https://www.facebook.com/Fatal1tyGamingGear

"OCZ Challenge Fatal1ty VS relic -- We will be releasing a full production video in about a week. We will also do an AMA on Twitch.tv/Fatal1ty when the file is complete so you can chat with Fatal1ty and relic about the match. Thanks. -Fatal1tyTEAM"

Just think of it as using the word 'literally' in a figurative way. Then everyone is happy

Dude no need to be a crazy perfectionist, may as well just take criticism (was there even any??) in your stride and leave it up to get more. No one's gonna put a black mark next to your name

I'm at university right now so I can't watch the streams but I'm refreshing the ESEA pages every 10 seconds and godDAMN is this exciting

Uber spark animation remains after dropping uber, irrespective of class changes.

Edit: I'M USELESS

http://teamfortress.tv/forum/thread/9020-update

The reason that stuff was banned is because having the game change just because isn't desirable. The rules are designed on how players want the game to be, and the strategic variety in TF2 doesn't come from chuckin a whole bunch of weapon choices in (at the moment).

This is why it seems weird (as dummy said) to apply Dota stuff. At the moment, there are few weapon choices because limiting some factors increases the importance of others, such as aim, dodging, team coordination etc.

I think Kirby was just being positive about the fact that such a massive discussion was going on.

In terms of increasing the weapon variety to increase the gameplay variety. It makes sense that the meta would eventually settle down, and that weapons could be balanced internally. But there's something of an opposing force to that, which is that more strategic weight would be placed on your team's build. This obviously seems to be a positive thing for Robin, but I feel uneasy about it, because at the extreme it would reduce TF2 to a battle of builds, where at the moment it's a battle of execution with just a touch of builds (I think someone said this earlier?? Can't remember who sorry).

I feel that every time you increase the materials that you work with, it inserts some randomness into the game. You can kind of see it between 6s and HL already - it's much harder to coordinate 9 players than 6 cohesively (imagine it with 100 unlocks as well), and this can lower the skill ceiling in some cases. Often builds and strategy would be more effective not due to any design but just by coincidence.

This would all be avoidable obviously, I'm just saying what I think the potential danger is, and why I prefer strategic weight on positioning/teamwork etc rather than builds.

EDIT: And if you think of balance as [success being representative of skill], then we'll have to find the right medium between increasing variety but avoiding imbalance. There's probably some perfect amount of weapon variety.

I think this is a great idea. Not only would it allow the variety that Valve wants, and be easier to fill than 18 players, but it would facilitate a gradual understanding of the comp 6s meta. People would enter the format without restriction, but then observe how the best play (if Valve advertise matches) and emulate it.

If players understand the meta on their own accord then they will engage with it much more.

I don't think that all data points would be of equal value here. If all players have a hand in determining weapon balance for a game format that has been around for years then it seems like an unnecessary reinvention of the metagame... The views of the best players in the format should determine the weapon list, as they are the most familiar with the format as we want it to be.

This is a good characterisation. This system should drastically increase the size of the competitive scene over time (including 6s), given sufficient infrastructure.

Robin saying that 6s is boring and will never be supported is quite alarming though! What kind of investment would posts about 6s and some documentation in game require?

This is an extremely exciting update.

I am, however, disappointed with the emphasis on Highlander. If such a system was to be implemented, how much additional work would be required to apply it to 6s as well? If the limited appeal 6s is an issue, why not source further development from the community, much like the recent hat update?

Great read, thanks!

It's a great idea but I think that this wouldn't be the most effective team composition at low levels. When scouts can't aim, pyros are effective; when soldiers/demos can't jump, heavies are effective.

The cookie-cutter (and in many ways the competitive game) don't actually emerge until players have reliable dm, which many of these players won't.

You can use the discriminant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discriminant

Which will be positive for all cases where the quadratic has two real roots. If you substitute in the coefficients of each term and let the discriminant > 0, you can solve for K.