skynetsatellite013I don't think posting ban / whitelist suggestions on specific items in this thread is useful. The purpose is to come up with a system that Valve can use to gather data for themselves. If Valve wanted the community to come up with a whitelist / blacklist for them that is a different topic.
Here are some of my thoughts.
First issues is logistics. There are over 100 weapons in the game, and a handful of set bonuses. We need a system that can cover all of the items while also not spending 5 minutes trying to set up the item list for a 15 minute match.
Second issues is troll / outlier protection. I think a majority voting system is better than any system where any one player has ban or veto power over any one item.
With these concerns in mind, here's my idea.
Each player should have his/her pick/ban list, which he/she decides offline. This makes sense because most users aren't going to change their mind for every new match, so there's no need to have the user repeat his/her choices for every single match. This saves time as well and lets matches get started faster. TF2 would need a separate menu / interface with the list of items that one can vote on, and you would go through the entire thing and select pick or ban for each. This list gets saved in your own TF2 account profile. A reasonable default setting can be debated on to be provided to people who are too lazy to go through this step and don't really want to vote.
Once a player joins a match lobby, his pick/ban list is automatically added to the pool. Once the match is ready to start, the server simply adds up everyone's pick/ban list and treats everyone as having 1 vote per item. Any item that has more bans than picks is banned, and the remainder are allowed. The final aggregated pick/ban list is displayed to every player before the match begins.
This is pretty much the perfect system, except we have to avoid 1/1 votes with 18 players. Maybe valve could collext the global data of ban/pick lists and based on that, if there is a stalemate situation, let the weapon in question be banned if it is globally banned in more than 50% of the lists.
EDIT: Ninja'd, I think both a revote and what I suggested are reasonable ways to prevent stalemates.
[quote=skynetsatellite013]I don't think posting ban / whitelist suggestions on specific items in this thread is useful. The purpose is to come up with a system that Valve can use to gather data for themselves. If Valve wanted the community to come up with a whitelist / blacklist for them that is a different topic.
Here are some of my thoughts.
First issues is logistics. There are over 100 [url=wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Weapon]weapons[/url] in the game, and a handful of set bonuses. We need a system that can cover all of the items while also not spending 5 minutes trying to set up the item list for a 15 minute match.
Second issues is troll / outlier protection. I think a majority voting system is better than any system where any one player has ban or veto power over any one item.
With these concerns in mind, here's my idea.
Each player should have his/her pick/ban list, which he/she decides offline. This makes sense because most users aren't going to change their mind for every new match, so there's no need to have the user repeat his/her choices for every single match. This saves time as well and lets matches get started faster. TF2 would need a separate menu / interface with the list of items that one can vote on, and you would go through the entire thing and select pick or ban for each. This list gets saved in your own TF2 account profile. A reasonable default setting can be debated on to be provided to people who are too lazy to go through this step and don't really want to vote.
Once a player joins a match lobby, his pick/ban list is automatically added to the pool. Once the match is ready to start, the server simply adds up everyone's pick/ban list and treats everyone as having 1 vote per item. Any item that has more bans than picks is banned, and the remainder are allowed. The final aggregated pick/ban list is displayed to every player before the match begins.[/quote]
This is pretty much the perfect system, except we have to avoid 1/1 votes with 18 players. Maybe valve could collext the global data of ban/pick lists and based on that, if there is a stalemate situation, let the weapon in question be banned if it is globally banned in more than 50% of the lists.
EDIT: Ninja'd, I think both a revote and what I suggested are reasonable ways to prevent stalemates.
Aggregating lists directly is a bad idea because a lot of people either won't give a shit or will make a list at some point in time and never ever change it because they stopped using the system.
Aggregating lists directly is a bad idea because a lot of people either won't give a shit or will make a list at some point in time and never ever change it because they stopped using the system.
I haven't really read any of this thread yet, but I thought I'd post what is going through my head. There are so many unlocks at the moment, I think the pick/ban system would be a mess without refining them down a bit.
Here's a quick idea of mine.
http://arxandbeta.com/images/idea.jpg
So you would have those weapon boxes for each of the classes. There would be 9 weapons that would feature permanently for each class, and then a selection of 6 weapons (could be 9, or any other number) that change each week. Obviously this isn't ideal for competitive play as it adds a random element, but it might not be the end of the world.
There would be a set number of bans in total. Maybe have a max limit on bans per class, so say, all of the medic unlocks can't be banned leaving everything else open. Team captain would be decided on the player with the most experience (played the most hours or played the most lobbies etc...). That player would be in charge of the weapon bans.
There would be a 'buy unlock now' button for unlocks that are not owned (gives valve some incentive and potential income).
Anyway, just an idea.
I haven't really read any of this thread yet, but I thought I'd post what is going through my head. There are so many unlocks at the moment, I think the pick/ban system would be a mess without refining them down a bit.
Here's a quick idea of mine.
http://arxandbeta.com/images/idea.jpg
So you would have those weapon boxes for each of the classes. There would be 9 weapons that would feature permanently for each class, and then a selection of 6 weapons (could be 9, or any other number) that change each week. Obviously this isn't ideal for competitive play as it adds a random element, but it might not be the end of the world.
There would be a set number of bans in total. Maybe have a max limit on bans per class, so say, all of the medic unlocks can't be banned leaving everything else open. Team captain would be decided on the player with the most experience (played the most hours or played the most lobbies etc...). That player would be in charge of the weapon bans.
There would be a 'buy unlock now' button for unlocks that are not owned (gives valve some incentive and potential income).
Anyway, just an idea.
wareyaAggregating lists directly is a bad idea because a lot of people either won't give a shit or will make a list at some point in time and never ever change it because they stopped using the system.
So what, if they made a list once that's fine.
And if people don't give a shit about making a list, their opinion will simply not count towards the vote and thus not influence valve's future balancing decisions.
[quote=wareya]Aggregating lists directly is a bad idea because a lot of people either won't give a shit or will make a list at some point in time and never ever change it because they stopped using the system.[/quote]
So what, if they made a list once that's fine.
And if people don't give a shit about making a list, their opinion will simply not count towards the vote and thus not influence valve's future balancing decisions.
#60 I was thinking to prevent stalemates, any ties are automatically decided in one way or another. It could be done the way you suggest (by a global statistic), or in my post I just suggested that ties go to "pick" in favor of not being too ban-happy.
To address the update problem, if Valve updates any items or adds any new items, they could as part of the update automatically reset everyone's choice for those specific items. They could reset the choice to pick, which encourages people to play test it some more and requires an individual to make a conscious decision to re-ban it.
#60 I was thinking to prevent stalemates, any ties are automatically decided in one way or another. It could be done the way you suggest (by a global statistic), or in my post I just suggested that ties go to "pick" in favor of not being too ban-happy.
To address the update problem, if Valve updates any items or adds any new items, they could as part of the update automatically reset everyone's choice for those specific items. They could reset the choice to pick, which encourages people to play test it some more and requires an individual to make a conscious decision to re-ban it.
#63 I think you accidentally hit something genius with the random items. One of the effects of having some random items that are forced to be allowed each day or week or whatever (not your idea but it's similar) would be to force people to encounter those weapons more regularly, even if they're banned a lot. They could base whatever weapons are going in there on the ban/pick statistics, so weapons that are heavily used ingame or constantly banned would have a lower potential to show up there because nothing statistically useful would come of highlighting them and forcing them to be allowed.
#63 I think you accidentally hit something genius with the random items. One of the effects of having some random items that are forced to be allowed each day or week or whatever (not your idea but it's similar) would be to force people to encounter those weapons more regularly, even if they're banned a lot. They could base whatever weapons are going in there on the ban/pick statistics, so weapons that are heavily used ingame or constantly banned would have a lower potential to show up there because nothing statistically useful would come of highlighting them and forcing them to be allowed.
skynetsatellite013#60 I was thinking to prevent stalemates, any ties are automatically decided in one way or another. It could be done the way you suggest (by a global statistic), or in my post I just suggested that ties go to "pick" in favor of not being too ban-happy.
To address the update problem, if Valve updates an item, they could reset a player's choice for those items. They could reset the choice to pick, which encourages people to play test it some more and requires an individual to make a conscious decision to re-ban it.
One would of course have to be notified about this. I think if we get a new main menu button for our ban lists it could just be flashing or something or we get a main menu "alert" whenever a weapon is removed form the banlist due to updates.
[quote=skynetsatellite013]#60 I was thinking to prevent stalemates, any ties are automatically decided in one way or another. It could be done the way you suggest (by a global statistic), or in my post I just suggested that ties go to "pick" in favor of not being too ban-happy.
To address the update problem, if Valve updates an item, they could reset a player's choice for those items. They could reset the choice to pick, which encourages people to play test it some more and requires an individual to make a conscious decision to re-ban it.[/quote]
One would of course have to be notified about this. I think if we get a new main menu button for our ban lists it could just be flashing or something or we get a main menu "alert" whenever a weapon is removed form the banlist due to updates.
the301stspartanSo what, if they made a list once that's fine.
No, you don't get it. Let's say valve accidentally adds an item that is literally a straight direct upgrade to the stock item in every way except for psychological ones, like a scattergun that has a different reloading style but higher DPS at literally every single point in time no matter the situation or reloading order or choice or whatever. So everyone bans it. Then the next week they totally rework the item to be more balanced and interesting, like putting some kind of tactical tradeoff in its properties, and it's hypothetically used a lot less now because it isn't as broken and only has certain metagame usages. So the people who played that earlier week then stopped playing have their banlists affecting the stalemate breaker even though the situation is completely entirely different. This aspect itself absolutely does nothing good and there are several trivial ways to avoid it. You can only count the lists of people who have recently played, you could reset ban/pick status of items when updates happen, you could look at a different statistic that is inherently dynamic with the patching of the game like pick/ban STATS instead of LISTS and so on.
[quote=the301stspartan]So what, if they made a list once that's fine.[/quote]
No, you don't get it. Let's say valve accidentally adds an item that is literally a straight direct upgrade to the stock item in every way except for psychological ones, like a scattergun that has a different reloading style but higher DPS at literally every single point in time no matter the situation or reloading order or choice or whatever. So everyone bans it. Then the next week they totally rework the item to be more balanced and interesting, like putting some kind of tactical tradeoff in its properties, and it's hypothetically used a lot less now because it isn't as broken and only has certain metagame usages. So the people who played that earlier week then stopped playing have their banlists affecting the stalemate breaker even though the situation is completely entirely different. This aspect itself absolutely does nothing good and there are several trivial ways to avoid it. You can only count the lists of people who have recently played, you could reset ban/pick status of items when updates happen, you could look at a different statistic that is inherently dynamic with the patching of the game like pick/ban STATS instead of LISTS and so on.
Oh I see what you mean, I think that has been addressed well by making it so that whenever an item gets updated it gets removed from all ban lists with a notification to the players so that you can try it witht he new stats and re-add it to your list if you want to.
Oh I see what you mean, I think that has been addressed well by making it so that whenever an item gets updated it gets removed from all ban lists with a notification to the players so that you can try it witht he new stats and re-add it to your list if you want to.
#67 I agree, a notification on update would be a good thing.
#68 If they stop playing then they don't vote in specific games. The only issue is the global statistics. I don't think this is a problem. If Valve handles updates properly, any item that has its stats or properties changed should internally have a new item ID, even if it looks like the same model and item name to the players. In other words any old votes on the old version of the item should not carry over to an updated version. It is up to Valve to implement this properly but that would be the only logical way to do it. Also, updates can automatically reset item bans, as I've mentioned before.
#67 I agree, a notification on update would be a good thing.
#68 If they stop playing then they don't vote in specific games. The only issue is the global statistics. I don't think this is a problem. If Valve handles updates properly, any item that has its stats or properties changed should internally have a new item ID, even if it looks like the same model and item name to the players. In other words any old votes on the old version of the item should not carry over to an updated version. It is up to Valve to implement this properly but that would be the only logical way to do it. Also, updates can automatically reset item bans, as I've mentioned before.
The problem with protecting stock and allowing people to ban all unlocks is that for most classes the stock primary is the best choice, but poor little Pyro can have what is almost universally the default choice for comp pyros banned under these rules.
Same goes with Secondaries - a Sniper without Jarate is nerfed, but it doesn't affect his ability to hit heads; a Soldier without Gunboats is greatly reduced in his capability of doing his primary job in HL - bombing in and getting picks.
Basically what I'm saying is you either need to have everything up for banning (impractical) or protect some of the weapons the community can identify as 'essential'.
The problem with protecting stock and allowing people to ban all unlocks is that for most classes the stock primary is the best choice, but poor little Pyro can have what is almost universally the default choice for comp pyros banned under these rules.
Same goes with Secondaries - a Sniper without Jarate is nerfed, but it doesn't affect his ability to hit heads; a Soldier without Gunboats is greatly reduced in his capability of doing his primary job in HL - bombing in and getting picks.
Basically what I'm saying is you either need to have everything up for banning (impractical) or protect some of the weapons the community can identify as 'essential'.
#71 What happens if valve puts out a patch that breaks an essential weapon, like giving the degreaser double the airblast rate or making the krtizkreig charge twice as fast? They need data about that too, and you can't just give the benefit of the doubt like "they won't do that".
#71 What happens if valve puts out a patch that breaks an essential weapon, like giving the degreaser double the airblast rate or making the krtizkreig charge twice as fast? They need data about that too, and you can't just give the benefit of the doubt like "they won't do that".
making the krtizkrieg charge twice as fast?
Yes pls
[quote]making the krtizkrieg charge twice as fast?[/quote]
Yes pls
#71 In most cases I would say to relax and let democracy do its work. It's highly unlikely that the majority opinion is to ban gunboats or degreaser. If it is, it is up to Valve how they want to handle that data, but we shouldn't be trying to prevent the data from being collected at all just because it has a chance of being "undesirable". Maybe it could be suggested that Valve get a second opinion from the competitive community before making any changes to existing items based on data from any in-game lobby system, just in case something odd like that happens.
#71 In most cases I would say to relax and let democracy do its work. It's highly unlikely that the majority opinion is to ban gunboats or degreaser. If it is, it is up to Valve how they want to handle that data, but we shouldn't be trying to prevent the data from being collected at all just because it has a chance of being "undesirable". Maybe it could be suggested that Valve get a second opinion from the competitive community before making any changes to existing items based on data from any in-game lobby system, just in case something odd like that happens.
bobmusThe problem with protecting stock and allowing people to ban all unlocks is that for most classes the stock primary is the best choice, but poor little Pyro can have what is almost universally the default choice for comp pyros banned under these rules.
Same goes with Secondaries - a Sniper without Jarate is nerfed, but it doesn't affect his ability to hit heads; a Soldier without Gunboats is greatly reduced in his capability of doing his primary job in HL - bombing in and getting picks.
Basically what I'm saying is you either need to have everything up for banning (impractical) or protect some of the weapons the community can identify as 'essential'.
Different unlocks will change the different roles of classes. If the gunboats gets banned, it will reduce his effectiveness at that particular role (diving getting picks) but he will have to play a different role, or accept that his ability is going to play that style will be reduced. That is called adapting and that is a skill.
It promotes a diverse way of playing the game, and in terms of competitive highlander, it could even be a strategic choice. Maybe you've researched your opponents and found out that their soldier is picking off medics frequently so you want to reduce his effectiveness. It is then up to the opponents to adapt. Maybe they will want to utilize their demoman as a more aggressive pick class and keep their soldier closer to home for medic protection. This game shouldn't be so one dimensional when we have so much variety available to us.
[quote=bobmus]The problem with protecting stock and allowing people to ban all unlocks is that for most classes the stock primary is the best choice, but poor little Pyro can have what is almost universally the default choice for comp pyros banned under these rules.
Same goes with Secondaries - a Sniper without Jarate is nerfed, but it doesn't affect his ability to hit heads; a Soldier without Gunboats is greatly reduced in his capability of doing his primary job in HL - bombing in and getting picks.
Basically what I'm saying is you either need to have everything up for banning (impractical) or protect some of the weapons the community can identify as 'essential'.[/quote]
Different unlocks will change the different roles of classes. If the gunboats gets banned, it will reduce his effectiveness at that particular role (diving getting picks) but he will have to play a different role, or accept that his ability is going to play that style will be reduced. That is called adapting and that is a skill.
It promotes a diverse way of playing the game, and in terms of competitive highlander, it could even be a strategic choice. Maybe you've researched your opponents and found out that their soldier is picking off medics frequently so you want to reduce his effectiveness. It is then up to the opponents to adapt. Maybe they will want to utilize their demoman as a more aggressive pick class and keep their soldier closer to home for medic protection. This game shouldn't be so one dimensional when we have so much variety available to us.
arx's mockup is fantastic. eXactly what I was thinking of starting to work on later.
Keep the discussion going guys!
Forcing adaptation is a big part of what Robin was trying to get across. It forces players to be more multi-faceted as well as created uneXpected situations that lead to eXciting game play possibilities.
arx's mockup is fantastic. eXactly what I was thinking of starting to work on later.
Keep the discussion going guys!
Forcing adaptation is a big part of what Robin was trying to get across. It forces players to be more multi-faceted as well as created uneXpected situations that lead to eXciting game play possibilities.
ArxbobmusThe problem with protecting stock and allowing people to ban all unlocks is that for most classes the stock primary is the best choice, but poor little Pyro can have what is almost universally the default choice for comp pyros banned under these rules.
Same goes with Secondaries - a Sniper without Jarate is nerfed, but it doesn't affect his ability to hit heads; a Soldier without Gunboats is greatly reduced in his capability of doing his primary job in HL - bombing in and getting picks.
Basically what I'm saying is you either need to have everything up for banning (impractical) or protect some of the weapons the community can identify as 'essential'.
Different unlocks will change the different roles of classes. If the gunboats gets banned, it will reduce his effectiveness at that particular role (diving getting picks) but he will have to play a different role, or accept that his ability is going to play that style will be reduced. That is called adapting and that is a skill.
It promotes a diverse way of playing the game, and in terms of competitive highlander, it could even be a strategic choice. Maybe you've researched your opponents and found out that their soldier is picking off medics frequently so you want to reduce his effectiveness. It is then up to the opponents to adapt. Maybe they will want to utilize their demoman as a more aggressive pick class and keep their soldier closer to home for medic protection. This game shouldn't be so one dimensional when we have so much variety available to us.
I honestly think this would be really neat. I would love for a ladder (elo) system where teams are required to consistently utilize the various abilities of classes to their full potential rather than setting predetermined roles for each class. Hopefully, a valve supported matchmaking system will also support pre-determined teams that actually develop strategies as a team and then have a chance in matchmaking to play against another team.
[quote=Arx][quote=bobmus]The problem with protecting stock and allowing people to ban all unlocks is that for most classes the stock primary is the best choice, but poor little Pyro can have what is almost universally the default choice for comp pyros banned under these rules.
Same goes with Secondaries - a Sniper without Jarate is nerfed, but it doesn't affect his ability to hit heads; a Soldier without Gunboats is greatly reduced in his capability of doing his primary job in HL - bombing in and getting picks.
Basically what I'm saying is you either need to have everything up for banning (impractical) or protect some of the weapons the community can identify as 'essential'.[/quote]
Different unlocks will change the different roles of classes. If the gunboats gets banned, it will reduce his effectiveness at that particular role (diving getting picks) but he will have to play a different role, or accept that his ability is going to play that style will be reduced. That is called adapting and that is a skill.
It promotes a diverse way of playing the game, and in terms of competitive highlander, it could even be a strategic choice. Maybe you've researched your opponents and found out that their soldier is picking off medics frequently so you want to reduce his effectiveness. It is then up to the opponents to adapt. Maybe they will want to utilize their demoman as a more aggressive pick class and keep their soldier closer to home for medic protection. This game shouldn't be so one dimensional when we have so much variety available to us.[/quote]
I honestly think this would be really neat. I would love for a ladder (elo) system where teams are required to consistently utilize the various abilities of classes to their full potential rather than setting predetermined roles for each class. Hopefully, a valve supported matchmaking system will also support pre-determined teams that actually develop strategies as a team and then have a chance in matchmaking to play against another team.
[b]OH SHIT!
[/b][img]http://i.imgur.com/1NGUNO8.gif[/img]
SumtingwongArxbobmusThe problem with protecting stock and allowing people to ban all unlocks is that for most classes the stock primary is the best choice, but poor little Pyro can have what is almost universally the default choice for comp pyros banned under these rules.
Same goes with Secondaries - a Sniper without Jarate is nerfed, but it doesn't affect his ability to hit heads; a Soldier without Gunboats is greatly reduced in his capability of doing his primary job in HL - bombing in and getting picks.
Basically what I'm saying is you either need to have everything up for banning (impractical) or protect some of the weapons the community can identify as 'essential'.
Different unlocks will change the different roles of classes. If the gunboats gets banned, it will reduce his effectiveness at that particular role (diving getting picks) but he will have to play a different role, or accept that his ability is going to play that style will be reduced. That is called adapting and that is a skill.
It promotes a diverse way of playing the game, and in terms of competitive highlander, it could even be a strategic choice. Maybe you've researched your opponents and found out that their soldier is picking off medics frequently so you want to reduce his effectiveness. It is then up to the opponents to adapt. Maybe they will want to utilize their demoman as a more aggressive pick class and keep their soldier closer to home for medic protection. This game shouldn't be so one dimensional when we have so much variety available to us.
I honestly think this would be really neat. I would love for a ladder (elo) system where teams are required to consistently utilize the various abilities of classes to their full potential rather than setting predetermined roles for each class. Hopefully, a valve supported matchmaking system will also support pre-determined teams that actually develop strategies as a team and then have a chance in matchmaking to play against another team.
This is all I had in my head the whole time I was reading these threads. All the people in these threads are talking about TF2 like it's stagnant and still the same game that was released in 200X. This is the 20XX's people, the game is changing.
The reason that Kritz, Axtinguisher, Degreaser, etc. are (perceived as) so essential for their classes is because Valve is still learning Highlander. This is their way of learning Highlander better. Once they get a better handle on what is actually going on there, we can have weapons that aren't constantly banned because they might be better than the default or might change people's strategies. We will also see people using weapons that were naysayed before.
Also, I hate all you people that come up with these banlists. "The pomson is really good and everybody would run it". Then allow it and see what happens. Let people come up with "anti-pomson" strategies. Your games is becoming stale because of you aren't willing to let it change. It's going to change now. Get ready.
I'm just hoping I'll be able to ban the stickybomb launcher, as it's the only REALLY OP item in TF2.
[quote=Sumtingwong][quote=Arx][quote=bobmus]The problem with protecting stock and allowing people to ban all unlocks is that for most classes the stock primary is the best choice, but poor little Pyro can have what is almost universally the default choice for comp pyros banned under these rules.
Same goes with Secondaries - a Sniper without Jarate is nerfed, but it doesn't affect his ability to hit heads; a Soldier without Gunboats is greatly reduced in his capability of doing his primary job in HL - bombing in and getting picks.
Basically what I'm saying is you either need to have everything up for banning (impractical) or protect some of the weapons the community can identify as 'essential'.[/quote]
Different unlocks will change the different roles of classes. If the gunboats gets banned, it will reduce his effectiveness at that particular role (diving getting picks) but he will have to play a different role, or accept that his ability is going to play that style will be reduced. That is called adapting and that is a skill.
It promotes a diverse way of playing the game, and in terms of competitive highlander, it could even be a strategic choice. Maybe you've researched your opponents and found out that their soldier is picking off medics frequently so you want to reduce his effectiveness. It is then up to the opponents to adapt. Maybe they will want to utilize their demoman as a more aggressive pick class and keep their soldier closer to home for medic protection. This game shouldn't be so one dimensional when we have so much variety available to us.[/quote]
I honestly think this would be really neat. I would love for a ladder (elo) system where teams are required to consistently utilize the various abilities of classes to their full potential rather than setting predetermined roles for each class. Hopefully, a valve supported matchmaking system will also support pre-determined teams that actually develop strategies as a team and then have a chance in matchmaking to play against another team.[/quote]
This is all I had in my head the whole time I was reading these threads. All the people in these threads are talking about TF2 like it's stagnant and still the same game that was released in 200X. This is the 20XX's people, the game is changing.
The reason that Kritz, Axtinguisher, Degreaser, etc. are (perceived as) so essential for their classes is because Valve is still learning Highlander. This is their way of learning Highlander better. Once they get a better handle on what is actually going on there, we can have weapons that aren't constantly banned because they might be better than the default or might change people's strategies. We will also see people using weapons that were naysayed before.
Also, I hate all you people that come up with these banlists. "The pomson is really good and everybody would run it". Then allow it and see what happens. Let people come up with "anti-pomson" strategies. Your games is becoming stale because of you aren't willing to let it change. It's going to change now. Get ready.
I'm just hoping I'll be able to ban the stickybomb launcher, as it's the only REALLY OP item in TF2.
Each player would get one vote on a list of configs to choose from (ESEA, UGC, ETF2L, CEVO, IGL, vanilla, etc). There should be a brief description of each one.
However there is a "Custom Config" option where if chosen, a list of all non-stock weapons appear on a list (stock weapons will always be allowed). Players would then scroll through the list and choose what weapons to BAN. If a weapon receives more than ??% of the vote it will be banned in the pug.
There should be some constants if the “Custom Config” is picked:
No Random Crits
No Spread
Set Class Limits
If players can agree to play with league config, they shouldn't have to waste their time adding on extra bans.
Each player would get one vote on a list of configs to choose from (ESEA, UGC, ETF2L, CEVO, IGL, vanilla, etc). There should be a brief description of each one.
However there is a "Custom Config" option where if chosen, a list of all non-stock weapons appear on a list (stock weapons will always be allowed). Players would then scroll through the list and choose what weapons to BAN. If a weapon receives more than ??% of the vote it will be banned in the pug.
There should be some constants if the “Custom Config” is picked:
No Random Crits
No Spread
Set Class Limits
If players can agree to play with league config, they shouldn't have to waste their time adding on extra bans.
#80 That's an interesting idea, but since league whitelists have specific focuses it destroys one of the main points of having this system in the first place. They have no way of getting actual statistical/data feedback on whether weapons are OP or not. Your idea restricts the weapon banning stuff to sets people have already chosen, obscuring the ability to go through individual changed items and ban/unban them, which is one of the most important things.
#80 That's an interesting idea, but since league whitelists have specific focuses it destroys one of the main points of having this system in the first place. They have no way of getting actual statistical/data feedback on whether weapons are OP or not. Your idea restricts the weapon banning stuff to sets people have already chosen, obscuring the ability to go through individual changed items and ban/unban them, which is one of the most important things.
ran a test pug with this system, everyone enjoyed the game itself, only complaints being how long it took (which would be more streamlined with an ingame system)
we ran 9 bans per team (no banning stock weapons, as, if this system were implemented I doubt stock weapons would be banned because this would stop new players with no weapons from being able to play), in a blind pick format (both teams had 1 pick per player, there were discussions between each team)
I can't weigh this system up against other systems as we only tried this, but one thing I would suggest is a universal banlist for literally broken weapons (ie: bazaar bargain counting misses as headshots and making it a weapon that hits fully charged shots within 3 seconds or so)
ran a test pug with this system, everyone enjoyed the game itself, only complaints being how long it took (which would be more streamlined with an ingame system)
we ran 9 bans per team (no banning stock weapons, as, if this system were implemented I doubt stock weapons would be banned because this would stop new players with no weapons from being able to play), in a blind pick format (both teams had 1 pick per player, there were discussions between each team)
I can't weigh this system up against other systems as we only tried this, but one thing I would suggest is a universal banlist for [b]literally[/b] broken weapons (ie: bazaar bargain counting misses as headshots and making it a weapon that hits fully charged shots within 3 seconds or so)
bubblebobblerOne thing I would suggest is a universal banlist for literally broken weapons (ie: bazaar bargain counting misses as headshots and making it a weapon that hits fully charged shots within 3 seconds or so)
This is a slippery slope. Banning for a glitch, okay. But don't ban the Phlog or Pomson automatically for the same reason
[quote=bubblebobbler]
One thing I would suggest is a universal banlist for [b]literally[/b] broken weapons (ie: bazaar bargain counting misses as headshots and making it a weapon that hits fully charged shots within 3 seconds or so)[/quote]
This is a slippery slope. Banning for a glitch, okay. But don't ban the Phlog or Pomson automatically for the same reason
Arxidea
I think giving teams a max number of bans, say 5 for each team, to pick from all weapons listed would work the best. It forces teams to ban weapons that they'll not want to play with/against, while maintaining the diversity that valve is looking for. In other words, doesn't allow us to completely follow a white-list and play in an exact fashion of what we're already used to. Also leaving stock weapons outside of being banned due to players not having items and the tf2store only allowing 1 rental. So having 6 weapons in the default set and 6 weapons in the weekly set.
[quote=Arx]idea[/quote]
I think giving teams a max number of bans, say 5 for each team, to pick from all weapons listed would work the best. It forces teams to ban weapons that they'll not want to play with/against, while maintaining the diversity that valve is looking for. In other words, doesn't allow us to completely follow a white-list and play in an exact fashion of what we're already used to. Also leaving stock weapons outside of being banned due to players not having items and the tf2store only allowing 1 rental. So having 6 weapons in the default set and 6 weapons in the weekly set.
I think this is a really good idea.Will constantly mix up the meta and put players out their comfort zone.
To throw my piece in to the mix. Each team should get around 9 bans on weapons. I think any less and you just use the same stuff and it doesn't affect the game. Each team can discuss what to ban but their bans are hidden from the other team. Both show their bans and any crossover is just bad luck. Bans are for both team as well.
As for what weapons can be banned I feel that depending how higher level you are playing then I think you can start banning the stock. I think if you can ban stock weapons then things become really interesting.
I don't think any weapons should be a default ban. This is because it opens a can of worms of why is this ban and this not. If a weapon is buggy then your team will ban it surely? If they don't they let it through and you get punished for not banning it.
I think this is a really good idea.Will constantly mix up the meta and put players out their comfort zone.
To throw my piece in to the mix. Each team should get around 9 bans on weapons. I think any less and you just use the same stuff and it doesn't affect the game. Each team can discuss what to ban but their bans are hidden from the other team. Both show their bans and any crossover is just bad luck. Bans are for both team as well.
As for what weapons can be banned I feel that depending how higher level you are playing then I think you can start banning the stock. I think if you can ban stock weapons then things become really interesting.
I don't think any weapons should be a default ban. This is because it opens a can of worms of why is this ban and this not. If a weapon is buggy then your team will ban it surely? If they don't they let it through and you get punished for not banning it.
Each player in the class they play gets 1 ban per weapon class. The exceptions could be spy sappers (only 2) and maybe Spy watches (only 3). Everything else has plenty of viable alternatives to play with IMHO.
ex. I'm a scout so I can ban one primary, one secondary, and a melee. My opponent will do the same.
Each player in the class they play gets 1 ban per weapon class. The exceptions could be spy sappers (only 2) and maybe Spy watches (only 3). Everything else has plenty of viable alternatives to play with IMHO.
ex. I'm a scout so I can ban one primary, one secondary, and a melee. My opponent will do the same.
StewbubblebobblerOne thing I would suggest is a universal banlist for literally broken weapons (ie: bazaar bargain counting misses as headshots and making it a weapon that hits fully charged shots within 3 seconds or so)
This is a slippery slope. Banning for a glitch, okay. But don't ban the Phlog or Pomson automatically for the same reason
which is why I highlight literally
back to mainpost stuff
I'd say no to using a template whitelist - it'd be unneeded, there are some characters in dota that most would agree are OP too, but are sometimes even left open, if both teams want to leave something open then they should be able to
stock weapons should always be allowed in order to allow all players to play.
re: picking, it's a possibility - and an interesting one and one which I like, but if done there should be VERY little picks, giving the feeling of a tradeoff rather than getting everything you want and then banning being irrelevant - maybe 1 or 2 picks per team
one ban per player (9 bans total per team) seems good to me, with a blind pick format (ie: both teams pick their 9 bans, both sets of bans are revealed and any overlaps are ignored - no repicking for either team), this may lead to a meta of trying to avoid banning the 'op' weapons, but that's fine if you're sure you're better with these 'op' weapons than your opponent, otherwise you'll have to 'waste' a ban on them for safety
a small pick-ban for maps would be cool for team vs team games, for solo matchmaking a vote is probably the best way though
set hats shouldn't be banned but should be up for ban - meaning if for some reason you'd prefer to ban the hat as to allow the weapons in the set to remain open you could.
with the blind pick system, other than picking weapons to 100% allow, there would be no need for a captain to be made, nor a question of who picks first.
I don't think locking into loadouts is a good idea at all, I won't really explain why here but I'm sure most could humour either side of the argument
[quote=Stew][quote=bubblebobbler]
One thing I would suggest is a universal banlist for [b]literally[/b] broken weapons (ie: bazaar bargain counting misses as headshots and making it a weapon that hits fully charged shots within 3 seconds or so)[/quote]
This is a slippery slope. Banning for a glitch, okay. But don't ban the Phlog or Pomson automatically for the same reason[/quote]
which is why I highlight literally
back to mainpost stuff
I'd say no to using a template whitelist - it'd be unneeded, there are some characters in dota that most would agree are OP too, but are sometimes even left open, if both teams want to leave something open then they should be able to
stock weapons should always be allowed in order to allow all players to play.
re: picking, it's a possibility - and an interesting one and one which I like, but if done there should be VERY little picks, giving the feeling of a tradeoff rather than getting everything you want and then banning being irrelevant - maybe 1 or 2 picks per team
one ban per player (9 bans total per team) seems good to me, with a blind pick format (ie: both teams pick their 9 bans, both sets of bans are revealed and any overlaps are ignored - no repicking for either team), this may lead to a meta of trying to avoid banning the 'op' weapons, but that's fine if you're sure you're better with these 'op' weapons than your opponent, otherwise you'll have to 'waste' a ban on them for safety
a small pick-ban for maps would be cool for team vs team games, for solo matchmaking a vote is probably the best way though
set hats shouldn't be banned but should be up for ban - meaning if for some reason you'd prefer to ban the hat as to allow the weapons in the set to remain open you could.
with the blind pick system, other than picking weapons to 100% allow, there would be no need for a captain to be made, nor a question of who picks first.
I don't think locking into loadouts is a good idea at all, I won't really explain why here but I'm sure most could humour either side of the argument
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea behind bans is to remove anything that makes the game less interesting. Don't just ban things because they are effective. Any hypothetically overpowered item that one team can use can also be perfectly counterbalanced by the other team using the same item. The issue that bans aim to address is not balance, but metagame diversity and fun (for both players and spectators). Vote to ban things that take the fun out of the game or tend to result in boring and predictable gameplay. For example the vita-saw isn't banned because it can't be countered - it can be countered with a vita-saw - but because including it makes the other saws (not that there are too many choices but still, more than one) non-viable, thus reducing the metagame diversity while not adding anything (its effects come from passively equipping it).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea behind bans is to remove anything that makes the game less interesting. Don't just ban things because they are effective. Any hypothetically overpowered item that one team can use can also be perfectly counterbalanced by the other team using the same item. The issue that bans aim to address is not balance, but metagame diversity and fun (for both players and spectators). Vote to ban things that take the [b]fun[/b] out of the game or tend to result in boring and predictable gameplay. For example the vita-saw isn't banned because it can't be countered - it can be countered with a vita-saw - but because including it makes the other saws (not that there are too many choices but still, more than one) non-viable, thus reducing the metagame diversity while not adding anything (its effects come from passively equipping it).
the301stspartanskynetsatellite013I don't think posting ban / whitelist suggestions on specific items in this thread is useful. The purpose is to come up with a system that Valve can use to gather data for themselves. If Valve wanted the community to come up with a whitelist / blacklist for them that is a different topic.
Here are some of my thoughts.
First issues is logistics. There are over 100 weapons in the game, and a handful of set bonuses. We need a system that can cover all of the items while also not spending 5 minutes trying to set up the item list for a 15 minute match.
Second issues is troll / outlier protection. I think a majority voting system is better than any system where any one player has ban or veto power over any one item.
With these concerns in mind, here's my idea.
Each player should have his/her pick/ban list, which he/she decides offline. This makes sense because most users aren't going to change their mind for every new match, so there's no need to have the user repeat his/her choices for every single match. This saves time as well and lets matches get started faster. TF2 would need a separate menu / interface with the list of items that one can vote on, and you would go through the entire thing and select pick or ban for each. This list gets saved in your own TF2 account profile. A reasonable default setting can be debated on to be provided to people who are too lazy to go through this step and don't really want to vote.
Once a player joins a match lobby, his pick/ban list is automatically added to the pool. Once the match is ready to start, the server simply adds up everyone's pick/ban list and treats everyone as having 1 vote per item. Any item that has more bans than picks is banned, and the remainder are allowed. The final aggregated pick/ban list is displayed to every player before the match begins.
This is pretty much the perfect system, except we have to avoid 1/1 votes with 18 players. Maybe valve could collext the global data of ban/pick lists and based on that, if there is a stalemate situation, let the weapon in question be banned if it is globally banned in more than 50% of the lists.
EDIT: Ninja'd, I think both a revote and what I suggested are reasonable ways to prevent stalemates.
I think something like this would be ideal. There are far too many items in the game for it to be practical to make pick/ban choices on all of them at the beginning of every game.
I'd propose giving each client an itemPrefs.cfg in which players could blacklist as many items as they like. Any item with more than X% of players with the item blacklisted would not be allowed for that game. Every time a player joins a lobby, they are essentially casting their vote to Valve saying "This is the list of items that I don't like."
X% doesn't have to be 9/18 players. It can change depending on how strict or lenient the players want the item restrictions to be. Each player could set their preference for this as well and the game could take an average for each game.
This would make it so the most hated weapons are rarely, but sometimes, seen in the game and, conversely, staple weapons are rarely but sometimes banned. This leads to more surprises and varied strategies, which seems to be one of the main things Valve is going for.
[quote=the301stspartan][quote=skynetsatellite013]I don't think posting ban / whitelist suggestions on specific items in this thread is useful. The purpose is to come up with a system that Valve can use to gather data for themselves. If Valve wanted the community to come up with a whitelist / blacklist for them that is a different topic.
Here are some of my thoughts.
First issues is logistics. There are over 100 [url=wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Weapon]weapons[/url] in the game, and a handful of set bonuses. We need a system that can cover all of the items while also not spending 5 minutes trying to set up the item list for a 15 minute match.
Second issues is troll / outlier protection. I think a majority voting system is better than any system where any one player has ban or veto power over any one item.
With these concerns in mind, here's my idea.
Each player should have his/her pick/ban list, which he/she decides offline. This makes sense because most users aren't going to change their mind for every new match, so there's no need to have the user repeat his/her choices for every single match. This saves time as well and lets matches get started faster. TF2 would need a separate menu / interface with the list of items that one can vote on, and you would go through the entire thing and select pick or ban for each. This list gets saved in your own TF2 account profile. A reasonable default setting can be debated on to be provided to people who are too lazy to go through this step and don't really want to vote.
Once a player joins a match lobby, his pick/ban list is automatically added to the pool. Once the match is ready to start, the server simply adds up everyone's pick/ban list and treats everyone as having 1 vote per item. Any item that has more bans than picks is banned, and the remainder are allowed. The final aggregated pick/ban list is displayed to every player before the match begins.[/quote]
This is pretty much the perfect system, except we have to avoid 1/1 votes with 18 players. Maybe valve could collext the global data of ban/pick lists and based on that, if there is a stalemate situation, let the weapon in question be banned if it is globally banned in more than 50% of the lists.
EDIT: Ninja'd, I think both a revote and what I suggested are reasonable ways to prevent stalemates.[/quote]
I think something like this would be ideal. There are far too many items in the game for it to be practical to make pick/ban choices on all of them at the beginning of every game.
I'd propose giving each client an itemPrefs.cfg in which players could blacklist as many items as they like. Any item with more than X% of players with the item blacklisted would not be allowed for that game. Every time a player joins a lobby, they are essentially casting their vote to Valve saying "This is the list of items that I don't like."
X% doesn't have to be 9/18 players. It can change depending on how strict or lenient the players want the item restrictions to be. Each player could set their preference for this as well and the game could take an average for each game.
This would make it so the most hated weapons are rarely, but sometimes, seen in the game and, conversely, staple weapons are rarely but sometimes banned. This leads to more surprises and varied strategies, which seems to be one of the main things Valve is going for.
(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.
(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.