r4ptureOn that topic, I'm happy to see the Conch is whitelisted.
There is no reason why the conch should be allowed with its current stats.
CEVO Community Meeting #2
posted in
TF2 General Discussion
[quote=r4pture]
On that topic, I'm happy to see the Conch is whitelisted. [/quote]
There is no reason why the conch should be allowed with its current stats.
On that topic, I'm happy to see the Conch is whitelisted. [/quote]
There is no reason why the conch should be allowed with its current stats.
I think its an interesting option, at least. Can you explain why it shouldn't be allowed?
I think its an interesting option, at least. Can you explain why it shouldn't be allowed?
+2hp per second for wearer
+25% speed for scouts in range, above 30% for other classes
35% damage dealt received as health
480 damage to charge
I think it should be banned because its charge can be obtained by sitting back and spamming rockets over the course of 20 seconds (or less) and everyone on your team not only moves super fast, but also gains 35% of damage dealt back as health. That's like having two black box soldiers with four rockets each--and that's without counting the demo and scouts. The only real counter to the conch is the conch or some form of uber, and the conch charges way too easily for that to have any kind of semblance of balance unless you call "conch vs conch" balanced. The problem with that is that it goes back to the "it's so good that both teams are essentially forced to run it" conundrum.
+2hp per second for wearer
+25% speed for scouts in range, above 30% for other classes
35% damage dealt received as health
480 damage to charge
I think it should be banned because its charge can be obtained by sitting back and spamming rockets over the course of 20 seconds (or less) and everyone on your team not only moves super fast, but also gains 35% of damage dealt back as health. That's like having two black box soldiers with four rockets each--and that's without counting the demo and scouts. The only real counter to the conch is the conch or some form of uber, and the conch charges way too easily for that to have any kind of semblance of balance unless you call "conch vs conch" balanced. The problem with that is that it goes back to the "it's so good that both teams are essentially forced to run it" conundrum.
+25% speed for scouts in range, above 30% for other classes
35% damage dealt received as health
480 damage to charge
I think it should be banned because its charge can be obtained by sitting back and spamming rockets over the course of 20 seconds (or less) and everyone on your team not only moves super fast, but also gains 35% of damage dealt back as health. That's like having two black box soldiers with four rockets each--and that's without counting the demo and scouts. The only real counter to the conch is the conch or some form of uber, and the conch charges way too easily for that to have any kind of semblance of balance unless you call "conch vs conch" balanced. The problem with that is that it goes back to the "it's so good that both teams are essentially forced to run it" conundrum.
CaspianTeams did think it through. What you saw were the best options to deal with quickfix.
Considering teams attempted to treat the QF no differently than Uber or Kritz, I suppose you'd be correct.
However, a more empirical method would be to throw out the old meta and start over with the Four Mediguns, choose different class selections, create new default and alternate unlocks, choose different reactions for various outcomes, so on and so forth. In other words, nothing of the old meta would be above changing or eliminating in favor of obtaining subtle but distinct advantages.
[quote=Caspian]
Teams did think it through. What you saw were the best options to deal with quickfix.
[/quote]
Considering teams attempted to treat the QF no differently than Uber or Kritz, I suppose you'd be correct.
However, a more empirical method would be to throw out the old meta and start over with the Four Mediguns, choose different class selections, create new default and alternate unlocks, choose different reactions for various outcomes, so on and so forth. In other words, nothing of the old meta would be above changing or eliminating in favor of obtaining subtle but distinct advantages.
Teams did think it through. What you saw were the best options to deal with quickfix.
[/quote]
Considering teams attempted to treat the QF no differently than Uber or Kritz, I suppose you'd be correct.
However, a more empirical method would be to throw out the old meta and start over with the Four Mediguns, choose different class selections, create new default and alternate unlocks, choose different reactions for various outcomes, so on and so forth. In other words, nothing of the old meta would be above changing or eliminating in favor of obtaining subtle but distinct advantages.
LKincheloeCaspianTeams did think it through. What you saw were the best options to deal with quickfix.
Considering teams attempted to treat the QF no differently than Uber or Kritz, I suppose you'd be correct.
However, a more empirical method would be to throw out the old meta and start over with the Four Mediguns, choose different class selections, create new default and alternate unlocks, choose different reactions for various outcomes, so on and so forth. In other words, nothing of the old meta would be above changing or eliminating in favor of obtaining subtle but distinct advantages.
Why would we redo everything for the sake of scientific method?
[quote=LKincheloe][quote=Caspian]
Teams did think it through. What you saw were the best options to deal with quickfix.
[/quote]
Considering teams attempted to treat the QF no differently than Uber or Kritz, I suppose you'd be correct.
However, a more empirical method would be to throw out the old meta and start over with the Four Mediguns, choose different class selections, create new default and alternate unlocks, choose different reactions for various outcomes, so on and so forth. In other words, nothing of the old meta would be above changing or eliminating in favor of obtaining subtle but distinct advantages.[/quote]
Why would we redo everything for the sake of scientific method?
Teams did think it through. What you saw were the best options to deal with quickfix.
[/quote]
Considering teams attempted to treat the QF no differently than Uber or Kritz, I suppose you'd be correct.
However, a more empirical method would be to throw out the old meta and start over with the Four Mediguns, choose different class selections, create new default and alternate unlocks, choose different reactions for various outcomes, so on and so forth. In other words, nothing of the old meta would be above changing or eliminating in favor of obtaining subtle but distinct advantages.[/quote]
Why would we redo everything for the sake of scientific method?
Not for the sake of, but an acknowledgment that the game is indeed different with Four Mediguns instead of Two. So to me it makes sense to go back and revisit every concept in an effort to find a new advantage, operating under the presumption that if my team doesn't do it, another team will.
I just want to see a metagame that rewards innovation and creativity, and not have the attitude of "Here's your play order, use it or GTFO".
Not for the sake of, but an acknowledgment that the game is indeed different with Four Mediguns instead of Two. So to me it makes sense to go back and revisit every concept in an effort to find a new advantage, operating under the presumption that if my team doesn't do it, another team will.
I just want to see a metagame that rewards innovation and creativity, and not have the attitude of "Here's your play order, use it or GTFO".
I just want to see a metagame that rewards innovation and creativity, and not have the attitude of "Here's your play order, use it or GTFO".
whitelist is not official.
http://teamfortress.tv/forum/thread/15727-cevo-community-meeting-2/3#post-69
whitelist is not official.
http://teamfortress.tv/forum/thread/15727-cevo-community-meeting-2/3#post-69
http://teamfortress.tv/forum/thread/15727-cevo-community-meeting-2/3#post-69
LKincheloeNot for the sake of, but an acknowledgment that the game is indeed different with Four Mediguns instead of Two. So to me it makes sense to go back and revisit every concept in an effort to find a new advantage, operating under the presumption that if my team doesn't do it, another team will.
I just want to see a metagame that rewards innovation and creativity, and not have the attitude of "Here's your play order, use it or GTFO".
Aim and movement should be rewarded 66% of the time due to this being an FPS, not a strategy game. It's inherent in an FPS and should be the main focus of the meta, then followed by strategy.
[quote=LKincheloe]Not for the sake of, but an acknowledgment that the game is indeed different with Four Mediguns instead of Two. So to me it makes sense to go back and revisit every concept in an effort to find a new advantage, operating under the presumption that if my team doesn't do it, another team will.
I just want to see a metagame that rewards innovation and creativity, and not have the attitude of "Here's your play order, use it or GTFO".[/quote]
Aim and movement should be rewarded 66% of the time due to this being an FPS, not a strategy game. It's inherent in an FPS and should be the main focus of the meta, then followed by strategy.
I just want to see a metagame that rewards innovation and creativity, and not have the attitude of "Here's your play order, use it or GTFO".[/quote]
Aim and movement should be rewarded 66% of the time due to this being an FPS, not a strategy game. It's inherent in an FPS and should be the main focus of the meta, then followed by strategy.
TurinWhy would we redo everything for the sake of scientific method?
Maybe because the scientific method is the most effective way of testing hypotheses and formulating solutions?
The way that this community reacts when encountering new elements in the game is disturbing. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion on the weapon, but immediately banning it ensures that the game remains stagnant. One of the greatest things about e-sports is that they are perpetually evolving games.
We should be treating new weapons and changes constructively, because it'll help us provide better feedback to Valve and diagnose problems within our own version of the game.
For example:
smakers+2hp per second for wearer
+25% speed for scouts in range, above 30% for other classes
35% damage dealt received as health
480 damage to charge
I think it should be banned because its charge can be obtained by sitting back and spamming rockets over the course of 20 seconds (or less) and everyone on your team not only moves super fast, but also gains 35% of damage dealt back as health. That's like having two black box soldiers with four rockets each--and that's without counting the demo and scouts. The only real counter to the conch is the conch or some form of uber, and the conch charges way too easily for that to have any kind of semblance of balance unless you call "conch vs conch" balanced. The problem with that is that it goes back to the "it's so good that both teams are essentially forced to run it" conundrum.
Because the weapon has actually been used, we can have dialogue about it.
I haven't seen the conch run outside of attacking gullywash last. That would be the second time that recently popular unlocks seemed bad for 6s on Gullywash specifically. Why haven't we talked about taking Gullywash out of the rotation? It's always been a map prone to stalemates and passive play.
[quote=Turin]Why would we redo everything for the sake of scientific method?[/quote]
Maybe because the scientific method is the most effective way of testing hypotheses and formulating solutions?
The way that this community reacts when encountering new elements in the game is disturbing. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion on the weapon, but immediately banning it ensures that the game remains stagnant. One of the greatest things about e-sports is that they are perpetually evolving games.
We should be treating new weapons and changes constructively, because it'll help us provide better feedback to Valve and diagnose problems within our own version of the game.
For example:
[quote=smakers]+2hp per second for wearer
+25% speed for scouts in range, above 30% for other classes
35% damage dealt received as health
480 damage to charge
I think it should be banned because its charge can be obtained by sitting back and spamming rockets over the course of 20 seconds (or less) and everyone on your team not only moves super fast, but also gains 35% of damage dealt back as health. That's like having two black box soldiers with four rockets each--and that's without counting the demo and scouts. The only real counter to the conch is the conch or some form of uber, and the conch charges way too easily for that to have any kind of semblance of balance unless you call "conch vs conch" balanced. The problem with that is that it goes back to the "it's so good that both teams are essentially forced to run it" conundrum.[/quote]
Because the weapon has actually been used, we can have dialogue about it.
I haven't seen the conch run outside of attacking gullywash last. That would be the second time that recently popular unlocks seemed bad for 6s on Gullywash specifically. Why haven't we talked about taking Gullywash out of the rotation? It's always been a map prone to stalemates and passive play.
Maybe because the scientific method is the most effective way of testing hypotheses and formulating solutions?
The way that this community reacts when encountering new elements in the game is disturbing. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion on the weapon, but immediately banning it ensures that the game remains stagnant. One of the greatest things about e-sports is that they are perpetually evolving games.
We should be treating new weapons and changes constructively, because it'll help us provide better feedback to Valve and diagnose problems within our own version of the game.
For example:
[quote=smakers]+2hp per second for wearer
+25% speed for scouts in range, above 30% for other classes
35% damage dealt received as health
480 damage to charge
I think it should be banned because its charge can be obtained by sitting back and spamming rockets over the course of 20 seconds (or less) and everyone on your team not only moves super fast, but also gains 35% of damage dealt back as health. That's like having two black box soldiers with four rockets each--and that's without counting the demo and scouts. The only real counter to the conch is the conch or some form of uber, and the conch charges way too easily for that to have any kind of semblance of balance unless you call "conch vs conch" balanced. The problem with that is that it goes back to the "it's so good that both teams are essentially forced to run it" conundrum.[/quote]
Because the weapon has actually been used, we can have dialogue about it.
I haven't seen the conch run outside of attacking gullywash last. That would be the second time that recently popular unlocks seemed bad for 6s on Gullywash specifically. Why haven't we talked about taking Gullywash out of the rotation? It's always been a map prone to stalemates and passive play.
TurinAim and movement should be rewarded 66% of the time due to this being an FPS, not a strategy game. It's inherent in an FPS and should be the main focus of the meta, then followed by strategy.
I think you must be playing some other game. Aim and movement are the least important parts of TF2. There's more Counter Strike in TF2 than there is Quake.
[quote=Turin]
Aim and movement should be rewarded 66% of the time due to this being an FPS, not a strategy game. It's inherent in an FPS and should be the main focus of the meta, then followed by strategy.[/quote]
I think you must be playing some other game. Aim and movement are the least important parts of TF2. There's more Counter Strike in TF2 than there is Quake.
Aim and movement should be rewarded 66% of the time due to this being an FPS, not a strategy game. It's inherent in an FPS and should be the main focus of the meta, then followed by strategy.[/quote]
I think you must be playing some other game. Aim and movement are the least important parts of TF2. There's more Counter Strike in TF2 than there is Quake.
I'm sure that there are many players that got to high levels of play based 90% off of their pure aim or movement.
I'm sure that there are many players that got to high levels of play based 90% off of their pure aim or movement.
Langejoddblazedunno if this was already discussed, but it would probably be a good idea if cevo copied esea's map schedule or at least had a few of them that would sync up for the first season. I think the main reason most people don't play in 2 or more leagues is because they cant find the time to practice different maps and have 4+ matches a week. (is cevo doing 2 matches a week?)
(re-quoting from trog)
i was a bit disappointed that this post wasn't touched on. it is sort of a loaded question, but i was hoping to find the information of: will CEVO try to mirror ESEA's map list for this first real season?
reason being that, if there were hypothetically 1 match a week for CEVO this season, teams who are weary about moving away from what is known/comfortable (ESEA) would probably have a bit more of an interest (and time) to participate in both leagues.
We reached out to ESEA to attempt to coordinate our map lists, but they were uncooperative. As a result, we will be sticking with our current map list barring any unforeseen events.
On the issue of number of matches per week, the poll was inconclusive. The end numbers were extremely close, so we've made a judgement call. We believe that one match a week is not a good value for the $15 entry fee we are asking. As such, we have decided that this season will have two matches per week. I realize that this is not what everyone wanted, but with a poll split nearly 50/50 we had to make a call, and I think that this will encourage more serious competitive play in CEVO in the long run.
why don't you do what ugc does in the summer and have a default map list and a secondary one that teams can agree to?
[quote=Lange][quote=jodd][quote=blaze]dunno if this was already discussed, but it would probably be a good idea if cevo copied esea's map schedule or at least had a few of them that would sync up for the first season. I think the main reason most people don't play in 2 or more leagues is because they cant find the time to practice different maps and have 4+ matches a week. (is cevo doing 2 matches a week?)[/quote]
(re-quoting from trog)
i was a bit disappointed that this post wasn't touched on. it is sort of a loaded question, but i was hoping to find the information of: will CEVO try to mirror ESEA's map list for this first [i]real[/i] season?
reason being that, if there were hypothetically 1 match a week for CEVO this season, teams who are weary about moving away from what is known/comfortable (ESEA) would probably have a bit more of an interest (and time) to participate in both leagues.[/quote]
We reached out to ESEA to attempt to coordinate our map lists, but they were uncooperative. As a result, we will be sticking with our current map list barring any unforeseen events.
On the issue of number of matches per week, the poll was inconclusive. The end numbers were extremely close, so we've made a judgement call. We believe that one match a week is not a good value for the $15 entry fee we are asking. As such, we have decided that this season will have two matches per week. I realize that this is not what everyone wanted, but with a poll split nearly 50/50 we had to make a call, and I think that this will encourage more serious competitive play in CEVO in the long run.[/quote]
why don't you do what ugc does in the summer and have a default map list and a secondary one that teams can agree to?
(re-quoting from trog)
i was a bit disappointed that this post wasn't touched on. it is sort of a loaded question, but i was hoping to find the information of: will CEVO try to mirror ESEA's map list for this first [i]real[/i] season?
reason being that, if there were hypothetically 1 match a week for CEVO this season, teams who are weary about moving away from what is known/comfortable (ESEA) would probably have a bit more of an interest (and time) to participate in both leagues.[/quote]
We reached out to ESEA to attempt to coordinate our map lists, but they were uncooperative. As a result, we will be sticking with our current map list barring any unforeseen events.
On the issue of number of matches per week, the poll was inconclusive. The end numbers were extremely close, so we've made a judgement call. We believe that one match a week is not a good value for the $15 entry fee we are asking. As such, we have decided that this season will have two matches per week. I realize that this is not what everyone wanted, but with a poll split nearly 50/50 we had to make a call, and I think that this will encourage more serious competitive play in CEVO in the long run.[/quote]
why don't you do what ugc does in the summer and have a default map list and a secondary one that teams can agree to?
Alleal
I think you must be playing some other game. Aim and movement are the least important parts of TF2. There's more Counter Strike in TF2 than there is Quake.
http://www.ugcleague.com/players_page.cfm?player_id=76561198028061576
[quote=Alleal]
I think you must be playing some other game. Aim and movement are the least important parts of TF2. There's more Counter Strike in TF2 than there is Quake.[/quote]
http://www.ugcleague.com/players_page.cfm?player_id=76561198028061576
I think you must be playing some other game. Aim and movement are the least important parts of TF2. There's more Counter Strike in TF2 than there is Quake.[/quote]
http://www.ugcleague.com/players_page.cfm?player_id=76561198028061576
allenLangejoddblazedunno if this was already discussed, but it would probably be a good idea if cevo copied esea's map schedule or at least had a few of them that would sync up for the first season. I think the main reason most people don't play in 2 or more leagues is because they cant find the time to practice different maps and have 4+ matches a week. (is cevo doing 2 matches a week?)
(re-quoting from trog)
i was a bit disappointed that this post wasn't touched on. it is sort of a loaded question, but i was hoping to find the information of: will CEVO try to mirror ESEA's map list for this first real season?
reason being that, if there were hypothetically 1 match a week for CEVO this season, teams who are weary about moving away from what is known/comfortable (ESEA) would probably have a bit more of an interest (and time) to participate in both leagues.
We reached out to ESEA to attempt to coordinate our map lists, but they were uncooperative. As a result, we will be sticking with our current map list barring any unforeseen events.
On the issue of number of matches per week, the poll was inconclusive. The end numbers were extremely close, so we've made a judgement call. We believe that one match a week is not a good value for the $15 entry fee we are asking. As such, we have decided that this season will have two matches per week. I realize that this is not what everyone wanted, but with a poll split nearly 50/50 we had to make a call, and I think that this will encourage more serious competitive play in CEVO in the long run.
why don't you do what ugc does in the summer and have a default map list and a secondary one that teams can agree to?
You mean what UGC did once and won't ever do again? That was so fail. Summer season from word of mouth is going to be an official season going forward in UGC. No more dumb trials, maps or games
[quote=allen][quote=Lange][quote=jodd][quote=blaze]dunno if this was already discussed, but it would probably be a good idea if cevo copied esea's map schedule or at least had a few of them that would sync up for the first season. I think the main reason most people don't play in 2 or more leagues is because they cant find the time to practice different maps and have 4+ matches a week. (is cevo doing 2 matches a week?)[/quote]
(re-quoting from trog)
i was a bit disappointed that this post wasn't touched on. it is sort of a loaded question, but i was hoping to find the information of: will CEVO try to mirror ESEA's map list for this first [i]real[/i] season?
reason being that, if there were hypothetically 1 match a week for CEVO this season, teams who are weary about moving away from what is known/comfortable (ESEA) would probably have a bit more of an interest (and time) to participate in both leagues.[/quote]
We reached out to ESEA to attempt to coordinate our map lists, but they were uncooperative. As a result, we will be sticking with our current map list barring any unforeseen events.
On the issue of number of matches per week, the poll was inconclusive. The end numbers were extremely close, so we've made a judgement call. We believe that one match a week is not a good value for the $15 entry fee we are asking. As such, we have decided that this season will have two matches per week. I realize that this is not what everyone wanted, but with a poll split nearly 50/50 we had to make a call, and I think that this will encourage more serious competitive play in CEVO in the long run.[/quote]
why don't you do what ugc does in the summer and have a default map list and a secondary one that teams can agree to?[/quote]
You mean what UGC did once and won't ever do again? That was so fail. Summer season from word of mouth is going to be an official season going forward in UGC. No more dumb trials, maps or games
(re-quoting from trog)
i was a bit disappointed that this post wasn't touched on. it is sort of a loaded question, but i was hoping to find the information of: will CEVO try to mirror ESEA's map list for this first [i]real[/i] season?
reason being that, if there were hypothetically 1 match a week for CEVO this season, teams who are weary about moving away from what is known/comfortable (ESEA) would probably have a bit more of an interest (and time) to participate in both leagues.[/quote]
We reached out to ESEA to attempt to coordinate our map lists, but they were uncooperative. As a result, we will be sticking with our current map list barring any unforeseen events.
On the issue of number of matches per week, the poll was inconclusive. The end numbers were extremely close, so we've made a judgement call. We believe that one match a week is not a good value for the $15 entry fee we are asking. As such, we have decided that this season will have two matches per week. I realize that this is not what everyone wanted, but with a poll split nearly 50/50 we had to make a call, and I think that this will encourage more serious competitive play in CEVO in the long run.[/quote]
why don't you do what ugc does in the summer and have a default map list and a secondary one that teams can agree to?[/quote]
You mean what UGC did once and won't ever do again? That was so fail. Summer season from word of mouth is going to be an official season going forward in UGC. No more dumb trials, maps or games
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.