PCS and no-go lines - Page 4

Berzerker2 · 01-23-2005, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

That might be true for you, but I favor my skills in assault to my skills at sniping and/or ambush. It's also not true that I'm guaranteed to be able to set up in a spot where the T has to come to me. There's two bombsites. If the T gets the bomb down, and he's a 1/2 decent player, I have almost no chance 1v1. It's way too easy for the T to walk away from the bomb, hide, way to hear the defusal sound, and then run out and gun down the CT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gooshy

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".

What's the objective here? I think Wyz asked the question too, but I'd like to hear your take on it. For me, it's to not let the terrorists bomb one of my sites. I can do that two ways:
1) By preventing them from ever planting the bomb
2) By defusing the bomb once it has been planted

Generally, I prefer 1 over 2, since for 1 I have the clock on my side, and in 2 I've got to abandon caution for speed. That means that if the bomb is dropped, I *love* camping it. I've now reduced the two bomb sites to one bomb on the ground. The same argument applies (more or less) to cornering that last T left alive with the bomb on his back and putting some bullets into him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deranger

With Berzereker on the other side of the bridge the other CT was left covering all accesses to the bombsites save for one.

The other CT was guarding the double doors. I could understand your argument if we had no idea where the T was. But we did - we knew he was in the (small) area between the double doors and the T side of the bridge. I think it's very possible I'm missing your point here, but if you can kill the T with bomb, and then camp the bomb, you do it, right? We just didn't have to do much camping - the round was over since he was the last T. To me, for both teams, the objectives aren't the bombsites - they're the bomb. The Ts can have both bombsites for all I care, as long as they give me the bomb to hang onto. Is that wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

<a whole bunch of stuff that was mostly over my head>

I agree.

As to the whole "nobody being able to change their mind" - it might be true. I for one, though, am learning a lot about the way some of the other players think, and at least gaining some insight into why I sometimes outrage players on the server with my tactics/rampages/pubbiness. And I think that's worth something. I think we might also be getting somewhere on a compromise...maybe. That part I'm not so sure about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deranger

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

Hehe...I think I'd like to see some statistics on this. On my end, it feels like I'm batting over .500 on the roses/failure ratio, which has got to be worth something. Also, who/what is Devilman? I'm thinking Daredevil, but there's no red model to use, so that can't be it.

Don't hate me for being beautiful - and people, it's Berzerker with a Z!

**Wyzcrak** · 01-23-2005, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berzerker2

To me, for both teams, the objectives aren't the bombsites - they're the bomb. The Ts can have both bombsites for all I care, as long as they give me the bomb to hang onto. Is that wrong?

It clearly states in the FAQ (to which you and I answer when playing on that server) that the bombsites, not the bomb, are the objective.

I think it would take a private server, and players who trust each other's intentions, to ever realize the potential you're describing.

Devilman was around for the original PCS servers.

Berzerker2 · 01-23-2005, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

It clearly states in the FAQ (to which you and I answer when playing on that server) that the bombsites, not the bomb, are the objective.

I'm not being intentionally obtuse (I blame my brain for it!), but I just poked through the FAQ and couldn't find it stated clearly anywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAQ

What should I be doing on your server?
Completing the objective as a team! If you are supposed to be playing defense, such as guarding the hostages, bomb points, or exits for VIP levels, then back up your team!

If this is what you're referring to, that doesn't seem like a complete list, and if it is, it's inherently rediculous. That would mean that according the objectives, I should still be guarding site A even if the bomb has been planted at B. I'm willing to take things fairly literally, but that's too far.

In my mind, the objective is not letting the Ts bomb a site, and that means protecting both sites until the location of the bomb is known. Once the main thrust of the terrorist attack is felt, particularly by way of spotting the bomb carrier/bomb, it only makes logical sense to respond to that thrust.

I'm honestly not trying to be a pain in the ass, and I almost always agree with you once I understand you Wyz, so I assume that I just don't understand you properly yet.

**Scooper** · 01-23-2005, 06:02 AM

You seem to be bent on overthinking the entire matter.
This is not a legal contract subject to nitpicking and dissection.
The whole idea here is to play fair and to play fun (fun for everyone)... not just for you.

We are NOT going to play deathmatch. We ARE going to relax the "lines" at some point when the players all play with, and in the spirit of, tactical play. To try to pick apart the rules as you are doing is in itself contrary to the spirit of how the servers are going to be run. If you feel the need to micro-analyze the entire effort here then perhaps you should expend your energies in law school and leave gaming to nights when you just want to have fun... when it's all about fun and teamwork... TEAMWORK. I think that word answers the vast majority of your questions. You seem to be the only person who at the same time doesn't get it and can't seem to abide by it.

I apologize, but what exactly do you want to have happen here. The servers aren't going to suddenly be run in a manner that you seem to want. And you, seemingly, aren't going to play by the rules as they exist at the moment. Given these two apparently immovable objects, the servers are going to win. If you refuse to take part then that is your decision. If you can live with a compromise then let's play.

What could have been an explanatory thread has evolved (devolved?) into an exercise in futility. The servers aren't, anytime soon, going to be run in a manner to your liking. If you want to play some game then please just do so and see what happens in the future.

DeRanger · 01-23-2005, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scooper

What could have been an explanatory thread has evolved (devolved?) into an exercise in futility.

Well put Scooper.

**Wyzcrak** · 01-23-2005, 02:48 PM

Meh.. I'm playing devil's advocate as much as anything else. The documented FAQ is insufficient in describing PCS at its greatest potential. I suspect that's because new players, on average, cannot be TRUSTED with the kind of FREEDOMs that Apophis outlined in his post. That kind of thing takes time to EVOLVE to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scooper

The servers aren't, anytime soon, going to be run in a manner to your liking. If you want to play some game then please just do so and see what happens in the future.

This is the key. What's ironic is that Berz, at least within the context of this thread's example scenario, was playing like we might all play in the future, if given the freedom to do so. He got jumped on because he's ahead of his time and doesn't yet have the TRUST that's required for us ALL to play that way. Based on what I've read about Berz' overall behavior on the server, he's got a long way to go in EARNING that trust, regardless of how justifiable this thread's example scenario was.

So, Berz, just keep playing, and decide how far you want to push the envelope how fast. If you make enough good decisions, you'll help the server grow. If you make enough bad decisions and ignore the warnings and kicks, you'll eventually get banned. You're a smart guy, so I don't see the latter happening unless you get stubborn on us.

**9 v** · 01-23-2005, 03:17 PM

i disagree (with the futility bit). The thread as a whole might be nothing more than a pain depending on how you look at it, (and if it is, don't look at it!

) but to me the questioning of PCS and it's interpretations is generally a good thing, because it can help define the darker areas of what PCS is, and what it isn't, particularly for new people interested in the TG way. And i would rather that here, on the forums than on the server, where discussion of PCS has no place.

Anyway, i personally believe that PCS as a concept is more than strong enough to cope with people occasionally questioning it, and will only ever continuing evolving into something even greater than it already is.

Edit: i swear i wrote about the evolving before i saw Wyz's post!

Berzerker2 · 01-23-2005, 04:41 PM

I don't want to speak for Wyz, 9v, Don, Gooshy, Ghost, Root, Apophis, Drag, or any of the others who have posted thoughts in this thread, but I for one don't feel futile or devolved. I think we're accomplishing in these forums exactly what should be accomplished in these forums: a discussion on how we should be playing the game now so that we can play the game the way we want to in the future. If it feels like I'm nitpicking, that's just the way I am - if I disagree with something, I try to figure out exactly why I disagree with it and verbalize that, rather than saying "YEAH! You sure stuck it to him! Well said!", or "Because that's the way it is!". I like the intelligent discussion going on here. If you don't, please don't feel you have to look at it - better we have it here than on the server where it'll disrupt your gaming goodness, right?

As to your comments Wyz, I think you're right - it looks as though I'm just going to have to play it by ear. I was kind of hoping for an "AHA" moment where we'd be able to get rid of the lines and have some kind of other guideline take their place (like the ones Apophis mentioned ealier), but it looks like that won't be happening any time soon. I'll do my best to take it slow, and hopefully that will mean not getting kicked too many times.

To the admins: I will be crossing the lines, at least occasionally. I'll try to restrict myself to times when it's really obvious (or easily explainable) as to why I'm doing it. Please give me the benefit of the doubt if you can find it in your hearts to do so. And if I make fun of your mother afterwards, well, that's just how I say "I love you" - right Wyz?

On a totally separate note, and what should probably the subject of a new thread: how do you guys think the best way to support a team member is? I was creeping around with a teammate 2v2 the other night, and thinking about this. Generally speaking, if your teammate gets killed in a firefight after poking his head around a corner, should you be right out past that same corner trying to pick up the enemy while he's reloading? In this particular case, I'm talking offensive team. My thoughts are that you're going to have to make it in to the objectives at some point, and particularly on hostage rescue maps, that usually means you'll have to dispose of the terrorists if they're playing properly.

DeRanger · 01-23-2005, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berzerker2

To the admins: I will be crossing the lines, at least occasionally. I'll try to restrict myself to times when it's really obvious (or easily explainable) as to why I'm doing it. Please give me the benefit of the doubt if you can find it in your hearts to do so. And if I make fun of your mother afterwards, well, that's just how I say "I love you" - right Wyz?

I don't know if I like the whole slant you're taking and it remains how your "philosophy" will work. It sounds a whole lot like you're trying to get every inch you can and then take a foot. I would think the best thing to do would be to start conservative, learn the basics and then perhaps take a liberty or two once you have established yourself as a knowledgable and trustworthy player. That's just me though and its obvious you'll do whatever the hell you want when it comes right down to it seemingly. I guess Uncle Wyzcrak could always get you unbanned in any event...

**Vulcan** · 01-23-2005, 05:28 PM

berzerker,

while i understand your point of view in this, i would say try to understand more than impose in this case. An idea is more valuable when it's presented at the perfect time than being forced. Take the veteran advice and learn the other side of the coin for awhile and when the time is right push for the right ideas.

just my 2 coppers

**Tempus** · 01-23-2005, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berzerker2

To the admins: I will be crossing the lines, at least occasionally.

And consequently, I will be kicking more that I would otherwise want to.

**Wyzcrak** · 01-23-2005, 06:24 PM

I've never attempted or considered reversing another admin's ban. I do have one neice, though.

She's awesome.

Berz, perception is everything. If the admin doesn't feel loved, you're just being an ass.

Being an ass will get you removed from the server and banned.

**Pokerface** · 01-23-2005, 07:25 PM

Here's the problem.

PCS is a set of guidlines. What everyone is talking about here is enforcing a rule, which PCS offers few of. Stuff like "watch your language" and "be respectful" can be easily arbitrated and isn't up for debate, as both admin and player can see the line drawn in the sand and know full well when someone is overstepping that line.

Things like "Completing the objective as a team!", on the other hand, are WIDE open for interpretation, and the rules that spring forth from that guideline are going to change from admin to admin, indeed, from player to player even. Until the server is mature enough to have a healthy set of regulars that shape consensus, you guys need RULES, and it doesn't matter if they end at some arbitrary point or not (like "You can cross the bridge when there is one T remaining" or something); the RULE is more important than the justification at this stage.

EVERYONE needs to know how the game is going to be played, and guidlelines aren't going to cut it. Someone is going to end up interpreting them differently from someone else, and at least one person in the scenario will end up looking like an ass. At this point, that person might be an admin even, which would be tremendously detrimental to the PR of the server.

Get out of the abstract, and etch something in stone that not only isn't up for debate, but can be readily agreed upon when applied to how one actually plays the game.

Berzerker2 · 01-23-2005, 07:47 PM

No no Poker - I'm the official ass - it's nobodies job but mine.

Sorry about my comment earlier folks, pretend I didn't say it - I didn't mean to be inflamatory or taking an inch or whatever else you interpreted it as. I was just trying to say that I understand that we'll have to play it by ear and see how it goes.

As to the uncle Wyzcrak comment, I think that Wyz has a little more respect than many of the rest of you do because of our time together playing NS. I suspect that might apply to some of the other NS/CSS players as well, but I'm probably getting ahead of myself. I think maybe he has a little more respect for my judgement than I've had to the chance to earn from the rest of you. And I guess it's just taking me a while to realize that trust isn't as automatic as I'd like it to be (or maybe expected it to be) in this community. That's not intended to be a smart remark - I tend to have high expectations of people, and trust them to do what I expect until they prove otherwise. It makes for interesting games when there's lots of newbs around

**GhostintheShell** · 01-23-2005, 09:06 PM

Not to sound like I'm full of crap, but PCS is a "Zen".

When it totally clicks for you you won't need rules, proper PCS play will become instinctive.

The payoff is well worth the work to get there, we have brief moments of it in CS:Source right now but we are nowwhere near what it was like before.