The Competitive Player: A Custom Mapper's Perspective

Mar

Mar

Banned
Feb 12, 2009
607
63
|Cerious| said:
? It's like U.S. politics except both sides are like the Republicans.
Click to expand...

This made me laugh so hard.

|Cerious| said:
And yes, I mean both sides - people who pub that think comp. play is wrong have no say in the matter, and people who think comp. play should govern how pub play works should get shot in the foot.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly believe that if we balanced TF2 more (which we should be doing anyways) and make it work more for comp play, most pubbers wouldn't really care either way. To balance the game for comp play means that all classes would be equally viable options to use in a match which is good for pub play and comp play. Here's another point we should make

What is good for pub play is good comp play and what is good for comp play is good for pub play and what is good for both is balance.

PS. How is |Supers| doing and do you guys still not play custom maps?
 
grazr

grazr

Old Man Mutant Ninja Turtle
aa
Mar 4, 2008
5,441
3,814
|Cerious| said:
people who pub that think comp. play is wrong have no say in the matter, and people who think comp. play should govern how pub play works should get shot in the foot.
Click to expand...

You don't need to be a comp player to know what the game was designed with in mind, why and how. You also don't need to be a comp player to understand the mechanics involved in choosing certain classes over another, relative to player count. Completely different mechanics are at work in each style of play, so i find it amusing that comp players should call certain classes broken or redundant and therefor require balancing.

Mar isn't wrong in how the classes perform in a limited team, but comp play will likely have to put up with this as the classes forfill their roles perfectly fine in a full server, as Valve intended.

Beyond the fact that some shitty unlocks were made available, such as the sandvich, I can't see Valve having any obligation to change the classes further. Each tactic has a counter, provided you have the player space to forfill certain roles.

I know your statement probably wasn't specifically directed towards any individual. But i can't help but feel that any arguement by the comp players is made redundant by the statement "use a full team". Why should Valve blur the lines between classes to satisfy comp players because they have difficulty filling a server, and resort to the same class setup that neglects half the classes for the other. It's a fact of life that the most durable classes will be more useful than others with low player numbers, it's a fact of most games, and a fact that is in fact focused on in a lot of games as a mechanic itself, particularly RPG/RTS. (Sure, sure, this isn't RPG or RTS, but the fact remains).

You're not going to be able to balance certain classes without a near full server. Balancing a spy against another opposing class is never going to happen because they know you're an enemy because there's only one of you; so it's effectiveness is drastically reduced. The more players the better the spy performs. It's the same with 6vs6. Some classes still wont be as matched as others. It all becomes balanced when you get to the number of players Valve had designed for. 16-24. These player numbers also work in unison with the design of the maps.

The comp scene wont see much improvement via attention from valve, to change what they already have here, for this reason. It's not that I think comp play is wrong, it's that i get saliva stuck in my throat everytime i see a comp player bitch about class and weapon redundancy when they only play 6vs6 push cp.

I fail to sympothise with this.
 
I

III_Demon

L2: Junior Member
Sep 28, 2008
57
29
anything mar says, refer to the last line of my first post. if anyone else gets sane in here again, i'll contribute. :p
 
I

iQue

L1: Registered
Apr 16, 2009
15
5
grazr said:
Classes are relavent to the circumstance they are performing in. In a 24 player server it's worth having at least one of each class. Sure, soldiers are more durable than heavies in a 6vs6, but as happens to be the case TF2 was not ultimately designed for 6vs6 but 24vs24.
Click to expand...

Bwahaha :laugh:

To clarify, the deal about competitive players calling classes "broken", are not because they are worthless. It's because they become increasingly less useful the higher your opponents skill are. For example the pyro. Sure, if you have really great airblast timing and can hit flares spot on most of the time, you can be a valuable asset to a competitive team. But you will still be an easy kill for good scouts or sollys/demos that knows how to avoid you. This has nothing to do with player numbers, the only reason a pyro is a viable class in public games is because the players aren't as organised.

Second "problem" with the pyro is that no matter how awesome you are at the more advanced techniques like airblast jumping with an enemy rocket etc, it will rarely be that much more effective than just running straight into them in the first place (the infamous w + m1).

The pyro was obviously designed to be an easy to pick up and play class, especially for those with not much experience with fps games as it doesn't require a lot of aim. But that doesn't mean it has to be close to worthless against a decent opponent (and buffing the advanced techniques would be a great way to solve it)

The same is true with the heavy, but since he can still deal a lot of damage from mid range he's a much more viable option. The spy has the same problem, but there's not much you can do to change it.
 
Dr. Spud

Dr. Spud

Grossly Incandescent
aa
Mar 23, 2009
880
855
iQue said:
Bwahaha :laugh:

To clarify, the deal about competitive players calling classes "broken", are not because they are worthless. It's because they become increasingly less useful the higher your opponents skill are. For example the pyro. Sure, if you have really great airblast timing and can hit flares spot on most of the time, you can be a valuable asset to a competitive team. But you will still be an easy kill for good scouts or sollys/demos that knows how to avoid you. This has nothing to do with player numbers, the only reason a pyro is a viable class in public games is because the players aren't as organised.

Second "problem" with the pyro is that no matter how awesome you are at the more advanced techniques like airblast jumping with an enemy rocket etc, it will rarely be that much more effective than just running straight into them in the first place (the infamous w + m1).

The pyro was obviously designed to be an easy to pick up and play class, especially for those with not much experience with fps games as it doesn't require a lot of aim. But that doesn't mean it has to be close to worthless against a decent opponent (and buffing the advanced techniques would be a great way to solve it)

The same is true with the heavy, but since he can still deal a lot of damage from mid range he's a much more viable option. The spy has the same problem, but there's not much you can do to change it.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you don't play pyro much.
 
Cerious

Cerious

L420: High Member
Aug 10, 2008
455
133
Mar said:
This made me laugh so hard.



I wholeheartedly believe that if we balanced TF2 more (which we should be doing anyways) and make it work more for comp play, most pubbers wouldn't really care either way. To balance the game for comp play means that all classes would be equally viable options to use in a match which is good for pub play and comp play. Here's another point we should make

What is good for pub play is good comp play and what is good for comp play is good for pub play and what is good for both is balance.

PS. How is |Supers| doing and do you guys still not play custom maps?
Click to expand...

Pubbers would care if you turned the game into Quake.

PS. It wasn't my decision not to have the server play custom maps at all - it's just that whenever the map switched to a custom the server would empty out. And you got kicked out because you were trying to take things over - I had no say in the matter and I didn't really care.

EDIT: And yes, there are quite a few comp. players that are real asshats - arrogant, elitist, angry, etc. However, the better pros are much nicer overall, because they're usually veterans of the game and have a clue about what they're talking about. I haven't had a bad experience with any kind of player who is in CEVO-P/ESEA-I because they're very friendly to people who want to help out the community, but most of the ones in CEVO-A are such asshats.
 
Last edited:
I

iQue

L1: Registered
Apr 16, 2009
15
5
Dr. Spud said:
Sounds like you don't play pyro much.
Click to expand...

Infact I do, I would guess I have a total of 400 Pyro hours maybe? Most of that time is spent in pubs, but if my team ever would need a pyro in a match I'll take that spot. Very useful for defending gravelpit C or for zerg rushing the last point.

In what way do you think I haven't played pyro a lot? My opinions are uneducated or you just don't agree?

|Cerious| said:
EDIT: And yes, there are quite a few comp. players that are real asshats - arrogant, elitist, angry, etc. However, the better pros are much nicer overall, because they're usually veterans of the game and have a clue about what they're talking about. I haven't had a bad experience with any kind of player who is in CEVO-P/ESEA-I because they're very friendly to people who want to help out the community, but most of the ones in CEVO-A are such asshats.
Click to expand...

It's a shame really...

But it's like with everything, those who are happy and satisfied shut up and play the game, and then there's the loud trolls that like to flex their e-muscles.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Spud

Dr. Spud

Grossly Incandescent
aa
Mar 23, 2009
880
855
iQue said:
Infact I do, I would guess I have a total of 400 Pyro hours maybe? Most of that time is spent in pubs, but if my team ever would need a pyro in a match I'll take that spot. Very useful for defending gravelpit C or for zerg rushing the last point.

In what way do you think I haven't played pyro a lot? My opinions are uneducated or you just don't agree?
Click to expand...

I don't agree. Like, I rarely find m1+w useful at all. And as I play pyro more, I find the class harder and harder to play correctly, and I start to see that his airblast can prove very useful for your team.

For example: pyro's force soldiers to switch to shotgun. So a pyro can force the soldier to shotgun while a scout (or something) runs up for an easy kill.
 
Mar

Mar

Banned
Feb 12, 2009
607
63
Another problem with the pyro is that his biggest asset is his close range flamer and axe. This is what the pyro does. Close range heavy damage. The problem is that the scout and solider can do the same thing, landing heavy damage in a short period of time, with the scattergun and rocket launcher respectively. The scout and solider can also do many more things then the pyro can do.
 
Dr. Spud

Dr. Spud

Grossly Incandescent
aa
Mar 23, 2009
880
855
But pyros kill at close range better. For any opponent other than a heavy, pyro can puff fire, airblast, and hit with the axetinguisher in a couple seconds. With a heavy at full health, it takes a second axe hit (and the heavy needs to be preoccupied), but that's just one class. Besides, you don't see scouts or soldiers taking out heavies so quick.

Plus the DOT effect shouldn't be ignored.
 
Last edited:
Mar

Mar

Banned
Feb 12, 2009
607
63
Dr. Spud said:
you don't see scouts or soldiers taking out heavies so quick.
Click to expand...

It takes 2 scatter gun shots to kill a heavy and 3 for a fully buffed one. Pyro and scout are almost equal in close range combat. The scout needs a slight nerf in close range so he can no longer 2 shot people with +175 health. That would work, and make it so the scatter is a bit wider in mid range.

EDIT: The dot is nice when there isn't a medic or health pack around and in comp play 90% of the time there will be a medic around.
 
Last edited:
Ninjilla

Ninjilla

L420: High Member
Sep 13, 2008
445
116
2 shots? The scattergun does around 100 point blank or so dmg, it doesnt take 2 to kill a heavy.
 
I

iQue

L1: Registered
Apr 16, 2009
15
5
No, the scattergun does roughly 105 or so damage from point blank (varies a bit with damage spread on), and all pellets hit.

So a really really good scout can twoshot other 125 classes rather consistently, and all other classes as well (except for a heavy where you need 3 shots) if they don't turn around fast enough. :D

So while the pyro may be king of close quarters, there's a lot of classes that can cause close to the same damage, and be a lot more versatile at the same time. This is why the pyro is considered a "gimicky" class by many.
 
Arnold

Arnold

L6: Sharp Member
Jul 18, 2008
283
242
grazr said:
You don't need to be a comp player to know what the game was designed with in mind, why and how. You also don't need to be a comp player to understand the mechanics involved in choosing certain classes over another, relative to player count. Completely different mechanics are at work in each style of play, so i find it amusing that comp players should call certain classes broken or redundant and therefor require balancing.

Mar isn't wrong in how the classes perform in a limited team, but comp play will likely have to put up with this as the classes forfill their roles perfectly fine in a full server, as Valve intended.

Beyond the fact that some shitty unlocks were made available, such as the sandvich, I can't see Valve having any obligation to change the classes further. Each tactic has a counter, provided you have the player space to forfill certain roles.

I know your statement probably wasn't specifically directed towards any individual. But i can't help but feel that any arguement by the comp players is made redundant by the statement "use a full team". Why should Valve blur the lines between classes to satisfy comp players because they have difficulty filling a server, and resort to the same class setup that neglects half the classes for the other. It's a fact of life that the most durable classes will be more useful than others with low player numbers, it's a fact of most games, and a fact that is in fact focused on in a lot of games as a mechanic itself, particularly RPG/RTS. (Sure, sure, this isn't RPG or RTS, but the fact remains).

You're not going to be able to balance certain classes without a near full server. Balancing a spy against another opposing class is never going to happen because they know you're an enemy because there's only one of you; so it's effectiveness is drastically reduced. The more players the better the spy performs. It's the same with 6vs6. Some classes still wont be as matched as others. It all becomes balanced when you get to the number of players Valve had designed for. 16-24. These player numbers also work in unison with the design of the maps.

The comp scene wont see much improvement via attention from valve, to change what they already have here, for this reason. It's not that I think comp play is wrong, it's that i get saliva stuck in my throat everytime i see a comp player bitch about class and weapon redundancy when they only play 6vs6 push cp.

I fail to sympothise with this.
Click to expand...

classes never show imbalance on pub because pubs generally embody newer and more experienced players spread evenly (most of the time) over the 2 teams. There won't be much teamplay involved in any pub and a pub largely consists of little deathmatch skirmishes to determine the outcome. therefore there will never be any sign of imbalance because without any communication and with the amount of players involved it's not likely you'll survive long even if the class is overpowered.
Public play will never expose these flaws as good as comp play will.
i'm not saying comp play is better but saying it doesn't expose broken classes is just not right. Public requires class limits as much as comp play does. If i were to play on a public with a team that only consists of medics and demoman no matter which setup the other team will acquire (apart from the same) the imbalance will be obvious. A pub play with decent communication will most likely result in excessive stalemates and spamfest unless the skill level is extremely divided.

comp play pushes every class to it's highest potential and it has shown several imbalances over time. these imbalances also exist in pub play but nobody will really care about them since it won't ever clearly show for the reasons stated above.
 
What Is Schwa

What Is Schwa

L6: Sharp Member
Jan 13, 2008
375
445
Balancing 12 v 12 is different than balancing 6 v 6.

Competitive play by definition doesn't include three classes. How can comp players talk about knowing balance with a straight face? They are playing a different game than pubbies play.
 
grazr

grazr

Old Man Mutant Ninja Turtle
aa
Mar 4, 2008
5,441
3,814
Arnold said:
classes never show imbalance on pub because pubs generally embody newer and more experienced players spread evenly (most of the time) over the 2 teams. There won't be much teamplay involved in any pub and a pub largely consists of little deathmatch skirmishes to determine the outcome. therefore there will never be any sign of imbalance because without any communication and with the amount of players involved it's not likely you'll survive long even if the class is overpowered.
Public play will never expose these flaws as good as comp play will.
i'm not saying comp play is better but saying it doesn't expose broken classes is just not right. Public requires class limits as much as comp play does. If i were to play on a public with a team that only consists of medics and demoman no matter which setup the other team will acquire (apart from the same) the imbalance will be obvious. A pub play with decent communication will most likely result in excessive stalemates and spamfest unless the skill level is extremely divided.

comp play pushes every class to it's highest potential and it has shown several imbalances over time. these imbalances also exist in pub play but nobody will really care about them since it won't ever clearly show for the reasons stated above.
Click to expand...

That's simply one assumption after another. Maybe it's just because i come from the Europian scene. Public play does experience team work if only a handful of the amount that may be seen in competitive play. A pub game will favour the better team as much as a comp game will. How it resolves is exactly the same.

Saying pub games consist of "little skirmishes" seems rather odd considering a pub game may consist of anywhere up to 17 vs 17, whilst a comp game will see 6vs6. I'm not sure how 6vs6 can see "huge" skirmishes whilst 17vs17 sees only small skirmishes. Elaborate on this.

"Public requires class limits as much as comp play does."

I disagree. Public games balance themselves. Having too many of one class will inevitably result in being steam rolled by anti-classes. A team revolving heavily on a minority choice of classes will be out manouvered. The only result of this will be a team scramble or map win, change, and then scramble.

"There won't be much teamplay involved in any pub"

Again, maybe this is because i'm on the Europian scene, but this statement is just not true. I don't know what servers you play in, but you need to get around more. It's rare to join a server and not find atleast 2 people with mics on either team. Which although sounds like not a lot, is enough to rally team support and organisation. Atleast in pub play this is enough. But i fail to even see how this effects class balance.

"Public play will never expose these flaws as good as comp play will."

As previously stated, comp play and public play experience completely different game mechanics due to the player limitations. It seems like a pig headed statement if anything. It's not a matter of exposing flaws better than the other. Simply that you'll experience game flaws when not playing it how it was designed to be played. It goes without saying.

You're playing a class based game, no class will ever be on equal footing with another. That's not the point, they are not supposed to be. Each is supposed to be played in its own unique way. Each has a seperate role to fulfill, whether it is more durable than another or not. I'm not sure how to elaborate without reitterating everything you just quoted me on so i'd recommend reading it again. Basically, in a full server, each class has a justified existance. With a mostly empty server, the most durable classes will see favor by players. To observe this as a flaw in the less durable classes is an absurd notion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom