Let's have a discussion on how CEVO should handle weapon adjustments mid-season (and all the time).
The way the Quick-Fix was handled was pretty crappy, but it's hard to blame ESEA for that one because there was never any precedent for them to follow. So how do we want CEVO to handle future changes?
I think the time with the Quick-Fix was actually very healthy for tf2 (maybe minus the effects on LAN, but I don't lay all of that at QF's feet). We, as a community, played with QF for an extended period of time, and we played 100% seriously. We learned a lot about the weapon, and for once made an informed decision as to whether or not we should play with it. Not that I'm saying the decision was necessarily correct, but it was based off of actual experience with the weapon instead of reading the stats. Personally I think the QF justified a ban, but it took a while for me to be convinced of that, and I probably never would have been without the time we played with it.
I propose that every adjusted/new weapon be automatically legalized for a 3 week period starting after the change/introduction (barring significant bugs). This is enough time for everyone's knee jerk reactions (good or bad), acceptance that they have to play with it for at least a short time, and informed discussion about it. At the end of the 3 week period, there would be a vote as to whether or not the weapon should remain legal.
If a weapon is not used, at least for a short while, by the best players playing to win, then it will never be truly tested. UGC players generally aren't capable of bringing a weapon to its full potential, or creating strategies to counter them. Messing around with them in pugs doesn't help much either.
The most obvious concern with this proposal is allowing untested weapons into official matches. I believe that a team's ability to manage a new element in the game is an important facet of that team's overall skill. All players would have access to the weapon at the same time, so no one would be disadvantaged.
This could do a lot to build relations with Valve, as we could provide more experienced feedback, and pub players, as we couldn't be said to ban every weapon without trying them anymore. It would also create fluctuations within the meta, which can help avoid a chess-like skill meta, where 90% of the game is already figured out and there's almost always a right move.
Let's have a discussion on how CEVO should handle weapon adjustments mid-season (and all the time).
The way the Quick-Fix was handled was pretty crappy, but it's hard to blame ESEA for that one because there was never any precedent for them to follow. So how do we want CEVO to handle future changes?
I think the time with the Quick-Fix was actually very healthy for tf2 (maybe minus the effects on LAN, but I don't lay all of that at QF's feet). We, as a community, played with QF for an extended period of time, and we played 100% seriously. We learned a lot about the weapon, and for once made an informed decision as to whether or not we should play with it. Not that I'm saying the decision was necessarily correct, but it [i]was[/i] based off of actual experience with the weapon instead of reading the stats. Personally I think the QF justified a ban, but it took a while for me to be convinced of that, and I probably never would have been without the time we played with it.
I propose that every adjusted/new weapon be automatically legalized for a 3 week period starting after the change/introduction (barring significant bugs). This is enough time for everyone's knee jerk reactions (good or bad), acceptance that they have to play with it for at least a short time, and informed discussion about it. At the end of the 3 week period, there would be a vote as to whether or not the weapon should remain legal.
If a weapon is not used, at least for a short while, by the best players playing to win, then it will never be truly tested. UGC players generally aren't capable of bringing a weapon to its full potential, or creating strategies to counter them. Messing around with them in pugs doesn't help much either.
The most obvious concern with this proposal is allowing untested weapons into official matches. I believe that a team's ability to manage a new element in the game is an important facet of that team's overall skill. All players would have access to the weapon at the same time, so no one would be disadvantaged.
This could do a lot to build relations with Valve, as we could provide more experienced feedback, and pub players, as we couldn't be said to ban every weapon without trying them anymore. It would also create fluctuations within the meta, which can help avoid a chess-like skill meta, where 90% of the game is already figured out and there's almost always a right move.
I agree for the most part, except for allowing brand-new weapons right away. I think if a weapon is introduced mid-season it should be banned, then an announcement when the weapon will be legal in that season in order to give teams time to work it into their scrims. If it's discovered that the weapon causes a fundamental shift in the meta, say to the level of teams being forced to run a 5th class full-time, then it should be banned outright.
This way teams wouldn't be forced to decide to try new weapons out in a match if reports come out that somebody managed to get results with it.
I agree for the most part, except for allowing brand-new weapons right away. I think if a weapon is introduced mid-season it should be banned, then an announcement when the weapon will be legal in that season in order to give teams time to work it into their scrims. If it's discovered that the weapon causes a fundamental shift in the meta, say to the level of teams being forced to run a 5th class full-time, then it should be banned outright.
This way teams wouldn't be forced to decide to try new weapons out in a match if reports come out that somebody managed to get results with it.