the people whining are the same internet brigade that bitch at EA for DRM and still eat up their games. i don't think they would have had issues selling consoles even had they left it alone.

more intelligent posts here than half of the weapon balance opinion threads imo

I liked a game. a sequel came out that I didn't like. Therefore I will not like any sequels. That logic is undeniably weak... and what would be the point of remaking melee anyways? there's no significant engine flaws in the original one to warrant the costs of a remake. if you want to play melee, go play melee.

I feel like you just came here and regurgitated a bunch of technical terms and conclude because they exist it's what makes the game good and competitive. really the only variable is whether or not the game is fun or not. people would have competed in melee if pretty much everything in your list was removed. would there be less depth? sure. but it'd still be fun. most of the depth when you compete in something comes from your opponent anyways.

I wrote this all without even bringing up that brawl really isnt all that bad. some of the changes were undeniably stupid, but it's still fun to play/intense to watch high level play. at the end of the day most of the people that whine about it would probably still play it if there was a scene in their area or they the online play wasn't godawful. having good online is kind of the only factor in whether or not i play the new one personally.

you don't need a carbon copy of an older game for it to be good.

dont shoot the rocket?

e3s have been a disappointment ever since it stopped being anything but a conference

people are all talk. change occurs in every game, and every time there are people who say they'll quit. think of the transition from bw to sc2. the amount of people quitting always ends up negligable, and in this case the returns would obviously be greater

a conservative mindset is a bad mindset. there is a clear problem with the game that has finally presented itself an opportunity to be fixed. an adjustment to some arbitrary rules really isn't that big of a deal and the whiners ALWAYS forget about these changes in a month of playing. it's been the case in every game where some radical change comes... unless the change is really bad. but some smart people seem to be helping mold this change with valve, so that is unlikely to happen.

why would esea not follow the ruleset adopted by an ingame system valve creates? the only way a schism will be created is if there are some really stupid people at the top making decisions. The best case scenereo is people stop crying about (gasp) playing more game modes and having more variety, valve implements a matchmaking type system ingame(you can stop here for enough reasons to do this), and valve potentially starts putting more funds into competitive and can say "look! we're giving these guys money while they play the fun competitive mode!" and the casual audience goes "wow this is kind of fun!" Think TI2 style: start prizemoney at x, add ingame item that contributes funds to this tournament. wishful thinking is the international becomes a "valve game" yearly tournament with this sort of prize money system in place.

the worst case scenereo is we get integrated pugging. in a ruleset you'd eventually learn to love. seriously, the effects manual weapon banning would have would be very cool.

anyways, my goal wasnt to be polarizing to what is likely to be a 12 page circlejerk. I just feel like there's a lot of issues that need to be looked at from other people's perspectives. and sorry for the formatting/any strange transitions its 6am and no sleep !

If anything is an unpopular opinion it's probably this: how do you expect Valve to support competitive tf2 when it caters to a completely different audience than the majority of the people that play the game?

Think from their perspective: Their goal is to get lots of people to enjoy their content so they're comfortable enough to play it regularly and buy cool stuff from their store. Net effective fun is their measurement for success. We as competitive tf2 players play a game so different from everyone else that the definition of "fun" is shifted completely. And they're not going to choose our miniscule competitive playerbase's definition of fun if it ruins this net effective fun for everyone else.

We play 5cp when it is by far the least popular(or maybe it's ctf) mode played outside of competitive-- we've already created a huge contrast in the player experience. What are the repercussions of this choice? We DESPISE turtling play. Heavies, engis, snipers are considered "annoying" classes because we play a gamemode that is only fun when there's an intense tug-of-war of back and forth pushing. We choose to balance around this. In pub play, there are game modes oriented around cracking the base, which is more inclusive, representative of pub play, and the same notions of what is fun or not are shared among the people good and the people playing casually.

Imagine Valve implemented our current ruleset to some ingame matchmaking system and heavily promoted it. "Hey! Play this competitive stuff it's really cool!" These people with a completely different notion of fun would go "oh boy!" and proceed to click find match. They would get into a game and something like this would happen:

"you mean they only play those 5 point cp maps I always go the wrong way on those XD"
"I cant use ANY of my new items? why did I spend all that time trading..."
"why is everyone mad that im heavy..."

they conclude that experience was terrible and proceed to never play it again. a couple things happen as a result of this. one, valve wasted time and bloated their game with a mm system the majority of their playerbase don't use. two, they show a loss of touch to their main audience. I don't think it takes much to see if rules were changed to have a competitive game that actually mirrors what normal people play tf2 for, there'd be growth and support. highlander has already shown this.

it was because the system was unmaintainable. people were getting paid more than what people are getting paid NOW-- when we have more access to larger viewerships that can be maintained daily, way more access to advertising, and way more player/team fanbases than back then. combine this with the bewildering and backwards "push to tv" when the rest of the world has been heading towards internet content, and it's pretty obvious why it failed.

#1

Firstly, I think this is an opinion that a lot of people in oldschool fps scenes feel. This is not an unpopular opinion for the board you're talking to. I've been a part of all those scenes as well, but try to be impartial when looking at the big picture of what's going on. hope everyone doesnt get too mad at me

Esports really wasn't all that big back then. The flashiness of competitive events can numb someone to the numbers: The biggest viewership in the old days of CS was CPL 2004 with an HLTV filled to 40000. This was "The International" for competitive gaming at the time. Accounting for the inconvenience of no live-streaming is hard to factor but I would guess those numbers would increase by 1.5x.

For comparison, The International 2, a comparable game (where both essentially revolve around one big tournament), brought in 4million concurrent viewers. The game wasn't even officially available in China yet, and many weren't even aware of its existence. In a few months TI3 will bring even bigger numbers.

http://youtu.be/HwrkXSO4788

here u go

they will quickly follow the trend.

but dota doesn't have the issue of competitive play drastically differing from pub play, which is why all of this is getting brought up in the first place. 6s will never be able to capture the same experience because people find pubs that small to be boring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc7JVjcPzL0