PCS and no-go lines - Page 5

**CingularDuality** · 01-23-2005, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

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.

It may sound strange, but I think you're correct. I always refer to it as understanding the "spirit" of the PCS rules, but "Zen" sounds even cooler!

**Pokerface** · 01-23-2005, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

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.

That's great and all, but TOTALLY unenforcable. To continue the metaphor, everyone's path to Zen is different, even if they DO all end up at the same enlightenment. That doesn't jive with a gaming server.

The server -- any server, in fact -- needs RULES. Black and white things. Things like "Don't curse", where the infraction is OBVIOUS to both player and admin. Telling a player "work your objective" is a bit like telling someone to "drive to Miami"; there are a ZILLION ways to get there, and circumstances may dictate something different for each person you tell to head to the home of the Dolphins.

**CingularDuality** · 01-23-2005, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

That's great and all, but TOTALLY unenforcable. To continue the metaphor, everyone's path to Zen is different, even if they DO all end up at the same enlightenment. That doesn't jive with a gaming server.

Nobody said that "Zen" is enforceable... That's why we have guidelines and admins to keep people on the PCS path...

**Vulcan** · 01-23-2005, 10:21 PM

One of the biggest retorts to anyone saying "play your objective" or your objective is guarding the bomb site or bomb, or rescuing hostages IS "my objective is to kill T's or CT's". An admin usually corrects them shortly after heh. The objectives are clear and concise it's the opinion of what players think they're objective is that causes a problem.

**Wyzcrak** · 01-23-2005, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Telling a player "work your objective" is a bit like telling someone to "drive to Miami"; there are a ZILLION ways to get there

This is correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vulcan

it's the opinion of what players think they're objective is that causes a problem.

This is incorrect.

It's not the existance of the opinion that's the problem. The problem is that the only thing an admin has to counter it (at least within the context of this thread's example scenario and others like it, where someone understands PCS and is playing in a style that we've agreed would be allowable on a private server) is with a differing opinion.

If "the opinion of what players think they're" allowed to say differs from network television, we have a SOLID FOUNDATION on which to make decisions as admins. The same can't be true for "work your objective". A player can and will be found unquestioningly at fault despite his best efforts to do exactly what he's been told (vaguely and with ambiguity) to do.

It's opinions. And that, when it matters (as in this example case), is the problem. Clearly, if some yahoo wants to go running all over the map and kill people with no concern for objectives at all, that's a problem. But let's all realize that's not what we're talking about. That's slippery slope, I think.

**Vulcan** · 01-24-2005, 12:19 AM

I agree wyz

There are some cases where people will play "within the boundaries of their objective" but still not work with the team. This is what im talking about. We had bad cases of it on saturday where they were running around on their own and "pushing the envelope". They didn't really break any rules but they were not working with the team either. Their opinion was i can do the objectives my way. That's going to fade away as players begin to be filtered or curved but never the less is still aparent at this time.

**Pokerface** · 01-24-2005, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Nobody said that "Zen" is enforceable... That's why we have guidelines and admins to keep people on the PCS path...

You can't admin on guidelines. Well, I suppose you COULD, but it wouldn't be very effective for the player having the smack laid down on him for completing his team's objective in the manner he thinks is best. All that will do is generate confusion and frustration. With ephemeral guidelines, the best you can hope for is to suggest other courses of action that may fit the mold a bit better.

But admins don't do that. They warn and they kick and they ban, all based on interpretation. In the net effect, they each end up creating rules around the guidelines, but these rules aren't written down anywhere, and subsequently neither are they standardized across the adminship.

If there's no instance where a CT should cross that bridge, then say that. If there are exceptions, spell them out. Take the guidelines, interpret them, and create rules (for each map if you have to); otherwise there's going to be a thread like this every three months, wondering where the limits of "PCS" lie.

**CingularDuality** · 01-24-2005, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

If there's no instance where a CT should cross that bridge, then say that. If there are exceptions, spell them out. Take the guidelines, interpret them, and create rules (for each map if you have to); otherwise there's going to be a thread like this every three months, wondering where the limits of "PCS" lie.

No. This doesn't work. Two different people may take the same action, but one did it for because he's a fragmonkey and the other did it to help his team as best he can. "Lines on a map" don't work, because there are simply too many variables involved to issue anything more than a general guideline.

You're missing the whole point of this... We don't want people playing here that are only interested/able to follow rigid lines on a map. Those are people that will constantly push the limit and we'll end up kicking/banning them from the server eventually.

Keep in mind, too, that PCS has been around for years. Apophis used it to build this community. We're not going to change our guidelines to suit a few people here. We know that PCS works. We've seen it over the years, and over the last few weeks.

**GhostintheShell** · 01-24-2005, 07:55 AM

I like to use Italy as an example.

In this scenario, we are T's and our objective is to "protect the hossies" from being recaptured by the CT's.

When there are 7 - T's it would be acceptable to me to be as far as the bridge to the apartments as an extreme limit, being ready to pull back if needed and listening to what my team mates are calling out about targets. But, even if a small firefight broke out I would hold my position watching the apartments, but pull back to the corner near the barrels. (unless someone called out all CT targets are somewhere else.)

When there are 3-4 T's I would decrease my radius from the hossies so I could also better support my teammates if a firefight broke out.

Whem I'm the only one left, my radius would be basically in the house with the hossies, switching back and forth between watching the window and only door.

Just an example so you can get into the thought process a bit.

**Vulcan** · 01-24-2005, 09:38 AM

that's a good point ghost!

One of the great things about PCS is defining roles for each player. Some players are very good at scouting out the enemy while others are very good at defending in close quarters or others are great at sniping. These roles all have to fit into the context of the objective but allow you to fullfill the role in the appropiate manner untill your role changes due to events happening. I think one way to start sorting all this out is to assign such roles to certain people. Squad roles are common place in a professional environment. If we made up some roles and a commander for a squad we could begin to further PCS ruleset to fit into CS:S and use it to play other clan squads. Just an idea

**Tempus** · 01-24-2005, 09:42 AM

Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.

If there are no lines, then there is nothing to enforce. If there is nothing to enforce, then there is no point saying that the game needs to played a certain way.

I think here is fine, you think there is fine, and someone else thinks somewhere else is fine. Who decides what is right? Nobody? Then we have anarchy.

Without lines, then everything is subjective. Imagine a football game played where the rules were subjective.. Sometimes a touchdown is 7 points, sometimes it's only 5. Sometimes you need to get 10 yards, sometimes it's 15. And the funniest part is that nobody is deciding it except one or two people who have arbitrarily decided that this time it was not off-sides, because... well... because they feel that it's ok this time.

**Wyzcrak** · 01-24-2005, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempus

everything is subjective

This is a powerful phrase that I hadn't thought to use, but it makes the same point I've been arguing.

If that's not to change, that's not to change. But I think it's important to realize this.. both as an admin and as a player. It's certainly easier for intelligent, objectives-oriented players doing their best to play PCS to accept that weakness instead of taking too personally my arbitrary accusations of wrongdoing when I declare their 7 point touchdown to be offsides when I'm carrying the hammer.

DeRanger · 01-24-2005, 11:02 AM

Alrighty then... Heres a couple of examples of what dMw did as hard and fast boundaries for the defensive team when they enacted PCS rules many moons ago. We could do the same thing, I suppose, so your judgements wouldn't be "subjective" and would take the guesswork out of it. Personally I think it would be more trouble than simply trying to educate people on principles and ethics but who am I..? I guess they would be well used tools while all non-old-skool-hardcore-PCS-players are indoctrinated but I think Cing is right in saying if players are aware of what their objective is and the needs of their team are then there is absolutely no need for hard boundaries. In the meantime maps like this could be used as educational tools for new players and admins (and players in general) would have a reference to be able to present to people with questions or who have been booted and are wondering why, etc. The current source maps overheads could be done the same way to suit and then there would be no more "subjective" opinions although I think it would be more work and more confusing. I sure as hell don't want to memorize which door I can go through on this side of the hallway at that end of a given map, for every map and every part of it. Try telling a new player that he can't look through a doorway here or here and when he asks why he is refered to a map with boundaries on it that he has to learn photographically or he risks being ousted... I'd say **** this too. I don't know, seems like a really bad idea to me but there seems to be a lot of concern over "subjective" calls. Now who's going to decide where exactly the boundaries should be in a "non-subjective" manner..?

**Wyzcrak** · 01-24-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeRanger

there seems to be a lot of concern over "subjective" calls. Now who's going to decide where exactly the boundaries should be in a "non-subjective" manner..?

Your putting the word "subjective" in quotes make me wonder what your intention is in doing so. Why do you call attention to the word's use so? Do you not agree that decisions made today (yesterday, last week, last month) are subjective?

**Pokerface** · 01-24-2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeRanger

Personally I think it would be more trouble than simply trying to educate people on principles and ethics but who am I..? I guess they would be well used tools while all non-old-skool-hardcore-PCS-players are indoctrinated but I think Cing is right in saying if players are aware of what their objective is and the needs of their team are then there is absolutely no need for hard boundaries.

If players were aware of their objectives and the needs of their team (and the limits PCS imposes upon them in relation to these things), there would be no need for this thread. As a counterargument to that, I'll will refer you to the five pages penned thus far.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeRanger

Try telling a new player that he can't look through a doorway here or here and when he asks why he is refered to a map with boundaries on it that he has to learn photographically or he risks being ousted...

And somehow you think that telling a new player that he can't go through the door just because you say so is BETTER?
If it's something over which a player risks being tossed from the server, it MUST have objective backup. If you want to allow for flexibility, you can write in stuff showing a dropped bomb on the ground and a caption that reads "You know what this means? No size restrictions and SCREW the limit."

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeRanger

I don't know, seems like a really bad idea to me but there seems to be a lot of concern over "subjective" calls. Now who's going to decide where exactly the boundaries should be in a "non-subjective" manner..?

Does it matter? The admins can write up a set of rules that say the CTs have to stand exactly where they spawn for the first four minutes of the map; so long as it's written and promulgated, we're a zillion times better off than before. Then, when someone is kicked for moving around in spawn, you can point them to a hard and fast rule that leaves no room for interpretation on EITHER side: admin and player (any two people, really) can both agree that what was done went against the stated rules of the server.

I think the maps are a fine start, truthfully, and I'd love to see the others done so well. If there are to be "boundaries" on maps, it's best to know what and where they are, yes?

01-23-2005, 10:21 PM	#64 (permalink)
Vulcan Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Montreal Age: 29 Posts: 6,847	Re: PCS and no-go lines One of the biggest retorts to anyone saying "play your objective" or your objective is guarding the bomb site or bomb, or rescuing hostages IS "my objective is to kill T's or CT's". An admin usually corrects them shortly after heh. The objectives are clear and concise it's the opinion of what players think they're objective is that causes a problem.

01-24-2005, 12:19 AM	#66 (permalink)
Vulcan Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Montreal Age: 29 Posts: 6,847	Re: PCS and no-go lines I agree wyz There are some cases where people will play "within the boundaries of their objective" but still not work with the team. This is what im talking about. We had bad cases of it on saturday where they were running around on their own and "pushing the envelope". They didn't really break any rules but they were not working with the team either. Their opinion was i can do the objectives my way. That's going to fade away as players begin to be filtered or curved but never the less is still aparent at this time.

01-24-2005, 07:55 AM	#69 (permalink)
GhostintheShell Join Date: May 2003 Location: Guelph, Ontario Age: 37 Posts: 963	Re: PCS and no-go lines I like to use Italy as an example. In this scenario, we are T's and our objective is to "protect the hossies" from being recaptured by the CT's. When there are 7 - T's it would be acceptable to me to be as far as the bridge to the apartments as an extreme limit, being ready to pull back if needed and listening to what my team mates are calling out about targets. But, even if a small firefight broke out I would hold my position watching the apartments, but pull back to the corner near the barrels. (unless someone called out all CT targets are somewhere else.) When there are 3-4 T's I would decrease my radius from the hossies so I could also better support my teammates if a firefight broke out. Whem I'm the only one left, my radius would be basically in the house with the hossies, switching back and forth between watching the window and only door. Just an example so you can get into the thought process a bit.

01-24-2005, 09:38 AM	#70 (permalink)
Vulcan Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Montreal Age: 29 Posts: 6,847	Re: PCS and no-go lines that's a good point ghost! One of the great things about PCS is defining roles for each player. Some players are very good at scouting out the enemy while others are very good at defending in close quarters or others are great at sniping. These roles all have to fit into the context of the objective but allow you to fullfill the role in the appropiate manner untill your role changes due to events happening. I think one way to start sorting all this out is to assign such roles to certain people. Squad roles are common place in a professional environment. If we made up some roles and a commander for a squad we could begin to further PCS ruleset to fit into CS:S and use it to play other clan squads. Just an idea

01-24-2005, 09:42 AM	#71 (permalink)
Tempus Join Date: May 2003 Location: Miami, FL Age: 38 Posts: 7,984	Re: PCS and no-go lines Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality. If there are no lines, then there is nothing to enforce. If there is nothing to enforce, then there is no point saying that the game needs to played a certain way. I think here is fine, you think there is fine, and someone else thinks somewhere else is fine. Who decides what is right? Nobody? Then we have anarchy. Without lines, then everything is subjective. Imagine a football game played where the rules were subjective.. Sometimes a touchdown is 7 points, sometimes it's only 5. Sometimes you need to get 10 yards, sometimes it's 15. And the funniest part is that nobody is deciding it except one or two people who have arbitrarily decided that this time it was not off-sides, because... well... because they feel that it's ok this time.

01-24-2005, 11:02 AM	#73 (permalink)
DeRanger Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 663	Re: PCS and no-go lines Alrighty then... Heres a couple of examples of what dMw did as hard and fast boundaries for the defensive team when they enacted PCS rules many moons ago. We could do the same thing, I suppose, so your judgements wouldn't be "subjective" and would take the guesswork out of it. Personally I think it would be more trouble than simply trying to educate people on principles and ethics but who am I..? I guess they would be well used tools while all non-old-skool-hardcore-PCS-players are indoctrinated but I think Cing is right in saying if players are aware of what their objective is and the needs of their team are then there is absolutely no need for hard boundaries. In the meantime maps like this could be used as educational tools for new players and admins (and players in general) would have a reference to be able to present to people with questions or who have been booted and are wondering why, etc. The current source maps overheads could be done the same way to suit and then there would be no more "subjective" opinions although I think it would be more work and more confusing. I sure as hell don't want to memorize which door I can go through on this side of the hallway at that end of a given map, for every map and every part of it. Try telling a new player that he can't look through a doorway here or here and when he asks why he is refered to a map with boundaries on it that he has to learn photographically or he risks being ousted... I'd say **** this too. I don't know, seems like a really bad idea to me but there seems to be a lot of concern over "subjective" calls. Now who's going to decide where exactly the boundaries should be in a "non-subjective" manner..?

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links