[Forked] Scorch Shot Ban Discussion
-
@supreme-toad
Is sniper the most OP class in the game to begin with? yes. But these secondaries aren’t what make sniper OP. Banning them would do nothing to the meta.But let’s just think about what banning those would do to sniper. Banning the darwin’s, especially if you’re banning the scorch shot, literally does nothing. The only reason people run darwin’s is the scorch shot, so at this point, it’s like banning a weapon purely out of spite. If there’s no scorch shot, every other secondary is better, other than maybe razorback. You’re gimping yourself by running the darwins.
The only situation darwins would be useful would be if a pyro chases you down like post-uber and you try to melee him to death. Sniper has an advantage to win that fight only the pyro doesn’t go for the melee fight, which most pyros are too stupid to do in my experience. My pan will out dpm your flamethrower, but you have more hp than me. I have to hit you three times with the pan, but you only have to hit me twice with the powerjack. If you die to a pan sniper, unless he has more hp than you, you’re just bad. Plus, if scorch shot is banned, you can shotgun me to death.
Cozy camper at least is somewhat arguable to me if it’s worth banning. In my experience, snipers default to using the cozy camper but very rarely actually make use of its bonus. To me, it’s practically useless in most situations on sniper. Why? You have to sit there and charge for 5 seconds (90% of shots you take on sniper you won’t have a full charge), and even when you do, you still get juggled by explosives and aimpunched by fire, even though you’re on cozy camper.
Take vigil last offense for example. A non sniper main might think you’d default to cozy camper for this situation, but I actually default to darwin’s. Why? Because the best place to peek from is big door, and when you peek big door, there’s someone watching it the whole time if the other team is good, so they’re gonna spam the fuck out of it the second they see your foot. Meanwhile, you have to clear like 5 different angles where the red sniper could be, and the chances the demo and/or med are just standing in the open without their sniper already hardscoped on big door looking for you are extremely low. Even other picks can be hard to come by. So the whole time, you’re trying to find the other sniper or find another pick that isn’t being protected by the sniper, while their whole team is calling “SNIPER BIG DOOR”, with the soldier and demo juggling you with explosives and the pyro shooting flares at you. I’d much rather run darwin’s there so at least i’m protected from one of the three potential classes spamming me and ruining my shot rather than none.
It’s the same situation on pretty much every point in the game. Cozy camper can actually be a detriment to sniper gameplay because it encourages you to not rotate and just turtle instead. If the spy or anyone else on the other team calls you, if the other team is good, they can adjust their game plan around “sniper is just sitting x place doing literally nothing and not moving, let’s avoid/pressure him.” The other secondaries (especially smg) encourage you as a sniper to rotate a lot more, so the other team can’t just get your position and spam you out of it. A sniper that hits shots and rotates constantly is much more dangerous than a sniper that sits in one spot all day and dies for trying to get one combo pick he might not even get as he’s getting juggled or spammed. If you slow down and wait to charge up with the cozy camper while rotating like crazy, you put yourself at risk of getting stabbed, seen, or spammed by the other team.
At the end of the day, banning cozy camper or darwin’s won’t change the fact that sniper is OP. You can still sit in pocket on product, get juggled, aimpunched, set on fire, etc. and you can still hit a full charge bodyshot on their medic to drop him, without any secondary. We’ve literally already tried banning the sniper secondaries before in prolander and sniper is just as OP in prolander. These reaching bans out of spite and frustration don’t solve the problem, and unless we are confident these bans are very likely going to change the meta of the game for the better, we should avoid them. That goes for all potential weapon bans, not just sniper secondaries.
-
@tua once the scorch shot is inevitably banned it may not make much sense to run the darwin’s anymore until you start getting det spammed and start putting it back on to completely negate the existence of pyro until they are quite literally smacking you in the face with the powerjack. i don’t think that anybody considers the detonator to be OP, so why should sniper be able to avoid the consequences of not killing a det-spamming pyro when they peek? it just doesn’t really seem like an option that the sniper needs to have when the class is already so powerful and i really don’t think it’ll be fair for the sniper to completely avoid flame damage once the scorch shot is no longer in the game.
the sniper secondaries are not what make sniper OP but i think that they contribute, especially when one of them forces the pyro to put away their flamethrower/scorch/det/flare in favor of a melee weapon, just so that they can have a chance to kill the sniper. the most oppressive class in highlander should not be able to make nearly all of the weapons available to one of the weakest classes in highlander completely useless
i think that at this point the scorch shot is pretty much all but guaranteed to be banned, so why not make it a double ban and take the darwin’s away too, leading to healthier counter play against the strongest class in the game?
-
@american because if a pyro forces a sniper to go darwin’s with the detonator, that mind as well be a success. sniper is no longer on smg or cozy camper which is a net positive for ur team.
-
@pajaro i don’t think that the sniper should even have the option to avoid one class in the game unless they have shotgun or they take out their melee. it’s healthier for the game if sniper can be spammed out by a pyro using det/flares. most people agree that sniper is oppressive, so why shouldn’t we make an effort to make the sniper just a tiny bit less powerful and give the pyro a way to have some counterplay against them?
-
@american because I don’t think the darwin’s is overpowered. yes, the sniper class is OP, but the darwins would not be a good secondary at all if the scorch shot did not exist. the detonator will have its niche as a more balanced scorch shot that doesn’t one shot squishy classes; it won’t be nullified in that regard by the darwins.
compared to the cozy camper or the smg, with the scorch shot being banned the darwins is a far less formidable secondary to use. i just don’t see how that item could possibly be worth banning for the sake of the the pyro, of all classes, having harder 1v1s with the sniper and not being able to pressure sniper. sniper is the long range space denying class, i don’t really see why you think the shortest range class SHOULD have any counterplay to the sniper - but that’s a different discussion.
i’ve been rambling a bit in this post so i’ll try to summarize in two points. detonator will still be very useful. darwins will not be nearly as strong/impactful compared to other sniper secondaries to warrant it being banned.
-
Sniper shouldn’t have the option to negate flames in the first place. That’s what makes the Darwin’s strong vs pyro because it shouldn’t exist in the first place. Banning all secondaries wouldn’t balanced sniper but it would at least help somewhat with nerfing the class.
-
@pajaro i don’t know if there is any other item in the game that completely negates the existence of one class like the darwin’s does to pyro. the pyro certainly is the shortest range class in the game, and that’s why the class is so weak. if the pyro class was strong, i definitely wouldn’t be advocating for the ban of the darwin’s but pyro is extremely weak and i think that giving the sniper more weaknesses (such as being able to be flinched by afterburn until their full charge from cozy camper kicks in) is only a positive change to highlander. if pyro was as strong as say, scout, then i’d probably be advocating for the banning of the detonator too, since a strong close range class doesn’t need to be able to make up for it’s weakness in long range (this is why there is another ban discussion going on for the flying cleaver)
i don’t know if my replies will change your mind, and i don’t think that banning the darwin’s will solve the inherent problems with the sniper class, but i do hope that people read my posts and see that the sniper having a weakness to fire spam is healthy, rather than detrimental.
-
ban darwin’s and i will exclusively scorch the sniper. scout mains rejoice.
-
The pyro sneaks by the entire team, perhaps through clever use of their secondaries. Hunting, they find their target. A lonely sniper, ruler of his country (“China”). As the pyro begins to melt their prey, something is off… The sniper simply turns, gnarls his teeth in a devilish grin, and tears the pyro apart with his bare, australian hands/gun. This sniper has channeled the spirit of Saxton Hale, almost completely negating the pyro’s primary weapon by using the danger shield and staying close to walls, further reducing flame damage.
As the pyro’s magical world fades, the sniper respectfully removes his hat, knowing the pyro’s fate was sealed long ago.
Anyway. Back to the scorch shot. Here are some usage stats for invite matches, by season. This does not include playoff matches/playoff qualifiers, does not include EVERY invite match (basically just ignore season 1, that’s missing a ton of matches). It also does not account for pyros using the weapon for short periods of time. Basically, if a player dealt damage with the weapon in a logs.tf log, it’s included. Some matches might be double counted for that reason, if they have multiple logs. Not sure of the statistical techniques to correct for these things just yet. So take these numbers with some tasty grains of salt, and let me know if there’s something more specific you’re interested in.
- Total logs for season 1: 18
- Scorch usage counts for season 1: 9
- Total logs for season 2: 34
- Scorch usage counts for season 2: 30
- Total logs for season 3: 38
- Scorch usage counts for season 3: 21
- Total logs for season 4: 41
- Scorch usage counts for season 4: 31
- Total logs for season 5: 39
- Scorch usage counts for season 5: 37
- Total logs for season 6: 36
- Scorch usage counts for season 6: 49
- Total logs for season 7: 37
- Scorch usage counts for season 7: 63
-
@HA-Johnny said in [Forked] Scorch Shot Ban Discussion:
- Scorch usage counts for season 1: 9
- Scorch usage counts for season 2: 30
- Scorch usage counts for season 3: 21
- Scorch usage counts for season 4: 31
- Scorch usage counts for season 5: 37
- Scorch usage counts for season 6: 49
- Scorch usage counts for season 7: 63
Is that just the # of logs that has a pyro doing any mount of damage with the SS, or is that the number of pyros from the logs that did damage? I ask since there are 2 pyros on each team I want to clarify, might also be smart to include the total number of logs used per season, since the count will be different from each season due to FFWs and teams dying.
-
@HA-Johnny would it be at all possible to make the stat % of total damage?
so scorch damage/total pyro damage*100
doesn’t say exactly how long they ran it but gives you a decent idea of how often it was run
@pajaro said in [Forked] Scorch Shot Ban Discussion:
i don’t really see why you think the shortest range class SHOULD have any counterplay to the sniper - but that’s a different discussion.
i don’t see why you think the class balanced around good long range but poor short range should have any counterplay to the pyro in close range.
-
@Mothership The logic for those stats are:
For each match available in the invite match directory (incomplete set)
if the match wasn’t a playoff match/qualifier for that one season
For each logs.tf link for the match (sometimes more than one)
For each player in the log
If the player has “scorch_shot” in their weapons
Increment the scorch shot count for that seasonSo yes, ANY damage, and some double counting if a match has multiple logs listed.
I can get the number of logs used per season for the calculations, for sure. Will edit this post with that later.
@supreme-toad I can do that calculation per player per log. I can also do total scorch damage across all logs, over total pyro damage across all logs for whatever season or all. How should it be combined? A median or average of the percent scorch shot damage/ total damage? Should it include cases when the player does not use scorch shot?
Here’s the percent of total scorch damage for pyros, across ALL players that dealt damage with the scorch shot. So I added ALL the scorch shot damage for a season, ALL the pyro damage for a season, then did the percentage. To make further progress on usage, eventually I want to use some heuristics to get the “Effective” usage time, which would be the last time a weapon was seen in a log, minus the first time, accounting for when you see a different weapon for that slot on that player.
Scorch Damage Percent for SS users for season 1: 39.33
Scorch Damage Percent for SS users for season 2: 22.05
Scorch Damage Percent for SS users for season 3: 19.36
Scorch Damage Percent for SS users for season 4: 23.11
Scorch Damage Percent for SS users for season 5: 21.04
Scorch Damage Percent for SS users for season 6: 34.06
Scorch Damage Percent for SS users for season 7: 32.98And if I may butt in about the sniper/pyro dynamic: Sniper having long-range counterplay to pyro is fine with me. Short range too, but perhaps not 50% resistance. If I had one nerf for it, I’d make it so they aren’t immune to the gas passer: there’d be a tangible reason to run that weapon in that case.
-
From the perspective of a highlander team’s best interests (as voiced from a heavy player)*, the scorch shot ban should be batched with the throwables that were banned (mad milk and jarate). I will elaborate on this fact based on the perspective of a heavy- a core member to most team fights where HP advantage dictates the outcome of a fight (most koth and some PL fights, to a certain degree).
This is not to say that the scorch shot should have been banned when the throwables were. The throwable items certainly hold the throne as more egregious attacks on the flow of highlander. The easiest point to make is how they can be applied to the mainstay strategy of saccing. The throwables effortlessly improve the equity of a sac play(eg throwing a bottle from bats to ramp on asheville while a soldier is bombing with the singular purpose to deal as much damage as possible to the area effected by the throwable before death), but I would like to argue that the attack is similar nonetheless.
In formulating pushes, there are a large number of variables to consider. This should come as no surprise, as 9v9 highlander is a competition of 18 players- 18 different individuals with their own values, ideas, and strategies all working amongst each other to prove that their side is better. In my experience, the best formula for a winning strategy is one based on solid team dynamic, trust, and direction. In order to attain all three of these flagstone ideals, sacrifices need to be made. Not all 9 players can use their directive to push the team to victory- a team needs a main caller/a voice of reason. The best teams are built not only on a strong foundation of players, but are built on a foundation that is willing to compromise. A team that is able to adapt to the confides of how their roster operates.
In order to evaluate how a team can best be run, its mandatory to evaluate the team based on high stakes circumstances. Fights that are won based on the team’s performance, rather than on an airshot or a pick from a sniper or spy.** This is what I refer to as a ‘team fight’. In a team fight, all 9 classes (or however many are alive) are in agreement that their own life is (generally) worth less than the advancement of the team, such as in the process of capturing an objective. In these circumstances, both teams are aware that the best play is to put all their chips on the table- to prove that their strategy(positioning, aim, focuses, …) is better than their opponents. These are the fights that we considered in the cases of mad milk and jarate, and these are the fights we should be considering for the scorch shot.
The similarities between the scorch shot and the throwables is best seen from an analyst’s perspective of a team fight. A perspective which pinpoints which variables are expressed in determining the outcome for the team fight. In the age of the throwables, it was often too easy to pinpoint them as deterministic factors in how a push could be evaluated. The impact of the scorch shot is more convoluted, but certainly present in a similar fashion. Im thinking of a heated match between two rivals, where both teams know that the only way to secure a victory is to press the margins-to commit on the 55% and leave on the 45% fights. The scorch shot, through it’s RANGED KNOCKBACK*** mechanic, and it’s ability to PREVENT CRIT HEALS**** denies this margin from being toyed with. I’m arguing that the flow of the game that we have come to appreciate competing over is degraded by the existence of the scorch shot. The tense moments are replaced by the likelihood that a pyro can flare your key classes.
But at the end of the day, we must reflect. At what cost is the scorch shot being banned? What are pyros losing? What are teams losing? I would argue that the losses are minimal. The arguments that seem to stick are generally the pyro v. sniper cases, but are all worth considering when banning a gun. (‘If the SS is banned, the danger shield needs to go too’ ‘Pyro should have a counter to the sniper’ ‘Pyro is already such a bad class, why make it worse?’) I dont play pyro so I dont want to comment too much on this perspective, but I would argue that the detonator should fill the niche of the scorch shot.
*I was thrust into top level UGC hl in a sink or swim environment, and gravitated to demo reviews as my north star in guiding me in my own improvement. I learned to apply the reasoning that the team is centered about the medic, and the medic/heavy are played very similarly in this game mode. My points are based on this dynamic, as it is the most familiar to myself. Though there are very many ways to play, consider listening to my perspective out of courtesy to the community we all are a part of, one which we would benefit from improving.
**Teams can choose to value team fights higher or lower, based on the ability of their pick classes/ high impact play%
***? why couldnt this be the end of discussion? someone should open this can of worms…
****BIG impact, most apperent on mids in particular, but also a surefire way to give impact to pyro even when they miss a direct.
-
@calo nice essay bro, just ban scorch shot and the darwin shields and call it a day.
-
That essay almost makes me want to keep it unbanned tbh
-
@Teapot agreed
-
I admittedly only read some of this thread because you fuckers type a lot (and I can’t believe I’m saying this for the 2nd time in my life), but I agree with spu. If you ban scorch, I’m never wearing darwins again anyways, even if pyros go fulltime det. I think most snipers would follow suit, though idk, I could be wrong. I’m just saying there’s no real reason to ban darwins at that point if you want to keep the whitelist as full as possible. If you don’t care about the whitelist being as full as possible, then by all means.
tl;dr: The only way banning darwins will have a large effect on the game for snipers is if scorch isn’t banned, not that I’d advocate for that.
-
The first aspect to be considered is the long range spamability of the scorch shot and detonator. The dynamic we would hypothetically see would be:
Cause: Pyro spamming scorch shot with low risk involved for high reward
Effect: Sniper runs darwins, spam becomes ineffectiveCause: Pyro spamming sniper with detonator, with higher risk for less reward
Effect: Sniper runs darwins, spam becomes ineffectiveThis in mind, the simple answer would be to ban the darwins as long as the scorch shot is banned. The reasoning being that it benefits timing and more mechanically demanding spam, while not having it completely negated by an unlock. This promotes healthier counterplay.
However, it is important to consider that the scorch shot also can bounce for more damage and knockback. This results in the darwins being almost necessitated from it.
Something like detonator spam is certainly annoying, but is much less urgent in regards to something such as your pyro extinguishing you, due to the lack of bounce and knockback.This being noted, I feel like the darwins would still be a no brainer choice to run against a detonator spamming pyro. Regardless of the bounce, the tendency to run darwins in response to flame damage via scorch will have trained players to somewhat subconsciously drift towards it.
No matter what sniper players say, I think it’s a matter of when rather than if they begin to lean towards the darwins against the detonator.The question becomes then, if scorch isn’t present, what spam would you see from detonator pyros?
I propose that secondaries outside of the darwins enable a secondary spamming pyro playstyle to be viable. Without the unfair mechanics of the scorch, the main value in secondary spam would be in harassing the sniper. If you allow the sniper to counteract this, you will see a much healthier mentality with the class, and greater future growth. If you are not able to help your team by spamming, which shouldn’t be the pyro’s role anyways, you’ll have to be impactful by other means. This can come in the form of focusing more on protection, or meaningful aggression. This will result in the skill of the class raising over time.To accurately answer this whole question, I would like to propose these three hypotheticals:
- Is it fair for the sniper to be able to invalidate pyro from being able to spam him from a long range?
- Is it good for pyro to be enabled to play in a secondary spamming way to impact the game?
- Given that sniper is already the strongest class in highlander, is it fair to let him keep this counterplay?
To the first hypothetical, I would say no
To the second hypothetical, I would say noTo the third hypothetical, I would say yes, as it results in pyro having more of it’s own identity rather than being relegated to sniper spam duty. Spam takes focus away from the actual roles of the pyro. The presence of darwins, combined with a lack of the scorch will result in spam being much less viable.
While this could be seen as making an already weak class weaker, and a strong class stronger, I think this is a net gain for the scene. Pyro benefits from more specialized play, and the darwins plays a key part in this dynamic.
With this in mind, I think that the darwins should not be banned.I do not think the argument that snipers won’t use darwins versus the detonator will hold up, and I think that’s a good thing. There is certainly reasoning to ban the darwins beyond trimming the whitelist, but there is stronger reasoning in keeping it in. Options are good, and options can force you to change the way you play to be more efficient. This will result in a more dynamic metagame, and dynamic metas are a good thing.
The key problem with scorch is that it actively takes away from conscious thought about other secondary options, due to how much you can do with it.I think that the perfect balance is found in the scorch being banned, and the darwins not being banned. This will promote a healthy amount of weapon choice in the current meta, and will prevent the detonator from becoming the new go to spam choice. Banning the darwins will lead to the detonator being a dominant option, one that’s used to spam rather than utilizing it’s own strengths found in the mobility it provides. This would only serve to shift the problems of the class.
On the other hand, nipping this spammy style may actually go a decent bit towards fixing up the class over time; assuming that there’s community effort made. I have a hard time imagining that a secondary spam sort of playstyle would be viable whatsoever in this case, and would result in people using secondaries that synergize with their playstyle and primary choice more. I imagine that the detonator would still become the most frequently used secondary, but to a healthier and less oppressive extent.
The detonator will still be spammable, but to an extent where it guides your play rather than defining it. It will be an option, but it will not be the definitive option.TLDR: Darwins good for the scene even if unfair, scorch bad for the scene. Banning darwins will certainly have an effect on the game on pyro, and sniper to a lesser extent; but not a good one. Also yes I type a lot, apologies.
-
So the det=scorch then?
Might as well ban both and call it a day and take Darwin’s with it, so the pyros that can aim a flare can be rewarded.
Also why should sniper be given a option to nullify a another class by equipping a unlock. A class that’s a short range specialist vs a long range specialist. Most invite snipers can reliably hit their shots even while flinching. So it’s not like the pressure is game breaking more than annoying to play against.
-
@JohhnyFromCali said in [Forked] Scorch Shot Ban Discussion:
So the det=scorch then?
Might as well ban both and call it a day and take Darwin’s with it, so the pyros that can aim a flare can be rewarded.
Also why should sniper be given a option to nullify a another class by equipping a unlock. A class that’s a short range specialist vs a long range specialist. Most invite snipers can reliably hit their shots even while flinching. So it’s not like the pressure is game breaking more than annoying to play against.
entire post is a bad take