Map Boundaries???

K2_the_Turtle · 02-01-2005, 11:36 AM

Heya:

There's a lot of talk on the servers concerning boundaries. I remember we talked about this a lot back in the N42 days, but I've been gone for a long time and need a refresher.

Are there set boundaries on every map that dictate where a member of the defensive team can and can't go? What's the communities current take on this issue?

I know that setting boundaries makes it easy for new members to understand the gameplay and easy for the admins to keep control over the server, but I'd like to avoid it of possible.

Thanks!
Keith

**CingularDuality** · 02-01-2005, 12:00 PM

No. Right now there are no hard boundaries. Just like before, we have guidelines that show people where the likely boundaries for the defensive team are... Most of the time, these "boundaries" shouldn't be crossed, but there are times when it's smart to do so. As long as the defensive team is guarding its objective (whether its bombsites or hostages), there shouldn't be any problems.

**RandomGuy** · 02-01-2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K2_the_Turtle

Are there set boundaries on every map that dictate where a member of the defensive team can and can't go? What's the communities current take on this issue?

You basically summed up the current opinion with your next statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by K2_the_Turtle

I know that setting boundaries makes it easy for new members to understand the gameplay and easy for the admins to keep control over the server, but I'd like to avoid it of possible.

**Samurai** · 02-08-2005, 11:30 PM

This is odd. Considering this was posted a week ago, and I was warned this evening several times for crossing boundaries I didn't know existed.

Apparently there ARE boundaries, at least on some maps. I think it's kind of bogus too, but I remember back in the day when we had to enstate them because the influx of new people was too thick for the veterans to deal with as far as teaching the ropes to the new people. If it's gotta be that way for a while, then so be it.

Also, apparently your entire team must always stick together. I was also warned a couple times tonight for leaving my team in order to try and make a diversion/decoy move.

Mind you I'm not complaining about these rules (I've always been able to adapt), I'm just letting you know they exist.

**Wyzcrak** · 02-08-2005, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samurai

Mind you I'm not complaining about these rules (I've always been able to adapt), I'm just letting you know they exist.

You'll gather more as your time in return lengthens, but the bottom line is that there are no rules. There are only guidelines. And it's there where the problem begin. People will debate how significant the problems are, but that IS where they begin.

When you're on the server, you're subject to the admin's interpretation of the guidelines. You just have to learn what's fair when. It's not pretty, but no one has yet to come up with a better way given our environment.

grey · 02-08-2005, 11:44 PM

I can understand moving away to do decoy maneuvers, and as far as I understand it, as long as your team is for it then it should be fine. If its part of the tactic you are using, then kudo's and good luck in your diversion.

Along the same lines of being warned for leaving your team, the murky area of boundaries and what is and is not appropriate spring up. Most of us who play here enough learn where those boundaries are. Some are more set, such as de_aztec, by not crossing the bridge or the double doors as CT until after the bomb is set. This might be seen as rubbish to some, but it does help preserve bombsite protection of CT's, and to discourage CT rushing.

On other maps, such as de_nukes, I do understand that sometimes being outside between the way to the upper bombsite and the lower bombsite entrance can seem out of bounds. The argument could go for or against it, against it as the CT's have access to the lower bombsite from the upper bombsite through the vent shafts, or other ways. For it being inbounds by saying its a back entrance to the lower bombsite that should be able to be spied upon at least in order to assess where the T's are trying to plant the bomb.

I know that each player and admin has different boundaries set in mind when dealing with where they can and cannot go. I myself have boundary areas depending on the map I am playing, the weapons I am carrying, and the number of players left.

The thing that makes the difference, is the strong community here, and its ability to stick together and work out its differences, or to at least agree to disagree. If for instance I am playing and someone has a problem where I was on a map, I'm 100% certain to not be there again.

I think of playing the game like a muteable organism, it has to adapt to the environment, players at hand, and the attitudes of those playing. The more rules there are defining the way events unfold, the organism cannot expand or continue to grow, and a healthy server is one where it is open to new ideas, but total chaos does not dominate

**asch** · 02-09-2005, 12:04 AM

One of the warnings I was trying to give was that the CTs should be running around the map looking for the Ts. There were several CTs running around randomly. They were running far enough to be in the T spawn.

I also believe the comment I made was that on the public server, we're (in this case me) having to be a bit more picky on watching players. You may not have been rushing in particular, but there were several of your teammates running right along side you and they kept on running. Around the time you were on, I was having to spectate quite a bit to keep the server under control.

EDIT: I also wanted to add a thank you for slowing your play down a bit while we got the server under control. No fuss at all... just lots of questions.

**Samurai** · 02-09-2005, 12:13 AM

Hey like I said, I can adapt, and I'm more than willing to play along.

This thing with different admins having different ideas about boundaries scares me a little though.

I won't tell you guys how to do your job, but when I was an admin here, the boundaries were the same for everyone, and everyone enforced them the same.

In the meantime, I'll hang back and play less aggressively. I was always a better defensive player anyway.

tekunogekai · 02-09-2005, 02:33 AM

It should also be noted that, so long as the defending team isn't rushing the other team's spawn in the beginning, a small group of players who coordinate and work together to camp somwhere on a map (like below the office window on the T-side of Italy, pointing toward the rescue point) isn't against any of the official rules.

However, Root threatened to ban me for it. I've got nothing at all against Root, but GDit, admins need to get together and have meetings so that the TG CS:S server rules don't spontaneously change as different admins connect. Wyze, use your real ultimate power and spread the gospel sir.

P.S.: The P.O. bill is up to at least a few grand by now. I don't know where you've found such a ready supply of feces, but please stop.

**Wyzcrak** · 02-09-2005, 02:42 AM

If you have a problem with an admin, PM the admin.

tekunogekai · 02-09-2005, 03:06 AM

No no, I don't have a problem with any admin - I've read your post about the proper procedure to handle such. ;D I just have a problem with the distribution and general understanding of the posted rules.

<3

**CingularDuality** · 02-09-2005, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tekunogekai

It should also be noted that, so long as the defending team isn't rushing the other team's spawn in the beginning, a small group of players who coordinate and work together to camp somwhere on a map (like below the office window on the T-side of Italy, pointing toward the rescue point) isn't against any of the official rules.

Unless the hostages have somehow already been rescued, how, exactly, are you defending the hostages by being on the other side of the map from them???

No, I think it's pretty clear that being under the apartment window is NOT someplace that the defensive team should usually be. The defensive team should be defending the hostages, not setting up ambushes that don't help accomplish the objective. If you set up an ambush somewhere that you can abandon it to support your team, I'd be much more likely to support you, but I can't agree with a member of the defensive team being on the opposite side of the map from the objective that he's supposed to be defending.

Did I mention that Ts are on defense and that they should be defending the hostages on Italy?

Defense.

Defending an objective.

Supporting their team.

On defense.

tekunogekai · 02-09-2005, 03:26 AM

I don't see the terrorists' "objective" as being at the hostages. I see it as being the path between the hostages and the rescue point.

Many many MANY times have I seen the terrorists win on Italy because a terrorist with a Scout/AWP and a support terrorist with a SMG/Rifle snuck to the rescue point and camped the "V". Likewise, when hostages are taken to the rescue point, I'd be willing to bet money that they are taken past the apartment window 80% of the time, rather than being taken past the Beethoven side. If they communicate that they are going to do this, and they don't rush there immediately, then no rules are being broken. In my experience, sniping here has resulted in the terrorists achieving their goal just as often, if not more so, than camping on the balcony connected to the house.

I think that if the only "objective" of the terrorists was to keep the CT's from hitting E in front of the hostages, then the round would end with the CT's victorious the second they did so.

**Scooper** · 02-09-2005, 03:41 AM

To put a "realistic" light on this (not at all new) argument... Do actual terrorists in real life go out and find the best and closest chopper landing site and then leave their hostages alone while they set up ambush positions between the 'apartment' and the 'safe zone'?
A- No

They camp in a little teeny building and hope the good guys don't find them.

Ts on Italy have two chances to keep the CTs off the hostages. The first is AT the hostages.
You want to abandon that and go camp the finish line? I can see your point but I can tell you right here that that ain't gonna go (in general). How would you get there without running into CTs? You might get lucky... but otherwise you just rushed.
You abandoned your objective, moved away from your only means of winning (this side of a DM situation) and chose to bet it all on a finish line ambush. IRL the safe zone would be the last place you would go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tekunogekai

I don't see the terrorists' "objective" as being at the hostages.

How do you see that exactly? The CTs can't win without the hossies. (unless they kill all Ts... which=DM)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tekunogekai

I see it as being the path between the hostages and the rescue point.

How would you know the path till after they are taking it? (which is allowed...AFTER they are on their way)

**CingularDuality** · 02-09-2005, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tekunogekai

I don't see the terrorists' "objective" as being at the hostages.

Here at TacticalGamer the hostages ARE the objective.

Quote:

I see it as being the path between the hostages and the rescue point.

Many many MANY times have I seen the terrorists win on Italy because a terrorist with a Scout/AWP and a support terrorist with a SMG/Rifle snuck to the rescue point and camped the "V". Likewise, when hostages are taken to the rescue point, I'd be willing to bet money that they are taken past the apartment window 80% of the time, rather than being taken past the Beethoven side. If they communicate that they are going to do this, and they don't rush there immediately, then no rules are being broken. In my experience, sniping here has resulted in the terrorists achieving their goal just as often, if not more so, than camping on the balcony connected to the house.

I see what you're saying, but that's just not the way we play here. By your reasoning, the terrorists could simply shoot all the hostages and make it a pure deathmatch game anyway. Yeah, it'll cost some money, but it's not "against the rules of CS". It is against the rules here, though. Intentionally harming hostages will get you removed from the server. This is not a deathmatch server. The objective for the terrorists is to protect the hostages from being rescued. On our server, that means guarding the hostages, not the rescue point.

Quote:

I think that if the only "objective" of the terrorists was to keep the CT's from hitting E in front of the hostages, then the round would end with the CT's victorious the second they did so.

Is "E" default for "use"? I'm assuming so... Anyway, on the TacticalGamer server, the positioning of the defensive team should constantly shift. Using Italy as an example, early in the round, the defensive perimeter can be large: players setting an ambush in the alcove at the end of the long hallway, someone on top of the exit from the apartments, someone in the shadows near the exit from the wine celler, and lots of players covering from above the wine celler exit, the top of the long tunnel and the corner looking into the apartment. As the CTs pick off or push through the defense, the defensive perimeter should collapse to try to contain any vulnerabilities. If it looks like the CTs are all coming through the apartment (y'know, because three of your teammates just died there?), then the ambush at the end of the long hallway is no longer a smart place to be. The acceptable locations for Ts to be has shrunk. Likewise, once the CTs grab the hostages, the defensive tactics must shift. Somehow, the T's NOW must prevent the hostages from being taken to the rescue point. Abandoning your team to camp the rescue point before the hostages are even touched is NOT a good idea on our server and will result in your being kicked. There's a reason why this isn't a 40 player server. With that many people, I'd have to say that sending out a patrol for an advanced ambush would be an excellent idea. But the extremely small size of CS maps just doesn't make allow for that to fall in line with the type of gameplay that TacticalGamer wants to offer.

02-01-2005, 11:36 AM	#1 (permalink)
K2_the_Turtle Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 275	Map Boundaries??? Heya: There's a lot of talk on the servers concerning boundaries. I remember we talked about this a lot back in the N42 days, but I've been gone for a long time and need a refresher. Are there set boundaries on every map that dictate where a member of the defensive team can and can't go? What's the communities current take on this issue? I know that setting boundaries makes it easy for new members to understand the gameplay and easy for the admins to keep control over the server, but I'd like to avoid it of possible. Thanks! Keith

02-01-2005, 12:00 PM	#2 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 16,806	Re: Map Boundaries??? No. Right now there are no hard boundaries. Just like before, we have guidelines that show people where the likely boundaries for the defensive team are... Most of the time, these "boundaries" shouldn't be crossed, but there are times when it's smart to do so. As long as the defensive team is guarding its objective (whether its bombsites or hostages), there shouldn't be any problems. __________________ Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

02-08-2005, 11:30 PM	#4 (permalink)
Samurai Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Age: 32 Posts: 55	Re: Map Boundaries??? This is odd. Considering this was posted a week ago, and I was warned this evening several times for crossing boundaries I didn't know existed. Apparently there ARE boundaries, at least on some maps. I think it's kind of bogus too, but I remember back in the day when we had to enstate them because the influx of new people was too thick for the veterans to deal with as far as teaching the ropes to the new people. If it's gotta be that way for a while, then so be it. Also, apparently your entire team must always stick together. I was also warned a couple times tonight for leaving my team in order to try and make a diversion/decoy move. Mind you I'm not complaining about these rules (I've always been able to adapt), I'm just letting you know they exist. __________________ 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

02-08-2005, 11:44 PM	#6 (permalink)
grey Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 130	Re: Map Boundaries??? I can understand moving away to do decoy maneuvers, and as far as I understand it, as long as your team is for it then it should be fine. If its part of the tactic you are using, then kudo's and good luck in your diversion. Along the same lines of being warned for leaving your team, the murky area of boundaries and what is and is not appropriate spring up. Most of us who play here enough learn where those boundaries are. Some are more set, such as de_aztec, by not crossing the bridge or the double doors as CT until after the bomb is set. This might be seen as rubbish to some, but it does help preserve bombsite protection of CT's, and to discourage CT rushing. On other maps, such as de_nukes, I do understand that sometimes being outside between the way to the upper bombsite and the lower bombsite entrance can seem out of bounds. The argument could go for or against it, against it as the CT's have access to the lower bombsite from the upper bombsite through the vent shafts, or other ways. For it being inbounds by saying its a back entrance to the lower bombsite that should be able to be spied upon at least in order to assess where the T's are trying to plant the bomb. I know that each player and admin has different boundaries set in mind when dealing with where they can and cannot go. I myself have boundary areas depending on the map I am playing, the weapons I am carrying, and the number of players left. The thing that makes the difference, is the strong community here, and its ability to stick together and work out its differences, or to at least agree to disagree. If for instance I am playing and someone has a problem where I was on a map, I'm 100% certain to not be there again. I think of playing the game like a muteable organism, it has to adapt to the environment, players at hand, and the attitudes of those playing. The more rules there are defining the way events unfold, the organism cannot expand or continue to grow, and a healthy server is one where it is open to new ideas, but total chaos does not dominate

02-09-2005, 12:04 AM	#7 (permalink)
asch Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Fort Mill, SC Age: 33 Posts: 9,828	Re: Map Boundaries??? One of the warnings I was trying to give was that the CTs should be running around the map looking for the Ts. There were several CTs running around randomly. They were running far enough to be in the T spawn. I also believe the comment I made was that on the public server, we're (in this case me) having to be a bit more picky on watching players. You may not have been rushing in particular, but there were several of your teammates running right along side you and they kept on running. Around the time you were on, I was having to spectate quite a bit to keep the server under control. EDIT: I also wanted to add a thank you for slowing your play down a bit while we got the server under control. No fuss at all... just lots of questions.

02-09-2005, 12:13 AM	#8 (permalink)
Samurai Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Age: 32 Posts: 55	Re: Map Boundaries??? Hey like I said, I can adapt, and I'm more than willing to play along. This thing with different admins having different ideas about boundaries scares me a little though. I won't tell you guys how to do your job, but when I was an admin here, the boundaries were the same for everyone, and everyone enforced them the same. In the meantime, I'll hang back and play less aggressively. I was always a better defensive player anyway. __________________ 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

02-09-2005, 02:33 AM	#9 (permalink)
tekunogekai Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 54	Re: Map Boundaries??? It should also be noted that, so long as the defending team isn't rushing the other team's spawn in the beginning, a small group of players who coordinate and work together to camp somwhere on a map (like below the office window on the T-side of Italy, pointing toward the rescue point) isn't against any of the official rules. However, Root threatened to ban me for it. I've got nothing at all against Root, but GDit, admins need to get together and have meetings so that the TG CS:S server rules don't spontaneously change as different admins connect. Wyze, use your real ultimate power and spread the gospel sir. P.S.: The P.O. bill is up to at least a few grand by now. I don't know where you've found such a ready supply of feces, but please stop.

02-09-2005, 02:42 AM	#10 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,139	Re: Map Boundaries??? If you have a problem with an admin, PM the admin. __________________ 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.

02-09-2005, 03:06 AM	#11 (permalink)
tekunogekai Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 54	Re: Map Boundaries??? No no, I don't have a problem with any admin - I've read your post about the proper procedure to handle such. ;D I just have a problem with the distribution and general understanding of the posted rules. <3

02-09-2005, 03:26 AM	#13 (permalink)
tekunogekai Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 54	Re: Map Boundaries??? I don't see the terrorists' "objective" as being at the hostages. I see it as being the path between the hostages and the rescue point. Many many MANY times have I seen the terrorists win on Italy because a terrorist with a Scout/AWP and a support terrorist with a SMG/Rifle snuck to the rescue point and camped the "V". Likewise, when hostages are taken to the rescue point, I'd be willing to bet money that they are taken past the apartment window 80% of the time, rather than being taken past the Beethoven side. If they communicate that they are going to do this, and they don't rush there immediately, then no rules are being broken. In my experience, sniping here has resulted in the terrorists achieving their goal just as often, if not more so, than camping on the balcony connected to the house. I think that if the only "objective" of the terrorists was to keep the CT's from hitting E in front of the hostages, then the round would end with the CT's victorious the second they did so.

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

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
No Boundaries? Tell me More!	lucky15234	Counter-Strike - General Discussion	78	11-09-2005 10:59 PM
Admins, T-Admins, and Boundaries.	poe	Counter-Strike - General Discussion	10	08-18-2005 11:26 AM
Server 2: Are there boundaries?	SephirothValentine	Counter-Strike - General Discussion	58	05-28-2005 10:55 AM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links