I look like a mustard overlord

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-on-internet-almost-falls-into-world-of-diy-mus,17013/

p.s. the guy in the picture was a math teacher at my high school

I read all of your post Jaguar, but if I'm being honest all of it seems to be based upon a misunderstanding of what I'm saying

I will repeat

I AM NOT ADVOCATING CHANGING HL IN ANY WAY. I do not want to be allowed to run 2 scouts instead of a scout and spy lol. I was simply using that as a rhetorical device to argue against someone who refused to admit that some classes are simply better than others.

6s is balanced so that every class is around the same usefulness, and you cannot win by simply focusing priority targets. Yes, the medic and demo are arguably the most important, but the fact that there is a limit of 1 for each balances that out. hl is not balanced for usefulness of classes. I don't think hl should be changed to be more balanced or that 6s should be changed to be more inclusive, as it would go against the core of each mode. I'm just saying that you have to acknowledge that those are the major flaws of each format. That's all.

the gunslinger is perfectly balanced...

...if the engineer lacks the ability to aim with his shotgun

im guessing thats the only kind of engineer that the OP has run across

No. no, no, no, no, no.

You see? this is why I keep arguing.

What Jaguar said was reasonable and perfectly fine. He essentially said "yeah, so some classes are generalists and some are specialists? so what? it's still funsies!"

That argument is fine because it ACKNOWLEDGES what I am arguing to be true, and yet says that it does not matter as much as I say it does. I can totally agree to disagree with him.

Your problem is that you are still in denial of the BASIC TRUTH that has to be accepted, that 6s is balanced such that every class is always useful and hl isn't. You say "you can make that argument for 6s as well". As I have said, with the way class limits function in 6s, you CANNOT make that argument for 6s. Why dyou think class limits are 2 for some classes and 1 for others? it's for balance, to prevent this.

Then you say "Highlander is great with 1 of each class, it's balanced that way and spy and pyro make a big difference with those limitations." Again, not true. Highlander is not limited at 1 per class for balance, it's limited 1 per class for inclusiveness, as I said. It would be a fantastic coincidence if having one of every class just HAPPENED to balance the game so each class had an equal influence on it, especially when Valve themselves have pointed out that the game was designed around generalists and specialists.

I had no intention to drag this out into such a huge debate, because I have no problem with people saying they think my priorities are in the wrong place and having each person on a team being equally useful is not actually that important. The problem is when people refuse to even acknowledge that much.

IN HIGHLANDER, SOME CLASSES ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS. THIS IS MUCH LESS TRUE IN 6S, BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT NUMBER OF PLAYERS/CLASS LIMITS.

If you can acknowledge that statement above to be true, we can end this debate. As I said, that should not be the root of what we're arguing about, the core of the argument should be "does the above fact matter?" I'm fine with people thinking it doesn't. However, you can't just say it's not true, when it blatantly is.

Jaguar,

Like I said, it was just my opinion, and I completely respect other peoples'. The only thing I would object to is:

The difference in those other games is that every player has the POTENTIAL to acquire the better weapons, through strategy. in tf2 some players are INHERENTLY limited to play a weaker class. you can't even switch classes in hl, so the problem becomes exacerbated, whereas a scout in 6s can snipe or heavy if need be but still play scout in the 90% of the time where it's more powerful.

The thing is, as we all know, tf2 at its heart is not balanced around competitive play. thus, some alteration has to be done to make the classes more even. the 6s solution is to frown on players playing some of the classes and have people play 4/9 most of the time. the upside to this is the balance, and the downside to it is the inaccessibility (5/9 players have only a very small niche for their class). the hl solution is to just force 1 of each class. the upside is the accessibility, and the downside is the balance. it's sad that you can't have both imo, but that doesn't make one inherently better than the other. all I was doing was accurately pointing out the downside to hl (and the only reason I was bringing it up is because other people were listing downsides of hl and they missed what I felt was the largest one).

imo setting the class limit to two for soldier and scout really balances the class in 6v6.

scout becomes EXPONENTIALLY stronger with two scouts running around, not just a little bit better. soldier as well has a much bigger influence when there are two sollies.

exactly, and I'm pretty sure every player here knows it

there just seems to be some denial

saying something like

"Well we don't care that scouts do more damage than spies or pyros, people like to play those classes, they are very useful for specific things that happen pretty frequently in highlander (things that scouts just aren't as good for)"

is really just a euphemistic way of saying "scout is usually better than spy and pyro because it is a generalist, spy and pyro are better in some specific situations because they are specialists"

yes those situations arise a lot in hl. I guarantee you they would arise a lot in 6s as well. scout is still better overall. fact. end of argument.

you completely, one hundred percent missed my point

I AM NOT ARGUING FOR CHANGING HL IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER

I am just discussing the inherent limitations of hl as a competitive format, being as how some people on a team are forced to play a less important role than others, something that I think is poor for a competitive game (although perhaps that's just my feeling)

I am forced to keep posing these scenarios because none of the hl players here seem willing to admit, even for a second, that certain classes are just overall worse than others.

that doesn't mean hl shouldn't be one of every class. obviously it should be. that doesn't mean hl isn't fun. I love hl.

it means exactly what I said.

scout is an overall better class than pyro or spy, PERIOD. this cannot be debated. it is a fact.

again, you cannot argue that a pyro is more useful the majority of the time by naming a situation in which the pyro is more useful. yes, if a) the sniper kills your heavy, b) your medic gets immediately bombed, and c) you don't have like 4 other dudes around your medic, a pyro can protect the medic better.

he also does like half as much dmg as a scout and gets like a third as many kills. and I'm honestly sick of hearing people say "yeah, but he denies area, and puts people out, and reflects projectiles, etc.!"

yes, he has specific skills to compensate for the lack of damage. however, it doesn't make him as good overall. this is why tf2 is a game of generalists and specialists.

more damage and more kills >>>>>>>>>> ANY specific skillset of ANY class (excluding the medic obviously)

as for spy, you just named a specific situation wherein you can be useful. a scout still does WAY more over the course of the game.

the purpose of scout in hl is not to flank, most of the time. committing your scout fully just for the offchance of MAYBE getting a med pick or something is retarded. it is to win 1v1s and the like on the flank to create numbers advantages for your team. in light of that, 2 scouts would absolutely WRECK, and the 1 you have is doing way more for your team than any spy.

let's put it this way.

take -ts-, and replace ruwin with an iron scout.

or

take -ts-, and replace tmp with an iron pyro.

which is better?

I don't see how anyone could even argue this lol, some classes are just overall objectively better in this game than others, that's the way the game was designed

defiance, the amount of backpedaling you did from your previous post to that post to try to clarify the condescending, offensive things you said is truly staggering.

going from "grow up and deal with your decisions" to "he didn't really do anything wrong",

and from "one day you'll probably be really happy about this 'mistake'" to "being responsible about it doesn't mean keeping it and it doesn't even mean not having it aborted"

is basically admitting that you were a massive cunt in your first post.

also, as vortex said, your anecdote is laughable. try telling the millions of 16 year old single mothers stuck with jobs like being hookers that someone else in their situation made a million dollars, so gosh darn it they should be able to too!

also please don't put words in my mouth. I never said he should be depressed forever and drop out of school on purpose. I'm saying it's offensive and patronizing when you try to lecture someone stuck in a terrible, unfortunate situation that you have never been in by telling them that if they put a smile on everything will be 100% ok

the fists are used a lot

I was doing ok until I saw:

what the fuck is your problem? a HIGH SCHOOL kid has sex WITH A CONDOM, STILL may have knocked up his girl, and you say "MAN UP BITCH, IT WILL BE FINE"

IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

problems won't just go away

and the dude's decision was to use protection so he basically got fucked by the mysterious forces of the universe

and to say that the only "responsible" thing to do in this situation is to raise the kid, prolly dropping out of school?

you're an idiot

the best player who will never be on a good team

yeah put this in the frag clips thread

other than that chillax guys, no need to be rude

yes