Can you clarify this a bit? The way I think of this is that a lot of the intentions are the same (creating temporary imbalance by disturbing static hold positions), it’s just applied at a larger scale. That’s also the general concept I was trying to convey - Ask the question of what does the increased scale positively contribute. With the idea that we should be encouraging faster rotations and faster general gameplay it just seems awkward.

Uh I mean, I would say the big difference between CS and TF2 is that you don’t have respawns in CS, the timer isn’t an active element (stopwatch), and there isn’t hyper mobile classes to bust chokepoints. This analogy seems a bit scattered, but I don’t really think the “counter strike has better map design” holds too much water, what would be good 6s 3cp map design in your opinion - you said in CS you have to make a choice while TF2 you don’t? Doesn’t that go against what you say earlier about options?

In general I think that there is also a bit of a misunderstanding for options necessarily equaling complexity, the easiest analogy I can think of is that HL has a lot more class & loadout options, but that doesn’t make it necessarily more tactically complex.

- Discussion - Map Development Challenges

This deserves a rant, but isn’t the focus on this thread. Brief overview of the problem would be as follows.

On the Surface: We need new gamemodes and maps (because we’re bored of the ones we have / they are dated)

In the Composition: Gamemodes/Maps that emphasize teamwork are the only ones playable, competent mapmakers also knowledgeable in 6s/Teamplay are VERY RARE.

Facing Harsh Reality:

At the community level: Many people “want” new high quality maps, but very few are willing to make the sacrifices for those efforts. Pug groups don’t often run experimental maps and when they do often give low quality feedback. Organized teams have no reason to play experimental maps vs normal league ones, meaning no general feedback exists.

At the mapmaker level mappers are often inexperienced in competitive play. Those that are willing to listen to more experienced players are rare. Filtering feedback (knowing who to listen to) is difficult if not impossible (especially when lacking experience). Negative stigma regarding competitive players is present, especially in mapmaking communities (This includes bad blood/history).

At the league level: Efforts to help and expose maps are done in a ways that often ends up backfiring on mappers, feedback and support structures are nonexistent.

- Final Thoughts

When I try to advertise 6s to non-6s players I think the biggest misconception non-competitive players have is that 6s is somehow “representative” of the glorious mess that is TF2. To my knowledge no 6s player has ever declared that 6s encompasses all of TF2, nobody has even claimed that it’s TRYING to be representative.

6s doesn’t emphasize the classes in TF2, it doesn’t emphasize the gamemodes, it doesn’t even emphasize the balance.

6s is THE gamemode that emphasizes the TEAM part of TF2.

This is why I believe competitive (6s) has allure and untapped potential, and also why I think the map/gamemode quest is largely a distraction.

If you skipped everything above, the TL;DR contribution I would have is

Map development is very undersupported, but mappers still produce experimental maps for competitive anyway

6s is not meant to be representative of TF2, it certainly doesn’t need to have more gamemodes represented to be fun/functional

Sorry about formatting, posting from mobile.

All the above answers are good.

In my offhand summary (Key points)

- #4 (Seinfeld)
- This is the 6s Community Decision & There is history (See Discussion - Incentive & Choice)
- #7 (Brody)
- Asymmetric Gamemodes don’t suit 6s (See Discussion - Incentive & Choice)
- Map Variants (See Discussion - 6s Map Variants)
- #13 (Mak)
- Stopwatch Incentive (See Discussion - Incentive & Choice)
- Are “Dynamic” Rotations Really Special? (See Discussion - 6s Map Variants)

General Reference: https://forums.rgl.gg/topic/1853/what-do-you-think-a-6v6-payload-map-would-look-like

---

From an analytical perspective, 6s and HL have developed into two distinct dichotomies, and I believe looking deeper into this difference should form the basis of what differs map-wise (and thus what differs design wise) between the two game modes.

To save out on some time I’ll outright say the simple conclusion:

- 6s has a focus on mobility that emphasizes a push/pull
- In 6s your team switches from defending to attacking on a dime while…
- HL has a focus on holding, emphasizing “waves” of attack
- One team often is (inherently by the gamemode) the aggressor, conversely one the defender.

What this means physically is that in payload [applying to other Asym modes]: the defending team often has no incentive to push/move/advance off successfully winning a teamfight - and as there is no need for mobility [with respect to the] 6s format … no reason to not run the defensive offclasses for basically every point (Engie, Heavy, etc).

What does payload add to 6s? When I spoke to fossil he indicated to me that he thought to add the ferocious excitement of stopwatch to 6s, but I knew with him saying that he’s never seen (or rather never played) 6s where

- A won mid fight can turn into a scramble for last, where a full advantage is desperately pushed on
- Someone calling that they are dying seconds before they do makes the difference in decision making to save a situation
- Where teams use as soon as they get Uber because they already are on a much shorter more aggressive timer already: the enemy medic’s Uber.

Simply put, payload for 6s would add a more visible timer, but would remove many aspects of decision making complexity that is essential to the “feel” of 6s. (See Discussion - Incentive)

- Discussion - Incentive & Choice

KevinIsPwn’s summary of competitive Tf2 (Summarized) is the identification of advantages. The reason I bring this up is because Mak brought up the point of Stopwatch being “dumbed down” - this is a consequence of the roles created. Regardless of the situation the “attacking team” will always want to attack, there isn’t much consideration as to the current game state beyond the next respawn wave.

I think a seldom acknowledged point here is the recognition that this is by choice - I don’t think any 6s player will say their favorite part of the game is sac-to-countersac, but I think every player has an appreciation for the idea that a CORE part of 6s is the recognition of the gamestate. Making crucial decisions in chaotic situations is a core part of 6s, this isn’t to say that HL doesn’t have the same chaotic scrambles, but potentially due the scale the significance of those decisions are often lost in the wash.

In short - at some point the 6s community chose the complexity of recognizing the gamestate of 5cp as a core value.

“6s players are taught to recognize and utilize team advantages in order to understand when to agress/retreat, an aspect of gameplay largely lost in explicit A/D modes and general pub play.”

- Discussion - Map Variants

I did the thing where I opened the thread expecting to cringe, but I ended up being pleasantly surprised by a lot of the answers.

One of the main reasons I’m writing a reply is because this is a topic I’m generally invested into (Map Design in 6s), and I have experienced the difficulty in both testing and mapmaking for competitive. I also figure that I can throw insight into why there hasn’t been more experimental maps/gamemodes/ideas for 6s:

- Short answer - There has been various experimental mode attempts, but there never is any support/interest for them

pl_drylands: <https://tf2maps.net/downloads/drylands.11068/>;

Mapmaker: Fossil

Drylands is a payload map explicitly designed for 6s. Fossil (aka d3adfin) designed it hoping to bring the excitement of stopwatch to 6s.

- The core element (besides literally being targeted for 6s) is that you “tap” the payload cart both ways to start stop it.

The question is… what does the existence of the PL cart add to the mode? It’s already asymmetric, even in 5CP control points are only ever a delayed recognition of the territory/space that a team actually owns - representing it through a slower, gradual, and even more delayed mechanic seemed unintuitive in a gamemode focused on mobility. Ultimately, I gave harsh feedback on the attempt as I believe it went against a lot of the “Core of 6s” (See RGL Forums Link), and even when I attempted to get more serious playtesting for the map the majority of players rejected the map on basically the above premise which I agreed with.

“What’s the point of testing a mode that already has clear flaws” was the dominating attitude, and ultimately fossil moved on (I think he’s making open fortress maps and doing pretty well for himself)

seige_grove: <https://tf2maps.net/downloads/siege_grove.10552/>;

Mapmaker: Zeus

Its the game mode from paladins:

1) Fight over a central Control Point

2) Capture of CP gets 1 point

3) Payload Cart spawns on CP ⇒ push to enemy spawn for extra point (Conversion)

I like this concept, I got an ~advanced + randoms test on it which gave some layout changes and I think the timers/scoring could definitely be revisited.

Ultimately Zeus is pretty busy and did this as more of a proof-of-concept, I think the gamemode might be even easier to execute now that we have Vscript but don’t quote me on that.

3CP A/D Maps (A + B ⇒ C)

The core question when throwing a mechanic in should be: “Why?”

What does having 3CP A/D (Gravelpit style) add to specifically the 6s dynamic.

IF the answer is rotations… do we not have those already?

If the combo begins to pressure big door on Gullywash when you’re defending 2nd, doesn’t your combo rotate over? If you already hold that way and they do the opposite don’t pieces move to plug the holes and relieve pressure? 6s obviously has rotations already, and - in line with the fast-paced nature of the gamemode - they are done quickly, not through corridors spanning the entirety of a map.

IF the answer is strategy… the asymmetric nature of the game mode removes complexity, theory forces single-tactics.

Also theory aside I think a 4zae event had invite 6s players doing a show match on it, I remember casting that but tbh I have no recollection of the tactics or even the score result.

Alright, I'm very ill and instead of resting like a normal person, I was convinced to look over entropy. Here are my thoughts:

1) Using detail to theme areas is handled poorly

Blue Transition lobby from mid => 2nd. - is a mess of red and blue textures:

https://imgur.com/2dZbUqe

Blue Last - has a lot of red girders that really can lend the wrong impression. I think you're using the wrong tiles (red tiles in blu area), could be the lighting but either way I'd use more blu-ish floor tiles:

https://imgur.com/VN2meln

Mid - Has 2 red sheds, combined with the transition lobby this can be very misleading

2) Detail is often handled in a way detrimental of gameplay
Blocks here can all hide stickies

https://imgur.com/syhpEPc

There are a lot of bushes that are hard to clear & check
> Look very closely at this image:

https://imgur.com/Aa8KPap

Upgraded headpeak -> bush sniper on mid
Girders in mid->2nd lobby can result in scout bumping head on crate-jumps.

3) There be sniper sightlines
Transition area (mid => 2nd) - catches 4/5 exits from 2nd (the last one being directly above the sniper)

https://imgur.com/rC3YlJ3

Into lobby - has a very quick rotation to snipe lower as well

https://imgur.com/eI1HPNM

Defending mid - very oppressive angle that sees all exits - reachable through parkour

https://imgur.com/0Lnr147

4) Streamline
DEEP corners make gameplay slower and encourage degenerate gameplay
Examples:

https://imgur.com/LzRis0p

https://imgur.com/Iqm5g91

5) Misc Thoughts

Your wallbug fix only works on blu instead of red, for a more elegant fix instead of triggers consider using sloped surface (see sultry's shutter)

The sink room near mid feels frighteningly claustrophobic
---

Those are random thoughts from just wandering around the map not too based in gameplay, just impression stuff. Hope it helps.

Hmm, this is a really insightful comment. Sultry's last uses mechanics that are present in many lasts - but in different orders.

The one-way windows are present in sunshine while gullywash allows players to see the defending team rotating through spawn, the doors themselves use the width of sunshine as reference, but as mentioned don't have that low ceiling "cubby" - this was done primary out of fear from the previously mentioned concerns (spawn being too easy to stuff), but I think you make a convincing argument for at least considering alternatives or rather resulting consequences.

In short, I think you certainty have a point but I am somewhat skeptical if what teams are doing is basically infinitely rotating their soldiers (particularly in IM), with this different perspective I'd like to go back and do some research regarding some of the most recent matches played.

Thanks for the feedback!

Here are the current ammo packs on b8: https://i.imgur.com/HqBivpb.png , Yellow = Medium, Green = Small
Feel free to make a suggestion on where you might move/reposition/add ammo packs.

Of note, you do have a medium ammo pack pushing every door, so it's an interesting opinion that you think that mid => 2nd is an issue, I'm more inclined to point out the opposite direction being potentially problematic.

This is an interesting point, but I'm not sure where its coming from since I don't think I ever claimed the map is "fine because invite players can push it", but I can't deny that - especially with respect to early development of the map - the playtest group has been primary higher level players. This was more out of convenience than anything else, I happened to be friends with some advanced players at the time who were willing to help me run playtesting pugs and such.

Anyway, in short - I don't think the map was balanced around invite, nor do I think a map should adopt an approach of being balanced solely around the top level of play, BUT I do think that maps need to be balanced against abuse, and it happens that the players who most know how to abuse game mechanics and geometry are top level players.

In retrospect I think I understand where the confusion is coming from, when I say inexperience I'm not referring to the level of play, but rather inexperience with the map itself this is why I go on to describe my belief in a defensive edge toward players familiar with 6s, but not with the map. This point could have probably been made clearer.

Here's an interesting topic, lets investigate:

RGL S11, W6A/
---
*MAIN*
WANG gang v moments FM: (5-0)
CatNoisesBlack v Pancake4B: (5-0)
Worstcase Ontario v Ice Road: (5-2)
sexo v swiftyservers: (5-1)
GYROS Of MAIN vs gup: (0-2)
Ninjago: MOS v Rizzlam: (N/A)
Fat Peter v People of Edmont: (5-2)
ctap2luigi vs Disciples of Yaku: (5-2)
---
*INTERMEDIATE*
Konrad Gaming v 112: (4-0)
Sunken Pumpkin v heart for you: (0-3)
Poro v glass beach: (2-3)
red v bruh moment: (0-2)
lenords v Rhode Island Back Pain: (N/A)
0-16 Speedrun v FHC: (5-1)
freemium v Barcode: (N/A)
ag_21 v Shadow Wizard Money: (5-0)
Imposter Syndrome v The Mud: (2-0)
---
*AMATEUR*
Apple Zoo vs Bocchi la piedra: (3-2)
SnakewaterSalesmen vs MAS: (N/A)
E.V.I.L. vs Forced Windows Up: (5-2)
HOLD W!! vs 6 salas: (3-2)
Hannibal's Cannibals vs 4key ankle: (5-0)
Clown Town vs Shadow wizard mon: (3-3)
Dead Frozen Ice vs Farming ELO: (N/A)
Susan B Boys vs Team Fab 3: (5-1)
blahaj blast v Gentleman's Club: (3-2)
Highlander Gaming v Mondays NI: (N/A)
Sauce Delivery vs Atlantis 1: (5-2)
Mental Asylum vs Bad Touch: (0-5)
CreepyFamilyGuy v PenguinForce (N/A)
---

Hm. Yeah not sure what to read from this TBH, I did have a theory when I was teaching 6s that AM rarely stalemates because there are enough mistakes to cause near constant imbalance, Main has enough people with an experience of fighting against standard holds that there is some adaptation to dealing with them, and IM has the greatest number of players who are getting into the flow of utilizing the standard holds, but not necessarily knowing how to pressure/break them.

Anyway, even if that theory was true, I think that it would require more data than I'm willing to gather without RGL's API, and, as mentioned, what's more relevant to my point is the player's experience with the map. It's an interesting point I'd like to follow up on sometime.

Thanks for the feedback - I really appreciate anyone willing to take the time to hunt down a map page either on TFTV or tf2maps to leave feedback. That said, I'd like to discuss the feedback a bit and get some insight from the thoughts shared

For reference and comparison, here is an image depicting the respawn times for several sixs maps: https://i.imgur.com/OV4oeee.png

Of note, most traditional maps (Process, Snakewater, Sunshine) have a 2 respawnwavetime (~4 seconds) in favor of the DEFENDERS.

Sultry has a 1respawnwavetime (~2 seconds) in favor of the ATTACKERS. As far as I know it is the ONLY map to do as much, and this change was primarily motivated by feedback expressing that the defender spawn time on last was too long, then subsequently that the attacker spawn time after failing a last push was too long. Unless there is a mistake, I think Sultry already has the longest defender respawn time of any 6s map.

While I won't shut the door on adding another 2 seconds onto the defenders spawn times, I think this might be a "treating the symptom, not the underlying problem" kind of deal. WHY do players feel this extra defender respawn time is necessary?

• Q: is there too much distance to cross from the doorways?
  Well, as far as I can tell the scale is not any different from snakewater as an "outdoor" point, I also like this analogy as - like I was taught on snakewater - you rarely want to end an uber in the pit, instead wanting to cross over and commit to a side if an immediately victory isn't an option.
  
• Q: is it too difficult to lock out the spawns?
  I certainly think its feasible to lock out spawns or at least a side. It was actually a big concern brought up in invite feedback that it would be TOO easy to lock out spawns given the shed on the left (attacker pov) provides easy high ground while the right has a sunshine like balcony to sticky the shutter & point from high ground.
  
• Q: The point itself is too hard to cap, leading to extended fights?
  Process has a similarly positioned and exposed point and an arguably stronger rotation,

Ultimately the crux of this issue seems to be that it's too difficult to push last, some element causes fights to extend longer than attackers would like.
---
I am VERY tempted to put this on inexperience - namely that it is relatively intuitive for experienced 6s players to hold (Heavy rotating away from uber, sentry here, combo taking space opposite side uber comes from etc), offclasses and techniques to hold are generally interchangeable for most maps, but ATTACKING strategies need to be re-invented based off... basically the above factors.

I personally believe this - in the event both teams are familiar with the gamemode (6s) but not the map - SERIOUS play will always favor the defenders - as the complexities in timing and creating an effective sac / push are much greater than defending / receiving one.

I hope the above gives some insight into what I'm thinking and some of the hesitation I'm having in taking the given feedback at face value. While I think the impressions are genuine and valid, I have the suspicion that as teams get more organized / comfortable with pushing last impressions may swing the other way.

As a last note, here is also the spread (similar to above) for how long the last point itself takes to cap:
https://i.imgur.com/rdHQppg.png

Thanks again for the feedback, please feel free to share additional thoughts or follow up comments and I'll do my best to give them a suitable reply.

Thanks for this kind comment, but I've heard it all around swapped and even reversed. When it comes to comparing the maps the opinions I've seen generally seen people insist the quality of the maps is nowhere near close (There is a clear "better" map), but what the best map is to be all over the place.

Overall I'm happy with Sultry's iterative improvement overtime, I think with every version we do manage to improve the map - while villa and mannbase have both had a longer existence and more playtests, I think we've been lucky enough to have a close group of friends willing to give deep feedback (a benefit I doubt many mappers have) in addition to my limited completive experience to fall back on.

From my "research" (Watching Invite POVs and talking to some others), I've generally collected the idea that mannbase's MID is primarily disliked (likely due to scale), while Sultry's Last (and 2nd) is generally disliked. Immediately following the conclusion of the cup Pig and I sought out some "invite" opinions and starting drafting out changes. Hopefully b8 will be an improvement - though improvements we make will definitely be affected by feedback (Hence the survey!)

If you really care about maps, PLEASE take the time to fill out the survey, at least for Sultry I can promise we'll seriously consider all suggestions, identified problems, and potential solutions.

With the next update I'll also take the time to write out "thoughts" behind the changes like for b7 notes - even if you don't follow the development closely, if you can read the changes, FEEL the changes and tell me how I'm wrong/mistaken about ideas, helping improve my understanding of the map and 6s can help make an even better map.

Hi TFTV,

RGL "recently" ran their Sixes Midseason Cup #2, featuring

• cp_sultry_b7 by PigPig (and FlipFTW)
  
• cp_mannbase_rc2a by skaz
  
• cp_villa_b19 by kevin gator

While I'm grateful for RGL helping playtest the maps and I think exp cups are crucial to getting a more diverse map pool, the cup officially ended 11/2 (Nov 2nd), and despite a few weeks passing (Currently the 19th), communication has been rocky regarding receiving feedback about the maps and their potential to be added to the pool.

skaz in particular has expressed a similar frustration last cup, and overall I had the thought to take the matter of feedback collection for map improvement into my own hands.
---------------------------------------

---------------------------------------
If you're interested in leaving feedback on any of the 3 listed maps, please fill out the linked form above, the steps should be self-explanatory.
-----------------------------------

Individual Map Threads (If you prefer to leave even more direct feedback):

• Sultry
  
• Mannbase
  
• Villa

Hm, I don’t really think what I said was wrong but I see where you’re coming from.
Just in case I’ll say explicitly again RGL isn’t stealing money - the league fees do go into the prize pool, in fact that’s where all the money goes!

The angle I’m more looking at it from is what SERVICE does RGL provide?

Let me put it like this - If I’m paying 20 dollars to play in a large league, BESIDES a prize pool what should I expect?
I think reasonable expectations might be that a portion of that money is being used to ensure matches are smoothly organized, cheaters are caught, perhaps additional events organized…
They don’t host match servers, don’t do any development, don’t have any admin incentives or rewards - as a result every service RGL provides outside of their prize pool is “free” - not supported or funded in any way, not functionally different than the service a fully free league.

The one sentence summary might be “there is no administration fee, so there is no administration”
This isn’t to say that having A will immediately solve B, but I’d like to start investing in solving problems.

That’s where the root of my perspective is, over the past year the prize pool has nearly doubled from $13,000 to $25,000 yet (AFAIK) nearly all of this is going still directly to the prize pool. Now this is really pure opinion, but I don’t think TF2 should be moving in a direction where our primary focus is pumping prize pool payout, there is absolutely no way to compete with other titles when it comes to monetary incentive.

This isn’t to say we should eliminate the prize pool, but the strength of TF2 has always been its community - and I’d rather a portion of the money be dedicated to exactly that - community projects instead of individuals pockets.

Hope that provides some perspective, thanks for the thoughts!

Perhaps I’m a bit more optimistic or cynical depending on your viewpoint.

Regarding Map Support: One division admin I’ve talked to expressed interest in running a map cup to support some of the already under appreciated 6s mappers, but told me that to run additional cups the administrative burden falls entirely on the admins who want those (if you want it do it yourself) - and ditto for any funding (fund it yourself).

Here’s where the potential proposal and feedback for being a volunteer could exist - service rewarded with money that still doesn’t go to single pockets but instead back to the community in the form of organized efforts.

My ideal support would probably be a funded sidepool off-season experimental map cup in addition to compensation via in-season incentives. The two main problems preventing map breakthroughs into the pool is a streamlined process for potential maps and a method of really incentivizing those maps be played.

To be more explicit:

1. A League sponsored group that vets a “pool” of maps down to 3 during active season.
   
2. An off-season Cup featuring the 3 maps where there is a prize pool or league reimbursement.
   
3. The least popular map in the next season has the OPTION of being played on the top rated map (from cup) - doing so discounts a portion of both teams league fees

Regarding APIs:
I’m going to cut a few corners here and say there are two huge befits to an API that are apparent to me

1. It could make the volunteer admin’s lives better
   
   It cuts out a huge amount of busywork admins basically do - my info might be outdated but the method I hear most admins use to determine info is bascially opening 30 tabs, hunting logs, and assigning a basic number (1-10). It’s not perfect but instead of having this as volunteer work (unpaid labor) there are people that would be willing to develop a functionally identical tool (don’t think about how the developers are also unpaid)… the problem being they need that public API.
   Arcadia So like the point of the API from a technical standpoint is it allows us to programmatically ask the RGL servers for all kinds of different information, names, matches, that sort of thing. If we had access to something like that it would make the development of tools much easier from a developer standpoint as we can incorporate the true identity of players into our projects. It might seem like this is a small thing, but being able to figure out the alias and skill of a player is really difficult from logs or demos alone, and this would expedite all of that…
   ...and as developers, we love to make stuff. If there's a need for new tools, we would love to oblige, especially if it makes admins lives easier
   
2. It would make it infinitely easier for any form of analysis, research, or basic organization.
   
   With other leagues you can see a history of matches a particular player has played in, this is basically a nightmare in RGL. It’s not even possible to determine who is really on a roster without scraping the site and I constantly find myself confused if someone is actually on a team or just roster riding… and even then the website is - I quote “Slower than the muma rollout”.

So yeah, a public API is fuzzy because it’s the backbone other tools work off, but RGL doesn’t have one, and logs.tf does which is why you see so many creations and tools that work with logs, but none with RGL. I probably bungled this explanation, maybe someone else can explain it better

Other thoughts about rearrangement of funds/

Currently the method of discouraging sandbagging is basically something like getting 8th place in main is better than 1st place IM. The way this is done is essentially by stacking the division up with cash relative to the prior division, which gets really extreme in Invite.

I personally think - especially for lower divisions, it should work off something like if you get Top 3 IM you can get your fee waived for Main. To compensate other rewards should probably be toned down (I really think 5-8 getting the same quite high amount is a tad awkward).

On October 21, 2021 I submitted three proposals to RGL.

The primary one was titled
* “[Money and Development - A Spectator's Suggestions (M.A.D.A.S.S.)]”

The premise was this: RGL is a league that receives an arguably unfair expectation some of which can be traced to its required 6s fee. RGL is a paid league that offers the service and development of a free one.

The takeaway thesis: RGL by my estimation spends less than 1% of its funds on sustainability and development of the scene (Newbie Drive). It’s well past time to change what that money is doing - to stop putting the money purely into the prize pool (commendable but flawed), and start putting it into community efforts that grow and sustain the scene (Mapping efforts, API development, Learning Resources, and League Growth Incentives).

In my document I catalogue both methods of rearranging these funds in addition to proposals to support. As mentioned this document was conceived and contributed close to a year ago, since then I’ve not received any word from RGL about the ideas nor generated significant interest in rearrangement of the funding.

I am thus releasing this document publicly in the hopes of stimulating a conversation regarding this topic.
Even if you don’t play in RGL or even if you don’t play competitive anymore I’d be interested to hear insight or ideas.

Is it right that 2/3 of the funding is locked into solely Invite? Are there any better proposals or avenues I’ve missed? How else could growth be supported? What other projects or ideas are worth supporting and how?

r/truetf2 Post
RGL Forums

I’ll try to keep the question part short: I received two conflicting opinions about process mid that I wanted to share and get more opinions on. Appreciate any discussion or insights, especially from high level players - both opinions are my summarized understanding from adv. players.
For clarification: Left meet / Left meat => the perspective of a team that plays left against a team that is playing right.

Opinion 1: (Left Meat = Passive, Right Meat = Aggressive)
On a left meat mid you’re looking to play passive as the proximity of the geometry generally ensures the opposing team will have control of your crate first. This is fine as your demo can efficiently clear them off while your combo has enough room and ground to maneuver to dodge spam. After you’ve knocked their players off height, you can take control of your crate or simply bomb past it while the enemy team is locked into a corner.
Conversely, on a right mid you gain immediate control of the crate - but have to quickly aggress to take advantage of this control or else as soon as you lose your height you have no ability to continue fighting the mid/stay in.

Opinion 2: (Left Meat = Aggressive, Right Meat = Passive)
On a left meat mid you’re looking to play aggressive as your combo can’t play close to deny the high ground due to lack of cover from spam, and if they back out too far your flank will get focused into losing all high ground control of the mid. This aggression is especially true for your medic who doesn’t have the ability to play off the exposed pack and so needs to commit close to forwards off space made from your bombers.
On right mids, you can play passive as control of their crate gives you an effective bunker or kill zone to deny or efficiently trade bombers. If they don’t send bombers - then with your high ground control you can have your demo push forward to the pack where he can effectively lock out the opposing combo to win the mid.

I'm not for complete automation (though that does seem like it'd be pretty sick ngl) - but I do think that right now the amount of things OPEN to interpretation is too damn high - and writing more rules to be lenient is fine, writing rule to be VAGUE (which gives more power to interpretation) is asking for trouble => vague rules + large admin team is a recipe for disaster (or at least more tftv threads).

Take ringers for example:
"A default ringer is the first ringer a team presents that is of the same or lower skill level as the team. Default ringers cannot be denied; however, if the opposing team believes the ringer is greatly better than the person they are replacing, then they should contact an admin citing the above criteria for ringers"

Ok, so for a default ringer dispute you have one party's interpretation of a players skill versus another party's interpretation VERSUS the admin interpretation.
I have to think RGL is even somewhat aware of how this vague and troubling this open to interpretation rule is as in main+ the rules even say no default ringers - because for starters more often than not the players most aware of that individual's "skill" are the ones in a dispute - and the admin will either very likely be bias (if they know a party/the player) or clueless (have to rapidly scan RGL page/logs to make a snap decision). I guess the real point I'm trying to make here is why have a system that gives admin the opportunity/ability to mess up - I think well written rules SHOULDN'T be open to interpretation, as each admin trying to understand the rules and applying their own understanding of them results in a disorganized mess that TFTV and others point out as RGL inconsistency.

Consider restrictions... same deal - one person deciding who gets to play and who doesn't, which possibly no interaction with the player they are assigning and no PUBLIC criteria, guideline, or rubric their decisions can be held responsible to. I don't know the details of how RGL does it, but given how late some restrictions come and how inconsistent I've seen some past performances vs restrictions - I have to think it ends up being a lot less structured decision-making and a lot more hope-and-pray.

The solution? Well I was working on a document proposal but the general idea should be to have a STANDARIZED (public) CRITERA for "skill" level of a player. A line drawn in sand where having these checklist of accomplishments qualifies you as a "Main-level demo" - and both ringing and restriction follow suit. What that criteria should be is what admin experience/interpretation should work towards, but that public rubric at least allows some admins who might not be qualified to make important decisions with a guideline and some template for decisions to be held accountable against.