DON.MAC

/!\Warning/!\ This post may contain well intentioned ignorance!

I completely agree with the decision Berzerker made on Aztec. Of the possible courses of action I think he took the one that was most appropriate and least risky. Furthermore, it was a course of action that was agreed upon and acted out by the team (even if it was only two live players at the time).

Maybe the discussion of teamwork isn't so removed from this one. Running around to get kills is the exact opposite of teamwork. If everyone worked as a team (with mission objectives in mind) there should be no need for any artificial map boundaries.

As far as I know, the vast majority of communication between players has been declaring which site to bomb and reporting the position of enemy players to teammates. I would enjoy spending a few seconds in spawn to scrap together a plan and make sure everyone has the necessary equipment. You obviously can't plan everything out, but having some plan is better than having none. If the tactics have been agreed upon by the team with objectives in mind and the players are executing them as a team then there should be no question of right or wrong, right?

I would not want to see inflexible boundaries. What I would like to see is more communication and planning. The unresponsive and uncooperative should be chastised, not those who try to complete an objective as a team (or even as the last man standing). I just don't like the focus on boundaries to determine the validity of someone's actions. Adhering to boundaries helps to avoid blatant death matching and promotes objective based play but it does not, in my opinion, necessarily promote teamwork.

The defensive team usually has no need to go beyond the set boundaries, but there are situations where it is arguably most advantageous for them to do so. Is the server's usual draw of players ready to follow and act according to mission objectives rather than lines on a map? From what people say it sounds like this is not the case, however, it seems like it wasn't too long ago that entire defensive teams would get kicked off the server for consistent rushing and general disrespect of the rules and other players. I am amazed that the player base has come this far in the time that the server has been up and running and I hope to be amazed some more :P

Gooshy

He had the clock on his side - he can either run it out or the T _has_ to poke his head out and get it shot off. That's two possible outcomes, one of which is inarguably less risky than an assault.

You can only have so many exceptions to rules before they detoriate into "guidelines" and then "suggestions". If abandoning the objective because it's "tactically sound" (an oxymoron) is permissible under _any_ conditions, the only argument you have that it's NOT permissible under _all_ conditions is "I say so".

The objective is either guarding the bombsite, or it is not.

There is a physical point where that objective has been abandoned, or there is not.

These points are agreed upon, or not.

It seems to me that Aztec had clearly established "lines of engagement".

Sure, sometimes this ends up being kinda sucky (boo-hoo). The (for instance) IRA bomber knows, "Stinkin' coppers! They can't cross the Blue Line, I'll pick 'em off at my convenience! Bwahahaha!" At which point the CT/s can either pull a strategy out of their ass and justify it after-action or put on their thinking cap and develop a working plan, on the fly, within what amounts to their "orders" (guard the bombsite).

So, you guys that agree with this, explain how crossing the bridge to bag the last T is done with without abandoning the objective - the argument that the CT's "won" is bogus; it's the same argument you get with noobs all the time - "The best defense is a good offense", re-phrased.

DeRanger

Let me get this right. There was two CTs left against one lone T, correct? If this is true then the assessment is dead simple.

Not knowing where the other CT was I'll assume they were watching the other site and depending on their position they may or may not have been able to see the small ramp. With Berzereker on the other side of the bridge the other CT was left covering all accesses to the bombsites save for one. If the other CT somehow missed the T sneaking up the small ramp to go around to the bridge bombsite then the bomb could have easily been planted. IMHO this is so close to abandoning the objective that I'd have to call a spade a spade myself but I know from experience that B makes an art out of pushing the envelope and as I've seen sometimes it fails and on occasion it comes up roses. I don't like this vintage-Devilman style of play however and I know I'm not the only one. As Gooshy said, one is either protecting the objective or they are not. In this case, especially considering the "benchmarks" that have been set for this map with regards to "boundaries", the call is pretty easy from my perspective anyway.

DraG

Gooshy has made the main point here guys!!! Please explain to me when a Defense team can go offensive? They can't that the whole point of TG is to play your objective. When Berzerker went on the hunt he became a offensive player.

__________________
DraG

GhostintheShell

I was playing the night Berserker nailed Meat Drapes on Aztec, and was a bit conflicted about it, so I didn't say anything to Berserker, it was one of those "iffy" situations.

Here's my thoughts on it, Meat still had the bomb on his back, and still had a good chance to pull off a plant. I thought while watching him he was doing it right taking their numbers down and distracting them, then he would pull off a run around for a plant.

I also think in this case, specifically since he had the bomb, one CT should have waited further inside the doors, and one further down the RH aisle to watch the other site, and made him come to them instead of rushing him.

Wyzcrak

No one is prepared to change his mind about this.

No one.

__________________
Steam Community? Add me. | Join #tacticalgamer | Search Results Legend | New Posts Forum Filter | Postbox Toggle | Live Thread Review | One Line Results | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

DeRanger

I don't quite understand, aren't we trying to change the way he thinks about playing by our comments in here or do you mean he thinks what he did was right and will not change his mind?

Wyzcrak

PCS is too much about opinions and not measurable and accountable rights and wrongs. Until someone lays down a hammer, it's just noise around here. To that end, here's some more noise....

This is brilliant, but it's flawed. It's flawed because opinion dictates "according to mission objectives." For example...
The objective, according to the game (at least on de_aztec), is not guarding the bombsites. The objective, according to the game, is to prevent the Terrorists from planting the bomb. The objective according to the PCS FAQ is not to prevent the terrorists from planting the bomb, but to "guard the bomb points". So we have conflict already. We have conflict between expectations. A game advertised for going on a decade as one thing and now we're turning it into something significantly different. Different is good, but it's important to note that it's different when considering public relations. Hell, the game's opinion of the objective is documented and readable when a player first joins the server. PCS doesn't even have that going for it (note to self: draft more useful MOTD).

Why is it that we don't all sit literally ON THE BOMBSITES as CTs?

The answer is that we want fun gameplay. You could argue we don't sit literally on the bombsites because tactical positioning makes for a better defense, but now your opinion is all that prevents you from defending Berzerker's decision, as he, in his opinion, is positioning himself tactically beyond your artificial boundaries in his best faith effort to adhere to the map's PCS objectives with the support and coordination of his team (using this thread's scenario as an example -- I could care less about his other escapades, many of which I would likely have kicked him for).

Do the United States Armed Forces guard the United States only from North America? No. They move out and about and get and share intel, making coordinated decisions and movements and often striking would-be attackers before they arrive at the location of their objective. Now, that's real life and "screw real life we'll play the game we want to play it." I'm just making the point that "the way we want to play it" is often the best reason you can give for a judgement... it's all opinion. If opinion is the best reason you can give for something... well... that's not a foundation on which you build a large, intelligent, and agreeable (a powerful combination) playerbase.

Artificial boundaries are nothing more than manifestations of opinion. They only work if everyone's opinion agrees (or until the aforementioned hammer appears).

You're not convinced that, if you're on the B side of double doors that a CT is likely to "sneak past you" and plant at B. And you feel perfectly within the rules to attack a T who is on the B side of the double doors even though he's a grenade's throw away from the bomb site you're supposed to be guarding and he's not even carrying the bomb. He can't plant the bomb... so WHY ARE YOU SHOOTING HIM? The answer is that he might be able to plant the bomb later if you don't shoot him NOW, or perhaps because he can compromise your ability to protect your objective.

But you DO take confidence that a CT might sneak past you if you're on the OTHER side of those same double doors. Without that confidence, you're without a reason to stay on the B side of the double doors in your effort to play the objective.

If a scenario presents itself in which you need to impose YOUR opinion about a boundary in order to pursue what YOU see as YOUR BEST CHANCE to play within the server's rules and your team's expectations, you're bound to do so. Otherwise, we're all slaves to the lines and gameplay pays the price.

But alas... this all requires trust, and I don't see that trust among enough of us. We're all too focused on lines.

I don't have a solution.

__________________
Steam Community? Add me. | Join #tacticalgamer | Search Results Legend | New Posts Forum Filter | Postbox Toggle | Live Thread Review | One Line Results | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

Root

How about passworded access for one of the servers, with the admins giving the password to anyone they see playing in the PCS spirit. The other server can have fixed lines, and anyone acting the way bezerker did on aztec gets watched to see if they are doing so to be an idiot rule breaker, or if instead they are, like bezerker, interpreting PCS and their actions are *intended* to achieve the team objective.

Effectively, I suggest that one server is used to identify players who really have PCS spirit, and the other strictly for those PCS players. On that server the rules could be far more flexible because everyone would be playing PCS.

Maybe thats a dumb idea but if it doesn't get suggested, it's unlikely to get considered.

Root

Weenis

I have been following this thread closely... and I would have to say that root has come up with probably the best compromise yet.

DON.MAC

I really do think of the boundaries as training wheels and I think quite a few people don't need them. I like the idea of having the servers at different points of a learning curve. By eliminating newer players you would eliminate the concern of confusing players by intelligently and tactically breaking guidelines. However, identifying players who have "PCS spirit" will probably be just as subjective and opinion based as the discussion at hand. I still really like the idea though.

Apophis

The rules of old got very complex, but they worked great when we were running the private servers based on our application process rather than open public servers. Now, these are NOT the current rules for the server, but imagine how the gameplay would be if we had people that could follow this set of rules/philosophy:

1) Defensive team plays close defense at the onset of each round. They are focused on the objectives and required to communicate with each other in regards to their overall defense strategy.

2) Offensive team's primary objective was to COMPLETE their primary objective as a team. They may split up into multiple fire teams, but required to work together to either keep their hostages secure and/or bomb a specific target guarded by the CT team.

3) Rushing by either the defensive OR offensive team on a repeated basis was considered bad form. The rounds do NOT have to end within the first 60 seconds. It would be common for the offensive team to sometimes hold back up to 2 minutes before they ever even made their initial assault. Getting multiple fire teams into position, yet out of sight, before they made their move.

4) After initial contact with the offensive team, the defensive team would be free to move WHEREVER they wanted in the map, with no regards to "rushing" in order to complete and re-secure their objective. Players would work with their team as to not completely abandon their objectives yet still create a flanking fire team to take the offensive team off-guard.

5) Game-exploiting behavior would result in said player being kicked from the server. This would include actions such as simulated target "sprays", exploting fast reloads by switching from a primary sniper rifle to a pistol, and immediately back to the sniper rifle. Planting bombs in non-defusable locations.

6) Behavior such as "hopping" to avoid being shot would be also considered bad form.

I really want the server to be directed back into this philosophy. It's hard work and along the way many people may find that it's not what they want in their CS experience. Those people probably WILL and SHOULD find someplace else to play CS, not because I have any personal issues with them, but simply because it's not the way CS will be played here at Tactical Gamer.

CS is not an extension of NS.
CS is not an extension of GR.

CS sits somewhere in the middle as a close-combat SIMULATED environment. It is not treated as a run & gun fragfest type of game at TG.

I'm strongly considering re-opening the application process for our CS servers.....

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

DraG

No Hopping!!!
Boy I got a bad habit to break.

__________________
DraG

Root

Oh to be playing whan that sort of thing happens.

Root

Berzerker2

Oh man, I like this rule *so* much better than the lines. It's AWESOME! I like all of the rules, but this one with rule 3 seems like the exact answer to the question of lines. It deals with the complaint that Ts don't have to watch their backs. It deals with the lone T going to get coffee. It deals with the defensive team getting picked off one at a time. I can't express how awesome I think this is. Wow. Where do I sign up?

I also like root's idea - it would be real nice if we had the 'training wheels' server, with the lines and simple rules, and then the advanced play server with the rules Apophis outlined above. Passwords for the advanced server could be given out by the admins who would visit the training server for evaluation. As Wyz says, it would all come down to opinion, but I'd be happy with that. If it was by application, I guess that comes down to the same thing.

Going to make a second post to discuss some of the stuff above this (re lines), but I wanted my non-argumentative content all in one place.