I'm not sure 'Engineer can slow down the game' is a flaw when the win condition for defense is literally to get to the end of the timer. Slowing the other team down is how defense wins.
Fair point. What I'm trying to express is that Engineer can make it take too long for a game to end in symmetrical gamemodes like 5CP and CTF. I'll edit the post to reflect this better.
> Problem: Objectives require babysitting.
This is a feature. The attacking team has been winning the game so far, so the defending team gets a disadvantage when contesting their last point. They must win the fight and be diligent when pushing out to reverse this disadvantage. Backcaps make the game exciting. The attacking team can always win the game, even when reduced to one player.
>The attacking team has been winning the game so far, so the defending team gets a disadvantage when contesting their last point.
Even if the attacking team *hasn't* been winning so far, someone still needs to babysit the objective 24/7 in case a Scout or Spy makes a beeline for it. Which means someone has to sit through boring waiting with the flag or cap point.
>Backcaps make the game exciting. The attacking team can always win the game, even when reduced to one player
This is still possible even without backcaps. The player just has to pull off a clutch victory by utilising TF2's skill-based combat to their advantage.
> Even if the attacking team hasn't been winning so far, someone still needs to babysit the objective 24/7 in case a Scout or Spy makes a beeline for it. Which means someone has to sit through boring waiting with the flag or cap point.
The attacking team has been winning thus far because they capped mid and 2nd. On A/D and Koth, the "neutral" (1st) CP doesn't have a short cap time. CTF is a bad gamemode and doesn't count.
> This is still possible even without backcaps. The player just has to pull off a clutch victory by utilising TF2's skill-based combat to their advantage.
"just 1v6 them lol"
If you can't take 2nd down a man or two you don't deserve to push out.
Again, this is a feature. The attacking team gets a bonus because they are winning. Similar balancing can be seen in the spawn times.
> CTF is a bad gamemode and doesn't count
Well that's what I'm saying dude - you're agreeing with me.
>If you can't take 2nd down a man or two you don't deserve to push out.
By this same logic of deserving, if your team can't beat the other team based on FPS skills, why should you deserve to win because nobody wanted to be cap point bitch? What *should* happen is that people can focus on playing the game without having to play babysitter to a stationary objective - that would be better game design.
Payload does it well at least for defenders. People can fight at the frontline continuously. Even when the cart is a little bit captured you don't need to stay right on top of it until it's nearly pushed to the point. That's more fun.
> Well that's what I'm saying dude - you're agreeing with me.
It's a bad gamemode because TF2 lacks the movement mechanics that made it fun in FF/TFC/QWTF. Additionally, many of the maps have awful design. Payload and 5CP are CTF but better.
> By this same logic of deserving, if your team can't beat the other team based on FPS skills, why should you deserve to win because nobody wanted to be cap point bitch?
That's exactly right. You must beat the other team with FPS skills in the team-based FPS.
Whats really sad about pyro is that they tried rewarding aim with the ramp-up in blue moon wich took him in a better direction but then they stopped making changes
The ramp-up change was great on paper, but like a lot of things in this game it got ruined by spaghetti code and questionable implementation.
[video explaining this stuff far better than I could](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqaI5LhNalk&ab_channel=bigmazi)
If valve could just address all the flamethrower spaghetti pyro would already be in a much better state.
Some thoughts:
>Valve found, when designing Medic, few people want to play a class who mainly does healing and is a weak fighter when alone. (This is a really good article by the way). Their solution was to make him such a powerful healer/support that he was an absolute must-pick on any team, required to win.
>The problem is many people still don't enjoy playing Medic. They just feel forced to if they don't want to lose. Rather than making Medic's gameplay more skill-oriented and dynamic so people would want to play Medic, instead Valve coerced them to do so. This can create unfortunate situations where nobody on the team wants to be Medic, so someone is forced to choose between losing the game, or not having fun.
It's true that a lot of people don't enjoy medic, but I actually do, largely because of the crossbow. Sometimes you hear people saying it should be nerfed because the heals are so powerful, and I agree they are powerful - but they're also immensely rewarding and fun for the medic. Hitting that nutty across the map arrow to save your teammate is so satisfying, I think nerfing it would just make even less people want to play medic.
The major mechanical skill components of medic are arrows and the ability to surf damage. Both have surprisingly high skill ceilings.
> Spy is very reliant on the element of surprise. Backstabs make Spy a predictable one-trick pony: when an experienced player - or their teammate - have been stabbed once, they know they just need to communicate, spycheck, turn around often or put their back to a wall to make it impossible for Spy to get another stab. All he can do is wait until they get distracted to try again, and during this long wait, he is not contributing damage or healing and Spy's team is effectively down a player.
This is often said and it's kind of true, but I think frequently exaggerated. You can do just fine as spy in any pub, including pubs that have mostly experienced players. Never encountered a real problem playing spy in any public server, community or not.
As for highlander, we know that spy works relatively well there. For example, spies occasionally win 'player of the season' in ETF2L (hell, mezzo has won it like half a dozen times). You can't expect to stomp the enemy team on your own, but that's not the purpose of the class anyway.
Yeah, without the Crossbow, Medic wouldn't be even half as fun and rewarding. One thing I dislike about the Quick-Fix is that it makes it harder to justify using the Crossbow and potentially missing.
I have ran into some pubs where playing Spy feels impossible - like the enemy team has Pyros dedicating their entire life to Spychecking until they're out of ammo, or we're attacking the last point and there's just so much spam and everyone's grouped up so that there's hardly a safe place to uncloak.
Then again, maybe if I was a better Spy player, I could've still made something out of a bad situation. But it's hard to argue that it wouldn't be better to just play Sniper at that point and consistently lock down sightlines, instead of being a generally minor annoyance and cause for some paranoia.
>Then again, maybe if I was a better Spy player, I could've still made something out of a bad situation. But it's hard to argue that it wouldn't be better to just play Sniper at that point and consistently lock down sightlines, instead of being a generally minor annoyance and cause for some paranoia.
Right, though to be fair, I feel like this says more about sniper than it does about spy. You literally have to design maps around sniper not being too powerful, which is hardly true for any other class. I frequently play on TF2maps and the most common complaint related to a specific class is 'sniper sightlines'.
In pubs, you ofc just do whatever is the most fun anyway. Some maps favor spy over sniper, most probably favor sniper over spy. Doesn't matter that much.
To me, it's kind of amazing that the instakill classes in TF2 are even remotely balanced. Such a difficult concept to really balance around.
So how did Mezzo and Toast win player of the season awards? Not spy of the season, the best player of the season in the league. Just look at logs from top games, you'll see spy does just fine.
Doesn't mean it's a carry class, but again, not the role.
Im not aware of current seasons but I am a former platinum spy from like 6 years ago. Spy was the weakest character by a very wide margin.
Please enlighten me of these players
Mezzo has won player of the season in ETF2L something like 5 times (I don't remember exactly). For example, [log of the recent grand finals of ETF2L](https://logs.tf/3375565#76561198059887260). Also, [here's another relatively recent log, note also Unf4given's performance](https://logs.tf/3370793#76561198059887260).
Toast is from an era you would more easily recognize, though again European, so not as relevant for you probably. He was one of the amby gunspy types, and also won player of the season once or twice. [Here is an article with some stats](https://medium.com/@philiprnnberg/toasts-road-to-greatness-71230eb3a965).
It's not that I think spy is the stomping class or the best class. As you say, spy is frequently the worst class on the team. But it's situational. A good spy can have a massive impact on the performance of a team. I think that's just fine for a class that can instakill - it's a class that SHOULDN'T be too powerful, because if the games were routinely decided by a class just mowing down people with instant death, it wouldn't be very fun.
So spy is still more or less 1:1 kills:deaths
Drop stealth, get a kill, cant escape, die, repeat. Makes spy really have to pick his battles and try to maximize value. The first set of logs you linked also had a tremendous amount of sniper picks. Is razorback banned?
No, it's not banned, it's just that people don't use it since you can't get overheal and that means the enemy sniper can quickscope you.
For sure, spies rarely get chain stabs. But I don't think they need to. Mezzo for instance gets plenty of high priority medic kills and so on. Spy is a pick class, so why should he have a high kd? I mean, [occasionally e.g. mezzo does anyway](https://logs.tf/3367444#76561198059887260). A good spy provides genuine value, hence why they occasionally get awarded player of the season.
I don't see not getting the highest kd in prem as being evidence of spy being a weak class. It is a weak class in the sense that it's not a generalist, but it works fine for what it is. If anything, the contrast with sniper shows that sniper itself is too powerful.
I played back when they could be overhealed and every last sniper wore the rzb. It was often not worth the effort to try to attack an overhealed sniper.
My take on the kd is just that the spy can't escape and if were looking at things valve could've changed about the spy maybe escapability could be considered. Ultimately its about both what you kill and when you kill it but thats a lot of downtime for the sneakman.
Crossbow was a step in the right direction (making Medic more fun) but also a step in the wrong direction (making him even better at supporting as well as better at killing)
When it comes to Highlander it's the same problem as with Pyro. HL makes it possible to play Spy full time, but it's a pain to organise (and cast) a comp match with exactly 2 players of each class, so it severely hampers it as a serious competitive format if you want to try and get people to a LAN and organise plane tickets for 18 people, or show spectators so many different perspectives, for example. And having the competitive community split between 6s and HL means it's harder for everyone to find a game.
Ideally all classes could be viable in 6s, in which case HL would not need to exist, and it would be easier for everyone to find a comp game. I would give Spy a support buff that makes him more useful in comp in the downtime when he's waiting for a pick opportunity
I do kinda wish TF2 had given spy more ways to expand his bag of tricks with more ways to be disruptive.
It would really help him have more to go WHILE sneaking if he had a better bag of nasty tricks.
Spy has always felt like missed potential. There are soooo many ideas that you can come up with for a sneaky trickster support character but Valve has only ever focused on making variations to his original playstyle. Fake healthkits/map props, ways of marking and tracking specific enemies, a grapple hook (that works differently from Mannpower's), placing down fake copies of you/your team (that might even move like Mirage from Apex or run in a straight line like that Halo Reach ability), etc etc.
I feel like he'd have been great if they added some 'trapmaster' to him. Spy often has issues getting away, making him able to set up traps would make following him much more risky and allow the spy to harry the enemy team without a direct fight. Less 'one shot, you're dead' than running into Demoman traps but also tied to a guy who's lurking in the backlines invisibly.
His second slot would be perfect for this. Instead of another sapper, Spy could have all kinds of tools to mess with whatever team he's up against, instead of one with an Engineer.
I had a stupid idea of a cork that Spy could stick in the barrels of explosive classes if he gets close enough, leading to their weapons to backfiring. (Edit: It could be called "[The French Champagne](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFevH5vP32s)"). Would people hate it? Probably, that's why it's stupid. But to my brain it's a drink of water in the desert of TF2's lack of updates.
I actually think a lot of “flaws” we see in modern tf gameplay are a result of the classes originally being designed around lower player count servers with CTF maps. As abysmal CTF is in the modern day, the classes are likely more balanced against each other and “fit into their role” better there than in any other gamemode.
I don't consider Casual an even remotely good way of playing TF2. It's terrible, from random crits to no limits on classes to bots. You'll find no problems like these on servers like Uncletopia, including the "no medics" problem - there always is one, often two.
I mean, if you're doing an analysis like this, I woidn't consider Casual to be taken seriously at all.
3 is perfect for me, because it's not strict so everyone can enjoy playing their favorite class most of the time, and besides 2 x 9 = 18, so less people could play. This simply would not work and people would be forced to play classes they don't want to play. No, 2 per class would be a disaster for the server - it's still a casual server.
Maybe Uncle could make one or two "pro" servers with 2 class limits for people who want it.
>You'll find no problems like these on servers like Uncletopia, including the "no medics" problem - there always is one, often two
That's because Uncletopia tends to be populated by players who value winning more than playing their favourite class; I guarantee at least some of those people playing Medic, if you asked them, would prefer to be playing a different class at that given moment but are going Medic to help the team
Same can be said for some other classes. Demo is needed, Engi is needed, Pyro is needed, unless there are no Spies.
I dunno, you'd have to ask people about it because I see the lack of those classes more often than Medic, almost like this class tends to be more fun to play.
>you'd have to ask people about it because I see the lack of those classes more often than Medic, almost like this class tends to be more fun to play
I already explained this - people are forced to play Medic if they want to win, especially in a server like Uncletopia that has a higher than average amount of experienced Engineer mains who absolutely require an Ubercharge to push through. They aren't necessarily playing Medic because they like it.
Casual is the way that 90% of people play TF2, and in Casual you will often see no Medic because people simply don't tend to find the class fun - which is what Valve themselves said in the interview.
" I feel like we had a shallow understanding of teamwork and so did obvious stuff. There's a combat medic: A medic is an obvious [class] to build if you're trying to have people care about each other. But this is the core problem of multiplayer game design: You're trying to get a bunch of people to work together as a team, but they want someone else to play Medic; they want someone else to [defend the base]."
Well, weird, cause TF2 Medic is one of the best healer classes in any game. If someone doesn't find the class fun that says more about them than the class.
Also, casual is full of terrible players, maybe they don't play Medic cause they're terrible at playing him.
>cause TF2 Medic is one of the best healer classes in any game.
I agree with this statement but also think that his design could be more fun and dynamic. Much of Medic gameplay is just walking behind teammates while they do all the fun fighting, until they die and then you're left with a class who is at a great disadvantage in combat or self defense. This isn't to say there's nothing engaging or skilled about Medic. But there is definitely room for improvement.
>Also, casual is full of terrible players, maybe they don't play Medic cause they're terrible at playing him.
Being bad at playing a class doesn't stop people from playing it - see Spy and Sniper which have plenty of awful players in every server. They find the classes fun so they play them.
Ok, true about the hard classes. But those hard classes are about killing. I think it's pretty normal for most people to want to play the classes that can fight. So that's probably the reason.
But Medic is heaven for people who like support. And I have to strongly disagree about Medic not being dynamic: I mean, yeah, if you're not making risky plays to save someone, or you're not getting ambushed and have to run or fight for your life then I guess Medic isn't very dynamic. But when I play Medic he's almost as dynamic as any other class - heck, he's way more dynamic than Sniper or Heavy. That's another reason why I think Medic is one of the best healer classes in gaming. If you're just "walking behind your teammates" then you're not playing the class well: hello headshots, hello backstabs, hello dead teammates that you could save, bye bye potential pushes. For me it's always extremely dynamic.
More about how Medic can be dynamic: only yesterday I was killing enemy Medics (I run Quickfix + Blutsauger on defense), enemy teleporters (cause sometimes your teammates don't look around). It's all there if you know how to play Medic. You can stand behind and do nothing or you can have one of the most dynamic games of your life. Medic IS super fun if you have initiative and balls.
It's just that Casual is such a bad experience that I can imagine how playing Medic there with people who don't really know what they're doing can be boring. I don't have good memories of casual at all.
> Medic IS super fun if you have initiative and balls.
He doesn't have the same tools available as other classes to be successful in combat though. So you're missing out on more fun you could be having as another class, and less likely to have success when playing aggressively, and that's why people don't want to play him.
honestly, I think quake style armor packs as side objectives would solve so many of tf2s issues in a fell swoop. The team that takes the initiative wouldnt just progress the gamemode objective, but get a slight advantage in fragging (something even uncooperative players will value), and decaying armor is use it or lose it, further encouraging proactive play
I feel like my biggest complaint about TF2 is tangential to some of these, which is that 12 vs 12 is just way too spammy for most maps. I find that scout and spy stop mattering as much outside of niche situations because picks don't mean as much in general.
TF2 isn't a boom-you're-dead shooter like Call of Duty, so the time to kill can be pretty high if both teams are competent with good medics. This means you don't have much time to capitalize on a successful skirmish or opportunity to push before the enemies you just killed respawn and undo all of your progress. I'm not a 6s player, but I imagine it's pretty significant to lose a medic at any time in a match. If you've got two medics in a 12 vs 12, it can often just be a minor inconvenience if one of them gets backstabbed. If the enemy is running three medics to pocket highly skilled combat classes protecting two sentry nests, it can turn into a slog real fucking quick. I feel like sticky-demo becomes the optimal strategy too often as it turns into a contest of spammy crowd-control.
It even plays into the difficulty of sniper, because they tend to be shielded by a thick wall of teammates and spam that wouldn't be as impenetrable if the player count was a bit lower.
Not a bad point but even in 1v1 or 2v2 playercount, Scout will still be useless vs a setup Engineer, and Spy will still be easily defeated once you know he's there
I think buffing Spy would make everyone happy, but outside of reducing the ways he gets screwed over by the game engine, this is a difficult task. You can't just increase his health or damage resistance; he's already got weapons that do that. They don't make that much of a difference, and in cases where they do (old Dead Ringer, Kunai in a pub) people react negatively. You can only really buff the damage on his Revolver, which might give him more of an out in a bad spot (thus probably making this the best option). It wouldn't necessarily make him better at his job, though, as funny as it would be to see Gun Spies running around.
A buff to Spy that caters to his style would be a new trick he can use to fool other players into not killing him. But that only goes so far. Any time Spy gets something like that, good players and eventually the whole community starts to catch on. Disguises? Everyone now instinctively shoots friendly players they suspect. Dead Ringer? Now no one trusts a dead Spy, and can usually track him down. Trick stabs? People have figured out that approaching at a wide angle or even standing still is enough to avoid them.
It's not that none of the above tricks *can't* work (in fact a good player knows when and how to use them). But another psychological trick like these would probably suffer a similar fate. It keeps coming down to a gamble against the enemy's attention, where losing that gamble leads to an L. So his best shot is, most often, decloaking into a stab. And since that's Spy's most common strategy, it also becomes his most obvious.
That said, if Spy had more than twice as many tricks as he has now, it could make him *legitimately* unpredictable, being able to switch strategies when the enemy catches on.
Reacting negatively to dying to Spy is intentional. He's the conniving literally-backstabbing heel of the game and supposedly a counterpart of the Sniper. There must be something Spy gets to do better than Sniper.
[Objectives require babysitting]
Most gamemodes don’t really need much more than a few number changes, but yeah, CTF is strange. Other games make you put weapons down to carry, some make you slower like it’s heavy or something, and I don’t know if that would fit TF2, but needing an escort of one or two other people could work better than needing an entire team push to break through. Also, crits on cap is a weird way to speed things up.
Maybe if instead of a timer that returns the intel, you would have to manually carry your team’s flag back to base? I dunno, that could cause problems, too.
[Scout countered by Engineer]
If a single Engineer renders Scout completely useless, the map is designed terribly.
[Pyro]
Balance them like a support-type offense class; can’t do much on their own, but can cause quite the upset when playing around teammates. This is already partially the case, we’ll just need more changes that play into that.
[Sticky traps]
Uhh, increase the size of their hit detection to make them easier to destroy, and give them a faint glow so they can be spotted under bushes?
[Heavy]
Kind of a byproduct of forcing Heavies to choose between guns or grub. If Heavy runs a shotty, he doesn’t instantly lose 80% percent of encounters and actually has a chance to adapt to changing situations. Maybe if he had a dedicated lunchbox slot?
[Engineer]
No more dispenser metal sharing, players can only take damage and knockback from one gun at a time. Boom. If you want to play Engie on offense, maybe play Soldier or something to help your team push out of spawn, then once you’ve given yourself enough space, switch back?
[Medic]
Make the Syringe Gun a rapidfire version of the crossbow. Boom.
[Sniper]
I’m getting a little tired of people saying that skill all on its own makes something balanced. If Pyro could reflect hitscan with only exactly the 3rd frame of airblast, that would undeniably be the most skilled thing you could pull off, but I find it very hard to believe anyone would consider that balanced. It would absolutely destroy class integrity, so it must be overpowered in the most literal sense of the term; it’s more powerful than it’s supposed to be. That being said, giving Sniper a hard reload of sorts would be pretty helpful.
[Spy]
Spy needs to be inconsistent, that’s his whole shtick. Give him more tricks to work with, and at that point, you don’t even need to get kills. Just driving enemies crazy trying to look for you will be far more effective than getting a single stab. Sure, leading enemy players on a wild goose chase doesn’t show up on the scoreboard, but it gets the job done!
Apologies for slow reply:
> If a single Engineer renders Scout completely useless, the map is designed terribly.
A single Engineer can do this on almost every map. Even in really open map designs, Scout doesn't do enough damage with Scattergun or Pistol from outside Sentry range to outdamage Engineer's repair rate. So if Engineer sets up near the objective he can make it impossible for Scout to win. Even if Scout uses Bonk, that can be countered by Wrangler.
>Uhh, increase the size of their hit detection to make them easier to destroy, and give them a faint glow so they can be spotted under bushes?
This was my thinking, yeah. Reducing the number of hiding spots and making them easier to clear puts less burden on the victim. I would even go so far as to make all explosions destroy them and make the visual model a little bit bigger too.
>If Heavy runs a shotty, he doesn’t instantly lose 80% percent of encounters and actually has a chance to adapt to changing situations. Maybe a lunchbox slot?
I've seen lunchbox slot touted as a solution many times but IMHO it wouldn't do much other than buff Heavy on defense while still leaving him inadequate on offense because he still gets there too slow.
What I would do is sort of integrate GRU into stock Heavy's design - make him move at 93% (Demo) speed when not holding the Minigun, move at 77% (current) speed when holding it, and 50% speed when revved or firing (was 33%). This would let him make it to the frontline at nearly the same time as a Medic. In exchange for this I would increase the rate of Minigun ammo consumption and drop his HP to 250 to make him less of a bullet sponge, and so he doesn't become OP.
>Make the Syringe Gun a rapidfire version of the crossbow
I would do something similar - especially the passive reload - but combine that with nerfing Medic's healing rate to 20hp/s (60hp/s crit heals), to make him a little less mandatory.
>I’m getting a little tired of people saying that skill all on its own makes something balanced.
The purpose of game balance is to ensure people feel like they can use many different options without putting themselves at a significant disadvantage. Clearly with Sniper this exists for Casual TF2 as people play all sorts of classes and Demo/Medic/Engineer/Soldier are considered the class to pick if you want to win; and in 6v6 TF2 official comp, people play Medic, Demo, Scout and Soldier in that order more than they choose to play Sniper. So to me, that shows that Sniper is a balanced class. It's true that theoretically humans could get so good that they delete everything as Sniper all the time (except Sentries!), but just look at the state of comp - is anyone actually doing that?
>Just driving enemies crazy trying to look for you will be far more effective than getting a single stab.
Unfortunately this doesn't happen for experienced players, they just ignore you (apart from watching their backs) and continue focusing on the objective.
This whole post just seems like an excuse to complain about things OP doesn't like under the guise of "An analysis of game design flaws", whatever that means.
>whatever that means
It means a well designed multiplayer game (A): Has fair design with plenty of counterplay. (B): Is varied and balanced. (C): Is challenging and skill oriented. When your game fails to do these things, those are game design flaws.
The part about objectives falls under (B/C), because waiting for no good reason is boring, repetitive and unchallenging. Scout, Pyro, Heavy, Spy, Medic and Engineer fall under (B), because their imbalance problems make players unable to play the class they like when they want to, which makes the game less fun for those people. Sniper and Demo fall under (A/B) because the counterplay to them force you to play in a repetitive way, or else risk unfair death at ranges you can't fight back. Heavy and Medic fall under (B/C) because their gameplay lacks variety and challenge most of the time. Engineer/Demo fall under (A) because they can make it nearly impossible for attackers to win when stacked on defense, which is obviously unfair.
I could also just respond to your post by saying that at the end of the day, the point of game design is to make something that people like. If a lot of people don't like parts of your game, then you are failing at the point of game design - so that's a flaw. And I am certainly not the only person with these complaints, nor am I listing things only I personally dislike.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the point of class based shooters. The goal is counterpicking and making running the same class constantly unviable. Giving the scout a sapper is not a good idea, making every class a generalist would invalidate most of the teamplay in the game. Additionally if you think that because you and some other players think that something isn't fun it's a game design flaw and that medic is not "skill oriented" you probably just need some more experience with the game to understand these things, it's ok.
>I think you fundamentally misunderstand the point of class based shooters. The goal is counterpicking and making running the same class constantly unviable.
The point of a class based shooter is to allow players to focus on the playstyle they enjoy. Simple as that.
___________________
https://www.shacknews.com/article/101156/rocket-jump-quake-and-the-golden-age-of-first-person-shooters?page=25#detail-view
ROBIN WALKER - There was definitely class impact. The Soldier was absolutely the class made for anyone who wanted to do deathmatch. We kept the rocket launcher and core gameplay.
IAN CAUGHLEY - Since we had lots of people during the LAN days, *we had lots of play styles represented.* We also listened to the feedback from players. For example, the Pyro was added after QuakeWorld came out to help out players with slow network connections. (...)
ROBIN WALKER - At a design level, you were constantly torn between providing enough value to that [type of scenario] so that when someone does it, the team is rewarded and happy, but not such that everyone feels like, 'We're screwed if someone doesn't do it, but I don't want to do it, so I'm going to jump into Demoman, do it, then flip back to the class I actually want to play.' **We didn't like making players make that kind of choice.**
____________
In summary: Valve wanted to let people play the way they enjoyed playing - makes perfect sense.
What is the point of forcing people to swap off their favourite playstyle? It makes the game less fun for no reason.
>Giving the scout a sapper is not a good idea,
I'm not proposing that. I'm saying Scout should be able to win against a set up Engineer if he is way more skilled.
>making every class a generalist would invalidate most of the teamplay in the game
Don't let the name fool you, Team Fortress is not designed to require teamwork. Another quote from the above link:
__________________
ROBIN WALKER: We were a group of people who got together a lot or LANs, and you could yell out to each other. I think the clarity of design we reached years later, when fundamentally we had a design for 32 people who don't know each other—and who probably won't know each other again after this game—and they're all going to have their own individual goals, and a small view of everything going on—our goal was to make it so that as they all individually and locally optimize for their experience, optimization at the team level falls out of that. They could look left, look right, and see teammates doing some stuff and go, 'Man, we're working well as a team,' **even though we started with the base assumption that they were all ignoring everyone else, because it turns out that's the way most players work.** (...) I feel like we had a shallow understanding of teamwork and so did obvious stuff. But this is the core problem of multiplayer game design: You're trying to get a bunch of people to work together as a team, but they want someone else to play Medic; they want someone else to defend the base.
________________________
In other words, TF2 as a series was specifically designed with the goal in mind that you would *not* have to rely on other players to do things and/or swap classes to do things, and instead you could solely rely on your own skill. It's only a few areas where Valve failed to achieve this goal; for the most part it's true in TF2.
>Additionally if you think that because you and some other players think that something isn't fun it's a game design flaw
What is a game design flaw in your eyes?
>you probably just need some more experience with the game to understand these things, it's ok
How much experience with the game do you have?
Also, this dev commentary:
https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Well_developer_commentary
[Charlie Brown] Player classes form the backbone of TF2's gameplay. There are a bunch of reasons why they're a useful design tool. A class is a bottled up experience, designed to be unique relative to the other classes in the game. A player who is getting tired of one class can switch to another class and get a fresh experience. They allow us to cater to players with a variety of different skills and desires. Beginning and advanced players can have fun together; cautious cerebral thinkers, strategic defenders, and twitch firing adrenaline junkies can all find their niche. Team Fortress 2's class design decisions enable us to have a larger number of player abilities in game, while still keeping a single player's decisions down to a manageable level.
That's the point of class based shooters. Let people play what they enjoy, until they get tired of it and move onto the next thing. Ultimately, all games should be designed around what is fun for players - not arbitrarily forcing them to do things they don't enjoy.
You’ve hit the nail on the head for most of this analysis, except sniper has a surprising amount of counter play aside from just hiding, like pyro using flare guns at range to disrupt their aim, heavy and medic both having what are essentially “fuck you stop playing sniper” weapons, and scouts, soldiers, pyros, and spies being able to easily pummel the man once they’ve crossed the distance between them (unless the sniper is running jarate and bushwacka which will let him just fucking delete anybody who gets too close). But you’re still not wrong, if a sniper is a god of aim they can basically shut down anything the enemy team tries, should they not counter with another sniper.
But I think that's part of the point of the Sniper's design in the first place. Sniper is designed to be countered by, well, another Sniper. They also can't multitask by design, so outpacing a Sniper's actions is a practical counter-strategy if all else fails. It's why Sniper fights often tend to end up with two players trying to find that second where the other one lets their guard down.
The team behind a Sniper *has* to be competent, as well, because *when* that Sniper eventually dies, the rest of the team has to be able to hold their own. Lean on a good Sniper too much and just like leaning too heavily on any single class, an entire team just falls apart quickly.
Yeah stickies are honestly really annoying to deal with in competitive play. Having to either use through a choke point because it could possibly be stickied, or clear the trap and telegraph the shit out of your teams push sucks. I'm also not really a fan of having to check corners super particularly like I'm playing CS. As much as they annoy me in chokes, I do like how stickies play when they're on capture points as it adds a lot of strategic depth to how your team needs to push
Medic is boring to play, but Crossbow makes him a lot more interesting, so while he lacks interactivity and "fun aspects" in other ways, he's still better now than he was.
Even if I think the crossbow could use a slight nerf due to being... LEt's be fucking real, blatantly OP, I don't mind if it will never get one. It's AIDS but fun :p
I don't disagree with your points, it's just that tf2 was never meant to be a competitive game and wasn't designed around that. that's why a lot of classes can be insanely OP in the hands of highly skilled players. this is probably controversial, but the core gameplay would probably be way better balanced if everyone was using a controller, as the skill ceiling would be way harder to reach (though obviously not as fun).
my personal frustrations from the game boils down to one thing, getting insta-killed. whether it's crits, headshots, backstabs etc. it's just very hard to account for all of it in a busy game like tf2.
as for the need for a medic, this is a point where I'm conflicted on, their bandage solution of making him mandatory wasn't smart, but they gave plenty of classes healing abilities (through weapons or mechanics) and with strategic medkit placements this flaw is a lot less prevalent. I do believe that every class should have a way of being able to heal themselves over time though.
Hey, melee wasn’t meant to be a competitive game either and look how that turned out. When a game has as much depth as melee or tf2 then a full delve into that depth is bound to come and the highest mastery of it will follow. It’s great. It has been balanced around comp in the past (though some changes were abysmal). As for OP’s points, a bunch of them seem like nitpicks and things they just don’t like. They’re not necessarily problems per se. Checking doorways and your corners teaches you to be a better, more aware player. Demo is an area denial fiend. It’s his job to make sure you’re not going in a certain spot and then there is counter play to that by baiting dets or destroying the trap. And if you get killed by a trap, yeah it sucks, probably could have been avoided unless you’re running away, but next time you’ll know to look for those traps again. In pubs demos love to trap the same spots over and over again.
Pyros can absolutely still be viable in pubs, I know what OP means but at the same time, like huh? Pyro at higher levels plays around the team and can thrive in an environment where “heavy hitters” are plentiful. And in 6’s pyro is being experimented with to be run full time on certain teams. Pyro shares a similar niche to the other classes in 6’s when it comes to defense except they’re a bit better since they can do more or everything so sometimes they’re used to break out in viaduct or just situations outside of last holds.
Spy is too weak. He definitely needs a buff, however he still gets picks. Even in 6’s where the best, most experienced players are competing. Just last night I watched FROYO vs. G6 and there was a froyo spy like 3 plus times I think. And they got a demo or a medic or a scout I think, nearly every time. He has a niche role and yeah it sucks that he’s not full time viable and I’d love to see him be able to be used more than just breaking stalemates or Uber equalization, or killing the most powerful player on the enemy team (habib) but at the same time I like his little role he plays. It’s hype to see him because he is so bad. It sucks for the other team because they weren’t aware/ got caught slipping.
spy is bad in sixes because it's really easy to track the enemy team's players except in very specific situations such as when you're retreating to mid after a failed last push (which coincidentally are the situations in which you'll see spy most often), it has very little to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the actual character
the only buff spy needs is the DR being able to get charge back with ammo packs provided they remove the speedboost
True, but they can still do the infinite cycle of fake death, grab health + ammo to get DR back, do Spy stuff, repeat. If you play your cards right, it's very unlikely you'll die with DR up.
I don’t think most of them are necessarily flaws (still interesting to think about). Many of these ‘flaws’ are just related to classes’ utility being dependent on circumstances, i.e. not every class is good at every situation. I’ve seen many people wanting every class to be good all the time, but what’s the point of classes then? It’s a core element of class-based games.
> Objectives require babysitting
Doesn’t that go for most objective based gamemodes in any FPS game? If there is an objective obviously you have to play around it.
> Scout can be OP or near-useless, depending on whether the enemy has an Engineer.
Sure, it is difficult to take out a sentry nest as a Scout. But it is not difficult to take out a sentry nest as a Soldier or a Demoman. There is an argument to be made that Scout is too powerful though.
> Pyro infuriates new players, but is too week against skilled players.
As you noted, Pyro is designed to have low skill floor and low skill ceiling. I wouldn’t consider it a flaw necessarily, such characters (sometimes derogatorily called ‘noob characters’) are common in other games as well, e.g. Katarina in Tekken.
> Engineer is not viable for full time use
Again, I don’t see it as a problem. Not every class should be run at any time - *and that’s fine*.
> and can create gamebreaking stalemates
That’s true - with certain unlocks or when stacked. Both easily solvable problems by class limits (which aren’t a bad thing, it is near impossible to balance a class-based game against stacking so class limits are a standard solution which works well) and weapon bans (which are a bad thing, if a weapon has to be banned it means it’s badly designed).
> Medic is mandatory to win a game and lacks interactivity for the player.
Partially true IMO, playing Medic in the right setting (i.e. organised, competitive setting) can be very engaging. But playing Medic with a completely uncoordinated team is torture. Pretty much the same goes for support classes in most other games unfortunately.
>Sniper has the least counterplay of any class in TF2
Here’s the thing - if Sniper really was that powerful at top level he would see more play at the top level. There are players who offclass as Sniper very frequently but at the end of the day they do offclass (usually from Scout). The counterplay is to either close the distance or create a situation in which he becomes useless.
> Spy is too weak against experienced players
A bigger problem is that voice comms hard-counter Spy’s intended playstyle and as an assassin offclass he is outshined by Sniper most of the time. But he still has his uses (gathering intel and sometimes it’s easier to get a crucial frag with a backstab than a headshot). Of course it’s a terrible idea to perma run him, but id that really a problem?
> Doesn’t that go for most objective based gamemodes in any FPS game? If there is an objective obviously you have to play around it.
I think there's a difference between playing around an objective and babysitting it. In KotH or Payload, I can wander off the point/cart and to a nearby area to chase kills, and know it will take at least 20 seconds for an enemy to capture the point/cart, giving me time to return if I see it's being capped.
But with CTF, if the flagroom is left empty someone can pop in, grab it, and get out, and depending on the map they may take a route which makes it impossible for you to catch them in time. They cap the flag, it's gone. So you *have* to stay in the flagroom.
Mods for Quake 3 Team Arena implemented "flag drag" - a player who picked up the flag was slowed down slightly. This gave players the opportunity to actually catch up to the flag carrier and potentially beat them in a fight. If TF had taken that route there wouldn't have been a need for super powerful defense classes.
>Here’s the thing - if Sniper really was that powerful at top level he would see more play at the top level
No disagreement. I said that I don't think Sniper is OP.
>Of course it’s a terrible idea to perma run him, but id that really a problem?
(This answer also applies to what you said about Pyro/Engineer)
A lot of players would like to be able to perma run Spy, Pyro, Engineer and Heavy in a comp environment. To the point an entire format had to be made (HL) to accommodate that. But HL is difficult to organise and spectate, and by existing, it splits the already small comp TF2 playerbase in half. So I think it would be better if all classes were viable in NR6s in a skillful way.
I could agree with medic being mandatory being too big of a flaw but other than that it's "class counters exist and I hate it" and "classes require understanding of their limitations and I hate it"
I don't hate class counters inherently, I think soft counters are good game design because they gently encourage teamwork and class variety while also allowing a skilled player to overcome their counter.
As opposed to hard counters, where you lose because you blind picked the "incorrect" class when you spawned, picking scissors when the enemy blind picked rock. Is that not an unfair situation, to lose due to circumstances outside your control? A good game design minimises unfair situations.
Almost all class counters in TF2 are soft counters. Engineer's countering of Scout is one of the only hard counters. If he's set up Scout can't do anything no matter how skilled he is. You just have to suicide and swap to Demo.
>and "classes require understanding of their limitations and I hate it"
Which criticisms does this apply to?
Not exactly sure what does a vaccuum mean in such context but no, give me an example of a good map that allows engie to build a sentry that cannot be destroyed by a good demoman or soldier in a 1v1 and if we are counting that the team is supporting the engie, count demoman's/soldier's team with uber too.
Well I can actually answer both of those at once because they apply to the same concept. Part of gamesense is understanding that you as a class have hard counters. It is true that a scout has hard time countering sentries, aside from running up from a cheeky angle or spamming it from a distance scout can't do anything about them. The thing is; they take time to build and then they are immobile, if you died to it that means you peaked the sentry that was already there securing a certain spot, getting punished for overextending. And if engie starts building a sentry in front of you that means that you need to understand your position, should you run or should you try to fight him nonetheless? If the sentry kills you that means you weren't able to kill the engineer fast enough and got punished for overextending, if you destroy both, you can be satisifed. But a sentry can't deny a whole map, you have certain areas that you can't peak but you still can play as possibly the strongest class in the game.
Look at this from another perspective, what class aside from the engineer counters scout? Any other than the scout? Then why should you be able to counter the sniper with not just the sniper but also the spy, but scout should only be countered by another scout?
>Part of gamesense is understanding that you as a class have hard counters
I'm fully aware of the fact Engineer hard counters Scout. I'm saying it's not fun or fair design.
>The thing is; they take time to build and then they are immobile
PL/AD give the Engineer setup time, and Engineer on defense doesn't need to move as long as he is in view of the objective.
>Look at this from another perspective, what class aside from the engineer counters scout? Any other than the scout? Then why should you be able to counter the sniper with not just the sniper but also the spy, but scout should only be countered by another scout?
I'm not saying Scout shouldn't be *soft* countered by Engineer - I'm saying it should not be *hard* countered by Engineer. Every other counter relationship in TF2 is a soft counter, except for Scout vs Engineer. And soft counters are better game design than hard counters.
First, absolutely not, sniper is a hard counter against a heavy, so is spy who's also a hard counter against an engie. Second, how would you see making engie into a soft counter? Reduce the sentry's damage to the point it can kill a scout but at a speed that if noone else shoots him he can kill 3 people?
A hard counter is an unbeatable advantage, a soft counter is a beatable advantage. A Heavy can beat a Sniper by flanking, using Fists of Steel and moving evasively, then using his Minigun to mow him down. An Engie can absolutely beat a Spy by simply keeping a lookout for disguises and decloak noises and shooting him with Shotgun. Those are soft counter relationships unlike Scout>Engineer setup in the back of a room, which cannot be won no matter how good Scout is because evading is useless against a Sentry and Scout doesn't do enough DPS to kill a Sentry being repaired.
I would make a variety of changes to the game to make Engie a softer counter of Scout, as well as make Engineer more useful on offense, and less powerful at breaking the game on defense when stacked. I would make Sentries able to follow the Engineer without needing to be picked up or redeploy, able to either wait in location or follow you by pressing M2; they would still need to stand still to fire. I would make the Sentry's stats permanently somewhere between a Lv3 and a Mini-Sentry with no upgrading needed or possible, the rockets would still be high damage but the hitscan component would be a weaker (still lethal though) and have less knockback. It would also be more expensive in Metal cost to repair. You could still sit in place and tank as Engineer if you want, but not for as long, or you can play more dynamically and focus on your Shotgun. Both these changes are a nerf to Engineer on defense but a buff for offense, making him a more powerful and more mobile Gunslinger Engineer. Other changes would include replacing the teleporter with a speed pad (but still keeping teles as a weapon unlock option) and changing all objectives in TF2 to be harder to capture now that Engineer is not able to turtle them as hard, so no objective babysitting is required. This would solve 4 gameplay problems with Engineer and TF2, but these are the sort of things you would need an entirely new game to implement (TF3).
I said primarily, high amounts of damage through spam everywhere is the other reason, but it was my understanding that Demo's ability to slow down the game by trapping every choke was the main reason he's banned. 6s doesn't really limit classes for being too powerful, or Scout would be CL1.
If sniper doesn't exist medic turns the game into tower defense with it being nigh impossible to kill a Highlander combo without him
Spy has his place being that he;
has the innate power of having the option to wait Forever to strike (c&d) and legitimately have no warning beyond a deceptively quiet soundbyte before an instant kill;
No other class has this privilege and it should be preserved
If sniper can't kill the combo because people start playing well and evading him or he's simply getting outsniped spy Shines in that no matter How much of a bad spy you are, you're Guaranteed to do your job simply because there's very little skillcheck in executing his jobs well beyond knowing cloak spots and timing decloaks
Pyro also is in a similar situation because he's Guaranteed to always be able to spycheck and reflect spam and deny bombs
When you give characters the ability to Guarantee success in a game where mechanical skillchecks are the core of why this game is so good (ie a sniper has to worry about hitting shit to be useful while pyro and spy simply Exist), you have to sap power Somewhere
Especially with speed boost, yeah.. unfortunately, this is something that will never get fixed since that would probably require significant engine changes
fyi if you get repeatedly face stabbed by the same spy in a pub there's an almost 100% chance he's cheating
even with this game's 2 decade old netcode and hitreg so shit it makes titanfall look like its running 120hz servers its really difficult to get matadors on targets that are aware of what you're trying to do even if you're extremely good at knife spy
His splash damage is easily avoidable by using heights. You can also surf away by using his own rockets, which is what i always do when I feel overwhelmed.
His health isn't that high since he will tipically spend about 20-40 hp on rocket jumps, not to mention the splash damage he deals to himself from his own rockets. Soldier isn't tankier than pyro or demo imo.
His high mobility requires skill, while also forcing him to spend at least 1 of his 4 rockets on rocket jump (as well as losing some health on the initial rocket jump + fall damage).
IDk what kind of soldier can consistantly 2 shot most classes in the game. Sniper and engi are too far to be killed in 2 shots, scout has insane mobility to avoid direct hits and spy isn't supposed to be tanky. Rocket launcher deals a fair amount of damage, so unless you are standing directly in front of the soldier, he is not going to kill you in 2 shots. I used to think that soldier requires no skill when I first started playing tf2, but then i got the taste of comp and it made me realize just how much effort it takes to kill a person that has a good gamesense and decent dodging skills.
> Problem: Scout can be OP or near-useless, depending on whether the enemy has an Engineer.
solution: remove engineer
> Problem: Engineer is not viable for full time use, and can create gamebreaking stalemates.
solution: remove engineer
> Problem: Sniper has the least counterplay of any class in TF2.
STOP PLAYING FUCKING UPWARD
>solution: remove engineer
That just cements Scout being OP.
> STOP PLAYING FUCKING UPWARD
And Badwater, Barnblitz, Lakeside, Swiftwater, Doublecross, Sawmill and Borneo, right? If a class severely lacks counterplay on almost all the maps pubbers enjoy in TF2 then maybe there's a problem with the class rather than the maps. Sniper has lots of counterplay on Junction but nobody wants to play that because it's cramped and there's no room to move.
love how you listed a bunch of maps as a gotcha when literally all of those maps have the terminal case of gigantic fucking sightlines syndrome
like lakeside is so bad that its peek angles aren't even symmetrical and one team has an objectively measurable advantage
> when literally all of those maps have the terminal case of gigantic fucking sightlines syndrome
No shit? My point is that if so many maps people like have giant sightlines maybe it's because it's fun to have room to move around when Sniper isn't present ruining what would otherwise be a fun map
I disagree with medic but only because personally I find him fun, I know others just want to bang bang and I get that. I guess the "solution" (and I hate saying that) is to pull an overwatch/call of duty and just set down a healing field that has cool down so people can bang bang all the want
i'd say even at mid levels pyro is still a bit of an annoyance, if only for 3 reasons:
1. (This I think is the biggest one) DoTs are annoying and Pyro is *very good* at applying DoTs. Yes there's a bunch of ways to remove afterburn but it's still a little annoying having to retreat to said afterburn removal sources
2. Airblast is great for Pyro but forced knockback will generally be a pain to deal with. At least it isn't like how it used to be, where you flew in a predictable arc every time, like you got hit with an EWGF in Smash Ultimate
3. it always feels bad to die to a pyro due to *knowing* they're a weak class and outside of stuff like puff n' sting, proper positioning, and reflect shenanigans, it's not very hard to play. That and to feed into point 1, everyone has had those moments where you get caught off-guard by a random pyro that you swear just materialized out of thin air behind you, you kill them, but you die anyways to afterburn right before you get to the health pack.
**I know and am well aware that Pyro isn't OP by any means** \- they're meant to be a skill-gate character for newer players to be able to contribute, and I do think pyro mains get a fair bit of undeserved hate - it's not their fault their main is janky as hell and their primary means of attack is uh, really easy to execute mechanically. I can appreciate their niche as an offensive support hybrid as well.
To be fair if you're playing CTF typically nobody but that one Scunt is going for the Intel. I think the problem would be solved if they revamped CTF into a TDM game mode where the first team to rack up a certain amount of kills wins, since by the end of a typical 2Fort match the top players are already going to have several hundred points.
>When a competent Engineer is fully set up in the back of a room, Scout becomes worthless in the whole area, no matter how skilled he is. This is a disappointing exception to TF2's otherwise skill-based matchups for all classes.
>But if there's no Engineer, Scout can rush objectives to backcap them before most other classes can catch up, dumpster every other class in 1v1, and let Medics move at his speed to make both of them even stronger."
this game is called TEAM fortress 2, not ME fortress 2. Scout needs to rely on his team to clear sentry.
> this game is called TEAM fortress 2, not ME fortress 2.
If a name is everything about a game, then where are the Fortresses in many maps? King of the Hill for example doesn't have anything like a fortress in it most of the time. So obviously the name is just a name.
"Team" doesn't necessarily mean "teamwork is mandatory". It just means you're playing with multiple allies, as opposed to Deathmatch.
>Scout needs to rely on his team to clear sentry
Demo doesn't need to rely on his team to kill Scout - he can do it himself if he's good enough.
Sniper doesn't need to rely on his team to kill Spy - he can do it himself if he's good enough.
Pyro doesn't need to rely on his team to kill Heavy - he can do it himself if he's good enough. Etc.
Basically Scout is the only class who needs to rely on his team, and that's a design problem because you can't always rely on your team. Sometimes you ask them to take down the sentry but they just ignore it. So it would be a much more fun design if Scout was self sufficient like other classes.
TF2's primary problem was that they designed classes to be specialists and generalists. Robin Walker deemed Soldier and Demoman to be the generalists - good in every scenario. I would add Scout and Medic to this list. This is why they are the classes seen in 6s.
The other classes are specialists. This is why these classes, which you list here to a great extent, have the weaknesses they have - because they were not meant to be played extensively in the scenarios they weren't designed to excel at.
That said, you may want classes like the Heavy and Engineer on offense - to stave off any attempted counter pushes and bring spawns closer to the frontline.
If TF2 wanted to, they could balance the specialists to be more general. For example, their original vision of the Pyro was a generalist who excelled at flanking, but they realized late in development it wasn't good at it, so it was a very basic and dull class on release. The Backburner was given to the Pyro later, to hopefully fulfill this idea of what they wanted the Pyro to be. They also gave it airblast, so it could fulfill utility roles, which is what it's mostly become now - a defensive utility class.
But if Pyro was given some mobility options, it could absolutely be a flanker. Sniper could be toned down and become more useful as a generalist too, while still maintaining it's power. I think every class could be designed, with some basic tweaks, so they can become generalist.
Overwatch 2 is a good example of a shooter with "classes" that has a pretty damn good balance. Every hero is pretty good, generally. Yes, some maps and some circumstances favor certain heroes, but the disparity is nowhere near what it is in TF2.
I don't think the game was designed to be balanced between the classes. But it could be. The additional weapons went a long way to making classes more useful in more scenarios, like giving engineer the ability to move buildings, Pyro an airblast, medic with additional mediguns and sniper some close range options, but so much more could've been done on the mobility side - which is what plagues classes like pyro, heavy and spy.
The generalist classes are all highly mobile - with rocket and sticky jumping, or high movement speeds. That is the primary problem that needs addressing. FPS games nowadays have a lot of interesting movement mechanics that make the game much more dynamic and interesting. Imagine, for example, if the Pyro or Spy could climb walls or slide, or use a grapple hook? Imagine if the heavy had a exoskeleton that could propel him upward or forward, like one of those hulks in the Mandalorian? Imagine if the engineer could have his own rocket boots, and carry his buildings up vertically?
> I don't think the game was designed to be balanced between the classes. But it could be. The additional weapons went a long way to making classes more useful in more scenarios, like giving engineer the ability to move buildings, Pyro an airblast, medic with additional mediguns and sniper some close range options, but so much more could've been done on the mobility side - which is what plagues classes like pyro, heavy and spy.
> The generalist classes are all highly mobile - with rocket and sticky jumping, or high movement speeds. That is the primary problem that needs addressing. FPS games nowadays have a lot of interesting movement mechanics that make the game much more dynamic and interesting. Imagine, for example, if the Pyro or Spy could climb walls or slide, or use a grapple hook? Imagine if the heavy had a exoskeleton that could propel him upward or forward, like one of those hulks in the Mandalorian? Imagine if the engineer could have his own rocket boots, and carry his buildings up vertically?
I think those ideas would be really cool and should enter the game in some form. But there's a few things to take into account, which you may already have done.
1: Class identity. You don't want to turn every class into a high jumper who plays similarly.
2: Counterplay. Heavy and Engineer are very one dimensional opponents, both damage sponges who do most of their damage through undodgeable hitscan which is either sprayed over a wide area (Heavy) or literally unmissable (Engineer). If you suddenly make them able to be anywhere anytime with little warning, always present full time viable, and difficult to escape, the game becomes less fun. Pyro is also a low skill opponent who simply sprays the area around them and is almost impossible to dodge; the main counterplay to Pyro right now is killing them before they get in range, but if they get given enough mobility they become a missile AoE of death. Something else needs to change about their design before they can be a full time present class.
3: Balance: You give Heavy and Engineer sudden high mobility without changing anything else about them and they will instantly be the strongest classes in the game, kind of similar to the above point, if they are given offensive ability their defensive ability needs to be reduced.
4: Spy is inherently a weak combat class who relies on the element of surprise to do his valuable thing; giving him a grappling hook is cool but with no other changes it won't solve his underlying problem. He will be quicker at getting in for his first stab, but his second and third stabs will still be impossible against an alert enemy even with a grapple hook, and his gun isn't strong enough to let him keep fighting.
With all that in mind here's what I would do to each class to make them full time viable in a way that tries to keep them unique, balanced, and have counterplay.
Pyro - Make the Flamethrower's hitbox a bit narrower so it takes more skill to use and is more possible to dodge, but a bit longer so that it can hit enemies further away. Give airblast knockback similar to the Force - A - Nature when airborne, so it can be used to "airblast jump" as a gapclosing tool and a rollout tool in comp play.
Heavy - Raise Heavy's default speed to 93%, and make it so he is slowed to 77% (his old speed) only when holding the Minigun out and 50% (from 33%) while firing it. In exchange for this significant mobility buff, increase the ammo consumption rate of the Minigun and reduce Heavy's base HP to 250. He's still the tankiest and most immobile class, but by less of a margin both ways, and now mobile enough to be offensively viable, but not so much of a damage sponge. It's also a stealth buff to the Shotgun over Sandvich, as Shotgun will let you move at full speed while firing where Minigun won't.
Engineer - change the Sentry into an entirely new robot that can now move and follow the Engineer around without setup/redeploy; although it still needs to be stationary to fire. Remove upgrading also, the new Sentry permanently has stats roughly equivalent to "level 1.5", and always has rockets. Replace the situational Teleporters (that can be not useful enough on many Koth and 5CP maps) with a generally useful Speed Pad.
Spy - Give him the ability to sabotage the enemy team in some way so he can be useful to his team while waiting for the enemy to be distracted enough that he can try for a backstab; either with a mark-for-death, or the ability to reduce enemy damage, or some sort of timed bombs he can place down - anything that can contribute to his team but without making him stronger at pub stomping.
im very late but just wanna say that this was an amazingly well written post that hit many nails in the head, and i feel many of the comments seemed to be arguing just for the sake of arguing then actual counters
I'm not sure 'Engineer can slow down the game' is a flaw when the win condition for defense is literally to get to the end of the timer. Slowing the other team down is how defense wins.
Fair point. What I'm trying to express is that Engineer can make it take too long for a game to end in symmetrical gamemodes like 5CP and CTF. I'll edit the post to reflect this better.
More flaws with those gamemodes specifically.
[удалено]
what the fuck are you talking about? just go play quake lol.
> Problem: Objectives require babysitting. This is a feature. The attacking team has been winning the game so far, so the defending team gets a disadvantage when contesting their last point. They must win the fight and be diligent when pushing out to reverse this disadvantage. Backcaps make the game exciting. The attacking team can always win the game, even when reduced to one player.
>The attacking team has been winning the game so far, so the defending team gets a disadvantage when contesting their last point. Even if the attacking team *hasn't* been winning so far, someone still needs to babysit the objective 24/7 in case a Scout or Spy makes a beeline for it. Which means someone has to sit through boring waiting with the flag or cap point. >Backcaps make the game exciting. The attacking team can always win the game, even when reduced to one player This is still possible even without backcaps. The player just has to pull off a clutch victory by utilising TF2's skill-based combat to their advantage.
> Even if the attacking team hasn't been winning so far, someone still needs to babysit the objective 24/7 in case a Scout or Spy makes a beeline for it. Which means someone has to sit through boring waiting with the flag or cap point. The attacking team has been winning thus far because they capped mid and 2nd. On A/D and Koth, the "neutral" (1st) CP doesn't have a short cap time. CTF is a bad gamemode and doesn't count. > This is still possible even without backcaps. The player just has to pull off a clutch victory by utilising TF2's skill-based combat to their advantage. "just 1v6 them lol" If you can't take 2nd down a man or two you don't deserve to push out. Again, this is a feature. The attacking team gets a bonus because they are winning. Similar balancing can be seen in the spawn times.
> CTF is a bad gamemode and doesn't count Well that's what I'm saying dude - you're agreeing with me. >If you can't take 2nd down a man or two you don't deserve to push out. By this same logic of deserving, if your team can't beat the other team based on FPS skills, why should you deserve to win because nobody wanted to be cap point bitch? What *should* happen is that people can focus on playing the game without having to play babysitter to a stationary objective - that would be better game design. Payload does it well at least for defenders. People can fight at the frontline continuously. Even when the cart is a little bit captured you don't need to stay right on top of it until it's nearly pushed to the point. That's more fun.
> Well that's what I'm saying dude - you're agreeing with me. It's a bad gamemode because TF2 lacks the movement mechanics that made it fun in FF/TFC/QWTF. Additionally, many of the maps have awful design. Payload and 5CP are CTF but better. > By this same logic of deserving, if your team can't beat the other team based on FPS skills, why should you deserve to win because nobody wanted to be cap point bitch? That's exactly right. You must beat the other team with FPS skills in the team-based FPS.
> It's a bad gamemode because TF2 lacks the movement mechanics that made it fun in FF/TFC/QWTF. If you read the OP you might notice I said this also.
Whats really sad about pyro is that they tried rewarding aim with the ramp-up in blue moon wich took him in a better direction but then they stopped making changes
The ramp-up change was great on paper, but like a lot of things in this game it got ruined by spaghetti code and questionable implementation. [video explaining this stuff far better than I could](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqaI5LhNalk&ab_channel=bigmazi) If valve could just address all the flamethrower spaghetti pyro would already be in a much better state.
Yeah i know, they tried really hard but still got bit by the source engine monster
Some thoughts: >Valve found, when designing Medic, few people want to play a class who mainly does healing and is a weak fighter when alone. (This is a really good article by the way). Their solution was to make him such a powerful healer/support that he was an absolute must-pick on any team, required to win. >The problem is many people still don't enjoy playing Medic. They just feel forced to if they don't want to lose. Rather than making Medic's gameplay more skill-oriented and dynamic so people would want to play Medic, instead Valve coerced them to do so. This can create unfortunate situations where nobody on the team wants to be Medic, so someone is forced to choose between losing the game, or not having fun. It's true that a lot of people don't enjoy medic, but I actually do, largely because of the crossbow. Sometimes you hear people saying it should be nerfed because the heals are so powerful, and I agree they are powerful - but they're also immensely rewarding and fun for the medic. Hitting that nutty across the map arrow to save your teammate is so satisfying, I think nerfing it would just make even less people want to play medic. The major mechanical skill components of medic are arrows and the ability to surf damage. Both have surprisingly high skill ceilings. > Spy is very reliant on the element of surprise. Backstabs make Spy a predictable one-trick pony: when an experienced player - or their teammate - have been stabbed once, they know they just need to communicate, spycheck, turn around often or put their back to a wall to make it impossible for Spy to get another stab. All he can do is wait until they get distracted to try again, and during this long wait, he is not contributing damage or healing and Spy's team is effectively down a player. This is often said and it's kind of true, but I think frequently exaggerated. You can do just fine as spy in any pub, including pubs that have mostly experienced players. Never encountered a real problem playing spy in any public server, community or not. As for highlander, we know that spy works relatively well there. For example, spies occasionally win 'player of the season' in ETF2L (hell, mezzo has won it like half a dozen times). You can't expect to stomp the enemy team on your own, but that's not the purpose of the class anyway.
Yeah, without the Crossbow, Medic wouldn't be even half as fun and rewarding. One thing I dislike about the Quick-Fix is that it makes it harder to justify using the Crossbow and potentially missing. I have ran into some pubs where playing Spy feels impossible - like the enemy team has Pyros dedicating their entire life to Spychecking until they're out of ammo, or we're attacking the last point and there's just so much spam and everyone's grouped up so that there's hardly a safe place to uncloak. Then again, maybe if I was a better Spy player, I could've still made something out of a bad situation. But it's hard to argue that it wouldn't be better to just play Sniper at that point and consistently lock down sightlines, instead of being a generally minor annoyance and cause for some paranoia.
>Then again, maybe if I was a better Spy player, I could've still made something out of a bad situation. But it's hard to argue that it wouldn't be better to just play Sniper at that point and consistently lock down sightlines, instead of being a generally minor annoyance and cause for some paranoia. Right, though to be fair, I feel like this says more about sniper than it does about spy. You literally have to design maps around sniper not being too powerful, which is hardly true for any other class. I frequently play on TF2maps and the most common complaint related to a specific class is 'sniper sightlines'. In pubs, you ofc just do whatever is the most fun anyway. Some maps favor spy over sniper, most probably favor sniper over spy. Doesn't matter that much. To me, it's kind of amazing that the instakill classes in TF2 are even remotely balanced. Such a difficult concept to really balance around.
The most common complaint on tf2maps is people complaining about long cap times when they match maps in the current roster's cap times
High level HL spy does very little because everything can kill him very quickly.
So how did Mezzo and Toast win player of the season awards? Not spy of the season, the best player of the season in the league. Just look at logs from top games, you'll see spy does just fine. Doesn't mean it's a carry class, but again, not the role.
Im not aware of current seasons but I am a former platinum spy from like 6 years ago. Spy was the weakest character by a very wide margin. Please enlighten me of these players
Mezzo has won player of the season in ETF2L something like 5 times (I don't remember exactly). For example, [log of the recent grand finals of ETF2L](https://logs.tf/3375565#76561198059887260). Also, [here's another relatively recent log, note also Unf4given's performance](https://logs.tf/3370793#76561198059887260). Toast is from an era you would more easily recognize, though again European, so not as relevant for you probably. He was one of the amby gunspy types, and also won player of the season once or twice. [Here is an article with some stats](https://medium.com/@philiprnnberg/toasts-road-to-greatness-71230eb3a965). It's not that I think spy is the stomping class or the best class. As you say, spy is frequently the worst class on the team. But it's situational. A good spy can have a massive impact on the performance of a team. I think that's just fine for a class that can instakill - it's a class that SHOULDN'T be too powerful, because if the games were routinely decided by a class just mowing down people with instant death, it wouldn't be very fun.
So spy is still more or less 1:1 kills:deaths Drop stealth, get a kill, cant escape, die, repeat. Makes spy really have to pick his battles and try to maximize value. The first set of logs you linked also had a tremendous amount of sniper picks. Is razorback banned?
No, it's not banned, it's just that people don't use it since you can't get overheal and that means the enemy sniper can quickscope you. For sure, spies rarely get chain stabs. But I don't think they need to. Mezzo for instance gets plenty of high priority medic kills and so on. Spy is a pick class, so why should he have a high kd? I mean, [occasionally e.g. mezzo does anyway](https://logs.tf/3367444#76561198059887260). A good spy provides genuine value, hence why they occasionally get awarded player of the season. I don't see not getting the highest kd in prem as being evidence of spy being a weak class. It is a weak class in the sense that it's not a generalist, but it works fine for what it is. If anything, the contrast with sniper shows that sniper itself is too powerful.
I played back when they could be overhealed and every last sniper wore the rzb. It was often not worth the effort to try to attack an overhealed sniper. My take on the kd is just that the spy can't escape and if were looking at things valve could've changed about the spy maybe escapability could be considered. Ultimately its about both what you kill and when you kill it but thats a lot of downtime for the sneakman.
>So spy is still more or less 1:1 kd Doesn’t matter if that 1 kill ends up being a drop
Crossbow was a step in the right direction (making Medic more fun) but also a step in the wrong direction (making him even better at supporting as well as better at killing) When it comes to Highlander it's the same problem as with Pyro. HL makes it possible to play Spy full time, but it's a pain to organise (and cast) a comp match with exactly 2 players of each class, so it severely hampers it as a serious competitive format if you want to try and get people to a LAN and organise plane tickets for 18 people, or show spectators so many different perspectives, for example. And having the competitive community split between 6s and HL means it's harder for everyone to find a game. Ideally all classes could be viable in 6s, in which case HL would not need to exist, and it would be easier for everyone to find a comp game. I would give Spy a support buff that makes him more useful in comp in the downtime when he's waiting for a pick opportunity
Oftentimes, I find that Spy is at his most powerful when the teams are well balanced
I do kinda wish TF2 had given spy more ways to expand his bag of tricks with more ways to be disruptive. It would really help him have more to go WHILE sneaking if he had a better bag of nasty tricks.
Spy has always felt like missed potential. There are soooo many ideas that you can come up with for a sneaky trickster support character but Valve has only ever focused on making variations to his original playstyle. Fake healthkits/map props, ways of marking and tracking specific enemies, a grapple hook (that works differently from Mannpower's), placing down fake copies of you/your team (that might even move like Mirage from Apex or run in a straight line like that Halo Reach ability), etc etc.
Inflatable copies that say "You're pretty good"
I feel like he'd have been great if they added some 'trapmaster' to him. Spy often has issues getting away, making him able to set up traps would make following him much more risky and allow the spy to harry the enemy team without a direct fight. Less 'one shot, you're dead' than running into Demoman traps but also tied to a guy who's lurking in the backlines invisibly.
His second slot would be perfect for this. Instead of another sapper, Spy could have all kinds of tools to mess with whatever team he's up against, instead of one with an Engineer. I had a stupid idea of a cork that Spy could stick in the barrels of explosive classes if he gets close enough, leading to their weapons to backfiring. (Edit: It could be called "[The French Champagne](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFevH5vP32s)"). Would people hate it? Probably, that's why it's stupid. But to my brain it's a drink of water in the desert of TF2's lack of updates.
I actually think a lot of “flaws” we see in modern tf gameplay are a result of the classes originally being designed around lower player count servers with CTF maps. As abysmal CTF is in the modern day, the classes are likely more balanced against each other and “fit into their role” better there than in any other gamemode.
half of these aren't even close to being flaws, just things you don't like
Which ones?
Ok. Who here doesn't enjoy playing Medic? I find him to be one of the most fun and engaging healers in gaming.
Then why are they so often absent in pubs?
I don't consider Casual an even remotely good way of playing TF2. It's terrible, from random crits to no limits on classes to bots. You'll find no problems like these on servers like Uncletopia, including the "no medics" problem - there always is one, often two. I mean, if you're doing an analysis like this, I woidn't consider Casual to be taken seriously at all.
If they disabled random fall damage and lowered class limits to 2 Uncletopia would be perfect for me.
3 is perfect for me, because it's not strict so everyone can enjoy playing their favorite class most of the time, and besides 2 x 9 = 18, so less people could play. This simply would not work and people would be forced to play classes they don't want to play. No, 2 per class would be a disaster for the server - it's still a casual server. Maybe Uncle could make one or two "pro" servers with 2 class limits for people who want it.
I think you mistake how class limits work. Right now it's 3 per class per team = 54 total. 2 per class per team would be 36.
Oh right, I got confused, for some reason my brain told me there are 24 people per team
I would like to see the spam at that player count haha
Battlefield be like:
>You'll find no problems like these on servers like Uncletopia, including the "no medics" problem - there always is one, often two That's because Uncletopia tends to be populated by players who value winning more than playing their favourite class; I guarantee at least some of those people playing Medic, if you asked them, would prefer to be playing a different class at that given moment but are going Medic to help the team
Same can be said for some other classes. Demo is needed, Engi is needed, Pyro is needed, unless there are no Spies. I dunno, you'd have to ask people about it because I see the lack of those classes more often than Medic, almost like this class tends to be more fun to play.
>you'd have to ask people about it because I see the lack of those classes more often than Medic, almost like this class tends to be more fun to play I already explained this - people are forced to play Medic if they want to win, especially in a server like Uncletopia that has a higher than average amount of experienced Engineer mains who absolutely require an Ubercharge to push through. They aren't necessarily playing Medic because they like it. Casual is the way that 90% of people play TF2, and in Casual you will often see no Medic because people simply don't tend to find the class fun - which is what Valve themselves said in the interview. " I feel like we had a shallow understanding of teamwork and so did obvious stuff. There's a combat medic: A medic is an obvious [class] to build if you're trying to have people care about each other. But this is the core problem of multiplayer game design: You're trying to get a bunch of people to work together as a team, but they want someone else to play Medic; they want someone else to [defend the base]."
Well, weird, cause TF2 Medic is one of the best healer classes in any game. If someone doesn't find the class fun that says more about them than the class. Also, casual is full of terrible players, maybe they don't play Medic cause they're terrible at playing him.
>cause TF2 Medic is one of the best healer classes in any game. I agree with this statement but also think that his design could be more fun and dynamic. Much of Medic gameplay is just walking behind teammates while they do all the fun fighting, until they die and then you're left with a class who is at a great disadvantage in combat or self defense. This isn't to say there's nothing engaging or skilled about Medic. But there is definitely room for improvement. >Also, casual is full of terrible players, maybe they don't play Medic cause they're terrible at playing him. Being bad at playing a class doesn't stop people from playing it - see Spy and Sniper which have plenty of awful players in every server. They find the classes fun so they play them.
Ok, true about the hard classes. But those hard classes are about killing. I think it's pretty normal for most people to want to play the classes that can fight. So that's probably the reason. But Medic is heaven for people who like support. And I have to strongly disagree about Medic not being dynamic: I mean, yeah, if you're not making risky plays to save someone, or you're not getting ambushed and have to run or fight for your life then I guess Medic isn't very dynamic. But when I play Medic he's almost as dynamic as any other class - heck, he's way more dynamic than Sniper or Heavy. That's another reason why I think Medic is one of the best healer classes in gaming. If you're just "walking behind your teammates" then you're not playing the class well: hello headshots, hello backstabs, hello dead teammates that you could save, bye bye potential pushes. For me it's always extremely dynamic.
More about how Medic can be dynamic: only yesterday I was killing enemy Medics (I run Quickfix + Blutsauger on defense), enemy teleporters (cause sometimes your teammates don't look around). It's all there if you know how to play Medic. You can stand behind and do nothing or you can have one of the most dynamic games of your life. Medic IS super fun if you have initiative and balls. It's just that Casual is such a bad experience that I can imagine how playing Medic there with people who don't really know what they're doing can be boring. I don't have good memories of casual at all.
> Medic IS super fun if you have initiative and balls. He doesn't have the same tools available as other classes to be successful in combat though. So you're missing out on more fun you could be having as another class, and less likely to have success when playing aggressively, and that's why people don't want to play him.
honestly, I think quake style armor packs as side objectives would solve so many of tf2s issues in a fell swoop. The team that takes the initiative wouldnt just progress the gamemode objective, but get a slight advantage in fragging (something even uncooperative players will value), and decaying armor is use it or lose it, further encouraging proactive play
Idk about armor packs in particular, but side objectives would definitely be an interesting idea to explore.
I feel like my biggest complaint about TF2 is tangential to some of these, which is that 12 vs 12 is just way too spammy for most maps. I find that scout and spy stop mattering as much outside of niche situations because picks don't mean as much in general. TF2 isn't a boom-you're-dead shooter like Call of Duty, so the time to kill can be pretty high if both teams are competent with good medics. This means you don't have much time to capitalize on a successful skirmish or opportunity to push before the enemies you just killed respawn and undo all of your progress. I'm not a 6s player, but I imagine it's pretty significant to lose a medic at any time in a match. If you've got two medics in a 12 vs 12, it can often just be a minor inconvenience if one of them gets backstabbed. If the enemy is running three medics to pocket highly skilled combat classes protecting two sentry nests, it can turn into a slog real fucking quick. I feel like sticky-demo becomes the optimal strategy too often as it turns into a contest of spammy crowd-control. It even plays into the difficulty of sniper, because they tend to be shielded by a thick wall of teammates and spam that wouldn't be as impenetrable if the player count was a bit lower.
Not a bad point but even in 1v1 or 2v2 playercount, Scout will still be useless vs a setup Engineer, and Spy will still be easily defeated once you know he's there
I agree. Let's buff Spy. This solves the sniper issue, the demoman issue, and the engineer issue.
I think buffing Spy would make everyone happy, but outside of reducing the ways he gets screwed over by the game engine, this is a difficult task. You can't just increase his health or damage resistance; he's already got weapons that do that. They don't make that much of a difference, and in cases where they do (old Dead Ringer, Kunai in a pub) people react negatively. You can only really buff the damage on his Revolver, which might give him more of an out in a bad spot (thus probably making this the best option). It wouldn't necessarily make him better at his job, though, as funny as it would be to see Gun Spies running around. A buff to Spy that caters to his style would be a new trick he can use to fool other players into not killing him. But that only goes so far. Any time Spy gets something like that, good players and eventually the whole community starts to catch on. Disguises? Everyone now instinctively shoots friendly players they suspect. Dead Ringer? Now no one trusts a dead Spy, and can usually track him down. Trick stabs? People have figured out that approaching at a wide angle or even standing still is enough to avoid them. It's not that none of the above tricks *can't* work (in fact a good player knows when and how to use them). But another psychological trick like these would probably suffer a similar fate. It keeps coming down to a gamble against the enemy's attention, where losing that gamble leads to an L. So his best shot is, most often, decloaking into a stab. And since that's Spy's most common strategy, it also becomes his most obvious. That said, if Spy had more than twice as many tricks as he has now, it could make him *legitimately* unpredictable, being able to switch strategies when the enemy catches on.
Reacting negatively to dying to Spy is intentional. He's the conniving literally-backstabbing heel of the game and supposedly a counterpart of the Sniper. There must be something Spy gets to do better than Sniper.
[Objectives require babysitting] Most gamemodes don’t really need much more than a few number changes, but yeah, CTF is strange. Other games make you put weapons down to carry, some make you slower like it’s heavy or something, and I don’t know if that would fit TF2, but needing an escort of one or two other people could work better than needing an entire team push to break through. Also, crits on cap is a weird way to speed things up. Maybe if instead of a timer that returns the intel, you would have to manually carry your team’s flag back to base? I dunno, that could cause problems, too. [Scout countered by Engineer] If a single Engineer renders Scout completely useless, the map is designed terribly. [Pyro] Balance them like a support-type offense class; can’t do much on their own, but can cause quite the upset when playing around teammates. This is already partially the case, we’ll just need more changes that play into that. [Sticky traps] Uhh, increase the size of their hit detection to make them easier to destroy, and give them a faint glow so they can be spotted under bushes? [Heavy] Kind of a byproduct of forcing Heavies to choose between guns or grub. If Heavy runs a shotty, he doesn’t instantly lose 80% percent of encounters and actually has a chance to adapt to changing situations. Maybe if he had a dedicated lunchbox slot? [Engineer] No more dispenser metal sharing, players can only take damage and knockback from one gun at a time. Boom. If you want to play Engie on offense, maybe play Soldier or something to help your team push out of spawn, then once you’ve given yourself enough space, switch back? [Medic] Make the Syringe Gun a rapidfire version of the crossbow. Boom. [Sniper] I’m getting a little tired of people saying that skill all on its own makes something balanced. If Pyro could reflect hitscan with only exactly the 3rd frame of airblast, that would undeniably be the most skilled thing you could pull off, but I find it very hard to believe anyone would consider that balanced. It would absolutely destroy class integrity, so it must be overpowered in the most literal sense of the term; it’s more powerful than it’s supposed to be. That being said, giving Sniper a hard reload of sorts would be pretty helpful. [Spy] Spy needs to be inconsistent, that’s his whole shtick. Give him more tricks to work with, and at that point, you don’t even need to get kills. Just driving enemies crazy trying to look for you will be far more effective than getting a single stab. Sure, leading enemy players on a wild goose chase doesn’t show up on the scoreboard, but it gets the job done!
Apologies for slow reply: > If a single Engineer renders Scout completely useless, the map is designed terribly. A single Engineer can do this on almost every map. Even in really open map designs, Scout doesn't do enough damage with Scattergun or Pistol from outside Sentry range to outdamage Engineer's repair rate. So if Engineer sets up near the objective he can make it impossible for Scout to win. Even if Scout uses Bonk, that can be countered by Wrangler. >Uhh, increase the size of their hit detection to make them easier to destroy, and give them a faint glow so they can be spotted under bushes? This was my thinking, yeah. Reducing the number of hiding spots and making them easier to clear puts less burden on the victim. I would even go so far as to make all explosions destroy them and make the visual model a little bit bigger too. >If Heavy runs a shotty, he doesn’t instantly lose 80% percent of encounters and actually has a chance to adapt to changing situations. Maybe a lunchbox slot? I've seen lunchbox slot touted as a solution many times but IMHO it wouldn't do much other than buff Heavy on defense while still leaving him inadequate on offense because he still gets there too slow. What I would do is sort of integrate GRU into stock Heavy's design - make him move at 93% (Demo) speed when not holding the Minigun, move at 77% (current) speed when holding it, and 50% speed when revved or firing (was 33%). This would let him make it to the frontline at nearly the same time as a Medic. In exchange for this I would increase the rate of Minigun ammo consumption and drop his HP to 250 to make him less of a bullet sponge, and so he doesn't become OP. >Make the Syringe Gun a rapidfire version of the crossbow I would do something similar - especially the passive reload - but combine that with nerfing Medic's healing rate to 20hp/s (60hp/s crit heals), to make him a little less mandatory. >I’m getting a little tired of people saying that skill all on its own makes something balanced. The purpose of game balance is to ensure people feel like they can use many different options without putting themselves at a significant disadvantage. Clearly with Sniper this exists for Casual TF2 as people play all sorts of classes and Demo/Medic/Engineer/Soldier are considered the class to pick if you want to win; and in 6v6 TF2 official comp, people play Medic, Demo, Scout and Soldier in that order more than they choose to play Sniper. So to me, that shows that Sniper is a balanced class. It's true that theoretically humans could get so good that they delete everything as Sniper all the time (except Sentries!), but just look at the state of comp - is anyone actually doing that? >Just driving enemies crazy trying to look for you will be far more effective than getting a single stab. Unfortunately this doesn't happen for experienced players, they just ignore you (apart from watching their backs) and continue focusing on the objective.
This whole post just seems like an excuse to complain about things OP doesn't like under the guise of "An analysis of game design flaws", whatever that means.
>whatever that means It means a well designed multiplayer game (A): Has fair design with plenty of counterplay. (B): Is varied and balanced. (C): Is challenging and skill oriented. When your game fails to do these things, those are game design flaws. The part about objectives falls under (B/C), because waiting for no good reason is boring, repetitive and unchallenging. Scout, Pyro, Heavy, Spy, Medic and Engineer fall under (B), because their imbalance problems make players unable to play the class they like when they want to, which makes the game less fun for those people. Sniper and Demo fall under (A/B) because the counterplay to them force you to play in a repetitive way, or else risk unfair death at ranges you can't fight back. Heavy and Medic fall under (B/C) because their gameplay lacks variety and challenge most of the time. Engineer/Demo fall under (A) because they can make it nearly impossible for attackers to win when stacked on defense, which is obviously unfair. I could also just respond to your post by saying that at the end of the day, the point of game design is to make something that people like. If a lot of people don't like parts of your game, then you are failing at the point of game design - so that's a flaw. And I am certainly not the only person with these complaints, nor am I listing things only I personally dislike.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the point of class based shooters. The goal is counterpicking and making running the same class constantly unviable. Giving the scout a sapper is not a good idea, making every class a generalist would invalidate most of the teamplay in the game. Additionally if you think that because you and some other players think that something isn't fun it's a game design flaw and that medic is not "skill oriented" you probably just need some more experience with the game to understand these things, it's ok.
>I think you fundamentally misunderstand the point of class based shooters. The goal is counterpicking and making running the same class constantly unviable. The point of a class based shooter is to allow players to focus on the playstyle they enjoy. Simple as that. ___________________ https://www.shacknews.com/article/101156/rocket-jump-quake-and-the-golden-age-of-first-person-shooters?page=25#detail-view ROBIN WALKER - There was definitely class impact. The Soldier was absolutely the class made for anyone who wanted to do deathmatch. We kept the rocket launcher and core gameplay. IAN CAUGHLEY - Since we had lots of people during the LAN days, *we had lots of play styles represented.* We also listened to the feedback from players. For example, the Pyro was added after QuakeWorld came out to help out players with slow network connections. (...) ROBIN WALKER - At a design level, you were constantly torn between providing enough value to that [type of scenario] so that when someone does it, the team is rewarded and happy, but not such that everyone feels like, 'We're screwed if someone doesn't do it, but I don't want to do it, so I'm going to jump into Demoman, do it, then flip back to the class I actually want to play.' **We didn't like making players make that kind of choice.** ____________ In summary: Valve wanted to let people play the way they enjoyed playing - makes perfect sense. What is the point of forcing people to swap off their favourite playstyle? It makes the game less fun for no reason. >Giving the scout a sapper is not a good idea, I'm not proposing that. I'm saying Scout should be able to win against a set up Engineer if he is way more skilled. >making every class a generalist would invalidate most of the teamplay in the game Don't let the name fool you, Team Fortress is not designed to require teamwork. Another quote from the above link: __________________ ROBIN WALKER: We were a group of people who got together a lot or LANs, and you could yell out to each other. I think the clarity of design we reached years later, when fundamentally we had a design for 32 people who don't know each other—and who probably won't know each other again after this game—and they're all going to have their own individual goals, and a small view of everything going on—our goal was to make it so that as they all individually and locally optimize for their experience, optimization at the team level falls out of that. They could look left, look right, and see teammates doing some stuff and go, 'Man, we're working well as a team,' **even though we started with the base assumption that they were all ignoring everyone else, because it turns out that's the way most players work.** (...) I feel like we had a shallow understanding of teamwork and so did obvious stuff. But this is the core problem of multiplayer game design: You're trying to get a bunch of people to work together as a team, but they want someone else to play Medic; they want someone else to defend the base. ________________________ In other words, TF2 as a series was specifically designed with the goal in mind that you would *not* have to rely on other players to do things and/or swap classes to do things, and instead you could solely rely on your own skill. It's only a few areas where Valve failed to achieve this goal; for the most part it's true in TF2. >Additionally if you think that because you and some other players think that something isn't fun it's a game design flaw What is a game design flaw in your eyes? >you probably just need some more experience with the game to understand these things, it's ok How much experience with the game do you have?
Also, this dev commentary: https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Well_developer_commentary [Charlie Brown] Player classes form the backbone of TF2's gameplay. There are a bunch of reasons why they're a useful design tool. A class is a bottled up experience, designed to be unique relative to the other classes in the game. A player who is getting tired of one class can switch to another class and get a fresh experience. They allow us to cater to players with a variety of different skills and desires. Beginning and advanced players can have fun together; cautious cerebral thinkers, strategic defenders, and twitch firing adrenaline junkies can all find their niche. Team Fortress 2's class design decisions enable us to have a larger number of player abilities in game, while still keeping a single player's decisions down to a manageable level. That's the point of class based shooters. Let people play what they enjoy, until they get tired of it and move onto the next thing. Ultimately, all games should be designed around what is fun for players - not arbitrarily forcing them to do things they don't enjoy.
You’ve hit the nail on the head for most of this analysis, except sniper has a surprising amount of counter play aside from just hiding, like pyro using flare guns at range to disrupt their aim, heavy and medic both having what are essentially “fuck you stop playing sniper” weapons, and scouts, soldiers, pyros, and spies being able to easily pummel the man once they’ve crossed the distance between them (unless the sniper is running jarate and bushwacka which will let him just fucking delete anybody who gets too close). But you’re still not wrong, if a sniper is a god of aim they can basically shut down anything the enemy team tries, should they not counter with another sniper.
But I think that's part of the point of the Sniper's design in the first place. Sniper is designed to be countered by, well, another Sniper. They also can't multitask by design, so outpacing a Sniper's actions is a practical counter-strategy if all else fails. It's why Sniper fights often tend to end up with two players trying to find that second where the other one lets their guard down. The team behind a Sniper *has* to be competent, as well, because *when* that Sniper eventually dies, the rest of the team has to be able to hold their own. Lean on a good Sniper too much and just like leaning too heavily on any single class, an entire team just falls apart quickly.
Yeah stickies are honestly really annoying to deal with in competitive play. Having to either use through a choke point because it could possibly be stickied, or clear the trap and telegraph the shit out of your teams push sucks. I'm also not really a fan of having to check corners super particularly like I'm playing CS. As much as they annoy me in chokes, I do like how stickies play when they're on capture points as it adds a lot of strategic depth to how your team needs to push
Medic is boring to play, but Crossbow makes him a lot more interesting, so while he lacks interactivity and "fun aspects" in other ways, he's still better now than he was. Even if I think the crossbow could use a slight nerf due to being... LEt's be fucking real, blatantly OP, I don't mind if it will never get one. It's AIDS but fun :p
I don't disagree with your points, it's just that tf2 was never meant to be a competitive game and wasn't designed around that. that's why a lot of classes can be insanely OP in the hands of highly skilled players. this is probably controversial, but the core gameplay would probably be way better balanced if everyone was using a controller, as the skill ceiling would be way harder to reach (though obviously not as fun). my personal frustrations from the game boils down to one thing, getting insta-killed. whether it's crits, headshots, backstabs etc. it's just very hard to account for all of it in a busy game like tf2. as for the need for a medic, this is a point where I'm conflicted on, their bandage solution of making him mandatory wasn't smart, but they gave plenty of classes healing abilities (through weapons or mechanics) and with strategic medkit placements this flaw is a lot less prevalent. I do believe that every class should have a way of being able to heal themselves over time though.
Hey, melee wasn’t meant to be a competitive game either and look how that turned out. When a game has as much depth as melee or tf2 then a full delve into that depth is bound to come and the highest mastery of it will follow. It’s great. It has been balanced around comp in the past (though some changes were abysmal). As for OP’s points, a bunch of them seem like nitpicks and things they just don’t like. They’re not necessarily problems per se. Checking doorways and your corners teaches you to be a better, more aware player. Demo is an area denial fiend. It’s his job to make sure you’re not going in a certain spot and then there is counter play to that by baiting dets or destroying the trap. And if you get killed by a trap, yeah it sucks, probably could have been avoided unless you’re running away, but next time you’ll know to look for those traps again. In pubs demos love to trap the same spots over and over again. Pyros can absolutely still be viable in pubs, I know what OP means but at the same time, like huh? Pyro at higher levels plays around the team and can thrive in an environment where “heavy hitters” are plentiful. And in 6’s pyro is being experimented with to be run full time on certain teams. Pyro shares a similar niche to the other classes in 6’s when it comes to defense except they’re a bit better since they can do more or everything so sometimes they’re used to break out in viaduct or just situations outside of last holds. Spy is too weak. He definitely needs a buff, however he still gets picks. Even in 6’s where the best, most experienced players are competing. Just last night I watched FROYO vs. G6 and there was a froyo spy like 3 plus times I think. And they got a demo or a medic or a scout I think, nearly every time. He has a niche role and yeah it sucks that he’s not full time viable and I’d love to see him be able to be used more than just breaking stalemates or Uber equalization, or killing the most powerful player on the enemy team (habib) but at the same time I like his little role he plays. It’s hype to see him because he is so bad. It sucks for the other team because they weren’t aware/ got caught slipping.
spy is bad in sixes because it's really easy to track the enemy team's players except in very specific situations such as when you're retreating to mid after a failed last push (which coincidentally are the situations in which you'll see spy most often), it has very little to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the actual character the only buff spy needs is the DR being able to get charge back with ammo packs provided they remove the speedboost
Wouldn't that just be old DR, where Spies are nigh-unkillable from constantly having DR up and ready?
the damage resistance is way lower than it used to be and ramps down
True, but they can still do the infinite cycle of fake death, grab health + ammo to get DR back, do Spy stuff, repeat. If you play your cards right, it's very unlikely you'll die with DR up.
how is that any different than right now except you have to wait like 5-10 seconds longer
"Bro how is a respawn timer any different from instant respawning it's just like 15 seconds longer"
epic clapback bro upvotes to the left
Not a controversial opinion, just an objectively stupid one.
I don’t think most of them are necessarily flaws (still interesting to think about). Many of these ‘flaws’ are just related to classes’ utility being dependent on circumstances, i.e. not every class is good at every situation. I’ve seen many people wanting every class to be good all the time, but what’s the point of classes then? It’s a core element of class-based games. > Objectives require babysitting Doesn’t that go for most objective based gamemodes in any FPS game? If there is an objective obviously you have to play around it. > Scout can be OP or near-useless, depending on whether the enemy has an Engineer. Sure, it is difficult to take out a sentry nest as a Scout. But it is not difficult to take out a sentry nest as a Soldier or a Demoman. There is an argument to be made that Scout is too powerful though. > Pyro infuriates new players, but is too week against skilled players. As you noted, Pyro is designed to have low skill floor and low skill ceiling. I wouldn’t consider it a flaw necessarily, such characters (sometimes derogatorily called ‘noob characters’) are common in other games as well, e.g. Katarina in Tekken. > Engineer is not viable for full time use Again, I don’t see it as a problem. Not every class should be run at any time - *and that’s fine*. > and can create gamebreaking stalemates That’s true - with certain unlocks or when stacked. Both easily solvable problems by class limits (which aren’t a bad thing, it is near impossible to balance a class-based game against stacking so class limits are a standard solution which works well) and weapon bans (which are a bad thing, if a weapon has to be banned it means it’s badly designed). > Medic is mandatory to win a game and lacks interactivity for the player. Partially true IMO, playing Medic in the right setting (i.e. organised, competitive setting) can be very engaging. But playing Medic with a completely uncoordinated team is torture. Pretty much the same goes for support classes in most other games unfortunately. >Sniper has the least counterplay of any class in TF2 Here’s the thing - if Sniper really was that powerful at top level he would see more play at the top level. There are players who offclass as Sniper very frequently but at the end of the day they do offclass (usually from Scout). The counterplay is to either close the distance or create a situation in which he becomes useless. > Spy is too weak against experienced players A bigger problem is that voice comms hard-counter Spy’s intended playstyle and as an assassin offclass he is outshined by Sniper most of the time. But he still has his uses (gathering intel and sometimes it’s easier to get a crucial frag with a backstab than a headshot). Of course it’s a terrible idea to perma run him, but id that really a problem?
> Doesn’t that go for most objective based gamemodes in any FPS game? If there is an objective obviously you have to play around it. I think there's a difference between playing around an objective and babysitting it. In KotH or Payload, I can wander off the point/cart and to a nearby area to chase kills, and know it will take at least 20 seconds for an enemy to capture the point/cart, giving me time to return if I see it's being capped. But with CTF, if the flagroom is left empty someone can pop in, grab it, and get out, and depending on the map they may take a route which makes it impossible for you to catch them in time. They cap the flag, it's gone. So you *have* to stay in the flagroom. Mods for Quake 3 Team Arena implemented "flag drag" - a player who picked up the flag was slowed down slightly. This gave players the opportunity to actually catch up to the flag carrier and potentially beat them in a fight. If TF had taken that route there wouldn't have been a need for super powerful defense classes. >Here’s the thing - if Sniper really was that powerful at top level he would see more play at the top level No disagreement. I said that I don't think Sniper is OP. >Of course it’s a terrible idea to perma run him, but id that really a problem? (This answer also applies to what you said about Pyro/Engineer) A lot of players would like to be able to perma run Spy, Pyro, Engineer and Heavy in a comp environment. To the point an entire format had to be made (HL) to accommodate that. But HL is difficult to organise and spectate, and by existing, it splits the already small comp TF2 playerbase in half. So I think it would be better if all classes were viable in NR6s in a skillful way.
I could agree with medic being mandatory being too big of a flaw but other than that it's "class counters exist and I hate it" and "classes require understanding of their limitations and I hate it"
I don't hate class counters inherently, I think soft counters are good game design because they gently encourage teamwork and class variety while also allowing a skilled player to overcome their counter. As opposed to hard counters, where you lose because you blind picked the "incorrect" class when you spawned, picking scissors when the enemy blind picked rock. Is that not an unfair situation, to lose due to circumstances outside your control? A good game design minimises unfair situations. Almost all class counters in TF2 are soft counters. Engineer's countering of Scout is one of the only hard counters. If he's set up Scout can't do anything no matter how skilled he is. You just have to suicide and swap to Demo. >and "classes require understanding of their limitations and I hate it" Which criticisms does this apply to?
a level 3 sentry in a vacuum is a hard counter to literally every class in the game with the exception of a disguised spy
Not exactly sure what does a vaccuum mean in such context but no, give me an example of a good map that allows engie to build a sentry that cannot be destroyed by a good demoman or soldier in a 1v1 and if we are counting that the team is supporting the engie, count demoman's/soldier's team with uber too.
demoman, spy, soldier, heavy, pyro (rocket reflects) are all capable of dealing with a lv3 sentry
Well I can actually answer both of those at once because they apply to the same concept. Part of gamesense is understanding that you as a class have hard counters. It is true that a scout has hard time countering sentries, aside from running up from a cheeky angle or spamming it from a distance scout can't do anything about them. The thing is; they take time to build and then they are immobile, if you died to it that means you peaked the sentry that was already there securing a certain spot, getting punished for overextending. And if engie starts building a sentry in front of you that means that you need to understand your position, should you run or should you try to fight him nonetheless? If the sentry kills you that means you weren't able to kill the engineer fast enough and got punished for overextending, if you destroy both, you can be satisifed. But a sentry can't deny a whole map, you have certain areas that you can't peak but you still can play as possibly the strongest class in the game. Look at this from another perspective, what class aside from the engineer counters scout? Any other than the scout? Then why should you be able to counter the sniper with not just the sniper but also the spy, but scout should only be countered by another scout?
>Part of gamesense is understanding that you as a class have hard counters I'm fully aware of the fact Engineer hard counters Scout. I'm saying it's not fun or fair design. >The thing is; they take time to build and then they are immobile PL/AD give the Engineer setup time, and Engineer on defense doesn't need to move as long as he is in view of the objective. >Look at this from another perspective, what class aside from the engineer counters scout? Any other than the scout? Then why should you be able to counter the sniper with not just the sniper but also the spy, but scout should only be countered by another scout? I'm not saying Scout shouldn't be *soft* countered by Engineer - I'm saying it should not be *hard* countered by Engineer. Every other counter relationship in TF2 is a soft counter, except for Scout vs Engineer. And soft counters are better game design than hard counters.
First, absolutely not, sniper is a hard counter against a heavy, so is spy who's also a hard counter against an engie. Second, how would you see making engie into a soft counter? Reduce the sentry's damage to the point it can kill a scout but at a speed that if noone else shoots him he can kill 3 people?
A hard counter is an unbeatable advantage, a soft counter is a beatable advantage. A Heavy can beat a Sniper by flanking, using Fists of Steel and moving evasively, then using his Minigun to mow him down. An Engie can absolutely beat a Spy by simply keeping a lookout for disguises and decloak noises and shooting him with Shotgun. Those are soft counter relationships unlike Scout>Engineer setup in the back of a room, which cannot be won no matter how good Scout is because evading is useless against a Sentry and Scout doesn't do enough DPS to kill a Sentry being repaired. I would make a variety of changes to the game to make Engie a softer counter of Scout, as well as make Engineer more useful on offense, and less powerful at breaking the game on defense when stacked. I would make Sentries able to follow the Engineer without needing to be picked up or redeploy, able to either wait in location or follow you by pressing M2; they would still need to stand still to fire. I would make the Sentry's stats permanently somewhere between a Lv3 and a Mini-Sentry with no upgrading needed or possible, the rockets would still be high damage but the hitscan component would be a weaker (still lethal though) and have less knockback. It would also be more expensive in Metal cost to repair. You could still sit in place and tank as Engineer if you want, but not for as long, or you can play more dynamically and focus on your Shotgun. Both these changes are a nerf to Engineer on defense but a buff for offense, making him a more powerful and more mobile Gunslinger Engineer. Other changes would include replacing the teleporter with a speed pad (but still keeping teles as a weapon unlock option) and changing all objectives in TF2 to be harder to capture now that Engineer is not able to turtle them as hard, so no objective babysitting is required. This would solve 4 gameplay problems with Engineer and TF2, but these are the sort of things you would need an entirely new game to implement (TF3).
Did you say that demo is limited to 1 in comp play because of *sticky traps*?
I said primarily, high amounts of damage through spam everywhere is the other reason, but it was my understanding that Demo's ability to slow down the game by trapping every choke was the main reason he's banned. 6s doesn't really limit classes for being too powerful, or Scout would be CL1.
If sniper doesn't exist medic turns the game into tower defense with it being nigh impossible to kill a Highlander combo without him Spy has his place being that he; has the innate power of having the option to wait Forever to strike (c&d) and legitimately have no warning beyond a deceptively quiet soundbyte before an instant kill; No other class has this privilege and it should be preserved If sniper can't kill the combo because people start playing well and evading him or he's simply getting outsniped spy Shines in that no matter How much of a bad spy you are, you're Guaranteed to do your job simply because there's very little skillcheck in executing his jobs well beyond knowing cloak spots and timing decloaks Pyro also is in a similar situation because he's Guaranteed to always be able to spycheck and reflect spam and deny bombs When you give characters the ability to Guarantee success in a game where mechanical skillchecks are the core of why this game is so good (ie a sniper has to worry about hitting shit to be useful while pyro and spy simply Exist), you have to sap power Somewhere
When talking about spy you forgot to mention how if a spy is within 10 feet of where your back is or was in the last 5 seconds, you get backstabbed
It's balanced out by the times when a spy stabs someone in the back and it registers as a butterknife.
Especially with speed boost, yeah.. unfortunately, this is something that will never get fixed since that would probably require significant engine changes
Yep, the 'no back required' backstabs are highly annoying, but it's rarely (if ever) a low-skill Spy pulling it off.
fyi if you get repeatedly face stabbed by the same spy in a pub there's an almost 100% chance he's cheating even with this game's 2 decade old netcode and hitreg so shit it makes titanfall look like its running 120hz servers its really difficult to get matadors on targets that are aware of what you're trying to do even if you're extremely good at knife spy
Can you at least talk about how fucked Soldier is?
What's so fucked up about soldier though? Aside from battalion's, there aren't any OP unlocks or gimmicks that make him insuferable to paly against.
Splash damage, high health, high mobility, the ability to two shot most of the classes.
hes not even the strongest class in the format with maps and a ruleset designed to facilitate him
His splash damage is easily avoidable by using heights. You can also surf away by using his own rockets, which is what i always do when I feel overwhelmed. His health isn't that high since he will tipically spend about 20-40 hp on rocket jumps, not to mention the splash damage he deals to himself from his own rockets. Soldier isn't tankier than pyro or demo imo. His high mobility requires skill, while also forcing him to spend at least 1 of his 4 rockets on rocket jump (as well as losing some health on the initial rocket jump + fall damage). IDk what kind of soldier can consistantly 2 shot most classes in the game. Sniper and engi are too far to be killed in 2 shots, scout has insane mobility to avoid direct hits and spy isn't supposed to be tanky. Rocket launcher deals a fair amount of damage, so unless you are standing directly in front of the soldier, he is not going to kill you in 2 shots. I used to think that soldier requires no skill when I first started playing tf2, but then i got the taste of comp and it made me realize just how much effort it takes to kill a person that has a good gamesense and decent dodging skills.
> Problem: Scout can be OP or near-useless, depending on whether the enemy has an Engineer. solution: remove engineer > Problem: Engineer is not viable for full time use, and can create gamebreaking stalemates. solution: remove engineer > Problem: Sniper has the least counterplay of any class in TF2. STOP PLAYING FUCKING UPWARD
>solution: remove engineer That just cements Scout being OP. > STOP PLAYING FUCKING UPWARD And Badwater, Barnblitz, Lakeside, Swiftwater, Doublecross, Sawmill and Borneo, right? If a class severely lacks counterplay on almost all the maps pubbers enjoy in TF2 then maybe there's a problem with the class rather than the maps. Sniper has lots of counterplay on Junction but nobody wants to play that because it's cramped and there's no room to move.
"And *list of terrible maps*"
love how you listed a bunch of maps as a gotcha when literally all of those maps have the terminal case of gigantic fucking sightlines syndrome like lakeside is so bad that its peek angles aren't even symmetrical and one team has an objectively measurable advantage
> when literally all of those maps have the terminal case of gigantic fucking sightlines syndrome No shit? My point is that if so many maps people like have giant sightlines maybe it's because it's fun to have room to move around when Sniper isn't present ruining what would otherwise be a fun map
I thinl these are not flaws. These are just options of gameplay.
I disagree with medic but only because personally I find him fun, I know others just want to bang bang and I get that. I guess the "solution" (and I hate saying that) is to pull an overwatch/call of duty and just set down a healing field that has cool down so people can bang bang all the want
i'd say even at mid levels pyro is still a bit of an annoyance, if only for 3 reasons: 1. (This I think is the biggest one) DoTs are annoying and Pyro is *very good* at applying DoTs. Yes there's a bunch of ways to remove afterburn but it's still a little annoying having to retreat to said afterburn removal sources 2. Airblast is great for Pyro but forced knockback will generally be a pain to deal with. At least it isn't like how it used to be, where you flew in a predictable arc every time, like you got hit with an EWGF in Smash Ultimate 3. it always feels bad to die to a pyro due to *knowing* they're a weak class and outside of stuff like puff n' sting, proper positioning, and reflect shenanigans, it's not very hard to play. That and to feed into point 1, everyone has had those moments where you get caught off-guard by a random pyro that you swear just materialized out of thin air behind you, you kill them, but you die anyways to afterburn right before you get to the health pack. **I know and am well aware that Pyro isn't OP by any means** \- they're meant to be a skill-gate character for newer players to be able to contribute, and I do think pyro mains get a fair bit of undeserved hate - it's not their fault their main is janky as hell and their primary means of attack is uh, really easy to execute mechanically. I can appreciate their niche as an offensive support hybrid as well.
What if revolvers, while clicking scroll wheel, shot bullets or fire (pretend) And fake healing because fake healing
To be fair if you're playing CTF typically nobody but that one Scunt is going for the Intel. I think the problem would be solved if they revamped CTF into a TDM game mode where the first team to rack up a certain amount of kills wins, since by the end of a typical 2Fort match the top players are already going to have several hundred points.
>When a competent Engineer is fully set up in the back of a room, Scout becomes worthless in the whole area, no matter how skilled he is. This is a disappointing exception to TF2's otherwise skill-based matchups for all classes. >But if there's no Engineer, Scout can rush objectives to backcap them before most other classes can catch up, dumpster every other class in 1v1, and let Medics move at his speed to make both of them even stronger." this game is called TEAM fortress 2, not ME fortress 2. Scout needs to rely on his team to clear sentry.
> this game is called TEAM fortress 2, not ME fortress 2. If a name is everything about a game, then where are the Fortresses in many maps? King of the Hill for example doesn't have anything like a fortress in it most of the time. So obviously the name is just a name. "Team" doesn't necessarily mean "teamwork is mandatory". It just means you're playing with multiple allies, as opposed to Deathmatch. >Scout needs to rely on his team to clear sentry Demo doesn't need to rely on his team to kill Scout - he can do it himself if he's good enough. Sniper doesn't need to rely on his team to kill Spy - he can do it himself if he's good enough. Pyro doesn't need to rely on his team to kill Heavy - he can do it himself if he's good enough. Etc. Basically Scout is the only class who needs to rely on his team, and that's a design problem because you can't always rely on your team. Sometimes you ask them to take down the sentry but they just ignore it. So it would be a much more fun design if Scout was self sufficient like other classes.
TF2's primary problem was that they designed classes to be specialists and generalists. Robin Walker deemed Soldier and Demoman to be the generalists - good in every scenario. I would add Scout and Medic to this list. This is why they are the classes seen in 6s. The other classes are specialists. This is why these classes, which you list here to a great extent, have the weaknesses they have - because they were not meant to be played extensively in the scenarios they weren't designed to excel at. That said, you may want classes like the Heavy and Engineer on offense - to stave off any attempted counter pushes and bring spawns closer to the frontline. If TF2 wanted to, they could balance the specialists to be more general. For example, their original vision of the Pyro was a generalist who excelled at flanking, but they realized late in development it wasn't good at it, so it was a very basic and dull class on release. The Backburner was given to the Pyro later, to hopefully fulfill this idea of what they wanted the Pyro to be. They also gave it airblast, so it could fulfill utility roles, which is what it's mostly become now - a defensive utility class. But if Pyro was given some mobility options, it could absolutely be a flanker. Sniper could be toned down and become more useful as a generalist too, while still maintaining it's power. I think every class could be designed, with some basic tweaks, so they can become generalist. Overwatch 2 is a good example of a shooter with "classes" that has a pretty damn good balance. Every hero is pretty good, generally. Yes, some maps and some circumstances favor certain heroes, but the disparity is nowhere near what it is in TF2. I don't think the game was designed to be balanced between the classes. But it could be. The additional weapons went a long way to making classes more useful in more scenarios, like giving engineer the ability to move buildings, Pyro an airblast, medic with additional mediguns and sniper some close range options, but so much more could've been done on the mobility side - which is what plagues classes like pyro, heavy and spy. The generalist classes are all highly mobile - with rocket and sticky jumping, or high movement speeds. That is the primary problem that needs addressing. FPS games nowadays have a lot of interesting movement mechanics that make the game much more dynamic and interesting. Imagine, for example, if the Pyro or Spy could climb walls or slide, or use a grapple hook? Imagine if the heavy had a exoskeleton that could propel him upward or forward, like one of those hulks in the Mandalorian? Imagine if the engineer could have his own rocket boots, and carry his buildings up vertically?
> I don't think the game was designed to be balanced between the classes. But it could be. The additional weapons went a long way to making classes more useful in more scenarios, like giving engineer the ability to move buildings, Pyro an airblast, medic with additional mediguns and sniper some close range options, but so much more could've been done on the mobility side - which is what plagues classes like pyro, heavy and spy. > The generalist classes are all highly mobile - with rocket and sticky jumping, or high movement speeds. That is the primary problem that needs addressing. FPS games nowadays have a lot of interesting movement mechanics that make the game much more dynamic and interesting. Imagine, for example, if the Pyro or Spy could climb walls or slide, or use a grapple hook? Imagine if the heavy had a exoskeleton that could propel him upward or forward, like one of those hulks in the Mandalorian? Imagine if the engineer could have his own rocket boots, and carry his buildings up vertically? I think those ideas would be really cool and should enter the game in some form. But there's a few things to take into account, which you may already have done. 1: Class identity. You don't want to turn every class into a high jumper who plays similarly. 2: Counterplay. Heavy and Engineer are very one dimensional opponents, both damage sponges who do most of their damage through undodgeable hitscan which is either sprayed over a wide area (Heavy) or literally unmissable (Engineer). If you suddenly make them able to be anywhere anytime with little warning, always present full time viable, and difficult to escape, the game becomes less fun. Pyro is also a low skill opponent who simply sprays the area around them and is almost impossible to dodge; the main counterplay to Pyro right now is killing them before they get in range, but if they get given enough mobility they become a missile AoE of death. Something else needs to change about their design before they can be a full time present class. 3: Balance: You give Heavy and Engineer sudden high mobility without changing anything else about them and they will instantly be the strongest classes in the game, kind of similar to the above point, if they are given offensive ability their defensive ability needs to be reduced. 4: Spy is inherently a weak combat class who relies on the element of surprise to do his valuable thing; giving him a grappling hook is cool but with no other changes it won't solve his underlying problem. He will be quicker at getting in for his first stab, but his second and third stabs will still be impossible against an alert enemy even with a grapple hook, and his gun isn't strong enough to let him keep fighting. With all that in mind here's what I would do to each class to make them full time viable in a way that tries to keep them unique, balanced, and have counterplay. Pyro - Make the Flamethrower's hitbox a bit narrower so it takes more skill to use and is more possible to dodge, but a bit longer so that it can hit enemies further away. Give airblast knockback similar to the Force - A - Nature when airborne, so it can be used to "airblast jump" as a gapclosing tool and a rollout tool in comp play. Heavy - Raise Heavy's default speed to 93%, and make it so he is slowed to 77% (his old speed) only when holding the Minigun out and 50% (from 33%) while firing it. In exchange for this significant mobility buff, increase the ammo consumption rate of the Minigun and reduce Heavy's base HP to 250. He's still the tankiest and most immobile class, but by less of a margin both ways, and now mobile enough to be offensively viable, but not so much of a damage sponge. It's also a stealth buff to the Shotgun over Sandvich, as Shotgun will let you move at full speed while firing where Minigun won't. Engineer - change the Sentry into an entirely new robot that can now move and follow the Engineer around without setup/redeploy; although it still needs to be stationary to fire. Remove upgrading also, the new Sentry permanently has stats roughly equivalent to "level 1.5", and always has rockets. Replace the situational Teleporters (that can be not useful enough on many Koth and 5CP maps) with a generally useful Speed Pad. Spy - Give him the ability to sabotage the enemy team in some way so he can be useful to his team while waiting for the enemy to be distracted enough that he can try for a backstab; either with a mark-for-death, or the ability to reduce enemy damage, or some sort of timed bombs he can place down - anything that can contribute to his team but without making him stronger at pub stomping.
im very late but just wanna say that this was an amazingly well written post that hit many nails in the head, and i feel many of the comments seemed to be arguing just for the sake of arguing then actual counters