so...
Account Details | |
---|---|
SteamID64 | 76561198056222499 |
SteamID3 | [U:1:95956771] |
SteamID32 | STEAM_0:1:47978385 |
Country | Canada |
Signed Up | July 25, 2012 |
Last Posted | August 26, 2014 at 7:01 PM |
Posts | 339 (0.1 per day) |
Game Settings | |
---|---|
In-game Sensitivity | |
Windows Sensitivity | |
Raw Input | 0Â |
DPI |
|
Resolution |
|
Refresh Rate |
Hardware Peripherals | |
---|---|
Mouse | |
Keyboard | |
Mousepad | |
Headphones | |
Monitor |
autoexec doesn't exec class configs. It's only run on startup.
I don't have my cfg's in a custom folder and they still work. It's all in C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Team Fortress 2\tf\cfg
I have my HUD stuff in tf/custom though.
Anyone find the stream yet?
StewAllealRadmanWhy would you ban weapons that arent skill-indexed? Why would you waste a ban on something like that?
I would just ban the stuff my team isnt good at dealing with. Barring that, Id ban stuff that the other team "needs", but my team doesnt necessarily have to have. Id only ban the vitasaw if i thought my medic would really benefit from the other medic melees. If he doesnt, why bother?
Because it inhibits the Scout, Soldier, Pyro, Demo, Heavy, Engineer, Medic, and Spy. By banning this one weapon, every single other class on both teams becomes more important. Because Jarate isn't skill indexed, it basically becomes a permanent fixture in any game the Sniper is running it. Banning it is banning the fixture, and giving everyone else some more breathing room.
Same for the others
But these bans are neutral. If a weapon would be used if you didn't ban it, and it would be just as good for either team, then banning it helps or hurts both teams the same amount, so it's an irrelevant/wasted ban for that team. Teams should ban weapons that the opposing team would make better use of, not weapons that helps both teams the same amount.
Just because two engies are about equal with the wrangler, doesn't mean they'll be about equal without it. The idea is you'd learn how to play without "normal" unlocks then ban them so the other team is stuck with a loadout they're not good at.
wareyaTourney leagues pretty much have to run on whitelists unfortunately, they need to have the semi-same version of the game as the league goes on for many reasons. Letting people just pick/ban whatever they want for each match is unbalanced in the grand scheme of the tournament because different matches are playing different versions of the game. I won't get into the theory behind it. Think of it like how captain's mode in DotA 2 doesn't have new heroes in it. Unless you want the matchmaking system to have static whitelists which would be useless you're not going to get them to work the same way as the leagues.
I think leagues banning new weapons (maybe even bugged ones) is an "acceptable" difference and wouldn't really throw off a transitioning lobby-er that much.
Can't test it right now, but did you fix the koth numbers?
(According to Sal) Valve said they wanted this item system to be something that leagues would be okay with adopting. While this ban vote list thing seems like it would be pretty good for lobbies, it would get annoying when you want to be making strategic bans in a league match.
The 9 blind picks idea sounds pretty good, but I'd suggest only being allowed to ban an item for the class you're playing. That way you don't have people screwing over their engies by banning wrangler when they want it, etc. The downside to this is the guy playing engie may be less inclined to ban the pomson than the other players, so even though everyone else hates the pomson it might not get banned (messing up the match /and/ Valve's stats). The upside to this system is it would be quick, and it's simple enough to be used in lobbies, but still allows strategy at higher levels.
As far as a DOTA style turn based ban system, I think the best way to go about it is to have a round of 2-3 picks per team (pick as in the item can't be banned), and then have ~7 bans for each side. Instead of captains you could have each pick be decided by a vote among the team so lobbies aren't messed up by a troll/incompetent captain. You could have teams start voting on their next ban during the other team's turn but it would still take ~10 minutes. The upside is you're more likely to end up with a banlist that resembles the current HL standard since everyone is giving input, and the picks beforehand protect some of the better unlocks from being banned while still leaving room for some meta.
To protect important weapons you can just do a couple rounds of picks before the bans. The whole point of a pick/ban system is to not need a static whitelist, so I'm not sure why people keep suggesting that when Valve has made it clear they won't use one.
Also I'm against using captains, stupid picks can fuck up the match before it even starts. It should just be a team vote, with checks when the 9th person votes so that he can't force a tie (can't propose a new weapon if there's a tie, or if the votes on three weps are 3 3 2 he can't vote for the one with 2).
Also also Valve wants this to be something leagues will use, so pubs play these lobbies then join a league and it's the same thing. So keep in mind this should be useable at higher levels too.
the301stspartanSalamancerThe competitive community's ideas are very important. One thing they stressed was that they didn't want to implement a pick/ban mode into their lobby system if all the official leagues like UGC and ETF2L used a different system than what was implemented. They want there to be one source of truth, and they want it to reflect what works best for us.
This kind of supports what I suggested before.
-Have the current UGC or CEVO whitelist be always allowed
-Let the competitive community decide about a few global must-bans
-Leave other unlocks up to the lobbie creator
I believe this would support the pub community in finding their own unlocks and creating new strats on one hand and have appropriate games from the get go without having to worry about unlock picking on the other hand.
They want a system that doesn't require a white list so they don't have to update it. Don't ask me why.
What's difficult about this is trying to make a system that would work at all levels of play; from disorganized lobbies to league matches. In a lobby there's no team leader to make the picks/bans, so the system should probably have some sort of vote e.g. for each ban everyone picks a weapon and the weapon with the most votes is the team's ban.
Another thing is whether to do picks or bans (or both). Bans would be closer to the current whitelist, but it doesn't really make a weapon meta since there's still so much choice. Picks makes more of an impacts, but is that a good thing? Also I'm assuming stock is allowed by default and picks mean both teams can use the weapon.
Is the point of the weapon bans to get rid of OP weapons, or to create some sort of weapon meta?
If it's the former just have everyone say x weapons they want banned, and then the x weapons with the most votes are banned. If there's a tie just ban both if they have >1 votes? In game it could sort of look like a backpack with all the weapons in it.
what's the rollout?
VTFs and VMTs in materials\vgui\replay\thumbnails can be used as materials
eg
"change visible to 1 to enable the team-colored HP cross border"{
"visible" "0"
"ControlName" "CTFImagePanel"
"fieldName" "HealthCrossBorder"
"xpos" "41"
"ypos" "51"
"zpos" "3"
"wide" "128"
"tall" "128"
"enabled" "1"
"image" "replay/thumbnails/health_border_red"
"teambg_2" "replay/thumbnails/health_border_red"
"teambg_3" "replay/thumbnails/health_border_blu"
"scaleImage" "1"
}