I think going from banning scorch to banning det is a bit too much of a leap. The detonator gives control and actual specialized play compared to the scorch, for the price of actual mechanical investment and timing, even if not all that difficult in the long term.
The scorch allows for you to pick up and use it, with a stupid amount of value and artificial versatility for the price of very little investment. A lot of pyros end up using scorch shot as somewhat of a crutch without really developing their own playstyle and become overly reliant on spamming it.
To be able to effectively spam the detonator on a similar level to the scorch, a certain amount of time investment is required to learn how to properly time it’s detonations across range and for each sort of task you’d have in mind with it. Before this point, you would see a lot more inefficiencies and misplays, such as peaking sightlines for longer in the moment to attempt to properly detonate it.

Det in general is a lot more punishing than scorch if improperly used, while also not having an oppressive stun mechanic, and also provides some actually interesting options for play on the class.
I do not think detonator should be banned, and I think the scorch promotes unintuitive play that is neither fun to play, nor to use. Not only this, but it promotes poor playstyles, and I would also reason it also hurts the long term growth of the class.

Other secondaries such as the det/shotty/flare etc promote more specialized sorts of playstyles and mechanics outside of just spam.
For instance, with the detonator you may see controlled spam and timed midair detonations, such as around the cascade rocks to hit people, and are rewarded for smartly using it while not putting yourself in as much risk. Alternatively to this, you can much more aggressively and actively position yourself, even with something such as a bomb.
Shotgun allows for you to deny more efficiently, and promotes a generally protective sort of play, while also being perfectly suitable for a lot of combat engagements.
Flare gun promotes high single target focus and combo plays. While somewhat oppressive, I do not think it is nearly as much of a menace as the scorch is.
Scorch promotes mindless spam, stunning, and in general results in a lack of commitment to and specialization in particular pyro mechanics/roles.

I think the scorch is a bit more pressing than something like flare/det in terms of getting banned, as I believe it trickles into a pyro that’s plagued pyro as a whole for a bit now. This problem I would say, is that there tends to be a lot of a lack of specialization and intuitive play by newer pyros and a lot of pyros as a whole; as they tend to just parrot what they’re told to do by the community and mentors, and tend not to be very proficient at it. By having a secondary such as scorch that a lot of newer pyros can cling to and get a lot of value out of as a crutch, one that also does not intuitively teach good mechanics, the problem is further amplified.

In short, while the detonator can do some things that the scorch can not and vice versa, the detonator requires actual investment to be able to realize it. It is not nearly as oppressive, as there are more options to counterplay against it than oh hey I’m stunned I guess I’ll die now, and is not nearly as broadly problematic. It provides a lot of options, but those options require vision to utilize, and results in very intuitive play, atleast when compared with the scorch. You get a higher potential as a result of being able to control the det, while having a higher floor as well. Is it unfair? Possibly, but scorch is entirely in a different league, and you can argue for days about other weapons that are unfair if you put time into becoming proficient at them.

also yeah I think this tangent should go to a new thread

The scorch shot discussion has always been a little funny to think about because there’s really nothing overpowered about the weapon besides it being annoying to people

The versatility it provides compared to other secondaries, which results in a lack of more specialized play, as well as generalized playstyles. I don’t think having some super applicable jack of all trades option is a good solution to the weaknesses of the class, one which only serves to sugarcoat and hide the issues at that.

The entire class would have been banned years ago if people screeching “annoying” had ever been an effective argument. Especially considering axtinguisher and puff and sting meta ran the table for years.

I find this point irrelevant. There are other arguments that’ve been laid down that have more depth to them than just the weapon being annoying. It is also unrealistic to imply that the class would ever be banned in highlander, a 9v9 mode with one of each class.

Pyro has been downgraded so significantly over the years that its role has dwindled to a mere backline watchdog, and if anything the sc meta is the first move in a long while to improve an otherwise extremely range limited class’ utility to further aid the team

The scorch shot does little to resolve this. It by nature promotes poorer play than the other secondary options. If you already have good mechanics, you can get a stupid amount of value out of it. If you do not have good mechanics, it becomes harder to actually develop important pyro mechanics with the scorch shot. Pyro’s role has indeed dwindled, but the emphasis should be on more divergent and branching playstyles in response to this; a redefinition of the class and it’s roles. The usage of scorch shot results in more cookie cutter playstyles to try and get the maximum value out of all of it’s many uses. This reduces the importance of individual mechanics, and in my opinion will only lead to further issues with the class down the line. Using a mechanically unintuitive option that promotes less specialized play will not solve the issues of the class.

But what I found is that there are many circumstances where you can assist in denials, albeit small ones, on maps where pyro otherwise has a limited role. This can be on sniper, or flank, or doing the final damage in a koth midfight where you’d otherwise have no role but to chill in the back

Again, I feel like having such easy access to all of these options results in a much less dynamic metagame for the class. Detonator allows for you to do similar things, while being more specialized, and requiring more mechanical input and development.

but not many stop to consider what it brings to a team on an otherwise shit class.

It brings an artificial level of enhancement to pyro’s versatility and utility, while requiring a lot less mechanical input. Bandaging an issue is not resolving it.

Not to mention, the scorch/det are direct downgrades in close range combat to the shotty/flare among others, which is significant when you consider the degreaser already has the lowest dps of any primary weapon and every second matters in trying to protect a combo at range

I disagree with this. Options can often be more valuable than a higher source of direct damage. Scorch shot gives a mechanically lacking way to control movement via bounce/stun, to and dictate the terms of an engagement. The detonator allows for you to control movement by timing detonations and smartly placing your shots, and also gives you the option to jump in and out of an engagement. The shotgun and flare gun are indeed better for sheer damage, but operating under the framework of secondaries being tools to provide options, scorch and det can easily help out more than a higher source of direct damage.
If I’m going to be honest on this, I find that the degreaser ends up training you to be reliant on the switch speed. There are cases where you will legitimately find value out of it, such as denying a bomb with shotty and the degreaser switch speed on ashville. But my argument is, the less access to an easy spam and back method of secondary usage you have, the less you’ll end up finding yourself in said poor positions. If you are to be punished for making poor decisions, you’ll naturally learn not to make them as much.
I personally find the stock and detonator to be a very effective and synergistic combo, as the weapons play to eachother’s strengths. The secondary being the tool to augment the primary, and the stock being able to effectively inflict a lot more chaos during exchanges. The slightly reduced airblast cost on paper is somewhat insignificant, but the extra afterburn can absolutely make the difference in something such as a detonator bomb. As in that case, you wouldn’t want to find yourself swapping to the detonator from the degreaser to spam it for the extra afterburn anyways.This sort of loadout results in a very space and chaos oriented style of play, which while not a style for everyone, is absolutely valid in it’s own right. To wrap back around, the detonator gives more options, while being more punishing than the scorch shot if you wish to get value out of it. Yet again, I think this trickles into a larger issue with the typical approach players take to the class.
I’m not a top player or anything, but I think it’s important to have these sorts of more niche and developed playstyles, that aren’t as reliant on the utility provided by the scorch shot.

Not to mention, it one of very few weapons that can contest snipers at range, if anything else but to force them on to darwins

The detonator can also fulfill this purpose, while requiring much more mechanical investment and possible punishment/misplay.

The way to fixing pyro’s issues begins with evaluating the average perception and mentality applied to the class (which in my opinion somewhat stagnates innovation), and how various playstyles and roles of pyro fit in with differing teams and components. I think that this whole argument about the scorch shot best represents these flaws.

Pyro has had flawed metas in the past, and I think it’s time to try and tackle the issue in a comprehensive way. By removing the scorch shot, you’ll see more divergent playstyles with the generalized utility of the scorch shot being taken out of the equation. This would only go part of the way, but I think that not jumping on this possibility for change would be a mistake. If people want to see pyro as anything but a backline watchdog, there needs to be something that.

A. Forces an extent of immediate change towards more specialized play
B. A shift in perception that goes along with this

The downgrades given to the class did a lot of harm, and I think it’s time we as a community reevaluate the roles and mechanics of the class; rather than relying on a secondary that stunts long term growth to fix the class’s weaknesses and issues.

I fully agree that it being annoying is not a good enough reason for it being banned. That being said, I think it’s certainly worth discussing for other reasons.

I support team cat. I will unleash the wallcat upon team dog.

Mouse: Glorious Model O
Mousepad: SteelSeries QcK Prism (Having a different surface type on each side is neat, though I tend to end up using the cloth one only, discord/game integration with the lighting on the mousepad is also a really nice touch)
Keyboard: Corsair K70 Rapidfire Mk 2
Headphones: Corsair Void Pro (I’d probs upgrade this next and replace it with a nice set of headphones if not my hardware, but then again sound quality tends to not be the most important with the headset around my neck)
Microphone: ModMic USB (Yes I still have the base headset mic for the funnies)
Monitor: Some Asus 144 Hz monitor (I forget the model but it’s quite satisfactory)

Resolution: 1920 by 1080, Fullscreen
Tf2 Sensitivity: 4.14 for solly/pyro, 3 for every other class; 3200 dpi
Conig: Mastercomfig Medium-High
Hud: Flawhud
Extras: Wearing headsets tends to irritate my ears so I always wear my headset around my neck. Very farsighted hence the monitor being further back.

best pyro in advanced this season, def still has some good wisdom to offer

gg nkb! very fun match

I’ll start with my favorite, the tumor shark. Unfortunately I can only bring this one out when Halloween mode is on.

This was my original cursed set

This one has become a recent favorite of mine for a specific loadout

While I think balance is important, past a basic level of balance, I think it’s much more important to pay attention to the long term implications of certain weapons and the playstyles they result in, as well as interactions with other weapons that are considered unbalanced.

In the case of the cleaver and wrap assassin, I do think they promote an unintuitive sort of play, by providing an easy and ticking damage source without as much need for direct exposure. Akin to the pyro, the scout is a lot more focused on cleanup and close range combat. If the argument is made that the pyro should not have an easy and low risk long range spam option (scorch shot), then the same should be applied to scout. A skilled scout can still get value out of the pistol at a mid-long range distance, but it also requires a certain level of mechanical investment, and doesn’t serve as a potentially indirect spam option.

Let’s take the darwins. It completely nullifies the ability of pyro to pressure the sniper. In response to the scorch shot and it’s uncanny ability to spam with very little mechanical investment and risk proportional to the value, I’d argue it’s fair. I think the scorch shot results in more generalized playstyles, with less focus on individual mechanics that are necessary for a pyro player to improve. It is also extremely unfair and unfun to fight against the stuns provided by the scorch shot.
By removing the scorch shot and the darwins, you would see more dynamic interactions, with a lot more room for human error; while still allowing the pyro to have impact versus the sniper. This results in much more engaging play and counterplay, as the pyro would have to either have to time something such as a detonator shot, or open himself up to more exposure to the sniper with a wider peak to flaregun him.

I think these sorts of contrasts help to paint a clearer image of what is and isn’t intuitive towards the development of a class, which also somewhat ties in to the relative balance of a weapon. There tends to be a correlation between how directly unintuitive and easy a weapon is to get value out of, and how balanced it is.
More than that though, I think it’s important to contrast it with the other weapons of it’s slots, as well the individual playstyles that they each promote, and then make a decision on how balanced a weapon is primarily based off of that.

Weapons that promote healthier playstyles naturally result in a smoother transition from casual to competitive, as players become less reliant on inherently unbalanced and broken mechanics while they learn the competitive roles of their class. So I think the argument of comp being kept similar to pubs is an argument that lacks depth, as it hurts the long term growth of a scene. In most games, you’re going to see some balancing problems, and tf2 is no exception. I do not think that there will be anything close to an ideal level of balance in most cases. So I think the focus should be on how the weapon(s) influence the dynamics of the class and dynamics with other classes as a whole; rather than how fun or unfun they are to play with and against, or how balanced it is on paper.

After quarantine ends, I think it’s fair to assume that there will be a decent share of returning players that will have more real life obligations again, or younger players freshly losing interest due to all the possibilities that they realize and may then start to pursue. So I think it’s better to nip some of these weapons that can be clearly seen as harming the development of classes sooner rather than later; and to focus on the developmental aspect of balance.

So let’s say we get rid of scorch, we get rid of darwins as well
We get rid of the bleeds, we get rid of cozy as well etc
I was gonna type up a bit about cozy but this post is already long enough as it is so I’ll just use it as an example of something that would demonstrate this sort of balancing
Take out an unintuitive weapon, take out it’s unintuitive counterplay, and you solve two issues at the same time.

I’d like to play
Soldier>Demo>Spy>Pyro in that order.
For soldier I’d be down to play in advanced or invite
For demo I’d be down to play in advanced
For spy I’d be down to play in advanced or invite
I’m most confident in my pyro, but I’m not very interested in playing it outside of invite and top advanced teams.
I’ll be prioritizing teams with friends on them, but I’d be interested in trying out for most teams if asked.

@nabla I can agree with that sentiment. There’s little value in having so many options if people refuse to test the waters and utilize the options in response to whatever the dominant play is.

From what I played and saw (my own team included), the typical response to vaccinator was to tilt like crazy and to run spy/a limited amount of different classes as damage sources at most; without all that much variance in loadouts to gain additional sources of damage. Or to run the same vaccinator comp yourself to try and outdo them at it.

I suppose no matter the nature of the mode, the end result is the same if people refuse to put the effort into it. Might’ve latched on a bit to hard to the overwatch analogy in my post. I suppose that most people’s opinions, myself included, ended up being defined by weapons/strats that we disliked but didn’t attempt to legitimately counter; and we wrote it off as a result.

I will say that I personally enjoyed it, though the time I spent ended up mostly turning into goofy class stacking and memes rather than an attempt to find the best plays/strats/counterplay with all the available options. Saw rather limited loadout agency in general.

Good points overall, doesn’t seem like the community is in a spot to benefit from the running of NR6s currently.

acquiring dztech for your team has been shown to increase odds of success
so do it

The answer will always be pyro

@scaredy-bat yeah I made a slight mistake in my calculations after the fours essay, hence the preemptive edit

I feel like including stock would be too easy

Non stock: Original, Sandvich, Wrangler (Degreaser as a runner up)
If stock: Minigun, Scattergun, Stickybomb Launcher

Cosmetics: Killer exclusive, Gibus, Chicken Kiev

Maps: Dustbowl, Badwater, Hightower

pyro
wait a minute

Yeah nr6s lost a lot of steam after the first season, in the second season I recall seeing an invite division with zero matches played from the teams and then they just removed it from the s2 league chart eventually.
It ended up coming down to cheese comps/strats rather than skilled counterplay and innovation (IE double vaccinator meds, not enjoyable nor involving whatsoever to play versus). It was cool for a first season where people were trying new things, but it doesn’t have any staying power.
Those sorts of things tend to only be enjoyable for a limited span of time before things devolve. See certain overwatch metas/overwatch as a whole.
This was seen with nr6s season two, and will have an increasingly amplified affect on any future play of it.
So thus, this can not be seen as killing off nr6s or any other rgl format, as nr6s has done that work for itself.

Given the unviability of nr6s long term, fours would make a fine addition to the lineup to round it out to four formats.
As to if it’s a good idea for rgl to run it, I have mixed thoughts.

Ugc 6s has been a joke for a long time now, and it makes sense for there to be a more serious and refined league for it. rgl, and esea before that fulfilled this role. The same can not be said for 4s, it’s been a goofy fun side thing that people don’t take very seriously. Rgl adopting the mode is not going to fix it, as it’s an inherently non serious mode.
That being said, rgl tends to have a better atmosphere with their policies, and that may make all the difference in making the experience more enjoyable for players/to entice them to play. It’s a nice side thing that people can just make small friend teams for and play once a week, ie on friday. It’s a superior casual format to nr6s, and it’s nice to have a format to fulfill that niche.

But I’m not sure if adopting it could be seen as anything but directly trying to compete with and kill off ugc’s 4s format given the niche appeal and nature of the mode. To frame it better, imagine if ugc started running nr6s when rgl did.
I know that a lot of my friends don’t like playing fours due to the nature of the mode, but I also know that some of them dislike it due to it being ran by ugc.

If rgl ran it at a time such as friday 8:30 or so, it’d be avoiding direct competition with ugc 4s, and could potentially synergize without directly encroaching upon ugc’s territory as much. I find myself not having much to do on fridays outside of ringing for lower div highlander teams due to myself not playing sixes, and having something casual to do on the side for 8:30/9:30 on friday would be super cool.
I can’t speak for others, but I’d enjoy playing fours for rgl if they ran it, and would likely do it for ugc as well if rgl drew more interest to the format by hosting it. I just wouldn’t expect rgl to be able to specifically bring much to the table in regards to the running of the mode.

Sidenote: Current inter-regional policies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR6Tfpe4OGQ

@SylonDMS hazard