Let me just begin by clarifying that I don’t disagree with this post in principle in the slightest. Having unique ways to play the game that challenge players to outsmart their opponents, especially as opposed to just winning DM fights, is an excellent thing.

That being said, I think there are a number of logistical problems with actually trying to add new gamemodes to our existing formats of comp tf2 that it is not sustainable in our current community with its size and focus. Note that, as a baseline to compare against, it is hard enough to add new maps for existing gamemodes to any of the formats - they face stiff resistance, it is near impossible to get serious playtesting done short of actually adding the map to an EXP Cup, one of which happens at best twice a year, and mapmakers may be apprehensive to create new maps for a community that just tends to stick to its preconceived notions about them anyway. Note that I believe that, volume of maps to be tested permitting, frequent EXP cups, if not to actually determine whether a map is suitable for inclusion in a regular season to give the mapmaker feedback on how to improve it so as to make it more fun or playable, are an ecellennt idea and if they were implemented, would make this idea a whole lot more feasible.

For gamemodes like KoTH, 5CP, and Payload, there are clear mapping standards for competitively viable maps - for example, for KoTH, there is the clear area-connector-area-connector-area-midpoint layout that most maps tend to follow, and for Payload there’s the unwritten rule that for each point there tends to be only one strong hold - such standards do not exist for other gamemodes and would require mapmakers already familiar with how comp tf2 plays (who are already few and far between) to improvise and theorycraft the map design such that it would not follow a standard that works in pubs but cannot work in comp.

Take for example the standard layout of Capture the Flag maps. Setting aside the outdated layouts of 2fort or Sawmill that make you literally go into a basement with two chokepoints to retrieve the intel, even on modern and well-designed maps like Landfall, the intel is right next to its team’s spawn, meaning that against a competent team, especially one with classes like Engineer, for example, retrieving the intel with just a dry push would be near impossible, and you would need Uber AND significant other advantages to retrieve the intel - other advantages like players up to get close enough to the intel to take it in a clean Uber push, and Uber to actually reach the intel (god forbid the other team has Uber too).

This is not to say that CTF is competitively unviable. It might very well be, but there might very well be an ideal CTF map design that maximizes both fun and competitive rigour for players in one of our existing competitive formats. The problem is that this ideal map design is so far unknown, meaning that mapmakers would have to play with simple trial and error to figure out what that map design is, which, given the constraints that already exist for competitive map designers and the mental block many people would have to seriously giving feedback for a CTF map and considering its merits (and knowing what feedback to give!) makes it a formidable task for any mapmaker that requires significant personal time and effort investment, and not necessarily one that will pay off.

Then there is the problem that some gamemodes have fundamental flaws that make it impossible to make a map that is competitively rigorous. For example, Mannpower has random power-up spawns, making it possible for one team to beat another through pure luck of the draw on what power-ups spawned on their side. Obviously, this is bad. Then, Player Destruction (the format you mentioned "What about a mode where it’s just a kill fest where people collect points and need to score them? ") has a gamebreaking flaw in that the player carrying the most points on each team has the self- and area-healing and ammo restore power at the rate of e Level 1 Dispenser, which makes it a whole lot harder for a team to kill any players who simply stick to their “team leader” as I believe the mechanic calls that player.

This is not to say that these barriers are insurmountable. For sure, my post is a bit disingenuous - you’re making an idealistic appeal, but I’m responding by citing realistic barriers, and not ones that cannot be overcome with enough willpower. My question is simply if that willpower actually exists. I believe that with enough effort, enough changes to the community to allow for, for example, more frequent EXP cups to give mapmakers feedback, and enough accommodation by existing players who encourage forward thinking mapmakers, anything you said in this post is possible. Am I for it? Also yes, but I’d definitely not be the one spearheading it just because of how much effort it is. What do you say about these challenges?

@Kastaling said in Addressing Racism/Anti-LGBTQ Speech on Off-Platform Media:

Once again, I say this; GROW THICKER SKIN.

Unfortunately, this always tends to be a bit of a strawman and really doesn’t work in context. That’s mainly because growing thicker skin is not an option for some people.

Although some of you may not believe it based on my earlier posts, I am not easily offended. When someone uses one of the “big three” slurs or others, I can easily laugh it off. I can even use the one that applies to me in certain people’s company. Because of this, I have the privileged position of being able to simply ignore, or make a reasoned/civil argument, when someone expresses opinions that directly derogate someone’s identity. Even though one of the “big three” slurs applies to me, I really don’t care or get offended, on a personal level, when someone uses that slur. But not everyone has this position.

I’ve come to know several people who, because of who they are, have been disowned, kicked out of their houses, lost any hope at inheritance they had, ostracized by their school communities, passed up for jobs because of what bathroom they came out of, or at worst, even attacked because of who they are.

Some of these people used to be in RGL. There may be some like them still in RGL.

I ask you: Is it fair to place the burden of growing thicker skin on them, who have already had to deal with countless burdens in their lives? Is it fair to say that they, who have this constant reminder in the form of a word of the hardships they have suffered, are the ones at wrong because they are offended by a word whose existence so many people take lightly?

This is not about a minority imposing its will on the majority, either. I think you will find that most people in or outside the league, whether or not they support OP, are opposed to the use of racial slurs because in whatever context they are used, they demean people.

So the fact that this discussion is about “growing thicker skin” shows how prevalent this rot, if you will, is within the TF2 community. The burden should rightfully be on those who use slurs to not use slurs, an action which can directly cause harm. Any less is an attitude that tells everyone that you (not you, Kastaling, just the audience of this post in general) are more important than the people who would be harmed. And so this discussion should not be about thick skin or thin skin at all, or if it is right or wrong to say slurs. It should be about whether it is feasible or not for RGL to act off of reports gathered on such platforms, and what should be the extent of this.

@djnnseng said in Wallop lfp everything:

sniper: shaayy (but not until may)

you mean not until maayy

@Kodyn With regards to the naming scheme - it makes sense why you do it, but multiple scrims I’ve played so far have had issues with the server host using the commands, often instructed by others/by unofficial guides out there, to exec configs such as exec rgl_HL_stopwatch, but they did nothing, and we ended up playing out a scrim with no stopwatch and on the default config. I feel like this is an issue that is likely to pop up over and over again, and this will create the necessity for two sets of instructions - one for all non-Qixalite servers using the official config names like exec rgl_HL_stopwatch and one for Qixalite servers using your own config names such as exec rgl/HL_stopwatch - this is bound to generate much confusion and possibly the need for rounds played all over again or banned weapons being used, etc.

Is there a way you could create a simple server side alias to match the config names we RGL players are used to, and that we tell everyone who asks to exec, to the config names you use? For example, an rgl_HL_stopwatch.cfg file that contains one line: exec rgl/HL_stopwatch - so that your updating service can update rgl/HL_stopwatch but using exec rgl_HL_stopwatch will still get RGL players to the right config.

The second waterfall hold is really janky to push because they only have to watch one angle and they are comparatively very safe, especially the medic, and have high ground and can watch everything.

This could be fixed in two ways IMO. One is to straight up remove the waterfall area as far as gameplay is concerned, walling it off with glass. This essentially forces defense to play in a passive position, though, so idk how good it is - others may have better input. The other way could be to link the left area to the waterfall - this would force players holding in that position to watch two angles with less safety, allowing flank to play more on that point.

Also, in general I feel like players have to commit too hard to 2nd to cap it, maybe because the point is really far back. I’m not entirely sure how big of a problem this is or how it could be fixed, though. Maybe making the stream under the waterfall less deep and moving point into it?

@Ampy said in Addressing Racism/Anti-LGBTQ Speech on Off-Platform Media:

I can understand your argument, and would like to raise an objection that pug groups are essential. I find it incredibly unlikely that people will grow to higher level TF2 based solely on scrim time and matches alone. Consistently throughout my career I’ve been instructed or advised to join pugs to improve. It is not absolutely necessary, but I think players would severely hamper their growth and improvements by not taking this advice. Which then leads to the issue at hand of all the pug groups I’m aware of being filled with the toxic behavior.

Hopefully RGL Pugs on launch will help mitigate this, with greater accessibility and reach than Discord Pugs.

Upward 1st > Vigil 1st > Borneo 1st > Swiftwater 1st > Barnblitz 1st

Upward is pretty much the gold standard of first points, a point which can be exchanged on but isn’t a super strong hold either once ubers are out. Other maps (Vigil, Borneo, Swift) essentially have throwaway firsts, though you will see the exchange sometimes on borneo 1st, and others (Barnblitz) force the cart through a tight choke that can be painful to dislodge

Vigil 2nd > Swiftwater 2nd > Upward 2nd > Borneo 2nd > Barnblitz 2nd

Vigil is great because there are options and based on what picks you have there are multiple viable pushes (hill, side tunnel, 9 man main tunnel). Swiftwater has options too, but RED has a massive height advantage for 2 of 3 viable pushes so it’s not as good. Upward doesn’t have options but it’s saved from being a brick wall by the fact that it’s actually not that hard to push. Borneo and Barnblitz 2nd, well, suck. All points are holdable; Vigil, Swiftwater, and Upward are the most balanced here in that order.

Upward 3rd > Vigil 3rd > Swiftwater 3rd > Barnblitz 3rd > Borneo 3rd

Upward 3rd, once again, has options. It has good spam angles, good sightlines, and flanks that put you in the heart of the RED team, but is also very holdable for a team that knows what they’re doing. Vigil 3rd also has options but the hill for the cart can suck sometimes

Doctor: Swiftwater 4th isn’t real, it can’t hurt you

Swiftwater Last > Vigil Last > Upward Last > Borneo Last > Barnblitz Last

Swiftwater is the gold standard of last points imo. It’s super defendable for a team that holds their ground well, but they can also be overwhelmed in the best of positions by superior dm and coordination. Vigil is a close 2nd; its last overall is designed excellently, but it’s hurt majorly by how close the spawn exit is to the cap; it’s too easy to reestablish a hold even after being near-wiped as red. Upward, Borneo, and Barnblitz last are all shitshows in every sense of the word.

@dlphn said in The RGL Expiremental Map Cup is Being Wasted.:

to me, it seems clear that rgl’s current goal is to find a larger selection of acceptable maps than just the standard 7 that get played every season

the problem is that a lot of these maps like borneo and ramjam have clear flaws that make them basically unworkable against maps like upward, swiftwater, cascade, product, etc. and more crucially are 99% never going to be updated to fix said flaws

new maps on the other hand will be updated and will continuously get better

@TheS4rr but why be content with rotating in bad, unfun maps that won’t get better once a year when there are active and willing mapmakers who are building maps that are being actively improved and just need more feedback to get that improvement

https://rgl.gg/?a=1568

We should play new maps that are actively developed instead, because they may suck just as much but they have the potential to suck less

to sorta clarify what i think is the most important part of what @FlipFTW said -

in 6s, defending team, bc they don’t have to switch to offense, is automatically incentivized to run what for defense is a way stronger, team fight winnington team comp that offense now auto loses team fights to, and if offense runs pick classes to break a hold, they lose even more team fight power.

unlike in hl where team comps are enforced, meaning any two teams are, map design permitting, theoretically well balanced, and spawn timers being faster means the offense team is evenly matched with a defense that doesn’t need to be mobile.

great attitude guy who can improve a lot with a good team, will put in strong effort even as a sub, PICK THE POW UP

@Alto it makes sense to me.

it would make sense imo to have, especially in conjunction with the other stuff i’ve suggested, a 10 team RR invite, swiss IM/AM/NC, and 8 weeks/9 for Invite as in 6s. Still one match a week unlike 6s but two matches would be insanely hard to push

@civ @exa

totally agree with both of y’all but that reform isn’t omnibus, you can improve the div structure without all of these things and it takes significantly less political capital to do that than all these other things like league fees, more matches, longer seasons

@Melon tbh surprising to see how much smaller esea was though tbf a lot of weaker players were in ugc 6s and esea was a paid league

@Discount said in We need fewer divs in Highlander:

More teams in divisions will also make officials more luck based; if you are a mid skill level team and keep facing lower skill level teams, you may earn more points than another team that is more skillful than yours simply because of luck.

To that end, this just happens less when Swiss is working as it is intended to, with lots of teams. You are put up against teams closest to you in the scoreboard (i.e. with near equal match points) and you don’t end up facing consistently lower (or higher) skill teams since you’ve exhausted all the teams of similar skill level.

@scaredy-bat said in We need fewer divs in Highlander:

However, I don’t see how significantly increasing div size would improve the efficacy of the Swiss structure beyond a certain point, as eventually it just introduces too many opportunities for meaningless ties, and the fact that it takes time for teams to settle into the right area of the rankings means that a larger div = a larger number of meaningless rolls every season (whether doing the rolling or being rolled), compared to a small, curated RR div. Rolls teach nothing to the winning team and are suboptimal learning experiences for the losing team. It seems to court calcification rather than improvement.

@Discount said in We need fewer divs in Highlander:

However, I believe having 3 skill based divisions will cause too large of a skill gap between the bottom and top of the divs. Like what @scaredy-bat said, the number of rolls that will occur in a regular season will increase drastically and may even be a turn off for some players; causing them to give up and quit because of being badly beat repeatedly instead of encouraging them to improve.

Rolls are useful in a Swiss system as intended with large divisions: to set up the early structure of the division. The point is that similar skill teams should face each other to differentiate: which is the better among them.

Rolls will be concentrated towards the beginning of the season, when there is less seeding to go off. This is natural, inherent to Swiss, and most critically, happens anyway. Towards the beginning of each season you’re far more likely to see teams with large gaps in skill face each other. Yes, you’ll see harder rolls, but let’s face it, there’s very little meaningful difference between a 3:10 offensive time on Vigil, a 3:40, and a 4:10 time - which already happens, and happens a lot. There’s very little difference between being held on cliff/grass on Product and being held on point if either way, you can’t get any cap time the whole match.

But what happens right now that won’t happen in my proposed world is that, once teams have exhausted all the teams near them in skill, they start hitting better or worse teams, to the point of it being a roll, just because there are no longer any teams in their division close to them in skill.

This is most apparent right now in the teams that roll their divisions, with maybe only one or two worthy challengers. Once these teams have played said challengers, they are now facing teams they will reliably roll and that have been paired with said top team just out of poor luck, since matchmaking is done from the top down and the top team has already played everyone in between. Meanwhile, they often have worthy opponents in the div above - and often would beat, but not roll, the bottom teams in the div above. These matches would tell us so much more about their skill and where they deserve to be than just “at the top of division X” right now. They would tell us more about where they deserve to be placed next season. They would tell prospective tryouts more about what they can expect from that team and its players in the future. Sure, at the top of the divs there would still be the possibility of teams rolling the div, but fewer divs would reduce the frequency of those teams just because there are fewer divs to roll, and fewer divs would make it easier to have clear cut boundaries and overall streamline div placement for admins, reducing the chance of unsuitable team placements.

In the other scenario are teams near the bottom of their divs, especially the ones who have unusually hard seasons. These teams have such hard seasons because of poor luck; fewer teams in each div makes for more chance that such poor pairings happen. The best example I can think of this happening is Sunrise from this past season of HL. They faced five out of six playoffs teams - 3-0ing one of them - and facing only two non-playoffs teams (and soundly beating both) - yet placed last seed at the end of the regular season. Just because there are fewer imbalanced matchups in a Swiss system with more teams, there is less chance for matchups to be exhausted to the point where a team gets screwed by the system and not by just being less skilled.

@Alto i think it’s easier to just think of them as a source vmf file and a compiled bsp file, which is what they are…