CS_Office - Page 3

Buck Fush · 02-15-2005, 06:08 PM

Sorry didn't see that there was a second page of replys before I posted this. Looks like several peole made this point already.

IceCold · 02-15-2005, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Fush

Either way, it would be impossible to block both doors leading to either hostage location with filing cabinets, there's always another way out. Therefore this practice cannot make it impossible to rescue the hostages

Wrong. The terrorists could arrange a filing cabinet to block every single entrance to the hostages. Combine this with the fact that hostages can get hung up on them and Wyzcrak's rule would prohibit blocking passageways with filing cabinets (according to him). I don't thing that the rule, as written, covers the fact that hostages only occasionally get hung up on them, I think the word "potential" is in the wrong spot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak's Rule

You may not move furniture or other map entities by any means to any location which places the map in a state which completely eliminates the potential to complete the objective.

I think this covers it better:

Quote:

You may not move furniture or other map entities by any means to any location which places the map in a state which potentially eliminates the ability to complete the objective.

IceCold · 02-15-2005, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempus

In the months that I've played here, I have not seen this problem one time. Let's address this again when it becomes one.

Well, one of our members is saying that it is an issue. I've seen hostages get hung up in one direction before, but there's always been a different way to go. The potential for this to become an issue is definitely there. I'd like to just say that it's discouraged and not worry about a rule.

**Wyzcrak** · 02-15-2005, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceCold

I think the word "potential" is in the wrong spot.

As is my wont, I said exactly what I meant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wyzcrak

You may not move furniture or other map entities by any means to any location which places the map in a state which completely eliminates the potential to complete the objective.

You can move things all day long. Block passages to your heart's content. The moment you place the map in a state which "completely eliminates the potential to complete the objective," you're out of line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceCold

You may not move furniture or other map entities by any means to any location which places the map in a state which potentially eliminates the ability to complete the objective.

There's no "potential" when it comes to a "true" or "false" here. Either you have completely eliminated the potential to complete the objective or you have not.

It's the player's responsibility to know if she's done this. Once she has (eliminated all routes to the objective), she's out of bounds.

Hopefully I've been more clear than before.

**Wyzcrak** · 02-15-2005, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceCold

Well, one of our members is saying that it is an issue. I've seen hostages get hung up in one direction before, but there's always been a different way to go. The potential for this to become an issue is definitely there. I'd like to just say that it's discouraged and not worry about a rule.

You don't run up against a closed door over and over and over again with hostages and then blame the Ts for closing the door.

If you know hostages get stuck on furniture, avoid furniture.

As long as there's an open route somewhere, it's game on, I say.

I like people doing things to make my job more difficult but still possible. I think it adds a lot to gameplay as long as you don't become too complacent in what you know.

**RandomGuy** · 02-15-2005, 09:42 PM

Would restricting the Ts to buying only one frag grenade per player (no more spawn re-buys) mitigate this problem?

**CingularDuality** · 02-16-2005, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Would restricting the Ts to buying only one frag grenade per player (no more spawn re-buys) mitigate this problem?

I don't think so. The only way that all entrances could be blocked is if several Ts did it at the various locations: supply room, T spawn (twice, and even then, I've never seen the T spawn door to the projector room blocked...), and long hall.

I don't really think this is a problem. I'm sorry that Fox had to deal with it, but most of the time, furniture will not stop the hostages, and even if they do stop, it's likely that there's an alternate route to take.

Forcing the CT to take an alternate route dramatically changes the dynamics of the game, though. And in a manner that I don't particularly care for... It's hard enough to rescue hostages as it is. Most rounds end by killing the other team, not by rescuing the hostages. Preventing CTs from sneaking out the back with the hostages only makes this worse.

**Pokerface** · 02-16-2005, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I don't think so. The only way that all entrances could be blocked is if several Ts did it at the various locations: supply room, T spawn (twice, and even then, I've never seen the T spawn door to the projector room blocked...), and long hall.

I don't really think this is a problem. I'm sorry that Fox had to deal with it, but most of the time, furniture will not stop the hostages, and even if they do stop, it's likely that there's an alternate route to take.

Forcing the CT to take an alternate route dramatically changes the dynamics of the game, though. And in a manner that I don't particularly care for... It's hard enough to rescue hostages as it is. Most rounds end by killing the other team, not by rescuing the hostages. Preventing CTs from sneaking out the back with the hostages only makes this worse.

You know that the only way for the Ts to win is by killing the CTs, right? By default, 50% of the wins on that map are going to be kill-based, even on the most objectives-based server you can imagine. Toss in the facts that Ts generally try to get in the way of CTs on their way to rescue the hostages, and that CTs have guns.... and that percentage starts to climb.

Firefights are what make and break the game; getting the hostages, while the objective, isn't normally what wins a round. Hostage rescue is a nice thing to do while killing Ts.

**CingularDuality** · 02-16-2005, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

You know that the only way for the Ts to win is by killing the CTs, right?

WRONG.

Quote:

Firefights are what make and break the game; getting the hostages, while the objective, isn't normally what wins a round. Hostage rescue is a nice thing to do while killing Ts.

Pokerface, you've just made a statement that is exactly opposite what PCS stands for. How can you be so opposed to our style of play? I don't understand the hate here...

rs_al · 02-16-2005, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

WRONG.

How often does time run out? Can you cite a single example? BUT YOU ARE TYPING IN ALL CAPS YOU MUST BE CORRECT.

One of the reasons most objectives based servers have a 3 minute round time is so that the T's can win by means other than killing all the CT's, simply presenting a good defense around the hostage area can push the cts back and they can run out of time. However, by having a 7 minute round time that option is essentially eliminated, and killing is left as the only choice for a T victory.

**Tempus** · 02-16-2005, 12:50 PM

Interesting take on things.. Hmm...

**Pokerface** · 02-16-2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

WRONG.

Pokerface, you've just made a statement that is exactly opposite what PCS stands for. How can you be so opposed to our style of play? I don't understand the hate here...

How else can they win? Timelimit? If the timelimit expires, then it's the CTs who failed, not the Ts who won. And last I checked, it's not as if there's a bombsite on cs_ maps, so alternative methods are few and far between.

If you're on CTs and the time is running out, you had best be throwing yourself headlong into the hostage zone. THAT'S objective-based play. And the Ts will probably kill you in the process, because (OMG) the Ts shoot back! And if they don't kill you, then you might (OMG) kill them and end the round!

If you're on Ts and see that timelimit ticking away, are you going to smile smugly having proven me wrong, or are you going to camp a rescue site AND KILL A CT trying to make a last second rescue?

I'm not opposed to the style of play here. I'm opposed to the high-and-mighty attitude you have about it, and how it's totally unassailable despite the logical inconsistencies.

**CingularDuality** · 02-16-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

I'm not opposed to the style of play here. I'm opposed to the high-and-mighty attitude you have about it, and how it's totally unassailable despite the logical inconsistencies.

I don't have a "high and mighty" attitude. I maintain that our style of play is a philosophy that can't be imitated with written rules. Your statement sums up why this is true:

Quote:

Firefights are what make and break the game; getting the hostages, while the objective, isn't normally what wins a round. Hostage rescue is a nice thing to do while killing Ts.

There are no written rules that are able to tell whether you want to play deathmatch or if you want to work with your team to focus on the objective at hand. We could write rule after rule after rule for you, but it looks like it wouldn't change the fact that you don't consider the objective as important as killing the other team.

The ultimate win for me would be to rescue all the hostages or to detonate a bomb without ever killing a single person on the opposite team. Yeah, it rarely happens, because the defensive team is playing defense, but still...

**Pokerface** · 02-16-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cing

There are no written rules that are able to tell whether you want to play deathmatch or if you want to work with your team to focus on the objective at hand. We could write rule after rule after rule for you, but it looks like it wouldn't change the fact that you don't consider the objective as important as killing the other team.

... I honestly don't know what to say anymore, Cing. You throw around the term "deathmatch" like McCarthy used "communist", and try to pigeonhole everyone who pulls their trigger while their gun is pointed at an enemy into some evil DM hole. I'll go with size 5 again, so everyone can be certain about my next statement:
You can play the map objectives and STILL end up killing the entire opposing team, thereby winning the round. I am NOT disparaging objective-based play, "and I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Deathmatching Party."

And then!!!

Quote:

The ultimate win for me would be to rescue all the hostages or to detonate a bomb without ever killing a single person on the opposite team. Yeah, it rarely happens, because the defensive team is playing defense, but still...

NO... not "but still...". The defense plays ... DEFENSE! And shoots at you! And if you want to complete your objective of getting to the bombsite or getting to the hostages, YOU SHOOT BACK! This is why I said the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

Firefights are what make and break the game; getting the hostages, while the objective, isn't normally what wins a round. Hostage rescue is a nice thing to do while killing Ts.

So long as the defense is playing defense, it's the shooting back and forth that will decide who wins the game.

So you can feel good about yourself, the moment the tools become available, I'll craft a plugin that will let you plant the bomb/rescue the hostages even after all the defense is dead, so you can win the round via the objective and get that fuzzy feeling inside, but until either that happens, or someone decides that PCS should be played with hugs instead of guns, expect the killing of the opposing team to win the round, despite (or perhaps because of, even) objective-based play.

To pull this back to the thread topic ....

So long as the objective CAN be completed (it's objective above all else, remember?), there is no reason using furniture to block hallways should be disallowed.

**Wyzcrak** · 02-16-2005, 02:55 PM

Makes good sense to me, Poker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

So long as the objective CAN be completed (it's objective above all else, remember?), there is no reason using furniture to block hallways should be disallowed.

Yes yes.. agreed.

02-15-2005, 06:08 PM	#31 (permalink)
Buck Fush Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Littleton, CO Posts: 608	Re: CS_Office Sorry didn't see that there was a second page of replys before I posted this. Looks like several peole made this point already.

02-15-2005, 09:42 PM	#36 (permalink)
RandomGuy Join Date: May 2003 Location: K-W, Ont. Age: 27 Posts: 1,737	Re: CS_Office Would restricting the Ts to buying only one frag grenade per player (no more spawn re-buys) mitigate this problem?

02-16-2005, 12:50 PM	#41 (permalink)
Tempus Join Date: May 2003 Location: Miami, FL Age: 38 Posts: 8,234	Re: CS_Office Interesting take on things.. Hmm...

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

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links