I wish this game was balanced well enough to allow bunny hopping.

Considering this is an experimental idea/league and could very well change how 6v6 is played, would scout/demo/soldier/medic still be the normal core classes? Aside from weapon restrictions, I think the other main obstacle in the way of people putting 6v6s into consideration is that. Not everyone in this entire game likes one of those four classes and instead like one of the others, such as pyro. Sorry if this was talked about, but I haven't yet read everything.

Anyway, I can't imagine it really being any different in terms of what the main classes are. On the exception of the pyro, at least. The class is just right at the border of being viable for mid fights, which is what's most important, besides capping last. Before everyone caught up, backburner pyro through Badlands closet could easily be devastating. Mind you, this was before the Degreaser and the other buffs the class has gotten. Pyro might be useless against scouts anywhere between medium and long range, but then again scouts are useless against themselves 90% of the time against other scouts at long range.

But then there's the possibility of people running sniper. No real need to further explain.

This is all from a mid point perspective. A lot changes after mid points. A lot of maps have a second point that can easily benefit the pyro and even more so the heavy. If this is all how I imagine it to be, as in this new, experimental league allowing teams to be able to run more than the current core classes full time to see if it can become a normal occurrence, I can only imagine what the mass reaction will be to specific classes.

Yea I don't quite get this: if builds are a major part of the strategy of the game, aren't midfights essentially a dice roll about how your team's build matches the opponent's? I mean I guess you can predict based on what you know of the team to a degree, but it still seems like it would admit a lot of randomness

...If that's how you view strategy, then I really don't know what to tell you.

they will quickly follow the trend.

We don't need to change 6s.

We don't need to chase some fleeting ideal game that it's too little too late to be.

We need to make what we already have more dynamic in its meta, exactly because the little it has is what that sets TF2 apart from other FPSs, we don't have the exact magic that makes Quake what it is and we don't match up with any of the other FPS niches either. I'm not saying woooah let's bring spies to mid, I'm saying let's take a real good look at what we've gotten ourselves into and figure out what parts are REALLY our fault and what's just circumstantial because of the game.

6s is going to change, but the way I see it, that just means that we're going to have Brand New things going on instead rather arbitrary stuff people want to come up with like "Pyro to mid" or "take out spy when you already have an advantage". I'm talking: Let's see heavies get an unlock that lets them work on the flank but hurts their turtling strengths. Let's see the gas jockey set unbanned so that we have a fatscout with a flamethrower. Let's give spy a way to save themselves after they backstab the pocket soldier.

I remember watching a top level 6s stream and someone was playing spy and 1v1d a scout: that was sick! With the stuff we don't have any control over that we ignore because it's not good enough, let's figure out how we can make new and interesting things happen without fucking over the "main" game. I want to see engineers go out on the flank and hide sentries where they completely fuck over a push. I want to see demomen divebomb more than just when their team is otherwise screwed. I want to see pyros screwing up more shit in messy chokepoints.

i like 6s

What if there was a limit of 2 of each class per team and instead of banning weapons, each player is allowed one unlock at a time? It wouldn't help against some things (like jarate or GRU) but it would prevent things like gunboats + equalizer, or kritzkrieg + vitasaw, or FaN + atomizer/basher.

It wouldn't really make a difference for demoman though.

or quit...

it'd be idiotic to think there wouldn't be a portion of players that would quit if there was a drastic change in the competitive format. its universally agreed that everyone plays competitive tf2 for fun, if people were seeking money they would play LoL or DOTA. if players don't enjoy the new competitive format they will quit. some people are always put off by change. that being said im really interested to see where this idea will go. i'll just sit back from here and go with the flow.

I love enigma's intention to help the community. But it is time for the community to decide what type of community they want to be and what kind of game they want to play.

On one hand, we can pursue this idea and become a large community playing something with 6 players on each team. On the other, we can stay a small community that plays the game we love so much, 6v6 with its current rule-set.

If the rules of 6v6 were to change, that change should be driven by a modification to gameplay and not us trying to please valve or anyone.

11:18 AM - sprog: 1) the game is too far removed from public play

Is that a problem that really can be solved?

http://tf2stats.net/map_list/

Just take a look at the most popular maps in pub TF2, 2fort, dustbowl, goldrush, turbine and badwater. The only map on there that has any type of competitive crossover is badwater.

I would say that the type of maps that the public plays are just as much of a contribution to the problem as the "meta" of 6s.

And we don't play on those maps because, well, I'm sorry Valve, but they're just TERRIBLE maps to begin with. All ridiculously chokey, has minimal flanking/jumping opportunities and were designed NOT when most of the unlocks were created.

How do you take someone who plays insta-respawn 2fort/turbine and take him into a competitive setting?

Should we really lower ourselves to their level and destroy what we have?

I don't want to sound like an elitist 6's player, but I'm sorry, I am, compared to those trash.

And 24/7 goldrush/dustbowl/2fort servers are popular for a reason so don't tell me it's a minority, and don't tell me that those maps are good, because they aren't. And don't change the gamemode I love into the godawful shitstain that is goldrush/dustbowl/2fort.

>The only map on there that has any type of competitive crossover is badwater.
What about turbine???

On a side note I must've put like 1k hours into 24/7 2fort classic servers, I even made a new version of the map for one of them and finished it a couple days ago

...I don't think people realize that when it's said that valve can change things, it should be proceeded with "yes, even that". That's theoretical, of course, because how the christ would you fix 2fort, but it's very much a thing that could possibly happen in this world of candy and gumdrops.

Players have again and again in any comp league bemoaned the addition of CTF maps. Just look at the big thread in UGC when any CTF map is added to the map pool. I forgot the map name but that ctf map with the halloween theme, I don't think I talked to 1, not 1 HL player that actually didn't mind the map. Not like, just, didn't mind it, NOT ONE. Everyone I talked to hated it with their guts.

And let me ask you something... Did you actually do the objective on 2fort? Like, really try most of the time? Or did you just go around DM'ing people like what happens 99% of the time?

You know the only map where there is sometimes real teamwork that happens spontaneously is badwater and a bit of goldrush, all others is either just a meatgrinder for RED or BLU just happens to cap the point because the map is so small you'd end up having to stand on the point at some point in time (dustbowl).

So, this is what pubs play, this is what they like, you want to change comp tf2 so it's more similar to pubs?

I'm going to go ahead and say the odds of them actively changing maps to better suit competitive play is 0. They said they might look at unlock balance, this is hardly endorsement and barely acknowledgement.

I'll be honest here. I'm just another open player so enigma or any other top level mind might think differently than me, but I hate the idea of some new 6v6 format we would get just to get robins support. I play 6s because I love the game mode. I love how demo is such a focal point of the game and teams can revolve around him. I love the way this game is played, I absolutely love the strategy of 2 scouts, a pocket, a roamer, a demo, and a medic.

I don't want to see changes to the way this enjoyable format is played. Honestly if we make any drastic changes to this format I don't think I would stick around. I don't want to leave this game so that we can get more people. As much as I want to see this game grow, and believe me I do, I don't feel like changing our game to suit robins feelings is the way to do it. How come I have never heard talks of restructuring 6s until we hear robin say he thinks 6v6 is stale?

Could you imagine what football players would think if the NFL decided to add a second football and quarterback because the head of the NFL thought football was getting stale and didn't have new strategies.

To be honest if drastic changes happen ill find some pugging group and not switch over. I don't think I could enjoy 6s if I'm running around and seeing 2 demos, a spy, and a brass beast heavy.
I'm all for some changes to this game. I think seeing some new unlocks could be really awesome and bring exciting new strategies. I don't think changing the entire foundation of 6v6 is the way to bring change

One last post from me about this situation. Normally im against the idea of the whole community being involved for anything about tf2, just because lower level players sometimes don't seem to have the best input on things such as maps or weapon bans. For this though I fully agree that it should be up to the whole community to decide on what direction we go with the game. It shouldn't be up to a few involved players in the community to decide. A change this big that would affect everyone needs to be decided on by everyone currently involved. To alienate people and decide for them would leave many players with a bad taste in their mouths about the whole situation. I know everybody just wants what is best for the game and the competitive community but it isn't something that can just be decided by a few individuals.

No.

I love the idea of ingame lobbies for highlander. It is better then throwing some noobs into a 6v6 lobby, imo.

I do not think ESEA needs to change shit. If Robin does not want to watch 6v6, so be it. This will not grow the game in any way we want it to grow.

This season is the best map pool, the largest, and the lobby news is awesome, why throw it all away just to get a few people interested in the game.

Why don't we just turn on random crits as well. Look at all the Pub players. Look at all of them playing in random crit servers. If we added random crits, they would come to us.

^^^
Essentially the mindset to change 6v6, just replace random crits with more unlocks.

It's like if the NBA league manager said, "You know what? These damn NBA rules are too strict... Look at all those kids playing basketball in the street, to grow the NBA we should just switch to their ruleset and we will grow!"

That's not saying that there isn't a place for random crits/ begger's bazooka/ Street ball, but that that place isn't part of a organized league.
---------------

Lets say they start a TFTV league with said rules... The line up would be 1 scout, 1 soldier, 2 demos, 2 meds. Maybe one med switches to scout/soldier if it is strategically viable. You are playing on Gpit, that new A/D map, Granary, badlands, Viaduct, ???, Turbine, ???

There is a valid argument about maybe taking a second look at some of the unlocks. And trying to find new ways to use what old unlocks we have, but to try and 'pubify' 6v6 would be a mistake. Robin, in the end, is just one game designer who needs one thing from you:$$$. I doubt he really cares what 6v6 is. Don't decide to screw around with the game just because he says so -_-

And I'll be honest here. I'm not even in open. I'm a roamer in UGC 6s who hopes to play open next season. Now this makes me a complete shitter right now, but I would hate to see this community go to hell before my first season in ESEA -_-

Almost every single argument against this hinges on the idea that, somehow, if we were to try this (the keyword being T R Y), somehow 6s will crack into its own death.

As opposed to, say, we just go back to the 6s we've always had, and a grand total of zero (0) things change. Nah, the end result is probably the heat death of the universe, because skepticism and cynicism are apparently one and the same now.

I didn't read most of this thread and I'm no expert on tf2 so this idea may be stupid/already suggested, but for a while I've wondered what it would be like if 6v6 was prolander. What if only one of each class was allowed?

One problem people have with highlander is that not every class is useful all the time and you get moments where your sniper or engie or spy have nothing really important to do. Having a 6 man highlander team would allow some people to switch to the class that is most needed at the time. The meta would constantly change because one team would run a heavy, then the other team would counter with a spy, then the other team would counter that with a pyro, then the other team would bring out the sniper etc. I think it would be worth it to test.

Besides, allowing two of each class would just make everyone replace their roamer and scout with a med and demo and no one wants that.

Because it's being tried solely (read as:

)
on the basis that valve will pay attention to it and attempt to re-balance the game based on results and critique. What is not understood about that?

Because this new 6v6 hinges on the fact that demos need a nerf. If you nerf it so that it's balanced in the new 6v6 it'll probably be too much of a nerf for the regular 6v6.

One idea i'd like to try for a couple games is class limit two, but only for one class at a time. Teams could come up with strategies to work with two demos, or two scouts, two medics etc. Certain setups may initially be stronger, but it would leave room for an extra utility class to be in play and would diversify what people could do. For example, if you chose to run two scouts, then you lose the damage out of two demos, the roamer/pocket soldier dynamic but then gain the ability to cap points and move around the flank faster.

I'm willing to jump through as many hoops as Valve wants in order to get some support from them, but I do wish they'd give us a little more credit.

There are good reasons for the class limits. Two demos means the death of the roaming soldier. An expendable demo can do everything the roamer can and more, even with 6 stickies. 2 heavies makes pick classes for pushing last practically mandatory, which is much less interesting than what we have currently. We've already seen why we don't keep two engineers, and two Medics means a hell of a lot less aggression. If this happens and I have the time to play in it, I absolutely will. But all it will do, I think, is reiterate why we have those bans in the first place.

As for Demo getting 6 stickies, I don't feel like that would really make any difference in his effectiveness. I also don't think we should be trying to limit Demoman. He's OP, no argument here, but it's his job to be OP. And being OP in a 6v6/9v9 environment comes with the good and the bad. Demoman is one of the highest priority picks in the game. It means he'll be focused every time he sticks his head out, and most of the enemy team would happily trade their lives for his. I think Demo is just fine.

This brings me back to my first post on all this stuff. If Valve wants innovation, they need to give us the tools to do it. Minor changes to ancient unlocks aren't going to result in an entirely new meta, and neither is pumping out unlocks designed with only pubs in mind. One of my dream unlocks is a medigun with an uber that grants invisibility. The idea stems from the competitive concept of a surprise kritz. It charges faster than uber, like the kritz, and retains normal healing/overheal rates, unlike the QF, because we see that failed in competitive. It answers a lot of the complaints about excitement and class usage. Can you imagine walking an invisible Pyro into an unsuspecting combo? My point is that designing from a competitive perspective will result in weapons that actually get used in competitive. Designing for pubs means they'll probably get banned.

sounds a good deal like bullshit

maybe valve could work on not trying to break the game all the time and maybe making it a bit more optimized

Sounds a good deal like ambush, which was it's initial premise.

Ultimately, I think it's a silly endeavor to attempt to equalize the utility classes with the mainline generalist classes. A 6s lobby system MAY have a place - DOTA 2 has certain rules that are rarely obeyed in pubs, just because the Lobby system uses one system doesn't mean the whole community has to shift over and stick to it.

HL lobby system + 6v6/HL exposure is what we should be shooting for. It requires the least amount of work on everybody's part along with exposure of events to the whole community. It's the easiest path for everybody to take as far as I can see.

Many highlander players eventually become 6v6 players - there is nothing wrong with a comp community having two different formats, look at quake and its success with CTF and dueling - it's the same basic concept.

Why are we looking to Robin Walker and in exchange sacrificing our entire format that we play - why have we *not* already made these changes - in a game that's been out since 2007 - because people haven't wanted to play them.

I'm not against experimentation, but I think it's pretty ridiculous that so many of us devote so much time to this and are willing to just toss the whole format in the hopes that 1 guy at valve will put in a word to establish a lobby system for players we don't even know.

tl;dr HL suites the lobby system better than 6s ever could, there's nothing wrong with that, HL players become 6s players in many cases, and we should exhort them to advertise ALL tf2 comp events and coming up with reasons why they should do this instead of discussing theoretical changes to the 6v6 format that frankly don't sound all that appealing to me personally.

so it looks like a lot of people think 6v6 is too repetitive. 1 of each class doesn't sound too bad. instead of only switching up mid rollouts, people could also switch up classes. it makes a ton of room for more strategies and metagaming. it could be like starcraft which has a lot to do with imperfect information. finding out the classes of your opponent before engaging at mid could be like scouting in starcraft. running a class lineup to mid that doesn't rely on "scouting" but on the element of surprise could be like cheesing. i think this format would be very interesting to watch.

i think most people would be concerned with mid fights. running one scout to mid in a regular 6v6 is generally a bad idea only because the other team will have a second scout.

if the class limit slows the game down too much, we could always try first to 3 instead of first to 5.

(Almost) everyone plays video games.

Few people play video games competitively.

Should we force competitive gamers to use wireless laser mice and Pomsons during matches so that pub-players can relate to them?

(Almost)e veryone walks places.

Few people run competitively.

Should we force Olympic runners to wear Converse and skinny jeans during races so that middle-schoolers can relate to them?

EDIT: I feel that running is the proper analogy here. The meta of running doesn't change very often, and not many people watch it because it's hard to identify with the people you're watching unless you understand what is going through their mind. Not many people watch 6s, and it's hard to watch if you have no prior experience.

But what if Valve ends up balancing the Brass Beast to work in a competitive environment? I don't think we'll be seeing two demos, with or without a 6 sticky per clip change. I'm neutral with the idea of a spy always running around. I can understand why people wouldn't like it, but I also understand why it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

I think you might be looking too hard into the idea of change. I don't think we want to turn 6s into something completely new and different, except rather take the core of 6s, keep what is good, revamp what is bad, look over decisions we've made in the past and see if they should stay how they are or not, etc.