I tried out TF2 during the free weekend a month or so ago, when the Medic boosts were introduced. It was the first time I've ever dealt with Steam, and the first time in years I'd even touched an FPS.

While I loved the aesthetic and the gameplay itself, I quickly found that many of the old problems with online FPS gaming haven't gone away. On some servers I did enjoy some good teamwork and respectable communication between players, but on more servers, I encountered the opposite.

I thought the voice chat was great, until it seemed on every server there was some moron who kept playing annoying music over it or accidentally turned on their mic so we could all hear a deafening screech. Asking players for help (which was a common occurance that weekend, of course) resulted in annoying replies and often false ones (the old shutdown hotkey gag).

I still want to get the Orange Box at some point (at least for HL2 and Portal which I've never played) but my feelings on TF2 online were pretty mixed. While the games and interfaces themselves have improved immensely over the last decade, the quality of players hasn't seemed to improve much at all.

Yeah, you really need to find a good server, and the Free Weekend is not the best time to get a helpful response to a common question (people have been asking them all day).

Quality players are out there, and as a whole, we're generally a friendly bunch. But asking what key does what is something you can figure out pretty easily from the options menu. Shop around on servers, and save ones you like to your favorites list.

I dunno, maybe I need to be hanging around your servers. People I play with get pretty frustrated when they get steamrolled on Dustbowl five times straight. Then the berating begins.

A lot of it is the right servers; they vary. I find it easiest to find a good server with mature people in TF 2, at least as far as FPS's are concerned.

And yeah, free weekend isn't the best time to get started. The whole medic thing has already evened itself out--sometimes there aren't enough!

Great read, thanks. FYI -The link to tutorial videos currently gives an error.

failed to open stream: Permission denied in /usr/www/users/gambyte/cgi-bin/managed-mt/php/mt.php on line 123

Good catch! Fixed.

yeah it's sociology

The Free Weekend isn't a good time to get a taste of the community, people are generally annoyed by the influx of people asking things like "How do I build a Sentry?" "Why isn't he burning?" "WTH I Had 200 health, howd he kill me?".

Also, the Server you're on really matters. In my experience, I've found that the "Control Point Podcast" servers are the best of the bunch, everyone there is really nice, and helpful, EVEN to you free weekenders.
tf2.deadworkers.com

ALSO, there is a free weekend going on RIGHT NOW, just FYI.

Yeah, but every game has some good servers with a good player community and active admins to kick anyone being a jerk. If you want to claim TF2 is special in some way (which I'm not totally sure it is, personally) there needs to be something else. Possibly it's just because all the n-word spewing morons play CoD4 instead?

I've played multiplayer on the Internet since 1997 and I think TF2 has the worst community of them all, though whether you're playing TF2, CS, BF or WoW, you can expect that the vast majority of players you will encounter are idiots. The only thing that really influences the amount of stupidity is game mechanics. Quake deathmatch was so relentless and lightning fast that you had no time to type anything, and the simple gameplay made griefing impossible.

It's funny that you mentioned the post-victory period when the winning team can freely kill the losing team, because that's actually griefing. Your "opponents" have no possible way of defending themselves, and you still get points for valiantly gunning them down with a 100% critical rate. It's not fair play by any stretch of the imagination, and as a result I hold TF2 players in greater contempt than cheaters, who can at least be killed or banned. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

I seem to be the only one who has a problem with this griefing, which says a lot about the supposed maturity of the community. Mature players respect fair play, TF2 players don't. Their usual response to my position is "well this is WAR and there are no rules," which is an idiotic thing to say since even real war has rules and laws (protip: executing enemies who have surrendered is a war crime).

The game mechanics of TF2 allow griefing on an unprecedented scale, which is why I quit playing despite otherwise enjoying the gameplay (critical hits are absolutely idiotic though).

See, this is why my friends and I prefer games with bots. The four of us game together every weekend (have for years) and we start our own private servers (CS:S, BF2, whatever) filled out with bots for added bodies, mayhem and action. Works great for us! We never have to worry about jerks/griefers. Ever.

Though they certainly don't always play as smart or realistically as the average experienced gamer, we hardly notice in all the mayhem, noise and fun. It's a totally worth it trade-off for the peace of mind and freedom it gives us. When we HAVE tried playing on pubs in the past, we instantly realized why we don't want to do that again. :)

Just wish TF2 had bots for rounding out servers. If it did, we'd buy it FOR SURE instantly. But we're figuring 2-on-2 matches wouldn't be that practical (or fun?) so we stay away. Sigh...

someone should get laid.

You quit the game over the fifteen second post-victory period? How is that griefing? You already *lost* the game, now it's the opposing team's chance to go ballistic and have fun for a few seconds before a new match begins.

Many good games allow you to just dick around outside of official rules. Day of Defeat has the same post-victory fight, many games have a pre-match warmup where teamkilling is allowed. Why would you consider these players worse than cheaters?

@ Yellow you have to be kidding about victory kills comment... if anything you sound like a child
"waaaa, no I don't want to play anymore I lost!"

p.s you might want to skip out on Day of Defeat since they have "victory kills" as well

You can kill or ban a cheater, but you can't do anything during the post-victory period except reconnect to the server or leave the game. You are absolutely fucked and given no means of defending yourself, and TF2 players exploit this brilliant feature with impunity because the concept of fair play is completely alien to them. At least cheaters have the balls to blatantly break the rules and risk the consequences, but TF2 players are allowed by the developers to be assclowns. Again: just because something is allowed doesn't mean it's right.

I am only asking for fair play, which shouldn't be a problem considering that TF2 players are so mature and intelligent, or so someone is telling me. I also resent the post-victory period in terms of gameplay because, again, I can't do anything to defend myself. Also, how does it make any sense that the player character surrenders with the knowledge that he will die with 100% certainty?

Jeff: "if anything you sound like a child "waaaa, no I don't want to play anymore I lost!"

Strawman. I would be more than happy to keep playing if I could defend myself. How exactly is fair play suddenly a childish concept?

"you might want to skip out on Day of Defeat since they have "victory kills" as well"

I am completely aware of that. So?

Someone,

I agree with Tape, and don't think that post-victory killing spree really counts as "griefing". It doesn't interfere with anybody's ability to play the game, and if you're a crappy player on a winning team, it might be your only chance at sweet revenge on whoever was axing you in the face every time you ventured outside your base.

And, Nhexima: You can mute individual players, something that took me far too long to learn. The free weekend isn't a very good example at all of how TF2 gameplay typically is, also. The typical etiquette and class interactions that are taken for granted (i.e. proper Ubercharge usage/timing, to name one) go completely by the wayside. Unfortunately, there's no way to convince you of this without you actually purchasing the game.

@ those complaining about the Post-victory period.

Shut the hell up. You have got to be the *only* people i've ever met who have a problem with it. If you can't deal with dying when you have *already lost* your as bad as the 14-year olds who swear constantly, and pump out racial slurs.

"...*already lost*, you're..."

Before someone feels like pointing out my mistake :P

I find it fascinating that the desire for fair play is seen by everyone as juvenile. In that case, you must agree that cheating is perfectly acceptable since it's the opposite of fair play and therefore the opposite of juvenile.

There's also a constant and possibly deliberate inability to understand what I'm saying. I don't have a problem with dying after I've lost, I have a problem with being absolutely defenseless and seeing my opponents get points for doing something that's ten times easier than aimbotting and wallhacking against CS bots set to the lowest skill.

It's juvenile due to you getting upset because your enemies got a couple of free points, Which don't matter.

What about COD4, where you get rewarded for good playing with Radar sweeps, Air-strikes, and Helicopters?

What about Counter-Strike, where you get rewarded for good playing with better weapons and armor?

The fact of the matter is that the Post-Victory period has *NO* impact on the actual match, nor does it count to your stats, despite giving out points.

Yes, TF2 does reward you with weapons and such, but they are all insanely balanced, and have no automatic advantage against the the base weapons.

"It's juvenile due to you getting upset because your enemies got a couple of free points, Which don't matter."

I have explained my position many times now. You are either too stupid to understand it or you realize that I'm correct which forces you to come up with strawmen. Which is it?

As for CoD4 and CS... what about them? What do they have to do with this? Explain.

Nice article. I never wanted an Xbox because of the stereotypical 13 year old spouting homophobic insults while playing Halo but I've fallen in love with Team Fortress 2 on my PC. I really can't stop playing.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your position, I just don't understand *why* that's position.

Almost every online FPS rewards players for good playing, TF2's just don't mess with the actual match.

If TF2 post-victory period had any impact on the actual game I'd agree with you.

Oh no! The opposing team won and get's 15 seconds to get a couple of free points!

Big. Fucking. Whoop.

Someone, You're using a 'False Dichotomy', and converting people's disagreements with your opinion into an either/or argument. When taking a range of decisions and acknowledging only a few possibilities, you are dealing with this informal fallacy. The argument that either "You are wrong, or you admit I'm right" is a classic example.

As you criticize some for accepting your 'opinion' and offering their own, you do go a ways to defend it.

That said, I am also of the opinion that, while interestin gin the theory of Gameplay Momentum that TF2 is based on, Crits can be totally lame at times.

Crit's can get annoying at time's, but everyone has an equal chance of getting them so I can't really complain...

"You can kill or ban a cheater, but you can't do anything during the post-victory period except reconnect to the server or leave the game."

You would seriously reconnect to a server to avoid a fifteen-second period during which, oh noes your opponents might get a kill...nvm that individual kills achieve nothing.

Do what everyone else does, the scoreboard pops up during that period, read it, reconsider your strategy, maybe switch classes if needed. Its only fifteen freaking seconds after all.

People are calling you juvenile because throwing a fit about a couple freebie kills which are designed to allow the winning team to celebrate and have ZERO EFFECT on the game shows that you only care about your individual score, and not the good of your team.

I know that the DOD:S server I play on has Victory Kill turned off, so I would be very surprised if TF2 servers didn't have a similar function.

Ian: you either don't understand my position, or don't want to admit I'm right.

Blacktiger: it's not a false dichotomy. There are exactly two options: either he doesn't get it or he's using strawmen because he knows I'm right. Either way he's misrepresenting my position and arguing against something I haven't said.

Krel: you, too, are misrepresenting my position which I have explained numerous times already. I really don't know how many times I have to explain this: I want others to PLAY FAIR, which is what MATURE people do. I never said anything about my personal score, and the fact that I'm willing to reconnect to the server should make it pretty obvious that I don't care about it.

This conversation would have ended a long time ago if people didn't go out of their way to either ignore what I'm saying or construct ridiculous strawmen. This conversation also demonstrates just how "mature" and "intelligent" TF2 players are. What a joke.

The whole point of the humiliation round is to let the winning team work off some steam and make it obvious to the losing team that their tactics just aren't working. There's no point in being able to defend yourself because you have already lost. The game is over. Hell, if you're still alive for the humiliation round then chances are you're not playing the game right, because you ought to have been defending the objective.

In other words: by losing the match, you have forfeited your right to defend yourself. If you don't want to suffer the humiliation round, then don't lose. Complaining about people being able to kill you in the humiliation round is like complaining that you can't get to the next level in a single player game because you can't beat the current one.

Wait what

Are you saying that you're not even willing to admit the *possibility* that you're wrong? o_O

"Fair" has nothing to do with it. "Fair" was the entire game that preceded the humiliation round. If you're suffering it then it's already been proved that your team couldn't win in a "fair" fight.

"The whole point of the humiliation round is to let the winning team work off some steam and make it obvious to the losing team that their tactics just aren't working."

In Counter-Strike (and in many other games) we have the magical ability to discern that our team lost by noticing the text on the screen and the audio announcement. The fact that our entire team is usually dead tends to be a tell-tale sign as well. I guess TF2 players need a little extra help.

"The game is over. Hell, if you're still alive for the humiliation round then chances are you're not playing the game right, because you ought to have been defending the objective."

This is entirely irrelevant.

"In other words: by losing the match, you have forfeited your right to defend yourself."

Who says I have forfeited anything, on what authority and based on what logic? How come I don't get disarmed in all the other multiplayer games I've played? How come soldiers who fail a mission in real life don't forfeit their right to defend themselves?

"If you don't want to suffer the humiliation round, then don't lose."

If you don't want to get aimbotted then don't play online!

"Complaining about people being able to kill you in the humiliation round is like complaining that you can't get to the next level in a single player game because you can't beat the current one."

This doesn't even make any sense.

Gurgeh: "Fair" has nothing to do with it."

It has everything to do with it, since there's nothing fair about having a 100% critical rate and killing enemies who have no possible means of defending themselves. If you think it's fair then you must agree that cheating is also fair.

"If you're suffering it then it's already been proved that your team couldn't win in a "fair" fight."

And?

Someone, what can be done to satisfy you enough to return to TF2.

Does that 15 seconds out every maybe 15 minutes a round really piss you off enough to quit the game?

Maybe you can take that 15 seconds to rest your eyes and look at far away objects? o_O

If you really hate it so much, go write a complaint to valve about those 15s.

"Fairness" isn't a part of the humiliation round. It's not about being "fair". It's a "ha-ha, you lost!" round. It's there to reward the winners and punish the losers.

But if you're going to be so utterly intransigent as to not even grasp something this simple then I hope your preconceptions remain unaltered. I don't /want/ people like you playing TF2 with me.

victory kill is basicaly just a mess round after the winning team pulverises your team, or narrowly scrapes victory. good team work deserves a reward, being the seconds of 100% granted. i look at the victory kill period as a laugh, the server i play on, UKCS servers, www.ukcs.net, which have 3 server are all full of decent people. once your team loses and that victory kill turns on, its time to run and hide, im usualy on the loosing team and the endless screams and cries of laughter down the mic are brilliant, dont treat it as an unfair few seconds, treat it as a cat and mouse situatiuon, and your the mouse, try and survive ;)

Someone, your definitions are problematic.

"Playing Fair" is playing by the established rules of the game. Using hacks to tilt gameplay in your favor would be playing unfairly. Things that could be argued (though not necessarily successfully) as unfair play would be exploiting unintented glitches in the maps to get into untextured areas or, say, shoot through solid objects. Playing unfairly results in you getting an unfair (hence the term) advantage over your opponents. Anything post-victory does not consist of unfair play by definition, because since the winning team has already won, they are not getting an advantage over the opponents.

"Griefing" is doing things outside the spirit of the game that serve no purpose except to hamper other players' enjoyment of the game. The classic example of griefing was an MMORPG player who stayed below the minimum level for PvP play, who would run around getting hordes of monsters to chase him and plow through groups of other players, leading to the deaths of those players, who were unable to retaliate. That was griefing because the developers intended for the players to fight each other through PvP, and the griefer was taking advantage of a protection for new players in order to molest other players who weren't necessarily his opponents.

Your assertion that the post-victory portion of Team Fortress 2 holds about as much water as a sieve.

First, in Team Fortress 2, your allies and opponents are clearly seperated and visible. The other team is your enemy at all times, unless you switch teams during the game. Second, the primary objective of TF2 is not to obtain points. Points are only a loose indicator of how well you have been doing during the match. The real objective of the game is to help your team win. TF2 INTENTIONALLY does not have a standard deathmatch mode--the victory conditions are absolutely based on things that are only indirectly furthered by killing opponents. (The exception to this is Sudden Death, but in that case, there is usually nobody around on the other team afterwards for a post-victory slaughter)

A term you may not be familiar with is the "Forfeit", which is a minor ribbing given to the loser of a game. In a game like Beer Pong, the forfeit would be for the loser to take a drink. In Mortal Kombat, the victorious player gets to dismember his opponent or slap him silly or just let him fall to the ground, as he sees fit. In Team Fortress 2, the forfeit for losing is to give the other team a fifteen-second chance to chase you around like a scared bunny (unless you are killed or died before the match ends). This post-victory forfeit, while mildly humiliating, is actually even less offensive than dying mid-game. Mid-game, you have objectives to complete, and you are forced to wait several seconds before coming back into the match. Post-game, getting killed actually reduces the amount of time between matches, since if everyone on the losing team dies, you move straight on to the next match.

Your true argument seems to be that you don't like forfeits. That's fine and dandy personal preference, and it means that you should steer clear of games like TF2 and Mortal Kombat that allow them. But you shouldn't refer to it as griefing, because it's inaccurate and an unnecessary insult to legitimate players.

Good lord, 'someone', the whole point of the post-game humiliation is to get you used to the idea that dying is no big deal and to allow some of the bad players on the winning team (there are always a few) a chance to score some easy points and get on the board.

It's kinda funny and *very* humane unless you're some kind of 'teh internet is serious business' type. In which case, DIAF.

Gurgeh: "Fairness" isn't a part of the humiliation round. It's not about being "fair". It's a "ha-ha, you lost!" round. It's there to reward the winners and punish the losers."

Fairness isn't part of cheating. It's there to let me have fun at the expense of others.

"But if you're going to be so utterly intransigent as to not even grasp something this simple then I hope your preconceptions remain unaltered. I don't /want/ people like you playing TF2 with me."

No, of course you don't want mature players who believe in fair play. I think we've alreday established that many times now.

Jaymark, I've already explained why I'm using the term griefing. As for playing fair, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Having 100% criticals against unarmed opponents is indeed an unfair advantage any way you slice it. If it isn't an unfair advantage then I guess aimbotting isn't either.

"A term you may not be familiar with is the "Forfeit", which is a minor ribbing given to the loser of a game. In a game like Beer Pong, the forfeit would be for the loser to take a drink."

In some better games, we have this system where the game keeps track of how many times a team has won. When your team loses, the opposing team gets a point. Yes, I know this is some crazy shit but it has worked pretty well for over a decade now.

"This post-victory forfeit, while mildly humiliating, is actually even less offensive than dying mid-game. Mid-game, you have objectives to complete, and you are forced to wait several seconds before coming back into the match."

Mid-game I can actually defend myself and have control over the game. I am actually PLAYING THE GAME. Post-game, I might as well go offline and throw a grenade at my feet repeatedly.

"Your true argument seems to be that you don't like forfeits."

No, my true arguments is that I am merely expecting people to play fair and stop griefing. This would not be a problem if TF2 players were as mature and intelligent as the article claims.

SuperEffective: "Good lord, 'someone', the whole point of the post-game humiliation is to get you used to the idea that dying is no big deal."

In some better games, we have this system where you immediately respawn after dying, thus reinforcing the idea that dying is no big deal. It worked pretty well for us in games like Team Fortress and Team Fortress Classic. In Counter-Strike, we know that dying is a pretty big deal because we don't come back until the round is over. Yes, we have the intellectual capacity to figure out things like this.

"And to allow some of the bad players on the winning team (there are always a few) a chance to score some easy points and get on the board."

I think aimbotting is a pretty cool idea because it allows bad players to score some easy points.

With apologies to the Heavy... cry some more.

And here we see once again just how "mature" TF2 players are.

DEAR SOMEONE,

It is entirely fair because:

Both teams had an equal chance of winning the match from the beginning of the match.

Both teams have an equal chance of being able to have a 15-second no-limits romp against the defeated team if they win.

Therefore, it is fair when one team gets some fun action against the other team.

It is there as one of the many ways to lighten/loosen up the atmosphere. If you don't like it, there's probably other parts of the game you don't like either, as this style pervades the game: chaotic yet comical with some structure to keep everything together in a nice cohesive package. But you'll label that statement as irrelevant.

Anyway, I'm starting to think that you're just a troll... >.<

In that case, you got me. :P

Damn, I keep refreshing this page for a response...

It is entirely not fair because, again, you are disarmed and your opponents are given 100% criticals. It's even more unfair than going up against a cheater. To add insult to the injury this "feature" isn't even in any way necessary, nor does it improve the game.

Accusing someone of trolling for no reason is the last refuge of the intellectually challenged.

Someone, I don't understand why you're freaking out about "fairness." It's a game and a funny, over-the-top one at that. The "rules of war" aren't really an issue. I agree with Felix^/Screweh* that it's just a laugh. Is the goal of the game not to have fun?

Apparently games aren't fun unless the player is in control at all times. And you clearly don't know much history if you think that the soliders on the losing side of a war are treated fairly. There are mass graves in Russia and Germany that prove otherwise.

this guy is just baiting you due to immaturity,
he wants to take tf2 all serious and just doesnt understand the game.

ignore him.

Well, back to the article...

As a girl and an anthropologist (if a degree makes you one), I find it interesting that women choose the medic role. Of course, my husband says it's because he's handsome and a doctor... My husband also says I play games that are easy. In my case--totally true (love that Wii!), but there are gamer girls out there who play just as well as the guys and enjoy all the violence and whatnot. So, if Mr. Walbridge is making an accurate judgment, why do the ladies go for the medic? The nurturing role, it's not super violent, there aren't any chicks in the game... Something to ponder.

Sarah, going by that logic cheating is acceptable since it is, after all, quite fun to do.

Gurgeh, I fail to see what's fun about being prevented from playing the game for no valid reason. In some better games it is simply announced that the round/game is over and we move on to the next one. Also, you clearly aren't in touch with reality if you think there aren't any laws in warfare and many instances where those laws have been respected. Don't even try arguing about this.

d3vious, I'm not baiting anyone, and it's very pathetic of you to try to reverse the facts by trying to claim that I'm being immature. It is exactly the opposite, as I have demonstrated again and again.

Um...

Someone, I think you just proved his point. But, I'm really immature, so I may be misjudging this whole thing.

Someone, answer me this:

If both teams have an entirely equal chance of getting the victory spree, how is it in any way unfair?

Just so you know, you can defend yourself by running away, or positioning yourself where the opponent wont find you before the game ends. It's a little tag-on game of cat-and-mouse, like another said, where the rules change. Sure, it's not exactly the conventional definition of a game, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun. I enjoy it. It adds depth, believe it or not, but I wont try explaining it to you. (oh boy, will you pick that sentence apart :P)

Cheaters make it so that you don't have a chance to beat them because they don't have to apply to the same rules that everyone else does, thus making it: unfair.

I've noticed something: You ignore almost any valid points any of us make, and focus on the ones most easily sidestepped, argued against, or exploited as to open a new tangent of conversation, ignoring the progress through the process of the argument that was almost made.

You say making personal attacks is immature? For the intellectually challenged? You're being immature, then, by attacking us and our opinions.

By trolling I meant baiting, griefing. Why did I propose the thought? Because you seem so closed to others' points and opinions, that it seems like you're actually trying to stir up something.
And to only focus on an inane afterthought to a perfectly fine well-rounded argument as the object of an attack on my intelligence is to undermine any valid points you may have with the exact reasoning that you proposed to me. Think that your points are valid, still? Well, I believe mine are as well. Don't call us stupid if we clearly aren't. We're being logical, rational, but you're either attacking, manipulating, or simply ignoring us.

This post will probably feed you with who knows how much more potential false psychoanalysis and opportunities for distracting us from your dying case against the fairness, fun, and validity of having an inconsequential 15-second victory spree in a game that is quite fun even if the 15 seconds aren't enjoyed.

Looking back, this comment is rather caustic. If you really are a genuinely irked person with no malicious intent, I apologize. It just seems that there's no getting through to you. For you to persist like this, though, seems unnatural for someone who sincerely doesn't like the game. Why do you care? I would leave and play some of those "better games" of which you mentioned. Although, I doubt they don't have problems of their own, ones that actually affect gameplay. You'll be hard pressed to find a game like TF2. Especially if you're as picky about its features as you seem.

Hm... and the vitriol comes back into my argument... Must mean I'm an intellectually challenged twit, eh?

"If both teams have an entirely equal chance of getting the victory spree, how is it in any way unfair?"

Well gee, let's think about this: what's unfair about being unarmed against enemies who have a 100% critical rate? Hmm, I just don't know.

"Just so you know, you can defend yourself by running away, or positioning yourself where the opponent wont find you before the game ends."

Or, you know, I could just shoot them. But unfortunately the game arbitrarily decided to disarm me. Running away rarely works.

"Cheaters make it so that you don't have a chance to beat them because they don't have to apply to the same rules that everyone else does, thus making it: unfair."

I've killed cheaters. It's tough, but it can be done. Have I ever killed a player in TF2 after losing the round? No.

"I've noticed something: You ignore almost any valid points any of us make, and focus on the ones most easily sidestepped, argued against, or exploited as to open a new tangent of conversation, ignoring the progress through the process of the argument that was almost made."

If you MADE valid arguments I might have something to respond to.

"We're being logical, rational, but you're either attacking, manipulating, or simply ignoring us."

This is called "projection."

You have the same chance of getting the spree from the beginning of the match as the opposing team.

That's how it's fair.

Cheating unfairly biases the balance of the game in their direction. It's harder to kill someone who doesn't play by the same rules you do, but it's still possible.

As for the victory spree, both teams had an equal chance of winning. Who ever wins gets it.

Much like how respawn times can improve the fun of a match by making it actually possible to, say, cap a flag, the victory spree improves the fun of a match by amplifying the thrill of victory for the winners, while giving the losers some more incentive to beat the team the next match. It's all in the manner of competitiveness, but realizing it's still a lighthearted game.

Whoa, this has gotten heated! Absolutely loved the article, great read, and very true on all accounts :]

@ someone: Okay, heres the problem that you and every 7 year old paying tag have. You fail to deal with the fact that it is JUST A GAME.

If you won every time, Im positive youd see no problem with the post-vic period. But like those 7 year olds on the playground, when you lose, you feel the need to blame somebody, instead of just MOVING ON.

Yes, its true, the winning team does have a few seconds to gloat and maybe get in a kill or two, but a lot of us dont. You automatically assume that everyone will just go nuts when they win, but a lot of folks stop playing when the scoreboard comes up. And if some 28 kid with no self esteem and living with his mom manages to nail you post-vic, whatever, its JUST A GAME.

Good lord, so much for mature....

Lorem Ipsum: Suppose I've joined the game only a few minutes ago. Suppose that I play as well as I can but my team loses anyway and there's nothing I can do about it (rarely does one player decide the outcome of the game). An equal chance? Not really.

"Cheating unfairly biases the balance of the game in their direction."

Being invulnerable and having a 100% critical rate kind of changes the balance too. A bit more than an aimbot, I'd say.

"The victory spree improves the fun of a match by amplifying the thrill of victory for the winners."

I have standards and I take pride in fighting with skill and fairness. There's nothing satisfying or fun about killing players who don't have even a theoretical chance of fighting back (one of the reasons why I don't gank in WoW).

A long time ago, when most posters here were likely still in elementary school, we got more than enough satisfaction from simply winning the game without any of this nonsense that TF2 has. It was enough that we got that last minute cap or that our last remaining guy wiped out the enemy team.

drew: did you know that the "it's just a game" argument is often used by cheaters? Did you realize before you hit "Post" that I could just as easily argue "it's just a game, why do you have to kill me after the round is over?"

"But like those 7 year olds on the playground, when you lose, you feel the need to blame somebody, instead of just MOVING ON."

I really like how you're trying to make it seem like I'm the one who's immature, when it's absolutely without question the other way around. I have never blamed anyone, since this isn't about whose fault it was that the team lost. So... what are you talking about exactly?

"You automatically assume that everyone will just go nuts when they win, but a lot of folks stop playing when the scoreboard comes up."

I do not remember even a single instance where a winning player did not frag me on sight. I am not "assuming" anything, I'm talking about things I've directly experienced over and over again.

"Suppose I've joined the game only a few minutes ago. Suppose that I play as well as I can but my team loses anyway and there's nothing I can do about it (rarely does one player decide the outcome of the game). An equal chance? Not really."

Is this what happened? You joined a game in progress and your team immediately lost? I think we're getting somewhere... You know, there's a way to avoid exactly this sort of occurance: Only join games labelled "In Lobby." While the game is in the lobby, the game hasn't started yet, and no team has developed an 'unfair' advantage over the other in objectives before you join in. Yes, it's a little sad that "In Lobby" games probably don't have enough people to play yet, and you'll have to impatiently wait for it to fill up before starting, but it is an exceptional way to ensure fairness. Unless the team is full, you also have the option of joining the team that already has more players--they're the team more likely to be winning, after all.

The other alternative would be to reset the team scores to 0-0 every time somebody new joined the match--but that wouldn't exactly be fair to the people already playing, would it?

"I have standards and I take pride in fighting with skill and fairness. There's nothing satisfying or fun about killing players who don't have even a theoretical chance of fighting back (one of the reasons why I don't gank in WoW)."

Again, I ask: Have you ever played Mortal Kombat? If not, I don't recommend you try it--you wouldn't like it. As for WoW, there are real losses associated with ganking, including the time/money losses for healing, the time losses for getting back to whereever you were, and the social losses of making your friends wait for you if you happened to be in a group. There are absolutely no consequences, in game or out of game, for getting killed in the TF2 post-game.

"Also, you clearly aren't in touch with reality if you think there aren't any laws in warfare and many instances where those laws have been respected. Don't even try arguing about this."

Oh, dear. You may not be aware of this, seeing as they are sometimes called "war games," but first person shooters actually are almost nothing like war and share almost none of the same rules. Don't let "America's Army" fool you! In war, there are no respawns, health packs require weeks of waiting to have a noticable effect and aren't even guaranteed to be effective, innocent people wander around getting in the way and you have to avoid shooting them or be rudely excused from the game, and the cheaters are even harder to catch. Teams are never even in number and are never auto-balanced, the terrain is not symmetrical and is usually unfairly biased against one team or the other, the opposing teams really seem to hate each other, the developers don't even TRY to balance the weapons, one or two hits kill you, and you don't even get sent back to the lobby when you perish. The blood and gore are the most realistic ever, but rather than being praised and respected, the gibs are actually considered to be disgusting and horrific, and can cause the people who are exposed to them to be scarred for life. When someone on the other team decides to grief you, you don't really get a chance to complain to a game master, and most players who have been griefed don't end up becoming a famous politician--they instead become broken, horribly-disfigured shells, if they escape teh game at all. And the worst part about war is that most of the time you're not even playing! You're just moving about in uncomfortable environments, eating crappy food and wondering if there might be an enemy hiding behind that rock over there.

In other words, don't even try arguing about how a game should be more like real warfare.

"The other alternative would be to reset the team scores to 0-0 every time somebody new joined the match--but that wouldn't exactly be fair to the people already playing, would it?"

Or, you know, they could simply remove the post-victory fragging period, since it's not necessary anyway.

"As for WoW, there are real losses associated with ganking, including the time/money losses for healing, the time losses for getting back to whereever you were, and the social losses of making your friends wait for you if you happened to be in a group. There are absolutely no consequences, in game or out of game, for getting killed in the TF2 post-game."

And?

"You may not be aware of this, seeing as they are sometimes called "war games," but first person shooters actually are almost nothing like war and share almost none of the same rules."

I never put forth the "this is WAR and everything is fair in WAR" argument. Other people did.

"(Long rant about nothing)"

What the fuck, man? You're ranting against something that was never said. I never suggested that video games are like real life. You completely missed the point. Get a grip.

"Or, you know, they could simply remove the post-victory fragging period, since it's not necessary anyway."

Or they could leave it in because a lot of people like it, it compliments the aesthetic and comedic theme of the game, and it doesn't hurt anything except, for some reason, your sensibilities.

"I never suggested that video games are like real life."

No, but you introduced and defended the idea that they could be compared to warfare:

"which is an idiotic thing to say since even real war has rules and laws"

"How come soldiers who fail a mission in real life don't forfeit their right to defend themselves?"

"Also, you clearly aren't in touch with reality if you think there aren't any laws in warfare and many instances where those laws have been respected."

"And?"

So there's nothing "unbalancing" about it, and it's neither "griefing", "cheating", or "unfair".

Jaymark: "Or they could leave it in because a lot of people like it, it compliments the aesthetic and comedic theme of the game, and it doesn't hurt anything except, for some reason, your sensibilities."

Or they could remove it because it's a lot like aimbotting except a hundred times worse.

"No, but you introduced and defended the idea that they could be compared to warfare."

I was specifically referring to the argument that since there are supposedly no rules in war it stands to reason that there are no rules in TF2 either. This argument is obviously very stupid since real war does have rules. Other people originally introduced the idea that TF2 can be compared to real war, not me.

How about paying more attention to the discussion instead of quoting me out of context?

"So there's nothing "unbalancing" about it, and it's neither "griefing", "cheating", or "unfair".

Yes, because being invulnerable and having a 100% critical rate is not at all imbalanced or unfair.

Anyone who has played team based games knows that co-operation is the key. Counter Strike is one of the most team based of the lot, but as MW observed, that co-operation often dissolves into frustration and name calling when the people you're playing with don't want to share their toys.

The difference between CS:Source and TF2 is the same differnce between their predecessors; CS (Counter Strike) and TFC (Team Fortress Classic), barrier to entry.

CS:Source requires that you understand the game from the off. If you don't know what you're doing you'll be killed by someone who does. When you die you have to wait until everyone else on either team is dead or the mission completes, before you're reserrected and given a chance to play again. If you kill someone and/or your team wins you get money which translates to bigger and better weapons as each round progresses. All this is fine if you're the guy doing the killing. If you're the guy getting killed then frustration turns to anger then to childish outbursts. In short, if you're a n00b in CS:S, it will be some time before you're anything else. Added to this is the posibility that you have risen to the top already: beaten down the competion, saved up your pennies and bought the best sniper rifle in the game only to have some new kid wonder on to the server and kill you by fluke.

It's all great gameplay, CS:S has that in spades. Its a perfect game for elite gamers but it's a lousy game for beginners.

TF2 is the other way around. You can walk in having never seen a QWERTY keyboard in your life and just pick it up as you go. You choose a character that doesn't work for you and you die, no problem, have a go with another one. There will be loads of opportunities where you know the nme has a long way to run to get you where you are, so you can help a team mate out, bettering their understanding of the player class they are in. Critical hits are a part of the game. You might get one, you might be killed by one, it's nothing you can do anything about so there's no point getting bent out of shape about it. When you die, there's a few seconds to wait (time enough to vent quietly with the mics off) before you jump back in to the game, full of life, knowing where you dropped the flag and rushing back for it.

The death thing is important to. When you die, that's it. You are welcome to jump on the mic shoutting "Hax0r!" till you are blue in the face, or type horrid things about your murder's mother. The messages go no-where. Not at least to the living. Only those on your team who are in a similar state of negative health can hear/see your ravings. They won't care because they are dead too, most likely the result of similarly unfair circumstances.

Here too another facility kicks in; muting other players. Should one be playing music, whistling their favorite ditty, or screaming blue murder (at the red team) it is a simple matter to drop into Steam, and mute them. To be fair, this is a function of steam, not TF2, but communication within the team is so highly prized that few are willing to gag themselves by their own stupidity.

This brings me smoothly on to the most important reason why TF2 players, for the most, act mature. We are mature. We like playing with other mature players, albeit that some crude jokes are told and random insults go flying. It is maturity itself that lets us understant when a joke isn't an insult and instult is said in jest. On our servers, VGN (google "VGN TF2") we've taken the next step. No-one is blocked from playing on our servers (unless they act like ***ks) but to be considered for membership to the clan you must be 16+. Swering is encouraged; in doing so no-one bothers, or if they do no-one cares. We tell jokes, we help each other out, we grow our community, though game time and on our forums. It's all good clean(ish) fun.

"We are mature."

The comments here quite obviously prove otherwise. For example, I'm the only person who believes in fair play.

It's kind of like whapping a puppy on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. If he can't understand why he's getting hit, all it'll do is make him upset and petulant.

Am I talking about arguing against trolls or about getting free shots against losers? Take your pick.

You're confusing the post-game with the actual game, as far as what matters. If you care about getting shot by a team that just beat you (so what if you just joined; the world doesn't revolve round you and you have to play by the rules of the system or no one has any fun) in the actual game that lasted 30 times longer than the post-game spree, then you obviously misunderstand the game. It's meant to not matter at all, that post-game few seconds. It's like the protagonist getting shot in a movie your watching; it adds depth to the story, contrasting the highs and lows of exciting, immersive gameplay. It seems like you never read all the way through my comments, which saddens me because I truly put thought into making valid points that I thought you would understand. Calling me immature offends me. The only reason we seem antagonistic and immature is because we disagree with you and your arguments, and you seem to misinterpret our points. Please respond thoroughly to this and my previous comments with a detailed description of your thoughts why the victory spree is bad. Ok, so you think that one team having control over another is bad; but you never qualify the conditions that bring about the victory spree. Do they not count?

Again, please provide a thorough argument for me to understand. I truly do not see your point of view clearly enough to understand why you persist with your opinions. Help me understand. I'm trying to be sensible. If you refuse to help me understand your points further, frankly that will tell me that you are either immature, have nothing to back yourself up, or are just stirring up trouble. Please don't write this off as a petty attack or poor argument; I've had enough of that, thank you. :/

"It's meant to not matter at all, that post-game few seconds."

Then I guess there's no reason for it to be part of the game.

"Please respond thoroughly to this and my previous comments with a detailed description of your thoughts why the victory spree is bad."

I've explained it a million times by now.

"someone" it's people like you that give FPS gamers a bad name. I really do hope that you're a troll because the thought of someone like you really existing makes me sad for humanity.

How am I giving FPS gamers a bad name by advocating fair play?

Wait!
Let's see how I interpret all this.

Someone believes in 'fair play'.
Someone's meaning of 'Mature players' is one who is respectful of 'fair play'.

Though there are two types of 'fair play' but unsure which one Someone is leaning towards. The first one being,
take this scenario of ' fair play':{Someone is on red team. Red team has just lost. Blue team meets someone but does not harm him/her as Blue team as already won. Blue team is practicing 'fair play'} This is the respect one player is given to another, acknowledging their loss.
"No need to kill you as you are unarmed and defenseless and I've already achieved my objective."

The second one being: { Someone is on Red team. Red team just lost. Blue team meets someone. In this case the losing team is also armed with 100% crits. Both teams engage. Therefore this is 'fair play' as both teams have no advantage over the other.}"I have guns, you have guns, this is fair!"

Someone's gripe with TF2 is the absence of 'fair play' in those 15 seconds.
Either,
1. 'Immature' players do not follow the
"No need to kill you as you are unarmed and defenseless and I've already achieved my objective."
OR
2. TF2 does not implement
"I have guns, you have guns, this is fair!" in those 15 seconds.

Someone's belief in 'fair play' is solid and does not budge.

So far, I see a Problem, which is what i stated above. But I don't see a question coming from someone that needs answered. I only see a debate attempting to convert someone to accept that players are 'immature'(in game) and to accept the 'unfairness' in the post-victory game.

But unfortunately, it seems that someone will not abandon his/her belief in 'fair play' just to accept the 'immature players'(in game) and the 'unfairness' as is. Hence the quiting.

Well, that's it, then! I asked you several times to humor me and explain in detail further in ways other than what you've used so far, which obviously haven't been enough to work. This is my last attempt to talk some arguing sense into you: Explain in painstaking detail why your point makes sense. I am too dumb to understand it if you don't spell it out for me. You're obviously a troll if you can't at least humor me with this last humble request.

Well that's hardly surprising. All he's done is go "wah wah wah 100% critical rate". It would've been nice if he'd at least tried to tell us /why/ the humilation round ought to be fair.

Lorem Ipsum, what is your problem? I have explained my position many, many times now. It's not my fault if you STILL don't get it.

Nice strawman Gurgeh. And yeah, why should a multiplayer game be fair? That's just crazy talk amirite?

Try pulling out some tactics that don't get taught in a high-school argument course and maybe I'll be less inclined to laugh. It'd also have worked better if you had, in fact, offered more argument than simply repeating "100% critical against unarmed targets" like a mantra.

If the whole game was like the humiliation round then obviously it would be broken. But it isn't. The humiliation round doesn't count for anything and only happens after the game has finished. Fairness isn't necessary because it has no consequences.

This is hopeless. You're either blatantly ignoring half of everything I say or are too thick-headed to comprehend it.

Either way, you fail.

Another note: Valve made an incredibly great game after countless hours, weeks... years of fine-tuning. They know what they're doing. Have you listened to the developer commentary? The last thing I expect from them is a broken feature of the game. You obviously just don't get it.

Oh, right, sorry. I forgot you can't read past the first two sentences of a comment (or at least that's the only part you respond to). Oh well.

@someone: Im not even going to respond to your reply. Give me a break, that was some of the worst written garbage Ive read in a while. If you really want to provoke people, hone your skills buddy. Blatant idiocy is just sad.

But at any rate...

Youre completely right lorem ipsum, hes obviously just going on because he's a troll.

It could be he is in fact right, but whether he is or not, we should all know by now that he wont accept being wrong.

And what do you do with Trolls? Ignore them. Let him sit in his mom's basement and find some other article to post crap on.

Gurgeh: "Fairness isn't necessary because it has no consequences."

It's a video game, nothing has consequences.

Lorem Ipsum: "Either way, you fail."

You asked me for an explanation and I told you that I've already explained myself many times over. So you're the one who's failing.

"The last thing I expect from them is a broken feature of the game."

As we all know, game developers are incapable of error.

drew: "Youre completely right lorem ipsum, hes obviously just going on because he's a troll."

You lose and utterly fail the moment you start accusing the opposition of trolling when in reality no trolling is taking place.

"Let him sit in his mom's basement and find some other article to post crap on."

Actually I just came back from work. Maybe you're just projecting your own failures on me.

DX I can't believe I got sucked into this. Well, thanks for the lesson on the internets: Just because you win logics doesn't mean you win perserverance. I'd rather not endure the frustration of trying getting through to you anymore. Not that that's the problem here. Fucking troll. XD Damn.

Anyway, as for the anthropology of the game, Valve built the game on fostering inter-player relations. You can't win a match of TF2 if you don't know your and everyone else's place in the game. It's that fact that explains why the TF2 community is fundamentally supportive and helpful; without coordinated teamwork, you get massacred by a troop armed with critical hits. :P

Haha, me neither... The worst part is, we still want to get our point across, whether its futile or not... but anyway.

I totally agree. That's really the beauty of the game. In order to have a good time, it demands that you show some kind of team spirit, that you strategize in a way that past games haven't required. I think this fosters more comraderie among players too. You treat other players with more respect(regardless of team), because you know that you may end up teamed with them in the future, and you'll have to work together to succeed.

I seriously hope that more games in this genre apply such a system in the future, as I really think this is evolution in a good direction. This could be the start of a whole new generation of great multi-player games.

Oh, and by the way, I wrote all of that from my mom's basement.

Lorem Impsum, if you have to resort to calling your opponent a troll, it's obvious that you have no real arguments at your disposal.

It's funny how you say that in the face of the fact that I've put 20 times more argument out there than your "100% crits against undefenseless is ghey lawl."

Then there should be no reason to employ troll accusations and strawmen.

Lawl. Ur funneh.

Oh dear.

I rest my case.

Your inability to respond to any of your opponents' strong arguments has been noted.

I don't see how strawmen, flames and baseless accusations of trolling are "strong arguments."

We've backed up every single point of ours with evidence, and have humbly asked for you to do likewise, but you refuse to, and instead throw out baseless accusations yourself. Your persistently unchanging approach to this argument, regardless of how many times it has been proven ineffective, is, while admirable for the determination behind it, irrational and, frankly, asinine. If you're going to get through to anyone, you should at least adapt your approach to reflect the current state of the argument (you're losing; we have proven your points wrong with several points of our own, which we have also proven to be valid). Here, I'll help you: you could explain why our arguments are strawmen, ne? Humor me.

This conversation if full of lolz!

Seriously, this is the most funny thing I have read in a long time. You are REALLY throwing this huge of a fit over 15 seconds in which the other team gets to celebrate??

If you REALLY care about your individual performance so much, TF2 is not your game. Go back to CSS where you can hack away so no one can hurt you so you won't have to whine.

I guess it all depends on what you are after in the game.
If your goal is to accomplish your mission, the task set to you by the game, then being punished for your collective failure to win isn't a big issue. If anything, it should be motivation to work harder in the next round.
However, if the task in your mind is "I AM TEH 1337 SHOOTER" and you must have personal glory, then I can see why the humiliation round bothers you so much.

I hate to tack on to a 2+ week old discussion, but someone has forgotten something - you are not completely defenseless in the humiliation round if you are a Pyro! Your shotgun taunt - the Hadouken - still counts as an instant kill if you can hit someone with it. Heck, you might even get the achievement associated with it.

As for someone's actual argument, that the humiliation period is unfair play, I think there was some confusion. He seems to be conflating team points (what you get when you win the round, what actually MATTERS in the game) with individual points from kills (for personal scorekeeping, no real impact on game). The individual points created by the humiliation period have no impact on the game, and it's a fun way for the winning team to beat around the losers and motivate them to do better. The overall game isn't impacted after those 15 seconds, and everyone (except someone) goes home happy.

I am wasting too much time on this. 'Scuse me, gonna go play some TF2. MAGGETS.

I know I'm a little late to the party, but really, regarding ANY gaming community with a certain amount of "maturity" is futile. The very BASE of any gaming community is the LACK of maturity. Therefore saying the TF2 community is rather immature is spot on. Really, I wouldn't have it any other way (I mean really who wants to play with "mature" players anyway, sounds boring).

It ain't unfair when the whole point of the round is that one team is armed and has 100% crits, and the other team is basically target practice. It is exactly as it is meant to be. The other team is not supposed to be able to defend themselves, and if they were able to it would be unfair to the winning team who fought hard to earn that victory and the right to have a bit of fun. TF2 isn't a game where you can just wipe out the other team, you have to think and plan to achieve victory. The humiliation round is a reward for the winning team for performing well, and as such they get some easy kills. Simple as that.

Why someone thinks that everyone on the winning team is using aimbot is puzzling to me. Is he just that bad a player?