Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time to stop the confusion

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Time to stop the confusion

    To many times have I been playing and their is an admin on the server that dones not see the SOP in the same way as another admin.
    This simply must stop. How can there be rules with many interpretations?

    It is simple: The SOP is not clearly layed out the code of conduct.

    Let me please explain that this is an attack on the way things are done here and i would like to see these problems disscused and hopefully EVERYONE will be on the same page by the end of this post.
    I have played here for about a year, and since root has left, all the admins -from what I witness- seem to go by what they 'feel' the SOP states. Lets clairify the SOP together.

    Also, please dont post one liners or READ THE SOP, as i will later quote the higher ups and their posts on the SOP.

    First lets examine Hostages. And what you cannot do with them as a defender:
    Per the SOP forum quoted from Apophis: http://www.tacticalgamer.com/counter...e-pcs-faq.html

    "Hostages are NOT to be thought of as nothing more than shields to hide behind. It's inevitable that a terrorist will end up in a situation where the only cover he has from a CT is a hostage, and that's OK, CT's should NEVER be using hostages as cover."

    This rule, as I will call it, states that a Terrorist cannot use the Hosties as a shield, unless they are "in a situation where the only cover he has from a CT is a hostage." A situation where the only cover remaining from a CT is the hosties is when your alone as a T. At the begining of a round, there are many other options that can be taken. It is my opinion that Ts should never use the hosties as a shield unless they are the last remaining T on the map, or one of two Ts left with one in each hostage room (assuming both sets remain). This is simple and clear.

    Second, the Objective.
    We all know that the objective is either a bomb site or hosties. We will talk about defenders in this case because there never seems to be an issue with the offensive team. (Obv the offensive team should stay out of the defenders spawn, unless the route to a site envolves it.)

    If it is the defenders job to defend the objective from the offensive team, then how far away from the objective can the defense venture?
    This is the largest dilemma. Most cannot agree on where the defender is still defending or when the defender has turned offensive. (basically the limit that isnt really a limit but it is a limit because obv a CT cannot enter the spawn of the Ts on a bomb map.)

    Per the SOP forum quoted from Apophis:

    "What is OBJECTIVE Orientation?
    I cannot state this firmly enough: The "objective" is NOT to just kill the other team. If you put yourself in a position where it is easier for the enemy to kill you then for you to kill them, it's just dumb, right? Well, if you put yourself in a position where the enemy can get by you and complete their objective, that's even worse. I understand how limiting this can be for defensive teams, but that's just too damn bad as they have to protect the objective. This is not to say the defensive team must always camp right on the objective spots. To do that would be perdictable and easily defeatable. But there are enough places on all the maps we play on that you can shake things up and outsmart the enemy. It is perfectly reasonable to move forward from the objective at the beginnging of the round to secure a chokepoint or some other area where they can get a strategic advantage.

    However, the defensive team on this map should fall back TOWARDS the bomb points if they are taking heavy fire, and the backup should arrive from the fastest possible path, once the opposing team has their objective I.E. running away with hostages or bomb has been planted, all boundaries are removed. You should be helping your teammates in the fastest possible way to keep them alive, even if it means being predictable. That just means you have to check your corners quickly while running and you have to be quick on the trigger.

    From the offensive side, this means planting the bomb as quickly as possible AND guarding it after planting. I have seen FAR too many people plant the bomb and then go running off trying to kill CTs. Then the CTs come around from another way and defuse without any resistance at all. BAD! I've also seen too many people not rescuing hostages because the noise will give them away. They are afraid to die for their mission, and are not willing to let their backs get opened up to enemy fire while running away with the hostages. Their excuse is "I can't rescue if I'm dead". TOO DAMN BAD. We respect those that try to complete the mission, not those that won't risk it to defuse a ticking bomb or risk dying by rescuing hostages. On hostage maps, figure out a way to get in there quickly, grab the hostages, and get out quickly. On demolitions, sneak in, plant fast and stand your ground. You should be willing to die for your mission. Period."

    This is a clear message, but people tend to ignore the honest nature of it.

    This is where examples are needed to fully explain the intent of this rule.
    You can get kicked for 'going to far' or 'rushing the offense.' Many people push these 'boundaries.' Ive seen admins feel they are justified in their actions when doing this exact thing that new people would be kicked for. This needs to be cleared up because admins represent TG as a community and when they do things others are kicked for, it makes the admins seem above the rules. We all know, TG members and Admins are not above the SOP and should play accordingly.
    I give an example of limits/boundries below. . These present my feelings on boundries of a map. Yes, there are limits, there should be limits. I have underlined/bolded the line that states there are boundaries, even though many say there are none.

    Please post what you feel about these boundries, and give input on the subject.
    If we can all agree on this, a lot of tension will be removed from the server play. Admins and players alike should adhear to the rules and guidelines at all times. Sad but true, drunk or not everyone. (To those 21+)

    Example:
    De_dust: A CT flank on the Ts at long A should only be done when the bomb has been sighted by someone at A. Otherwise it should be called rushing and a kick should insue. The reason for this i feel is because a CT flanking can see the spawn of the offense, and that is a huge no no in my book. The CTs should never enter the T spawn unless the bomb has been planted, thus removing all boundaries.


    Your friend, and teammate,

    Kyle.
    aka Bzer0X

  • #2
    Re: Time to stop the confusion

    My views:

    "The T can't use hostages for cover unless..."

    I include any nearby geometry and entities as cover in this context. If you're in a completely empty box map with only seven enties in it -- You, CT, Swivel Chair, Oldy, Creepy, Azn, and Mike -- the list of things you can stand beind is simply "Swivel Chair." Being the last T is no justification in my mind to put your bargaining chips at risk. You can stand next to them, but not between them; that's because you can dodge away from the hostages, but not before or behind them, without putting them at risk.

    On the CT side, hiding behind the hostages and attacking unaware defender Ts is wrong, but this issue becomes more troublesome when a CT is cruising out of Dodge and a T comes up behind. In my opinion, as long at the CT is running to a Resc zone, it's the T's job to not hit the hostages. If he's pro he can hit the CT, and if not, too bad. This could even be enforced by the mod: Whenever a hostage that is currently in following mode dies, the mod slays the attacker. T kill a hostage that's being rescued? Zeus bolt's 'em. CT can fire back for cover, but if he catches Oldy in the face... *ker-smite*. Now, if a CT goes down a random alley so the hostages will form a meat wall, that's kick-worthy.


    Stating specific boundries is bad because it inevitably reduces gameplay variation. However, I have noticed that unless there's a thinker on the team like five-star Ben or Shadow Wolf, nobody on offense calls a strat. I too am somewhat guilty of this, but generally I'd rather yield the plan to the team planner, and since no one ever reads the text box (which is so I don't need to repeat myself, and yet I wind up doing so anyway because no one ever reads the text box) I keep it simple and usually just order a rush to go with super size fries. As far as the actual objectives, the only way to straighten this out is to watch people who play frequently, and send them away if it's clear they are ignoring opportunities to complete their objective. I don't mind a T working to bait and pick CTs before making a plant -- he has until the clock unwinds to make his move -- but if you are C4 and you see the (X) on the ground, you go towards it, you take two seconds to check for CT's and ensure your guys are in position to cover you, and then you plant that baby. Hostages? Here's a super pro-tip secret: A flashbang will cover the hostages' yelling OKAY LET'S DO IT LEROYYYYYYY JENKINNNNNNNS! when you touch them, if you're concerned about that sort of thing.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Time to stop the confusion

      Originally posted by bzerox View Post
      To many times have I been playing and their is an admin on the server that dones not see the SOP in the same way as another admin.
      This simply must stop. How can there be rules with many interpretations?

      It is simple: The SOP is not clearly layed out the code of conduct.
      Firstly, conduct is probably the only thing that's clearly laid out as per the SOP and PCS Player Standards

      What is not clear are the grey areas as to how defensive and offensive strategies/maneauvers will be interpreted from player to player, much less admin to admin. Tactics are not always going to black and white. Sometimes players are going to use an aggressive defensive posture, other times they will use more passive defense. It's important that before anyone makes assumptions or judgements on what the other team is doing that you would at least attempt to discern and ask questions. Admins are appointed because they understand the direction our community is leaning to. Are they perfect people? Certainly not. But I know that most admins are reading the same page.

      PCS isn't about boundaries. It's about tactics, communication and teamwork. Admins have to make judgements less on "how far is too far" anymore and more along the lines of "Was that player communicating? Killhunting? Rushing?" etc. These are all grey areas and some situations will warrant a different response from any given admin.

      Let me please explain that this is an attack on the way things are done here and i would like to see these problems disscused and hopefully EVERYONE will be on the same page by the end of this post.
      I think the admin team does the best job that they can. I can tell you for a fact that within the PCS community we have discussions like this frequently. Some of us might not agree, but the admins all know and partake in these discussions and if anything they understand the direction Vulcan wants this community to go. I must say that starting your discussion off with "this is an attack on the way things are done here" kind of puts me off. If you have a problem with the way an admin handled something, send that admin a PM. If you can't resolve the issue, send a PM to Vulcan (the Game Officer). If you STILL can't come to a resolution, PM Apophis. That's how things are done here. Though I appreciate the discussion, I don't appreciate the open "attack" in the public forums.

      I have played here for about a year, and since root has left, all the admins -from what I witness- seem to go by what they 'feel' the SOP states. Lets clairify the SOP together.

      First lets examine Hostages. And what you cannot do with them as a defender:
      Per the SOP forum quoted from Apophis: http://www.tacticalgamer.com/counter...e-pcs-faq.html

      "Hostages are NOT to be thought of as nothing more than shields to hide behind. It's inevitable that a terrorist will end up in a situation where the only cover he has from a CT is a hostage, and that's OK, CT's should NEVER be using hostages as cover."

      This rule, as I will call it, states that a Terrorist cannot use the Hosties as a shield, unless they are "in a situation where the only cover he has from a CT is a hostage." A situation where the only cover remaining from a CT is the hosties is when your alone as a T. At the begining of a round, there are many other options that can be taken. It is my opinion that Ts should never use the hosties as a shield unless they are the last remaining T on the map, or one of two Ts left with one in each hostage room (assuming both sets remain). This is simple and clear.
      I agree here. What's important is that CT's don't use hosties as meat shields. I rarely see this as an issue on the server, so I'm not sure what kind of importance it really bears on this discussion.

      Second, the Objective.
      We all know that the objective is either a bomb site or hosties. We will talk about defenders in this case because there never seems to be an issue with the offensive team. (Obv the offensive team should stay out of the defenders spawn, unless the route to a site envolves it.)
      The only correction I can make here is that the offensive teams actually has run of the whole map. They can move freely into defensive spawn if they choose too.

      If it is the defenders job to defend the objective from the offensive team, then how far away from the objective can the defense venture?
      This is the largest dilemma. Most cannot agree on where the defender is still defending or when the defender has turned offensive. (basically the limit that isnt really a limit but it is a limit because obv a CT cannot enter the spawn of the Ts on a bomb map.)

      Per the SOP forum quoted from Apophis:

      "What is OBJECTIVE Orientation?
      I cannot state this firmly enough: The "objective" is NOT to just kill the other team. If you put yourself in a position where it is easier for the enemy to kill you then for you to kill them, it's just dumb, right? Well, if you put yourself in a position where the enemy can get by you and complete their objective, that's even worse. I understand how limiting this can be for defensive teams, but that's just too damn bad as they have to protect the objective. This is not to say the defensive team must always camp right on the objective spots. To do that would be perdictable and easily defeatable. But there are enough places on all the maps we play on that you can shake things up and outsmart the enemy. It is perfectly reasonable to move forward from the objective at the beginnging of the round to secure a chokepoint or some other area where they can get a strategic advantage.

      However, the defensive team on this map should fall back TOWARDS the bomb points if they are taking heavy fire, and the backup should arrive from the fastest possible path, once the opposing team has their objective I.E. running away with hostages or bomb has been planted, all boundaries are removed. You should be helping your teammates in the fastest possible way to keep them alive, even if it means being predictable. That just means you have to check your corners quickly while running and you have to be quick on the trigger.

      From the offensive side, this means planting the bomb as quickly as possible AND guarding it after planting. I have seen FAR too many people plant the bomb and then go running off trying to kill CTs. Then the CTs come around from another way and defuse without any resistance at all. BAD! I've also seen too many people not rescuing hostages because the noise will give them away. They are afraid to die for their mission, and are not willing to let their backs get opened up to enemy fire while running away with the hostages. Their excuse is "I can't rescue if I'm dead". TOO DAMN BAD. We respect those that try to complete the mission, not those that won't risk it to defuse a ticking bomb or risk dying by rescuing hostages. On hostage maps, figure out a way to get in there quickly, grab the hostages, and get out quickly. On demolitions, sneak in, plant fast and stand your ground. You should be willing to die for your mission. Period."

      This is a clear message, but people tend to ignore the honest nature of it.
      It's a clear message, certainly. But the implications are not so clear. Most of what is covered is an enormous grey area. Admins have to enforce their rules based on what they believe a players intentions are. I'm pretty confident in their decisions and judgements.

      This is where examples are needed to fully explain the intent of this rule.
      You can get kicked for 'going to far' or 'rushing the offense.' Many people push these 'boundaries.' Ive seen admins feel they are justified in their actions when doing this exact thing that new people would be kicked for. This needs to be cleared up because admins represent TG as a community and when they do things others are kicked for, it makes the admins seem above the rules. We all know, TG members and Admins are not above the SOP and should play accordingly.
      I give an example of limits/boundries below. . These present my feelings on boundries of a map. Yes, there are limits, there should be limits. I have underlined/bolded the line that states there are boundaries, even though many say there are none.
      The only boundaries are determined by your objectives, not by the map layout. Save that of entering the offensive team's spawn.

      Please post what you feel about these boundries, and give input on the subject.
      If we can all agree on this, a lot of tension will be removed from the server play. Admins and players alike should adhear to the rules and guidelines at all times. Sad but true, drunk or not everyone. (To those 21+)
      Other than what I posted about about what the boundaries are on this server, I can garauntee we're not going to all agree. But I don't understand why there should be any tension at all. If you have tension, follow the proper channels to see if you can't gain some kind of resolution...or in the least peace of mind.

      Example:
      De_dust: A CT flank on the Ts at long A should only be done when the bomb has been sighted by someone at A. Otherwise it should be called rushing and a kick should insue. The reason for this i feel is because a CT flanking can see the spawn of the offense, and that is a huge no no in my book. The CTs should never enter the T spawn unless the bomb has been planted, thus removing all boundaries.


      Your friend, and teammate,

      Kyle.
      aka Bzer0X
      Again, it comes down to intention, communication and teamwork. I wouldn't be quick to issue out kicks or judgements simply because a CT flanks out from Long A to Mid or Short A. Now if the player simply rushes off at the beginning of the round right out Long A without saying a word to his teammates of his intentions, then that's another story. That's clearly rushing. And it's certainly not doing anything for the team or the objective.

      I understand where you're coming from even if I disagree with a lot of what you're saying here.
      | | |

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Time to stop the confusion

        If you have a formal complaint, see an admin. If you want to discuss tactics, there is a forum for that. DO NOT at any time start ranting general flames in any direction.


        - -

        Comment

        Connect

        Collapse

        TeamSpeak 3 Server

        Collapse

        Advertisement

        Collapse

        Twitter Feed

        Collapse

        Working...
        X