as well with the eXperience gained from the in-game highlander lobby.
Once highlander is in the game we / Valve can look into possibilities of implanting a 6v6 format as well with the eXperience gained from the in-game highlander lobby.
I think this is a GREAT idea. There are a ton of players who don't even know competitive TF2 exists. Those players could soon get a taste of it and a large % will soon learn about leagues like the UGC, ETF2L, OZFortress, AsiaFortress, ESEA, and whatever else there is out there. In turn those players start to learn the basics of comp play through HL and how to play organized as a team. The natural progression of those players is to transition into or try out the 6s game. It increases the player-base in all leagues. This is a very good thing.
Don't expect the best games when this system is first put in place, but I think its our job as a competitive TF2 community to join them and mentor and assist new players and to point them in the direction of leagues where they can further their gameplay.
I think this is a GREAT idea. There are a ton of players who don't even know competitive TF2 exists. Those players could soon get a taste of it and a large % will soon learn about leagues like the UGC, ETF2L, OZFortress, AsiaFortress, ESEA, and whatever else there is out there. In turn those players start to learn the basics of comp play through HL and how to play organized as a team. The natural progression of those players is to transition into or try out the 6s game. It increases the player-base in all leagues. This is a very good thing.
Don't expect the best games when this system is first put in place, but I think its our job as a competitive TF2 community to join them and mentor and assist new players and to point them in the direction of leagues where they can further their gameplay.
Don't expect the best games when this system is first put in place, but I think its our job as a competitive TF2 community to join them and mentor and assist new players and to point them in the direction of leagues where they can further their gameplay.
SneakyPolarBear-Bonk! <- It turned scout into a really retarded annoyance class.
-Crit-a-Cola <- Faster rollouts fuck up demoman too well, no incentive to come to mid fast.
-Flying Guillotine <- It takes a fair amount of skill, but bleed is generally annoying.
-Disciplinary Action <- Same as crit a cola.
-Sandvich (maybe) <- heavys being able to heal their medics whenever they want is one of the most annoying things about highlander.
-Solemn Vow <- Don't see why not. I didn't even know this was banned. Viable alternative to ubersaw in some cases.
-Danger Shield <- I like it, but I can understand why people don't. Getting fully buffed with the shield on makes sniper v sniper insanely stupid. Also its way to easy to walk right into last with your med healing you and pick their med. Sniper is supposed to be squishy.
-Carbine -> Get a frag with it an cross map noscope their medic? Seems like a silly mechanic that would turn the metagame into trying to feed kills to your sniper.
-Heatmaker -> Pretty hard to get your focus full in 6s (3 picks in one life is rare), so I don't think it would be OP. I don't think anyone would use it though, just because bodyshots are really important.
Just my 2 cents :P
Notice how the word you're using to describe these weapons is annoying? My point is that 'annoying' isn't a good enough reason to ban something. A scout with Bonk! is annoying, but he's also a scout without a pistol. Bonk! has a strategic purpose, so it should be allowed.
Health focused rollouts have never been more popular than they are now. Crit a Cola rollouts are risky as hell and map dependent. There are ways to cope with something like that. The other point was that 'changing the current meta' isn't a good enough reason either. Rollouts are less important, so what?
RadmanAllealMy favorite is the LL getting 4 rockets, regular speed, less damage, and more knockback. Wouldn't that be fucking amazing for cc? Juggling people around for your teammates to focus?The change was just smaller splash radius and extra knockback. It was taken out because the self-knockback increase was OP. But without that change, it was back to being a boring/useless weapon. Getting to any koth mid in 2 rocket jumps was super fun though.
Didn't know it increased self damage too, but even still, it's something Valve would be able to fix. I wish that weapon were in the game so bad. The roamer special would be so much more special.
[quote=SneakyPolarBear]-Bonk! <- It turned scout into a really retarded annoyance class.
-Crit-a-Cola <- Faster rollouts fuck up demoman too well, no incentive to come to mid fast.
-Flying Guillotine <- It takes a fair amount of skill, but bleed is generally annoying.
-Disciplinary Action <- Same as crit a cola.
-Sandvich (maybe) <- heavys being able to heal their medics whenever they want is one of the most annoying things about highlander.
-Solemn Vow <- Don't see why not. I didn't even know this was banned. Viable alternative to ubersaw in some cases.
-Danger Shield <- I like it, but I can understand why people don't. Getting fully buffed with the shield on makes sniper v sniper insanely stupid. Also its way to easy to walk right into last with your med healing you and pick their med. Sniper is supposed to be squishy.
-Carbine -> Get a frag with it an cross map noscope their medic? Seems like a silly mechanic that would turn the metagame into trying to feed kills to your sniper.
-Heatmaker -> Pretty hard to get your focus full in 6s (3 picks in one life is rare), so I don't think it would be OP. I don't think anyone would use it though, just because bodyshots are really important.
Just my 2 cents :P[/quote]
Notice how the word you're using to describe these weapons is annoying? My point is that 'annoying' isn't a good enough reason to ban something. A scout with Bonk! is annoying, but he's also a scout without a pistol. Bonk! has a strategic purpose, so it should be allowed.
Health focused rollouts have never been more popular than they are now. Crit a Cola rollouts are risky as hell and map dependent. There are ways to cope with something like that. The other point was that 'changing the current meta' isn't a good enough reason either. Rollouts are less important, so what?
[quote=Radman][quote=Alleal]My favorite is the LL getting 4 rockets, regular speed, less damage, and more knockback. Wouldn't that be fucking amazing for cc? Juggling people around for your teammates to focus? [/quote]
The change was just smaller splash radius and extra knockback. It was taken out because the self-knockback increase was OP. But without that change, it was back to being a boring/useless weapon. Getting to any koth mid in 2 rocket jumps was super fun though.[/quote]
Didn't know it increased self damage too, but even still, it's something Valve would be able to fix. I wish that weapon were in the game so bad. The roamer special would be so much more special.
-Crit-a-Cola <- Faster rollouts fuck up demoman too well, no incentive to come to mid fast.
-Flying Guillotine <- It takes a fair amount of skill, but bleed is generally annoying.
-Disciplinary Action <- Same as crit a cola.
-Sandvich (maybe) <- heavys being able to heal their medics whenever they want is one of the most annoying things about highlander.
-Solemn Vow <- Don't see why not. I didn't even know this was banned. Viable alternative to ubersaw in some cases.
-Danger Shield <- I like it, but I can understand why people don't. Getting fully buffed with the shield on makes sniper v sniper insanely stupid. Also its way to easy to walk right into last with your med healing you and pick their med. Sniper is supposed to be squishy.
-Carbine -> Get a frag with it an cross map noscope their medic? Seems like a silly mechanic that would turn the metagame into trying to feed kills to your sniper.
-Heatmaker -> Pretty hard to get your focus full in 6s (3 picks in one life is rare), so I don't think it would be OP. I don't think anyone would use it though, just because bodyshots are really important.
Just my 2 cents :P[/quote]
Notice how the word you're using to describe these weapons is annoying? My point is that 'annoying' isn't a good enough reason to ban something. A scout with Bonk! is annoying, but he's also a scout without a pistol. Bonk! has a strategic purpose, so it should be allowed.
Health focused rollouts have never been more popular than they are now. Crit a Cola rollouts are risky as hell and map dependent. There are ways to cope with something like that. The other point was that 'changing the current meta' isn't a good enough reason either. Rollouts are less important, so what?
[quote=Radman][quote=Alleal]My favorite is the LL getting 4 rockets, regular speed, less damage, and more knockback. Wouldn't that be fucking amazing for cc? Juggling people around for your teammates to focus? [/quote]
The change was just smaller splash radius and extra knockback. It was taken out because the self-knockback increase was OP. But without that change, it was back to being a boring/useless weapon. Getting to any koth mid in 2 rocket jumps was super fun though.[/quote]
Didn't know it increased self damage too, but even still, it's something Valve would be able to fix. I wish that weapon were in the game so bad. The roamer special would be so much more special.
joddi haven't seen anyone say it yet, so: thank you to sal and eX for starting the dialogue about a pug system, regardless of format or people's gripes.
This, 1,000 times this. In a single (well probably multiple) step Sal and eXtine have done more for the competitive tf2 scene than all of the tf.tv and vtv drama thrown together, top work.
The step from pub to HL isn't huge and the step from HL to 6's isn't massive either, already in lower divs of ETF2L you see 6's teams made up from parts of HL teams that want to keep playing in the off season. So this is going to be good all round for comp scene, exposure, sponsors, all that good stuff. HL TF2 at the next International? Wonder how many sniffy 6's players would turn down the chance for real prize money?
It seems what Valve want to be able to do is not have a Ban list per se, but to have enough data around the weapons that a lot of people don't like to play with/against in HL Lobby so they can balance them properly. The range of weapons then allows for inventive strats and a gradually changing meta (which is scary to be fair,... but could you imagine the thrill of watching Shade bust out some bonkers Vaccinator strat, or Mike with near constant buff banner running... excite!)
Some ELO-esque business eventually would be great. Hell if they were super awesome they could do an ELO game at a certain level except one class was allowed to be a Mentoring class so you can get a high level player in helping out newer/lower level players.
Yay !
[quote=jodd]i haven't seen anyone say it yet, so: [b]thank you[/b] to sal and eX for starting the dialogue about a pug system, regardless of format or people's gripes.[/quote]
This, 1,000 times this. In a single (well probably multiple) step Sal and eXtine have done more for the competitive tf2 scene than all of the tf.tv and vtv drama thrown together, top work.
The step from pub to HL isn't huge and the step from HL to 6's isn't massive either, already in lower divs of ETF2L you see 6's teams made up from parts of HL teams that want to keep playing in the off season. So this is going to be good all round for comp scene, exposure, sponsors, all that good stuff. HL TF2 at the next International? Wonder how many sniffy 6's players would turn down the chance for real prize money?
It seems what Valve want to be able to do is not have a Ban list per se, but to have enough data around the weapons that a lot of people don't like to play with/against in HL Lobby so they can balance them properly. The range of weapons then allows for inventive strats and a gradually changing meta (which is scary to be fair,... but could you imagine the thrill of watching Shade bust out some bonkers Vaccinator strat, or Mike with near constant buff banner running... excite!)
Some ELO-esque business eventually would be great. Hell if they were super awesome they could do an ELO game at a certain level except one class was allowed to be a Mentoring class so you can get a high level player in helping out newer/lower level players.
Yay !
This, 1,000 times this. In a single (well probably multiple) step Sal and eXtine have done more for the competitive tf2 scene than all of the tf.tv and vtv drama thrown together, top work.
The step from pub to HL isn't huge and the step from HL to 6's isn't massive either, already in lower divs of ETF2L you see 6's teams made up from parts of HL teams that want to keep playing in the off season. So this is going to be good all round for comp scene, exposure, sponsors, all that good stuff. HL TF2 at the next International? Wonder how many sniffy 6's players would turn down the chance for real prize money?
It seems what Valve want to be able to do is not have a Ban list per se, but to have enough data around the weapons that a lot of people don't like to play with/against in HL Lobby so they can balance them properly. The range of weapons then allows for inventive strats and a gradually changing meta (which is scary to be fair,... but could you imagine the thrill of watching Shade bust out some bonkers Vaccinator strat, or Mike with near constant buff banner running... excite!)
Some ELO-esque business eventually would be great. Hell if they were super awesome they could do an ELO game at a certain level except one class was allowed to be a Mentoring class so you can get a high level player in helping out newer/lower level players.
Yay !
This thread has been locked.