"Boundaries" Ooohh Ahhh...

Yer Mom · 02-28-2005, 12:37 AM

K... I'm not entirely sure that this is something that needs to be brought up, but I think it is, so I'm going to.

In de_cbble, the CT's are not aloud to go into the terrorist's entrance to b, nor into the courtyard near a.

This is understandable, but I see something that contradicts this and makes me want to be able to go a bit farther in cs_italy.

If T's in italy can get on top of the apartments or in that area, then why not change the boundaries on other maps wherein CT's have the defensive.

In cbble, the T's have a sniper window, and it's never used in TG. I'd like to see it come to some use by allowing CT's to go into the courtyard but no farther than the boxes. This will also let them check for afk's if there is only 1 person left. Besides, if the T's are playing right, they should be communicating and using vantage points to their advantage. This is going to make the courtyard in cbble a VERY dangerous place for CT's to be. I can understand that this may encourage overcamping, but we have 7 minutes here.

On the b side, I think CT's should be aloud inside the second room in the b doors. The room that T's normally snipe from. This would give CT's a bit more leverage on b. Suffice to say, b isn't the easiest site to hold on cbble. Besides, the T's have those little windows they can look through.

My understanding on boundaries are that they don't exsist. As far as I can understand in PCS if your team and you agree that whatever you are doing is tactically efficient and going to get your team the win, then you are aloud to do it.

I don't think "rushers" should even exsist, unless they are the newer people who don't know any better.

I'd give anything to circle around to the other site the long way thru the area that the enemy travels thru. I think that if I clear this with my team, it should be possible, and I should not be kicked for it.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love the PCS play style, and I know that pushing it too far just calls for DM Fragmonkeys to get antsie and go where they aren't supposed to. I just don't think we should claim rusher every time we see someone leave the area they're supposed to be in.

As I said before, this is just my understanding of PCS, and I may be wrong. Correct me if that is the case.

-Mom

**Wyzcrak** · 02-28-2005, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yer Mom

My understanding on boundaries are that they don't exsist. As far as I can understand in PCS if your team and you agree that whatever you are doing is tactically efficient and going to get your team the win, then you are aloud to do it.

Two corrections to this:

1. Yes, boundaries exist. People like to say they don't, but they do. They shouldn't, and we all wish they didn't, but they do. If they didn't, you wouldn't have authored this thread. Once you're trusted on the server, your gameplay can more and more learn when it's accepted to change those boundaries as gameplay dictates. When I play "defense", you may find me suddenly behind you, nowhere "near" my objective. It's because you're the last guy, I've got 5 teammates left, and they're all communicating with me and guarding my objective while I act on their request to bring the heat to you in the middle of the map. I'm within PCS and don't give a damn at that point about boundaries. Should you find yourself in a similar situation (very, very similar), you shouldn't give a damn about boundaries, either.

2. Tactically efficient and getting your team to win is wonderful, but those attributes of gameplay can exist while in departure from PCS. To be in line with PCS, you must be playing toward the objective, you must be putting your team's interest (the objective) before your own, and you must coordinate your tactics toward that interest. Playing the objective, while I'm sure in your thoughts, was left from your words.

(also, it's "allowed", not "aloud")

Yer Mom · 02-28-2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

Two corrections to this:

(also, it's "allowed", not "aloud")

It was late... heh...

Well, I'm not arguing the team objective area, and I think I'm fairly trusted in the server, even though I fragmonkey a bit sometimes.

Concider this. In piranesi, the CT's can go up to the top of the roof and cover both sites. On cbble, could you not go from CT spawn, down ramp, thru middle, up ramp, and right up those stairs and into that dark room. Would that not be covering both sites and defending the objective? I can understand the issue in this particular map, concidering the proximity to the T spawn and how it would turn into a DM thru racing to that area, but, if a lone person went that way in accordance with the team to recon or catch any flanks, is that against PCS standards?

I can understand how boundaries change. I grasp the basis of PCS boundaries and rule-sets, but I was just wondering if we shouldn't reconcider some of the boundaries we have placed on these maps. We make half of most maps obsolete.

-Mom

**Wyzcrak** · 02-28-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yer Mom

We make half of most maps obsolete.

It just comes down to whether or not you think you're making it likely (screw "possible") for ANY member of the opposing team to sneak past your team (not "you") to get to his objective.

If you are, you're out of line.

If you're not, go where you want to go.

And, as things stand now, just hope the admin observing doesn't slap you on the wrist for it.

**RandomGuy** · 02-28-2005, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yer Mom

On cbble, could you not go from CT spawn, down ramp, thru middle, up ramp, and right up those stairs and into that dark room. Would that not be covering both sites and defending the objective?

If you got killed in that location, which I think you probably would unless you were got pretty lucky you would serve no purpose to your team. You couldn't even tell them which way the Ts are going. Going out into the couryard is very risky for CTs because they are totally exposed from several directions. When I'm playing Ts on cobble any CTs that come out into the courtyard just make things easier for me since it quickly and easily becomes one dead CT who is not stopping me from planting the bomb. Likewise if I'm CT I don't like to see teammates going out into the courtyard because it as if my team is at a one-man disadvantage.

As for AFK players, if there is an admin on there's no need to worry about it. Otherwise, if you think a player is AFK because the rest of his team is dead and you haven't seen him yet just ask "are you afk?".

Yer Mom · 02-28-2005, 11:24 AM

Eh... I must be saying this wrong. But, my question was answered by Wyz, so I'm not going to continue this.

Thanks for the replies..

-Mom

**Wyzcrak** · 02-28-2005, 11:28 AM

Random is right about AFKs.

I disagree about being unable to offer any intel from the location in question. If you die, kill no one, and don't give intel, regardless of your location, you're useless to your team. So, his argument about that location specifically is only relevant if you really believe you'd offer no intel and would kill no one.

Personally, I trust you enough to NOT think that or you WOULDN'T have asked about THAT location. So, again, if YOU and your team TRULY think that YOU will kill someone and/or provide intel AND your team has the objectives covered and is in communication with you, then you CAN (and maybe even SHOULD) be in THAT location (and, really, any other location that matches all of the criteria we've discussed).

But, like I said, if the admin observing thinks you're out of bounds, then there's just that chance that you're going to get slapped on the wrist for doing what you and your team decided was the best thing, as the admin observing might not have a way of knowing what your team thinks is best.

**Wolfie** · 02-28-2005, 02:03 PM

This is somewhat related but specific to CS_Havana, but why do the T's have to stay on the top level the entire time?

I understand that we don't want the Ts to rush the CT team but forcing them the Ts to stay on top doesn't accomplish much but make the Ts predictable.

For example, lets say the Ts are spread out as part of their plan to defend the hostages. The CTs make a push and eliminate most of the Ts on one side of the map. The defenders on the other side know where the CTs are and are out of position to respond effectively.

Currently, the Ts options are to either go through the hostage area or run around the outer level on top to get behind the CTs.

Option A is predictable to any decent CT team and they will be expecting that. Option B takes a considerable amount of time to pull off. Yes, you can run the entire way, but you may as well be shouting to the CTs to shoot you.

Why can't we just drop to the lower level and go up the ramp next to the area where the CTs are? We don't have to go the exact same route every time, we don't have to rush the CTs to make a difference. At this point, the Ts can not rush the CTs as they are already in the main area attempting to rescue the hostages.

Another situation, why can't the Ts be in that area at the beginning to setup some ambushes? Being in that area still puts you close to your teammates to provide support when needed, still close to the hostages to respond quickly, and it makes the CTs be cautious as they can't always assume the Ts are up on the top level. The Ts are not rushing the CTs as they are in the area with the hostages.

Just wanted to bring this to the discussion. Thanks.

**TheFeniX** · 02-28-2005, 02:21 PM

Why would any intelligent terrorsit give up both his level advantage (firing down upon a lower elevation) and safety (enclosed area near his teammates and objective) in the hopes that a CT operation may come through there?

Easy: he wants to increase his body count.

I try and look at defense like this: I have no idea how many Attackers there are or where they might be coming from. Sure, I actually do know this, but it's more fun for me if I play it as if I'm really hold up in a building fighting an unknown force.

And I've never run across a lack of places up top to sit on to keep things interesting.

**Pokerface** · 02-28-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Why would any intelligent terrorsit give up both his level advantage (firing down upon a lower elevation) and safety (enclosed area near his teammates and objective) in the hopes that a CT operation may come through there?

Easy: he wants to increase his body count.

I try and look at defense like this: I have no idea how many Attackers there are or where they might be coming from. Sure, I actually do know this, but it's more fun for me if I play it as if I'm really hold up in a building fighting an unknown force.

And I've never run across a lack of places up top to sit on to keep things interesting.

Not just body count, Fenix. If you can find a defensible spot on the ground level to either use for scouting or ambush, more power to you. Dropping through that hole on the floor lets you cover two routes from one spot (through the hallway with the hole, and the pipe to the bridge). Sure you give up height, but you gain coverage.

**TheFeniX** · 02-28-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Not just body count, Fenix. If you can find a defensible spot on the ground level to either use for scouting or ambush, more power to you. Dropping through that hole on the floor lets you cover two routes from one spot (through the hallway with the hole, and the pipe to the bridge). Sure you give up height, but you gain coverage.

You might get one or two CTs before your brain gets splattered all over the walls, unless you're some kind of godly frag monkey. The point of Defenders is to put themselves into low-risk, high-gain situations.

Poker, it's the same thing as as runnig underneath the hive in Sub-sector to shoot it, rather than staying on the balcony. You're giving the aliens the perfect opportunity to kill you before you have done all the damage you can.

Why don't you just sit above the hole and listen for your teammates? Maybe throw a nade or two once your guys get into position?

Is it a viable tactic to jump down there and wait? Yes. Is it really that smart? No. Because the only tactic you're relying on is that the CT's will get careless because they think you shouldn't be down there (something I've learned not to do the hard way).

If you were a living breathing Terrorist trying to protect hostages and you knew 6-7 highly-trained SWAT members might come through that area, would you jump down there to show them you're the boss? Hell no, and neither should a tactically inclined CS player.

**Pokerface** · 02-28-2005, 03:06 PM

If I were a living breathing terrorist, I'd radio my fellow terrorists to start opening fire on the hostages. Much to my surprise, there are rules against that in the game. So let's talk about this like it's a game as opposed to selectively injecting the parts of a real-life situation we happen to like.

It's not about getting kills. It can be about getting a visual on an enemy you wouldn't hear otherwise (being the non-Thunderboot advocate that you are, I figured you'd get that). The entire CT team could wander underneath that hole without someone above it noticing.

**asch** · 02-28-2005, 03:08 PM

You two sound like you're debating strategies & tactics. Each has their pros and cons and switching them up keeps the opposing team on their toes.

Let's first assume that everyone on the server understands PCS and we do not have any public players running around, needing baby-sitting... ok, great.

In my opinion, there would be nothing wrong with a terrorists on the ground level if he's coordinating and communcating with his team, providing intel and support. A terrorists on the ground may be able to provide a line of sight that those up top cannot.

The problem with a terrorist being on the ground is that there is few, if any, areas that provide cover. I think there is a cabana thingy-majig one could sit in, but otherwise they are out in the open. While this may be a bad strategy/tactic for the Ts to try, it doesn't mean they shouldn't try it. Variety & surprise can be a good thing.

On this map, the ground level is quite a ways away from the CT spawn. That makes this situation / map quite different, in my eyes, than a map like office.

**Wyzcrak** · 02-28-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asch

While this may be a bad strategy/tactic for the Ts to try, it doesn't mean they should try it.

typo? doesn't mean they shouldn't try it?

You know something... that's really refreshing to read. Just because I, as an admin, think that there's no possible value for the opposition to have tried that strategy doesn't mean that they perceived that strategy as without value.

PCS isn't... can't be... about using the strategy that best helps your team. You see, that ends in external judgement. PCS is about using the strategy that your team THINKS is going to best help your team. The harsh truth is that those two things aren't always the same and, as an observer to these decisions made by other regulars, it's very risky business for me to assume I know what's best. It's very risky business for me to judge the other team.

As we mature, I find myself less and less inclined to instruct regulars about boundaries. Yes, I still do it, but less often (hell... it's rarely even necessary). Short of a pattern of behavior, I tend to assume a player is in communication with his team unless his own team complains. Each admin has his own style, but I find myself more inclined to start letting regulars I trust take the training wheels off.

**TheFeniX** · 02-28-2005, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

If I were a living breathing terrorist, I'd radio my fellow terrorists to start opening fire on the hostages. Much to my surprise, there are rules against that in the game. So let's talk about this like it's a game as opposed to selectively injecting the parts of a real-life situation we happen to like.

Without the hostages, the terrorists have lost their ability to have ANY defensible positions. That would lead to them being blasted into the stone-age.

Quote:

It's not about getting kills. It can be about getting a visual on an enemy you wouldn't hear otherwise (being the non-Thunderboot advocate that you are, I figured you'd get that).

Are we talking about dropping through that hole then croutching there waiting for the CTs to walk by? If so, there's absolutely no where for you to go when they see you. You may get a visual and a message off before you get waxed, but isn't it a better idea to sit at the top of the stairs on the other end of the opening and have cover?

Quote:

The entire CT team could wander underneath that hole without someone above it noticing.

With another guy on those stairs watching, he could radio in when he sees them. Then two of you could start spamming nades down that hole like it's no body's business. I will grant that under cicumstances, dropping down that hole could be tactically viable. The CT's open up at the guys on the top of the stairs, you flash and drop down pulling a great flank manuver and killing a bunch of them.

I won't condone somoene sitting there in the open waiting for the CTs to come by. I think once you have engaged the enemy, anything should go as long as you are keeping with the objective. Hence, I see no problem with sending one Defender out a back way where there's no attackers for a flank manuever. I would just like to see communication to that fact.

I wish there was some way of making the Defenders think twice about running out in the open. In real life, they place snipers on top of buildings to pick off anyone who peeks there head out for a while. Without this, the defenders don't have to worry about running around outside a window.

02-28-2005, 12:37 AM	#1 (permalink)
Yer Mom Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: TN Age: 22 Posts: 789	"Boundaries" Ooohh Ahhh... K... I'm not entirely sure that this is something that needs to be brought up, but I think it is, so I'm going to. In de_cbble, the CT's are not aloud to go into the terrorist's entrance to b, nor into the courtyard near a. This is understandable, but I see something that contradicts this and makes me want to be able to go a bit farther in cs_italy. If T's in italy can get on top of the apartments or in that area, then why not change the boundaries on other maps wherein CT's have the defensive. In cbble, the T's have a sniper window, and it's never used in TG. I'd like to see it come to some use by allowing CT's to go into the courtyard but no farther than the boxes. This will also let them check for afk's if there is only 1 person left. Besides, if the T's are playing right, they should be communicating and using vantage points to their advantage. This is going to make the courtyard in cbble a VERY dangerous place for CT's to be. I can understand that this may encourage overcamping, but we have 7 minutes here. On the b side, I think CT's should be aloud inside the second room in the b doors. The room that T's normally snipe from. This would give CT's a bit more leverage on b. Suffice to say, b isn't the easiest site to hold on cbble. Besides, the T's have those little windows they can look through. My understanding on boundaries are that they don't exsist. As far as I can understand in PCS if your team and you agree that whatever you are doing is tactically efficient and going to get your team the win, then you are aloud to do it. I don't think "rushers" should even exsist, unless they are the newer people who don't know any better. I'd give anything to circle around to the other site the long way thru the area that the enemy travels thru. I think that if I clear this with my team, it should be possible, and I should not be kicked for it. Now, don't get me wrong. I love the PCS play style, and I know that pushing it too far just calls for DM Fragmonkeys to get antsie and go where they aren't supposed to. I just don't think we should claim rusher every time we see someone leave the area they're supposed to be in. As I said before, this is just my understanding of PCS, and I may be wrong. Correct me if that is the case. -Mom __________________ Yer Mom /O> To all but me is the look given but never received. My heart sinks faster and faster every time I look into them, yet I do not understand their controling power on my soul. - W11114m W45h1n670n

02-28-2005, 11:24 AM	#6 (permalink)
Yer Mom Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: TN Age: 22 Posts: 789	Re: "Boundaries" Ooohh Ahhh... Eh... I must be saying this wrong. But, my question was answered by Wyz, so I'm not going to continue this. Thanks for the replies.. -Mom __________________ Yer Mom /O> To all but me is the look given but never received. My heart sinks faster and faster every time I look into them, yet I do not understand their controling power on my soul. - W11114m W45h1n670n

02-28-2005, 11:28 AM	#7 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,148	Re: "Boundaries" Ooohh Ahhh... Random is right about AFKs. I disagree about being unable to offer any intel from the location in question. If you die, kill no one, and don't give intel, regardless of your location, you're useless to your team. So, his argument about that location specifically is only relevant if you really believe you'd offer no intel and would kill no one. Personally, I trust you enough to NOT think that or you WOULDN'T have asked about THAT location. So, again, if YOU and your team TRULY think that YOU will kill someone and/or provide intel AND your team has the objectives covered and is in communication with you, then you CAN (and maybe even SHOULD) be in THAT location (and, really, any other location that matches all of the criteria we've discussed). But, like I said, if the admin observing thinks you're out of bounds, then there's just that chance that you're going to get slapped on the wrist for doing what you and your team decided was the best thing, as the admin observing might not have a way of knowing what your team thinks is best. __________________ 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.

02-28-2005, 02:03 PM	#8 (permalink)
Wolfie Join Date: May 2003 Location: Michigan Age: 33 Posts: 1,405	Re: "Boundaries" Ooohh Ahhh... This is somewhat related but specific to CS_Havana, but why do the T's have to stay on the top level the entire time? I understand that we don't want the Ts to rush the CT team but forcing them the Ts to stay on top doesn't accomplish much but make the Ts predictable. For example, lets say the Ts are spread out as part of their plan to defend the hostages. The CTs make a push and eliminate most of the Ts on one side of the map. The defenders on the other side know where the CTs are and are out of position to respond effectively. Currently, the Ts options are to either go through the hostage area or run around the outer level on top to get behind the CTs. Option A is predictable to any decent CT team and they will be expecting that. Option B takes a considerable amount of time to pull off. Yes, you can run the entire way, but you may as well be shouting to the CTs to shoot you. Why can't we just drop to the lower level and go up the ramp next to the area where the CTs are? We don't have to go the exact same route every time, we don't have to rush the CTs to make a difference. At this point, the Ts can not rush the CTs as they are already in the main area attempting to rescue the hostages. Another situation, why can't the Ts be in that area at the beginning to setup some ambushes? Being in that area still puts you close to your teammates to provide support when needed, still close to the hostages to respond quickly, and it makes the CTs be cautious as they can't always assume the Ts are up on the top level. The Ts are not rushing the CTs as they are in the area with the hostages. Just wanted to bring this to the discussion. Thanks.

02-28-2005, 02:21 PM	#9 (permalink)
TheFeniX Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Houston, TX Age: 26 Posts: 4,478	Re: "Boundaries" Ooohh Ahhh... Why would any intelligent terrorsit give up both his level advantage (firing down upon a lower elevation) and safety (enclosed area near his teammates and objective) in the hopes that a CT operation may come through there? Easy: he wants to increase his body count. I try and look at defense like this: I have no idea how many Attackers there are or where they might be coming from. Sure, I actually do know this, but it's more fun for me if I play it as if I'm really hold up in a building fighting an unknown force. And I've never run across a lack of places up top to sit on to keep things interesting. __________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TheFeniX's Steam Profile TG's Team Fortress 2 Steam Group

02-28-2005, 03:06 PM	#12 (permalink)
Pokerface Join Date: May 2003 Location: MD, USA Age: 30 Posts: 5,768	Re: "Boundaries" Ooohh Ahhh... If I were a living breathing terrorist, I'd radio my fellow terrorists to start opening fire on the hostages. Much to my surprise, there are rules against that in the game. So let's talk about this like it's a game as opposed to selectively injecting the parts of a real-life situation we happen to like. It's not about getting kills. It can be about getting a visual on an enemy you wouldn't hear otherwise (being the non-Thunderboot advocate that you are, I figured you'd get that). The entire CT team could wander underneath that hole without someone above it noticing. __________________ 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

02-28-2005, 03:08 PM	#13 (permalink)
asch Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Fort Mill, SC Age: 33 Posts: 9,940	Re: "Boundaries" Ooohh Ahhh... You two sound like you're debating strategies & tactics. Each has their pros and cons and switching them up keeps the opposing team on their toes. Let's first assume that everyone on the server understands PCS and we do not have any public players running around, needing baby-sitting... ok, great. In my opinion, there would be nothing wrong with a terrorists on the ground level if he's coordinating and communcating with his team, providing intel and support. A terrorists on the ground may be able to provide a line of sight that those up top cannot. The problem with a terrorist being on the ground is that there is few, if any, areas that provide cover. I think there is a cabana thingy-majig one could sit in, but otherwise they are out in the open. While this may be a bad strategy/tactic for the Ts to try, it doesn't mean they shouldn't try it. Variety & surprise can be a good thing. On this map, the ground level is quite a ways away from the CT spawn. That makes this situation / map quite different, in my eyes, than a map like office. Last edited by asch; 02-28-2005 at 06:40 PM. Reason: My Wyzcrak spellchecker failed my first time through.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links