OCR TF2: New Server forthcoming - new server IPs and other stuff

[Rambo]

I think you misunderstand. To the people who basically play sniper/spy exclusively and are fairly good at it, you are taking their position and making it a lottery. That is most certainly not the case now.

They do not guarantee a well balanced team. They do not magically turn a team of four snipers into a winning team. They only make that team a team with less snipers.

We have done class limits before, and while I was happy to not see an entire team of snipers, it resulted in a lot of whining on the server.

I understand where you're coming from. Try to understand where I'm standing.

The people who play spy/sniper exclusively will join a team of 3 snipers, or 3 spies, and play that class anyway. Having a team that's comprised of at least 33% of a class that spends most of its time running away from trouble will, almost always lose. Unless the other team has an equally poor breakdown. I personally think that a team with 2 bad snipers will almost always do better than a team with 3 bad ones and 1 good one. So considering you may actually have a good sniper in those slots, that's a lottery with better odds than the current one.

You can be a pretty bad demoman, or soldier, and still do far more good for your team than being a 3rd or 4th sniper or spy. So no, it probably won't turn a team with 4 snipers into a winner. But it will almost certainly make it better.

I know, there were many people who whined. The biggest problem will be the people who play sniper and spy exclusively, as you said. But as I said earlier, if they have any concern for the team, they'd wouldn't be a 3rd sniper/spy anyway. They'd fill in the roles that the team was inevitably missing from having a surplus of support classes.

Allowing absurd numbers of snipers and spies supports individuals who don't give a crap about their team. These people have been a problem lately. There have been a lot. This is a team central game, and if these people are only considerate of themselves, and not helping a team win, lets reward them by doing nothing? Actually, if people are content doing whatever and not winning, lets abolish the whole team stacking thing. We'll just have the people who don't give a shit on one team, getting rolled by the people who care about playing with a team. Capisce?

[duckyboycantfly]

i'm cool with sniper limits. 2 snipers is all a team should ever have. sure it sucks if you want to snipe and can't because there's some douchebags sniping, but that's when you abuse admins and kick them so you can play

but yeah don't class limit anything more than that. every other class (besides maybe scoot and medic, depending on the map) can still win if everyone is that class, or if too many people are that class. sure, nobody would like to win that way, but yeah, it's possible.

don't even try to say it's possible as a sniper. just look at sniperfort. half the team is snipers and it takes one demoman or soldier to take them all out.

[chivesontheweb]

The decision to add class limits really comes down to how much this server considers our all-talk pub-play 'srs bsns'. Do we take the game so seriously that we have to force people to play a certain way just because it's the efficient and 'correct' way to play?

When I was just starting out in TF2 my favorite class was Spy. I loved the idea of infiltrating the enemy base and killing off key targets and even though I was terrible and did not get many kills I was having fun. Eventually I started feeling guilty about just playing classes that I wasn't experienced enough to be credit to team with. During these period I would play Medic nearly every round because nobody else would bother playing medic. I made a sacrifice to help my team and that sacrifice was fun.

I have a good friend who goes by the name Supe. You might have seen on the server a couple times playing a mean Scout. He's the one who introduced me to TF2 way back when I had never played a 'real' FPS before in my entire life. One day, in a casual chat, I brought up how my favorite class was Spy but that I never played as one because I was no good and could better serve my team as a Medic. He told me that I shouldn't even bother playing Medic if I'm not having fun. Sure, being without a medic is a severe disadvantage for the team but the whole point of playing is to have fun. It's not like I was in the competitive TF2 scene, playing to win, I was in casual pubs with casual players, playing for fun.

So I started playing Spy whenever I wanted to, regardless of the rest of the team. As long as I was having fun it didn't matter that much what the rest of the team was doing. I expected the rest of my team to play for fun as well.

Nowadays I play differently but my objective is still the same; have fun. Being forced to play a certain way isn't fun. Quick, the Medic is using his Blutsauger too much! Better kick him off the server. Oh no, half the team went Sniper. Better add a class limit to keep them in check. Better tighten the leashes. Better get a shock collar on these players. They might just be bad.

Sure, winning is fun. But how far do you have to go to ensure that other players don't ruin the team's chances or winning? Personally, I have the most fun being credit to team. Have you noticed that, as a Pyro, I extinguish practically everybody I come across, ammo reserves permitting? (EDIT: Just in case you don't know who I am, I'm Diatomic Daddy) That's because being helpful is fun to me. I do have fun playing with a good team with perfect class balance. But that's up to the people playing to decide, not the people who have control of the server. The only time I don't have fun is when our team is getting completely rolled by another team. That's when the higher powers might need to step in. Maybe.

tl;dr Like cleaning your room, being forced to play a certain way isn't fun simply because you're being forced. Playing that way by your own free will is often a rewarding experience and sometimes you find that old Gameboy game you thought you had lost forever hiding underneath your bed.

[Trianine]

If there is one thing I have to disagree with you on it's this:

lets reward them by doing nothing?...We'll just have the people who don't give a shit on one team, getting rolled by the people who care about playing with a team. Capisce?

If you call getting steamrolled a reward, as these sentences suggest, then sure, we are rewarding them. However, I don't call getting steamrolled a reward and I think most people here would agree that it is not and we are not. People are not content doing nothing and not winning, you know it, and that is why we are even discussing it here. Your final solution would defeat the point of playing the game, don't you think? If you want to be taken seriously, act like it. If you have to say something like this, you really don't understand where I am coming from.

I will repeat myself, this is a player problem and not a class problem. The class issue is only a symptom and stomping it will not get rid of the underlying problem.

The people who play spy/sniper exclusively will join a team of 3 snipers, or 3 spies, and play that class anyway... So considering you may actually have a good sniper in those slots, that's a lottery with better odds than the current one.

I will agree with you that a poor class breakdown will cause you to almost always lose except when faced with an equal or worse breakdown. I will also agree that a team with 3 bad snipers and one good one would likely be at a disadvantage. But what if two or 3 or even all of those snipers were really good? Would you deny them their glory? Why is that fair?

I've been on teams like you describe. It gets bad, especially on attack/defense maps. But you know what? Usually the teams even out. After getting steamrolled a few times, players do tend to re-evaluate what they are doing. As long as there isn't some serious teamstacking/clanstacking going on. As long as there isn't griefing involved, I applaud a players ability to choose to play to learn or play to the best of their ability, and I don't really think you understand that.

You also implied that my circumstance is a lottery, which it is not. Drawing straws (class limits) is a lottery, not drawing straws (free choice) is not. You speak of better odds, but I think you forget that the team with the most snipers is more likely to get the best sniper, regardless of any lottery. They are also more likely to get the worst sniper. These better odds are meaningless in your example.

If they have any concern for the team, they'd wouldn't be a 3rd sniper/spy anyway. They'd fill in the roles that the team was inevitably missing from having a surplus of support classes.

The fact that you keep saying it doesn't make it more true. If you have two people being useless as a class, any class, it does not reward the team by holding back a person who is good at that same class. There may be other holes to fill, sure. But if those players aren't doing their job, that hole too is open still. If you aren't great with that class, sure, it's only going to hurt the team more. But you propose to take the choice of negotiation away from the team to decide if they have great snipers or spies and instead hold their hand with an arbitrary limit. And I oppose that.

I understand that you want people to play as a team, win as a team. So do I. And we both want people to have fun. Part of the fun of this game is the ability to choose what archetype you get to play as. Part of the fun is getting to be effective as another class if you are dying a lot as another. If you do not give people the opportunity to learn this on their own, they won't learn it. Part of playing as a team is communicating as a team. If you you call on the army of snipers staring at the walls, and they don't do something about it, they are not team players. Removing their ability to be sniper won't fix that. Having them die a lot and then choose otherwise, that might.

If they really want to be sniper, they are entitled to that. It's their game and they have their reasons for not playing any number of games that also have sniping. If we can convince them they want to play something else, great. If we enforce they play something else, they are probably just going to leave the server.

Edit: Diatomic Daddy puts this nicely, is a frustrating enemy and a great ally. <3

[Bleck]

class limits more like nobody is playing the way I want them to make them be a good team right now!!! *tantrum*

hello

I don't think that 'rambo really wants to win' is a good enough reason to force people to play a game a certain way

[Powerlord]

On Alltalk servers (like ours), when I'm playing as a Spy, I don't communicate that much with the other team.

Here are the obvious and not-as-obvious reasons:

1. If I'm disguised, the floating talk icon is a pretty good giveaway that there's a cloaked Spy standing there.

2. The Alltalk ! is team colored. I watch for this and kill anyone I see with the wrong color ! over their head.

However, I do watch what my team is doing and listen to what's being said. For instance, if I know some team members are coming up to a guarded sentry (as in guarded by pyros, demos, soliders, etc...), I'll still try to sap it, knowing that I'm probably going to die.

Likewise, I choose my targets based on what's going on with my teammates, such as changing priorities to take out a heavy/medic combo if they're causing problems with my team.

I would comment about my sniping, but I'm a horrible Sniper and only play it on specific maps or when we don't have any on my team.

[EdgeCrusher]

Seriously, I play sniper now half the time, and I would not bitch about a sniper limit. 2 is perfectly fine for this class, especially on 2fort/turbine/etc that turn into 4 or 5 snipers on defense and blu eats a big dick cause of it.

[Powerlord]

Seriously, I play sniper now half the time, and I would not bitch about a sniper limit. 2 is perfectly fine for this class, especially on 2fort/turbine/etc that turn into 4 or 5 snipers on defense and blu eats a big dick cause of it.

CTF are bad examples to use with the text "blu eats a big dick cause of it" since red is just as likely to have issues, seeing as there's no difference between red and blu on symmetric maps.

[EdgeCrusher]

CTF are bad examples to use with the text "blu eats a big dick cause of it" since red is just as likely to have issues, seeing as there's no difference between red and blu on symmetric maps.

Notice the etc? Yeah, that means more/other things/and so forth....

[SporkNinjaDraken]

This must be the most relaxed corpse I've ever seen.

(inb4pyroisagirl)

Edit: Lol I just noticed the Pyro is speaking in the chat box xD "Hioooo"

[A Random Tiger]

XD That is a pretty funny one

[atmuh]

powerlord or fireslash did you read this

oh yeah and do you guys still have that crit boost from capping ctf still enabled i think i remember it being on a few days ago if so WHY

and playing to 3 caps in ctf is much better than 4, it makes the match feel less turtly and quicker moving

[Bleck]

I agree with atmuh that mechanic is dumb as hell

[Kiyobi]

Protect the briefcase better, then.

[atmuh]

Protect the briefcase better, then.

get out

[Powerlord]

Protect the briefcase better, then.

The problem is, it starts the steamroll process.

Essentially, if you snatched the briefcase once, that means their defense is already down. 10 seconds of crits when you turn in the briefcase just makes it easier to get it a second time... and third time... until the round is over.

It really needs to be eliminated or shortened as it's too unbalancing at present.

Also, why was this mechanic suddenly added to an existing gametype two years after launch? What's next, making it so payloads can be pushed back by the defending team? Making it so RED can take back points in attack/defend control points?

[DarkeSword]

The problem is, it starts the steamroll process.

Essentially, if you snatched the briefcase once, that means their defense is already down. 10 seconds of crits when you turn in the briefcase just makes it easier to get it a second time... and third time... until the round is over.

It really needs to be eliminated or shortened as it's too unbalancing at present.

Also, why was this mechanic suddenly added to an existing gametype two years after launch? What's next, making it so payloads can be pushed back by the defending team? Making it so RED can take back points in attack/defend control points?

If you get rolled because of post-cap crit-boost, you were going to get rolled anyway. Crit-boost just keeps some momentum going.

[Dhsu]

Makes the "kill the guy carrying the intel" achievements a whole lot harder though. :[

[A Random Tiger]

I vote to change server laws.

Whining constantly about your team and insulting them because they aren't playing well should lead to instaban.

It's alright if they're not doing good and you want them to do better, but "MY TEAM SUCKS WOW. THIS TEAM SUCKS, YOU GUYS ARE ALL TERRIBLE" is quite unnecessary in a game people are playing to have fun.

[Clefairy]

Don't be ignorant, there is nothing hypothetical about players who play, almost exclusively, <INSERT-CLASS-HERE>.

If I come across as ignorant, it's only through experience. I have never personally met anyone with that type of inclination(with the possible exception of Don Newman; I've not looked at his steam stats, so I can't be sure). I've heard of Jening and the like, but those people are in the far-off realm of internet celebrity. The odds of them showing up on our door are pretty low.

Not having any data on how many such people exist, I inserted the word hypothetical. In hindsight, that makes me come off as arrogant and arbitrary, which was not my intention at all.

Live and learn.

Anyway, Trianine. The discussion arises out of the implicit question 'what can we do about this?' As you say, class limits would treat the symptom, not the condition itself. However, influencing the intentions of every single player who joins up is well beyond any of our abilities. Restricting certain classes with a server-side setting is not. And as the alternative is to sit around and do nothing, here we are talking about doing something.

Also, why was this mechanic suddenly added to an existing gametype two years after launch? What's next, making it so payloads can be pushed back by the defending team? Making it so RED can take back points in attack/defend control points?

It was added to bring CTF more in line with their design philosophy, ie, playing well and playing aggressively. TF2 was made with the idea of avoiding those tug-of-war matches where one side can't gain the advantage long enough to win. I don't necessarily agree with that, since I like to feel the ebb and flow of a match over time. But it's their game, and their design, so I can't argue with making it more consistent.

[atmuh]

If you get rolled because of post-cap crit-boost, you were going to get rolled anyway. Crit-boost just keeps some momentum going.

Wrong.

I can think of one specific instance, I'm not sure if it was on the OCR server or not, where the crit boost was the difference in the match, easily.

It was on turbine, and I got into the enemy team's intel ubered as a heavy, so I took care the sentries and whoever was in there trying to protect the intel so our scout came in and grabbed the intel. I always then go up to my medic to the spawn to camp it for as long as possible (which usually isn't very long because they other team will get a decent respawn wave and I won't be able to handle them all alone) but just as they got their respawn wave and they all left the spawn to kill me, we capped and I got ~6 kills right there by myself so our scout was able to easily run in and grab the intel again (Ii died just as he picked it up because they were able to get a good respawn wave again before I got more crits) but they weren't able to set anything up because as soon as we captured again our Soldiers/Demos took care of most of the other team yet again, and we got the final cap with ease.

The crit bonus for capturing the intel makes the idea of first blood look good.

[Powerlord]

It was added to bring CTF more in line with their design philosophy, ie, playing well and playing aggressively. TF2 was made with the idea of avoiding those tug-of-war matches where one side can't gain the advantage long enough to win. I don't necessarily agree with that, since I like to feel the ebb and flow of a match over time. But it's their game, and their design, so I can't argue with making it more consistent.

er... do you have some reference that this is the TF2 design philosophy? Last time I checked CTF, TC, KOTH, and symmetric CP maps were intended to push back and forth.

In fact, that's the entire point of KOTH.

[Clefairy]

er... do you have some reference that this is the TF2 design philosophy? Last time I checked CTF, TC, KOTH, and symmetric CP maps were intended to push back and forth.

It's in the developer commentary. Give me a minute to find the exact one.

EDIT: Here we are.

Ideally, matches should end in a victory for one team, and a loss for the other; stalemates are essentially a loss for both teams. To avoid stalemates, our map design considers two key variables; team respawn times and travel time from the respawn point to the front line. The team that's winning gets slightly faster respawn times and more forward respawn points, a positive reinforcement loop that increases the chances for them to push forward and win the game.

I disagree about KOTH. The idea is to take the middle point and hold it; once that's accomplished, you have to stop the other team, who's going to try to do the same to you. It starts out as push-style, then morphs into attack/defend.

--

derp

ohai, bleck! It's been a while, how's things.

Anyway, yes. Crits were intended to be a pacing element to enable players to occasionally go on hilarious killing sprees; in practice, they just let players get kills they didn't really earn. Oops.

Crits= the hydro of game mechanics.

[Bleck]

design philosophy, ie, playing well and playing aggressively.

crits

derp harpo zeppo groucho

[Rambo]

If you call getting steamrolled a reward, as these sentences suggest, then sure, we are rewarding them. However, I don't call getting steamrolled a reward and I think most people here would agree that it is not and we are not. People are not content doing nothing and not winning, you know it, and that is why we are even discussing it here. Your final solution would defeat the point of playing the game, don't you think? If you want to be taken seriously, act like it. If you have to say something like this, you really don't understand where I am coming from.

Then it seems we're at an impasse, because you still don't understand where I'm coming from. I'm considering the success of a team, compared to the success of an individual. A selfish sniper on a team that is getting steamrolled, will not switch if he is doing well. A sniper could very well have a KDR of 10:1 on a losing team. He will be perfectly content running into spawn to preserve his own success, while not even considering to jump on the cart and save his team's last capture point. He could be an asset to his team as a soldier or heavy, but will think of nothing more than continuing to play the roll of a team's 4th sniper. I used my extreme example to lay to waste a constant, but shallow argument.

hello

I don't think that 'rambo really wants to win' is a good enough reason to force people to play a game a certain way

"Don't tell people how to play" is being used as a common response to accusations concerning selfish players. This implies that ignorance to the success of a team is perfectly acceptable. If that is in fact how people feel, then my extreme situation is validated. Merely have all the self concerned players on one team, all the players who want to win on the other, and you have a recipe for total happiness.

Somewhere along the line, many users have adopted the notion that wanting to win is wrong. Bad even. If this was the view held by the majority of the community, the MOTD would be structured very differently.

But what if two or 3 or even all of those snipers were really good? Would you deny them their glory? Why is that fair?

I'll agree with you. This could happen and no, it wouldn't be fair. But it would be extremely rare. One of the few reasons we're having conflicting arguments is because I'm taking a utilitarianistic approach to the situation, instead of idealistic.

I've been on teams like you describe. It gets bad, especially on attack/defense maps. But you know what? Usually the teams even out. After getting steamrolled a few times, players do tend to re-evaluate what they are doing. As long as there isn't some serious teamstacking/clanstacking going on. As long as there isn't griefing involved, I applaud a players ability to choose to play to learn or play to the best of their ability, and I don't really think you understand that.

Please trust me when I say that I understand that. Also trust me that I play far more TF2 than I should. I play almost exclusively on the server, and please trust me when I say it's becoming more and more frequent a problem. I used to LIKE playing on the weaker team. I enjoy when a game is fairly level. And I particularly like being able to have an influence on a team's outcome. Nothing's better than helping a team that wants to win but can't. Even if it's the difference between a score of 10-0 and 10-2. I'm happy. My win ratio is not (Wins: 1,621, Losses: 1,779) because I'm the worst player on the server. But over the course of the last month, I have not been helping teams that want to win. The losing team has been, and continues to be, a direct result of selfish individuals. This is extremely frustrating. It's not fair to anyone else on that losing team, and I think that instituting a rule that assists those people, even to a small degree, is more important than the happiness of someone who "wants to play sniper, and wants to play now".

I'll say right now, that I don't think my bias on this situation makes anything stated less valid.

You also implied that my circumstance is a lottery, which it is not. Drawing straws (class limits) is a lottery, not drawing straws (free choice) is not. You speak of better odds, but I think you forget that the team with the most snipers is more likely to get the best sniper, regardless of any lottery. They are also more likely to get the worst sniper. These better odds are meaningless in your example.

I'm regarding the lottery as a chance of having an effective team. This was a miscommunication on my part. The odds of having a more effective team with a limit of 2 snipers is greater. The odds of having a good sniper remain on par with the opposing team's odds.

I will repeat myself, this is a player problem and not a class problem. The class issue is only a symptom and stomping it will not get rid of the underlying problem.

...

The fact that you keep saying it doesn't make it more true. If you have two people being useless as a class, any class, it does not reward the team by holding back a person who is good at that same class. There may be other holes to fill, sure. But if those players aren't doing their job, that hole too is open still. If you aren't great with that class, sure, it's only going to hurt the team more. But you propose to take the choice of negotiation away from the team to decide if they have great snipers or spies and instead hold their hand with an arbitrary limit. And I oppose that.

Another reason we're finding disagreements is because you have the opinion that all classes are equal. I don't share this opinion. I believe that a team of entirely heavy and offensive classes will always have an edge when opposed with a team entirely comprised of support classes. In this respect, unlike yourself, I see it as a class problem, and not a play problem. I think that the average soldier or demoman has considerably more merit than an average sniper. I'll concede that an average sniper may prove equal to, or better than an unskilled soldier. But four snipers, regardless of skill, are incredibly unlikely to match four soldiers. (I'm realise I'm generalising. Every one of my arguments is a generalization. I acknowledge that there will be exceptions, but I'm not about to base my arguments on infrequency, when they can target the greater majority of situations)

I understand that you want people to play as a team, win as a team. So do I. And we both want people to have fun. Part of the fun of this game is the ability to choose what archetype you get to play as.

Agreed.

Part of the fun is getting to be effective as another class if you are dying a lot as another. If you do not give people the opportunity to learn this on their own, they won't learn it. Part of playing as a team is communicating as a team. If you you call on the army of snipers staring at the walls, and they don't do something about it, they are not team players. Removing their ability to be sniper won't fix that. Having them die a lot and then choose otherwise, that might.

If they really want to be sniper, they are entitled to that. It's their game and they have their reasons for not playing any number of games that also have sniping. If we can convince them they want to play something else, great. If we enforce they play something else, they are probably just going to leave the server.

But you act as though we're elliminating the class all together. People will still have opportunities to play sniper. It won't be available to them at any given moment, granted. I know this. Sniper is my second most played class. I realise that I won't be able to play it sometimes when I want to. But I'll still get to play it. It's not essential to play a class 24/7 to appreciate the lessons you speak of. It merely forces some players who remain ignorant to the lessons for selfish reasons, to sometimes yeild. For the most part, anyone who plays sniper, will still play sniper.

Please forgive any previously stated hostile remarks. I found your sly use of "Capisce?" to be very condescending.