https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1p42KtZOCw
so uhhh thoughts?
Upvote
Upvoted
23
Downvote
Downvoted
Trickle-Down Balance - Uncle dane
posted in
Videos
i agree with this generally but some things that really shit on pubs even if you're a bad player should be reworked because new player retention is just as important as the balance of the game at a high level imo and dying to shit that feels unfair/braindead to use is a fast track to getting players to leave.
right now that's namely pyro I would say
i agree with this generally but some things that really shit on pubs even if you're a bad player should be reworked because new player retention is just as important as the balance of the game at a high level imo and dying to shit that feels unfair/braindead to use is a fast track to getting players to leave.
right now that's namely pyro I would say
right now that's namely pyro I would say
he's right mostly but not everything that's perfectly balanced for comp works well for pubs (lack of counterplay etc). even in league they balance mainly for plat or something unless worlds is coming up soon, rather than balancing around the top level all year round
he's right mostly but not everything that's perfectly balanced for comp works well for pubs (lack of counterplay etc). even in league they balance mainly for plat or something unless worlds is coming up soon, rather than balancing around the top level all year round
springrollsdying to shit that feels unfair/braindead to use is a fast track to getting players to leave.
right now that's namely pyro I would say
i think you're missing a big one. last time i tried to get a friend into tf2, after a while he asked, "random critical chance in an fps?" started laughing and left
[quote=springrolls]dying to shit that feels unfair/braindead to use is a fast track to getting players to leave.
right now that's namely pyro I would say[/quote]
i think you're missing a big one. last time i tried to get a friend into tf2, after a while he asked, "random critical chance in an fps?" started laughing and left
right now that's namely pyro I would say[/quote]
i think you're missing a big one. last time i tried to get a friend into tf2, after a while he asked, "random critical chance in an fps?" started laughing and left
I can't really watch this in its entirety right now, but trickle down is generally the only kind of balancing that ever makes sense in a competitive multiplayer game. This is long and a bit design heavy so if you're not interested feel free to skip.
The act of game balance in a competitive game is from a design perspective essentially the act of managing unfair scenarios, because the "fun" of (competitive) games arises when players either win from a disadvantage or have the knowledge to create/recognize an advantage and act on it.
Tons of (generally less competitive) games will create this sense of unfairness through randomness and manage how unfair that randomness can be, but in a competitive game you need very little to no randomness because you place a bigger emphasis on mechanical & mental (gamesense) skill allowing unfair scenarios to more naturally arise than something like, idk, Hearthstone. Competitive TF2 itself has very little randomness remaining for instance - random fall damage and bullet spread on miniguns/pistols/revolvers/syringe guns being the heavy hitters.
Balancing in the sense that everything is fair would leave a game pretty homogenized/boring, but you can make a game "unfair" but give players all the tools to utilize. Your goal is just to make sure that nothing is so unfair that it dominates the meta and ruins all other options or to make nothing so useless it never sees play (although this is preferable compared to the former). Having niche or situational strategies is exceptionally rewarding for players, as it goes back into that mechanical/gamesense skill.
In 6s this is most obviously seen with offclassing, knowing when to offclass and how to utilize those offclasses rewards player knowledge, teamwork, and decision making. When you go Spy, backstab the enemy Medic, and that decision wins you the round it feels very rewarding and good. Having the gamesense to recognize that the other team sacced in for a Spy and beating that swap is conversely very rewarding and feels good. Spy is a situational class, but that's what makes him interesting and hype on casts when he shows up, if Spy was "fair" with the rest of the classes - all equally viable - he would be nowhere near as exciting because it's no longer a knowledge/gamesense choice combined with mechanical teamwork to attempt the stab, it's just "yeah we feel like running Spy coz we can all the time now".
But you can look at another popular game like Chess, which is a game draped in unfair scenarios even if the game overall is relatively equal since both players have access to the same pieces and the same amount of them. The pieces are all different power levels and how they interact through various board strategies creates a plethora of unfair scenarios that makes the game fun. Learning how to use those interactions, beat those interactions, or set up those interactions to gain an advantage or come back from a disadvantage is, at its heart, what makes Chess fun.
Trickle down from that design perspective thus makes the most sense because your best players are at any one moment the players that best recognize how to beat/create/recognize those unfair scenarios - this is what "getting better" at a competitive game entails. Getting better aim or positioning or gamesense is getting better at making unfair situations that benefit yourself.
The hard part of trickle down is that in a very high skill game you have to recognize that it is only applicable to the present though. Your current best players are still improving over time because in a skilled game you can't truly master it into perfection. I think a really good example of this in 6s would be how back in the very early years of 6s (2007-2009) Scout was formidable but not considered remotely as good or as feared as he is now. The top players back then - while great and all - couldn't utilize Scout as well as the top players of recent times now can. This is why careful balancing and taking your time on things can also be important because your best players can get better and shift opinions on stuff with little to no changes done to it.
New/low skill players are kind of interesting because you don't have to heavily appeal to them with balancing because they typically do not actually care about balancing until they really dig into the game. The main thing you target these players with via design is the actual design itself - you try to shoot for "simple to play but difficult to master". That's a side topic and you can do it in a variety of ways but one of the more obvious ways TF2 does it is by providing some easier classes that are more newbie friendly, can still do some work in the right scenario, and still have some skill growth that can tie into other classes, like the Heavy and Engineer. If you have a solid pathway to getting into the game & improving, by the time these players care about balancing they'll be at a healthy skill level where the balancing "makes sense".
Even if something is really dominant in low level play if it's bad at high levels you probably don't want to nerf it unless the counterplay required is simply too high (which generally only happens if the teamwork required to employ said thing is basically non-existent). A good example from DotA is stealth characters, they don't dumpster stealth characters even though they feed on super low level play because the counter is simple it's just the low level players have to learn it. You'd better fix this "problem" with UI elements informing players to buy anti-Stealth items when playing against Stealth characters for the first several times than you would actually rendering the characters worse at all other levels of play where people actively counter them.
If something does have too crazy of a counterplay requirement, is braindead, and is dominating low level play though you're pretty free to nerf/rework it because again it's preferable to have something be bad at the high level of play if it saves player retention. This is because your best players - while they care about balance - generally only care if something is overpowered at that level and don't mind bad/useless items as much. You're not usually going to hear Invite players complain that the Candy Cane is a bad Scout item for instance.
If something does arise that breaks high skill games (this would generally be something with extremely low risk, almost no skill required, and high reward) but isn't a big threat in low skill games you can also make adjustments with smart changes that is just overly beneficial to the game. Most notable one here in recent times for TF2 is the Razorback, which was a problem in basically Highlander only. Preventing overheal fixes the problem it has in Highlander without really affecting lower skill pubs - those Snipers weren't getting tanked by Medics nor were they playing around a combo in the first place.
The only reason lower end players tend to not be on board with trickle down is because they care more about feels rather than reals when it comes to the game. They care more about their feelings (I LOVE THIS ITEM DONT NERF IT, I LOVE THIS CLASS Y NERF IT) and don't talk about balance from an actual overarching perspective, these people are usually very transparent about it because they will outright state their feelings in their complaining too, usually not talking about the reality of the item/class/strategy in question at all or very minimally if they do. They care more about the way they actually play the game rather than how the game itself is actually played.
I can't really watch this in its entirety right now, but trickle down is generally the only kind of balancing that ever makes sense in a competitive multiplayer game. This is long and a bit design heavy so if you're not interested feel free to skip.
The act of game balance in a competitive game is from a design perspective essentially the act of managing unfair scenarios, because the "fun" of (competitive) games arises when players either win from a disadvantage or have the knowledge to create/recognize an advantage and act on it.
Tons of (generally less competitive) games will create this sense of unfairness through randomness and manage how unfair that randomness can be, but in a competitive game you need very little to no randomness because you place a bigger emphasis on mechanical & mental (gamesense) skill allowing unfair scenarios to more naturally arise than something like, idk, Hearthstone. Competitive TF2 itself has very little randomness remaining for instance - random fall damage and bullet spread on miniguns/pistols/revolvers/syringe guns being the heavy hitters.
Balancing in the sense that everything is fair would leave a game pretty homogenized/boring, but you can make a game "unfair" but give players all the tools to utilize. Your goal is just to make sure that nothing is so unfair that it dominates the meta and ruins all other options or to make nothing so useless it never sees play (although this is preferable compared to the former). Having niche or situational strategies is exceptionally rewarding for players, as it goes back into that mechanical/gamesense skill.
In 6s this is most obviously seen with offclassing, knowing when to offclass and how to utilize those offclasses rewards player knowledge, teamwork, and decision making. When you go Spy, backstab the enemy Medic, and that decision wins you the round it feels very rewarding and good. Having the gamesense to recognize that the other team sacced in for a Spy and beating that swap is conversely very rewarding and feels good. Spy is a situational class, but that's what makes him interesting and hype on casts when he shows up, if Spy was "fair" with the rest of the classes - all equally viable - he would be nowhere near as exciting because it's no longer a knowledge/gamesense choice combined with mechanical teamwork to attempt the stab, it's just "yeah we feel like running Spy coz we can all the time now".
But you can look at another popular game like Chess, which is a game draped in unfair scenarios even if the game overall is relatively equal since both players have access to the same pieces and the same amount of them. The pieces are all different power levels and how they interact through various board strategies creates a plethora of unfair scenarios that makes the game fun. Learning how to use those interactions, beat those interactions, or set up those interactions to gain an advantage or come back from a disadvantage is, at its heart, what makes Chess fun.
Trickle down from that design perspective thus makes the most sense because your best players are at any one moment the players that best recognize how to beat/create/recognize those unfair scenarios - this is what "getting better" at a competitive game entails. Getting better aim or positioning or gamesense is getting better at making unfair situations that benefit yourself.
The hard part of trickle down is that in a very high skill game you have to recognize that it is only applicable to the present though. Your current best players are still improving over time because in a skilled game you can't truly master it into perfection. I think a really good example of this in 6s would be how back in the very early years of 6s (2007-2009) Scout was formidable but not considered remotely as good or as feared as he is now. The top players back then - while great and all - couldn't utilize Scout as well as the top players of recent times now can. This is why careful balancing and taking your time on things can also be important because your best players can get better and shift opinions on stuff with little to no changes done to it.
New/low skill players are kind of interesting because you don't have to heavily appeal to them with balancing because they typically do not actually care about balancing until they really dig into the game. The main thing you target these players with via design is the actual design itself - you try to shoot for "simple to play but difficult to master". That's a side topic and you can do it in a variety of ways but one of the more obvious ways TF2 does it is by providing some easier classes that are more newbie friendly, can still do some work in the right scenario, and still have some skill growth that can tie into other classes, like the Heavy and Engineer. If you have a solid pathway to getting into the game & improving, by the time these players care about balancing they'll be at a healthy skill level where the balancing "makes sense".
Even if something is really dominant in low level play if it's bad at high levels you probably don't want to nerf it unless the counterplay required is simply too high (which generally only happens if the teamwork required to employ said thing is basically non-existent). A good example from DotA is stealth characters, they don't dumpster stealth characters even though they feed on super low level play because the counter is simple it's just the low level players have to learn it. You'd better fix this "problem" with UI elements informing players to buy anti-Stealth items when playing against Stealth characters for the first several times than you would actually rendering the characters worse at all other levels of play where people actively counter them.
If something does have too crazy of a counterplay requirement, is braindead, and is dominating low level play though you're pretty free to nerf/rework it because again it's preferable to have something be bad at the high level of play if it saves player retention. This is because your best players - while they care about balance - generally only care if something is overpowered at that level and don't mind bad/useless items as much. You're not usually going to hear Invite players complain that the Candy Cane is a bad Scout item for instance.
If something does arise that breaks high skill games (this would generally be something with extremely low risk, almost no skill required, and high reward) but isn't a big threat in low skill games you can also make adjustments with smart changes that is just overly beneficial to the game. Most notable one here in recent times for TF2 is the Razorback, which was a problem in basically Highlander only. Preventing overheal fixes the problem it has in Highlander without really affecting lower skill pubs - those Snipers weren't getting tanked by Medics nor were they playing around a combo in the first place.
The only reason lower end players tend to not be on board with trickle down is because they care more about feels rather than reals when it comes to the game. They care more about their feelings (I LOVE THIS ITEM DONT NERF IT, I LOVE THIS CLASS Y NERF IT) and don't talk about balance from an actual overarching perspective, these people are usually very transparent about it because they will outright state their feelings in their complaining too, usually not talking about the reality of the item/class/strategy in question at all or very minimally if they do. They care more about the way they actually play the game rather than how the game itself is actually played.
The act of game balance in a competitive game is from a design perspective essentially the act of managing unfair scenarios, because the "fun" of (competitive) games arises when players either win from a disadvantage or have the knowledge to create/recognize an advantage and act on it.
Tons of (generally less competitive) games will create this sense of unfairness through randomness and manage how unfair that randomness can be, but in a competitive game you need very little to no randomness because you place a bigger emphasis on mechanical & mental (gamesense) skill allowing unfair scenarios to more naturally arise than something like, idk, Hearthstone. Competitive TF2 itself has very little randomness remaining for instance - random fall damage and bullet spread on miniguns/pistols/revolvers/syringe guns being the heavy hitters.
Balancing in the sense that everything is fair would leave a game pretty homogenized/boring, but you can make a game "unfair" but give players all the tools to utilize. Your goal is just to make sure that nothing is so unfair that it dominates the meta and ruins all other options or to make nothing so useless it never sees play (although this is preferable compared to the former). Having niche or situational strategies is exceptionally rewarding for players, as it goes back into that mechanical/gamesense skill.
In 6s this is most obviously seen with offclassing, knowing when to offclass and how to utilize those offclasses rewards player knowledge, teamwork, and decision making. When you go Spy, backstab the enemy Medic, and that decision wins you the round it feels very rewarding and good. Having the gamesense to recognize that the other team sacced in for a Spy and beating that swap is conversely very rewarding and feels good. Spy is a situational class, but that's what makes him interesting and hype on casts when he shows up, if Spy was "fair" with the rest of the classes - all equally viable - he would be nowhere near as exciting because it's no longer a knowledge/gamesense choice combined with mechanical teamwork to attempt the stab, it's just "yeah we feel like running Spy coz we can all the time now".
But you can look at another popular game like Chess, which is a game draped in unfair scenarios even if the game overall is relatively equal since both players have access to the same pieces and the same amount of them. The pieces are all different power levels and how they interact through various board strategies creates a plethora of unfair scenarios that makes the game fun. Learning how to use those interactions, beat those interactions, or set up those interactions to gain an advantage or come back from a disadvantage is, at its heart, what makes Chess fun.
Trickle down from that design perspective thus makes the most sense because your best players are at any one moment the players that best recognize how to beat/create/recognize those unfair scenarios - this is what "getting better" at a competitive game entails. Getting better aim or positioning or gamesense is getting better at making unfair situations that benefit yourself.
The hard part of trickle down is that in a very high skill game you have to recognize that it is only applicable to the present though. Your current best players are still improving over time because in a skilled game you can't truly master it into perfection. I think a really good example of this in 6s would be how back in the very early years of 6s (2007-2009) Scout was formidable but not considered remotely as good or as feared as he is now. The top players back then - while great and all - couldn't utilize Scout as well as the top players of recent times now can. This is why careful balancing and taking your time on things can also be important because your best players can get better and shift opinions on stuff with little to no changes done to it.
New/low skill players are kind of interesting because you don't have to heavily appeal to them with balancing because they typically do not actually care about balancing until they really dig into the game. The main thing you target these players with via design is the actual design itself - you try to shoot for "simple to play but difficult to master". That's a side topic and you can do it in a variety of ways but one of the more obvious ways TF2 does it is by providing some easier classes that are more newbie friendly, can still do some work in the right scenario, and still have some skill growth that can tie into other classes, like the Heavy and Engineer. If you have a solid pathway to getting into the game & improving, by the time these players care about balancing they'll be at a healthy skill level where the balancing "makes sense".
Even if something is really dominant in low level play if it's bad at high levels you probably don't want to nerf it unless the counterplay required is simply too high (which generally only happens if the teamwork required to employ said thing is basically non-existent). A good example from DotA is stealth characters, they don't dumpster stealth characters even though they feed on super low level play because the counter is simple it's just the low level players have to learn it. You'd better fix this "problem" with UI elements informing players to buy anti-Stealth items when playing against Stealth characters for the first several times than you would actually rendering the characters worse at all other levels of play where people actively counter them.
If something does have too crazy of a counterplay requirement, is braindead, and is dominating low level play though you're pretty free to nerf/rework it because again it's preferable to have something be bad at the high level of play if it saves player retention. This is because your best players - while they care about balance - generally only care if something is overpowered at that level and don't mind bad/useless items as much. You're not usually going to hear Invite players complain that the Candy Cane is a bad Scout item for instance.
If something does arise that breaks high skill games (this would generally be something with extremely low risk, almost no skill required, and high reward) but isn't a big threat in low skill games you can also make adjustments with smart changes that is just overly beneficial to the game. Most notable one here in recent times for TF2 is the Razorback, which was a problem in basically Highlander only. Preventing overheal fixes the problem it has in Highlander without really affecting lower skill pubs - those Snipers weren't getting tanked by Medics nor were they playing around a combo in the first place.
The only reason lower end players tend to not be on board with trickle down is because they care more about feels rather than reals when it comes to the game. They care more about their feelings (I LOVE THIS ITEM DONT NERF IT, I LOVE THIS CLASS Y NERF IT) and don't talk about balance from an actual overarching perspective, these people are usually very transparent about it because they will outright state their feelings in their complaining too, usually not talking about the reality of the item/class/strategy in question at all or very minimally if they do. They care more about the way they actually play the game rather than how the game itself is actually played.
^^^^ damn the nerd essay has achieved a new level.
I wouldn't even have close to this word count for my assignments.
^^^^ damn the nerd essay has achieved a new level.
I wouldn't even have close to this word count for my assignments.
I wouldn't even have close to this word count for my assignments.
not using "trickle down" balancing punishes people who spend more time with the game in an effort to cater to players who won't notice or care that the game is balanced for them
not using "trickle down" balancing punishes people who spend more time with the game in an effort to cater to players who won't notice or care that the game is balanced for them
botmodenot using "trickle down" balancing punishes people who spend more time with the game in an effort to cater to players who won't notice or care that the game is balanced for them
it's not that they won't notice, it's that they can't notice. always seemed pretty obvious that balancing around pubs is dumb. the skill level isn't balanced, because anyone can join. so even if all the weapons are equally good, some people are going to stomp others, and you'll never be able to get real weapon balancing info.
balancing around esea invite, where the skill level is (somewhat) even, makes sense.
[quote=botmode]not using "trickle down" balancing punishes people who spend more time with the game in an effort to cater to players who won't notice or care that the game is balanced for them[/quote]
it's not that they won't notice, it's that they can't notice. always seemed pretty obvious that balancing around pubs is dumb. the skill level isn't balanced, because anyone can join. so even if all the weapons are equally good, some people are going to stomp others, and you'll never be able to get real weapon balancing info.
balancing around esea invite, where the skill level is (somewhat) even, makes sense.
it's not that they won't notice, it's that they can't notice. always seemed pretty obvious that balancing around pubs is dumb. the skill level isn't balanced, because anyone can join. so even if all the weapons are equally good, some people are going to stomp others, and you'll never be able to get real weapon balancing info.
balancing around esea invite, where the skill level is (somewhat) even, makes sense.
very good vid, dane was really well spoken.
i appreciate that he is using his reach between comp and casual play to address issues like this and educate people on why certain things might work in everyone's favour for making TF2 better
very good vid, dane was really well spoken.
i appreciate that he is using his reach between comp and casual play to address issues like this and educate people on why certain things might work in everyone's favour for making TF2 better
i appreciate that he is using his reach between comp and casual play to address issues like this and educate people on why certain things might work in everyone's favour for making TF2 better
I love how he says he doesn't have time to watch the video, but he has time to write all that shit out.
10/10
I love how he says he doesn't have time to watch the video, but he has time to write all that shit out.
10/10
10/10
the video was well thought out but just in case you dont feel like watching it here's the brief synopsis
the video was well thought out but just in case you dont feel like watching it here's the brief synopsis
https://i.gyazo.com/3a5c4b0bc0468222c7421be2114d261b.png
https://i.gyazo.com/3a5c4b0bc0468222c7421be2114d261b.png
holy shit, til there're 8 tiers in the game
holy shit, til there're 8 tiers in the game
https://i.imgur.com/1KTf8NE.png
https://i.imgur.com/1KTf8NE.png
Really shows how ignorant the majority of the tf2 community is when I see a bunch of comments saying "WOW! people can do that with the base jumper? I see why it got nerfed". although the video had a different point I wish dane could have shown off some more weapons in action to show the community why they were claimed op in the first place.
Edit: Maybe funke you can show off why many of the weapons were op, etc.? (Mainly I mean can someone make a video demonstrating why, cause apparently showing people actual proof is much more powerful than just ranting and spewing worthless words
Really shows how ignorant the majority of the tf2 community is when I see a bunch of comments saying "WOW! people can do that with the base jumper? I see why it got nerfed". although the video had a different point I wish dane could have shown off some more weapons in action to show the community why they were claimed op in the first place.
Edit: Maybe funke you can show off why many of the weapons were op, etc.? (Mainly I mean can someone make a video demonstrating why, cause apparently showing people actual proof is much more powerful than just ranting and spewing worthless words
Edit: Maybe funke you can show off why many of the weapons were op, etc.? (Mainly I mean can someone make a video demonstrating why, cause apparently showing people actual proof is much more powerful than just ranting and spewing worthless words
CorunsonReally shows how ignorant the majority of the tf2 community is when I see a bunch of comments saying "WOW! people can do that with the base jumper? I see why it got nerfed"
seems like someone still strongly disagrees, from the comments section obv, insane:
The parachute example was ridiculous. Had he not been wearing it he still would not have been shot at range. The rocket launcher WILL give any target beyond 196hu (which is quite close) ample distance and time to completely avoid a direct shot, and even the Direct Hit only has 353hu range of guaranteed hits. The parachute no matter what if he was dropping or not still would allow him to avoid hits at that range - from projectiles. The hitscan weapon’s of any class still can and do easily aim upon the BASE Jumper user. And that is how it inherently is and should be. One cannot expect their projectiles at range and with an enemy able to move in all 3 dimensions simultaneously to be accurate because of travel time.
There are many poor changes in TF2 but one of which was removing redeployment of the BASE’s parachute. Time and time again I cannot tell you how often the only use for it is to pass a gap using as little health as possible from a jump, and then you’re stuck in air because if you close the chute, you’ll fall far enough to take fall damage. One doesn’t need to deploy for that long, they do not want to, yet if they close their chute now at height, they’re going to take fall damage and it is a huge nuisance. I’d always pick the gunboats instead of it because of the health loss per jump and landing are always less with the boots equipped than with the parachute as it offers no blast reduction. This “weapon” has almost no use as the one weapon it was designed to work with, The Airstrike, is awful. It tickles for the damage it does, if you can even land the rockets at range due to how far one is and the reduced splash radius.
If there is a problem with the BASE jumper, then there’s problems with airborne enemies in general. It will always be far harder to hit a non-parachuting enemy than one parachuting due to the speed. At close range the ability to redeploy is irrelevant as they have reduced their speed to a crawl in comparison to a smooth blast jump, and at range the difference is negligible as you would never have been able to shoot him at that range anyways. In fact, the BASE jumper allows for MORE chances to hit the target as they’re moving slower for longer periods of time.
[quote=Corunson]Really shows how ignorant the majority of the tf2 community is when I see a bunch of comments saying "WOW! people can do that with the base jumper? I see why it got nerfed"[/quote]
seems like someone still strongly disagrees, from the comments section obv, insane:
The parachute example was ridiculous. Had he not been wearing it he still would not have been shot at range. The rocket launcher WILL give any target beyond 196hu (which is quite close) ample distance and time to completely avoid a direct shot, and even the Direct Hit only has 353hu range of guaranteed hits. The parachute no matter what if he was dropping or not still would allow him to avoid hits at that range - from projectiles. The hitscan weapon’s of any class still can and do easily aim upon the BASE Jumper user. And that is how it inherently is and should be. One cannot expect their projectiles at range and with an enemy able to move in all 3 dimensions simultaneously to be accurate because of travel time.
There are many poor changes in TF2 but one of which was removing redeployment of the BASE’s parachute. Time and time again I cannot tell you how often the only use for it is to pass a gap using as little health as possible from a jump, and then you’re stuck in air because if you close the chute, you’ll fall far enough to take fall damage. One doesn’t need to deploy for that long, they do not want to, yet if they close their chute now at height, they’re going to take fall damage and it is a huge nuisance. I’d always pick the gunboats instead of it because of the health loss per jump and landing are always less with the boots equipped than with the parachute as it offers no blast reduction. This “weapon” has almost no use as the one weapon it was designed to work with, The Airstrike, is awful. It tickles for the damage it does, if you can even land the rockets at range due to how far one is and the reduced splash radius.
If there is a problem with the BASE jumper, then there’s problems with airborne enemies in general. It will always be far harder to hit a non-parachuting enemy than one parachuting due to the speed. At close range the ability to redeploy is irrelevant as they have reduced their speed to a crawl in comparison to a smooth blast jump, and at range the difference is negligible as you would never have been able to shoot him at that range anyways. In fact, the BASE jumper allows for MORE chances to hit the target as they’re moving slower for longer periods of time.
seems like someone still strongly disagrees, from the comments section obv, insane:
The parachute example was ridiculous. Had he not been wearing it he still would not have been shot at range. The rocket launcher WILL give any target beyond 196hu (which is quite close) ample distance and time to completely avoid a direct shot, and even the Direct Hit only has 353hu range of guaranteed hits. The parachute no matter what if he was dropping or not still would allow him to avoid hits at that range - from projectiles. The hitscan weapon’s of any class still can and do easily aim upon the BASE Jumper user. And that is how it inherently is and should be. One cannot expect their projectiles at range and with an enemy able to move in all 3 dimensions simultaneously to be accurate because of travel time.
There are many poor changes in TF2 but one of which was removing redeployment of the BASE’s parachute. Time and time again I cannot tell you how often the only use for it is to pass a gap using as little health as possible from a jump, and then you’re stuck in air because if you close the chute, you’ll fall far enough to take fall damage. One doesn’t need to deploy for that long, they do not want to, yet if they close their chute now at height, they’re going to take fall damage and it is a huge nuisance. I’d always pick the gunboats instead of it because of the health loss per jump and landing are always less with the boots equipped than with the parachute as it offers no blast reduction. This “weapon” has almost no use as the one weapon it was designed to work with, The Airstrike, is awful. It tickles for the damage it does, if you can even land the rockets at range due to how far one is and the reduced splash radius.
If there is a problem with the BASE jumper, then there’s problems with airborne enemies in general. It will always be far harder to hit a non-parachuting enemy than one parachuting due to the speed. At close range the ability to redeploy is irrelevant as they have reduced their speed to a crawl in comparison to a smooth blast jump, and at range the difference is negligible as you would never have been able to shoot him at that range anyways. In fact, the BASE jumper allows for MORE chances to hit the target as they’re moving slower for longer periods of time.
EdgyEddystuff
I used the Base jumper a lot in HL before it was nerfed and it was a fucking dumb item to play against.
unless you are in a tiny enclosed space, any fight with another soldier you have is almost a free win because you surf his rocket into the air and deploy your parachute and now he has an extremely more difficult shot to make to kill you while you're fairly safe in the air and can easily spam multiple rockets from above. This is still possible, but now you're basically a sitting duck in the air and it's a lot easier to get hit.
Even when you were not fighting a soldier, you could easily jump into a flank and deploy it high in the air. From that position, everything that isn't a heavy or sniper is doing less damage to you than you are to them (so nobody on the flank and not any 6s classes) and if you miss your rockets or more people come and the fight doesn't look good, you can very easily just turn around mid air and float away. This part of the Base jump you can no longer do since your air control is so hampered when you have it out now.
It basically gave you so much control over any flank that has any decent amount of open space without giving up much and it was REALLY easy.
[quote=EdgyEddy]stuff[/quote]
I used the Base jumper a lot in HL before it was nerfed and it was a fucking dumb item to play against.
unless you are in a tiny enclosed space, any fight with another soldier you have is almost a free win because you surf his rocket into the air and deploy your parachute and now he has an extremely more difficult shot to make to kill you while you're fairly safe in the air and can easily spam multiple rockets from above. This is still possible, but now you're basically a sitting duck in the air and it's a lot easier to get hit.
Even when you were not fighting a soldier, you could easily jump into a flank and deploy it high in the air. From that position, everything that isn't a heavy or sniper is doing less damage to you than you are to them (so nobody on the flank and not any 6s classes) and if you miss your rockets or more people come and the fight doesn't look good, you can very easily just turn around mid air and float away. This part of the Base jump you can no longer do since your air control is so hampered when you have it out now.
It basically gave you so much control over any flank that has any decent amount of open space without giving up much and it was REALLY easy.
I used the Base jumper a lot in HL before it was nerfed and it was a fucking dumb item to play against.
unless you are in a tiny enclosed space, any fight with another soldier you have is almost a free win because you surf his rocket into the air and deploy your parachute and now he has an extremely more difficult shot to make to kill you while you're fairly safe in the air and can easily spam multiple rockets from above. This is still possible, but now you're basically a sitting duck in the air and it's a lot easier to get hit.
Even when you were not fighting a soldier, you could easily jump into a flank and deploy it high in the air. From that position, everything that isn't a heavy or sniper is doing less damage to you than you are to them (so nobody on the flank and not any 6s classes) and if you miss your rockets or more people come and the fight doesn't look good, you can very easily just turn around mid air and float away. This part of the Base jump you can no longer do since your air control is so hampered when you have it out now.
It basically gave you so much control over any flank that has any decent amount of open space without giving up much and it was REALLY easy.
why should casual players have any say in weapon balance at all??
these are the same furries and bronies sitting down for 10 hours a day on trade/casual servers spamming "pootis xD" and REEEing in chat when someone disses their favourite hentai or some shit
why should casual players have any say in weapon balance at all??
these are the same furries and bronies sitting down for 10 hours a day on trade/casual servers spamming "pootis xD" and REEEing in chat when someone disses their favourite hentai or some shit
these are the same furries and bronies sitting down for 10 hours a day on trade/casual servers spamming "pootis xD" and REEEing in chat when someone disses their favourite hentai or some shit
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.