Warning to those who don’t like to read (for need of a euphemism):
This post is going to be long and analytical, so consider this your TLDR section.
I wouldn’t be sure what to call or characterize Valve’s design philosophy by other than “bad” because there seems to be no objective and logical assignment of traits and abilities to classes outside of perhaps two or three (which those are I’ll leave for you to deliberate over and decide on). However, when looking at classes, you can see objective superiority (or inferiority) in them relative to other classes; it is possible to see the reality and manifestation of Valve’s design philosophy in this game, whatever you may wish to call it yourself, by a fairly objective, logical and mechanical evaluation of the game.
To shorten the list of issues (as many of them would overlap when looked at a more specific or surface level) visible in the game due to this design philosophy, we will consider how several traits of a class can make up two broader categories that determine what makes a class strong and effective or weak and marginal. One can say, at the most external or outward analysis, there are many traits a class has, which is not limited to the list below. (The handful of differing mechanics each of these traits is dependent upon run too long, thus I have spared what I think would be relatively obvious anyway.)
However, there are truly six basic traits that determine the extent to which a class is empowered by three fundamental attributes, which determine the extent to which a class exemplifies two broad properties; and then beyond these there may be class-unique traits that fit into their own category and must be considered only separately and after consideration of the two broader properties (e.g. ubercharge, airblast, etc.) to determine how balanced (or not) a class actually is.
The six basic traits are:
[LIST=1]
[]Base mobility
(Actual movement speed value value)
[]Conditional mobility
(E.g. rocket jump, etc.)
[]Raw damage
(Actual damage values)
[]Damage delivery
(Absolute and effective range [e.g. damage fall-off, etc.] and weapon mechanics [e.g. rifle charge, etc.])
[]Size
(Actual hitbox size)
[]Raw health
(Actual health value displayed in HUD)
[/LIST]
These six traits compound into:
[LIST=1]
[]Mobility
(Base mobility+conditional mobility)
[]Damage
(Raw damage+damage delivery)
[*]Health
(Size+raw health)
[/LIST]
These three attributes then compound into:
[LIST=1]
[]Attacking power
(Mobility+damage)
[]Survivability
(Mobility+health)
[/LIST]
And it is these two broad properties which dictate the overall effectiveness of a class.
Now that we’ve outlined the three most fundamental levels of the effectiveness of a class, we can make basic evaluations of a couple different classes in the game’s (as opposed to the metagame’s) terms, and draw parallels to broad trends in TF2.
What then makes TF2 so imbalanced? What are some practical, tangible forms of evidence of this evaluation of TF2’s balance in the actual game?
The main problem with TF2’s balance is that it ignores two important rules very brazenly, those rules being:
[LIST=1]
[] Classes with high mobility must always get health and damage in inverse proportion.
[] Classes with low mobility must always get health and damage in proportion.
[*]Note: An implied third rule is the proportions must themselves be proportional to some measure of mobility.
[/LIST]
For the sake of brevity, I will simply take two classes, the heavy and the soldier (comparing them when wielding their most effective primary weapon), and give a relatively quick example of how to make practical application of the aforementioned facets of class effectiveness into what is actually realized in gameplay.
The Heavy
[LIST=1]
[]Base mobility: 77% (game-worst by a slight margin)
[]Conditional mobility: -50% when leveraging minigun (spin-up)
[]Raw damage: ~550 dps (game-best by a massive margin)
[]Damage delivery: (-) Large spread, random bullet distribution, severe damage fall-off beyond melee range, one-second delay before use, reuse or subsequent use of other weapons; (+) hitscan, no reload
[]Size: Massive (game-worst by a magnitude of ~2.5 to 3 relative to nearest peer [term used loosely])
[]Raw health: 300 (game-best by a magnitude of 1.5 relative to nearest peer [again, term used loosely])
[/LIST]
Thus:
[LIST=1]
[]Mobility: Game-worst by a massive margin
[]Damage: Extremely high raw value but with very restrictive circumstances to realize it, thus average at best
[*]Health: Game-best raw value that is negated and then some by the game-worst hitbox, thus overall, below-average at best.
[/LIST]
Thus:
[LIST=1]
[]Attacking power: Below-average at best
[]Survivability: Game-worst by a massive margin
[/LIST]
Since the heavy has no extra-mechanical ability to consider, onward with the conclusion:
Quite arguably the heavy is the second- or third-worst class in the game, perhaps tying with the pyro, and only definitively better than the engineer.
The Soldier
[LIST=1]
[]Base mobility: 80% (second-worst; nearest peers being -3% and +13%)
[]Conditional mobility: Rocket jumping (very potent, although somewhat dependent on healing)
[]Raw damage: ~140 dps (fairly high)
[]Damage delivery: (-) Considerable damage fall-off beyond medium range, high reload times, rocket firing and traveling speed; (+) splash damage, low damage fall-off within medium range, straight trajectory (infinitely traversable)
[]Size: Perhaps above-average, being somewhat stout but not too tall
[]Raw health: 200 (second-best, -100 and +25 to nearest peers)
[/LIST]
Thus:
[LIST=1]
[]Mobility: Low base with advantageous conditional mobility, thus above-average.
[]Damage: High raw value with some limitation, thus above-average
[*]Health: Above-average raw value with an above-average hitbox, thus average
[/LIST]
Thus:
[LIST=1]
[]Attacking power: Above-average
[]Survivability: Average
[/LIST]
Since the soldier has no extra-mechanical ability to consider, onward with the conclusion:
Quite arguably the second- or third-best class in the game, pretty close to par with the demomen and scout.
This can be seen even in a very general perspective in practice, such as the almost exclusive use of scout, demoman, soldier and medic in competitive TF2.
All I have to say in closing is Valve’s folly is quite simple:
They made a very presumptive value judgement by assuming a very low skill level of the player base and its ability to raise that skill level, consequently enabling them to think that ignoring the aforementioned “golden rules” and thus creating fairly poor true balance would not have ill effect on perceived balance.
