How about adding a ridiculously crippling weakness to stalling weapons like wrangler or rescue ranger and others that are unfair,
The idea is that stuff like the wrangler could get easily countered if the opposing team knew what to do.
examples:
"+200% damage taken from fire"
"Enemy snipers crit you on a bodyshot" on
"-30% movement speed while active"
How about adding a ridiculously crippling weakness to stalling weapons like wrangler or rescue ranger and others that are unfair,
The idea is that stuff like the wrangler could get easily countered if the opposing team knew what to do.
examples:
"+200% damage taken from fire"
"Enemy snipers crit you on a bodyshot" on
"-30% movement speed while active"
CollaideHow about adding a ridiculously crippling weakness to stalling weapons like wrangler or rescue ranger and others that are unfair,
The idea is that stuff like the wrangler could get easily countered if the opposing team knew what to do.
examples:
"+200% damage taken from fire"
"Enemy snipers crit you on a bodyshot" on
"-30% movement speed while active"
Stats like this make every weapon super hard to understand for everyone and seem super abstract, like the miniguns for example.
[quote=Collaide]How about adding a ridiculously crippling weakness to stalling weapons like wrangler or rescue ranger and others that are unfair,
The idea is that stuff like the wrangler could get easily countered if the opposing team knew what to do.
examples:
"+200% damage taken from fire"
"Enemy snipers crit you on a bodyshot" on
"-30% movement speed while active"[/quote]
Stats like this make every weapon super hard to understand for everyone and seem super abstract, like the miniguns for example.
A comparison between Valve and Blizzard's development teams really shows how fucking awful Valve is at developing a game they want to eventually make "competitive". Valve hasn't put any money into tournaments for the 9 years the game has been out, updates the game once or twice a year, only one for every three updates actually has in-game impact - the rest are just money farming updates. Meanwhile, Blizzard is developing the game as a competitive game by giving it constant attention - updates every month or two, no micro transactions between players, no in game economy, PTR to test future updates, constant communication between devs and the community.
tl;dr valve needs to rent out the overwatch developers for a few months
A comparison between Valve and Blizzard's development teams really shows how fucking awful Valve is at developing a game they want to eventually make "competitive". Valve hasn't put any money into tournaments for the 9 years the game has been out, updates the game once or twice a year, only one for every three updates actually has in-game impact - the rest are just money farming updates. Meanwhile, Blizzard is developing the game as a competitive game by giving it constant attention - updates every month or two, no micro transactions between players, no in game economy, PTR to test future updates, constant communication between devs and the community.
tl;dr valve needs to rent out the overwatch developers for a few months
SpuA comparison between Valve and Blizzard's development teams really shows how fucking awful Valve is at developing a game they want to eventually make "competitive". Valve hasn't put any money into tournaments for the 9 years the game has been out, updates the game once or twice a year, only one for every three updates actually has in-game impact - the rest are just money farming updates. Meanwhile, Blizzard is developing the game as a competitive game by giving it constant attention - updates every month or two, no micro transactions between players, no in game economy, PTR to test future updates, constant communication between devs and the community.
tl;dr valve needs to rent out the overwatch developers for a few months
who needs dev support when we have ducks
srsly: we need to have the csgo dev team (the hidden path one or something like that) teach us how to run tf2
[quote=Spu]A comparison between Valve and Blizzard's development teams really shows how fucking awful Valve is at developing a game they want to eventually make "competitive". Valve hasn't put any money into tournaments for the 9 years the game has been out, updates the game once or twice a year, only one for every three updates actually has in-game impact - the rest are just money farming updates. Meanwhile, Blizzard is developing the game as a competitive game by giving it constant attention - updates every month or two, no micro transactions between players, no in game economy, PTR to test future updates, constant communication between devs and the community.
tl;dr valve needs to rent out the overwatch developers for a few months[/quote]
who needs dev support when we have ducks
srsly: we need to have the csgo dev team (the hidden path one or something like that) teach us how to run tf2
Ice_Cold_Lemonade(the hidden path one or something like that)
Jesus christ lmfao
[quote=Ice_Cold_Lemonade](the hidden path one or something like that) [/quote]
Jesus christ lmfao
OrangecakeIce_Cold_Lemonade(the hidden path one or something like that)
Jesus christ lmfao
i mean at least for the matchmaking
[quote=Orangecake][quote=Ice_Cold_Lemonade](the hidden path one or something like that) [/quote]
Jesus christ lmfao[/quote]
i mean at least for the matchmaking
hidden path sucked dick and made csgo shit is what he is saying
hidden path sucked dick and made csgo shit is what he is saying
toads_tfhidden path sucked dick and made csgo shit is what he is saying
yes i understand that, but only really need them for just matchmaking, nothing else
or maybe valve could take a hit
[quote=toads_tf]hidden path sucked dick and made csgo shit is what he is saying[/quote]
yes i understand that, but only really need them for just matchmaking, nothing else
or maybe valve could take a hit
Ice_Cold_Lemonadesrsly: we need to have the csgo dev team (the hidden path one or something like that) teach us how to run tf2
found the uncle dane viewer
[quote=Ice_Cold_Lemonade]srsly: we need to have the csgo dev team (the hidden path one or something like that) teach us how to run tf2[/quote]
found the uncle dane viewer
BleghfuricIce_Cold_Lemonadesrsly: we need to have the csgo dev team (the hidden path one or something like that) teach us how to run tf2
found the uncle dane viewer
oh fuck im just gonna leave now byeeeeee
[quote=Bleghfuric][quote=Ice_Cold_Lemonade]srsly: we need to have the csgo dev team (the hidden path one or something like that) teach us how to run tf2[/quote]
found the uncle dane viewer[/quote]
oh fuck im just gonna leave now byeeeeee
Ice_Cold_Lemonadesrsly: we need to have the csgo dev team (the hidden path one or something like that) teach us how to run tf2
http://i.imgur.com/vCY7rNJ.png
[quote=Ice_Cold_Lemonade]
srsly: we need to have the csgo dev team (the hidden path one or something like that) teach us how to run tf2[/quote]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vCY7rNJ.png[/IMG]
SpuA comparison between Valve and Blizzard's development teams really shows how fucking awful Valve is at developing a game they want to eventually make "competitive". Valve hasn't put any money into tournaments for the 9 years the game has been out, updates the game once or twice a year, only one for every three updates actually has in-game impact - the rest are just money farming updates. Meanwhile, Blizzard is developing the game as a competitive game by giving it constant attention - updates every month or two, no micro transactions between players, no in game economy, PTR to test future updates, constant communication between devs and the community.
tl;dr valve needs to rent out the overwatch developers for a few months
I don't think the two companies can be compared this way. Blizzard made a brand new game that was going to get massive viewership regardless of the attention they gave it at the start. Even No Man's Sky got a lot of viewership the first week or so. Blizzard is just riding the wave they knew they'd make with a brand new, genre-breaking FPS game. Valve don't "want" anything for TF2. They don't want to "eventually make [it] competitive," in the sense that they're going to put effort in to push people to play it. Until the game can self-sustain and perform on its own, Valve will not put any money into the game, and will simply continue "balancing" items that shouldn't have been in the game from the start every few months. They want money, and currently, investing any money into the game at its current viewership level is an investment they won't make. I'm almost positive Valve is under the impression that "if something happens, we'll support it, otherwise we don't really care," aside from balancing the game every now and then as per what their job title entails.
Everyone can ride the "fuck Valve" wave, but at a certain point you have to admit that the cards we've been dealt are very unfavorable to competitive. If you wanted to blame Valve, you'd have to go years back to when a real impact could have been made, when the eSports forecast changed completely. At this point, what can they really do? Look at the game, dude. Look at the items and maps that are completely irrelevant to any semblance of competitiveness. The only thing they could have done differently was to force a certain play-style and ruleset onto pubbers and hope they comply and enjoy the game. Choosing organic growth instead, there's really not much you can hope to see in the immediate future for this game.
[quote=Spu]A comparison between Valve and Blizzard's development teams really shows how fucking awful Valve is at developing a game they want to eventually make "competitive". Valve hasn't put any money into tournaments for the 9 years the game has been out, updates the game once or twice a year, only one for every three updates actually has in-game impact - the rest are just money farming updates. Meanwhile, Blizzard is developing the game as a competitive game by giving it constant attention - updates every month or two, no micro transactions between players, no in game economy, PTR to test future updates, constant communication between devs and the community.
tl;dr valve needs to rent out the overwatch developers for a few months[/quote]
I don't think the two companies can be compared this way. Blizzard made a brand new game that was going to get massive viewership regardless of the attention they gave it at the start. Even No Man's Sky got a lot of viewership the first week or so. Blizzard is just riding the wave they knew they'd make with a brand new, genre-breaking FPS game. Valve don't "want" anything for TF2. They don't want to "eventually make [it] competitive," in the sense that they're going to put effort in to push people to play it. Until the game can self-sustain and perform on its own, Valve will not put any money into the game, and will simply continue "balancing" items that shouldn't have been in the game from the start every few months. They want money, and currently, investing any money into the game at its current viewership level is an investment they won't make. I'm almost positive Valve is under the impression that "if something happens, we'll support it, otherwise we don't [i]really[/i] care," aside from balancing the game every now and then as per what their job title entails.
Everyone can ride the "fuck Valve" wave, but at a certain point you have to admit that the cards we've been dealt are very unfavorable to competitive. If you wanted to blame Valve, you'd have to go years back to when a real impact could have been made, when the eSports forecast changed completely. At this point, what can they really do? Look at the game, dude. Look at the items and maps that are completely irrelevant to any semblance of competitiveness. The only thing they could have done differently was to force a certain play-style and ruleset onto pubbers and hope they comply and enjoy the game. Choosing organic growth instead, there's really not much you can hope to see in the immediate future for this game.
seanbud
Maybe I'm completely wrong, who knows what their actual decision making process is. My current thoughts however are that if people want competitive to grow and want developer support, then our community leagues and websites that support competitive shouldn't remain so different from the competitive mode they've given us.
Current timeline of potential ESEA Open player:
Be pubstomper.
Try competitive matchmaking.
Make friends, Make a team.
Look for league to join.
Only leagues are VASTLY different from matchmaking.
Team disbands because 3/6 players are Heavy, Spy, and Engi mains. Unwelcome and innefective in current ESEA format.
Obviously if you make friends with players who never win (because they have a spy and engi) even in matchmaking you're not going to move to a league and be surprised that you aren't winning.
You're not supposed to move to a league unless you're actually good. I am terrible at csgo (DMG or something) and I don't know any smokes or flashes- and don't know how to spray. Therefore I will not enter league play because these are core mechanics that make you win.
If you aren't good enough to realise that scout medic and demo make you win then you shouldn't be playing league games, and that's just what it is. Even in silver level league of legends everyone copies whatever the current pro players are doing. It's not a big thing.
that's because LoL players are invested in the pro scene. I have never even tried to follow pro LoL and I can still name pro players from when I was playing, doublelift, dyrus, wildturtle, xpeke because they were the hot subject. I don't know who any of those people are or what they even main, but I know what they look like because I saw them on the home screen loads of times. You don't really get that branding in tf2- nobody knows who the teams are, nobody knows the players, you're lucky if you find someone who knows who banny is.
[quote=seanbud]
Maybe I'm completely wrong, who knows what their actual decision making process is. My current thoughts however are that if people want competitive to grow and want developer support, then our community leagues and websites that support competitive shouldn't remain so different from the competitive mode they've given us.
Current timeline of potential ESEA Open player:
Be pubstomper.
Try competitive matchmaking.
Make friends, Make a team.
Look for league to join.
Only leagues are VASTLY different from matchmaking.
Team disbands because 3/6 players are Heavy, Spy, and Engi mains. Unwelcome and innefective in current ESEA format.[/quote]
Obviously if you make friends with players who never win (because they have a spy and engi) even in matchmaking you're not going to move to a league and be surprised that you aren't winning.
You're not supposed to move to a league unless you're actually good. I am terrible at csgo (DMG or something) and I don't know any smokes or flashes- and don't know how to spray. Therefore I will not enter league play because these are core mechanics that make you win.
If you aren't good enough to realise that scout medic and demo make you win then you shouldn't be playing league games, and that's just what it is. Even in silver level league of legends everyone copies whatever the current pro players are doing. It's not a big thing.
that's because LoL players are invested in the pro scene. I have never even tried to follow pro LoL and I can still name pro players from when I was playing, doublelift, dyrus, wildturtle, xpeke because they were the hot subject. I don't know who any of those people are or what they even main, but I know what they look like because I saw them on the home screen loads of times. You don't really get that branding in tf2- nobody knows who the teams are, nobody knows the players, you're lucky if you find someone who knows who banny is.
clckwrkIf you wanted to blame Valve, you'd have to go years back to when a real impact could have been made, .
I've been blaming valve for 9 years.
[quote=clckwrk]If you wanted to blame Valve, you'd have to go years back to when a real impact could have been made, .[/quote]
I've been blaming valve for 9 years.
Mouldyou're lucky if you find someone who knows who banny is.
http://i.imgur.com/Ag0rXpF.png
[quote=Mould]you're lucky if you find someone who knows who banny is.[/quote]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Ag0rXpF.png[/img]
i always read the downfragged posts and giggle at them. the rest is repetitive shit posted in every "future of tf2" thread
i always read the downfragged posts and giggle at them. the rest is repetitive shit posted in every "future of tf2" thread
saamseanbudProbably an unpopular opinion but here it is: 6's Matchmaking was a massive fucking bone for Valve to throw us. We need to keep trying to play it and give feedback so they can continue to update it. One of the most important feedback issues is weapon balancing. I think one major thing stopping Valve from backing current 6's stuff is the long list of banned weapons. The new global whitelist is a good start, allowing a few of the more toned down unlocks. But we need to just drop that shit entirely. It'll probably be a really frustrating couple of months or whatever, but I'd consider this "growing pains." I think they're using game data to adjust weapons, and not looking at whitelists posted in competitive website forums, and reading through league admins justifications on why certain things are banned. My primary reasoning behind this assumption is the Sydney Sleeper. We've had that shit banned for YEARS and it gets buffed? I think it was so underused that they assumed it was bad, or maybe banning it mid season 5 years ago was a kneejerk reaction and the gun actually isn't THAT incredible, it's just frustrating to play against when a team plays around it well.
Another major issue is class limits. I don't honestly know if the current league limits are a good idea anymore. I personally think current 6's is fun to watch. If we remove class limits and unban all weapons, it probably won't be very fun to watch... At least in the short term. Again, I would hope that there would be a reaction from Valve to add a class limit 2(didn't Blizzard do this for OW?) We may in fact just have to put up with playing "their" format of 6's, until they realize how flawed it is, and adjust it into something more enjoyable.
Maybe I'm completely wrong, who knows what their actual decision making process is. My current thoughts however are that if people want competitive to grow and want developer support, then our community leagues and websites that support competitive shouldn't remain so different from the competitive mode they've given us.
Current timeline of potential ESEA Open player:
Be pubstomper.
Try competitive matchmaking.
Make friends, Make a team.
Look for league to join.
Only leagues are VASTLY different from matchmaking.
Team disbands because 3/6 players are Heavy, Spy, and Engi mains. Unwelcome and innefective in current ESEA format.
Tired ramblings but probably fairly accurate.
TL;DR: If Valve hasn't embraced ESEA 6's and sponsored LANS like iSeries after like 5 years, they won't. Unless the format changes.
when you're not actually playing the game it's really fucking easy to say let's unban everything and ditch class limits but when people still in leagues realize they're going to pushing last against 2 rescue ranger wrangler engies you'll kill the competitive scene before valve does anything. it'd be insane to keep unbanning things based on some assumption we've made that valve might possibly be ready to support with prize money because of reading between the lines and dissecting every sentence for double meaning of a few player's valve visits.
You are right that such a drastic change based on an assumption would probably be a bad idea. Maybe one of these Valve visits or some response from Jill or whoever would give us a better idea what would need to happen for them to back a tournament.
[quote=saam][quote=seanbud]Probably an unpopular opinion but here it is: 6's Matchmaking was a massive fucking bone for Valve to throw us. We need to keep trying to play it and give feedback so they can continue to update it. One of the most important feedback issues is weapon balancing. I think one major thing stopping Valve from backing current 6's stuff is the long list of banned weapons. The new global whitelist is a good start, allowing a few of the more toned down unlocks. But we need to just drop that shit entirely. It'll probably be a really frustrating couple of months or whatever, but I'd consider this "growing pains." I think they're using game data to adjust weapons, and not looking at whitelists posted in competitive website forums, and reading through league admins justifications on why certain things are banned. My primary reasoning behind this assumption is the Sydney Sleeper. We've had that shit banned for YEARS and it gets buffed? I think it was so underused that they assumed it was bad, or maybe banning it mid season 5 years ago was a kneejerk reaction and the gun actually isn't THAT incredible, it's just frustrating to play against when a team plays around it well.
Another major issue is class limits. I don't honestly know if the current league limits are a good idea anymore. I personally think current 6's is fun to watch. If we remove class limits and unban all weapons, it probably won't be very fun to watch... At least in the short term. Again, I would hope that there would be a reaction from Valve to add a class limit 2(didn't Blizzard do this for OW?) We may in fact just have to put up with playing "their" format of 6's, until they realize how flawed it is, and adjust it into something more enjoyable.
Maybe I'm completely wrong, who knows what their actual decision making process is. My current thoughts however are that if people want competitive to grow and want developer support, then our community leagues and websites that support competitive shouldn't remain so different from the competitive mode they've given us.
Current timeline of potential ESEA Open player:
Be pubstomper.
Try competitive matchmaking.
Make friends, Make a team.
Look for league to join.
Only leagues are VASTLY different from matchmaking.
Team disbands because 3/6 players are Heavy, Spy, and Engi mains. Unwelcome and innefective in current ESEA format.
Tired ramblings but probably fairly accurate.
TL;DR: If Valve hasn't embraced ESEA 6's and sponsored LANS like iSeries after like 5 years, they won't. Unless the format changes.[/quote]
when you're not actually playing the game it's really fucking easy to say let's unban everything and ditch class limits but when people still in leagues realize they're going to pushing last against 2 rescue ranger wrangler engies you'll kill the competitive scene before valve does anything. it'd be insane to keep unbanning things based on some assumption we've made that valve might possibly be ready to support with prize money because of reading between the lines and dissecting every sentence for double meaning of a few player's valve visits.[/quote]
You are right that such a drastic change based on an assumption would probably be a bad idea. Maybe one of these Valve visits or some response from Jill or whoever would give us a better idea what would need to happen for them to back a tournament.
Phoenix21 I have 80-100 ping and some packet loss so I use a high interp value (30.3-45.5) and even on medium range I don't see the pipe before it's already infront of my face.
dude i have good ping and low interp and i still don't see the pipe until it hits me half the time, it's absolute bullshit. My medic got fucked so hard with that weapon at massively fucking long ranges in our match this week because it's just so stupidly fast
but hey it's balanced because 'no rollers' amirite rofl
[quote=Phoenix21] I have 80-100 ping and some packet loss so I use a high interp value (30.3-45.5) and even on medium range I don't see the pipe before it's already infront of my face.[/quote]
dude i have good ping and low interp and i still don't see the pipe until it hits me half the time, it's absolute bullshit. My medic got fucked so hard with that weapon at massively fucking long ranges in our match this week because it's just so stupidly fast
but hey it's balanced because 'no rollers' amirite rofl
seanbudMaybe one of these Valve visits or some response from Jill or whoever would give us a better idea what would need to happen for them to back a tournament.
The problem is direct contact with some of the valve devs is hard enough. If only one person is going there, asking questions, shaking hands with people and then coming back to say that the team wants to help, 20+ more questions about what intentions are, how we can help, etc. are going to pop up. So from what it seems to me, getting in touch with the tf team more frequently and holding discussions with them on where they want the game to go is one of the best things that could happen for advancing the game, because we would be able to see both sides of the coin rather than just make speculations about scenarios that may or may not happen.
[quote=seanbud]Maybe one of these Valve visits or some response from Jill or whoever would give us a better idea what would need to happen for them to back a tournament.[/quote]
The problem is direct contact with some of the valve devs is hard enough. If only one person is going there, asking questions, shaking hands with people and then coming back to say that the team wants to help, 20+ more questions about what intentions are, how we can help, etc. are going to pop up. So from what it seems to me, getting in touch with the tf team more frequently and holding discussions with them on where they want the game to go is one of the best things that could happen for advancing the game, because we would be able to see both sides of the coin rather than just make speculations about scenarios that may or may not happen.
SpuA comparison between Valve and Blizzard's development teams really shows how fucking awful Valve is at developing a game they want to eventually make "competitive". Valve hasn't put any money into tournaments for the 9 years the game has been out, updates the game once or twice a year, only one for every three updates actually has in-game impact - the rest are just money farming updates. Meanwhile, Blizzard is developing the game as a competitive game by giving it constant attention - updates every month or two, no micro transactions between players, no in game economy, PTR to test future updates, constant communication between devs and the community.
tl;dr valve needs to rent out the overwatch developers for a few months
I think that comparison is a bit unfair. OW was made from the ground up after Esports was a huge success, and you can bet Blizzard is trying really hard to capitalize on that.
[quote=Spu]A comparison between Valve and Blizzard's development teams really shows how fucking awful Valve is at developing a game they want to eventually make "competitive". Valve hasn't put any money into tournaments for the 9 years the game has been out, updates the game once or twice a year, only one for every three updates actually has in-game impact - the rest are just money farming updates. Meanwhile, Blizzard is developing the game as a competitive game by giving it constant attention - updates every month or two, no micro transactions between players, no in game economy, PTR to test future updates, constant communication between devs and the community.
tl;dr valve needs to rent out the overwatch developers for a few months[/quote]
I think that comparison is a bit unfair. OW was made from the ground up after Esports was a huge success, and you can bet Blizzard is trying really hard to capitalize on that.
if comp wants to live then casual players need a reason to play it, be it because its fun, potential money, ingame item prizes, etc. Currently we have exactly none of that, so we have to rely on people actually being willing to waste time playing highlander because the average casual player doesnt play a 6s class. Imo valve has been doing fuck all and at this point all we can do is stall the bitter end.
if comp wants to live then casual players need a reason to play it, be it because its fun, potential money, ingame item prizes, etc. Currently we have exactly none of that, so we have to rely on people actually being willing to waste time playing highlander because the average casual player doesnt play a 6s class. Imo valve has been doing fuck all and at this point all we can do is stall the bitter end.
5cp is really good for high mobility classes. That's why it naturally favors Scout and Soldier heavily.
Outside of 6s, 5cp is most likely the least popular game mode. Payload, Attack/Defend, Capture the Flag and even Payload Race have lots of community support and love but I hardly hear anyone speaking about how much they love a 5cp map.
So how can we expect the community to massively support a game mode that isn't even popular? I love 5cp but if we want a higher percent of players from the community(currently like 10%) then competitive needs to support the popular game modes and maps.
5cp 6s is closer to Quake, in terms of skill floor whereas Payload, and A/D are more accessible and require less game sense(a good thing) to get started in and allows for all classes to be used far more than 5cp 6s.
5cp 6s is a completely different game
5cp is really good for high mobility classes. That's why it naturally favors Scout and Soldier heavily.
Outside of 6s, 5cp is most likely the least popular game mode. Payload, Attack/Defend, Capture the Flag and even Payload Race have lots of community support and love but I hardly hear anyone speaking about how much they love a 5cp map.
So how can we expect the community to massively support a game mode that isn't even popular? I love 5cp but if we want a higher percent of players from the community(currently like 10%) then competitive needs to support the popular game modes and maps.
5cp 6s is closer to Quake, in terms of skill floor whereas Payload, and A/D are more accessible and require less game sense(a good thing) to get started in and allows for all classes to be used far more than 5cp 6s.
5cp 6s is a completely different game
ComangliaPhoenix21ComangliaPhoenix21trashsome general replies:
2) there is absolutely no way to allow every single weapon and have people handle it, because fully comprehending what it'll all do to the metagame takes a long time. ETF2L had the right idea when they opted to instead slowly bring in new weapons season-by-season
not only that, valve added unlocks that are "balanced" for pubs, none of the unlocks were intreduced to appeal to competitive players, so we shouldn't be punished by allowing broken and unbalanced into the whitelist.
doesn't matter how important valve's support is, there needs to be a line. allowing the loch and load was such a big mistake, it's not overpowered it's just broken, I have 80-100 ping and some packet loss so I use a high interp value (30.3-45.5) and even on medium range I don't see the pipe before it's already infront of my face.
To play devil's advocate, it's not valve's fault you have shitty internet; also this means you would have issues with the Direct Hit, Liberty Launcher, Huntsman arrows, medic arrows, flares, charged stickies, and rescue ranger bolts since all those weapons are faster than the loch-n-load so lnl is definitely not "broken" it might be a bit OP but the only thing broken is your internet. Further more the loch-n-load can be seen as helping balance out 6s since it significantly improves demos chances of dealing with scouts. (Personally I feel l-n-l is a tadd op especially in 9v9 and pub formats. since large clusterfucks tend to happen)
hunstman is predictable and has a super slow charge, direct hit is not as viable as regular rockets, medic arrows are not doing a lot of damage.
most of those weapons are slower to fire than the loch and load, and deal less damage.
the loch and load shoots faster than the stock rocket launcher and direct hit + does 100 damage from any range.
when a weapon deals a lot of damage, is spammable (due to firerate) and incredibly hard to dodge it's broken.
Now see that's different you said the LnL was broken because
Phoenix21I have 80-100 ping and some packet loss so I use a high interp value (30.3-45.5) and even on medium range I don't see the pipe before it's already infront of my face
which would be true of every other projectile I listed.Phoenix21the loch and load shoots faster than the stock rocket launcher and direct hit + does 100 damage from any range.
when a weapon deals a lot of damage, is spammable (due to firerate) and incredibly hard to dodge it's broken
That isn't broken that's a bit OP. Especially when you consider the stock grenade launcher does all those same things except that it's projectile is slower.
also the the any range is also not true for the grenade launcher, you can't shoot very far with it, the loch and load has ridiculous range.
and the speed of the projectile combined already with with everything else is what makes it flawed.
[quote=Comanglia][quote=Phoenix21][quote=Comanglia][quote=Phoenix21][quote=trash]some general replies:
2) there is absolutely no way to allow every single weapon and have people handle it, because fully comprehending what it'll all do to the metagame takes a long time. ETF2L had the right idea when they opted to instead slowly bring in new weapons season-by-season
[/quote]
not only that, valve added unlocks that are "balanced" for pubs, none of the unlocks were intreduced to appeal to competitive players, so we shouldn't be punished by allowing broken and unbalanced into the whitelist.
doesn't matter how important valve's support is, there needs to be a line. allowing the loch and load was such a big mistake, it's not overpowered it's just broken, I have 80-100 ping and some packet loss so I use a high interp value (30.3-45.5) and even on medium range I don't see the pipe before it's already infront of my face.[/quote]
To play devil's advocate, it's not valve's fault you have shitty internet; also this means you would have issues with the Direct Hit, Liberty Launcher, Huntsman arrows, medic arrows, flares, charged stickies, and rescue ranger bolts since all those weapons are faster than the loch-n-load so lnl is definitely not "broken" it might be a bit OP but the only thing broken is your internet. Further more the loch-n-load can be seen as helping balance out 6s since it significantly improves demos chances of dealing with scouts. (Personally I feel l-n-l is a tadd op especially in 9v9 and pub formats. since large clusterfucks tend to happen)[/quote]
hunstman is predictable and has a super slow charge, direct hit is not as viable as regular rockets, medic arrows are not doing a lot of damage.
most of those weapons are slower to fire than the loch and load, and deal less damage.
the loch and load shoots faster than the stock rocket launcher and direct hit + does 100 damage from any range.
when a weapon deals a lot of damage, is spammable (due to firerate) and incredibly hard to dodge it's broken.[/quote]
Now see that's different you said the LnL was broken because
[quote=Phoenix21]I have 80-100 ping and some packet loss so I use a high interp value (30.3-45.5) and even on medium range I don't see the pipe before it's already infront of my face[/quote]
which would be true of every other projectile I listed.
[quote=Phoenix21]the loch and load shoots faster than the stock rocket launcher and direct hit + does 100 damage from any range.
when a weapon deals a lot of damage, is spammable (due to firerate) and incredibly hard to dodge it's broken[/quote]
That isn't broken that's a bit OP. Especially when you consider the stock grenade launcher does all those same things except that it's projectile is slower.[/quote]
also the the any range is also not true for the grenade launcher, you can't shoot very far with it, the loch and load has ridiculous range.
and the speed of the projectile combined already with with everything else is what makes it flawed.
mafia_is_mafia5cp 6s is closer to Quake, in terms of skill floor whereas Payload, and A/D are more accessible and require less game sense(a good thing) to get started in and allows for all classes to be used far more than 5cp 6s.
they're shit gamemodes for 6v6 anyone who's played gorge or swiftwater in mm can already tell you that
[quote=mafia_is_mafia]5cp 6s is closer to Quake, in terms of skill floor whereas Payload, and A/D are more accessible and require less game sense(a good thing) to get started in and allows for all classes to be used far more than 5cp 6s.[/quote]
they're shit gamemodes for 6v6 anyone who's played gorge or swiftwater in mm can already tell you that
seanbudYou are right that such a drastic change based on an assumption would probably be a bad idea. Maybe one of these Valve visits or some response from Jill or whoever would give us a better idea what would need to happen for them to back a tournament.
They have told us, they want to see numbers. Where those numbers need to show up we don't really know. My guess would be they want to see their ladder heavily populated and maybe overall player numbers going up in relation to that.
The ladder first release wasn't good, it's being improved slowly and it's not where it needs to be to be that successful yet. They have a shit load of background work to do to make those improvements, updating TF2 to the current steam server architecture, etc. So progress is slow, but I don't think they've ever done anything other than be clear it depends on engagement with the format. If the competitive game is compelling enough to get a lot of players they will support it.
You're right they've thrown us a bone but the only way it's manifested itself so far is legitimacy. Arguments about TF2 not being competitive, 6v6 not being a meaningful format, etc, have all melted away - they're in the game and that's it. Places like faceit are now moving to include TF2, ESEA have kept TF2 purely because of the MM announcement. People who think there have been no benefits, those things wouldn't exist right now without it.
[quote=seanbud]You are right that such a drastic change based on an assumption would probably be a bad idea. Maybe one of these Valve visits or some response from Jill or whoever would give us a better idea what would need to happen for them to back a tournament.[/quote]
They have told us, they want to see numbers. Where those numbers need to show up we don't really know. My guess would be they want to see their ladder heavily populated and maybe overall player numbers going up in relation to that.
The ladder first release wasn't good, it's being improved slowly and it's not where it needs to be to be that successful yet. They have a shit load of background work to do to make those improvements, updating TF2 to the current steam server architecture, etc. So progress is slow, but I don't think they've ever done anything other than be clear it depends on engagement with the format. If the competitive game is compelling enough to get a lot of players they will support it.
You're right they've thrown us a bone but the only way it's manifested itself so far is legitimacy. Arguments about TF2 not being competitive, 6v6 not being a meaningful format, etc, have all melted away - they're in the game and that's it. Places like faceit are now moving to include TF2, ESEA have kept TF2 purely because of the MM announcement. People who think there have been no benefits, those things wouldn't exist right now without it.
GentlemanJonseanbudYou are right that such a drastic change based on an assumption would probably be a bad idea. Maybe one of these Valve visits or some response from Jill or whoever would give us a better idea what would need to happen for them to back a tournament.
They have told us, they want to see numbers.
source
[quote=GentlemanJon][quote=seanbud]You are right that such a drastic change based on an assumption would probably be a bad idea. Maybe one of these Valve visits or some response from Jill or whoever would give us a better idea what would need to happen for them to back a tournament.[/quote]
They have told us, they want to see numbers.[/quote]
source
nopethey're shit gamemodes for 6v6 anyone who's played gorge or swiftwater in mm can already tell you that
what if we were to change the way maps are played in 6s generally
say we increased the pool to include some less favored maps, in etf2l we have certain maps a week, we could maybe change it to be playoff style, each team is allowed to pick a map and weekly the decider is pre-chosen like now- and we do away with ties and just have a winner in an official. So in that case maybe open teams might choose to play swiftwater and high teams still would probably not. If teams pick an aids map you can drop it and beat them on the 5cp map you chose and the decider.
it might be awful who knows but it could be a good compromise if that's what's needed to happen?
[quote=nope]
they're shit gamemodes for 6v6 anyone who's played gorge or swiftwater in mm can already tell you that[/quote]
what if we were to change the way maps are played in 6s generally
say we increased the pool to include some less favored maps, in etf2l we have certain maps a week, we could maybe change it to be playoff style, each team is allowed to pick a map and weekly the decider is pre-chosen like now- and we do away with ties and just have a winner in an official. So in that case maybe open teams might choose to play swiftwater and high teams still would probably not. If teams pick an aids map you can drop it and beat them on the 5cp map you chose and the decider.
it might be awful who knows but it could be a good compromise if that's what's needed to happen?
panda106GentlemanJonseanbudYou are right that such a drastic change based on an assumption would probably be a bad idea. Maybe one of these Valve visits or some response from Jill or whoever would give us a better idea what would need to happen for them to back a tournament.
They have told us, they want to see numbers.
source
i remember b4nny mentioning that they said it to him when talking about his valve visit right as mym came out but i dont think there was an official statement.
[quote=panda106][quote=GentlemanJon][quote=seanbud]You are right that such a drastic change based on an assumption would probably be a bad idea. Maybe one of these Valve visits or some response from Jill or whoever would give us a better idea what would need to happen for them to back a tournament.[/quote]
They have told us, they want to see numbers.[/quote]
source[/quote]
i remember b4nny mentioning that they said it to him when talking about his valve visit right as mym came out but i dont think there was an official statement.
nopethey're shit gamemodes for 6v6 anyone who's played gorge or swiftwater in mm can already tell you that
They are shit game modes for high skill or even semi serious play in general. Not just 6s.
[quote=nope]
they're shit gamemodes for 6v6 anyone who's played gorge or swiftwater in mm can already tell you that[/quote]
They are shit game modes for high skill or even semi serious play in general. Not just 6s.