Unfortunately it's not craftable.

I'm glad there's been a lot of discussion on this topic, which is what I hoped to provoke by releasing this list publicly. I'd like to address some of the points brought up s far.

First of all, I believe there are some misconceptions about the purpose and methodology behind this list. This list is not meant to be a list of "Community item holders-in-waiting", but rather a list of major contributors who would merit at least some consideration for a Community item. As such, I am not saying that every person on this list would or even should get a Community item in a scenario where Valve did start awarding such items again, but merely that these people could all have a case made. I fully expect that everyone's shortlist is much smaller than this one. (Also, just to be clear: since Valve does not award more than one Community item except in exceptional circumstances, this list does not include anyone who has been awarded one in the past even if they meet the criteria.)

With that in mind, I attempted to construct a list based more on reasoning than arbitrary judgement, and so created a list of criteria to add people to the list. The list of criteria was based on the relative significance to the community, whether there were previous Community item holders who fit this criteria, and whether the criteria could be clearly judged from a neutral standpoint. Once the criteria were created, I created the list by adding every person who fit the criteria. (If you're interested in what the criteria are, I list them in the about page for the list, so check that out.)

Obviously, the list isn't perfect, but I feel that I did manage to cover most people, and I am adding more people as I consider suggestions people put forth. There is, however, one area that I am intentionally not covering, and that is Highlander. Contrary to what others have accused, this is not based on my dislike for the gamemode, but rather my relative ignorance of the scene. Simply put, I do not feel comfortable or qualified to effectively create a list of Highlander contributors based on the criteria I set out, but I would encourage anyone that has a more complete understanding to do so.

One final note on bias: I expected people to charge me and by extension the list to be biased towards people and organizations I have worked with, but I honestly don't feel that is the case, having taken great pains to be as objective and neutral as someone can be while creating such a list. This is exemplified by the fact that the number of people I have personally worked with on the list is small, and the number of people who are willing to admit they have worked with me is even fewer. In addition, while there is a significant minority of people on the list who are affiliated with tftv, that seems to be a reflection of how aggressively tftv has recruited people who are talented and dedicated, and if you removed tftv contributions entirely only a small number of them would drop off the list entirely.

I hope that addresses most of what people have brought up so far, and I encourage everyone to provide more feedback.

geel's was given April of this year. As far as I know it was the most recent one, though it's hard to know for sure.

Battlefront II AND Empire at War both becoming active again? Today is a good day.

Why not? It's probably easier for them to find and use some old assets laying around than create entirely new ones for SteamVR Home. After all, assets have been heavily reused between Valve games before.

I'm pretty sure one of the big things Valve aimed for with Source 2 was being able to easily convert assets from Source, so it's probably not a sign of anything that TF2 assets are being found in a Source 2 game.

They've given them out more recently than that if I remember correctly, but none of the recipients were affiliated with competitive.

Valve has been sent a list a few times in the past couple of years and they were supposedly considering it, but I'm not holding my breath on seeing any.

On the sub issue, as I've said before:

On the topic of waiting to start a game, I do see the benefit of flexibility and allowing players to wait for a sub if one doesn't show up. However, I also don't think it's ideal for someone to be forced to wait for a long time simply because a player didn't show up and other players in the game are willing to wait for a substitute for that long.

Well, the plan is to speed up the entire process of starting the game, and along with this would come draft process improvements and server initialization improvements that would hopefully make the whole pre-game process take significantly less time than they do now.

Cancelling the PUG is admittedly a very direct way to try and reduce PUG wait times, but it seems effective. If someone doesn't show up in the end, the game is not as optimal as the draft intended. In addition, waiting for the original player to join or for a substitute to arrive may take several more minutes and ultimately fail, wasting more time for all involved.

Of course, there are ways we can tweak this - for example, having players indicate they want to keep waiting and only cancelling if they don't or if too many players have not shown up - but the general idea of preventing players from waiting too long remains the same.

This is planned - most likely a five minute timer by which players have to join the game, and any players not joining will be penalized and the game canceled.

In the future, if a captain is not present (because one isn't selected for a mix or a PUG captain abandons the game), the captain powers will be passed on to some form of team vote.

I'm not sure why people are saying there are no servers on MixChamp when there's one on both NA and EU right now. I realize that it's not ideal to have only one, but that's the situation right now with the number of donated servers dropping to an all-time low. If there are other problems besides that which are making it difficult to play on PugChamp or MixChamp right now, please reach out to one of our admins or me as erynn is currently unavailable.

As for Freak Pugs, it is based on the PugChamp code as linked above. The reason why the code repository named "pugchamp-legacy" is because we consider it legacy code that has problems which make it rather difficult to effectively scale to the level which PugChamp and MixChamp as a whole have reached over the past year (and is the reason why we are effectively rewriting the new PugChamp system from scratch).

Freak Pugs is a bit of a difficult issue as the intent of making the code publicly viewable was to allow others to help us maintain and improve it and not to be used for other sites (as evidenced by the code not having a license attached), but at the same time it's clear there's a demand for features they have that we can't really effectively provide right now at our scale (e.g. our old rating system).

The main issues with maps is that they have to be distributed to each of the game servers we have as well as to fastDL, after which the website configs have updated and the site restarted. Overall, it's a time-consuming process that also can only be done by trusted and knowledgeable people because it requires access to the site's server (which is dangerous in itself).

In the future, I'm hoping to streamline the process so that maps can be uploaded a single time and automatically distributed to all servers, as well as making the configs editable via the web so that we can safely give access to staff members to manage the site in our stead.

Unfortunately, the problem with stats has rapidly become the database itself, which has grown so massive that recalculating stats (even as simple as win-loss record) takes significant resources, which has contributed to some performance problems lately and led to us completely disabling that system in hopes of avoiding instability.

Stats are a focus of ours with the new platform, however, and I am putting in a lot of thought and effort into creating a system that accurately reflects player skill, including having a better understanding of player performance within a match and being able to more accurately compare two players.

The method right now is actually supposed to be closest rating to the original player, so it's odd that it seems like only high-rated players are coming in. I'll take a look at it but I don't think there's much I can do in the current system.

In the future, the idea is to use a better set of metrics to decide who gets substitution spots. It's likely that the system will take into account how frequently a player is in a game with other players, as Jarrett said, as well as the new skill metrics I briefly touched on before. We also hope to allow captains to choose from a pool of players narrowed down from those who apply to the sub spot rather than being assigned a sub automatically.

As of right now, there isn't any confirmation of an official tournament at Insomnia61.