Class limit 1 6v6 would be medic, demo, soldier, scout, heavy, sniper, i.e. normal 6v6 when a team wants to make it slow and grim.
New kind of 6v6?
posted in
TF2 General Discussion
Class limit 1 6v6 would be medic, demo, soldier, scout, heavy, sniper, i.e. normal 6v6 when a team wants to make it slow and grim.
nerkulClass limit 1 6v6 would be medic, demo, soldier, scout, heavy, sniper, i.e. normal 6v6 when a team wants to make it slow and grim.
well the heavy would be running around with the GRU and the sniper would either be spamming jarates so everyone was mini-crit or would be a pyro and shooting flares at everything... while reflecting rocketjumping into the enemy comb....actually this doesnt sound so bad, lets do it
[quote=nerkul]Class limit 1 6v6 would be medic, demo, soldier, scout, heavy, sniper, i.e. normal 6v6 when a team wants to make it slow and grim.[/quote]
well the heavy would be running around with the GRU and the sniper would either be spamming jarates so everyone was mini-crit or would be a pyro and shooting flares at everything... while reflecting rocketjumping into the enemy comb....actually this doesnt sound so bad, lets do it
well the heavy would be running around with the GRU and the sniper would either be spamming jarates so everyone was mini-crit or would be a pyro and shooting flares at everything... while reflecting rocketjumping into the enemy comb....actually this doesnt sound so bad, lets do it
To me the big issue between pubs and 6s isn't class limitations. That's part of it, but let me explain.
A pubber doesn't see a soldier shooting rockets through choke and go, "oh that team might be getting ready to push we should back up and send our roamer to force their uber at choke". The average pubber goes "look a rocket"
The average pubber doesn't think "ok their med went down 20 seconds ago we have a 50% uber advantage if we push quick we can pick the med and force them out of second, while bringing in scouts to clean up after". The average pubber would think "I enjoy playing spy lets go spy"
We shouldn't make our game bend head over heels for pubbers. We shouldn't tell them "scout is better don't play sniper". We need to tell them why. Explain why uber is such an important point for teams. If you say "uber is important" people will sit there and wait for uber even if the other team is down 2 players. Teach people why.
Tell them that uber is important, because it lets your team become invulnerable for 8 seconds, and can be used to pick enemy players and gain ground. But you can gain ground or push off of dead players without uber too.
If you want pubbers to come, you need to help them think at a more complex level. That's the hardest thing about moving to competitive 6s is understanding whats going on and how it affects the game.
So what is a possible solution? We can make some handy dandy short videos explaining the basics of 6s. The role of scouts, the role of demo, the role of soldiers, why uber is important, why teams hold here and not there, and promote them.
If we get the word out there and people learn about 6s, they will come to learn or play it. If they see a 10 minute video that can explain everything they need to know before jumping in, and then have some understanding, we can see some huge growth
To me the big issue between pubs and 6s isn't class limitations. That's part of it, but let me explain.
A pubber doesn't see a soldier shooting rockets through choke and go, "oh that team might be getting ready to push we should back up and send our roamer to force their uber at choke". The average pubber goes "look a rocket"
The average pubber doesn't think "ok their med went down 20 seconds ago we have a 50% uber advantage if we push quick we can pick the med and force them out of second, while bringing in scouts to clean up after". The average pubber would think "I enjoy playing spy lets go spy"
We shouldn't make our game bend head over heels for pubbers. We shouldn't tell them "scout is better don't play sniper". We need to tell them why. Explain why uber is such an important point for teams. If you say "uber is important" people will sit there and wait for uber even if the other team is down 2 players. Teach people why.
Tell them that uber is important, because it lets your team become invulnerable for 8 seconds, and can be used to pick enemy players and gain ground. But you can gain ground or push off of dead players without uber too.
If you want pubbers to come, you need to help them think at a more complex level. That's the hardest thing about moving to competitive 6s is understanding whats going on and how it affects the game.
So what is a possible solution? We can make some handy dandy short videos explaining the basics of 6s. The role of scouts, the role of demo, the role of soldiers, why uber is important, why teams hold here and not there, and promote them.
If we get the word out there and people learn about 6s, they will come to learn or play it. If they see a 10 minute video that can explain everything they need to know before jumping in, and then have some understanding, we can see some huge growth
A pubber doesn't see a soldier shooting rockets through choke and go, "oh that team might be getting ready to push we should back up and send our roamer to force their uber at choke". The average pubber goes "look a rocket"
The average pubber doesn't think "ok their med went down 20 seconds ago we have a 50% uber advantage if we push quick we can pick the med and force them out of second, while bringing in scouts to clean up after". The average pubber would think "I enjoy playing spy lets go spy"
We shouldn't make our game bend head over heels for pubbers. We shouldn't tell them "scout is better don't play sniper". We need to tell them why. Explain why uber is such an important point for teams. If you say "uber is important" people will sit there and wait for uber even if the other team is down 2 players. Teach people why.
Tell them that uber is important, because it lets your team become invulnerable for 8 seconds, and can be used to pick enemy players and gain ground. But you can gain ground or push off of dead players without uber too.
If you want pubbers to come, you need to help them think at a more complex level. That's the hardest thing about moving to competitive 6s is understanding whats going on and how it affects the game.
So what is a possible solution? We can make some handy dandy short videos explaining the basics of 6s. The role of scouts, the role of demo, the role of soldiers, why uber is important, why teams hold here and not there, and promote them.
If we get the word out there and people learn about 6s, they will come to learn or play it. If they see a 10 minute video that can explain everything they need to know before jumping in, and then have some understanding, we can see some huge growth
Can someone tell me what motivation Valve has to get public players interested in competitive TF2 as opposed to just playing the public game?
Public players play all classes, use all unlocks. They buy unlocks from Valve (maybe not that many, but they buy some). Valve makes money from them.
Competitive players play a handful of classes. We don't buy unlocks half as much, because we don't ever use them in our competitive game. Sure, we buy some keys, but so do public players so its a null argument. Both 'scenes' make youtube content and advertise the games so I can't really find a reason why they would prefer to concentrate their efforts on comp when they can focus on public.
The next point, is that we want Valve to stick a lobby system of some kind into TF2, but again, why would they do that if focusing their efforts on promoting the public game is more beneficial as they make more money from it. Valve is a business, not a bunch of nice people... They have limited man power and they need to focus their efforts on what keeps them sustained as a company.
The point of all of this is that if we are willing to work with Valve, maybe help their business model at the cost of changing our 6 vs 6 and highlander games a little... maybe they will throw us a bone, implement a lobby / matchmaking system in their game, and actually support the competitive element of TF2. They have already stated they are willing to work with us, but we still need to make them money and their revenue from TF2 since F2P is unlocks, hats, keys and other customizations. The public game uses all of those (so promoting all aspects of their store), if we can get the competitive game to do the same, there might be some interest in helping us out.
If Valve implement a competitive style system in the game, there is no doubt the competitive side of the game will grow. More viewers, more sponsorship, and all the other millions of perks to go with it.
But for that to happen, our 6 vs 6 (and highlander) product needs to change to suit their business model. The question is: Is it worth it or should we shun them and continue as we are?
Can someone tell me what motivation Valve has to get public players interested in competitive TF2 as opposed to just playing the public game?
Public players play all classes, use all unlocks. They buy unlocks from Valve (maybe not that many, but they buy some). Valve makes money from them.
Competitive players play a handful of classes. We don't buy unlocks half as much, because we don't ever use them in our competitive game. Sure, we buy some keys, but so do public players so its a null argument. Both 'scenes' make youtube content and advertise the games so I can't really find a reason why they would prefer to concentrate their efforts on comp when they can focus on public.
The next point, is that we want Valve to stick a lobby system of some kind into TF2, but again, why would they do that if focusing their efforts on promoting the public game is more beneficial as they make more money from it. Valve is a business, not a bunch of nice people... They have limited man power and they need to focus their efforts on what keeps them sustained as a company.
The point of all of this is that if we are willing to work with Valve, maybe help their business model at the cost of changing our 6 vs 6 and highlander games a little... maybe they will throw us a bone, implement a lobby / matchmaking system in their game, and actually support the competitive element of TF2. They have already stated they are willing to work with us, but we still need to make them money and their revenue from TF2 since F2P is unlocks, hats, keys and other customizations. The public game uses all of those (so promoting all aspects of their store), if we can get the competitive game to do the same, there might be some interest in helping us out.
If Valve implement a competitive style system in the game, there is no doubt the competitive side of the game will grow. More viewers, more sponsorship, and all the other millions of perks to go with it.
But for that to happen, our 6 vs 6 (and highlander) product needs to change to suit their business model. The question is: Is it worth it or should we shun them and continue as we are?
Public players play all classes, use all unlocks. They buy unlocks from Valve (maybe not that many, but they buy some). Valve makes money from them.
Competitive players play a handful of classes. We don't buy unlocks half as much, because we don't ever use them in our competitive game. Sure, we buy some keys, but so do public players so its a null argument. Both 'scenes' make youtube content and advertise the games so I can't really find a reason why they would prefer to concentrate their efforts on comp when they can focus on public.
The next point, is that we want Valve to stick a lobby system of some kind into TF2, but again, why would they do that if focusing their efforts on promoting the public game is more beneficial as they make more money from it. Valve is a business, not a bunch of nice people... They have limited man power and they need to focus their efforts on what keeps them sustained as a company.
The point of all of this is that if we are willing to work with Valve, maybe help their business model at the cost of changing our 6 vs 6 and highlander games a little... maybe they will throw us a bone, implement a lobby / matchmaking system in their game, and actually support the competitive element of TF2. They have already stated they are willing to work with us, but we still need to make them money and their revenue from TF2 since F2P is unlocks, hats, keys and other customizations. The public game uses all of those (so promoting all aspects of their store), if we can get the competitive game to do the same, there might be some interest in helping us out.
If Valve implement a competitive style system in the game, there is no doubt the competitive side of the game will grow. More viewers, more sponsorship, and all the other millions of perks to go with it.
But for that to happen, our 6 vs 6 (and highlander) product needs to change to suit their business model. The question is: Is it worth it or should we shun them and continue as we are?
if i could write paragraphs like the ones posted here i'd be having a much easier time doing this english essay that i'm procrastinating on.
if i could write paragraphs like the ones posted here i'd be having a much easier time doing this english essay that i'm procrastinating on.
I've finally made it to prem in ETF2L WE DONT START CHANGING SHIT NOW OK!
I've finally made it to prem in ETF2L WE DONT START CHANGING SHIT NOW OK!
I think it's naive to assume that they must directly make money off of competitive players for it to be worth their effort. I mean, buying tickets to directly watch comp in Dota 2 was a brilliant idea, but it's all up to tourneys to work in that system if they put it there. They're not going to turn around and say "You can't watch tourney STVs yourself anymore, you have to buy a ticket"; they're gonna be like "You can ". And then you could have sponsors come in and be like, "Hey Valve take this money and make this tourney free to watch, let people know that it's on us!"
This is just an example, anyways, and it's not perfect. It's just that there are a million other ways to monetize off a competitive game than having individual players spend money on it for comp. The imbalance between what comp and pub players use is something they're seriously looking at solving in the first place, so don't go running around saying that "we don't even use the weapons they sell" crap.
I think it's naive to assume that they must directly make money off of competitive players for it to be worth their effort. I mean, buying tickets to directly watch comp in Dota 2 was a brilliant idea, but it's all up to tourneys to work in that system if they put it there. They're not going to turn around and say "You can't watch tourney STVs yourself anymore, you have to buy a ticket"; they're gonna be like "You can ". And then you could have sponsors come in and be like, "Hey Valve take this money and make this tourney free to watch, let people know that it's on us!"
This is just an example, anyways, and it's not perfect. It's just that there are a million other ways to monetize off a competitive game than having individual players spend money on it for comp. The imbalance between what comp and pub players use is something they're seriously looking at solving in the first place, so don't go running around saying that "we don't even use the weapons they sell" crap.
This is just an example, anyways, and it's not perfect. It's just that there are a million other ways to monetize off a competitive game than having individual players spend money on it for comp. The imbalance between what comp and pub players use is something they're seriously looking at solving in the first place, so don't go running around saying that "we don't even use the weapons they sell" crap.
MuukiJust a thought which I've ranted at for some people:
Since apparently the problem with competitive TF2 is the staleness (lack of variety in an fps game? what is this), and Robin wants to change the system to appeal to pubbers via change of classlimits or rebalancing unlocks to make all classes viable. Instead of/As well as doing this, wouldn't it be possible to add more incentive to make new maps? Adding new maps (that are actually balanced) would force teams to think up new strategies
I don't know why we are even trying to appease Valve when they've very rarely ever tried to help the competitive community out.
I mean, you say we should add new maps, ok, how about adding in snakewater into the standard game? That's a very easy thing to do.
Valve has done almost nothing when it comes to the competitive community and yet here we are trying to bend over backwards for them, changing the core staple of comp tf2 for glimmer of hope of Valve support?
Isn't that crazy to anyone?
Considering Valve time, this competitive lobby thing might take another six months or a year to implement, and that's only highlander, could be even longer for 6s. And what if it doesn't work out? Well, then we would have lost a lot of people from trying to change everyone to the new gamemode and then the community would be a shell of its former self.
No, how about we work with Valve only when they've made some concessions and helps us first? Even simple gestures like fixing granary spawns, adding in competitive maps like swifwater or snakewater to the standard game.
[quote=Muuki]Just a thought which I've ranted at for some people:
Since apparently the problem with competitive TF2 is the staleness (lack of variety in an fps game? what is this), and Robin wants to change the system to appeal to pubbers via change of classlimits or rebalancing unlocks to make all classes viable. Instead of/As well as doing this, wouldn't it be possible to add more incentive to make new maps? Adding new maps (that are actually balanced) would force teams to think up new strategies[/quote]
I don't know why we are even trying to appease Valve when they've very rarely ever tried to help the competitive community out.
I mean, you say we should add new maps, ok, how about adding in snakewater into the standard game? That's a very easy thing to do.
Valve has done almost nothing when it comes to the competitive community and yet here we are trying to bend over backwards for them, changing the core staple of comp tf2 for glimmer of hope of Valve support?
Isn't that crazy to anyone?
Considering Valve time, this competitive lobby thing might take another six months or a year to implement, and that's only highlander, could be even longer for 6s. And what if it doesn't work out? Well, then we would have lost a lot of people from trying to change everyone to the new gamemode and then the community would be a shell of its former self.
No, how about we work with Valve only when they've made some concessions and helps us first? Even simple gestures like fixing granary spawns, adding in competitive maps like swifwater or snakewater to the standard game.
Since apparently the problem with competitive TF2 is the staleness (lack of variety in an fps game? what is this), and Robin wants to change the system to appeal to pubbers via change of classlimits or rebalancing unlocks to make all classes viable. Instead of/As well as doing this, wouldn't it be possible to add more incentive to make new maps? Adding new maps (that are actually balanced) would force teams to think up new strategies[/quote]
I don't know why we are even trying to appease Valve when they've very rarely ever tried to help the competitive community out.
I mean, you say we should add new maps, ok, how about adding in snakewater into the standard game? That's a very easy thing to do.
Valve has done almost nothing when it comes to the competitive community and yet here we are trying to bend over backwards for them, changing the core staple of comp tf2 for glimmer of hope of Valve support?
Isn't that crazy to anyone?
Considering Valve time, this competitive lobby thing might take another six months or a year to implement, and that's only highlander, could be even longer for 6s. And what if it doesn't work out? Well, then we would have lost a lot of people from trying to change everyone to the new gamemode and then the community would be a shell of its former self.
No, how about we work with Valve only when they've made some concessions and helps us first? Even simple gestures like fixing granary spawns, adding in competitive maps like swifwater or snakewater to the standard game.
ArxCan someone tell me what motivation Valve has to get public players interested in competitive TF2 as opposed to just playing the public game?
Public players play all classes, use all unlocks. They buy unlocks from Valve (maybe not that many, but they buy some). Valve makes money from them.
Competitive players play a handful of classes. We don't buy unlocks half as much, because we don't ever use them in our competitive game. Sure, we buy some keys, but so do public players so its a null argument. Both 'scenes' make youtube content and advertise the games so I can't really find a reason why they would prefer to concentrate their efforts on comp when they can focus on public.
The next point, is that we want Valve to stick a lobby system of some kind into TF2, but again, why would they do that if focusing their efforts on promoting the public game is more beneficial as they make more money from it. Valve is a business, not a bunch of nice people... They have limited man power and they need to focus their efforts on what keeps them sustained as a company.
The point of all of this is that if we are willing to work with Valve, maybe help their business model at the cost of changing our 6 vs 6 and highlander games a little... maybe they will throw us a bone, implement a lobby / matchmaking system in their game, and actually support the competitive element of TF2. They have already stated they are willing to work with us, but we still need to make them money and their revenue from TF2 since F2P is unlocks, hats, keys and other customizations. The public game uses all of those (so promoting all aspects of their store), if we can get the competitive game to do the same, there might be some interest in helping us out.
If Valve implement a competitive style system in the game, there is no doubt the competitive side of the game will grow. More viewers, more sponsorship, and all the other millions of perks to go with it.
But for that to happen, our 6 vs 6 (and highlander) product needs to change to suit their business model. The question is: Is it worth it or should we shun them and continue as we are?
We're not shunning valve, they've shunned us for 5 years.
[quote=Arx]Can someone tell me what motivation Valve has to get public players interested in competitive TF2 as opposed to just playing the public game?
Public players play all classes, use all unlocks. They buy unlocks from Valve (maybe not that many, but they buy some). Valve makes money from them.
Competitive players play a handful of classes. We don't buy unlocks half as much, because we don't ever use them in our competitive game. Sure, we buy some keys, but so do public players so its a null argument. Both 'scenes' make youtube content and advertise the games so I can't really find a reason why they would prefer to concentrate their efforts on comp when they can focus on public.
The next point, is that we want Valve to stick a lobby system of some kind into TF2, but again, why would they do that if focusing their efforts on promoting the public game is more beneficial as they make more money from it. Valve is a business, not a bunch of nice people... They have limited man power and they need to focus their efforts on what keeps them sustained as a company.
The point of all of this is that if we are willing to work with Valve, maybe help their business model at the cost of changing our 6 vs 6 and highlander games a little... maybe they will throw us a bone, implement a lobby / matchmaking system in their game, and actually support the competitive element of TF2. They have already stated they are willing to work with us, but we still need to make them money and their revenue from TF2 since F2P is unlocks, hats, keys and other customizations. The public game uses all of those (so promoting all aspects of their store), if we can get the competitive game to do the same, there might be some interest in helping us out.
If Valve implement a competitive style system in the game, there is no doubt the competitive side of the game will grow. More viewers, more sponsorship, and all the other millions of perks to go with it.
But for that to happen, our 6 vs 6 (and highlander) product needs to change to suit their business model. The question is: Is it worth it or should we shun them and continue as we are?[/quote]
We're not shunning valve, they've shunned us for 5 years.
Public players play all classes, use all unlocks. They buy unlocks from Valve (maybe not that many, but they buy some). Valve makes money from them.
Competitive players play a handful of classes. We don't buy unlocks half as much, because we don't ever use them in our competitive game. Sure, we buy some keys, but so do public players so its a null argument. Both 'scenes' make youtube content and advertise the games so I can't really find a reason why they would prefer to concentrate their efforts on comp when they can focus on public.
The next point, is that we want Valve to stick a lobby system of some kind into TF2, but again, why would they do that if focusing their efforts on promoting the public game is more beneficial as they make more money from it. Valve is a business, not a bunch of nice people... They have limited man power and they need to focus their efforts on what keeps them sustained as a company.
The point of all of this is that if we are willing to work with Valve, maybe help their business model at the cost of changing our 6 vs 6 and highlander games a little... maybe they will throw us a bone, implement a lobby / matchmaking system in their game, and actually support the competitive element of TF2. They have already stated they are willing to work with us, but we still need to make them money and their revenue from TF2 since F2P is unlocks, hats, keys and other customizations. The public game uses all of those (so promoting all aspects of their store), if we can get the competitive game to do the same, there might be some interest in helping us out.
If Valve implement a competitive style system in the game, there is no doubt the competitive side of the game will grow. More viewers, more sponsorship, and all the other millions of perks to go with it.
But for that to happen, our 6 vs 6 (and highlander) product needs to change to suit their business model. The question is: Is it worth it or should we shun them and continue as we are?[/quote]
We're not shunning valve, they've shunned us for 5 years.
Jas
I don't know why we are even trying to appease Valve when they've very rarely ever tried to help the competitive community out.
I still dunno why ppl say this tbh tho, while yes they don't support TF2 nearly as much as DotA 2 for (HOPEFULLY) obvious reasons Team Fortress 2 is literally the game they supported most competitively prior to DotA. I mean, they legit have done more for this game than L4D1/2, CS 1.6/CS:S, and probably even CS:GO. They've added quite a bit for specifically just the competitive scene and a couple members of Valve have donated for things like i46 too.
[quote=Jas]
I don't know why we are even trying to appease Valve when they've very rarely ever tried to help the competitive community out.
[/quote]
I still dunno why ppl say this tbh tho, while yes they don't support TF2 nearly as much as DotA 2 for (HOPEFULLY) obvious reasons Team Fortress 2 is literally the game they supported most competitively prior to DotA. I mean, they legit have done more for this game than L4D1/2, CS 1.6/CS:S, and probably even CS:GO. They've added quite a bit for specifically just the competitive scene and a couple members of Valve have donated for things like i46 too.
I don't know why we are even trying to appease Valve when they've very rarely ever tried to help the competitive community out.
[/quote]
I still dunno why ppl say this tbh tho, while yes they don't support TF2 nearly as much as DotA 2 for (HOPEFULLY) obvious reasons Team Fortress 2 is literally the game they supported most competitively prior to DotA. I mean, they legit have done more for this game than L4D1/2, CS 1.6/CS:S, and probably even CS:GO. They've added quite a bit for specifically just the competitive scene and a couple members of Valve have donated for things like i46 too.
I've never seen anyone so willing to bend over and take one up the rear before.
I've never seen anyone so willing to bend over and take one up the rear before.
wareyaI think it's naive to assume that they must directly make money off of competitive players for it to be worth their effort. I mean, buying tickets to directly watch comp in Dota 2 was a brilliant idea, but it's all up to tourneys to work in that system if they put it there. They're not going to turn around and say "You can't watch tourney STVs yourself anymore, you have to buy a ticket"; they're gonna be like "You can ". And then you could have sponsors come in and be like, "Hey Valve take this money and make this tourney free to watch, let people know that it's on us!"
I do believe the hold up with this idea in TF2 is DotA 2 has dynamic STV allocation - STVs are created and allocated for tournaments (and public games even) as needed to match demand and the game will put you in one automatically. In Team Fortress 2 all STVs are basically servers owned by 3rd party GSPs and not managed by Valve, so this system would not really work nearly as well unless a tournament worked with Valve on it.
That and Team Fortress 2 does not have the broadcaster STV support that DotA 2's improved STV system has.
Basically what I'm saying is is someone should work with the i49 organizers to make this and an i49 in-game tournament ticket (that gives you a special hat that improves as you watch more i49 games) happen. Valve could kind of cheat the dynamic STV allocation by just providing their own STVs for just this event, but they'd have to do something about the shoutcasters :/.
Consider it a test run to see if there's demand for this kind of thing.
Honestly, if Highlander can attract tons of people mostly because of a small medal on your chest, a hat that gets sexier looking as you watch these tournament games should be big in TF2.
DotA is clearly the bigger and stronger game, but it's also more obvious ow the competitive scene benefits Valve there. Valve hasn't even tried to make the competitive scene benefit them in TF2 yet, and i49 would be a strong way to determine the validity of 6s as it is now.
[quote=wareya]I think it's naive to assume that they must directly make money off of competitive players for it to be worth their effort. I mean, buying tickets to directly watch comp in Dota 2 was a brilliant idea, but it's all up to tourneys to work in that system if they put it there. They're not going to turn around and say "You can't watch tourney STVs yourself anymore, you have to buy a ticket"; they're gonna be like "You can ". And then you could have sponsors come in and be like, "Hey Valve take this money and make this tourney free to watch, let people know that it's on us!"
[/quote]
I do believe the hold up with this idea in TF2 is DotA 2 has dynamic STV allocation - STVs are created and allocated for tournaments (and public games even) as needed to match demand and the game will put you in one automatically. In Team Fortress 2 all STVs are basically servers owned by 3rd party GSPs and not managed by Valve, so this system would not really work nearly as well unless a tournament worked with Valve on it.
That and Team Fortress 2 does not have the broadcaster STV support that DotA 2's improved STV system has.
Basically what I'm saying is is someone should work with the i49 organizers to make this and an i49 in-game tournament ticket (that gives you a special hat that improves as you watch more i49 games) happen. Valve could kind of cheat the dynamic STV allocation by just providing their own STVs for just this event, but they'd have to do something about the shoutcasters :/.
Consider it a test run to see if there's demand for this kind of thing.
Honestly, if Highlander can attract tons of people mostly because of a small medal on your chest, a hat that gets sexier looking as you watch these tournament games should be big in TF2.
DotA is clearly the bigger and stronger game, but it's also more obvious ow the competitive scene benefits Valve there. Valve hasn't even tried to make the competitive scene benefit them in TF2 yet, and i49 would be a strong way to determine the validity of 6s as it is now.
[/quote]
I do believe the hold up with this idea in TF2 is DotA 2 has dynamic STV allocation - STVs are created and allocated for tournaments (and public games even) as needed to match demand and the game will put you in one automatically. In Team Fortress 2 all STVs are basically servers owned by 3rd party GSPs and not managed by Valve, so this system would not really work nearly as well unless a tournament worked with Valve on it.
That and Team Fortress 2 does not have the broadcaster STV support that DotA 2's improved STV system has.
Basically what I'm saying is is someone should work with the i49 organizers to make this and an i49 in-game tournament ticket (that gives you a special hat that improves as you watch more i49 games) happen. Valve could kind of cheat the dynamic STV allocation by just providing their own STVs for just this event, but they'd have to do something about the shoutcasters :/.
Consider it a test run to see if there's demand for this kind of thing.
Honestly, if Highlander can attract tons of people mostly because of a small medal on your chest, a hat that gets sexier looking as you watch these tournament games should be big in TF2.
DotA is clearly the bigger and stronger game, but it's also more obvious ow the competitive scene benefits Valve there. Valve hasn't even tried to make the competitive scene benefit them in TF2 yet, and i49 would be a strong way to determine the validity of 6s as it is now.
Valve wants to dip their toes in the competitive market for the same reason that DotA 2 and League of Legends are so successful as competitive games.
Competitive players are more invested in their game, play the game more, and are more likely to spend money on the game. Casual players who don't enjoy playing competitively but enjoy watching it, fans of the competitive game, are also more invested in the product as a whole, and are less likely to stop playing and more likely to invest in items for it.
If they implement a lobby system that players enjoy, they'll be more invested in the game and more likely to spend money on it if they feel a drive to do well in that system as opposed to just messing around in a pub for an hour here or there.
I'm not sure any of this will have a real big effect considering the TF2 playerbase has already dropped quite a bit
TF2 is honestly set up perfectly to be an FPS esport but it's just gone so long without developer support for competition that the game has grown stale in general since everyone has played it so much. With Valve moving all their development assets to other products the process will just continue, most likely, which is a shame...
There are not any other FPS where you have intuitive concepts like roles (similar to positions on a football team), a visual style that doesn't look cheap or ugly but is easy to understand (over hyperealistic FPS games where you need to be able to discern a couple of pixels to see a guy in a bush), combined use of hitscan and projectile weapons (which is great for spectators since things like airshots are awesome). It's even got a number of easily identifiable objectives (CP points, uber) that allow commentators to break down action into something more understandable for viewers.
Valve spent too much time making the public game different than the competitive game to really salvage that, which annoys me greatly because five years later they seem to have realized the potential of esports when they were developing DotA 2. If they wanted to test some of their stuff, like tournament tickets, they could have done that in TF2 if they had ever stopped to consider since they use TF2 as their testbed anyway. Oh well.
It's true that making the competitive game more similar to pubs will be a net positive. At this point it's probably too late but considering how highlander is growing faster than 6s, maybe there's at least a little hope.
Valve wants to dip their toes in the competitive market for the same reason that DotA 2 and League of Legends are so successful as competitive games.
Competitive players are more invested in their game, play the game more, and are more likely to spend money on the game. Casual players who don't enjoy playing competitively but enjoy watching it, fans of the competitive game, are also more invested in the product as a whole, and are less likely to stop playing and more likely to invest in items for it.
If they implement a lobby system that players enjoy, they'll be more invested in the game and more likely to spend money on it if they feel a drive to do well in that system as opposed to just messing around in a pub for an hour here or there.
I'm not sure any of this will have a real big effect considering the TF2 playerbase has already dropped quite a bit
TF2 is honestly set up perfectly to be an FPS esport but it's just gone so long without developer support for competition that the game has grown stale in general since everyone has played it so much. With Valve moving all their development assets to other products the process will just continue, most likely, which is a shame...
There are not any other FPS where you have intuitive concepts like roles (similar to positions on a football team), a visual style that doesn't look cheap or ugly but is easy to understand (over hyperealistic FPS games where you need to be able to discern a couple of pixels to see a guy in a bush), combined use of hitscan and projectile weapons (which is great for spectators since things like airshots are awesome). It's even got a number of easily identifiable objectives (CP points, uber) that allow commentators to break down action into something more understandable for viewers.
Valve spent too much time making the public game different than the competitive game to really salvage that, which annoys me greatly because five years later they seem to have realized the potential of esports when they were developing DotA 2. If they wanted to test some of their stuff, like tournament tickets, they could have done that in TF2 if they had ever stopped to consider since they use TF2 as their testbed anyway. Oh well.
It's true that making the competitive game more similar to pubs will be a net positive. At this point it's probably too late but considering how highlander is growing faster than 6s, maybe there's at least a little hope.
Competitive players are more invested in their game, play the game more, and are more likely to spend money on the game. Casual players who don't enjoy playing competitively but enjoy watching it, fans of the competitive game, are also more invested in the product as a whole, and are less likely to stop playing and more likely to invest in items for it.
If they implement a lobby system that players enjoy, they'll be more invested in the game and more likely to spend money on it if they feel a drive to do well in that system as opposed to just messing around in a pub for an hour here or there.
I'm not sure any of this will have a real big effect considering the TF2 playerbase has already dropped quite a bit
TF2 is honestly set up perfectly to be an FPS esport but it's just gone so long without developer support for competition that the game has grown stale in general since everyone has played it so much. With Valve moving all their development assets to other products the process will just continue, most likely, which is a shame...
There are not any other FPS where you have intuitive concepts like roles (similar to positions on a football team), a visual style that doesn't look cheap or ugly but is easy to understand (over hyperealistic FPS games where you need to be able to discern a couple of pixels to see a guy in a bush), combined use of hitscan and projectile weapons (which is great for spectators since things like airshots are awesome). It's even got a number of easily identifiable objectives (CP points, uber) that allow commentators to break down action into something more understandable for viewers.
Valve spent too much time making the public game different than the competitive game to really salvage that, which annoys me greatly because five years later they seem to have realized the potential of esports when they were developing DotA 2. If they wanted to test some of their stuff, like tournament tickets, they could have done that in TF2 if they had ever stopped to consider since they use TF2 as their testbed anyway. Oh well.
It's true that making the competitive game more similar to pubs will be a net positive. At this point it's probably too late but considering how highlander is growing faster than 6s, maybe there's at least a little hope.
oPlaiD-snip-
I don't mean to break the chain here but oPlaiD just posted something since the Invite Rumors with yz50 :O
Anyway, I agree that VALVE should have taken a look sooner, but during the time that TF2 was being released, games like Halo and CoD were in their Prime at MLG. (maybe just halo, idk).
[quote=oPlaiD]-snip-[/quote]
I don't mean to break the chain here but oPlaiD just posted something since the Invite Rumors with yz50 :O
Anyway, I agree that VALVE should have taken a look sooner, but during the time that TF2 was being released, games like Halo and CoD were in their Prime at MLG. (maybe just halo, idk).
I don't mean to break the chain here but oPlaiD just posted something since the Invite Rumors with yz50 :O
Anyway, I agree that VALVE should have taken a look sooner, but during the time that TF2 was being released, games like Halo and CoD were in their Prime at MLG. (maybe just halo, idk).
This is a theory of mine, but I could be wrong of course, no real data to back it up.
After the game went f2p the comp scene exploded, yes, HL did start to launch around this time, so in general I could be targeting the wrong thing, but in general using purely anecdotal evidence, I would say that the reason people are leaving tf2 is the infuriating nature of pub play.
Things like incessant auto-balance that makes it impossible to play with your friends, ridiculous unlocks and the people who insist on using only them, and the quick play feature that gutted some established pub communities (whose regulars moved onto new games rather than find a new home) were a tremendous boon to the comp scene, and killer for those who didn't join it. As players found pubbing to be less and less stimulating/fullfilling they moved onto HL where they could get organized games that still played many of their favorite maps - some of those folks then moved to 6v6.
As far as monitization options - tickets/special items are a pretty clear way to go there. One thing I've always wanted to see in game were uniforms for the 4 main classes, which are then integrated into the game, showcased in some major match, and then made available for purchase. It's advertising for both interests. Or even just a special type of hat.
This is a theory of mine, but I could be wrong of course, no real data to back it up.
After the game went f2p the comp scene exploded, yes, HL did start to launch around this time, so in general I could be targeting the wrong thing, but in general using purely anecdotal evidence, I would say that the reason people are leaving tf2 is the infuriating nature of pub play.
Things like incessant auto-balance that makes it impossible to play with your friends, ridiculous unlocks and the people who insist on using only them, and the quick play feature that gutted some established pub communities (whose regulars moved onto new games rather than find a new home) were a tremendous boon to the comp scene, and killer for those who didn't join it. As players found pubbing to be less and less stimulating/fullfilling they moved onto HL where they could get organized games that still played many of their favorite maps - some of those folks then moved to 6v6.
As far as monitization options - tickets/special items are a pretty clear way to go there. One thing I've always wanted to see in game were uniforms for the 4 main classes, which are then integrated into the game, showcased in some major match, and then made available for purchase. It's advertising for both interests. Or even just a special type of hat.
After the game went f2p the comp scene exploded, yes, HL did start to launch around this time, so in general I could be targeting the wrong thing, but in general using purely anecdotal evidence, I would say that the reason people are leaving tf2 is the infuriating nature of pub play.
Things like incessant auto-balance that makes it impossible to play with your friends, ridiculous unlocks and the people who insist on using only them, and the quick play feature that gutted some established pub communities (whose regulars moved onto new games rather than find a new home) were a tremendous boon to the comp scene, and killer for those who didn't join it. As players found pubbing to be less and less stimulating/fullfilling they moved onto HL where they could get organized games that still played many of their favorite maps - some of those folks then moved to 6v6.
As far as monitization options - tickets/special items are a pretty clear way to go there. One thing I've always wanted to see in game were uniforms for the 4 main classes, which are then integrated into the game, showcased in some major match, and then made available for purchase. It's advertising for both interests. Or even just a special type of hat.
I would personally rather try out class limits of 1, or current rules but 7v7. edit: Either way I think it's a good idea to try out (why not, right?), and I would definitely like to play.
I would personally rather try out class limits of 1, or current rules but 7v7. edit: Either way I think it's a good idea to try out (why not, right?), and I would definitely like to play.
JasMuukiJust a thought which I've ranted at for some people:
Since apparently the problem with competitive TF2 is the staleness (lack of variety in an fps game? what is this), and Robin wants to change the system to appeal to pubbers via change of classlimits or rebalancing unlocks to make all classes viable. Instead of/As well as doing this, wouldn't it be possible to add more incentive to make new maps? Adding new maps (that are actually balanced) would force teams to think up new strategies
I don't know why we are even trying to appease Valve when they've very rarely ever tried to help the competitive community out.
I mean, you say we should add new maps, ok, how about adding in snakewater into the standard game? That's a very easy thing to do.
yeah well i think i kinda said that in the latter part about actually adding maps into the game but yes, you are correct
[quote=Jas][quote=Muuki]Just a thought which I've ranted at for some people:
Since apparently the problem with competitive TF2 is the staleness (lack of variety in an fps game? what is this), and Robin wants to change the system to appeal to pubbers via change of classlimits or rebalancing unlocks to make all classes viable. Instead of/As well as doing this, wouldn't it be possible to add more incentive to make new maps? Adding new maps (that are actually balanced) would force teams to think up new strategies[/quote]
I don't know why we are even trying to appease Valve when they've very rarely ever tried to help the competitive community out.
I mean, you say we should add new maps, ok, how about adding in snakewater into the standard game? That's a very easy thing to do.
[/quote] yeah well i think i kinda said that in the latter part about actually adding maps into the game but yes, you are correct
Since apparently the problem with competitive TF2 is the staleness (lack of variety in an fps game? what is this), and Robin wants to change the system to appeal to pubbers via change of classlimits or rebalancing unlocks to make all classes viable. Instead of/As well as doing this, wouldn't it be possible to add more incentive to make new maps? Adding new maps (that are actually balanced) would force teams to think up new strategies[/quote]
I don't know why we are even trying to appease Valve when they've very rarely ever tried to help the competitive community out.
I mean, you say we should add new maps, ok, how about adding in snakewater into the standard game? That's a very easy thing to do.
[/quote] yeah well i think i kinda said that in the latter part about actually adding maps into the game but yes, you are correct
I'm pretty sure they are working on a system for maps. If you take a look at CS:GO and L4D2 they have a map workshop where you can upload maps and people can subscribe to them to receive the map automatically when it updates. An example (SHAMELESS PLUG): http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=144912737
Because they just integrated TF2 into steampipe, hammer is borked (or at least, not publicly available unless you opt in and do some file wizardry), but I'm assuming they are working on a new version of hammer that is integrated into the workshop like with CS:GO, which should be an update coming up here pretty soon. After that, they may have some sort of mapper related contest or update, but who knows. They are, as always, remarkably quiet about their plans and intentions for maps.
I'm pretty sure they are working on a system for maps. If you take a look at CS:GO and L4D2 they have a map workshop where you can upload maps and people can subscribe to them to receive the map automatically when it updates. An example (SHAMELESS PLUG): http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=144912737
Because they just integrated TF2 into steampipe, hammer is borked (or at least, not publicly available unless you opt in and do some file wizardry), but I'm assuming they are working on a new version of hammer that is integrated into the workshop like with CS:GO, which should be an update coming up here pretty soon. After that, they may have some sort of mapper related contest or update, but who knows. They are, as always, remarkably quiet about their plans and intentions for maps.
Because they just integrated TF2 into steampipe, hammer is borked (or at least, not publicly available unless you opt in and do some file wizardry), but I'm assuming they are working on a new version of hammer that is integrated into the workshop like with CS:GO, which should be an update coming up here pretty soon. After that, they may have some sort of mapper related contest or update, but who knows. They are, as always, remarkably quiet about their plans and intentions for maps.
I'm 90% sure they're shipping the steampipe beta hammer with the release game now.
I'm 90% sure they're shipping the steampipe beta hammer with the release game now.
Yah, I just did a quick search. Someone gave me the wrong file directory.
Yah, I just did a quick search. Someone gave me the wrong file directory.
Sorry for the late reply but this thread really got me thinking about a way to implement 6's in a way which would not change the game mechanics too drastically so Valve would agree to it in addition to the HL one.
I think that essentially Enigma was just trying to balance the 3 different groups which would result in a fast paced organized game CLOSEST to 6's - because Valve is never going to implement a complex system that breaks their dynamic of the game. So why not try the next best thing? And quite frankly he got it right. The 6's community should take EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY to get the game out there - even if it might require some slight tweaking. It won't be perfect but why not just get it out there for people to see and experience?
I think the real trick is in setting up the right parameters for choosing classes. Valve said they're willing to add a 6v6 option - is there any way to impose the 6's structure without directly supporting it? I think the solution is to simply set "group limits."
6's is basically composed 4 OFFENSE + 1 DEFENSE + 1 SUPPORT.
http://s22.postimg.org/ql9ne4k35/Test.png
Why not work with these limits? If (very big IF) Valve is willing to set a limit of 4 offense players, 1 defense and 1 support, a mild form of 6's is already in the making. So how else can you make it like 6's? Set up another rule - maximum of 2 players per class. And lastly, allow players to offclass in their "group type" only - a medic can offclass as sniper/spy, a demo can offclass as heavy/engie, etc. (This sounds ridiculous I know but bear with me...)
There are def some downsides to this system. Obviously you'd have to include pyro. Then you might get the occasional idiot that'll go spy when the team really needs a medic or someone who will go engie when a mobile demo would be best. This would make teams frustrated but believe it or not - I think this is exactly what would "save" 6's.
After playing with these group limits, people are eventually going to realize there are optimal choices. Think of it as a training ground to 6's. People will eventually grasp that a medic is a strong general support class and there are limited times to play spy. A pyro is best for sneaky flanking. Scouts and Soldiers are favored for direct combat over a pyro. A demo can deal more dmg than an engie, etc.
Some good things - some players are really good as other classes but they don't have a permanent place in 6's. If you're a really good pyro now you can play pyro or heavy - but it's going to come at a price.
Anyway before this gets too long, it can work. It's not 6's exactly, but pretty damn close. #1 thing is that any class can play so Valve doesn't have to setup silly restrictions on not being able to play a class they created. Doesn't mess too much with their dynamic.
The only question remaining is, WHEN will the players realize that 2 scouts, 2 soldiers, 1 demo and 1 medic is going to be the best choice? Heh.
*I also liked the idea of 3 offense classes, 1 defense and 2 support - I felt this might make an interesting 6's variation but maybe it's too different...
Sorry for the late reply but this thread really got me thinking about a way to implement 6's in a way which would not change the game mechanics too drastically so Valve would agree to it in addition to the HL one.
I think that essentially Enigma was just trying to balance the 3 different groups which would result in a fast paced organized game CLOSEST to 6's - because Valve is never going to implement a complex system that breaks their dynamic of the game. So why not try the next best thing? And quite frankly he got it right. The 6's community should take EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY to get the game out there - even if it might require some slight tweaking. It won't be perfect but why not just get it out there for people to see and experience?
I think the real trick is in setting up the right parameters for choosing classes. Valve said they're willing to add a 6v6 option - is there any way to impose the 6's structure without directly supporting it? I think the solution is to simply set "group limits."
6's is basically composed 4 OFFENSE + 1 DEFENSE + 1 SUPPORT.
[img]http://s22.postimg.org/ql9ne4k35/Test.png[/img]
Why not work with these limits? If (very big IF) Valve is willing to set a limit of 4 offense players, 1 defense and 1 support, a mild form of 6's is already in the making. So how else can you make it like 6's? Set up another rule - maximum of 2 players per class. And lastly, allow players to offclass in their "group type" only - a medic can offclass as sniper/spy, a demo can offclass as heavy/engie, etc. (This sounds ridiculous I know but bear with me...)
There are def some downsides to this system. Obviously you'd have to include pyro. Then you might get the occasional idiot that'll go spy when the team really needs a medic or someone who will go engie when a mobile demo would be best. This would make teams frustrated but believe it or not - I think this is exactly what would "save" 6's.
After playing with these group limits, people are eventually going to realize there are optimal choices. Think of it as a training ground to 6's. People will eventually grasp that a medic is a strong general support class and there are limited times to play spy. A pyro is best for sneaky flanking. Scouts and Soldiers are favored for direct combat over a pyro. A demo can deal more dmg than an engie, etc.
Some good things - some players are really good as other classes but they don't have a permanent place in 6's. If you're a really good pyro now you can play pyro or heavy - but it's going to come at a price.
Anyway before this gets too long, it can work. It's not 6's exactly, but pretty damn close. #1 thing is that any class can play so Valve doesn't have to setup silly restrictions on not being able to play a class they created. Doesn't mess too much with their dynamic.
The only question remaining is, WHEN will the players realize that 2 scouts, 2 soldiers, 1 demo and 1 medic is going to be the best choice? Heh.
*I also liked the idea of 3 offense classes, 1 defense and 2 support - I felt this might make an interesting 6's variation but maybe it's too different...
I think that essentially Enigma was just trying to balance the 3 different groups which would result in a fast paced organized game CLOSEST to 6's - because Valve is never going to implement a complex system that breaks their dynamic of the game. So why not try the next best thing? And quite frankly he got it right. The 6's community should take EVERY SINGLE OPPORTUNITY to get the game out there - even if it might require some slight tweaking. It won't be perfect but why not just get it out there for people to see and experience?
I think the real trick is in setting up the right parameters for choosing classes. Valve said they're willing to add a 6v6 option - is there any way to impose the 6's structure without directly supporting it? I think the solution is to simply set "group limits."
6's is basically composed 4 OFFENSE + 1 DEFENSE + 1 SUPPORT.
[img]http://s22.postimg.org/ql9ne4k35/Test.png[/img]
Why not work with these limits? If (very big IF) Valve is willing to set a limit of 4 offense players, 1 defense and 1 support, a mild form of 6's is already in the making. So how else can you make it like 6's? Set up another rule - maximum of 2 players per class. And lastly, allow players to offclass in their "group type" only - a medic can offclass as sniper/spy, a demo can offclass as heavy/engie, etc. (This sounds ridiculous I know but bear with me...)
There are def some downsides to this system. Obviously you'd have to include pyro. Then you might get the occasional idiot that'll go spy when the team really needs a medic or someone who will go engie when a mobile demo would be best. This would make teams frustrated but believe it or not - I think this is exactly what would "save" 6's.
After playing with these group limits, people are eventually going to realize there are optimal choices. Think of it as a training ground to 6's. People will eventually grasp that a medic is a strong general support class and there are limited times to play spy. A pyro is best for sneaky flanking. Scouts and Soldiers are favored for direct combat over a pyro. A demo can deal more dmg than an engie, etc.
Some good things - some players are really good as other classes but they don't have a permanent place in 6's. If you're a really good pyro now you can play pyro or heavy - but it's going to come at a price.
Anyway before this gets too long, it can work. It's not 6's exactly, but pretty damn close. #1 thing is that any class can play so Valve doesn't have to setup silly restrictions on not being able to play a class they created. Doesn't mess too much with their dynamic.
The only question remaining is, WHEN will the players realize that 2 scouts, 2 soldiers, 1 demo and 1 medic is going to be the best choice? Heh.
*I also liked the idea of 3 offense classes, 1 defense and 2 support - I felt this might make an interesting 6's variation but maybe it's too different...
I feel like that kills offclassing which is an important part of 6s, plus it still feels very restrictive.
the menu looks cool though
I feel like that kills offclassing which is an important part of 6s, plus it still feels very restrictive.
the menu looks cool though
the menu looks cool though
Thanks. The menu was to show the breakdown. Also you're right, it will. Sadly you won't be able to offclass as well.
Also do you think that Valve would agree to having a rule where only certain classes can offclass to another type?
Thanks. The menu was to show the breakdown. Also you're right, it will. Sadly you won't be able to offclass as well.
Also do you think that Valve would agree to having a rule where only certain classes can offclass to another type?
Also do you think that Valve would agree to having a rule where only certain classes can offclass to another type?
Arxhttp://arxandbeta.com/images/lobbychoice.jpg
mackey LFT
[quote=Arx]
[img]http://arxandbeta.com/images/lobbychoice.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
mackey LFT
[img]http://arxandbeta.com/images/lobbychoice.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
mackey LFT
I would like to say that we're fiddled around with the whole cl1 idea a bit in finnish mixes and such. We tried 5v5 cl1, and what it seemed to do is make all classes way too valuable to lose. Add to that the fact that one guy would be playing utility all the time it just makes for a really slow game where you cant make mistakes without it backfiring hard. Also pushing into a heavy and a demo, and even possibly a pyro isn't exactly easy.
The thing that we were going for obviously was 5v5 to make organizing LANs easier. It might be different in 6's, but thats how it went in 5v5.
I would like to say that we're fiddled around with the whole cl1 idea a bit in finnish mixes and such. We tried 5v5 cl1, and what it seemed to do is make all classes way too valuable to lose. Add to that the fact that one guy would be playing utility all the time it just makes for a really slow game where you cant make mistakes without it backfiring hard. Also pushing into a heavy and a demo, and even possibly a pyro isn't exactly easy.
The thing that we were going for obviously was 5v5 to make organizing LANs easier. It might be different in 6's, but thats how it went in 5v5.
The thing that we were going for obviously was 5v5 to make organizing LANs easier. It might be different in 6's, but thats how it went in 5v5.
#149 I think as you increase the number of players, "prolander" gets worse. Certain classes are too good at low counts and vice versa. I personally believe it's ideal at 4v4 on CTF with Engie actually downright banned, but 6s 5CP is way better.
#149 I think as you increase the number of players, "prolander" gets worse. Certain classes are too good at low counts and vice versa. I personally believe it's ideal at 4v4 on CTF with Engie actually downright banned, but 6s 5CP is way better.
#145, I know this set up is biased towards our current set up but how about:
1 of Soldier, Engi, Spy
1 of Pyro, Soldier, Sniper
1 of Spy, Scout, Heavy
1 of Sniper, Scout, Pyro
1 of Medic, Engi, Demo
1 of Heavy, Demo, Medic
Due to the groups you can have a maximum of two of each class. Each player could choose a group at the start of a game and they would then be restricted to classes in their group througout the game.
Would still limit offclassing but not quite as harshly as the 4:1:1 split. The hard part will be making a reason for splitting the classes this way.
#145, I know this set up is biased towards our current set up but how about:
1 of Soldier, Engi, Spy
1 of Pyro, Soldier, Sniper
1 of Spy, Scout, Heavy
1 of Sniper, Scout, Pyro
1 of Medic, Engi, Demo
1 of Heavy, Demo, Medic
Due to the groups you can have a maximum of two of each class. Each player could choose a group at the start of a game and they would then be restricted to classes in their group througout the game.
Would still limit offclassing but not quite as harshly as the 4:1:1 split. The hard part will be making a reason for splitting the classes this way.
1 of Soldier, Engi, Spy
1 of Pyro, Soldier, Sniper
1 of Spy, Scout, Heavy
1 of Sniper, Scout, Pyro
1 of Medic, Engi, Demo
1 of Heavy, Demo, Medic
Due to the groups you can have a maximum of two of each class. Each player could choose a group at the start of a game and they would then be restricted to classes in their group througout the game.
Would still limit offclassing but not quite as harshly as the 4:1:1 split. The hard part will be making a reason for splitting the classes this way.
The problem with one class limit being that off-classing wouldn't be such a prevalent and exciting feature. I know when I was new to watching comp TF2, watching a guy switching to sniper and going crazy was a fantastic moment in a 6v6 game for me. As it is, a full time sniper would likely be present, and the most viable off-classes to use, would be part of the main team anyway. So if VALVe think that mixing things up is important to keep the game fresh for viewers, this won't help. All this will do is give repetitive games. They'll be different than the games we're used to now, but I feel they'll quickly become the norm, and we'll miss Habrleu going crazy as spy, or B||oodsire actually doing well as Pyro or whatever. I'm pretty new to the scene though, and that's just my two cents. Feel free to correct me on whatever I'm completely wrong about.
The problem with one class limit being that off-classing wouldn't be such a prevalent and exciting feature. I know when I was new to watching comp TF2, watching a guy switching to sniper and going crazy was a fantastic moment in a 6v6 game for me. As it is, a full time sniper would likely be present, and the most viable off-classes to use, would be part of the main team anyway. So if VALVe think that mixing things up is important to keep the game fresh for viewers, this won't help. All this will do is give repetitive games. They'll be different than the games we're used to now, but I feel they'll quickly become the norm, and we'll miss Habrleu going crazy as spy, or B||oodsire actually doing well as Pyro or whatever. I'm pretty new to the scene though, and that's just my two cents. Feel free to correct me on whatever I'm completely wrong about.
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.