• TF2 General Chat and Speculation Station V8 - ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Give Heavy Update
    999 replies, posted
Both Jarate and Crit-a-Cola need a nerf, and that need will only increase with the removal of random crits. Also, the Diamondback is an amazingly poor weapon design. I'm not huge on the Frontier Justice, but it's not in the same area code of BS that the Diamondback occupies.
also when did valve put random crits on soda popper? I admit I forgot
People still have a problem with Crit-a-Cola? I haven' seen it used all that much since the JI update... The only time I've used it is during Mann vs Machine and that's it. Jarate and Mad Milk I feel should have an indirect nerf in allowing Pyro to removing the effects of them with airblast still. It makes sense heat will turn liquids into gases as well.
February 7, 2014 Patch [Undocumented] Removed the "no random critical hits" attribute from the Soda Popper.
Gamemode idea: 3cp with the asymmetrical points arranged in a circle, starting with one neutral point. Koth timer, whichever team holds 2 points has their timer counting down, if you cap the losing team's sole point they gain possession of (and spawn at) whichever point the winning team isn't currently spawning at. Teams switch on round end. Basically a cyclical version of 3cp/5cp with none of the stalemates. Tell me why this idea sucks before I waste a load of time creating it with mapmaking skills I don't have
What's the point of capping the remaining point if you lose a point in the process anyway?
What's the point of capping the enemy team's last if they just get one of your points? Sure, you're keeping them on their toes and making it harder for them to set up a defense, but you're also doing the same thing to your own team. It doesn't make sense to do it unless there's some benefit - if not winning the round for your team, then at least removing some extra time from your team's timer.
I came up with a simular idea a while ago, because I was curious if a compromise could be made and work in competitive based around combining KotH with 5 CP in design sort of speak. But instead of how you posted it, I wanted to suggest that it still runs mostly like KotH, with a timer that's 5 minutes instead of 3 and owning more points makes the timer count down quicker. 1 point being normal KotH speed, 2 points owned being 2x KotH speed and obviously owning all 3 points would be 3x KotH speed. Done right it could make a twist on KotH at least, but I thought hte idea of having multiple points to maintain instead of just one. Plus it if done right it could make trying to push the third point for a comback be pretty neat as well. Imagine being down by a lot of time, but your team was able to capture all three points and now your team's clock is going down by 3x koth speed while the enemy team isn't going down at all? While sadly they said it probably wouldn't work, I still think for Casual it'd be perfect. The next step though would be to create maps that work well for it. If you want to take simple designs into the picture for that. One design could be pretty Standin couldn't it? It's already has 3 points in the map and converting it to a more KotH based shouldn't be too difficult to at least test the game mode out. Another basic design could be having the points set up in a triangle. as well with each team has two points they can directly go to fairly easily while the third one is a bit more difficult. Forgive me for making this crude design to kind of showcase what I mean. https://i.imgur.com/7K1ZO20.png
I think for both these suggestions, the timer could be replaced with some sort of bar that is filled up faster the more control points you have. A ticking timer with a variable speed can be a little too confusing/unclear. Best case scenario you could even tie it to the map somehow, like a giant oil field and you gotta control the point to pump up as much oil as possible. I think this is a potentially good idea, but it may end up being a map that is to easy to steamroll. Whn a team takes two points they can just spawncamp the other team without capping their last for an easy win.
its kinda amazing how every pro-crit argument on reddit or wherever can be debunked with the video, it's like the people making them haven't watched it or are purposely being as ignorant as possible+ as the video said, the only valid argument for crits is "big funny!!" and while its obviously subjective if you value the large variety of funny over the massive amount of downsides, the choice should be obvious
Most of his arguments aren't great either though. The only strong argument from anti-crit side is "they're annoying" and from the pro-crit side "they're fun" Both of these are subjective.
I keep seeing SPUD's forums fill up with people bitching left and right for and against crits being removed... I'm still rather curious as to what the actual numbers are from that end game vote about random crits is sitting at... You think Valve would tell us if we asked, even if it wasn't specific numbers but what it's leaning towards? They do actually break class balances when a single crit sticky or rocket can wipe an entire team though. Some classes definitely cater more to random crits more then others... Heavy's being able to snipe people across maps isn't particular fair either when their random crits string kicks in...
and you just fell straight into the pit of people I described which of the arguments dont hold any ground? Or do crits somehow make the learning experience of new players better?
I've made my case a long time ago and I really don't have anything else to add.
Yeah, the way I was thinking about it initially was something based in rotating around the map, but it makes more sense to do something simpler/more intuitive; I think the best idea would just be that you can cap all 3 points and the losing team sticks with their last spawn, and has to cap two points to get their timer ticking down. I shied away from that style of domination because in other games it always feel like the win condition as you're playing is somewhat abstracted from the gameplay, whereas capping a point in TF2 has some immediate/direct impact on the game, be it ticking down your koth timer, unlocking/locking other points+dynamic map elements, or changing spawns. When you abstract the win condition it makes it feel more like deathmatch since the objectives feel less meaningful imo. I don't think that's much of a problem since spawncamping can happen in other game modes, although (unless the skill disparity is big enough) map design is more important to preventing spawn camping in how spawn exits are placed and how numerous they are, so eh.
The part with the pokemon styled fight really just sums it up very well. I can have fun losing a fight but not one where RNG decides the winner.
Anyone else getting deja vu?
We've been going in circles for ages. I'm surprised you've only now realized.
tonight is the night
10 people are on a forum dedicated to a game that gets semi-semi-monthly updates. Eventually they'll have nothing to talk about and start repeating discussions. It's a given.
Can't really ignore the objective to go on a deathmatch spree if the other team holds it in KotH. Other wise the other team will quickly run the timer down and the round will be over before you know it. Back when Quickplay was a thing, I more often then not stuck to KotH just because of that reason. Because for whatever reason a lot of game modes had people just blatently ignore other objectives in their game modes in order to Deathmatch.
i don't find myself playing objectives because i have much more fun going for kills. It's why for my entire 6+ years of playing, i very rarely go anything other than Spy when on offense in A/D/Payload maps.
demo is a better pick if you want kills tho?
when it comes down to promotional material for updates, do you prefer short sfms or short comics?
SFMs by a long shot. Valve quality SFMs are something of a rarity. They always feel like a short movie and each time one has been done for TF2 the community talks about it for weeks. Well written, well thought out with humor, voice acting, scenery. It's honestly something I was there was more of.
reposting this from videos about this post I have one issue with the “Jus goe play on a commoonity server 4Head” argument, and that is community servers nosedived into the ground after Tough Break/MyM (MyM especially but Tough Break is where you really saw it start happening). Although Dane should’ve known that, since he tried to create a bunch of community servers during that exact timeframe with Gameshock (a server chain) under the TFCrew brand (along with the launch of their own forums). https://twitter.com/danekevincook/status/752629991385337856?lang=en But that venture flopped after like 4 months. Why? Because people didn’t play on them, they barely got advertised by the people who founded it, the people who founded barely played on it, and the community (or lack thereof) didn’t donate to keep the servers up. Coincidently, IIRC he included a “VIP Crit Vote” system where if you donated, you could start a vote to disable it. I don’t think I ever saw that vote get put up once while the server was active. Maybe that’s how he got so bitter about the ‘Voting Crits system’
Koth is different though because the win condition is barely abstracted from the gameplay - to win, you need to control the point. Time-based domination puts another layer on top of that, where capping/losing a point doesn't have any direct effect on the game or the win condition, instead having a secondary effect on the win condition. imo that doesn't mesh well with the simple and pure/stripped down core gameplay of TF2.
as far as a voting system for crits goes; on GHQ, a community server I used to only play on years ago, everytime a round started youd have a vote on random crits, yes or no. given people that play on community servers have a brain, 80% of the matches were nocrit and pretty great but yeah, community servers eating shit is an issue that is it's own bag, and imo still doesnt exactly weaken the video as a whole
Yes, and that case has been debunked as skilless and bad for the overall game experience long ago too, and more recently by this video. So what exactly is your point?
>Also, I’m not even going to touch the first arguments of his video, I’m interested in law and not psychology, so that argument in reality means nothing to me, nor does it mean anything to a lot of other people. What does law or your interests have to do with any of this? While he deliberately glosses over it to get to more concrete points, negativity bias is absolutely relevant and is a legitimate point against random crits. >Tf2 still has the same core premises it did back in the day, and that won't change anytime soon. On koth maps you’ll always be fighting over 1 point in the center of the map. King of the Hill LITERALLY DID NOT EXIST ON LAUNCH. It was added years later. King of the Hill is in fact another example of why random crits are no longer relevant for breaking stalemates (his entire point of bringing up the changes in TF2 by the way). There have been so many maps and gamemodes added over the years that have made stalemates much less of a problem, and one that doesn't need random crits to solve. KOTH is a great example of this. On launch, more open gamemodes like KOTH did not exist. >What it comes down to is that saying TF2 has changed so much that we don’t need random crits anymore is an argument that hardly relates to random crits at all. Well if you wanted to maybe actually represent the views in the video instead of straw manning then maybe you'd realize that he was specifically countering a point about how random crits are no longer needed in order to break stalemates. In fact, you concede that random crits are not necessary for breaking stalemates. > Although I personally don’t believe random crits should be in the game because they break stalemates So your entire counter here is against...nothing? You agree with his actual point that random crits aren't necessary for breaking stalemates, so your entire paragraph is trying to attack a point that Uncle Dane never made (the nebulous idea that random crits SHOULDN'T be in the game because it has changed, which he of course he never said). >In fact, I’d argue that that opinion works more for the other side. Since we have new loadouts, random crits give developers a whole bunch of balancing options to better balance the game now that there are new weapons. What the fuck are you even talking about? This is such a vague, nonsensical statement. Random crits aren't a balancing tool you can change to tailor to specific weapon designs, they're a static server effect. The only "balancing option" related to random crits the devs have for specific weapons is to disable random crits on that weapon (which barely affects balance anyway and is really just a way of making it easier to understand what killed you when you die to forced crits). > In uncle danes video about the southern hospitality, he even brings up that the “No random crits” effect is a real detriment to the weapon, and makes it much worse than any other weapon in pub play. The Southern Hospitality is already an extremely poorly designed weapon, and is in need of a rework with or without crits. Trying to argue that the rest of the game should be balanced around one poorly designed weapon instead of reworking the weapon into something worthwhile is ridiculous. >. If I asked people to name what makes your favorite sitcom funny, let's say the big bang theory, most people would say “the way they deliver their jokes, the characters and the funny sexual humour jokes on the show” and I’m willing to bet almost NO ONE would say “the laugh track behind the show. But without that laugh track the show becomes awkward and isn't as funny. Here's an example. What an absolutely bizarre example. The reason Big Bang Theory isn't funny without the laugh track is because Big Bang Theory is a poorly written, obnoxious show. It doesn't have substance behind it so it relies on something as flimsy as canned laughter to be entertaining. A game with actual charm, good writing, and funny gameplay scenarios with actual depth to them doesn't need to rely on cheap shots to get a laugh. Don't know why you're linking a video of somebody in TF2 making a funny voice either, that's only tangentially related to random crits. There's not even any random crits in the video. >Okay, the next argument is a little more opinion oriented but still has some good facts and is worth talking about. His next argument is that random crits really don’t new players and actually are a detriment to their skill. This is also completely wrong. While yes, random crits don’t increase skill, they certainly don’t teach people the wrong way to play. Lets take for example, a demo crits people and kills them by spamming like he shows in his video. That isn’t the wrong way to play TF2. While maybe in competitive it works a little less than pubs, spamming a choke point or objective where you know enemies are is a pretty good way to deal consistent and important damage on to teams that are trying to hold a choke point. Rewarding a demo for doing that teaches him that principle. Especially in pubs, where new players SHOULD be, spamming chokes is one of the more important things to do. He also says the game isn’t designed to coddle new players and give new players random crits. Well yeah the game also wasn’t designed around rocket jumping, flying backburning pyros, or a rollout that lets engines have all buildings at level 3 before the gates open. Saying that random crits are inherently not good for new players because the game wasn’t made for that reason really is an invalid point. Spamming vaguely in the direction of the enemy team is a good way to get some extra damage out, but it's not a good way to reliably kill people. Random crits have a low chance of happening and if you rely on spamming as your main means of attack you're playing the game poorly. When you teach players that you can get three kills at once by spamming (something that requires no skill and doesn't help improve your skill at the game), new players will gravitate towards that lowest common denominator playstyle. But let's maybe look at his main point? He was saying that random crits get players kills when they're doing things they should not be doing. And that's 100% true. If I walk into a crowd of enemies, alone, just W straight at them, and shoot a rocket, I'll occasionally get a crocket and oneshot several people. Any time I do something I'm not supposed to be doing, random crits give a chance that I'll win anyway. That's fundemental to their design, they can flip any fight in any direction, and can give kills to players that were playing poorly. That's reinforcing bad behavior. In a fight with no random crits, the player that played better wins, the player that played worse loses. The player that wins has their correct behavior enforced, while the loser is discouraged from their poor behavior. When a random crit happens, it's just a random chance who wins, so that entire design goes out the window. >Well yeah the game also wasn’t designed around rocket jumping Yes it fucking was???? What are you talking about, the entire soldier class has always been designed around rocket jumping. It's in the goddamn beta trailers, it's in the dev commentary, it's in meet the goddamn soldier, it's an essential part of the class that has always been in the game. You're spouting completely, factually incorrect statements now. >flying backburning pyros The game wasn't designed around flying backburner pyros, flying backburner pyros were designed around the game. Like every well-designed weapon added to the game, the team looked at the mechanics in TF2, and designed a weapon that would give a player interesting options without being frustrating or muscling out the other options. The jetpack was specifically designed to give the pyro more mobility at the expense of ranged damage, and it's in a pretty good place balance wise right now. Yes that bit of game design was done in 2017 instead of 2007, but the TF team understood the game well enough to create a mechanic that fit into, and improved, the game as a whole. Either way, the main point here is not that every thing in the game which was not deliberately thought out is necessarily bad for the game. The TF team probably didn't expect the current engi rollouts to be as efficient as they are, but those don't particularly harm the game. Some mechanics need to be handled a lot more carefully though because of how frustrating they can be when done poorly. The point is that randomness in particular is a tricky devil and needs to be designed carefully or else it can seriously harm the game. While randomness can work in games that have been designed around it, shoehorning random elements into a game that was never designed to accommodate them is a big problem. You look at something like XCOM, a game where randomness is fundemental to the design, and it still manages to be skill-based because the randomness was well thought-out. This is because you have reasonable counterplay to those random elements. You can bring reliable damage sources to serve as a backup if you get bad rolls (with certain costs associated with using them), you can use stuns and flashbangs or draw fire with decoys to prevent the enemy from getting a lucky crit on you. You can play aggressively to kill everything before it has a chance to fight back, so you never have to risk getting one-shot. You have enough options that you can be ready for bad rolls, and if you play well enough those bad rolls aren't going to be devestating. But TF2 was not designed to accomodate this. There's no superior strategy that will let you outplay a soldier who crits you at close range. You HAVE to get into close range of that soldier to kill him because TF2 is designed around close range combat, and the rocket launcher is designed to be nearly impossible to avoid entirely at close range because of splash damage. You're going to get hit by rockets no matter how good you are at the game, because the rocket launcher was designed under the assumption that taking splash damage isn't that big of a deal; it's not normally very much damage. Crits were pretty clearly tacked on without much foresight, because now there's a chance of getting an uncounterable death, which is of course terrible design-wise. The only way to avoid dying random crits is to avoid getting into fights at all. That's not something we should be encouraging players to do. > That means regular damage numbers are used 96% of the time, thus 96% of the time, a new player is learning, and just 4% of the time a new player is getting a random damage number “high or low”. Which means that damage numbers are now inconsistent, and to a new player, who likely didn't even know that a random crit had happened at all, they're getting conflicting information about a weapon's DPS. The idea that they might use that information to get a better grasp on the DPS of the kritzkrieg also doesn't make sense, because a new player doesn't have any idea that the high damage shot they just took has anything to do with some medigun. There's like 100-200 weapons in this game with unique stats. A new player has no reason to associate a random high damage shot with a medigun they don't even necessarily know exists. Rare events are not a good way to train something like this anyway. Learning requires repetition and consistency. >Now when that engie gets the glowing crit frontier justice, new players learn to keep their distance because they got a random crit on a soldier with the shotgun before and it didn’t kill them. Again, why would a new player associate a glowing gun with random crits? You gun doesn't glow when you get a random crit. The hitscan bulletholes do but it's a pretty big fucking stretch to expect a player who's still trying get a grasp on what the spinny thing outside spawn does to be keeping track of every particle effect in the game to figure out why their damage sometimes is randomly high sometimes. Ultimately the connection between forced crits and random crits is not intuitive to a new player, so for somebody who's new, inconsistent DPS is a far larger detriment than the unrealistic scenario where the player knows exactly why they're doing extra damage and how that relates to all the weapons with forced crits. >His next point says that removing random crits wouldn’t make a lot of weapons unbalanced. He goes to show all 20 weapons which have the “no random critical hit” statistic, and then says to name one that in competitive is worse off because it doesn’t have random crits. Here's the thing, 17 out of those 20 weapons that don’t have random crits, actually REWARD the user with crits in certain situations. This makes a weapons “situational”. Take for example, the backburner. If you’ve been getting on the flank ALLL game as pyro, you should equip the back burner, because it would reward you for putting yourself in that situation. Just because these weapons don’t have random crits on, doesn’t make them over or underpowered, but that's because the majority, and I really mean the majority of them actually reward the user with crits or minicrits of their own. In fact, the cow mangler is a direct upgrade in competitive because it has unlimited ammo & there are no random crits, but there are times when you can't use it in competitive because the medic on your team is running kritzkrieg and might end up having it completely nullified because you wanted to run cow mangler. Because the cow mangler charge shot rewards the user with mini crits, there's no random critical hits. While removing random crits doesn’t predominantly affect competitive balance, the game isn’t only competitive. Nobody's proposing we remove forced crits. Yes, the cow mangler and the Southern Hospitality are poorly designed and provide negligible benefits which make them slight upgrades to stock under certain team comps when random crits are disabled, but again we shouldn't be designing the entire game around a couple of poorly designed weapons. >Just because these weapons don’t have random crits on, doesn’t make them over or underpowered So you agree with him...? All he's saying is that globally removing random crits wouldn't cause a balance problem. > If you don’t like a certain mechanic of casual, and that mechanic isn’t in another gamemode, don’t play casual or don’t complain about it. Making the people who like random crits go to community servers with them on is just doing to us what you don't want done to you. The game should always be improving to be the best version of itself. By your logic, TF2 should never receive any updates to change anything, regardless of how much it improves the game, because someone might like the old version more. If the game is going to improve it needs to have its design decisions based on actual solid game design. The main version of TF2 should be the most well-designed version of TF2, and the most well-designed version of TF2 is one that doesn't have random crits. If you want to play a more poorly-designed version of the game that randomly kills you for no reason, then I'm sorry but you're going to be swept by the way-side. Valve servers don't have RTD, they don't have low gravity, and they don't have Saxton Hale running around killing people, because poorly designed wacky mechanics that reduce the game's staying power for some cheep goofs aren't something the main playerbase should have to deal with on the main version of the game. If you want that, you'll have to get by with community servers. I agree that removing random crits from casual won't save community servers, but it will greatly improve the main version of the game, and that's what's most important here. random crits bad
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.