Welcome to Tactical Gamer

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Nomad's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arvada, CO
    Age
    29
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Question The line in the sand is blurry

    can someone clarify something for me? While playing this map it is fairly well known that terrorists exiting the long hall on the Counter Terrorist's side when not in per suite of the hostages is frowned upon, but today while on that map i was sitting at the end of long hall CT side, popped up on radar firing a few shots and i get shot is the side by someone from mid that rotated to kill me. How is it that this is considered kosher and a legit strat. This follows what has been going on lately with all the discussions like how far is too far. Keep in mind this is not a rant, I am just trying to get some clarification on some maps. I have seen questionable behavior from people lately and it gets under my skin. What i want to know is on certain maps what is too far. Not "well it doesnt look that far to me". I assume the admins trust in the Regular TG tag members judgment just as we trust yours. Myself and others that play with me a lot(non-admins) always encourage new players and others to play properly, butt when the lines on movement and play style of this nature is a little blurry it kinda makes it hard to not enforce but to uphold and set the TG example. If someone bends the rules to suit their goals on a certain map, then in order to level the playing we must do the same. And the more the rules get bent the blurrier the lines get. and it gets harder to play.


    "Well Jayne, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

  2.  
  3. #2

    Vulcan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manhattan, New York, United States
    Age
    36
    Posts
    8,011
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    First of all use punctuation and paragraphs. Nobody can read this or want to read it.

    Second what are you talking about?

  4.  
  5. #3
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Potshot's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Age
    22
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    I'm gonna take a guess and assume you're talking about italy. At least, the situation you described has happened before on italy. My personal view on the matter is that if the flank was both communicated and planned, and fit the current situation (meaning the flank wasn't pulled by the last surviving defender against a full team, for example), it was a sound tactic. Even if it was an illegal move, it's a good reminder to not get too comfortable in what you percieve as a safe area. There are no static boundaries, but objective-imposed limits that WILL change.

  6.  

  7. #4
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Nomad's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arvada, CO
    Age
    29
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    I did use punctuation, everything under the first sentence reads fine. What im talking about is the fact that for the most part, when someone does something illegal that benefits their team, its is ok. But when the other team does the same kind of illegal tactic they get yelled at. Yes i understand what you are saying potshot, and i am talking about Italy. All i am saying is that on certain maps, we need set limitations of tactical movement by the defending team, when the primary objective is the same as round start.

    I understand that when the primary objective changes so does the tactical strat and movement. One thing I hear alot when someone is told that they are pushing to far is "well i was told by an admin that i can go here, and until im told otherwise, I will keep doing it." Things to that effect are said alot, even before the primary objective has changed.

    So what are we to do? just let it slide, pester an admin? even if the admin is playing another game? I do see admins on steam all the time, generally they are playing other games so i let them be. On a serious problem i might consider getting an admin, but for smaller stuff i dont see the point in ruining their game. Its consideration on my part, i wouldn't want it done to me so i dont do it to them. Keep in mind that the people are not trying to be rude, its just what they have been told vs. what we've been told.


    "Well Jayne, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

  8.  
  9. #5

    Vulcan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manhattan, New York, United States
    Age
    36
    Posts
    8,011
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    Quote Originally Posted by Broly View Post
    I did use punctuation, everything under the first sentence reads fine. What im talking about is the fact that for the most part, when someone does something illegal that benefits their team, its is ok. But when the other team does the same kind of illegal tactic they get yelled at. Yes i understand what you are saying potshot, and i am talking about Italy. All i am saying is that on certain maps, we need set limitations of tactical movement by the defending team, when the primary objective is the same as round start.

    I understand that when the primary objective changes so does the tactical strat and movement. One thing I hear alot when someone is told that they are pushing to far is "well i was told by an admin that i can go here, and until im told otherwise, I will keep doing it." Things to that effect are said alot, even before the primary objective has changed.

    So what are we to do? just let it slide, pester an admin? even if the admin is playing another game? I do see admins on steam all the time, generally they are playing other games so i let them be. On a serious problem i might consider getting an admin, but for smaller stuff i dont see the point in ruining their game. Its consideration on my part, i wouldn't want it done to me so i dont do it to them. Keep in mind that the people are not trying to be rude, its just what they have been told vs. what we've been told.
    You are missing the point. There are no boundaries. This has been discussed many times over and you can read about it among the many threads out there. It's been 5 years and 6 months since we've started playing pcs with counter strike source. New players always have trouble understanding what objective play and pcs play really entails. There are plenty of posts for you to read about how communication, tactics and teamwork allow the positions on a map to be fluid and not static.

  10.  
  11. #6
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassVeteranCreated Album picturesTagger Second Class

    Ferris Bueller's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    1123 6536 5321
    Age
    32
    Posts
    9,146
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    At the behest of Nomad, who is my younger brother and is currently sitting in the other room playing on the server, I'm going to jump in here.
    Now, I know that many of you may not know me all that well because I tend to stick to other TG titles these days (with the exception of aes0p, whom I always took great pleasure in killing back in the good old natural selection days), but I am well versed in the PCS universe and understand intimately how it works. I was playing PCS here back when the 4th was a powerhouse and I had to deal with Atomic Dog's antics on a daily basis. I've also kept up with the PCS forum throughout my many years here, so I'm familiar with the previous instances of similar situations.

    After a lengthy discussion with Nomad, I completely understand what he's getting at and the issue is twofold (he's just not quit as articulate as I am about it):
    1. There is an apparent double standard. Now, without naming names, he posed to me instances and even had me observe them while he was playing in which a tactic used by one team was disallowed as being too forward, but another round with a different group of players showed that the same team was allowed the same tactic under the same objective-based circumstances due to certain people being on the team. (i.e. one round of italy the terrorists are told that advancing to and attacking from point X was too far, but in a later round, the terrorists were allowed to attack from point X under the same objective-related circumstances) I can absolutely understand how this would present a reason for frustration.

    2. The delineation between what is allowed and not allowed is very very murky. Now, understandably with the gamestyle that TG employs on the PCS server, this must exist to a certain degree. But what Nomad is getting at is that there are frequently players on the server who claim to have been allowed to utilize certain tactics by TG admins and will continue to utilize said tactics until an admin tells them otherwise, regardless of what the veteran and regular players on the server tell them to the contrary. This particular problem can be addressed by reporting the specific incidents to the admin staff as they are available and then having the admins provide proper information to the players involved as to whether the efforts in question are allowed or not.

    With both of these counts, I can see where frustrations would rise, and I dont see any particular reason for it to be aired in public, but seeing as its a day late and a dollar short for that, it may as well be resolved with a decision from the admin staff here insofar as how these specific incidents should be handled. As I said, PCS is a very fluid game and that makes for some very interesting and difficult calls on the viewing admins part in order to keep it working like a well oiled machine. But if it is indeed getting out of whack, theres nothing wrong with pausing for a momentary tweak.

    On a more personal note, Vulcan, I will be PMing you shortly based on your last post on the subject because what I have to say isnt for public eyes.

  12.  

  13. #7

    Vulcan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manhattan, New York, United States
    Age
    36
    Posts
    8,011
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller View Post
    At the behest of Nomad, who is my younger brother and is currently sitting in the other room playing on the server, I'm going to jump in here.
    Now, I know that many of you may not know me all that well because I tend to stick to other TG titles these days (with the exception of aes0p, whom I always took great pleasure in killing back in the good old natural selection days), but I am well versed in the PCS universe and understand intimately how it works. I was playing PCS here back when the 4th was a powerhouse and I had to deal with Atomic Dog's antics on a daily basis. I've also kept up with the PCS forum throughout my many years here, so I'm familiar with the previous instances of similar situations.

    After a lengthy discussion with Nomad, I completely understand what he's getting at and the issue is twofold (he's just not quit as articulate as I am about it):
    1. There is an apparent double standard. Now, without naming names, he posed to me instances and even had me observe them while he was playing in which a tactic used by one team was disallowed as being too forward, but another round with a different group of players showed that the same team was allowed the same tactic under the same objective-based circumstances due to certain people being on the team. (i.e. one round of italy the terrorists are told that advancing to and attacking from point X was too far, but in a later round, the terrorists were allowed to attack from point X under the same objective-related circumstances) I can absolutely understand how this would present a reason for frustration.
    This is an admin issue not a tactic issue. Admins don't allow double standards and if there is a problem, report it!

    2. The delineation between what is allowed and not allowed is very very murky. Now, understandably with the gamestyle that TG employs on the PCS server, this must exist to a certain degree. But what Nomad is getting at is that there are frequently players on the server who claim to have been allowed to utilize certain tactics by TG admins and will continue to utilize said tactics until an admin tells them otherwise, regardless of what the veteran and regular players on the server tell them to the contrary. This particular problem can be addressed by reporting the specific incidents to the admin staff as they are available and then having the admins provide proper information to the players involved as to whether the efforts in question are allowed or not.
    This is why we have a tactics forum. anyone who wants to discuss a relevant tactic or not, does it here in specific detail not broad generalizations.

    With both of these counts, I can see where frustrations would rise, and I dont see any particular reason for it to be aired in public, but seeing as its a day late and a dollar short for that, it may as well be resolved with a decision from the admin staff here insofar as how these specific incidents should be handled. As I said, PCS is a very fluid game and that makes for some very interesting and difficult calls on the viewing admins part in order to keep it working like a well oiled machine. But if it is indeed getting out of whack, theres nothing wrong with pausing for a momentary tweak.
    The people that have an issue are very small as most of these maps have been played extensively and the tactics have been talked out. That's a good thing though.

    On a more personal note, Vulcan, I will be PMing you shortly based on your last post on the subject because what I have to say isnt for public eyes.
    sounds good.

  14.  
  15. #8
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranCreated Album pictures10000 Experience Points

    Clefspeare's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,856
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    People ask me alot about whether something is or isn't allowed, many times after the fact. Without details, I can't give a decision, but for me it boils down to where their teammates were, was there legitimate communication between teammates, and how much on objective was it? The last one being most important.

    In the example of long hall, poking out and attacking someone outside the hall would be fine if someone is covering the guy, he is communicating with fellow teammates and such. For example, maybe he would be distracting the guy on the roof so someone can run back to the house without getting shot.

    I'll leave you with this question. Was he/she being tactical with his team and following the objective? I don't really know what else to say on the point. I'm tired, maybe I'll come up with more tomorrow.
    "We can not ensure success, but we can deserve it." - John Adams
    "Sometimes I guess there just aren't enough rocks." - Forrest Gump





    TG Primer CSS SOP's

  16.  
  17. #9
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Nomad's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arvada, CO
    Age
    29
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    i completely agree clef, if there is a tactical advantage to the attack. For instance covering a retreat by causing a distraction. But i to have a question. Would that same strike at the end of long hall be allowed if there was no distraction needed? Simply to get the kill just knowing that an opposing force is there? I'm not justifying one way or the other but the second senerio seems a bit like kill hunting to me.

    As for the objective, as i see it there are always 2 objectives. The primary be it hostage rescue/prevention or bomb plant/defuse. and the secondary defeat the opposing force. In some cases i understand that the second objective takes presidents, but on the defending shouldn't that only be the case when the primary objective changes? Be it bomb being planted or hostages being moved? Not just for the sake of killing.

    I only bring this next point up because i have seen this first hand. On italy_tactik a ct sniper was trading shots with a T shooting from the house window, the ct was at the mouth of long hall. When the ct sniper was badly wounded he retreated into the marketplace to bandage and med kit. a T came out of the sewer tunnel in long hall, followed the CT into the market and killed him. I understand that the sewer exit in long hall is a viable and tactically sound point of attack. But to follow an enemy member even further away from the primary objective, doesn't seem wise. keep in mind the primary objective was still the same as round start and this was a weekday.

    I enjoy playing on the TG server with structure and rules. It causes teams to strategically plan, communicate, and work as a unit to get the job done. I am not trying to get under anyone's skin or ruffle any feathers, I am simply trying to speak up in a place where my voice will be heard to benifit the server and future play.


    "Well Jayne, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

  18.  

  19. #10

    Vulcan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manhattan, New York, United States
    Age
    36
    Posts
    8,011
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    Quote Originally Posted by Broly View Post
    i completely agree clef, if there is a tactical advantage to the attack. For instance covering a retreat by causing a distraction. But i to have a question. Would that same strike at the end of long hall be allowed if there was no distraction needed? Simply to get the kill just knowing that an opposing force is there? I'm not justifying one way or the other but the second senerio seems a bit like kill hunting to me.
    Killhunting is not always the wrong thing. As i've learned in my time playing pcs that a lot of people equate killhunting to not playing objective. However that's just not the case. There are many instances where you can kill the enemy and protect the objective at the same time. It's along the same lines as why you push out to certain chokepoints like the end of that hall on italy and yes if you have a clear view, someone might poke out for a shot to get you offguard. That's what pcs play is all about as long as it's within a valid tactical paramater and situation allows for it. That's how pcs play remains valid.
    As for the objective, as i see it there are always 2 objectives. The primary be it hostage rescue/prevention or bomb plant/defuse. and the secondary defeat the opposing force. In some cases i understand that the second objective takes presidents, but on the defending shouldn't that only be the case when the primary objective changes? Be it bomb being planted or hostages being moved? Not just for the sake of killing.
    Why can't you do both? I said more above for that.

    I only bring this next point up because i have seen this first hand. On italy_tactik a ct sniper was trading shots with a T shooting from the house window, the ct was at the mouth of long hall. When the ct sniper was badly wounded he retreated into the marketplace to bandage and med kit. a T came out of the sewer tunnel in long hall, followed the CT into the market and killed him. I understand that the sewer exit in long hall is a viable and tactically sound point of attack. But to follow an enemy member even further away from the primary objective, doesn't seem wise. keep in mind the primary objective was still the same as round start and this was a weekday.
    That's good pcs play right there. The teammates communicated that he was nearly dead and retreating. Given the situation if he had the advantage to pursue and kill him then that's good! You are limiting yourself to positions on the map, that's not what pcs is about although a lot of times we do reserve the more advanced play for weekends but that's up to admins who are on at the time to warn players. That's still a good play though by pcs standards. If he had failed then you could argue that the situation wasn't right. This should teach you something though. Lone players are not protected by boundaries.

    I enjoy playing on the TG server with structure and rules. It causes teams to strategically plan, communicate, and work as a unit to get the job done. I am not trying to get under anyone's skin or ruffle any feathers, I am simply trying to speak up in a place where my voice will be heard to benifit the server and future play.
    Understandable. This has been discussed many times and if you want to come to the tactics forum to discuss something you need to give specific details and situations. Otherwise it's just a crapshoot for anyone. There is only answers in the details.

    As a final note, A lot of players like to cry killhunting when someone is killing them but that's the game. Killing other people is a necessary element of the game. It doesn't mean the players who kill people aren't playing their objective too.

  20.  
  21. #11
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Potshot's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Age
    22
    Posts
    998
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    I think Vulcan laid it out pretty clearly, so I'll keep this short. going after a kill is fine if you have a tactical goal you're trying to accomplish with it. In your example, chasing the enemy sniper and killing him not only eliminated a player but a high-priority target. The terrorist had a tactical advantage and was able to use it to take out potentially the most important player the enemy had. He took a risk and it paid off.

    If you have a mental set of boundaries, use them as a general rule of thumb. But don't assume that just because a spot is usually too far, you can always feel safe there. This doesn't mean you can always go where ever you want, but if you feel that you have a strong enough reason and you communicate it well, don't be afraid to push the limits a bit. As for the admins, I've never had any problems with them. If you feel they made a bad call, ask them. They'll explain their reasons. Even our admins sometimes make mistakes, they are human after all, but I don't think they'd abuse their position.

  22.  
  23. #12
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranCreated Album pictures10000 Experience Points

    Clefspeare's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,856
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    As far as the admins are concerned, if you or any player has a problem with a decision made, make a note of it and come talk about it on the forum. If it's a serious problem, take it to the contact an admin forum, but if it's for tactical issues then bring it up in the tactics forum. Chances are there are already a couple threads concerning that map. If there isn't, then you have the pleasure of starting a new one.

    Admins aren't always right on every single situation right away, that's like saying our government always knows what it's doing. The point is you've got to bring it to our attention like you just did except with more specifics concerning specific situations.

    Good stuff.
    "We can not ensure success, but we can deserve it." - John Adams
    "Sometimes I guess there just aren't enough rocks." - Forrest Gump





    TG Primer CSS SOP's

  24.  

  25. #13
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Gill's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Silverthorne, Colorado
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,444
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    When I was playing Counterstrike here at TG, these discussions popped up now and again. I began to dislike and tire the ambiguous gray zone that PCS thrives in. One player's "tactical rush" was undoubtedly "kill hunting" if another player did it depending on how well they're known to grasp the general mindset of how things are played here. I think it's just the nature of the beast. Although scenarios like I described - and apparently what Broly was commenting upon - are annoying, I do hold the opinion that the admins handle it as fairly as they can.

    I think PCS will exist as long as Tactical Gamer does.




    I also stopped playing CSS because my wife tired of me shouting "BULL____!!!!!" at the monitor every time some magical CSS guru headshotted me with laser accuracy. :P


  26.  
  27. #14

    Vulcan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Manhattan, New York, United States
    Age
    36
    Posts
    8,011
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    Gill they just keep getting better. Even I suck now.

  28.  
  29. #15

    Delta's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse.
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,065
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: The line in the sand is blurry

    It's kosher because it doesn't involve meat.
    TG Primer


    Atomic Dog: Do it, hit it with a crowbar!
    Delta: I don't have a crowbar.
    Atomic Dog: Hit it with the dog!

    Ednos: I just need to man up and get ready to have a testicle removed (which is what using Vista feels like)

  30.  
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Back to top