DrPloxoInter-class balance is just the thing though, every class keeps getting unlocks to be at the level of scout/demo/solly.
Most if not all of your arguing points require you to git the fuck good. If those weapons are so necessary to the respective classes, why haven't they replaced the stock weapons yet? You shouldn't really be stuck 1v1ing constantly either; sure it happens sometimes if you're caught out or something but if you're constantly fighting other classes 1 on 1 without any help, that's a fault on your end, not the class's end. If you're playing 6s or HL, your team should be cooperating with you and vice versa. If your team is constantly failing to work together to win, that's a team issue and that's what practice is for.
[quote=DrPloxo]Inter-class balance is just the thing though, every class keeps getting unlocks to be at the level of scout/demo/solly.[/quote]
Most if not all of your arguing points require you to [b]git the fuck good[/b]. If those weapons are so necessary to the respective classes, why haven't they replaced the stock weapons yet? You shouldn't really be stuck 1v1ing constantly either; sure it happens sometimes if you're caught out or something but if you're constantly fighting other classes 1 on 1 without any help, that's a fault on your end, not the class's end. If you're playing 6s or HL, your team should be cooperating with you and vice versa. If your team is constantly failing to work together to win, that's a team issue and that's what practice is for.
Oh Yeah Wrangler and Rescue Ranger are perfectly balanced for 6v6, and the attacking team just needs to "git gud".
Oh Yeah Wrangler and Rescue Ranger are perfectly balanced for 6v6, and the attacking team just needs to "git gud".
DrPloxoGunslinger and wrangler make an otherwise slow, set-up dependent scout able to compete with the faster classes.
Stickies are only awful when in the hands of somebody good, otherwise they're just a nuisance. Scout is by far the best class, which is why a lot of the more imbalanced weapons (read gunslinger) have seen very little re-balancing. And spy 1v1 is pretty silly, but not unfeasible with unlocks (ambi and enforcer come to mind).
Like, 1v1 none of these things are specifically incredible barring stickies and scouts. And only in a chaotic situations like a pub do they get frustrating enough to complain about. MGE with a mini would be pretty crappy if your'e a scout, but definitely not unbeatable.
Gunslinger and wrangler depend on the opposing team being able to output enough damage to counteract them, IE their effectiveness is inversely related to player size (and demo limit but yeah)
Demos are similar, where their effectiveness increases with number of targets present, as well as the increased number of players being the primary counter of
Scout, who is countered by spam, and engi, and engi is bolstered by an increased player count as the extra players on chokes makes pushing slower to the point where setting up guns is more feasible thereby making scout and pyro less useful
also rofl if ur implying that a 1v1 with scout v minis is actually beatable w/o the engi having worse accuracy than the scout (ie being a shittier player)
[quote=DrPloxo]
Gunslinger and wrangler make an otherwise slow, set-up dependent scout able to compete with the faster classes.
Stickies are only awful when in the hands of somebody good, otherwise they're just a nuisance. Scout is by far the best class, which is why a lot of the more imbalanced weapons (read gunslinger) have seen very little re-balancing. And spy 1v1 is pretty silly, but not unfeasible with unlocks (ambi and enforcer come to mind).
Like, 1v1 none of these things are specifically incredible barring stickies and scouts. And only in a chaotic situations like a pub do they get frustrating enough to complain about. MGE with a mini would be pretty crappy if your'e a scout, but definitely not unbeatable.
[/quote] Gunslinger and wrangler depend on the opposing team being able to output enough damage to counteract them, IE their effectiveness is inversely related to player size (and demo limit but yeah)
Demos are similar, where their effectiveness increases with number of targets present, as well as the increased number of players being the primary counter of
Scout, who is countered by spam, and engi, and engi is bolstered by an increased player count as the extra players on chokes makes pushing slower to the point where setting up guns is more feasible thereby making scout and pyro less useful
also rofl if ur implying that a 1v1 with scout v minis is actually beatable w/o the engi having worse accuracy than the scout (ie being a shittier player)
TurinOh Yeah Wrangler and Rescue Ranger are perfectly balanced for 6v6, and the attacking team just needs to "git gud".
He's talking about the necessity of unlocks. Reading comprehension.
[quote=Turin]Oh Yeah Wrangler and Rescue Ranger are perfectly balanced for 6v6, and the attacking team just needs to "git gud".[/quote]
He's talking about the necessity of unlocks. Reading comprehension.
GentlemanJonThe AWP also won't be bought in every round, the CS mechanic is very much like pick/ban except there's an added element of resource management and reward for success. The ruleset doesn't stay any more consistent than TF2 with no weapon restrictions. Many complaints about never knowing what weapons your opponents are using with larger whitelists apply to CS, except the timescale is different.
I'll illustrate. In a CS game you get up to 30 rounds, in TF2 5cp you get up to 10-ish (depending on ruleset) which will feature roughly 3-5 point caps on average which are analogous to bomb attempts in CS. That adds up to 30-50 events (if you got 10 rounds which is rare, more likely 21-35 total events for 7 rounds) which also happen to coincide with action that causes respawns, so comparatively the players will get a similar number of chances to change loadout to a CS game. The primary difference is that the pace of the game is faster.
I disagree. One restriction is caused by game mechanics, while the other is totally independent of game situation. It's the difference between a player being temporarily unable to buy an AWP because their team did not save or win enough rounds to do so and a player being permanently unable to buy an AWP because of a decision made pre-game. In the former instance, only the team faced with the decision is directly affecting the choices available, and that too based on their performance, while in the latter instance, both teams have a direct effect on the available choices, with the game's progression having no bearing.
That distinction is significant because in Dota, where you see the pick/ban stage, the strategies of the game are primarily based on the heroes played, and so placing more weight upon these lineups through a pick/ban stage is ideal. In CS and TF2, however, the strategies of the game are primarily based around the map, which has a partial effect in some classes/weapons being more powerful than others. When the meta is based around a certain subset of classes and weapons because they're the most effective, it doesn't make sense to allow teams to arbitrarily eliminate those weapons (and consequently the ability of players to affect the game with their mastery of said weapons) just for the sake of increasing variability.
[quote=GentlemanJon]The AWP also won't be bought in every round, the CS mechanic is very much like pick/ban except there's an added element of resource management and reward for success. The ruleset doesn't stay any more consistent than TF2 with no weapon restrictions. Many complaints about never knowing what weapons your opponents are using with larger whitelists apply to CS, except the timescale is different.
I'll illustrate. In a CS game you get up to 30 rounds, in TF2 5cp you get up to 10-ish (depending on ruleset) which will feature roughly 3-5 point caps on average which are analogous to bomb attempts in CS. That adds up to 30-50 events (if you got 10 rounds which is rare, more likely 21-35 total events for 7 rounds) which also happen to coincide with action that causes respawns, so comparatively the players will get a similar number of chances to change loadout to a CS game. The primary difference is that the pace of the game is faster.[/quote]
I disagree. One restriction is caused by game mechanics, while the other is totally independent of game situation. It's the difference between a player being temporarily unable to buy an AWP because their team did not save or win enough rounds to do so and a player being permanently unable to buy an AWP because of a decision made pre-game. In the former instance, only the team faced with the decision is directly affecting the choices available, and that too based on their performance, while in the latter instance, both teams have a direct effect on the available choices, with the game's progression having no bearing.
That distinction is significant because in Dota, where you see the pick/ban stage, the strategies of the game are primarily based on the heroes played, and so placing more weight upon these lineups through a pick/ban stage is ideal. In CS and TF2, however, the strategies of the game are primarily based around the map, which has a partial effect in some classes/weapons being more powerful than others. When the meta is based around a certain subset of classes and weapons because they're the most effective, it doesn't make sense to allow teams to arbitrarily eliminate those weapons (and consequently the ability of players to affect the game with their mastery of said weapons) just for the sake of increasing variability.
I've wanted to see Arena Mode itself grow as a competitive format, and first hearing about Arena:Respawn, I was excited with the inclusion of the game-changing respawn advantage intertwined into the foundation that is Arena.
However, I was turned off on the idea of class bans in general, because as it's been mentioned, class bans work in other games and therefore should work in tf2; the truth is far from this, as a class ban limits what a player can choose to play. Arena may favor strong soldiers or snipers or demos, but that's just a foundation that can conform to different team styles and strategies. Banning these classes limits player-ability.
The whitelist as well is limiting on the brokenness of some weapons. In general, you're gonna have beggar's bazooka users or short circuit users because these weapons simply outshine other weapons or completely shut down others.
Arena Respawn should take a look at the truly game-breaking weapons (the aforementioned), and keep them out of play. Weapons like pocket pistol, although game-changing, are not game breaking to the degree of short circuit and beggar's. The fine line between broken and powerful should be the whitelist.
Arena has potential, I want to see it grow.
I've wanted to see Arena Mode itself grow as a competitive format, and first hearing about Arena:Respawn, I was excited with the inclusion of the game-changing respawn advantage intertwined into the foundation that is Arena.
However, I was turned off on the idea of class bans in general, because as it's been mentioned, class bans work in other games and therefore should work in tf2; the truth is far from this, as a class ban limits what a player can choose to play. Arena may favor strong soldiers or snipers or demos, but that's just a foundation that can conform to different team styles and strategies. [b]Banning these classes limits [i]player[/i]-ability.[/b]
The whitelist as well is limiting on the brokenness of some weapons. In general, you're gonna have beggar's bazooka users or short circuit users because these weapons simply outshine other weapons or completely shut down others.
Arena Respawn should take a look at the truly game-breaking weapons (the aforementioned), and keep them out of play. Weapons like pocket pistol, although game-changing, are not game breaking to the degree of short circuit and beggar's. The fine line between broken and powerful should be the whitelist.
Arena has potential, I want to see it grow.
I dont really understand why A:R ever became a thing. I can't think of anyone I've ever talked to who has ever played more than a couple lobbies who likes the idea of comp tf2 but just doesn't go for 6s/HL. Those two gamemodes get pretty much everyone, from the people who like competitive gaming and happen to play tf2, to the people who like tf2 and happen to be competitive. A:R just doesnt fill any niche. Neither does 4v4, which is why it's basically a complete failure as a gamemode. There wont be anyone who starts playing only A:R without already having a background in 6s/HL.
I dont really understand why A:R ever became a thing. I can't think of anyone I've ever talked to who has ever played more than a couple lobbies who likes the idea of comp tf2 but just doesn't go for 6s/HL. Those two gamemodes get pretty much everyone, from the people who like competitive gaming and happen to play tf2, to the people who like tf2 and happen to be competitive. A:R just doesnt fill any niche. Neither does 4v4, which is why it's basically a complete failure as a gamemode. There wont be anyone who starts playing only A:R without already having a background in 6s/HL.
thesupremecommanderI disagree. One restriction is caused by game mechanics, while the other is totally independent of game situation. It's the difference between a player being temporarily unable to buy an AWP because their team did not save or win enough rounds to do so and a player being permanently unable to buy an AWP because of a decision made pre-game. In the former instance, only the team faced with the decision is directly affecting the choices available, and that too based on their performance, while in the latter instance, both teams have a direct effect on the available choices, with the game's progression having no bearing.
That distinction is significant because in Dota, where you see the pick/ban stage, the strategies of the game are primarily based on the heroes played, and so placing more weight upon these lineups through a pick/ban stage is ideal. In CS and TF2, however, the strategies of the game are primarily based around the map, which has a partial effect in some classes/weapons being more powerful than others. When the meta is based around a certain subset of classes and weapons because they're the most effective, it doesn't make sense to allow teams to arbitrarily eliminate those weapons (and consequently the ability of players to affect the game with their mastery of said weapons) just for the sake of increasing variability.
I think you're making a false distinction both between CS and weapon pick/ban and the current whitelist methods and pick/ban. If you add pick/ban then it simply becomes a mechanic and the distinction disappears - the timing doesn't make it invalid in some way, the phase is simply moved elsewhere. In fact what you have now is far worse, you simply can't use weapons decided weeks, months, even years in advance. If predetermining banned weapons is bad, then whitelists are bad.
If you think it's more valid for teams to have selections that are varied from eachother that's possible too, but remember we're also talking about having an officially open whitelist with a mechanism that preserves the 6v6 meta. All of these conversations exist in the context of pleasing Valve, overt weapon bans are a barrier to that.
The map is not the single primary strategic factor otherwise the existing whitelists wouldn't matter on certain maps when obviously they would. The whitelist (in combination with class limits) completely dominates 6v6. It determines it's pace, it's structure, even which maps are suitable. Clearly the maps, whitelists and class limits interact with eachother to produce the current meta.
Finally pick/ban doesn't introduce variability, it prevents the introduction of variability except at levels of play that don't understand or want the established meta, whilst opening up the new channel of actually having something to offer Valve that they can use moving the community closer to dev support (given that they asked for it).
[quote=thesupremecommander]I disagree. One restriction is caused by game mechanics, while the other is totally independent of game situation. It's the difference between a player being temporarily unable to buy an AWP because their team did not save or win enough rounds to do so and a player being permanently unable to buy an AWP because of a decision made pre-game. In the former instance, only the team faced with the decision is directly affecting the choices available, and that too based on their performance, while in the latter instance, both teams have a direct effect on the available choices, with the game's progression having no bearing.
That distinction is significant because in Dota, where you see the pick/ban stage, the strategies of the game are primarily based on the heroes played, and so placing more weight upon these lineups through a pick/ban stage is ideal. In CS and TF2, however, the strategies of the game are primarily based around the map, which has a partial effect in some classes/weapons being more powerful than others. When the meta is based around a certain subset of classes and weapons because they're the most effective, it doesn't make sense to allow teams to arbitrarily eliminate those weapons (and consequently the ability of players to affect the game with their mastery of said weapons) just for the sake of increasing variability.[/quote]
I think you're making a false distinction both between CS and weapon pick/ban and the current whitelist methods and pick/ban. If you add pick/ban then it simply becomes a mechanic and the distinction disappears - the timing doesn't make it invalid in some way, the phase is simply moved elsewhere. In fact what you have now is far worse, you simply can't use weapons decided weeks, months, even years in advance. If predetermining banned weapons is bad, then whitelists are bad.
If you think it's more valid for teams to have selections that are varied from eachother that's possible too, but remember we're also talking about having an officially open whitelist with a mechanism that preserves the 6v6 meta. All of these conversations exist in the context of pleasing Valve, overt weapon bans are a barrier to that.
The map is not the single primary strategic factor otherwise the existing whitelists wouldn't matter on certain maps when obviously they would. The whitelist (in combination with class limits) completely dominates 6v6. It determines it's pace, it's structure, even which maps are suitable. Clearly the maps, whitelists and class limits interact with eachother to produce the current meta.
Finally pick/ban doesn't introduce variability, it prevents the introduction of variability except at levels of play that don't understand or want the established meta, whilst opening up the new channel of actually having something to offer Valve that they can use moving the community closer to dev support (given that they asked for it).
thats my boy kevinisPWN right there
thats my boy kevinisPWN right there
gr8stalinDrPloxoInter-class balance is just the thing though, every class keeps getting unlocks to be at the level of scout/demo/solly.
Most if not all of your arguing points require you to git the fuck good. If those weapons are so necessary to the respective classes, why haven't they replaced the stock weapons yet? You shouldn't really be stuck 1v1ing constantly either; sure it happens sometimes if you're caught out or something but if you're constantly fighting other classes 1 on 1 without any help, that's a fault on your end, not the class's end. If you're playing 6s or HL, your team should be cooperating with you and vice versa. If your team is constantly failing to work together to win, that's a team issue and that's what practice is for.
Because stock weapons are viable as well. And have different usages. Deadringer for spam-heavy chokey maps and all that jazz. Like, they're supposed to be side-grades, not upgrades. Which means in certain situations they are better, in certain situations they are worse, in case you needed that spelled out. (That may come off as condescending, I don't care, because your point seems to not understand that.)
gr8stalinTurinOh Yeah Wrangler and Rescue Ranger are perfectly balanced for 6v6, and the attacking team just needs to "git gud".
He's talking about the necessity of unlocks. Reading comprehension.
I'm talking about how they're balanced. Reading comprehension.
Everything is balanced to make 6's classes less dominant in both 1v1 and 16v16. It doesn't scale well, but it's an attempt.
See, balance, not necessity.
[quote=gr8stalin][quote=DrPloxo]Inter-class balance is just the thing though, every class keeps getting unlocks to be at the level of scout/demo/solly.[/quote]
Most if not all of your arguing points require you to [b]git the fuck good[/b]. If those weapons are so necessary to the respective classes, why haven't they replaced the stock weapons yet? You shouldn't really be stuck 1v1ing constantly either; sure it happens sometimes if you're caught out or something but if you're constantly fighting other classes 1 on 1 without any help, that's a fault on your end, not the class's end. If you're playing 6s or HL, your team should be cooperating with you and vice versa. If your team is constantly failing to work together to win, that's a team issue and that's what practice is for.[/quote]
Because stock weapons are viable as well. And have different usages. Deadringer for spam-heavy chokey maps and all that jazz. Like, they're supposed to be side-grades, not upgrades. Which means in certain situations they are better, in certain situations they are worse, in case you needed that spelled out. (That may come off as condescending, I don't care, because your point seems to not understand that.)
[quote=gr8stalin][quote=Turin]Oh Yeah Wrangler and Rescue Ranger are perfectly balanced for 6v6, and the attacking team just needs to "git gud".[/quote]
He's talking about the necessity of unlocks. Reading comprehension.[/quote]
I'm talking about how they're balanced. Reading comprehension.
[quote]
Everything is balanced to make 6's classes less dominant in both 1v1 and 16v16. It doesn't scale well, but it's an attempt.
[/quote]
See, balance, not necessity.
Mr_OwlI dont really understand why A:R ever became a thing. I can't think of anyone I've ever talked to who has ever played more than a couple lobbies who likes the idea of comp tf2 but just doesn't go for 6s/HL. Those two gamemodes get pretty much everyone, from the people who like competitive gaming and happen to play tf2, to the people who like tf2 and happen to be competitive. A:R just doesnt fill any niche. Neither does 4v4, which is why it's basically a complete failure as a gamemode. There wont be anyone who starts playing only A:R without already having a background in 6s/HL.
When you have an audience of thousands, it's possible to find a few dozen willing to play anything. A lot of the players that play in the A:R pugs currently (the ones I've talked to at least) are there to get casted, or people that can't find any 6s pugs.
Also, there's an A:R cup happening soon if you guys want to watch some gameplay to develop your own opinion. http://www.edge-gamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=278272
[quote=Mr_Owl]I dont really understand why A:R ever became a thing. I can't think of anyone I've ever talked to who has ever played more than a couple lobbies who likes the idea of comp tf2 but just doesn't go for 6s/HL. Those two gamemodes get pretty much everyone, from the people who like competitive gaming and happen to play tf2, to the people who like tf2 and happen to be competitive. A:R just doesnt fill any niche. Neither does 4v4, which is why it's basically a complete failure as a gamemode. There wont be anyone who starts playing only A:R without already having a background in 6s/HL.[/quote]
When you have an audience of thousands, it's possible to find a few dozen willing to play anything. A lot of the players that play in the A:R pugs currently (the ones I've talked to at least) are there to get casted, or people that can't find any 6s pugs.
Also, there's an A:R cup happening soon if you guys want to watch some gameplay to develop your own opinion. http://www.edge-gamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=278272
Mr_OwlI dont really understand why A:R ever became a thing. I can't think of anyone I've ever talked to who has ever played more than a couple lobbies who likes the idea of comp tf2 but just doesn't go for 6s/HL. Those two gamemodes get pretty much everyone, from the people who like competitive gaming and happen to play tf2, to the people who like tf2 and happen to be competitive. A:R just doesnt fill any niche. Neither does 4v4, which is why it's basically a complete failure as a gamemode. There wont be anyone who starts playing only A:R without already having a background in 6s/HL.
The idea isn't to appeal more to players, it's to appeal to Valve. There's no whitelist so it promotes Valve's new weapons and items, and it's a variation on the solution to the stale meta criticism. It re-opens a dialogue between the game developer and a small team competitive format which has been closed off in 6s, and by dialogue I mean changes they make to game as developers filter through in a meaningful way, not a talking shop.
Highlander has that relationship but it's unlikely to ever lead to a Lan championship with a big Valve prize pool because there are too many players in a team to have a supporting community of small Lans that prove the format.
It also satisfies Valve in another less obvious way. They are becoming more and more dependent on community produced content for their products, Extine is doing what they want in going out and promoting a new solution to the problems Valve have said they have with the competitive format. If he succeeds in popularising it then Valve will have the proof they need that it has potential and deals with a number of their objections to supporting a competitive format that is also Lan practical.
He's unlikely to convince many of the old guard, but the population will probably turn over by a sizeable percentage in the next 2 years so it may become another well used format by then. Personally I'm no fan of it, but I think there are solid reasons behind trying it that follow a logical thread.
[quote=Mr_Owl]I dont really understand why A:R ever became a thing. I can't think of anyone I've ever talked to who has ever played more than a couple lobbies who likes the idea of comp tf2 but just doesn't go for 6s/HL. Those two gamemodes get pretty much everyone, from the people who like competitive gaming and happen to play tf2, to the people who like tf2 and happen to be competitive. A:R just doesnt fill any niche. Neither does 4v4, which is why it's basically a complete failure as a gamemode. There wont be anyone who starts playing only A:R without already having a background in 6s/HL.[/quote]
The idea isn't to appeal more to players, it's to appeal to Valve. There's no whitelist so it promotes Valve's new weapons and items, and it's a variation on the solution to the stale meta criticism. It re-opens a dialogue between the game developer and a small team competitive format which has been closed off in 6s, and by dialogue I mean changes they make to game as developers filter through in a meaningful way, not a talking shop.
Highlander has that relationship but it's unlikely to ever lead to a Lan championship with a big Valve prize pool because there are too many players in a team to have a supporting community of small Lans that prove the format.
It also satisfies Valve in another less obvious way. They are becoming more and more dependent on community produced content for their products, Extine is doing what they want in going out and promoting a new solution to the problems Valve have said they have with the competitive format. If he succeeds in popularising it then Valve will have the proof they need that it has potential and deals with a number of their objections to supporting a competitive format that is also Lan practical.
He's unlikely to convince many of the old guard, but the population will probably turn over by a sizeable percentage in the next 2 years so it may become another well used format by then. Personally I'm no fan of it, but I think there are solid reasons behind trying it that follow a logical thread.
GentlemanJonThe idea isn't to appeal more to players, it's to appeal to Valve...
If he [extine] succeeds in popularising it then Valve will have the proof they need that it has potential and deals with a number of their objections to supporting a competitive format that is also Lan practical.
The very fundamental problem with that argument is that there is absolutely 0 reason to think that valve is even opened to being swayed by A:R and that, even if they were to say "Yeah, that new gamemode is pretty sick" that they would balance around it, support the competitive environment cultivated by it or do literally anything other than make hats and break shit on updates.
This whole A:R thing, extine's appeals to the community and these fundamental ideas are borne out of some sort of jealousy and denial romanticism where we see Valve giving loving to their other major IPs and we feel entitled to some of that pie too. But it isn't going to happen.
GentlemanJonHe's unlikely to convince many of the old guard, but the population will probably turn over by a sizeable percentage in the next 2 years so it may become another well used format by then. Personally I'm no fan of it, but I think there are solid reasons behind trying it that follow a logical thread.
The "old guard is holding us back" argument is also just old and tired. It is an easy cop out: "you don't like A:R or you don't want new gametypes because you have always played 6s."
If the population does turn over to A:R by a sizeable percentage, that probably won't be good for Competitive TF2, at least in North America. We already scrounged to get enough teams to have the only serious organization who actually does give us money and attention keep us around. If we start fracturing this community even more, it WILL kill TF2.
I will just reiterate what I have said in the last couple dozen threads about this shit. Valve isn't going to support TF2. So we have to support it ourselves. We will do that best by not fracturing the community, not endorsing gametypes that are nearly universally considered to not be competitively viable, and by continuing outreach to new players to show them what we already know: that 6s TF2 is fun, interesting and worth the slight learning curve to get into.
[quote=GentlemanJon]
The idea isn't to appeal more to players, it's to appeal to Valve...
If he [extine] succeeds in popularising it then Valve will have the proof they need that it has potential and deals with a number of their objections to supporting a competitive format that is also Lan practical.[/quote]
The very fundamental problem with that argument is that there is absolutely 0 reason to think that valve is even opened to being swayed by A:R and that, even if they were to say "Yeah, that new gamemode is pretty sick" that they would balance around it, support the competitive environment cultivated by it or do literally anything other than make hats and break shit on updates.
This whole A:R thing, extine's appeals to the community and these fundamental ideas are borne out of some sort of jealousy and denial romanticism where we see Valve giving loving to their other major IPs and we feel entitled to some of that pie too. But it isn't going to happen.
[quote=GentlemanJon]He's unlikely to convince many of the old guard, but the population will probably turn over by a sizeable percentage in the next 2 years so it may become another well used format by then. Personally I'm no fan of it, but I think there are solid reasons behind trying it that follow a logical thread.[/quote]
The "old guard is holding us back" argument is also just old and tired. It is an easy cop out: "you don't like A:R or you don't want new gametypes because you have always played 6s."
If the population does turn over to A:R by a sizeable percentage, that probably won't be good for Competitive TF2, at least in North America. We already scrounged to get enough teams to have the only serious organization who actually does give us money and attention keep us around. If we start fracturing this community even more, it WILL kill TF2.
I will just reiterate what I have said in the last couple dozen threads about this shit. Valve isn't going to support TF2. So we have to support it ourselves. We will do that best by not fracturing the community, not endorsing gametypes that are nearly universally considered to not be competitively viable, and by continuing outreach to new players to show them what we already know: that 6s TF2 is fun, interesting and worth the slight learning curve to get into.
drshdwpuppetThe very fundamental problem with that argument is that there is absolutely 0 reason to think that valve is even opened to being swayed by A:R and that, even if they were to say "Yeah, that new gamemode is pretty sick" that they would balance around it, support the competitive environment cultivated by it or do literally anything other than make hats and break shit on updates.
This whole A:R thing, extine's appeals to the community and these fundamental ideas are borne out of some sort of jealousy and denial romanticism where we see Valve giving loving to their other major IPs and we feel entitled to some of that pie too. But it isn't going to happen.
There isn't 0 reason, Extine's been in a face to face meeting with Valve where they outlined what specific changes would make them more interested a competitive format, and what would make it useful to them. That specific suggestion didn't take off so he's trying something different. Personally I think it will fail to satisfy Valve's needs because it fails to address something they specifically outlined that they wanted - weapon ban data. People may ban Engie a lot because of unlock X but it won't tell Valve specifically why they did that.
Extine's outlined his personal disappointment with TF2's lack of potential to make him a living, if that manifests itself in this way then so be it. Valve make plenty on community individuals ploughing massive time into these projects for no reward, it's his choice and his judgement to make.
drshdwpuppetThe "old guard is holding us back" argument is also just old and tired. It is an easy cop out: "you don't like A:R or you don't want new gametypes because you have always played 6s."
I'm not quite sure what you mean, I just think people like to play what they like to play and once you get into a pattern, finding a server, joining with your friends, getting a merc, we need to recruit a pocket/roamer/demo, etc, then you'll stick with it as long as you enjoy it. 2 years is a vague estimate of the length of time required for enough new players to just see it as another option.
drshdwpuppetIf the population does turn over to A:R by a sizeable percentage, that probably won't be good for Competitive TF2, at least in North America. We already scrounged to get enough teams to have the only serious organization who actually does give us money and attention keep us around. If we start fracturing this community even more, it WILL kill TF2.
I will just reiterate what I have said in the last couple dozen threads about this shit. Valve isn't going to support TF2. So we have to support it ourselves. We will do that best by not fracturing the community, not endorsing gametypes that are nearly universally considered to not be competitively viable, and by continuing outreach to new players to show them what we already know: that 6s TF2 is fun, interesting and worth the slight learning curve to get into.
Maybe, I doubt ESEA would give enough of a shit about TF2 to update it's systems to match, but if the players are enjoying it enough to leave ESEA then I'm not sure it matters. It's just a video game that already isn't going to get any big support anyway as you've just said. If it gets to that stage who cares if ESEA are in or out?
You might want to consider re-reading the last line of the post you replied to. I don't support the new mode or like it, but when explaining to someone who says they don't understand why it exists the reasons it's now a thing you can't avoid Extine's probable motivations, right or wrong, can you?
[quote=drshdwpuppet]The very fundamental problem with that argument is that there is absolutely 0 reason to think that valve is even opened to being swayed by A:R and that, even if they were to say "Yeah, that new gamemode is pretty sick" that they would balance around it, support the competitive environment cultivated by it or do literally anything other than make hats and break shit on updates.
This whole A:R thing, extine's appeals to the community and these fundamental ideas are borne out of some sort of jealousy and denial romanticism where we see Valve giving loving to their other major IPs and we feel entitled to some of that pie too. But it isn't going to happen.[/quote]
There isn't 0 reason, Extine's been in a face to face meeting with Valve where they outlined what specific changes would make them more interested a competitive format, and what would make it useful to them. That specific suggestion didn't take off so he's trying something different. Personally I think it will fail to satisfy Valve's needs because it fails to address something they specifically outlined that they wanted - weapon ban data. People may ban Engie a lot because of unlock X but it won't tell Valve specifically why they did that.
Extine's outlined his personal disappointment with TF2's lack of potential to make him a living, if that manifests itself in this way then so be it. Valve make plenty on community individuals ploughing massive time into these projects for no reward, it's his choice and his judgement to make.
[quote=drshdwpuppet]The "old guard is holding us back" argument is also just old and tired. It is an easy cop out: "you don't like A:R or you don't want new gametypes because you have always played 6s."[/quote]
I'm not quite sure what you mean, I just think people like to play what they like to play and once you get into a pattern, finding a server, joining with your friends, getting a merc, we need to recruit a pocket/roamer/demo, etc, then you'll stick with it as long as you enjoy it. 2 years is a vague estimate of the length of time required for enough new players to just see it as another option.
[quote=drshdwpuppet]If the population does turn over to A:R by a sizeable percentage, that probably won't be good for Competitive TF2, at least in North America. We already scrounged to get enough teams to have the only serious organization who actually does give us money and attention keep us around. If we start fracturing this community even more, it WILL kill TF2.
I will just reiterate what I have said in the last couple dozen threads about this shit. Valve isn't going to support TF2. So we have to support it ourselves. We will do that best by not fracturing the community, not endorsing gametypes that are nearly universally considered to not be competitively viable, and by continuing outreach to new players to show them what we already know: that 6s TF2 is fun, interesting and worth the slight learning curve to get into.[/quote]
Maybe, I doubt ESEA would give enough of a shit about TF2 to update it's systems to match, but if the players are enjoying it enough to leave ESEA then I'm not sure it matters. It's just a video game that already isn't going to get any big support anyway as you've just said. If it gets to that stage who cares if ESEA are in or out?
You might want to consider re-reading the last line of the post you replied to. I don't support the new mode or like it, but when explaining to someone who says they don't understand why it exists the reasons it's now a thing you can't avoid Extine's probable motivations, right or wrong, can you?
It will be useful to take this partially out of order.
GentlemanJonYou might want to consider re-reading the last line of the post you replied to. I don't support the new mode or like it, but when explaining to someone who says they don't understand why it exists the reasons it's now a thing you can't avoid Extine's probable motivations, right or wrong, can you?
I did read your post thank you, but I wasn't responding to your personal opinions on A:R, I responding do your defense of the idea of A:R. We could just as easily put in 4v4 or 5v5 fast attack or ultiduo. The reason we are talking about A:R is that A. its the topic of this thread, B. it is the focus of a well meaning but ultimately horrifically misguided attempt at saving a game that isn't dead and C. it is the only gametype that people continue to prattle on about as if it is the only thing that get valve to pay attention to us.
So you might want to consider re-reading the entire post you replied to, because your personal opinion on Arena:Respawn wasn't even addressed in my rebuttal due to its ultimate irrelevance. Instead, as you seem to acknowledge is important, I was addressing eXtine's probable motivations and why they are demonstrably misguided.
=GentlemanJon]There isn't 0 reason, Extine's been in a face to face meeting with Valve where they outlined what specific changes would make them more interested a competitive format, and what would make it useful to them. That specific suggestion didn't take off so he's trying something different. Personally I think it will fail to satisfy Valve's needs because it fails to address something they specifically outlined that they wanted - weapon ban data. People may ban Engie a lot because of unlock X but it won't tell Valve specifically why they did that.
Extine's outlined his personal disappointment with TF2's lack of potential to make him a living, if that manifests itself in this way then so be it. Valve make plenty on community individuals ploughing massive time into these projects for no reward, it's his choice and his judgement to make.
That face to face meeting was years ago, during eXtv's big push to bring legitimacy to TF2. This was when we were gearing up to send the first teams to Europe, eXtv was poising itself to be the final word in TF2 shoutcasting and broadcasting, online and offline.
There were actually several meetings if I recall, though most of them phone/skype, with eXtine, Salamancer and perhaps a few other key names in the organization. What was really learned in those meetings was not that 6s is a broken, nonviable competitive format that valve would be insane to support, we kind of proved that was wrong with the next 3 years of absolutely amazing competition culminating in a year that had 5 separate tournaments worth American teams flying out to play in. Instead, as was clear then and as has become painfully more clear now, is that valve is completely and utterly uninterested in competitive tf2 at all. Their objections to our format, how we pick and choose which weapons we allow and how we basically only play 5cp maps is hopelessly backwards. They feel that we just outright reject all these things, when really, there is a community wide effort to assess the viability and how interesting a weapon is to the game. We don't just ban overpowered weapons, we also ban those weapons that actively contribute to a game that is just not fun to play.
I kind of got off on a tangent there, but we have this recurring theme in the story of eXtine and eXtv, and indeed in the competitive community in general, of trying to appease valve and when one approach doesn't work, we just entirely switch gears to another project. But my point remains. Despite what valve has said in those entirely unofficial meetings, there is still absolutely no reason to believe that we even can appease them. Their profit model for TF2 DOES NOT INCLUDE COMPETITIVE and there is no reason for them to change that.
Extine is allowed to be disappointed in his lack of real income from TF2. He has put a TON of hours into this game. But this isn't the game that is going to have an International or be on the main stage at IEM Katowice. And extine is allowed to waste his time on this project, far from me or anyone else to stop him. But as a community we have to be vigilant against things that might spell doom for this, still very small and frail, scene. A:R has that potential.
GentlemanJonI'm not quite sure what you mean, I just think people like to play what they like to play and once you get into a pattern, finding a server, joining with your friends, getting a merc, we need to recruit a pocket/roamer/demo, etc, then you'll stick with it as long as you enjoy it. 2 years is a vague estimate of the length of time required for enough new players to just see it as another option.
Your comment about changing the mind of the old guard seemed a dig on those who have been here for a while, have played this game and love this game for what it is. Even if it weren't meant that way, we are coming to my Really Big issue with A:R. Another format for a new player to get trapped in that is unlikely to hold their interest for long and has serious, endemic problems with its implementation, execution and core idea, may dissuade that new player from moving on to 6s. The 6s community in North America relies upon new teams and new players trickling their way up into ESEA. We already have a trap for 6s players in UGC (it can be very challenging to convince players to move from UGC to ESEA). If a new player sees this A:R thing, gets excited about it, plays for a while, but ultimately drops the format because it won't have widespread acceptance or a large playerbase is a potential 6s player completely lost to us. We need those 6s newbies.
It will be useful to take this partially out of order.
[quote=GentlemanJon]You might want to consider re-reading the last line of the post you replied to. I don't support the new mode or like it, but when explaining to someone who says they don't understand why it exists the reasons it's now a thing you can't avoid Extine's probable motivations, right or wrong, can you?[/quote]
I did read your post thank you, but I wasn't responding to your personal opinions on A:R, I responding do your defense of the idea of A:R. We could just as easily put in 4v4 or 5v5 fast attack or ultiduo. The reason we are talking about A:R is that A. its the topic of this thread, B. it is the focus of a well meaning but ultimately horrifically misguided attempt at saving a game that isn't dead and C. it is the only gametype that people continue to prattle on about as if it is the only thing that get valve to pay attention to us.
So you might want to consider re-reading the entire post you replied to, because your personal opinion on Arena:Respawn wasn't even addressed in my rebuttal due to its ultimate irrelevance. Instead, as you seem to acknowledge is important, I was addressing eXtine's probable motivations and why they are demonstrably misguided.
[quote]=GentlemanJon]There isn't 0 reason, Extine's been in a face to face meeting with Valve where they outlined what specific changes would make them more interested a competitive format, and what would make it useful to them. That specific suggestion didn't take off so he's trying something different. Personally I think it will fail to satisfy Valve's needs because it fails to address something they specifically outlined that they wanted - weapon ban data. People may ban Engie a lot because of unlock X but it won't tell Valve specifically why they did that.
Extine's outlined his personal disappointment with TF2's lack of potential to make him a living, if that manifests itself in this way then so be it. Valve make plenty on community individuals ploughing massive time into these projects for no reward, it's his choice and his judgement to make.[/quote]
That face to face meeting was years ago, during eXtv's big push to bring legitimacy to TF2. This was when we were gearing up to send the first teams to Europe, eXtv was poising itself to be the final word in TF2 shoutcasting and broadcasting, online and offline.
There were actually several meetings if I recall, though most of them phone/skype, with eXtine, Salamancer and perhaps a few other key names in the organization. What was really learned in those meetings was not that 6s is a broken, nonviable competitive format that valve would be insane to support, we kind of proved that was wrong with the next 3 years of absolutely amazing competition culminating in a year that had 5 separate tournaments worth American teams flying out to play in. Instead, as was clear then and as has become painfully more clear now, is that valve is completely and utterly uninterested in competitive tf2 at all. Their objections to our format, how we pick and choose which weapons we allow and how we basically only play 5cp maps is hopelessly backwards. They feel that we just outright reject all these things, when really, there is a community wide effort to assess the viability and how interesting a weapon is to the game. We don't just ban overpowered weapons, we also ban those weapons that actively contribute to a game that is just not fun to play.
I kind of got off on a tangent there, but we have this recurring theme in the story of eXtine and eXtv, and indeed in the competitive community in general, of trying to appease valve and when one approach doesn't work, we just entirely switch gears to another project. But my point remains. Despite what valve has said in those entirely unofficial meetings, there is still absolutely no reason to believe that we even can appease them. Their profit model for TF2 DOES NOT INCLUDE COMPETITIVE and there is no reason for them to change that.
Extine is allowed to be disappointed in his lack of real income from TF2. He has put a TON of hours into this game. But this isn't the game that is going to have an International or be on the main stage at IEM Katowice. And extine is allowed to waste his time on this project, far from me or anyone else to stop him. But as a community we have to be vigilant against things that might spell doom for this, still very small and frail, scene. A:R has that potential.
[quote=GentlemanJon]I'm not quite sure what you mean, I just think people like to play what they like to play and once you get into a pattern, finding a server, joining with your friends, getting a merc, we need to recruit a pocket/roamer/demo, etc, then you'll stick with it as long as you enjoy it. 2 years is a vague estimate of the length of time required for enough new players to just see it as another option.[/quote]
Your comment about changing the mind of the old guard seemed a dig on those who have been here for a while, have played this game and love this game for what it is. Even if it weren't meant that way, we are coming to my Really Big issue with A:R. Another format for a new player to get trapped in that is unlikely to hold their interest for long and has serious, endemic problems with its implementation, execution and core idea, may dissuade that new player from moving on to 6s. The 6s community in North America relies upon new teams and new players trickling their way up into ESEA. We already have a trap for 6s players in UGC (it can be very challenging to convince players to move from UGC to ESEA). If a new player sees this A:R thing, gets excited about it, plays for a while, but ultimately drops the format because it won't have widespread acceptance or a large playerbase is a potential 6s player completely lost to us. We need those 6s newbies.
drshdwpuppetI did read your post thank you, but I wasn't responding to your personal opinions on A:R, I responding do your defense of the idea of A:R. We could just as easily put in 4v4 or 5v5 fast attack or ultiduo. The reason we are talking about A:R is that A. its the topic of this thread, B. it is the focus of a well meaning but ultimately horrifically misguided attempt at saving a game that isn't dead and C. it is the only gametype that people continue to prattle on about as if it is the only thing that get valve to pay attention to us.
So you might want to consider re-reading the entire post you replied to, because your personal opinion on Arena:Respawn wasn't even addressed in my rebuttal due to its ultimate irrelevance. Instead, as you seem to acknowledge is important, I was addressing eXtine's probable motivations and why they are demonstrably misguided.
Apologies for my ultimate irrelevance. I'm not defending it, I'm explaining why it exists to someone who seemed to not know. Why would I defend something I don't agree with or care about? I'm not sure why you'd answer my post though, rather than the OP for example. If you're looking for a proxy to attack in lieu of Extine who doesn't seem to be interested in this thread then can I humbly request you pick someone else?
Extine has his motivations and everyone else has theirs, whether he's misguided or not time will tell. If he's successful I'm not going to begrudge him that.
drshdwpuppetThat face to face meeting was years ago, during eXtv's big push to bring legitimacy to TF2. This was when we were gearing up to send the first teams to Europe, eXtv was poising itself to be the final word in TF2 shoutcasting and broadcasting, online and offline.
There were actually several meetings if I recall, though most of them phone/skype, with eXtine, Salamancer and perhaps a few other key names in the organization. What was really learned in those meetings was not that 6s is a broken, nonviable competitive format that valve would be insane to support, we kind of proved that was wrong with the next 3 years of absolutely amazing competition culminating in a year that had 5 separate tournaments worth American teams flying out to play in. Instead, as was clear then and as has become painfully more clear now, is that valve is completely and utterly uninterested in competitive tf2 at all. Their objections to our format, how we pick and choose which weapons we allow and how we basically only play 5cp maps is hopelessly backwards. They feel that we just outright reject all these things, when really, there is a community wide effort to assess the viability and how interesting a weapon is to the game. We don't just ban overpowered weapons, we also ban those weapons that actively contribute to a game that is just not fun to play.
I kind of got off on a tangent there, but we have this recurring theme in the story of eXtine and eXtv, and indeed in the competitive community in general, of trying to appease valve and when one approach doesn't work, we just entirely switch gears to another project. But my point remains. Despite what valve has said in those entirely unofficial meetings, there is still absolutely no reason to believe that we even can appease them. Their profit model for TF2 DOES NOT INCLUDE COMPETITIVE and there is no reason for them to change that.
Extine is allowed to be disappointed in his lack of real income from TF2. He has put a TON of hours into this game. But this isn't the game that is going to have an International or be on the main stage at IEM Katowice. And extine is allowed to waste his time on this project, far from me or anyone else to stop him. But as a community we have to be vigilant against things that might spell doom for this, still very small and frail, scene. A:R has that potential.
It just sounds like you've reached different conclusions. If Extine thinks there's still potential then I'm not sure why that upsets you so much.
Valve wanted objective data on weapons rather than discussion and opinion, I can see lots of reasons for that as frustrating to the established community as it must be.
drshdwpuppetYour comment about changing the mind of the old guard seemed a dig on those who have been here for a while, have played this game and love this game for what it is. Even if it weren't meant that way, we are coming to my Really Big issue with A:R. Another format for a new player to get trapped in that is unlikely to hold their interest for long and has serious, endemic problems with its implementation, execution and core idea, may dissuade that new player from moving on to 6s. The 6s community in North America relies upon new teams and new players trickling their way up into ESEA. We already have a trap for 6s players in UGC (it can be very challenging to convince players to move from UGC to ESEA). If a new player sees this A:R thing, gets excited about it, plays for a while, but ultimately drops the format because it won't have widespread acceptance or a large playerbase is a potential 6s player completely lost to us. We need those 6s newbies.
Things change over time. If people judge Extine's idea to be more fun or better to play then it's just something that will happen. Explaining to people how wrong they are to have fun (assuming they are) isn't going to make any difference. If he does a better job publicising it to new players then the 6v6 community won't really have anyone to blame but themselves for failing to get off their collective ass and push 6s more effectively.
[quote=drshdwpuppet]I did read your post thank you, but I wasn't responding to your personal opinions on A:R, I responding do your defense of the idea of A:R. We could just as easily put in 4v4 or 5v5 fast attack or ultiduo. The reason we are talking about A:R is that A. its the topic of this thread, B. it is the focus of a well meaning but ultimately horrifically misguided attempt at saving a game that isn't dead and C. it is the only gametype that people continue to prattle on about as if it is the only thing that get valve to pay attention to us.
So you might want to consider re-reading the entire post you replied to, because your personal opinion on Arena:Respawn wasn't even addressed in my rebuttal due to its ultimate irrelevance. Instead, as you seem to acknowledge is important, I was addressing eXtine's probable motivations and why they are demonstrably misguided.[/quote]
Apologies for my ultimate irrelevance. I'm not defending it, I'm explaining why it exists to someone who seemed to not know. Why would I defend something I don't agree with or care about? I'm not sure why you'd answer my post though, rather than the OP for example. If you're looking for a proxy to attack in lieu of Extine who doesn't seem to be interested in this thread then can I humbly request you pick someone else?
Extine has his motivations and everyone else has theirs, whether he's misguided or not time will tell. If he's successful I'm not going to begrudge him that.
[quote=drshdwpuppet]That face to face meeting was years ago, during eXtv's big push to bring legitimacy to TF2. This was when we were gearing up to send the first teams to Europe, eXtv was poising itself to be the final word in TF2 shoutcasting and broadcasting, online and offline.
There were actually several meetings if I recall, though most of them phone/skype, with eXtine, Salamancer and perhaps a few other key names in the organization. What was really learned in those meetings was not that 6s is a broken, nonviable competitive format that valve would be insane to support, we kind of proved that was wrong with the next 3 years of absolutely amazing competition culminating in a year that had 5 separate tournaments worth American teams flying out to play in. Instead, as was clear then and as has become painfully more clear now, is that valve is completely and utterly uninterested in competitive tf2 at all. Their objections to our format, how we pick and choose which weapons we allow and how we basically only play 5cp maps is hopelessly backwards. They feel that we just outright reject all these things, when really, there is a community wide effort to assess the viability and how interesting a weapon is to the game. We don't just ban overpowered weapons, we also ban those weapons that actively contribute to a game that is just not fun to play.
I kind of got off on a tangent there, but we have this recurring theme in the story of eXtine and eXtv, and indeed in the competitive community in general, of trying to appease valve and when one approach doesn't work, we just entirely switch gears to another project. But my point remains. Despite what valve has said in those entirely unofficial meetings, there is still absolutely no reason to believe that we even can appease them. Their profit model for TF2 DOES NOT INCLUDE COMPETITIVE and there is no reason for them to change that.
Extine is allowed to be disappointed in his lack of real income from TF2. He has put a TON of hours into this game. But this isn't the game that is going to have an International or be on the main stage at IEM Katowice. And extine is allowed to waste his time on this project, far from me or anyone else to stop him. But as a community we have to be vigilant against things that might spell doom for this, still very small and frail, scene. A:R has that potential.[/quote]
It just sounds like you've reached different conclusions. If Extine thinks there's still potential then I'm not sure why that upsets you so much.
Valve wanted objective data on weapons rather than discussion and opinion, I can see lots of reasons for that as frustrating to the established community as it must be.
[quote=drshdwpuppet]Your comment about changing the mind of the old guard seemed a dig on those who have been here for a while, have played this game and love this game for what it is. Even if it weren't meant that way, we are coming to my Really Big issue with A:R. Another format for a new player to get trapped in that is unlikely to hold their interest for long and has serious, endemic problems with its implementation, execution and core idea, may dissuade that new player from moving on to 6s. The 6s community in North America relies upon new teams and new players trickling their way up into ESEA. We already have a trap for 6s players in UGC (it can be very challenging to convince players to move from UGC to ESEA). If a new player sees this A:R thing, gets excited about it, plays for a while, but ultimately drops the format because it won't have widespread acceptance or a large playerbase is a potential 6s player completely lost to us. We need those 6s newbies.[/quote]
Things change over time. If people judge Extine's idea to be more fun or better to play then it's just something that will happen. Explaining to people how wrong they are to have fun (assuming they are) isn't going to make any difference. If he does a better job publicising it to new players then the 6v6 community won't really have anyone to blame but themselves for failing to get off their collective ass and push 6s more effectively.
GentlemanJon Explaining to people how wrong they are to have fun (assuming they are) isn't going to make any difference.
Read this over and over and over again until it makes your eyes bleed.
This is the major problem this community has when trying to promote the game they love.
[quote=GentlemanJon] Explaining to people how wrong they are to have fun (assuming they are) isn't going to make any difference. [/quote]
Read this over and over and over again until it makes your eyes bleed.
This is the major problem this community has when trying to promote the game they love.
DrPloxoGentlemanJon Explaining to people how wrong they are to have fun (assuming they are) isn't going to make any difference.
Read this over and over and over again until it makes your eyes bleed.
This is the major problem this community has when trying to promote the game they love.
telling people not to support a game mode is fine, since unless you can satisfactorily create a new game mode that appeases HL and 6s players 100%, you'll only fracture the community and make the game die that much sooner
[quote=DrPloxo][quote=GentlemanJon] Explaining to people how wrong they are to have fun (assuming they are) isn't going to make any difference. [/quote]
Read this over and over and over again until it makes your eyes bleed.
This is the major problem this community has when trying to promote the game they love.[/quote]
telling people not to support a game mode is fine, since unless you can satisfactorily create a new game mode that appeases HL and 6s players 100%, you'll only fracture the community and make the game die that much sooner
lvl4DrPloxoGentlemanJon Explaining to people how wrong they are to have fun (assuming they are) isn't going to make any difference.
Read this over and over and over again until it makes your eyes bleed.
This is the major problem this community has when trying to promote the game they love.
telling people not to support a game mode is fine, since unless you can satisfactorily create a new game mode that appeases HL and 6s players 100%, you'll only fracture the community and make the game die that much sooner
No, it isn't.
While the top level of competitive tf2 will definitely remain in 6's, there is no reason to tell people ONLY to play sixes. As they play better players and interact with more members of the community, they'll notice that higher level players play _____ and if they are interested in being more skilled, they will migrate to that mode. Otherwise, they'll stay where they're having fun and raise awareness that the game is competitive in some aspects. We act like people are completely incapable of changing perspective as they continue to improve.
So chill the fuck out for once, a new game mode may very well suck ass (looking at you 4's) but to discourage people from playing it because it's not as good as 6's only shows those less experienced players that we're unable to imagine somebody having fun doing something other than what we consider fun. Sure, A:R has it's issues* but it's a damn sight better than playing in a pub for most of us.
*Find a game mode that didn't have a few shitty stutters or crazy imbalances at the beginning and I'll suck your fucking dick. I say this because we haven't been able to predict balance without testing it in a league (jarate and QF in 6's, Beggars and BFB in HL, Axtinguisher and sandvich in 4's). It'll have shitty balance for a few seasons until we have people that can actually think making choices on that kind of shit.
[quote=lvl4][quote=DrPloxo][quote=GentlemanJon] Explaining to people how wrong they are to have fun (assuming they are) isn't going to make any difference. [/quote]
Read this over and over and over again until it makes your eyes bleed.
This is the major problem this community has when trying to promote the game they love.[/quote]
telling people not to support a game mode is fine, since unless you can satisfactorily create a new game mode that appeases HL and 6s players 100%, you'll only fracture the community and make the game die that much sooner[/quote]
No, it isn't.
While the top level of competitive tf2 will definitely remain in 6's, there is no reason to tell people ONLY to play sixes. As they play better players and interact with more members of the community, they'll notice that higher level players play _____ and if they are interested in being more skilled, they will migrate to that mode. Otherwise, they'll stay where they're having fun and raise awareness that the game is competitive in some aspects. We act like people are completely incapable of changing perspective as they continue to improve.
So chill the fuck out for once, a new game mode may very well suck ass (looking at you 4's) but to discourage people from playing it because it's not as good as 6's only shows those less experienced players that we're unable to imagine somebody having fun doing something other than what we consider fun. Sure, A:R has it's issues* but it's a damn sight better than playing in a pub for most of us.
*Find a game mode that didn't have a few shitty stutters or crazy imbalances at the beginning and I'll suck your fucking dick. I say this because we haven't been able to predict balance without testing it in a league (jarate and QF in 6's, Beggars and BFB in HL, Axtinguisher and sandvich in 4's). It'll have shitty balance for a few seasons until we have people that can actually think making choices on that kind of shit.
DrPloxoNo, it isn't.
While the top level of competitive tf2 will definitely remain in 6's, there is no reason to tell people ONLY to play sixes.
Careful there mate, soon there will be no crows for all the strawmen you are putting up. Not once did anyone say that we should tell people to not play anything but 6s. I consider myself to be a relatively 6s purist (best time of my life was playing medic in ETF2L when there were NO unlocks) and loathe highlander, a rather extreme end of the spectrum of players. Even still, I would never presume to tell people they can only play their game the way I want them to.
The issue comes when people like eXtine start pouring money, time and effort into these modes. Now, eXtine and other community leaders are free to do as they wish, its their time and (often) their money being put into these projects. But eXtine is a little different from your average alternative mode enthusiast in that he has more power and weight to throw around when it comes to getting events set up and sponsors attracted. His actions inherently have more meaning than, say, yours in this community. As the community he represents abroad, we have the right to say "woah, hold on here, lets talk about this A:R thing before we start spreading its word."
Note how different that is. If you or eXtine or some random community member want to play A:R all night every night, good on ya, have fun and good luck to you. What is being said by myself, Kevin et. all (if I might speak for Kevin) is that as a community we need to keep the formats consistent and discourage active fracturing of the community as much as possible. Staying together and playing together will ultimately be what is best for us as a competitive game. eXtine's work with A:R flies directly in the face of that ideal and is dangerous and irresponsible in the context of him as a community leader.
DrPloxoAs they play better players and interact with more members of the community, they'll notice that higher level players play _____ and if they are interested in being more skilled, they will migrate to that mode. Otherwise, they'll stay where they're having fun and raise awareness that the game is competitive in some aspects.
A fine theory... except that it doesn't hold up to reality. We see this with UGC and crossing to ESEA (it happens, but not as much as we would like) and with highlander and 6s. Though highlander has grown into a format in its own right, it is pretty undeniable that the best players in the game are in 6s. But there is still relatively little crossing from HL to 6s. (the opposite happens though, 6s players playing in HL leagues during off season/on weekends).
A:R is so different from the experience of 6s that we might as well be talking about pubbers. Players that start in A:R are probably not terribly likely to move over to 6s FOR THE SAME EXACT REASONS PUBBERS ARENT. Will there be some move-over? Probably. But that effect is likely to not overcome the issue of players who were interested in competitive seeing A:R being heavily promoted by prominent community members and choosing A:R, then quitting because A:R sucks.
edited some wording.
[quote=DrPloxo]
No, it isn't.
While the top level of competitive tf2 will definitely remain in 6's, there is no reason to tell people ONLY to play sixes.
[/quote]
Careful there mate, soon there will be no crows for all the strawmen you are putting up. Not once did anyone say that we should tell people to not play anything but 6s. I consider myself to be a relatively 6s purist (best time of my life was playing medic in ETF2L when there were NO unlocks) and loathe highlander, a rather extreme end of the spectrum of players. Even still, I would never presume to tell people they can only play their game the way I want them to.
The issue comes when people like eXtine start pouring money, time and effort into these modes. Now, eXtine and other community leaders are free to do as they wish, its their time and (often) their money being put into these projects. But eXtine is a little different from your average alternative mode enthusiast in that he has more power and weight to throw around when it comes to getting events set up and sponsors attracted. His actions inherently have more meaning than, say, yours in this community. As the community he represents abroad, we have the right to say "woah, hold on here, lets talk about this A:R thing before we start spreading its word."
Note how different that is. If you or eXtine or some random community member want to play A:R all night every night, good on ya, have fun and good luck to you. What is being said by myself, Kevin et. all (if I might speak for Kevin) is that [i]as a community[/i] we need to keep the formats consistent and discourage active fracturing of the community as much as possible. Staying together and playing together will ultimately be what is best for us as a competitive game. eXtine's work with A:R flies directly in the face of that ideal and is dangerous and irresponsible in the context of him as a community leader.
[quote=DrPloxo]
As they play better players and interact with more members of the community, they'll notice that higher level players play _____ and if they are interested in being more skilled, they will migrate to that mode. Otherwise, they'll stay where they're having fun and raise awareness that the game is competitive in some aspects.[/quote]
A fine theory... except that it doesn't hold up to reality. We see this with UGC and crossing to ESEA (it happens, but not as much as we would like) and with highlander and 6s. Though highlander has grown into a format in its own right, it is pretty undeniable that the best players in the game are in 6s. But there is still relatively little crossing from HL to 6s. (the opposite happens though, 6s players playing in HL leagues during off season/on weekends).
A:R is so different from the experience of 6s that we might as well be talking about pubbers. Players that start in A:R are probably not terribly likely to move over to 6s FOR THE SAME EXACT REASONS PUBBERS ARENT. Will there be some move-over? Probably. But that effect is likely to not overcome the issue of players who were interested in competitive seeing A:R being heavily promoted by prominent community members and choosing A:R, then quitting because A:R sucks.
edited some wording.
lvl4telling people not to support a game mode is fine, since unless you can satisfactorily create a new game mode that appeases HL and 6s players 100%, you'll only fracture the community and make the game die that much sooner
I'm not suggesting people can't or shouldn't criticise - that is self evidently ludicrous. My only point is that it's people's experience of the game mode that will count as to whether it becomes popular, and if someone's enjoying it then arguments about why it's not what they should be doing are going to fall on deaf ears.
[quote=lvl4]telling people not to support a game mode is fine, since unless you can satisfactorily create a new game mode that appeases HL and 6s players 100%, you'll only fracture the community and make the game die that much sooner[/quote]
I'm not suggesting people can't or shouldn't criticise - that is self evidently ludicrous. My only point is that it's people's experience of the game mode that will count as to whether it becomes popular, and if someone's enjoying it then arguments about why it's not what they should be doing are going to fall on deaf ears.
drshdwpuppetCareful there mate, soon there will be no crows for all the strawmen you are putting up. Not once did anyone say that we should tell people to not play anything but 6s. I consider myself to be a relatively 6s purist (best time of my life was playing medic in ETF2L when there were NO unlocks) and loathe highlander, a rather extreme end of the spectrum of players. Even still, I would never presume to tell people they can only play their game the way I want them to.
The issue comes when people like eXtine start pouring money, time and effort into these modes. Now, eXtine and other community leaders are free to do as they wish, its their time and (often) their money being put into these projects. But eXtine is a little different from your average alternative mode enthusiast in that he has more power and weight to throw around when it comes to getting events set up and sponsors attracted. His actions inherently have more meaning than, say, yours in this community. As the community he represents abroad, we have the right to say "woah, hold on here, lets talk about this A:R thing before we start spreading its word."
Note how different that is. If you or eXtine or some random community member want to play A:R all night every night, good on ya, have fun and good luck to you. What is being said by myself, Kevin et. all (if I might speak for Kevin) is that as a community we need to keep the formats consistent and discourage active fracturing of the community as much as possible. Staying together and playing together will ultimately be what is best for us as a competitive game. eXtine's work with A:R flies directly in the face of that ideal and is dangerous and irresponsible in the context of him as a community leader.
It is slippery slope if anything, which it isn't. The point of my argument (admittedly, I'm not talented with words) is that everybody playing competitively grows the competitive community. Be it Centers, UGC, A:R, Ulutiduo/MGE tournaments or ESEA; they are part of the community, and will notice that people that are really good are playing sixes, regardless of the game-mode they play. This might pique interest- who knows. But calling whatever format shit, when in actuality, the game itself is imbalanced, is the wrong action. Extine pouring money and effort into this could be a folly, and that's fine. Lots of people put effort into 4v4, 7v7, and 8v8 and those are definitely less successful (2 of the 3 being dead) and may have gotten burn out from it, but they still put a passing interest into a game.
It's silly to think of this game as anything other than a hobby, so any growth is good growth. Even if the growth is in a flawed game mode.
A fine theory... except that it doesn't hold up to reality. We see this with UGC and crossing to ESEA (it happens, but not as much as we would like) and with highlander and 6s. Though highlander has grown into a format in its own right, it is pretty undeniable that the best players in the game are in 6s. But there is still relatively little crossing from HL to 6s. (the opposite happens though, 6s players playing in HL leagues during off season/on weekends).
A:R is so different from the experience of 6s that we might as well be talking about pubbers. Players that start in A:R are probably not terribly likely to move over to 6s FOR THE SAME EXACT REASONS PUBBERS ARENT. Will there be some move-over? Probably. But that effect is likely to not overcome the issue of players who were interested in competitive seeing A:R being heavily promoted by prominent community members and choosing A:R, then quitting because A:R sucks.
Hypothetical. A:R has similarities to pub play, like highlander, and just like highlander will have very different pacing. You're putting no intermediary in where there is an intermediary -- players. Just like all the people in stream chats that know about b4nny and stabby stabby regardless of what modes they play (pub or otherwise), people know about 6's if they want to. This is a more friendly option to pubbers than the misery of a 12 minute Badwater First butt-pounding in steel highlander. Rounds are short and sweet, which helps some people.
I'm by no means saying "Everybody should embrace A:R because it's a great game mode that will save tf2." That's sophomoric as all get out. I am saying that it can be given it's chance without this massive pissing contest of tf2 theory crafting. I am saying that condemning a game mode solely based on your experience (as already competitive players) is equally sophomoric.
[quote=drshdwpuppet]Careful there mate, soon there will be no crows for all the strawmen you are putting up. Not once did anyone say that we should tell people to not play anything but 6s. I consider myself to be a relatively 6s purist (best time of my life was playing medic in ETF2L when there were NO unlocks) and loathe highlander, a rather extreme end of the spectrum of players. Even still, I would never presume to tell people they can only play their game the way I want them to.
The issue comes when people like eXtine start pouring money, time and effort into these modes. Now, eXtine and other community leaders are free to do as they wish, its their time and (often) their money being put into these projects. But eXtine is a little different from your average alternative mode enthusiast in that he has more power and weight to throw around when it comes to getting events set up and sponsors attracted. His actions inherently have more meaning than, say, yours in this community. As the community he represents abroad, we have the right to say "woah, hold on here, lets talk about this A:R thing before we start spreading its word."
Note how different that is. If you or eXtine or some random community member want to play A:R all night every night, good on ya, have fun and good luck to you. What is being said by myself, Kevin et. all (if I might speak for Kevin) is that [i]as a community[/i] we need to keep the formats consistent and discourage active fracturing of the community as much as possible. Staying together and playing together will ultimately be what is best for us as a competitive game. eXtine's work with A:R flies directly in the face of that ideal and is dangerous and irresponsible in the context of him as a community leader.
[/quote]
It is slippery slope if anything, which it isn't. The point of my argument (admittedly, I'm not talented with words) is that everybody playing competitively grows the competitive community. Be it Centers, UGC, A:R, Ulutiduo/MGE tournaments or ESEA; they are part of the community, and will notice that people that are really good are playing sixes, regardless of the game-mode they play. This might pique interest- who knows. But calling whatever format shit, when in actuality, the game itself is imbalanced, is the wrong action. Extine pouring money and effort into this could be a folly, and that's fine. Lots of people put effort into 4v4, 7v7, and 8v8 and those are definitely less successful (2 of the 3 being dead) and may have gotten burn out from it, but they still put a passing interest into a game.
It's silly to think of this game as anything other than a hobby, so any growth is good growth. Even if the growth is in a flawed game mode.
[quote]
A fine theory... except that it doesn't hold up to reality. We see this with UGC and crossing to ESEA (it happens, but not as much as we would like) and with highlander and 6s. Though highlander has grown into a format in its own right, it is pretty undeniable that the best players in the game are in 6s. But there is still relatively little crossing from HL to 6s. (the opposite happens though, 6s players playing in HL leagues during off season/on weekends).
A:R is so different from the experience of 6s that we might as well be talking about pubbers. Players that start in A:R are probably not terribly likely to move over to 6s FOR THE SAME EXACT REASONS PUBBERS ARENT. Will there be some move-over? Probably. But that effect is likely to not overcome the issue of players who were interested in competitive seeing A:R being heavily promoted by prominent community members and choosing A:R, then quitting because A:R sucks.
[/quote]
Hypothetical. A:R has similarities to pub play, like highlander, and just like highlander will have very different pacing. You're putting no intermediary in where there is an intermediary -- players. Just like all the people in stream chats that know about b4nny and stabby stabby regardless of what modes they play (pub or otherwise), people know about 6's if they want to. This is a more friendly option to pubbers than the misery of a 12 minute Badwater First butt-pounding in steel highlander. Rounds are short and sweet, which helps some people.
I'm by no means saying "Everybody should embrace A:R because it's a great game mode that will save tf2." That's sophomoric as all get out. I am saying that it can be given it's chance without this massive pissing contest of tf2 theory crafting. I am saying that condemning a game mode solely based on your experience (as already competitive players) is equally sophomoric.
The main problem here and what validates the arguments of community fracturing is the way A:R is presented as a format. ANYTIME you're given a description of A:R anywhere one of the first things you'll see is "an alternative to 6s." Always. Out of curiosity, I went and watched one of the casted matches or pugs or whatever it was on the extv youtube channel just to check it out and just about every five minutes or so during the game extine would go on some spiel about how 6s players don't like something or won't try something that they're doing in A:R for example: "Well 6s players don't like to use this weapon but VALVE says it's fun so we use it in A:R."
Like seriously, the format's existence itself isn't what's going to fracture the community but more of how it's being presented to the twitch followers and youtube subscribers that have been built up on the foundations of 6s and HL for numerous years and now he's forsaking both (or at least forsaking 6s while putting HL on the backburner) to push this new gamemode while still being one of the biggest "voices" in a community that just seems like is becoming more and more out of touch with the rest of it as time goes on. I've said this in the past, but pandering to Valve will only lead to disappointment. If you want to try a new format, fine, but don't try to destroy everything that the community has built up on their own for over 7 years now in the hopes that MAYBE Valve will finally start caring.
They won't.
The main problem here and what validates the arguments of community fracturing is the way A:R is presented as a format. ANYTIME you're given a description of A:R anywhere one of the first things you'll see is "an alternative to 6s." Always. Out of curiosity, I went and watched one of the casted matches or pugs or whatever it was on the extv youtube channel just to check it out and just about every five minutes or so during the game extine would go on some spiel about how 6s players don't like something or won't try something that they're doing in A:R for example: "Well 6s players don't like to use this weapon but VALVE says it's fun so we use it in A:R."
Like seriously, the format's existence itself isn't what's going to fracture the community but more of how it's being presented to the twitch followers and youtube subscribers that have been built up on the foundations of 6s and HL for numerous years and now he's forsaking both (or at least forsaking 6s while putting HL on the backburner) to push this new gamemode while still being one of the biggest "voices" in a community that just seems like is becoming more and more out of touch with the rest of it as time goes on. I've said this in the past, but pandering to Valve will only lead to disappointment. If you want to try a new format, fine, but don't try to destroy everything that the community has built up on their own for over 7 years now in the hopes that MAYBE Valve will finally start caring.
They won't.