i have played with gunboats, as well as just about every other unlock in the game.

why is it insane to expect that there is a difference between understanding the game and executing on that understanding?

http://i.imgur.com/RFMPwLL.jpg

i am not sure where you think i have posted about the meta being stale or that the QF is good/fun. i do think it was stupid for ESEA to ban it in the way they did, but understand why it was banned.

sick burn, bro! you got me good! /s

through this whole posting thread, you are content to put words in my mouth instead of just reading what i am saying at face value. read what i am saying at face value.

again:

there's a difference between "playing with gunboats" and playing in a scrim/match with gunboats (pugs don't really count because no one gives a fuck).

it is also absurd to state that you have a good understanding of the game because there are countless mid im/top open players who have infinitely more experience than you whose understanding of the game could be classified as rudimentary at best. we say you don't have an understanding of the game because you don't.

Holy shit so many walls of texts in this thread. Are there enough submissions to see some data yet?

So please posit for me why your understanding of the game is on par with that of anyone that has ever played this game competitively. Please I want to hear why your opinion which you value so highly, is at all comparable to i49 MVP james "yuki" stanton.

No matter how much you think you know, manwithnoname, if you actually went out and started playing scrims/matches/pugs, I think you'd be quite surprised when you find out how much more there is you don't know, simply because you haven't played 6s before.

And it's the same with unlocks, you may know how they work and have used them before in the pub game, but that doesn't mean you know anything about how those unlocks affect the competitive game like someone who's actually experienced their use in scrims/matches does.

Yeah Owl, it adds the "bracket luck" factor into the equation because you may end up, after random seeding, with some really really strong opening groups that are forced to kill off 1-2 really good teams that would've otherwise made it to LAN - but it also has the slight upside of presenting new and interesting match ups because lower skilled teams are forced to play higher level teams more regularly and in much more high pressure situations.

i play in etf2l div 6 and I would still play if I dont have to pay. i dont care that much about the rules

he literally said in his first post that his opinion should not be a huge consideration when making these decisions. I'm not sure why you keep saying that he thinks his opinion is equal to anyone who plays competitively, much less someone who plays competitively at the very top level.

Hell, you're not even making arguments at this point, you're just attacking the guy for daring to share any opinion at all.

I don't agree with a lot of what this guy said, and I think his comment about viewers streaming to HL because 6s players are dicks is stupid, quite frankly. But he shared his opinion about the topic at hand (with full disclosure that he is a spectator, and his opinion should be taken with that in mind), and you're telling him that he shouldn't even get to share it.

Maybe I just don't get it.

because he's saying that to grow the game we should give casual viewers a map that kills more open teams than any other map

Because as I pointed out in my last response to you. His opinion is uninformed and inaccurate and completely baseless, to entertain it as meaningful at any level by definition degrades the importance of experience in forming these opinions. No great game ever became that way because they did what the spectators wanted, none of them so much as "considered lightly" what the spectators wanted.

I think it stems from the fact that he's more or less said that NOT taking spectator's opinions into consideration will keep the game from growing which is honestly a pretty moronic mindset.

http://teamfortress.tv/forum/thread/9159-the-unpopular-opinion

This is the previously mentioned Killing post about why changing the rules in consideration of the viewers and not the players, is potentially harmful to the game.

I can definitely see it being really exciting, especially in invite, but it could be really frustrating in the lower divisions where teams can come out of nowhere much more easily. It'd be awful to have a couple straight 'seasons' where you're the 3rd best in your group because of teams coming out of nowhere, but you'd be the best in half the other groups. Of course, there's a similar problem with our current setup, but at least teams get their money's worth in playing a full season, even if it's filled with losses.

I really like the map pick system as well as the bo3 style you're going for. If you really wanted to do that and keep it in line with our standard season setup, you could try the etf2l ruleset on each map. It'd lead to some interesting pick/ban situations with maps and would force teams to be much more adaptive, knowing they could be playing any of the map pool. Teams would have to work on certain maps much harder rather than just throwing in the towel on a particular week and accepting some losses.

It's funny how waiting a week (and being american helps) and using a poll can change as what things come across. My thread really made me look like a dick.

The poll is a nice idea.

Some questions about your questions and some suggestions for your options:
"How many rounds would be played per segment?" - There might be a bit to few options for some weird things like 5 minute segments with winlimit 1.

"How would wins-losses be scored?" - option 3 "Each Round Win scores as One Point" do you mean league points?

"If there is a tie, how would it be handled?" - There is no option for golden cap per map, per segment doesn't reall mean the same thing (think about 2 maps, 2 segments each).

Also I need a checklist for mainclass, I've never decided for one.

Imho time per map and segments per map depend on the number of maps per match. I don't mind halves but I want every match to last about 1 hour* (that seems to be the worldwide consensus anyway) and I think halftime breaks after less than 20 minutes are pointless so I'd rather not have halftimes if more than one map is played per match.

Maps per match is influenced again by maps per week and matches per week, of which the first one is basically personal preference and the latter being determined by weeks per season and maps played per season. The general consensus here seems to be ~8 weeks and 14-16 maps played which results in 2 maps played per week.

That means that in the end it comes down to how many maps you want to play per week.
One map per week: Play the same map twice. If you don't want to play the same map twice in one match and still want 1 hour matches you have to play two matches per week and 1 hour per map.
Two maps per week: Either play two 30 minute maps in one match or two 1 hour maps in two matches.

I haven't really done this before but I imagine only practising one map per week to be very boring, so I think 2 maps per week are better. However I can't decide whether I prefer one map with halftimes or two maps without halftimes per match. I don't know either how hard it is to schedule two matches per week instead of one, but that is probably heavily team-dependant. From a spectator point of view I'd say two maps (1 map might get boring/cut short), but as a player I don't know how to weigh the more difficult scheduling against the haltftime strategy talks.

tl;dr
Can't really decide between 2*30 mins per map or 2*30 min maps per match.
Pretty sure about 20-30 mins per "segment" (be it map or half), 1 hour per match and 2 maps per week though.

*That doesn't really apply if you play more than two maps per match. On a sidenote: Never play gravelpit for a lot more than half an hour. If it's not over by then it's just a giant stalemate. I really like gravelpit and I can even deal with half an hour of stalemates but any longer than that and it just feel horrible. The worst what could happen in a gravelpit match was: 15 minute round, switch sides, repeat. Repeat again. You've just spend one hour playing gravelpit (+30 minutes for the second/first map). Oh it's a tie? Enjoy the bo3 adding another 30 minutes of gravelpit. omfg, it was hell on earth.

Pugs / lobbies / mixes are casual and for fun. If you want to play with a comp ruleset, you can always ring for a scrim.

I...

So much fucking rage in this thread it's insane. Can we get over GPit was fun/GPit is the spawn of the devil battles yet?

Yes I enjoyed GPit, I'll miss it next season, but it has been taken off and I definitely can see why.

post #27:

post #33:

post #35:

post #55:

i have never said that my understanding of the game is on par with anyone who has played it competitively.

i have never said that my opinion is as valuable as someone who plays the game

i have never said that my opinion is comparable to yuki's or should be viewed on the same level

in fact, i have said the opposite a number of times in this thread.

------

i have never once said that i have a "good understanding" of the game; let me be perfectly clear: i do not have a "good understanding of the game.

however, i do have a "fundamental understanding" of how competitive tf2 works. do i evidently need to define "fundamental" so that people on TFTV are aware of what it actually means?

look, i understand the rules of the game. i understand the basic roles of each class. i understand the basic concepts of the meta for the different game types or maps.

i have an elementary understanding of how competitive tf2 works.

beyond that, why is it so hard for people to understand the HUGE difference between understanding how something works and executing on that understanding?

------

hey, i agree totally here; i have never stated i know everything or have anything more than a fundamental (elementary) understanding of how competitive tf2 works. i do not think my opinion should be taken over the opinion of either top players (like yuki) or people who have played 7 seasons of open + 4 IM matches (like 2sy_morphiend)

------

i truly do not understand the concept of "in order to have a fundamental understanding of how X, Y or Z works, you have to do it" -- you do not have to play in the NFL to have a fundamental understanding of how it works. you do not have to be a pilot to have a fundamental understanding of how a plane works. you do not have to personally write a book to understand how a book is written.

now, playing in the NFL, earning your pilot's license and writing a book will give you a tremendous amount of information on each of the specific items; at that point you probably CAN say that you have a "good understanding" of the NFL, the process that goes into writing a book and flying a plane.

fundamental (elementary) understanding != good understanding.

fundamental (elementary) understanding != having the ability to execute on that understanding

good understanding != having the ability to execute on that understanding

...this is just not that difficult to understand.

Opinions aside, I'll edit the OP in about 4 hours (when it says posted 1 day ago) to remove the survey link and post a very preliminary result.

This is what I disagree with. It doesn't matter that you have a "fundamental understanding" of the game. You haven't played the game at any competitive level by your own admission Your opinion is not informed enough to be considered by anyone making decisions on how we play the game due to your lack of experience. That's it. It shouldn't be that hard to understand either.

*yawn* I thought you'd be done by now. Is the real reason that you want the last word? Please let him have it June else he wont stop posting.

If it's "not something that should have great consideration", then you really should just stop posting. You should also read through all your posts, as you pretty much keep typing the exact same thing every time.

Spectators opinions may not have a huge impact, but they definitely should be heard. If we make it boring to watch we'll get less viewers, less new players and the community would just shrink (or not grow as much as it would otherwise).

this is what i was trying to say in a nutshell; ill leave it alone now.

y-yolo....

That's Australian for shut the fuck up.

Right?

shut the fuck up ploxo..

quickfix was absolutely awful ti watch but the spectators couldn't tell. it took invite/prem players (and, coincidentally, june) to explain to people how shit it was. i play this game at a midish level (div2) but i've most likely watched more tf2 than anyone who doesn't play the game at all. we don't need some purebred spectators to tell us if our game is boring, we can tell.

That's it, that's all she wrote. Thank you very much for your votes!

based off marxist's idea, you can instead devoting 3 hrs in a day u can put 6 maps in the pool elimanate 3 of them and play a best of 3 series (over 3 days) like baseball, winning a series = 2/3 or sweep (3/3) (but every game counts)

Alright, here are some really simple results to gleam from a first-look.

There were a total of 361 submissions after controlling for 3 double-posts, with a wide variety of voters coming from all skill levels. More detailed analysis of that will be performed later.

http://i.imgur.com/4x6fgYI.png

A vast majority of voters hailed from the NA region, unfortunately this might mess with the results in the other regions when correlation functions are performed.

http://i.imgur.com/bPBB6x3.png

Of all respondents, a majority voted for having one map per match.

http://i.imgur.com/ipyJUad.png

A whole lot of you wanted two halves per map.

http://i.imgur.com/NO0LWbc.png

Now a small note here, when I originally wrote the poll I had a bit of a method to the madness that was overlapping times on this. Now this being the first such survey I've ever done I made a couple of goofs here and that was my bad. Since I can't speak for any of what the respondents were really wanting in this result I'll just leave it as is, you infer your own result.

http://i.imgur.com/oPamoyh.png

Lastly as a interesting tidbit, I separated the medigun results out and counted how many votes each one got. Not surprisingly the Big Two got a huge vote of confidence while the Little Two hovered in the under fifty percent region.

Again, some really basic results. I'll need a little time to figure out how to recreate some SPSS functions in Excel, if you would like access to the raw results just leave a message here.

Thanks again for all your votes.

wow vaccinator with almost as many votes as quick fix

kill me