http://teamfortress.tv/forum/thread/7824-ctf-turbine2-a6

pls

What's your experience with math and logic? The best place to start with programming depends on what you already know. It's definitely possible to learn how to do that over the summer but the more experience you have with math and especially logic the easier it is.

#5: Does the new edition of the G400 really have a worse sensor?

(continued)

7)
>Even the recent cp_harbour, a pretty normal 5cp but with a water canal under its 2nd point (think of cp_well's), was made fun of because "water is dumb". Despite it being a completely optional 4th route.
- Even the recent cp_harbour
Adding for context because I have to split the sentence up into smaller "points": http://teamfortress.tv/forum/thread/6042-cp-harbour-5cp
- a pretty normal 5cp but with a water canal under its 2nd point (think of cp_well's), was made fun of because "water is dumb".
It does seem like a normal 6cp map. It also got mostly positive feedback from the community (see above link) before they even played it, which is a really extremely positive thing and entirely contrary to the tone of this section of your post. I pointed out that having a cap point on a bridge over water was probably going to be awkward, but that wasn't making fun of it and nobody in this thread even said "water is dumb" -- they did have a short debate about it and that's good! No map designer should leave the worries of part of their audience unaccounted for! It was resolved properly and there was no bad blood or shitty ultimate hate for water, the map was not made fun of and people were only expressing their worries. From tf2maps, here are some short (and yes I know they're out of context) points about the water:
* The water drop down thing: not sure thats a good idea. The three maps that i can think of with it (freight, well, and waste) that pathway almost always ends up useless. I would consider making it possible to both enter and exit the water entrance. (feedback from a prolific comp mapper who made what I think is the best custom map for competitive tf2)
* Pushing second thru water is useless most of the time because, while you might surprise the enemy, they'll probably have height advantage on you when you pop out.
* Something else i was joing to suggest is making the cp 2 bridge lower- at water level. So players can jump out of the water direct onto it.
* If your defending second, the path to the left of the bridge (not the water one but the one with the handrails) seems really strange. I mean, I walk into that room and anticipate being able to walk right towards mid immediately, but you've got these handrails that make jumping up there impossible. Having to walk a lot further because of some oddly placed props doesn't feel great and it makes a walk to mid from there pretty lame. The water route is actually faster to get to pretty much the same place.
...I see no bad blood, mockery, or shitty jokes here. Tell me if I'm missing something but I legitimately can't find your supposed mockery anywhere, especially not from the competitive community which is the supposed context.

(continued)

6)
>Unfortunately the comp scene also isn't exactly known for accepting new maps. Especially not ones with gimmicks. The fact most "new" maps being discovered by UGC lately are like 2-3 years old is symptomatic of that. There are tons of maps that have never been given a chance.
- Unfortunately the comp scene also isn't exactly known for accepting new maps.
* Gullywash
* turbine_pro (during its time)
* Snakewater
* Metalworks (contentious)
* pro_viaduct (debatable relevancy)
* Process
* Edifice
I have said this time and time again but because I don't have mapping street cred nobody gives a shit. 6s players don't hate maps just because they're "new". 6s players want to try out new things if they have any promise of improving on what came before. Gullywash, Process, and Edifice are perfect examples of that. Yes there are people who vocally dislike these things but that is true of all of the tf2 community.
- Especially not ones with gimmicks.
Why would competitive players be excited about something gimmicky?
- The fact most "new" maps being discovered by UGC lately are like 2-3 years old is symptomatic of that.
Extremely unfair point: UGC's popularity is novel. Of course now that they're more important they're going to care about looking for new maps to play, especially since the only unanimously good map for them is badwater and the community is massive and whines at their admins for making them play ctf dear god no not ctf how could you do this you sadistic monsters.
- There are tons of maps that have never been given a chance.
Most maps do have yet to be discovered by the comp community, this is true. Particularly old ones like you said. In that case the relevant forces at hand are the state of the community back when the maps were being created. And don't forget how long it took for people to "figure out" TF2 map making. I'm sure there are a lot of gems of old maps that weren't publicised to comp players, but especially at this point in the game making them as good as the ones that are already played competitively would take work and I doubt anyone would prefer fixing an old map to making a new one (cough coughcp_ obscure).

(cont.)

#545:
1) Generalist and specialist weren't even being used as terminology there, they're just a word being used for categorization. Yes, it's perfectly legitimate for people to use them as jargon despite the fact that this wasn't intended; the only thing that is important is that there exists such a concrete difference between how the classes work out.

2)
>Well they don't. Have never once seen anyone able to define them.
That's a dangerous statement to make, and purely anecdotal.

3)
>By the logic of most explanations, Scout is less of a "generalist" than Sniper but you won't hear anyone admit that.
Doesn't the fact that there are "explanations" to have a "most" of directly defy the previous statement?

4)
>Scouts can be countered more easily than Sniper. Just check out any pub or any HL game. That Scouts are super good in 6s is only because there are way fewer players than is standard.
I'm going to address this point by point.
- Scouts can be countered more easily than Sniper
What does this have to do with the generalist/specialist balance? If scout can be countered in more ways or situations or with less skill than sniper, doesn't that mean that he must make up for being able to be shut down in plethora ways -- like having plethora powers?
- Just check out any pub or any HL game.
My experience with pubs and HL cement scout as an extremely versatile DM and objective class in general, directly contrary to what you're suggesting. Please give real evidence instead of "look for yourself".
- That Scouts are super good in 6s is only because there are way fewer players than is standard.
Really? I thought Scouts were super good in 6s because of the defining traits of the class -- high free mobility... extreme 1v1 potential... second for disposability in a gamble after the roaming soldier... None of which powers are in fact individually counterable once an opportunity presents itself to them. This is my experience and I know I'm making a statement, but I'm not going to pretend that pulling up whatever random game will make it obvious with clarity that this is fact.

5)
>Likewise "specialist" only means the class is, on average, simply less viable an option. It's more an excuse comp likes to use to explain away underpowered classes than intended design.
- Likewise "specialist" only means the class is, on average, simply less viable an option.
That's a pointless statement because it's literally definition. Something that is more specialized is more useful in fewer situations. When applying "average" to that it literally comes down to semantics and how you define viability.
- It's more an excuse comp likes to use to explain away underpowered classes than intended design.
I have never seen anyone use it as an excuse to explain away being underpowered. By our definition around here, heavy and engineer are specialized classes; but they are not "underpowered" by any average sense of the term, because they do have places where they are extremely useful and harder to counter than the generalist classes in the same situations. Sniper is designed bottom up to be an assassin good at taking out individual targets. He's not especially good at other things. Does this make him underpowered? No, and in fact it's one of the most common 6s offclasses because their utility isn't hurt by their low mobility.

(cont.)

i've actually gotten reflects I wouldn't have because of the extra 0.05 seconds before
just because people are saying it literally doesn't matter: yes it does, without it I would have needed to backpedal to land the second airblasts

https://www.google.com/search?sitesearch=teamfortress.tv%2Fforum%2Fthread&q=knor+wings&x=0&y=0

I think when airblasting players downwards it should simply do nothing instead of knocking them upwards, it's kind of shitty they don't have to aim the direction they want to push me in order to make me airborne, they can reflect a rocket back at someone's feet and make them airborne at the same time

I think making it so that I can't airblast people who are literally out of flame range would be nice and fair.

#129 Please read that again.

I disagree that the main caller should be (or be defined by) the captain, it's extremely important that it's a person who has enough information in game to be so judgmental about how things are going. It should be something that the players agree to, because maincalling is such a social contract in the first place. The people who go into this matchmaking aren't going to be playing the same version of the game as us, remember, and it's not as coordinated either. Highlander is about individual player classes filling in niches, actually doing their jobs properly, and I know it's kind of self-definite to say that but it's much more important and less obvious to do your job at low levels of highlander than 6s exactly because the players are overall more specialized in their role on the team. Having a definite maincaller in HL isn't as important as 6s, especially not at the level we're going to deal with.

As well, think of the kind of system this is going to be: We have people who are going into matchmaking, with a class and map they want to play. If they're playing medic and their friends are playing demo and heavy and the other six people on the team are grouped up together and playing every other HL class, those six others are very likely to vote for one of their own group as a captain exactly because of familiarity. So the three classes which are best and most important as maincallers are going to be completely different from the captain and their friends. And the captain position is going to be an authority and will interfere with what otherwise would be a normal peership of players figuring out how to comm with eachother even if only because of their presence, even if at the very least it's in subtle ways like Medic: "Let's push now!" Scout (captain) (on the flank being baited by a spy): "Why?".

IIRC valve already nerfed the sticky launcher's combat capabilities in the past. I don't see the point in nerfing the sticky launcher itself, because an intelligent scout and/or soldier can take down a demoman unless they're being hard pocketed by a medic or defended by others (which is a point of teamwork: covering individual weaknesses). Also, changing things like the arming time or splash radius will affect rollouts which is something that should absolutely positively be avoided because they are not part of the "problem".

On a side note, talking about whether melees' downsides are worth it or not is pretty pointless since it's extremely obvious that most classes in the game have utility unlock melees that aren't considered broken (on the contrary they're considered standard) and their stock melees are considered plain bad. I don't mean that talking about their balance itself is pointless, because just look at the equalizer split and the GRU rebalance for highlander etc; just that the question "Are our standard melees too good?" is already solved.

Speaking of which, is there a way to make heavy more relevant in 6s in a way that doesn't interfere with midfights? I know that if a match is really slow or a map is "small" (like gullywash) taking him out is already viable (and taking him out on defense is a standard tactic), but how can we make him relevant in the main game? He can't spearhead pushes against mobile players like a soldier can, so he's a bad pocket. He has bad mobility and a hard time escaping, so he's a bad roamer/flank. He can't abuse/circumvent terrain advantages like demoman so he's a bad assist/damager during pushes. He's essentially used as a damage sponge during teamfights that are already going on in open areas, like last points and spires (at least, spires that he can get onto easily like process's).

Let's pretend for a moment that it's totally possible to give him an unlock that gives up part of what he's already good for in 6s to put him into another niche. Let's say something that gives him a worthwhile escape mechanism. The fists of steel already have a kind of escape utility but they're annoying at worst and let him be running away for a few extra seconds at best (worst and best for this purpose I mean). They're annoying because they make it harder/more annoying to kill him when he's using them and ineffectual because they don't actually allow him to outrun anything that's fighting him. What if, while having the fists of steel equipped, the heavy had a charge bar that built up as he takes damage, and then he can activate it for a speed boost? As a downside you can make it so that crits penetrate the damage resistance, also fixing the problem of "God DAMN it, my fully charged headshot didn't kill him!" which is one of the annoying problems with the fists of steel and I probably should have mentioned that first instead of here. Anyways, this is just an idea and I'm really sorry for the massive tangential suggestion.

>You just said to stop arguing about it

I said to stop arguing about a specific thing.

>only to continue the argument right after saying that because you couldn't help yourself having the last word.

That was not continuing the argument. That was creating a rhetorical bedrock for the next phrase. Excuse me if taking things at face value all the time turns out to be a bad way to judge what people are doing.