I feel like the Market Gardener was a fairly divisive pick which is a key reason for its inclusion. The other two are weapons that have not been tested for years, in which time metas have changed, and unlike some more solid bans the justifications on them were fairly loose.

The Gas Passer was banned on release per standard ETF2L rules on new weapons, and once the throwing-through-wall bug was found it has never been unbanned. So there was no real period of time where the weapon saw active competition, and given that as a weapon its pretty bad the reasoning is not really strong in the grand scheme of things. We can say all day that the bug is more than enough reason to keep it banned, but for the upside of being able to apply a brief period of afterburn which is canceled by healing - its not really a huge upside even when the exploit is abused.

The BASE Jumper is definitely got a bit more of a reason to remain banned, given the ability to spam from height free from any real threat. But this is a weapon that has one strong use case and thats about it, you take far more damage with rockets and damage falloff hurts when you are that high up. Again, you can make a case about it but this is a weapon that has not been considered for a long time.

I think solely looking at weapons that are divisive 'right now' is a short-sighted approach to weapon bans. Of course discussions around those weapons take priority, but that is not a reason to re-look at some older bans and see if A) those weapons are a better fit in the current meta/skill level and B) if those weapons are really as impactful on the flow of play as they were seen to be.

We had a fairly open whitelist back in 2017-18 when the last real balance changes occurred, with around 80% of all weapons unbanned and I believe we should only be banning weapons that have a direct negative impact on the flow or fun of the game. Re-looking at these older bans in combination with more modern ones allows people to figure out what kind of game they want to play now, even if that means a more restrictive whitelist. Ultimately the point of Experimentals is to provide opportunities to test and discuss the way that we play the game, so even discussing whether we should only look at "divisive weapons" is a good thing.

A quick reminder for teams that signups will be closing tonight, so please get your registrations in ASAP.

Currently with the number of teams we may push the start time of the tournament forward to be more in line with normal match/scrim schedules, but will confirm this as registrations near close.

This is a feature hard built into Toornament and is not done by choice. It is designed this way so that when your registration is accepted it sends a email updating you.

We do not check or use these emails in any capacity, and I believe you can just use any filler email here.
--------
Quick Tournament Update, the Whitelist link has been posted on this page. You should be able to exec this whitelist with the command rcon tftrue_whitelist_id 14719

I won't give specifics, but basically some of the casual people that were going to take part saw this thread and a lot of the negativity put them off having the conversation.

Was a bit surprised to see my name mentioned here, lmao. But in all honesty, I think what Wild_Rumpus said is pretty much where I stand on the whole thing. The key reason that this negative sentiment has festered for so long is that there have been very few attempts to actually communicate to a casual audience as to why we made the rules the way that they are and dispelling some of those myths that have been developing over time. I remember WoolenSleevelet did a lengthy video that went over each of the weapon bans and provided the justifications as to why they were banned, and while he did a great job ensuring that his information is correct it ultimately did little to sway the minds of people who already were convinced that competitive 'killed' the game.

Honestly, Wild_Rumpus has been doing a really good job at explaining various aspects of competitive play and to challenge some of those pubber nonsense that we see whilst making clear the number of challenges and issues with competitive play. If we had more people doing that and making genuine attempts at showcasing competitive play and explaining it, then perhaps we might see sentiment change.

I think that any 'debate' around this could really go one of two ways, it could be a great way of directly challenging these talking points to the audience that most needs to hear it. However, I have seen a number of YouTubers try to explain that competitive isn't bad or is in fact a positive thing for the game and get shut down HARD, so I don't know that the most vocal 'anti-competitive' names in the space will be willing to have an authentic and productive discussion here. If I'm proven wrong and those creators would actually be interested, I wouldn't mind having a conversation but I'm sure there are others that could do a better job than I.

https://etf2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ExperimentalsSum24-1024x576.png

Welcome to Experimentals! This will be a regular series of tournaments that we hope to run which is aimed at testing small incremental changes to the game, from weapon bans, new maps, and perhaps some changes to the ruleset in the future. For the first cup, we're keeping it simple with a few weapon unbans. This is a European-focused series for now.

Weapon Unbans

• Gas Passer
  
• BASE Jumper
  
• Market Gardener

WHITELIST LINK: https://whitelist.tf/14719
You should be able to exec this whitelist on Serveme with the command rcon tftrue_whitelist_id 14719

Details about the event will be posted here when available, so if you have any questions place them here. We will try to answer all questions promptly. I would encourage any teams interested to check out the tournament pages which contains all the relevant details about the event.

Format: Swiss Groups into Single Elimination Bracket

SCHEDULE
7th September
(Groups - BO1)
Round 1: 15:00
Round 2: 16:15
Round 3: 17:30
Round 4: 18:45

8th September
(Playoffs - BO3)
Quarter Finals: 13:00
Semi Finals: 15:30
Grand Finals: 18:00

Map Pool (subject to change):
cp_process_f12
cp_snakewater_final1
cp_sunshine
cp_gullywash_f9
cp_sultry_b8a
cp_granary_pro_rc16f
koth_product_final
koth_bagel_rc10
cp_metalworks_f5

All matches are played will use the ETF2L Config and the custom whitelist, which we'll be updating in this thread shortly.

EssentialsTF Discord

Tournament Link: https://play.toornament.com/en_GB/tournaments/8105412993105469440/

Heartbreaking news to hear. Mental illness is a horrible thing to experience and can ruin lives and deeply affect those around you. I hope now that her close friends and family can grieve in peace and that she can now rest.

• Your playtime is irrelevant, what is relevant is the time you have engaged in the Competitive Scene. If I walked into the CS:2 scene and said "The way you are doing things is wrong" of course I am going to get pushback especially since my experience with their competitive scene is limited.
  
• Good job comparing people giving critique to mental illness, really makes you seem like the reasonable one here.
  
• Your analogy didn't go over peoples heads, it made no sense. Restrictions in sport for the sake of competitive integrity and promoting skilled play is something that happens all the time.
  
• No-one is saying the playstyle didn't naturally evolve. The playstyle was chosen because it highlighted the characteristics of TF2 that we believed provided the best opportunities to demonstrate the desired balance of mechanics, gamesense, teamwork, and individual ability.
  
• By your own definition of 'competitiveness' there is nothing in those three pillars that provides any justification for changing the current class limits. We already have meaningful interactions with one another which affect the outcome of matches, through managing advantages, refining set plays, and individual mechanics. We have ways of improving skills and expressing said skill affects the outcome of the match. Finally, we have a dedicated community that has developed and maintained a competitive scene for years. By your own definition, there is nothing there about the representation of certain classes or strategies. It really just seems that you believe that a wider range of classes is somehow more competitive without really coming down with a good justification as to why thats the case.
  
• Even your definition of overcentralization makes little sense when you consider your recommendation for Class Limit 1. You highlight that double medic would be the meta if it was allowed, which is true. But Class Limit 1 won't get rid of that 'Centre', it would merely shift it. It would still be the Medic, Scout and Soldier as both Scout and Soldier can directly deal with each others direct counters and still retain all their strengths.

I guess my final point here is even by your own definitions and understanding of competitiveness and balancing, your suggestion of Class Limit 1 solves none of the issues you were initially claiming. 'Naturally occurring' metas aren't inherently better than 'artificially' made ones - they will still have the inherent balance issues. All that would change is how those issues are reflected.

To get this back on topic:

I think from the get go your 'thesis' is inherently flawed. You have approached this discussion not to ask us why we have chosen the way we do things, but instead opted to present your theory as if its fact. Its clear that you do not have significant experience in the 6v6 environment and as a result are ignorant of the lengthy discussions for well over a decade on balancing (Weapon Bans, Class Restrictions) that have taken place. If you are 'new' to competitive TF2, its far better to engage with the space as is and then ask why things are the way that they are before you give your own perspective (aka doing your own research).

Some notes:

• Your Triathlon example falls apart pretty quickly when you consider how it works in the wider sport ecosystem, particularly Track & Field sports. Especially when you consider that rulings on how the sport operates is managed by Governing Bodies which in turn takes consultation from committees and athletes. In other words, athletes do have the ability to vote on how the sport operates. Not too dissimilar to how we do things.
  
• The 6v6 meta was not built around Scout and Soldier, but instead built around a playstyle that those classes just so happened to be the most effective at (high damage, high mobility, tug-of-war flow of play). We chose a playstyle first, then the meta developed from that.
  
• There have been so many attempts at a 6s gamemode with Class Limit 1, railroading strategy simply in the name of some 'equality' will not have a positive impact on 'competitiveness'. If all classes counts are the same, that does not mean that the mode is inherently more 'competitive'.
  
• I really want you to think here, but if these issues are something you can identify in less than a year - with recommendations as to a 'simple' fix. Why do you think that the hundreds of people who have organised events, tournaments, leagues, or things like that over the 17 years this game has had a competitive scene haven't figured that out - or why attempts at such things never took off? Is it because of solidified social norms or a sense of entitlement or elitism; or might it be perhaps that balancing competitive TF2 is far more complicated than simply unbanning the Scorch Shot or only running Class Limit 1.

I always welcome people to challenge the way that we do things, but if you are suggesting something as dramatic as a near overhaul of decades of precedent of course people are going to check whether you have any standing to speak with such authority.

We will be distributing this shortly, expect it within the next few days.

https://media1.tenor.com/m/m_D9Hk4U28MAAAAC/slow-waiting.gif

This is definitely something that we can look at running, something akin to the DreamHack Community Clash tournaments we ran a little while ago. If there is enough interest I can look at getting this arranged and set up, but before that I would like to ask a couple of questions.

1. Would people be willing to pay for entry into a tournament, to establish a small prize pool and support future ETF events? Or would people prefer a free entry event but little to no prize pool (aka just play for the sake of playing)?

2. Would people be interested in exploring one or two weapon unbans for experimentation - things that could provide useful data for future ETF2L seasons?

3. When would be a reasonable time for this event to run, how much time do people need to set up teams for such an event?

Getting answers to the above will make it easier to get this arranged, but any and all comments surrounding this would be useful. Given that there are a number of tournaments going on in Europe around this time (PASS Time/Nations Cup) we want to avoid clashing with anything which could lead into less interest for the tournament. Eager to hear from you all here.

Its weird to say "changes are being controlled by a small group of people" and in the same paragraph also acknowledge why this may be a good reason ("awful balance takes" referring to open-mid players). Plus when you look at the number of votes for the Gunboats Plugin less than half of the votes were D1 and D2, when you take into account that Prem Players are most capable of exploiting the Plugin and took up the majority of the vote its pretty clear as to why the Admins ultimately sided with the Premiership vote when it was closely tied. Is it representative of what the majority of players may think? Probably not. But simply brushing the justification aside because Flares thinks its stupid is, in fact, just as stupid. I'm not even sure of this, but did Flares even ask the Admins directly about the weapon bans?

Woolen did a great job in his video as he made sure that whether he agreed with a ban or not, he presented the ban as is and its reasons, consulted the admins, and let the audience decide whether its justified or not. Flares comes into this video without this objectivity and instead paints the Admins with a very large brush. Speaking from experience, Admins often disagree with which weapons get banned but when they do they have a extensive discussion before going ahead with anything.

The problem here is that when we TRY to explain these bans, and ETF2L do give examples from players and in the news posts for the justifiations, Casual/Low-tier Comp players just put their fingers in their ears and insist that there is this vendetta against anything even slightly off-meta.

New players aren't really going to be all to aware of the discrepancies between whitelists, when they are still grappling with the basics of competitive play. And I would be shocked if the difference between a casual playing competitive and not is whether or not the Loch-N-Load is banned, there are FAR greater issues with competitive play that are active roadblocks between casual and competitive. Those are things that we could actually work on instead of this belief that weapon bans do anything to increase accessiblity in the scene. As weapon bans have loosened signups have actually declined, but in reality the whitelist has very little impact on engagement in the scene.

I think you have a point to have an article or page making clear current weapon bans as right now the only way to find out is through Whitelist.TF which isn't ideal. But that would do so very little to actually change peoples mind. Just going through the comments on Woolen's video its clear that even when you provide a legitimate argument, Casual players will still parrot YTber's or Reddit's talking points because they themselves don't understand the complexity behind what goes behind a weapon ban. Hell, even most competitive players don't.

Again, I think we need to have a candid discussion about how we go about a weapon ban and what it means to cross that line between ban/unban. I am all for a good healthy discussion here, but presenting admins as morons just doing whatever Prem Players tells them really doesn't do anything but further villainises Volunteers taking up their valuable time to keep the scene going. Lots of people are willing to sit back and moan, but do very little in actually trying to make a change. Run an experimental cup, post it on TFTV, get a bunch of youtubers for a shout out, see if you can get something up on KritzKast or ETF, and get some data and feedback. Hell we're in an off-season, it wouldn't be hard to do it.

TL;DR: Video is argued in bad faith, diminishing any valid points made. We do need to look at EU's approach to weapon bans, whilst acknowledging that the Whitelist will always be a compromise between the huge range of opinions on balance in competitive play.

As someone who has been involved in whitelist discussions before, during, and after the Global Whitelist this video is a pretty poor and biased view of ETF2L's approach to weapon bans. Yet, I do think that there are certain weapons that have been banned recently that should get another look and I believe that we have lent a bit too heavily of the "X weapon is not fun to play against" argument in recent years as opposed to functional impacts on the pace or flow of gameplay.

But this video makes no attempt at even considering the other side(s) of the argument outside of "ETF2L Bad". The most blatant case of this is when they talk about the Global Whitelist and how unrestricted it was and lament that its no longer adopted. When it was ESEA and the NA scene that made the first move away from it, ultimately destroying the precedence that all of us had been working hard to establish. Whats the point of a Global Whitelist when a Region/League does its own thing when they don't like the current bans? I continue to hold the belief that the end of the Global Whitelist set us back years in terms of progress.

And of course it makes more sense to trust Prem Players' view on the game over an Open Player. Whilst I do believe that Non-Prem Players should have a voice through polls and forum discussions, top players have a better insight into what can disrupt the flow of play and how best to exploit these weapons. I think some of the more questionable bans can be attributed to a circlejerk pushing the ban forward with no-one else really pushing back on it.

We do need a honest discussion in EU about how we approach weapon bans at a higher level. What crosses that line between Bannable and Unbannable? Like the Wrap Assassin was unbanned for years and only gets banned once a couple of prem players use it more frequently. Now you can argue about whether its justified or not, but ultimately you cannot put that ban in the same category as something like the Mad Milk or Wrangler - its FAR less impactful. But this video makes such a bad faith attempt at having a good discussion that even when some valid points are made, they still come across as ignorant of the equally valid counter-arguments. There is no right answer as to what is and isn't a good weapon ban, its all entirely opinion, and pretending there is some objectively correct whitelist is not the way to encourage a healthy debate.

I think an intercontinental LAN is certainly possible, the problem however is that its going to be very expensive for someone. Whether thats the players flying over, or the organisers having to front costs for venues etc. If you are spending more to fly over to compete than you would get for winning the tournament there isn't much incentive to attend outside of the competition / community aspect.