Re: Spectating: I'm going to figure out and set up SourceTV, which is basically an automatic AI spectator on a time delay. It automatically zooms in on "interesting" events (deaths, caps, etc.), so you're not constantly switching between random weird events. The time delay is mostly for seriously competitive games, but appears to be a non-removable feature.
Here's an important question:- how many players per team? In the competitive TF2 scene apparently 6v6 is king, though people also seem to do 8v8 or 9v9.
I agree with the idea of relatively low player numbers, because when there's less players every little bit of action counts for more, and every player matters more.
Agreed. How about 4 teams, meaning it would be 7v7, with one team of 8, and we can have a polite fight about who's the worst player on the forum to be the eighth.
Another note: If you want to play, make sure your name is on the list of 29 players in the first post. If it isn't, you're going to be left out unless you do something about it.
Oh, and let's not shit-talk. We need to get teams the fuck together ASAP so that they can get some practice in before the scrim.
Looking back at previous posts think we're pretty much agreed on secret draft and four teams, but we haven't settled on four captains yet. Andrew seems to be a lock for one, though.
It might be best if as part of the recruiting people play on the server more with the captains present, so they'll have a good idea what classes people are good at and their playstyles with those class. The captains can still decide who gets which player secretly, without telling the players, but in order to draft them I'd think they ought to observe their play first. Obviously the captains will collectively be responsible for ensuring that the teams aren't terribly imbalanced.
All game models, textures and particles forced to defaults (sv_pure 2)
Just what are the differences between sv_pure 1 and 2? The only one I'm aware of is that 2 disables sprays. Otherwise, I'm all for sv_pure something; even though I'll have to forgo my beloved pyrobees, it's a small price to pay.
See here for what exactly the sv_pure settings do.
With regards to weapons, we seem to be currently agreed that no unlockable weapons will be allowed. Personally, I think this seems okay (though as I'm about to say, I think it could be improved upon), as I can't think of any unlockable weapon that is completely essential for a given class. There are definitely unlocks that are unequivocally 100% always better than the default weapons, but there aren't any whose absence makes the class unplayable. I can't agree with allowing all weapons either, because I have to say the Wrangler is indeed a game-breaker. If you can lock up a choke point with one, and protect it from spies - both rather easy tasks - it is simply too strong. If we want games where something actually happens, we at the very least need to ban the Wrangler.
It's also unfair that some people don't have some of the weapons. Sadly, I do feel that there are some that do indeed offer a significant improvement to the game, by offering a non-gimmicky tactical option, and I feel might be genuinely missed. Off the top of my head, there is at the very least the Kritzkrieg. Consequently, I must disagree with the following comment:
Re: extended items, I'm not going to do an item-by-item nitpick of every "fair" and "unfair" weapon. That's only going to open this up to endless bitching about why this item was removed but this one wasn't. So here's the deal. You have two choices: All the crazy bullshit weapons, or none of the crazy bullshit weapons.
My preferred solution would be to make a shortlist of allowed weapons, and then make a concerted effort by everyone on the forum to make sure that every player - or at least every player who will actually play the relevant class - obtains those weapons. Given that there is a crafting system and trading, I feel like this wouldn't really be much effort for 30 or so people - especially if people will be practicing and getting random drops anyway - though it is definitely distasteful that we'd have to do such a thing in the first place.
In case people agree with this idea, I nominate the Kritzkrieg in advance for the shortlist. I doubt there's many others that deserve a place, and the fewer weapons on it, the better.
There are a few items that significantly change the way a class plays that I think we should have for the tactical options: These include the 'Targe, the Eyelander and the Huntsman.
Another note: If you want to play, make sure your name is on the list of 29 players in the first post.
Neito still needs to add my name to that list. I'm on Grey's team. He's best captain. Our team make-up is sekrit and special. Our goal: To get all the awesome chatty people in one team, or something like that (hinthintnudgenudgeGrey!).
We also won't call it a 'scrim', too much like 'Scrym'. We're (or at least I am) going to call it a Breakfast Club Picnic. We will have fun during coward killing time.
I think that Bonk atomic punch should be on the allowed weapon shortlist; it's the difference between distraction scout peppering you with fire from across the map and objective based scout running past chokepoints, and it's one of the big breakers of static defensive play. I actually don't use the item myself (I play kamikaze scout, diving into medics and engineers with the Force of Nature) but I've seen how much of a game-changer it can be in otherwise static games. It's one of the only ways through some of the hallway blockade configurations in 2fort for example.
I agree re. Bonk. While the pistol is better most of the time, as it's actually pretty good in a fight when used properly - you can shoot them with it while closing in to near-point-blank range to get them with the Scattergun, or you can use it to shoot the crap out of a Pyro without needing to be within range of the flames (Notably, this means that Scout beats Pyro, as Pyro doesn't do much damage at that range, and Scout moves faster) - I do agree that there are situations where Bonk is useful, and on the whole I do think it improves the game.
Mind you, merely getting past a chokepoint isn't really enough, because even if you get past their setup you're still an isolated scout vs an entire (hopefully somewhat coordinated, in our case) enemy team.
The 'Targe, Eyelander (or insert other long-range melee weapon here) and Huntsman are also definitely game-changing alternatives, though to be honest I feel that there are few situations where they are better than the standard ones.
To reiterate, we want this to be a fair game, so we want everyone to have access to all the weapons on the shortlist. Alternatively, everyone who needs a specific weapon but does not have it can post in this thread (or an alternative thread) and then everyone else on the forum will work to get them that weapon. If you didn't post in the thread, too bad for you.
Now, since we clearly don't want to make sure everyone has every single weapon in the game, if we want to go with the shortlist idea, we have to make sure the shortlist is short, or it isn't going to work out.
I suggest the following: have an ordered list of relevant weapons, from most important to least important, and work on it from the top down. Weapons will only be allowed in the server once if there are no outstanding requests in the weapon request thread for that weapon. If people agree with this idea, I'll make a new thread right now.
Against an organised team, it shouldn't help that much. The moment you get stabbed with it, you're going to call it out on your microphone anyway, right? It does have potential usefulness, but I don't see it being that high up on the shortlist.
Should I start a shortlist/weapon request thread now?
Yeah, he is, so if he disagrees, that's fine - we won't do it. After all, we wouldn't even have a server without him. I just can't be bothered waiting for his confirmation / disconfirmation because I just shifted into trying-to-get-shit-done mode for a little while.
It's not like I'll have done any harm by having creating a thread, having some actual discussion, and helping some people get some weapons in TF2...
That doesn't mean the rules can't be deliberated as a group.
I'm not sure about starting a whole new thread about the weapons list. Perhaps another Google Spreadsheet would do, where voting for an item via "Other" adds it to the voting list(i-if that's even possible, I don't know how to googledocs very well).
I'm not sure about starting a whole new thread about the weapons list.
Well, we need three different kinds of things: 1) A post to nominate a weapon for the shortlist, with a mandatory supporting argument as to how that weapon actually improves the gameplay of Team Fortress 2. 2) Posts by people saying "I don't have item X from the shortlist. Please help me obtain it." 3) Posts by people saying "I have a spare item X and can trade it to you" / "I can craft item X and trade it to you" / etc.
I'll admit I really would rather there be no bullshit items. I refuse to acquire them. ;^)
Flaregun isn't bullshit, it's burning things from far. Everything else can go though.
Edit:
1) A post to nominate a weapon for the shortlist, with a mandatory supporting argument as to how that weapon actually improves the gameplay of Team Fortress 2.
Pyro -Flaregun Sniper -Huntsman -Jarate
Basically I think all those weapons are complitely different in their gamepaly from that classes basic weponary. Thus deserving place on the shortlist more than weapons that are just modified versions of basic weeapons. I left buffing items and consumables like Bonk and Sandwhich out of the list, but they could be fitted to my argument too.
The posts re. the weapon shortlist would make more sense in a different thread, though. I'm just not sure that I should make a new thread yet, so I haven't.
To reiterate, we want this to be a fair game, so we want everyone to have access to all the weapons on the shortlist. Alternatively, everyone who needs a specific weapon but does not have it can post in this thread (or an alternative thread) and then everyone else on the forum will work to get them that weapon. If you didn't post in the thread, too bad for you.
Now, since we clearly don't want to make sure everyone has every single weapon in the game, if we want to go with the shortlist idea, we have to make sure the shortlist is short, or it isn't going to work out.
I suggest the following: have an ordered list of relevant weapons, from most important to least important, and work on it from the top down. Weapons will only be allowed in the server once if there are no outstanding requests in the weapon request thread for that weapon. If people agree with this idea, I'll make a new thread right now.
Yes, that would work, but look at the comments on page 2 of this thread. Obviously this idea is up for debate, but I think there are some weapons that do in fact genuinely improve the game, and we'd be better off having them allowed.
I acquired a flare gun by accident in the course of playing.
You probably acquired enough Pyro achievements to get said flaregun. That's what those milestones are for after all.
@Cheese, the idea of a shortlist of allowed weapons is just ridiculous and a big fucking hassle. Keep it simple, stupid. Either allow all or none. Or just have the shortlist be the list of weapons you get for unlocking the milestones. Anything else will just be impossible to get done.
Comments
In the competitive TF2 scene apparently 6v6 is king, though people also seem to do 8v8 or 9v9.
I agree with the idea of relatively low player numbers, because when there's less players every little bit of action counts for more, and every player matters more.
An update on the current leaders in map voting:
Attack/Defend:
Dustbowl
Egypt
Arena:
Nucleus
Sawmill
Capture the Flag:
Sawmill
Well
Control Point:
Well
Granary
King of the Hill:
Nucleus
Sawmill/Badlands
Payload:
Gold Rush
Badwater Basin
Oh, and let's not shit-talk. We need to get teams the fuck together ASAP so that they can get some practice in before the scrim.
Looking back at previous posts think we're pretty much agreed on secret draft and four teams, but we haven't settled on four captains yet. Andrew seems to be a lock for one, though.
It might be best if as part of the recruiting people play on the server more with the captains present, so they'll have a good idea what classes people are good at and their playstyles with those class. The captains can still decide who gets which player secretly, without telling the players, but in order to draft them I'd think they ought to observe their play first. Obviously the captains will collectively be responsible for ensuring that the teams aren't terribly imbalanced.
Some notable settings typically used for competitive games, based on what I read here. Please comment on them if you disagree:
- No randomized damage (in particular, no random crits)
- No pellet spread, i.e. shotgun, scattergun, etc will fire in a fixed spread that is the same every time
- Stopwatch on attack/defend maps: if both teams cap the same number of points, the win goes to whichever team did it the fastest
- Time limit instead of cap goal on CTF maps.
- No crits on capture
- All game models, textures and particles forced to defaults (sv_pure 2)
We will also need to test the competitive server settings before the actual scrim.With regards to weapons, we seem to be currently agreed that no unlockable weapons will be allowed.
Personally, I think this seems okay (though as I'm about to say, I think it could be improved upon), as I can't think of any unlockable weapon that is completely essential for a given class. There are definitely unlocks that are unequivocally 100% always better than the default weapons, but there aren't any whose absence makes the class unplayable. I can't agree with allowing all weapons either, because I have to say the Wrangler is indeed a game-breaker. If you can lock up a choke point with one, and protect it from spies - both rather easy tasks - it is simply too strong. If we want games where something actually happens, we at the very least need to ban the Wrangler.
It's also unfair that some people don't have some of the weapons. Sadly, I do feel that there are some that do indeed offer a significant improvement to the game, by offering a non-gimmicky tactical option, and I feel might be genuinely missed. Off the top of my head, there is at the very least the Kritzkrieg. Consequently, I must disagree with the following comment: My preferred solution would be to make a shortlist of allowed weapons, and then make a concerted effort by everyone on the forum to make sure that every player - or at least every player who will actually play the relevant class - obtains those weapons. Given that there is a crafting system and trading, I feel like this wouldn't really be much effort for 30 or so people - especially if people will be practicing and getting random drops anyway - though it is definitely distasteful that we'd have to do such a thing in the first place.
In case people agree with this idea, I nominate the Kritzkrieg in advance for the shortlist. I doubt there's many others that deserve a place, and the fewer weapons on it, the better.
We also won't call it a 'scrim', too much like 'Scrym'. We're (or at least I am) going to call it a Breakfast Club Picnic. We will have fun during coward killing time.
Mind you, merely getting past a chokepoint isn't really enough, because even if you get past their setup you're still an isolated scout vs an entire (hopefully somewhat coordinated, in our case) enemy team.
The 'Targe, Eyelander (or insert other long-range melee weapon here) and Huntsman are also definitely game-changing alternatives, though to be honest I feel that there are few situations where they are better than the standard ones.
Now, since we clearly don't want to make sure everyone has every single weapon in the game, if we want to go with the shortlist idea, we have to make sure the shortlist is short, or it isn't going to work out.
I suggest the following: have an ordered list of relevant weapons, from most important to least important, and work on it from the top down. Weapons will only be allowed in the server once if there are no outstanding requests in the weapon request thread for that weapon. If people agree with this idea, I'll make a new thread right now.
It does have potential usefulness, but I don't see it being that high up on the shortlist.
Should I start a shortlist/weapon request thread now?
It's not like I'll have done any harm by having creating a thread, having some actual discussion, and helping some people get some weapons in TF2...
I'm not sure about starting a whole new thread about the weapons list. Perhaps another Google Spreadsheet would do, where voting for an item via "Other" adds it to the voting list(i-if that's even possible, I don't know how to googledocs very well).
1) A post to nominate a weapon for the shortlist, with a mandatory supporting argument as to how that weapon actually improves the gameplay of Team Fortress 2.
2) Posts by people saying "I don't have item X from the shortlist. Please help me obtain it."
3) Posts by people saying "I have a spare item X and can trade it to you" / "I can craft item X and trade it to you" / etc.
I feel like a thread would be appropriate.
Edit: Pyro
-Flaregun
Sniper
-Huntsman
-Jarate
Basically I think all those weapons are complitely different in their gamepaly from that classes basic weponary. Thus deserving place on the shortlist more than weapons that are just modified versions of basic weeapons. I left buffing items and consumables like Bonk and Sandwhich out of the list, but they could be fitted to my argument too.
DOUBLE POST BECAUSE I'M MAKING A POINT.
Obviously this idea is up for debate, but I think there are some weapons that do in fact genuinely improve the game, and we'd be better off having them allowed.
@Cheese, the idea of a shortlist of allowed weapons is just ridiculous and a big fucking hassle. Keep it simple, stupid. Either allow all or none. Or just have the shortlist be the list of weapons you get for unlocking the milestones. Anything else will just be impossible to get done.