Go Back   Tactical Gamer > Tactical > Counter-Strike Source > Counter-Strike - General Discussion


Counter-Strike - General Discussion General Discussion for Counter-Strike

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-11-2005, 09:04 PM   #31 (permalink)

 
Wyzcrak's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 14,139
Re: Tactical Counter-Strike: Rules

So. Meat donuts are pretty much a thing of the past, give happenchances similar to MANY OTHER incredibly rare occurances that are reasonably omitted from the FAQ.

Should the meat donut reference be removed from the FAQ? Should the wording be modernized? Should it be made clear the Ts are more leniantly judged when using hostages as shields than are CTs?
__________________
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.
Wyzcrak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2005, 12:01 PM   #32 (permalink)




 
Pokerface's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: MD, USA
Age: 29
Posts: 5,722
Re: Tactical Counter-Strike: Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by IceCold
Debate that we turn our server into a deathmatch free for all is futile. It's not going to happen.
NOT EVERY STATEMENT MADE AGAINST THE CURRENT STATE OF PCS RULES IS A TREATISE ON TURNING TACTICALGAMER INTO A DEATHMATCH. NONE of the ones made thus far have even HINTED at that, and it's rather offensive to have you thinking so CONTINUOUSLY.

The ONLY arguments being presented are:
-PCS "guidelines" are useless without unilateral, uniform support from the admins, and should such a thing happen, the rules should be published.
-PCS "guidelines" hamstring teamplay by limiting tactics to a particular subset of actions.

Neither of those is an argument to ignore the map objectives, buy nothing but MGs, and run'n'gun up and down de_aztec.
__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash

Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2
Pokerface is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
Old 02-12-2005, 01:17 PM   #33 (permalink)
 
FOX9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: South Florida
Age: 22
Posts: 112
Re: Tactical Counter-Strike: Rules

I think so Wyz, like I said before. We could use a little update on the MOTD, maybe the sticky's too.




(arrow pointing upwards) nice apop!
__________________
We are the music makers,
and we are the dreamers of the dream.
Wandering by lone sea breakers,
and sitting by desolate streams.
World losers and world forsakers,
for whom the pale moon gleams.
Yet we are movers and the shakers of the world forever it seems.
FOX9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2005, 01:17 PM   #34 (permalink)



 
Apophis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Age: 36
Posts: 8,917
Re: Tactical Counter-Strike: Rules

We're working on an enhanced set of "guidelines" for PCS....
__________________
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.
Apophis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2005, 02:21 PM   #35 (permalink)
 
Samurai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Age: 32
Posts: 55
Re: Tactical Counter-Strike: Rules

It appears that an update to the current FAQ/ruleset is in order, and it also appears that Apophis is on top of that. This is a good thing, and it is my opinion that we should continue to discuss the current rules and debate suggestions for the update, but in the end leave it to Apophis and the admins to make the final call on everything.
__________________
Please allow me to adjust my pants
So that I may dance the Good Time Dance
And put the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance
Samurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2005, 02:29 PM   #36 (permalink)


 
CingularDuality's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA
Age: 33
Posts: 16,798
Re: Tactical Counter-Strike: Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokerface
The ONLY arguments being presented are:
-PCS "guidelines" are useless without unilateral, uniform support from the admins, and should such a thing happen, the rules should be published.
-PCS "guidelines" hamstring teamplay by limiting tactics to a particular subset of actions.

Neither of those is an argument to ignore the map objectives, buy nothing but MGs, and run'n'gun up and down de_aztec.
Those are not the only arguments being presented.

But if they were, I would agree with you on your second point. Team deathmatch can have an awesome amount of teamwork, but we don't want that here. We want objectives-based teamplay here. On your first point, I feel for you. We're working on updating the FAQ (K2 the Turtle just did a great edit of them). I don't think the updated guidelines will please you, though. They're not going to say: "No PCS player shall ever move more than 46 feet away from their defensive objective." The game is more dynamic than that, and as such requires subjective enforcement of our style of play. Look, regulars on our server aren't a problem. PCS players that want to play like we do will stick around and know what they have to do. Yes, we'll have limits pushed, but instead of getting up in arms about the fact that there's no rule that covers that particular situation, we'll have a discussion about it here. No big deal. The guidelines are for new people that come to TG trying to find out what PCS is all about. Without getting too specific, our FAQ conveys the spirit of PCS quite well. It will be obvious to someone that thinks camping is evil that this is NOT the server for them. And it will be obvious to someone that is sick of deathmatch and enjoys objectives-based teamplay that this IS the server for them... In general, I don't think we need "rules". We've had a few hard and fast rules: No two man boosts (one man boosts are OK). No grenade spamming (if you're defending someplace that is also a buy zone, you can't buy more than two grenades). No planting the bomb in places that it can't be defused by a single CT, etc...
CingularDuality is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
Old 02-14-2005, 12:13 AM   #37 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 54
Re: Tactical Counter-Strike: Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokerface
NOT EVERY STATEMENT MADE AGAINST THE CURRENT STATE OF PCS RULES IS A TREATISE ON TURNING TACTICALGAMER INTO A DEATHMATCH.

*twitch*

Quote:
Originally Posted by CingularDuality
They're not going to say: "No PCS player shall ever move more than 46 feet away from their defensive objective." -[ The game ]- is more dynamic than that...
PCS rules are, as you've presented them, blind to the game. If the game were played the way it was meant to be played, then the enormous number of hiding spots (that were obviously created to be such) wouldn't be illegal to use for any sense of the word "hiding". I mean honestly, are these illegal spots supposed to just be something to go AFK behind in PCS's view?

Quote:
In general, I don't think we need "rules".

Have you seen teh light?
tekunogekai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2005, 12:34 AM   #38 (permalink)


 
CingularDuality's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA
Age: 33
Posts: 16,798
Re: Tactical Counter-Strike: Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by tekunogekai
PCS rules are, as you've presented them, blind to the game. If the game were played the way it was meant to be played, then the enormous number of hiding spots (that were obviously created to be such) wouldn't be illegal to use for any sense of the word "hiding". I mean honestly, are these illegal spots supposed to just be something to go AFK behind in PCS's view?
Twitch all you want, but I don't care how the map designers intended their map to be used... We're playing a certain way, which does not include hiding/ambushing at the offensive team's spawn. Thankfully, we've got some good people designing maps specifically for PCS play. Will that get you to stop complaining about not being able to use hiding spots in places where there's nothing to defend?
CingularDuality is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RULES: Basic Rules of Conduct asch Battlefield 2 - Server Rules 0 08-04-2005 05:04 PM
Battlefield 1942 vs. Counter Strike Source asch Counter-Strike - General Discussion 55 04-26-2005 05:04 PM
Counter Strike Source Linux Mateo Counter-Strike - General Discussion 0 04-22-2005 12:35 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0
©2004-2008 - Tactical Gamer - All Rights Reserved