The problem with HL is not even the chaos, it is mostly the reliability on the pick classes (sniper, spy). On 6s, your survival depends entirely on how much damage you take, and your ability to avoid that damage through good positioning, heals/buffs, dodging, etc.
However in HL, the pick classes undermine that damage since they can kill regardless of the health that you may have. A sniper gets a headshot on you, and you die if you had 1 or 150 hp. That means two things: first, in 6s if a soldier bombs in and dies and doesn't kill anything but still does significant damage, that damage can count if the team plays on it. But on a world where the kills go to the pick classes, that damage is less relevant and the sacrifice of the soldier was a waste. Second, even if you do your best to avoid taking damage, a competent pick class will kill you thus undermining your own efforts.
All that said, this is a flaw that HL has, and yeah it makes HL lack depth with respect to 6s but in no way or shape does that make HL bad as a format.
The problem with HL is not even the chaos, it is mostly the reliability on the pick classes (sniper, spy). On 6s, your survival depends entirely on how much damage you take, and your ability to avoid that damage through good positioning, heals/buffs, dodging, etc.
However in HL, the pick classes undermine that damage since they can kill regardless of the health that you may have. A sniper gets a headshot on you, and you die if you had 1 or 150 hp. That means two things: first, in 6s if a soldier bombs in and dies and doesn't kill anything but still does significant damage, that damage can count if the team plays on it. But on a world where the kills go to the pick classes, that damage is less relevant and the sacrifice of the soldier was a waste. Second, even if you do your best to avoid taking damage, a competent pick class will kill you thus undermining your own efforts.
All that said, this is a flaw that HL has, and yeah it makes HL lack depth with respect to 6s but in no way or shape does that make HL bad as a format.
Why cant we all be friends?
Why cant we all be friends?
I get this feeling that most HL players haven't played a different competitive game format prior to this.
I get this feeling that most HL players haven't played a different competitive game format prior to this.
NakedapeI call them auxiliaries for a reason, but the "fact" is calling a scout better than a pyro is just flat out wrong no matter how you spin it. The current meta may be that scouts/soldier/demo dominate, but that can be wiped away in a flash.
scout > pyro
current meta = ~5yrs now?
lmk when that flash comes
[quote=Nakedape]I call them auxiliaries for a reason, but the "fact" is calling a scout better than a pyro is just flat out wrong no matter how you spin it. The current meta may be that scouts/soldier/demo dominate, but that can be wiped away in a flash.[/quote]
scout > pyro
current meta = ~5yrs now?
lmk when that flash comes
sdogg2mSpies are annoying but not useless. I wouldn't classify a pyro in highlander play as being useless. I don't see teams using these classes in 6v6 play because you would have to give up a soldier or scout to do it. Yet, if the 6v6 rules changed to only allow one scout or soldier, you would see more pyros or heavys.
I know that no 6v6 league would change the class configuration, no good reason exists to do so but this doesn't mean that pyro, spy, engineer or heavy are useless. Sniper is used quite extensively in 6v6 play already.
I never said that any of the utility classes are useless. and yes, obviously if the 6s rules only allowed 1 scout or soldier you'd see more utilities; would you rather just use 4 players on your team? of course not.
I simply said the other classes were overall BETTER. I think this really shows on top teams like -ts- that have some of the best players in each class. TMP and stabby might be really good, but no one's AFRAID of them like they are Jake or ruwin.
I will concede that the hl format slighly CHANGES which classes are the most powerful (soldier is a bit worse and sniper is much much better). However, in 6s you can always run a class configuration that allows a more neutral distribution of power, regardless of which classes are most powerful in any given situation. In hl that's not the case.
TMPDifferent classes have different strengths. It just so happens that some of the strengths like high aoe damage and agility matter more in most circumstances than others like obnoxious disruption or high hp. It's why there are offclasses in 6s, after all.
However, don't count the more situational classes out. You just have to force the situations they're good in. Also, you can create some interesting synergies with the classes to amplify strengths and cover weaknesses. Accenting a demo with a pyro creates a stupidly strong combination, as they both cover the other's deficiencies stupidly well.
Again, I never said the situational classes are useless. It's in their name, they're situational, lol. A lot of dumb 6s players want to ban degreaser, axtinguisher, flare gun, etc. because they feel it makes pyros too strong in the situations where they're useful. I just say, well, in that situation the pyro SHOULD be powerful.
That still doesn't change the fact that, if given the option, you would run a different class over the pyro the vast majority of the time. hl might seem more open to new players because you can play any class, which is definitely a fair way of looking at it. However, I think it's equally fair to look at it as less open to raising the skill ceiling, high-level competition, and an evolving metagame. After all, when half of your team is permanently weaker than the other half it makes things more difficult in that regard.
[quote=sdogg2m]Spies are annoying but not useless. I wouldn't classify a pyro in highlander play as being useless. I don't see teams using these classes in 6v6 play because you would have to give up a soldier or scout to do it. Yet, if the 6v6 rules changed to only allow one scout or soldier, you would see more pyros or heavys.
I know that no 6v6 league would change the class configuration, no good reason exists to do so but this doesn't mean that pyro, spy, engineer or heavy are useless. Sniper is used quite extensively in 6v6 play already.[/quote]
I never said that any of the utility classes are useless. and yes, obviously if the 6s rules only allowed 1 scout or soldier you'd see more utilities; would you rather just use 4 players on your team? of course not.
I simply said the other classes were overall BETTER. I think this really shows on top teams like -ts- that have some of the best players in each class. TMP and stabby might be really good, but no one's AFRAID of them like they are Jake or ruwin.
I will concede that the hl format slighly CHANGES which classes are the most powerful (soldier is a bit worse and sniper is much much better). However, in 6s you can always run a class configuration that allows a more neutral distribution of power, regardless of which classes are most powerful in any given situation. In hl that's not the case.
[quote=TMP]Different classes have different strengths. It just so happens that some of the strengths like high aoe damage and agility matter more in most circumstances than others like obnoxious disruption or high hp. It's why there are offclasses in 6s, after all.
However, don't count the more situational classes out. You just have to force the situations they're good in. Also, you can create some interesting synergies with the classes to amplify strengths and cover weaknesses. Accenting a demo with a pyro creates a stupidly strong combination, as they both cover the other's deficiencies stupidly well.[/quote]
Again, I never said the situational classes are useless. It's in their name, they're situational, lol. A lot of dumb 6s players want to ban degreaser, axtinguisher, flare gun, etc. because they feel it makes pyros too strong in the situations where they're useful. I just say, well, in that situation the pyro SHOULD be powerful.
That still doesn't change the fact that, if given the option, you would run a different class over the pyro the vast majority of the time. hl might seem more open to new players because you can play any class, which is definitely a fair way of looking at it. However, I think it's equally fair to look at it as less open to raising the skill ceiling, high-level competition, and an evolving metagame. After all, when half of your team is permanently weaker than the other half it makes things more difficult in that regard.
NakedapeI call them auxiliaries for a reason, but the "fact" is calling a scout better than a pyro is just flat out wrong no matter how you spin it. The current meta may be that scouts/soldier/demo dominate, but that can be wiped away in a flash.
ie. Warmfront middle at lan? Gpit Ironman? good examples of a main heavy.
I'm not saying you're wrong in saying the there are reasons the current meta exist, but just a bit overzealous with your caps and demonizing of other classes.
I don't even know why we're even this far off-topic. Let this thread die plz. I now regret even posting. That said, I stand by what I said.
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I said that the situational classes are worse because they're, well, situational. You can't argue against that by posting examples of very specific situations where they work. That's the whole point! They're only good in those specific situations! And yes, I can say a scout is flat out better than a pyro, because it's NOT a situational class. 90% of the time it will be better than a pyro, and the other 10% it will be worse. That's enough for me.
The thing is, yes pyros and spies have very specific skills that can be useful (denying damage/area for pyros, getting priority picks and scouting information for spy). However, they are almost forced to specialize on those specific skills, because they are so bad at just doing damage. If you don't realize that the classes that do more damage/get more kills ARE inherently better, I don't know what to even say. Ever wonder why teams in a 5v6 get destroyed 5-0? Not just lose by a little bit, but get annihilated, even if they're better? Because tf2 is so contingent on damage output that like 4-5000 less results in a complete whitewash. Look at a match where a team wins like 5-1 in 20 minutes and see how the damage between the two teams still only differs by a few thousand. When you have less damage dealing potential, your class is worse THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME. Period.
[quote=Nakedape]I call them auxiliaries for a reason, but the "fact" is calling a scout better than a pyro is just flat out wrong no matter how you spin it. The current meta may be that scouts/soldier/demo dominate, but that can be wiped away in a flash.
ie. Warmfront middle at lan? Gpit Ironman? good examples of a main heavy.
I'm not saying you're wrong in saying the there are reasons the current meta exist, but just a bit overzealous with your caps and demonizing of other classes.
I don't even know why we're even this far off-topic. Let this thread die plz. I now regret even posting. That said, I stand by what I said.[/quote]
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I said that the situational classes are worse because they're, well, situational. You can't argue against that by posting examples of very specific situations where they work. That's the whole point! They're only good in those specific situations! And yes, I can say a scout is flat out better than a pyro, because it's NOT a situational class. 90% of the time it will be better than a pyro, and the other 10% it will be worse. That's enough for me.
The thing is, yes pyros and spies have very specific skills that can be useful (denying damage/area for pyros, getting priority picks and scouting information for spy). However, they are almost forced to specialize on those specific skills, because they are so bad at just doing damage. If you don't realize that the classes that do more damage/get more kills ARE inherently better, I don't know what to even say. Ever wonder why teams in a 5v6 get destroyed 5-0? Not just lose by a little bit, but get annihilated, even if they're better? Because tf2 is so contingent on damage output that like 4-5000 less results in a complete whitewash. Look at a match where a team wins like 5-1 in 20 minutes and see how the damage between the two teams still only differs by a few thousand. When you have less damage dealing potential, your class is worse THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME. Period.
sdogg2mI hope all of these threads don't devolve into the "superiority of 6v6 against the inferiority of highlander," as this should primarily be a place to talk up highlander play!
That said, I want to address one more issue (way off topic of course). I personally would love to see 6v6 excel to great lengths. Why can't there be 400 6v6 teams? I disagree with Infinite's assessment of why the 6v6 community doesn't explode. It's not because people can't play heavy or spy and are forced to play a certain class in ESEA that the community doesn't expand.
The main reason why the 6v6 community doesn't grow is because of the piss poor way that many members handle themselves. For one, dumping on another competitive community doesn't make you look any better, it just makes you look like a douche!
Also, I see little guidance to portals that will make people interested in 6v6. So many players in highlander make it their mission to get other players interested in highlander. No one plays one game forever, so in order to keep the talent pool replenished you have to get new people involved.
Be polite to new players! If someone is testing out the format and getting constantly trashed by the established community then don't be shocked if they refuse to hang around. You don't have to mentor every new player that tries the format but you should encourage them to stick with it and get better.
Tf2Lobby! Yep, tf2lobby is virtually a rotting cesspool for the 6v6 community. The lobbies played on that site give you a horrible reputation. You may think "It's a lobby, I don't care," but it is also a portal of introduction to the format. Highlander lobbies have a greater potential to go wrong as there are 18 players instead of 12 but are consistently run more smoothly than 6v6 lobbies. Less trolling on that site wouldn't hurt.
I do think that it's true that the 6v6 community sometimes doesn't carry itself the best way, and that there aren't enough channels for new players to enter. However, I think there's a bigger reason why 6s hasn't seen a huge influx of new teams- the highlander scene. Allow me to explain.
A giant percentage of the top 6s players will tell you that they started on some public server, and joined 6s when their community put together a team for a free league like cevo or twl. Yes, 6s is more restrictive when it comes from making the leap from pubs to competitive- I mean, only 4/9 of your community would seem eligible really. However, whether it was because they put util players on scout and had them learn it or because they still had enough of those cookie cutter mains on their server, those teams happened in mass proportion.
Of course, this was before hl, when 6s was the easiest way for a community to get into competitive. Now, hl just makes more sense. You can keep your same classes, and it's a lot more casual, so you can still remain a part of your public community at the same time as playing in the league. When was the last time you saw a public server community really go into 6s? It's a lot rarer nowadays.
I'm not mad at hl for this, it's just the way it is.
[quote=sdogg2m]I hope all of these threads don't devolve into the "superiority of 6v6 against the inferiority of highlander," as this should primarily be a place to talk up highlander play!
That said, I want to address one more issue (way off topic of course). I personally would love to see 6v6 excel to great lengths. Why can't there be 400 6v6 teams? I disagree with Infinite's assessment of why the 6v6 community doesn't explode. It's not because people can't play heavy or spy and are forced to play a certain class in ESEA that the community doesn't expand.
The main reason why the 6v6 community doesn't grow is because of the piss poor way that many members handle themselves. For one, dumping on another competitive community doesn't make you look any better, it just makes you look like a douche!
Also, I see little guidance to portals that will make people interested in 6v6. So many players in highlander make it their mission to get other players interested in highlander. No one plays one game forever, so in order to keep the talent pool replenished you have to get new people involved.
Be polite to new players! If someone is testing out the format and getting constantly trashed by the established community then don't be shocked if they refuse to hang around. You don't have to mentor every new player that tries the format but you should encourage them to stick with it and get better.
Tf2Lobby! Yep, tf2lobby is virtually a rotting cesspool for the 6v6 community. The lobbies played on that site give you a horrible reputation. You may think "It's a lobby, I don't care," but it is also a portal of introduction to the format. Highlander lobbies have a greater potential to go wrong as there are 18 players instead of 12 but are consistently run more smoothly than 6v6 lobbies. Less trolling on that site wouldn't hurt.[/quote]
I do think that it's true that the 6v6 community sometimes doesn't carry itself the best way, and that there aren't enough channels for new players to enter. However, I think there's a bigger reason why 6s hasn't seen a huge influx of new teams- the highlander scene. Allow me to explain.
A giant percentage of the top 6s players will tell you that they started on some public server, and joined 6s when their community put together a team for a free league like cevo or twl. Yes, 6s is more restrictive when it comes from making the leap from pubs to competitive- I mean, only 4/9 of your community would seem eligible really. However, whether it was because they put util players on scout and had them learn it or because they still had enough of those cookie cutter mains on their server, those teams happened in mass proportion.
Of course, this was before hl, when 6s was the easiest way for a community to get into competitive. Now, hl just makes more sense. You can keep your same classes, and it's a lot more casual, so you can still remain a part of your public community at the same time as playing in the league. When was the last time you saw a public server community really go into 6s? It's a lot rarer nowadays.
I'm not mad at hl for this, it's just the way it is.
6v6 isn't huge for a few reasons
lack of dev support
almost an entirely different game compared to pubs
high skill barrier
and least of all is the attitude of players.
6v6 isn't huge for a few reasons
lack of dev support
almost an entirely different game compared to pubs
high skill barrier
and least of all is the attitude of players.
alfainfinite you are the NA version of hildreth
You're the US version of konr.
[quote=alfa]infinite you are the NA version of hildreth[/quote]
You're the US version of konr.
Will I get minus fragged for actually praising infinite for the work he put into the league so far? Probably but he has done a lot, a fuck lot for UGC HL to keep the league running, something most people here won't grasp - the effort of sacrificing hundreds of hours of your time for something. When someone pisses on your work like Platinum, it is natural for them to become annoyed and react aggressively - see my comment above about alfa, someone I have never ever spoken to ever apart from brief Pug2 games and I barely remember him yet he seems to know me well enough to compare me to someone like Infinite, that is like comparing any politician to Hitler in the admin business. What the fuck have you ever done to help this community? Do something useful then call me out for being retarded.
Then again this is Infinite we're talking about, a man who thinks UGC's superior numbers is down to ESEA unlock bans. I think people need to chill out and take the game less seriously, if you like Highlander more than 6v6 good for you and vice versa, least you're not playing CS:GO.
Will I get minus fragged for actually praising infinite for the work he put into the league so far? Probably but he has done a lot, a fuck lot for UGC HL to keep the league running, something most people here won't grasp - the effort of sacrificing hundreds of hours of your time for something. When someone pisses on your work like Platinum, it is natural for them to become annoyed and react aggressively - see my comment above about alfa, someone I have never ever spoken to ever apart from brief Pug2 games and I barely remember him yet he seems to know me well enough to compare me to someone like Infinite, that is like comparing any politician to Hitler in the admin business. What the fuck have you ever done to help this community? Do something useful then call me out for being retarded.
Then again this is Infinite we're talking about, a man who thinks UGC's superior numbers is down to ESEA unlock bans. I think people need to chill out and take the game less seriously, if you like Highlander more than 6v6 good for you and vice versa, least you're not playing CS:GO.
Was Infinite on bonus? I'm pretty sure he was on heavy for my first season of highlander.
Was Infinite on bonus? I'm pretty sure he was on heavy for my first season of highlander.
RikachuWas Infinite on bonus? I'm pretty sure he was on heavy for my first season of highlander.
yes
[quote=Rikachu]Was Infinite on bonus? I'm pretty sure he was on heavy for my first season of highlander.[/quote]
yes
HildrethI think people need to chill out and take the game less seriously, if you like Highlander more than 6v6 good for you and vice versa, least you're not playing CS:GO.
i feel like this is directed at me :(
[quote=Hildreth]I think people need to chill out and take the game less seriously, if you like Highlander more than 6v6 good for you and vice versa, least you're not playing CS:GO.[/quote]
i feel like this is directed at me :(
As a new TF2 player with about 300 hours in game at the moment, I've been interested in finding out what it takes to enter the competitive scene. 'What it takes' includes improving my skills/playing more. This thread however, seems to me, and I could obviously be wrong - since I'm new - it seems to me that none of this will help grow the TF2 competitive scene. 6v6 players could be right when they say that 9v9 is close to pubbing. 9v9 players could be right when they say that 6v6 players are arrogant. But what's the goal here? You really want the other side to give and say "OH! You are right!"? You guys should be more focused on promoting your game and helping the newbies (great job Vick with newbies mixes) so that you can grow your sport. If you don't get new players, which you ALL were at some point, your sport will die. Besides. Everyone knows Jumping > 6's and HL as a TF2 sport.
As a new TF2 player with about 300 hours in game at the moment, I've been interested in finding out what it takes to enter the competitive scene. 'What it takes' includes improving my skills/playing more. This thread however, seems to me, and I could obviously be wrong - since I'm new - it seems to me that none of this will help grow the TF2 competitive scene. 6v6 players could be right when they say that 9v9 is close to pubbing. 9v9 players could be right when they say that 6v6 players are arrogant. But what's the goal here? You really want the other side to give and say "OH! You are right!"? You guys should be more focused on promoting your game and helping the newbies (great job Vick with newbies mixes) so that you can grow your sport. If you don't get new players, which you ALL were at some point, your sport will die. [i]Besides.[/i] [i]Everyone knows Jumping > 6's and HL as a TF2 sport. [/i]
Just a point to Mustard as to why I wouldn't want to swap a Spy or Pyro for a Scout 90% of the time:
Highlander lends itself at the higher level to situations where those classes need to be useful. With ridiculously high level Snipers playing, it's not uncommon for your Heavy to get Sniped. With that, your team is automatically at a disadvantage, and smart players on the enemy team will proceed to bomb in on your Medic.
There's just... no way you can agree that a Scout is a better pocket than a Pyro.
As for Spies, once again, at the higher level... it's rare for teams to make mistakes when holding points. This means that teams are often forced to overheal and support their Sniper through a choke so he can (hopefully) get a pick. Another, just as valid, tactic would be to coordinate aggression from your Soldier bombing once your Spy is in position behind the enemy. Say you've got a top-tier Soldier, as more and more teams are getting. The entire team (especially the Pyro) would be focused on denying the Soldier's bomb, leaving an opening for a Spy.
It's just not nearly as easy and much less likely that a Scout could get by a flank with 9 people watching it. Invisibility is better than speed 90% of the time.
Just a point to Mustard as to why I wouldn't want to swap a Spy or Pyro for a Scout 90% of the time:
Highlander [i]lends itself[/i] at the higher level to situations where those classes need to be useful. With ridiculously high level Snipers playing, it's not uncommon for your Heavy to get Sniped. With that, your team is automatically at a disadvantage, and smart players on the enemy team will proceed to bomb in on your Medic.
There's just... no way you can agree that a Scout is a better pocket than a Pyro.
As for Spies, once again, at the higher level... it's rare for teams to make mistakes when holding points. This means that teams are often forced to overheal and support their Sniper through a choke so he can (hopefully) get a pick. Another, just as valid, tactic would be to coordinate aggression from your Soldier bombing once your Spy is in position behind the enemy. Say you've got a top-tier Soldier, as more and more teams are getting. The entire team (especially the Pyro) would be focused on denying the Soldier's bomb, leaving an opening for a Spy.
It's just not nearly as easy and much less likely that a Scout could get by a flank with 9 people watching it. Invisibility is better than speed 90% of the time.
CygnastyJust a point to Mustard as to why I wouldn't want to swap a Spy or Pyro for a Scout 90% of the time:
Highlander lends itself at the higher level to situations where those classes need to be useful. With ridiculously high level Snipers playing, it's not uncommon for your Heavy to get Sniped. With that, your team is automatically at a disadvantage, and smart players on the enemy team will proceed to bomb in on your Medic.
There's just... no way you can agree that a Scout is a better pocket than a Pyro.
As for Spies, once again, at the higher level... it's rare for teams to make mistakes when holding points. This means that teams are often forced to overheal and support their Sniper through a choke so he can (hopefully) get a pick. Another, just as valid, tactic would be to coordinate aggression from your Soldier bombing once your Spy is in position behind the enemy. Say you've got a top-tier Soldier, as more and more teams are getting. The entire team (especially the Pyro) would be focused on denying the Soldier's bomb, leaving an opening for a Spy.
It's just not nearly as easy and much less likely that a Scout could get by a flank with 9 people watching it. Invisibility is better than speed 90% of the time.
again, you cannot argue that a pyro is more useful the majority of the time by naming a situation in which the pyro is more useful. yes, if a) the sniper kills your heavy, b) your medic gets immediately bombed, and c) you don't have like 4 other dudes around your medic, a pyro can protect the medic better.
he also does like half as much dmg as a scout and gets like a third as many kills. and I'm honestly sick of hearing people say "yeah, but he denies area, and puts people out, and reflects projectiles, etc.!"
yes, he has specific skills to compensate for the lack of damage. however, it doesn't make him as good overall. this is why tf2 is a game of generalists and specialists.
more damage and more kills >>>>>>>>>> ANY specific skillset of ANY class (excluding the medic obviously)
as for spy, you just named a specific situation wherein you can be useful. a scout still does WAY more over the course of the game.
the purpose of scout in hl is not to flank, most of the time. committing your scout fully just for the offchance of MAYBE getting a med pick or something is retarded. it is to win 1v1s and the like on the flank to create numbers advantages for your team. in light of that, 2 scouts would absolutely WRECK, and the 1 you have is doing way more for your team than any spy.
let's put it this way.
take -ts-, and replace ruwin with an iron scout.
or
take -ts-, and replace tmp with an iron pyro.
which is better?
I don't see how anyone could even argue this lol, some classes are just overall objectively better in this game than others, that's the way the game was designed
[quote=Cygnasty]Just a point to Mustard as to why I wouldn't want to swap a Spy or Pyro for a Scout 90% of the time:
Highlander [i]lends itself[/i] at the higher level to situations where those classes need to be useful. With ridiculously high level Snipers playing, it's not uncommon for your Heavy to get Sniped. With that, your team is automatically at a disadvantage, and smart players on the enemy team will proceed to bomb in on your Medic.
There's just... no way you can agree that a Scout is a better pocket than a Pyro.
As for Spies, once again, at the higher level... it's rare for teams to make mistakes when holding points. This means that teams are often forced to overheal and support their Sniper through a choke so he can (hopefully) get a pick. Another, just as valid, tactic would be to coordinate aggression from your Soldier bombing once your Spy is in position behind the enemy. Say you've got a top-tier Soldier, as more and more teams are getting. The entire team (especially the Pyro) would be focused on denying the Soldier's bomb, leaving an opening for a Spy.
It's just not nearly as easy and much less likely that a Scout could get by a flank with 9 people watching it. Invisibility is better than speed 90% of the time.[/quote]
again, you cannot argue that a pyro is more useful the majority of the time by naming a situation in which the pyro is more useful. yes, if a) the sniper kills your heavy, b) your medic gets immediately bombed, and c) you don't have like 4 other dudes around your medic, a pyro can protect the medic better.
he also does like half as much dmg as a scout and gets like a third as many kills. and I'm honestly sick of hearing people say "yeah, but he denies area, and puts people out, and reflects projectiles, etc.!"
yes, he has specific skills to compensate for the lack of damage. however, it doesn't make him as good overall. this is why tf2 is a game of generalists and specialists.
more damage and more kills >>>>>>>>>> ANY specific skillset of ANY class (excluding the medic obviously)
as for spy, you just named a specific situation wherein you can be useful. a scout still does WAY more over the course of the game.
the purpose of scout in hl is not to flank, most of the time. committing your scout fully just for the offchance of MAYBE getting a med pick or something is retarded. it is to win 1v1s and the like on the flank to create numbers advantages for your team. in light of that, 2 scouts would absolutely WRECK, and the 1 you have is doing way more for your team than any spy.
let's put it this way.
take -ts-, and replace ruwin with an iron scout.
or
take -ts-, and replace tmp with an iron pyro.
which is better?
I don't see how anyone could even argue this lol, some classes are just overall objectively better in this game than others, that's the way the game was designed
The difference between Ruwin and an iron scout vs. TMP and an iron pyro is laughable.
Mustard, we get your point, it would make more sense to have 2 heavies, 3 medics, and 4 demomen in highlander, wouldn't it? Area denial, heals, damage? By your logic, that would be the best way, right?
Well we don't care that scouts do more damage than spies or pyros, people like to play those classes, they are very useful for specific things that happen pretty frequently in highlander (things that scouts just aren't as good for), and that's why people enjoy highlander.
The difference between Ruwin and an iron scout vs. TMP and an iron pyro is laughable.
Mustard, we get your point, it would make more sense to have 2 heavies, 3 medics, and 4 demomen in highlander, wouldn't it? Area denial, heals, damage? By your logic, that would be the best way, right?
Well we don't care that scouts do more damage than spies or pyros, people like to play those classes, they are very useful for specific things that happen pretty frequently in highlander (things that scouts just aren't as good for), and that's why people enjoy highlander.
CygnastyThere's just... no way you can agree that a Scout is a better pocket than a Pyro.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/SBTexans08/GIFS/larry_david_reaction.gif
[quote=Cygnasty]
There's just... no way you can agree that a Scout is a better pocket than a Pyro.
[/quote]
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/SBTexans08/GIFS/larry_david_reaction.gif[/img]
vanillaThe difference between Ruwin and an iron scout vs. TMP and an iron pyro is laughable.
Mustard, we get your point, it would make more sense to have 2 heavies, 3 medics, and 4 demomen in highlander, wouldn't it? Area denial, heals, damage? By your logic, that would be the best way, right?
Well we don't care that scouts do more damage than spies or pyros, people like to play those classes, they are very useful for specific things that happen pretty frequently in highlander (things that scouts just aren't as good for), and that's why people enjoy highlander.
you completely, one hundred percent missed my point
I AM NOT ARGUING FOR CHANGING HL IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER
I am just discussing the inherent limitations of hl as a competitive format, being as how some people on a team are forced to play a less important role than others, something that I think is poor for a competitive game (although perhaps that's just my feeling)
I am forced to keep posing these scenarios because none of the hl players here seem willing to admit, even for a second, that certain classes are just overall worse than others.
that doesn't mean hl shouldn't be one of every class. obviously it should be. that doesn't mean hl isn't fun. I love hl.
it means exactly what I said.
scout is an overall better class than pyro or spy, PERIOD. this cannot be debated. it is a fact.
[quote=vanilla]The difference between Ruwin and an iron scout vs. TMP and an iron pyro is laughable.
Mustard, we get your point, it would make more sense to have 2 heavies, 3 medics, and 4 demomen in highlander, wouldn't it? Area denial, heals, damage? By your logic, that would be the best way, right?
Well we don't care that scouts do more damage than spies or pyros, people like to play those classes, they are very useful for specific things that happen pretty frequently in highlander (things that scouts just aren't as good for), and that's why people enjoy highlander.[/quote]
you completely, one hundred percent missed my point
I AM NOT ARGUING FOR CHANGING HL IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER
I am just discussing the inherent limitations of hl as a competitive format, being as how some people on a team are forced to play a less important role than others, something that I think is poor for a competitive game (although perhaps that's just my feeling)
I am forced to keep posing these scenarios because none of the hl players here seem willing to admit, even for a second, that certain classes are just overall worse than others.
that doesn't mean hl shouldn't be one of every class. obviously it should be. that doesn't mean hl isn't fun. I love hl.
it means exactly what I said.
scout is an overall better class than pyro or spy, PERIOD. this cannot be debated. it is a fact.
i think it was pretty apparent there are generalists and specialists in tf2 about 50-100 hours in
i think it was pretty apparent there are generalists and specialists in tf2 about 50-100 hours in
exactly, and I'm pretty sure every player here knows it
there just seems to be some denial
saying something like
"Well we don't care that scouts do more damage than spies or pyros, people like to play those classes, they are very useful for specific things that happen pretty frequently in highlander (things that scouts just aren't as good for)"
is really just a euphemistic way of saying "scout is usually better than spy and pyro because it is a generalist, spy and pyro are better in some specific situations because they are specialists"
yes those situations arise a lot in hl. I guarantee you they would arise a lot in 6s as well. scout is still better overall. fact. end of argument.
exactly, and I'm pretty sure every player here knows it
there just seems to be some denial
saying something like
"Well we don't care that scouts do more damage than spies or pyros, people like to play those classes, they are very useful for specific things that happen pretty frequently in highlander (things that scouts just aren't as good for)"
is really just a euphemistic way of saying "scout is usually better than spy and pyro because it is a generalist, spy and pyro are better in some specific situations because they are specialists"
yes those situations arise a lot in hl. I guarantee you they would arise a lot in 6s as well. scout is still better overall. fact. end of argument.
mustardoverlordvanillaThe difference between Ruwin and an iron scout vs. TMP and an iron pyro is laughable.
Mustard, we get your point, it would make more sense to have 2 heavies, 3 medics, and 4 demomen in highlander, wouldn't it? Area denial, heals, damage? By your logic, that would be the best way, right?
Well we don't care that scouts do more damage than spies or pyros, people like to play those classes, they are very useful for specific things that happen pretty frequently in highlander (things that scouts just aren't as good for), and that's why people enjoy highlander.
you completely, one hundred percent missed my point
I AM NOT ARGUING FOR CHANGING HL IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER
I am just discussing the inherent limitations of hl as a competitive format, being as how some people on a team are forced to play a less important role than others, something that I think is poor for a competitive game (although perhaps that's just my feeling)
I am forced to keep posing these scenarios because none of the hl players here seem willing to admit, even for a second, that certain classes are just overall worse than others.
that doesn't mean hl shouldn't be one of every class. obviously it should be. that doesn't mean hl isn't fun. I love hl.
it means exactly what I said.
scout is an overall better class than pyro or spy, PERIOD. this cannot be debated. it is a fact.
I think you missed *my* point. Using your logic we can argue that the 6v6 format is limited because we only use 1 demoman. They are the primary damage dealer, right? Scout is a lesser role than demo, right? Wouldn't you trade 1 scout for 1 demo on your 6s team? 6s is inherently limited because we can only have 1 demo.
[quote=mustardoverlord][quote=vanilla]The difference between Ruwin and an iron scout vs. TMP and an iron pyro is laughable.
Mustard, we get your point, it would make more sense to have 2 heavies, 3 medics, and 4 demomen in highlander, wouldn't it? Area denial, heals, damage? By your logic, that would be the best way, right?
Well we don't care that scouts do more damage than spies or pyros, people like to play those classes, they are very useful for specific things that happen pretty frequently in highlander (things that scouts just aren't as good for), and that's why people enjoy highlander.[/quote]
you completely, one hundred percent missed my point
I AM NOT ARGUING FOR CHANGING HL IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER
I am just discussing the inherent limitations of hl as a competitive format, being as how some people on a team are forced to play a less important role than others, something that I think is poor for a competitive game (although perhaps that's just my feeling)
I am forced to keep posing these scenarios because none of the hl players here seem willing to admit, even for a second, that certain classes are just overall worse than others.
that doesn't mean hl shouldn't be one of every class. obviously it should be. that doesn't mean hl isn't fun. I love hl.
it means exactly what I said.
scout is an overall better class than pyro or spy, PERIOD. this cannot be debated. it is a fact.[/quote]
I think you missed *my* point. Using your logic we can argue that the 6v6 format is limited because we only use 1 demoman. They are the primary damage dealer, right? Scout is a lesser role than demo, right? Wouldn't you trade 1 scout for 1 demo on your 6s team? 6s is inherently limited because we can only have 1 demo.
vanillaI think you missed *my* point. Using your logic we can argue that the 6v6 format is limited because we only use 1 demoman. They are the primary damage dealer, right? Scout is a lesser role than demo, right? Wouldn't you trade 1 scout for 1 demo on your 6s team? 6s is inherently limited because we can only have 1 demo.
holy shit
you missed his point again
mustard is probably in tears at this point
[quote=vanilla]
I think you missed *my* point. Using your logic we can argue that the 6v6 format is limited because we only use 1 demoman. They are the primary damage dealer, right? Scout is a lesser role than demo, right? Wouldn't you trade 1 scout for 1 demo on your 6s team? 6s is inherently limited because we can only have 1 demo.[/quote]
holy shit
you missed his point again
mustard is probably in tears at this point
His point was that the highlander format is limited because some classes are weaker on an overall basis (i.e. scout is overall stronger than spy or pyro), forcing some players to play a lesser role, which is a bad thing for a competitive format. Meaning the class limitations in highlander (1 of every class) make highlander a less-than-ideal comp format.
I don't know why he's trying to make that point about highlander when you can say the exact same thing about 6v6 (demo is an overall better class than scout, but due to the class restrictions in 6s, you can only have one demo. Which means that some players are playing a lesser class, which means that 6v6 is a less-than-ideal comp format). If you're trying to make a comment about highlander (whether it's positive or negative), choose something that is specific to highlander, and not something that is general to everything.
His point was that the highlander format is limited because some classes are weaker on an overall basis (i.e. scout is overall stronger than spy or pyro), forcing some players to play a lesser role, which is a bad thing for a competitive format. Meaning the class limitations in highlander (1 of every class) make highlander a less-than-ideal comp format.
I don't know why he's trying to make that point about highlander when you can say the exact same thing about 6v6 (demo is an overall better class than scout, but due to the class restrictions in 6s, you can only have one demo. Which means that some players are playing a lesser class, which means that 6v6 is a less-than-ideal comp format). If you're trying to make a comment about highlander (whether it's positive or negative), choose something that is specific to highlander, and not something that is general to everything.
onli fgt nublrds play Hilandr. Amirite guise?
onli fgt nublrds play Hilandr. Amirite guise?
imo setting the class limit to two for soldier and scout really balances the class in 6v6.
scout becomes EXPONENTIALLY stronger with two scouts running around, not just a little bit better. soldier as well has a much bigger influence when there are two sollies.
imo setting the class limit to two for soldier and scout really balances the class in 6v6.
scout becomes EXPONENTIALLY stronger with two scouts running around, not just a little bit better. soldier as well has a much bigger influence when there are two sollies.
Mustard made his core point here:
"I am just discussing the inherent limitations of hl as a competitive format, being as how some people on a team are forced to play a less important role than others, something that I think is poor for a competitive game (although perhaps that's just my feeling)"
But I don't get your feeling at all. The whole point of competitive anything is that you set up some rules, both sides have an equal start, or access to the same resources, and then you see which person or team of people can utilize it better. So in 6s we say "Hey let's have a game where you must have no more than 6 people on your team and there can be only 2 of each class, save for demo, medic, and heavy." Awesome! Enjoy the game! Now another format, HL, comes along and says "Ok you can have no more than 9 dudes on your team and no more than one of each class." Great! Enjoy that now too! Both are interesting and unique formats that have many subtleties that are unique to them.
Wait so... let me get this straight... support and specialist classes are less critical than the main fragging classes? Fascinating! Who cares? In HL you still need to fill your roster and have all positions manned. And doing a good job at those positions DOES make a difference in the grand scheme of things, even if it's not quite as critical 100% of the time as the fraggers. How in the hell is this "poor for a competitive game"? Why don't we play where we're all the same dudes and use AK47s and M4s. That'd be exciting and maximumly competitive, right? Or why don't we play Quake and all have a rocket launcher, lightning gun, and rail gun. Because this is Team Fortress... with classes that are inherently different and have different strengths and weaknesses. That is part of the fun.
I know a dude who was in the Air Force. Do you know what he did there? You're probably thinking fighter pilot, but no. His job was to drive a bus. That's right. Now I'm not saying driving a bus is fun (though it does sound pretty fun right now actually--I've never done it) but him doing his job well was important. Ok that was a terrible analogy. Playing any class in TF2 is more fun that driving a bus for the Air Force. Hopefully I was able to make my point that all of this "You have missed my point. What I am trying to say is that [pointless and needless explanation of why some classes are generalists]..." is just that. Hypothetical pointlessness.
Mustard made his core point here:
"I am just discussing the inherent limitations of hl as a competitive format, being as how some people on a team are forced to play a less important role than others, something that I think is poor for a competitive game (although perhaps that's just my feeling)"
But I don't get your feeling at all. The whole point of competitive anything is that you set up some rules, both sides have an equal start, or access to the same resources, and then you see which person or team of people can utilize it better. So in 6s we say "Hey let's have a game where you must have no more than 6 people on your team and there can be only 2 of each class, save for demo, medic, and heavy." Awesome! Enjoy the game! Now another format, HL, comes along and says "Ok you can have no more than 9 dudes on your team and no more than one of each class." Great! Enjoy that now too! Both are interesting and unique formats that have many subtleties that are unique to them.
Wait so... let me get this straight... support and specialist classes are less critical than the main fragging classes? Fascinating! Who cares? In HL you still need to fill your roster and have all positions manned. And doing a good job at those positions DOES make a difference in the grand scheme of things, even if it's not quite as critical 100% of the time as the fraggers. How in the hell is this "poor for a competitive game"? Why don't we play where we're all the same dudes and use AK47s and M4s. That'd be exciting and maximumly competitive, right? Or why don't we play Quake and all have a rocket launcher, lightning gun, and rail gun. Because this is Team Fortress... with classes that are inherently different and have different strengths and weaknesses. That is part of the fun.
I know a dude who was in the Air Force. Do you know what he did there? You're probably thinking fighter pilot, but no. His job was to drive a bus. That's right. Now I'm not saying driving a bus is fun (though it does sound pretty fun right now actually--I've never done it) but him doing his job well was important. Ok that was a terrible analogy. Playing any class in TF2 is more fun that driving a bus for the Air Force. Hopefully I was able to make my point that all of this "You have missed my point. What I am trying to say is that [pointless and needless explanation of why some classes are generalists]..." is just that. Hypothetical pointlessness.
Thank you, JaguarFiend, you see my point. Who gives a shit if one class is underpowered overall? You can make that argument for 6s as well, so there's no point in making it for highlander if you can make the exact same for 6s.
Highlander is great with 1 of each class, it's balanced that way and spy and pyro make a big difference with those limitations. See? Same goes for 6s, the class limitations work and are great within that framework. Different format, but both have limitations. No point in arguing about that.
Thank you, JaguarFiend, you see my point. Who gives a shit if one class is underpowered overall? You can make that argument for 6s as well, so there's no point in making it for highlander if you can make the exact same for 6s.
Highlander is great with 1 of each class, it's balanced that way and spy and pyro make a big difference with those limitations. See? Same goes for 6s, the class limitations work and are great within that framework. Different format, but both have limitations. No point in arguing about that.
Jaguar,
Like I said, it was just my opinion, and I completely respect other peoples'. The only thing I would object to is:
JaguarFiendWait so... let me get this straight... support and specialist classes are less critical than the main fragging classes? Fascinating! Who cares? In HL you still need to fill your roster and have all positions manned. And doing a good job at those positions DOES make a difference in the grand scheme of things, even if it's not quite as critical 100% of the time as the fraggers. How in the hell is this "poor for a competitive game"? Why don't we play where we're all the same dudes and use AK47s and M4s. That'd be exciting and maximumly competitive, right? Or why don't we play Quake and all have a rocket launcher, lightning gun, and rail gun. Because this is Team Fortress... with classes that are inherently different and have different strengths and weaknesses. That is part of the fun.
The difference in those other games is that every player has the POTENTIAL to acquire the better weapons, through strategy. in tf2 some players are INHERENTLY limited to play a weaker class. you can't even switch classes in hl, so the problem becomes exacerbated, whereas a scout in 6s can snipe or heavy if need be but still play scout in the 90% of the time where it's more powerful.
The thing is, as we all know, tf2 at its heart is not balanced around competitive play. thus, some alteration has to be done to make the classes more even. the 6s solution is to frown on players playing some of the classes and have people play 4/9 most of the time. the upside to this is the balance, and the downside to it is the inaccessibility (5/9 players have only a very small niche for their class). the hl solution is to just force 1 of each class. the upside is the accessibility, and the downside is the balance. it's sad that you can't have both imo, but that doesn't make one inherently better than the other. all I was doing was accurately pointing out the downside to hl (and the only reason I was bringing it up is because other people were listing downsides of hl and they missed what I felt was the largest one).
Jaguar,
Like I said, it was just my opinion, and I completely respect other peoples'. The only thing I would object to is:
[quote=JaguarFiend]
Wait so... let me get this straight... support and specialist classes are less critical than the main fragging classes? Fascinating! Who cares? In HL you still need to fill your roster and have all positions manned. And doing a good job at those positions DOES make a difference in the grand scheme of things, even if it's not quite as critical 100% of the time as the fraggers. How in the hell is this "poor for a competitive game"? Why don't we play where we're all the same dudes and use AK47s and M4s. That'd be exciting and maximumly competitive, right? Or why don't we play Quake and all have a rocket launcher, lightning gun, and rail gun. Because this is Team Fortress... with classes that are inherently different and have different strengths and weaknesses. That is part of the fun.[/quote]
The difference in those other games is that every player has the POTENTIAL to acquire the better weapons, through strategy. in tf2 some players are INHERENTLY limited to play a weaker class. you can't even switch classes in hl, so the problem becomes exacerbated, whereas a scout in 6s can snipe or heavy if need be but still play scout in the 90% of the time where it's more powerful.
The thing is, as we all know, tf2 at its heart is not balanced around competitive play. thus, some alteration has to be done to make the classes more even. the 6s solution is to frown on players playing some of the classes and have people play 4/9 most of the time. the upside to this is the balance, and the downside to it is the inaccessibility (5/9 players have only a very small niche for their class). the hl solution is to just force 1 of each class. the upside is the accessibility, and the downside is the balance. it's sad that you can't have both imo, but that doesn't make one inherently better than the other. all I was doing was accurately pointing out the downside to hl (and the only reason I was bringing it up is because other people were listing downsides of hl and they missed what I felt was the largest one).
vanillaThank you, JaguarFiend, you see my point. Who gives a shit if one class is underpowered overall? You can make that argument for 6s as well, so there's no point in making it for highlander if you can make the exact same for 6s.
Highlander is great with 1 of each class, it's balanced that way and spy and pyro make a big difference with those limitations. See? Same goes for 6s, the class limitations work and are great within that framework. Different format, but both have limitations. No point in arguing about that.
No. no, no, no, no, no.
You see? this is why I keep arguing.
What Jaguar said was reasonable and perfectly fine. He essentially said "yeah, so some classes are generalists and some are specialists? so what? it's still funsies!"
That argument is fine because it ACKNOWLEDGES what I am arguing to be true, and yet says that it does not matter as much as I say it does. I can totally agree to disagree with him.
Your problem is that you are still in denial of the BASIC TRUTH that has to be accepted, that 6s is balanced such that every class is always useful and hl isn't. You say "you can make that argument for 6s as well". As I have said, with the way class limits function in 6s, you CANNOT make that argument for 6s. Why dyou think class limits are 2 for some classes and 1 for others? it's for balance, to prevent this.
Then you say "Highlander is great with 1 of each class, it's balanced that way and spy and pyro make a big difference with those limitations." Again, not true. Highlander is not limited at 1 per class for balance, it's limited 1 per class for inclusiveness, as I said. It would be a fantastic coincidence if having one of every class just HAPPENED to balance the game so each class had an equal influence on it, especially when Valve themselves have pointed out that the game was designed around generalists and specialists.
I had no intention to drag this out into such a huge debate, because I have no problem with people saying they think my priorities are in the wrong place and having each person on a team being equally useful is not actually that important. The problem is when people refuse to even acknowledge that much.
IN HIGHLANDER, SOME CLASSES ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS. THIS IS MUCH LESS TRUE IN 6S, BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT NUMBER OF PLAYERS/CLASS LIMITS.
If you can acknowledge that statement above to be true, we can end this debate. As I said, that should not be the root of what we're arguing about, the core of the argument should be "does the above fact matter?" I'm fine with people thinking it doesn't. However, you can't just say it's not true, when it blatantly is.
[quote=vanilla]Thank you, JaguarFiend, you see my point. Who gives a shit if one class is underpowered overall? You can make that argument for 6s as well, so there's no point in making it for highlander if you can make the exact same for 6s.
Highlander is great with 1 of each class, it's balanced that way and spy and pyro make a big difference with those limitations. See? Same goes for 6s, the class limitations work and are great within that framework. Different format, but both have limitations. No point in arguing about that.[/quote]
No. no, no, no, no, no.
You see? this is why I keep arguing.
What Jaguar said was reasonable and perfectly fine. He essentially said "yeah, so some classes are generalists and some are specialists? so what? it's still funsies!"
That argument is fine because it ACKNOWLEDGES what I am arguing to be true, and yet says that it does not matter as much as I say it does. I can totally agree to disagree with him.
Your problem is that you are still in denial of the BASIC TRUTH that has to be accepted, that 6s is balanced such that every class is always useful and hl isn't. You say "you can make that argument for 6s as well". As I have said, with the way class limits function in 6s, you CANNOT make that argument for 6s. Why dyou think class limits are 2 for some classes and 1 for others? it's for balance, to prevent this.
Then you say "Highlander is great with 1 of each class, it's balanced that way and spy and pyro make a big difference with those limitations." Again, not true. Highlander is not limited at 1 per class for balance, it's limited 1 per class for inclusiveness, as I said. It would be a fantastic coincidence if having one of every class just HAPPENED to balance the game so each class had an equal influence on it, especially when Valve themselves have pointed out that the game was designed around generalists and specialists.
I had no intention to drag this out into such a huge debate, because I have no problem with people saying they think my priorities are in the wrong place and having each person on a team being equally useful is not actually that important. The problem is when people refuse to even acknowledge that much.
IN HIGHLANDER, SOME CLASSES ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS. THIS IS MUCH LESS TRUE IN 6S, BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT NUMBER OF PLAYERS/CLASS LIMITS.
If you can acknowledge that statement above to be true, we can end this debate. As I said, that should not be the root of what we're arguing about, the core of the argument should be "does the above fact matter?" I'm fine with people thinking it doesn't. However, you can't just say it's not true, when it blatantly is.