1 - No. Koth for me is usually around 10 fps and I know I'm not the only one who suffers from this. Why alienate people from the tournament.

2 - Yes. I think the last tournament we only played 2 different arena maps. If Crack chooses the maps then that's cool. More variety.

3 - Yup seems fair all round.

4 - No. People have other commitments. The last tournament ran well in the time frame it had. Why change it? One match per week, with the day agreed between the two playing teams.

5 - I think DJ's idea of a time-limit is a great idea. If not that then 15 was fine before. Again, why change it.

6 - I can really only answer this from a personal point of view. Allow all unlocks, apart from The Sandman. In my opinion this is the worst thing that's happened to tf2. However, that's just me, and at the end of the day, it's not that big a deal.

it would be interesting to have a KOTH tourney but its so completely different to arena i think it would be a bad move to change it.

also I agree that the maps should be pre determined and announced at the same time for both teams, which gives them both an equal opportunity to practice tactics and such instead of being in a possible situation where one team has it down and the other is 1st time.

i'm only ringer this year tho so ofc vote for that and will stfu about the cup now

GL HF

Just a quick reply for DJ,

The only issue I see happening with that is that some arena maps take longer then others. Some teams may take defensive tactics, some may take offensive. In the last tournament some matches took about 15 minutes, the others could take up to 30 minutes at the worst. A time-limit means the amount of matches are all over the place and if it ends as a draw thats more complications too. Its a decent idea and if people show backing it will be something to implement. But will the above hinder it?

1. I think KotH would need a new ruleset to be viable; maybe a different tournament. Incidently, have those people complaining of low framerates in KotH matches tried a small game, or just 12v12 spam fests? Just wondering.

2. More variety is good.

3. I'm not fussed either way, as long as everyone plays by the same rules.

4. No. I for one work funny hours at times, one game a week should be fine, but two would be a difficult I think.

5. Why not. I can't see it making much of a difference to the results, and it can't be a bad thing to have more games.

6. A single hit with a sandman can be instant annoying death, especially in a no respawn game. Apart from that though, fair game.

1. No KoTH. Arena is far morre epic.
2. Agree with this. I think Lumberyard and Ravine were the only maps we played.
3. Yeah
4. 1 match a week was good. It's more flexible.
5. I liked 15 rounds. Timelimit would make it a bit... Rushy maybe?
6. NO DEAD RINGER! I do not think it's a fair weapon, if someone dies he should stay dead especially when there's no respawns. Ban sandman too even thought it's a bit more balanced now with the -30 health and I doubt someone would use it.

Points 1 and 2:
I like the idea that if CrakI chooses the maps before each contest, then we could have a Koth/ King of the Hill round anyway - but it doesn't have to be exclusive. Keeps us grunts on our toes , as Lucius says more variety is good

3: ringers...better to play a match than to have it called off - if a team has to have a ringer outside of the normal five - perhaps forfeit one game in a match at start. Second week running two games etc... (if both teams need extra ringers/subs no need to forfeit -CrakI can just give you a bollocking...)

4: Aim to finish the tournament by end of Nov. In time for party season...

5: Winlimit =more games more fun, and if my suggestion for point 3 is taken up..gives some leeway for forfeits

6: i will happily trade my unlocks for a hat (anykind) - if you can look cool in your fedora, i want my sandman to knock it off your head .....

1. Like I said in another thread, I find KOTH more tactical: less based on individual player skill and more based in teamwork/actual brains. I like that notion since it provides a sort of an equalizer for all the players who are not playing online fps since they were 3 yrs old (read: exaggeration), and who have a clear advantage in arena mode which is a glorified deathmatch.

Of course lack of optimization for KOTH maps resulting in low fps is a serious matter too..so I'm kinda torn in between. I'll vote yes only to at least forward the idea of playing both types of games maybe?

2. This should be up to the teams to decide I assume

3. Less ringers means more fair play for everyone imho.


4. I'm OK with anything within the abstract boundaries of logic really.

5. Whatever the majority wants. I'd tend to like a bit lengthened the individual games in terms of rounds.

6. No problem with ETFL rules.

This.

Yes I did.
I don't really know how I did it, but if someone would mind deleting it, I would be very grateful.

Koth
I really dislike this game mode.
Mainly because it's so spammy and people are less cautious than they are in Arena.
Maps
The more variety the better.
Ringers
They seem like a good idea.
Tournament length
Spread over several weeks seems to be better than a shorter time such as being spread over a week, which will make more people unavailable to play as we all have real life commitments.
Win limit
15 seems fine and allows both teams more of a chance to catch up on the other unlike a win limit of 3 or 5 does.
Unlocks
Most of them are fine and Sandman is better now as it can't stun Ubers and Scouts that use them have -30 health, but it's still annoying. The Dead Ringer can be a incredibly annoying and frustrating if you're on the opposing team and you keep "killing" the Spy which wastes a lot of time.
I'm not that bothered either way as unlocks are part of the game and add more variety to combat situations.

What agent said