Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Map Boundaries???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    Originally posted by CingularDuality
    Here at TacticalGamer the hostages ARE the objective.
    Repeated due to its significant relevance to the pending discussion.
    Steam Community? Add me. | 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. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Map Boundaries???

      Originally posted by CingularDuality
      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".
      I must've slacked on my explanation. I'm tired though, so gimme a break! (; I'm not trying to reason that the game should be deathmatch only. That would definitely suck. I'm simply saying that the terrorists' goal is to keep the CT's from completing their goal in the alotted time. Shooting the hostages would make the CT's job impossible - camping the rescue point would not, and this is the major difference between the two. It really isn't the same thing.

      It is against the rules here, though. Intentionally harming hostages will get you removed from the server.
      I'd never do that. If that were the case, you might as well limit the CT's to USP's only, and give the T's 16k every round.

      This is not a deathmatch server. The objective for the terrorists is to protect the hostages from being rescued.
      In order to do this, you have to put yourself in a position where you KNOW you will see a CT either going for, or coming with, the hostages. The rescue point is one of two places that you know for sure the CT's will go.

      On our server, that means guarding the hostages, not the rescue point.
      If this is true, and what I'm saying is clearly prohibited by the official rules, then I'll not contest it. There are plenty of other servers, and I certainly don't want to ruin what was meant to be a way to have a good time.

      Is "E" default for "use"?
      Yessir!

      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.
      When I was last playing Italy on the TG server, I was told that T's should never be near the wine cellar by an admin. I complied, whether or not I agreed.

      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.
      Wouldn't it be smart (more unexpected than camping inside of the hallway/apt/cellar wall) to take this into consideration ahead of time? Also, the vast majority of the time CT's are taking the hostages to the rescue point, they go tunnel. Don't you think that if the T's in the house requested backup, it would be more effective for the backup to come from behind the CT's? Before you consider this "hunting for CT's," realize that it's no more hunting than having T's run from the apt. exit to come up behind CT's who are coming up middle.

      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.
      I won't contest this in the server - I'll do what the admins tell me to do. I disagree that it isn't a good idea though. If the effort is coordinated ahead of time, the rest of the team knows where the small rescue point unit is located, the unit isn't hunting CT's, and they are contributing to the goal of the team (to not allow the hostages to reach the rescue point before the time limit expires), and the unit doesn't rush the location, it doesn't break any of the posted rules.

      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.
      It seems to me that by this logic, TG wants to offer the T's a chance to be fish in a barrel. I think it's stupid to camp as a T where the CT's will expect you. I understand that a valid argument would be "well, there are plenty of places for the T's to hide on their side of the map," but these places are well known, and often are death traps. If the CT's must go for the hostages, and not camp, and the T's must guard the hostages, and not set up remote ambushes, and the CS maps are too small to accomodate such, then more than half the map is -absolutely- useless. What use does the market have then? What about the boxes to the right as a T exits the tunnel's CT-side entrance? What about the boxes under the apt. exit bridge? The Beethoven cove? The platform above the bicycle at CT spawn? The inside of the cellar? By saying what you're saying, it would be against the rules to hide in these spots that were obviously created for hiding.

      Besides, a unit at the rescue point can put the CT's (when they have the hostages) in a trap with T's on both sides, and thus no easy escape. If a CT has the hostages following him, and is 20 steps ahead of the closest T who is chasing him, then the only way for the T's to win is if the CT gets stuck on a wall. I understand your logic. You're saying that if the unit were to stay near the hostages and kill the CT's before they even got to the hostages, then there would be no reason for them to be anywhere in the area of the rescue point. I'm saying that there are very very few unpredictable spots to camp on the T-side of the map, and that the chance of the T's killing the hostage leader would be much greater if they were to camp at the rescue point. There are as many hiding places that give an angle on the rescue point as there are ones that give an angle on the hostages. The difference is that the CT's won't expect the T's to be at the rescue point nearly as much as they would expect them to be on their side of the map. It takes the same amount of time to get to the hostages from the apt. window as it does from the apt. exit perch above the door, and camping on the perch isn't against the rules (or at least wasn't enforced while I was playing with 3-4 admins present). By this fact, either the perch needs to be outlawed, or the flaw in the logic that by camping the apt. window the unit has abandoned their team should be considered.

      I wouldn't want to play CS in an iceworld-like environment, so I don't. I also wouldn't want to play CS in a "sit in this predictable spot that provides a higher chance of dying" situation, so I try not to. Hell, without the angles inside the house taken into consideration, there are only 10 angles that a T can "legally" use to camp (and that aren't completely moronic, like a spot with only 90 degrees of cover just outside the apt. door) the CT's arrival. Think about it:

      1) Tunnel pointed at tunnel wall in the niche near the bottom.
      2) Tunnel pointed at T side from the ledge at the top on the left (if coming from CT spawn)
      3) Top of tunnel pointed at CT side.
      4) Top of tunnel, out of POV from tunnel, pointed at apt. bend.
      5) Area at end of mid, pointed at top of mid stairs.
      6) Top of mid bridge, pointed at CT side. (same angle as sitting on the mid stairs, or in the shadows near the cellar exit - which I was told is illegal)
      7) Halfway up mid, on the ledge.
      8) Apt. bend, pointed at house.
      9) Apt. bend, pointed at apt. exit.
      10) Apt. exit, on ledge above.

      I could name over five in the market alone, and another five just in the confines of the V. For the life of me, though, I can't understand why such a large portion of the map's potential would be completely wasted. There are so many creative ambush spots in the path from the hostages to the rescue point that would grant a T unit a greater chance of succeeding in their ultimate goal without rushing or hunting.

      Until this gets cleared up, I just won't play on the TG CS:S server. I can't find any evidence in the rules that what I present is illegal, but if you're an admin, and you think otherwise, then nothing good would come of me connecting.
      Last edited by tekunogekai; 02-09-2005, 05:00 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Map Boundaries???

        By the way, don't take any of this as a personal assault. I like you, we just obviously don't see eye-to-eye on this.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Map Boundaries???

          Ah! One more thing before I go to bed - a proposition!

          If, by some act of some god, you and other admins would be willing, I think that a rule where the defending team can, if communicated, send out a 2-3 player minimum/maximum ambush unit to mix things up a bit would be absolutely wonderful.

          This unit, of course, would have to follow the posted rules like any other players. The hunting issue would certainly arise, and could be governed by the rule that, "The defending ambush unit is not to move from their waypoint once reached unless their teammates ask for backup, in which instance the current rules state that they must come to their aid." If an offensive-team unit passes by the ambush and is killed, it's not hunting - it's an ambush. If an offensive-team unit is killed on the ambush team's way to their teammates, it's the same as any other request for backup, except the offensive team won't know from which direction the ambush unit is coming.

          I know it seems complicated, but I don't think it's any moreso than setting PCS no-no lines that have to be memorized. In fact, it does away with them, as all players following the rules wouldn't have to memorize all of the said lines.

          I know this idea has a snowball's chance in hell, but I think that it would really make things more fun and interesting, and I also believe it would prove to be less complicated in the end.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Map Boundaries???

            Originally posted by Samurai
            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. :D
            omg! greg!

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Map Boundaries???

              Tekunogekai, you seem to be missing the big picture. I thought I spelled it out and Wyzcrak even stressed it. Terrorists are the defensive team. The defensive team defends the objective. Hostages are the objective. Therefore, terrorists must defend the hostages. They don't defend a rescue point. They don't defend a hallway. They don't defend a marketplace. They don't defend an apartment. They don't defend a box or even a bicycle. They defend hostages.

              The question, then, becomes one of whether or not sitting underneath the apartment window is a smart place to defend the hostages. I don't think it is. For one, in order to get there, you have a good chance of running into a group of CTs and dying. Even worse, you don't run into any CTs and half of your team dies because you weren't the one person that could've cut them all in half as they attempted to come up the middle. Then, because you weren't in a position to see which way they took the hostages after they destroyed the rest of your team, the CTs don't go through the tunnel, they go down the middle and over to the "beethoven cove" and rescue the hossies before you can light them up from your position under the window. It's just not smart, and, like Scoop pointed out, sometimes you have to think about it from a real life perspective. When real terrorists take hostages, they tell them to stay somewhere because they're going to go set up an ambush at a location that they think the CTs are going to use to rescue them. Terrorists sit on the hostages and make the CTs come to them. Thats the way it is.

              If we want to talk about how far you can expand your defensive perimeter, I can see where it can be debated. That's why we don't have hard boundaries on our server, only guidelines. Once you're a "regular" on the server (that trust thing that Wyz always talks about...), I think that if you can articulate why you are in a certain location that is past what is normally considered acceptable for the defensive team, then there's no problem. The problem is that a lot of people forget what they're supposed to be defending and they focus on a chokepoint, or an enemy player, or that nice hiding spot, or whatever... If everything you do on the TG server is in the interest of supporting your team and accomplishing your objective, then you probably won't go wrong.

              And I'm not taking anything personal. Discussions like this are good, as PCS isn't something (IMO) that we can just write a few rules for. It's not about the letter of the law, it's about the spirit of the law. It's not about where you are on any map, it's about WHY you are there. Unfortunately, the combination of the subjective nature of enforcing our style of gameplay and the fact that we have public servers where we're trying to convert some more players to our style sometimes makes for some confusing situations. I know some of the new admins are enforcing boundaries more than others. This will change with time. With pubbies or new players, boundaries are the easiest way to get someone to start to play like we do. There's been discussion about making the server private. I don't know how far we are from being able to do that, though... Once we do, if you choose to keep playing here and you play PCS style, I think you'll be pleased with how much better PCS is on a more relaxed server where EVERYONE is thinking about their team and their objective.
              Become a supporting member!
              Buy a Tactical Duck!
              Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
              TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Map Boundaries???

                Originally posted by Samurai
                This thing with different admins having different ideas about boundaries scares me a little though.
                Technically there are no boundaries. What is meant by the statement that each admin has a different idea about boundaries really is saying that each admin has a different comfort level with trusting players we don't know. If we have that comfort level and understanding that the player in question is not attempting to rush or frag hunt there is probably a bit more leeway.


                Originally posted by Samurai
                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.
                Our difficulty lies in trying to accommodate both the experienced PCS player and the public player. It is a public server. We have to try and teach the public player our way of playing while allowing more freedom to those PCS style players.

                We're working to better our communication to the players.
                |TG-12th| asch
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Map Boundaries???

                  I think I've FINALLY figured out why there's an impasse in thought here.

                  On a given map, due to the nature of the game, only one team has an objective. On de maps, it's the Ts, and on cs maps, it's the CTs. Their objective is crystal clear, and deviation from said objective is relatively easy to spot. If you're not helping your team plant the bomb or rescue the hostages, you're doing something wrong.

                  Now, that said, we have one team per map that LACKS objective (again, from the nature of the game itself, not any guideline-overlay). This is where the problems start to develop.

                  Tekunogekai would seem to think (and please forgive me, Tek, if I'm putting words in your mouth) that given the one solid objective of the map, the OTHER team's "objective" becomes preventing the first team from completing theirs. He would also seem to think -- as I would -- that there are myriad tactical ways of doing this without being a DMing nubcake.

                  Cing on the other hand, seems to think that both teams should have solid objectives, which is all well and good, save for the fact that something like "Defend the hostages" isn't ANYWHERE as clear-cut as "Rescue the hostages". So there's a PCS guideline set to try to counter the open-endedness of Defense's role, but it even that is vague and offers few concrete rules -- if any rules at all -- for adjucating what a defenseman should and should not be doing at any given point and time.

                  I think I just found my gripe with PCS. Professional Counter-Strike offense is simple enough; there's an objective: go do it. But PCS defense... You can play defense tactically with great regard for team, execute a plan that keeps the offense from completing its objectives, and STILL get called to the mat for it.
                  [volun2]
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Map Boundaries???

                    This is the best argument/explanation I've seen, and it comes from Cingular..

                    How would a team of CTs know where the terrorists are starting from? Having set spawn points is a limitation of the game. If the game allowed for larger maps and random spawn points while still focusing on the objectives, that would be great. But it doesn't, so we have rules to artificially simulate the fact that the defensive team should have no idea about the enemy's staging area/spawn.
                    I will use this to answer any arguments where someone says "But we know where they are coming from, why not set up an ambush?"

                    3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Map Boundaries???

                      The picking and choosing of reality-like elements bugs me.

                      Yes. Terrorists should have no idea about CT's staging area. But terrorists would also have hostages behind locked doors, probably tied up (Hey, you could buy a "hostage ropecutting kit"!), shoot the hostages when threats approached, etc. etc. etc.
                      [volun2]
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Map Boundaries???

                        Originally posted by Pokerface
                        The picking and choosing of reality-like elements bugs me.

                        Yes. Terrorists should have no idea about CT's staging area. But terrorists would also have hostages behind locked doors, probably tied up (Hey, you could buy a "hostage ropecutting kit"!), shoot the hostages when threats approached, etc. etc. etc.
                        Well, you can either strive for as much tactical realism as you can within the confines of the game, or you can push, push, push the envelope deep into the gray area to try to get one over on the other team.

                        To specifically address the issue of camping at the 'V' or under the apartment windows to intercept - hey, the T's have _already_ suffered a moral loss (and the CT's a moral victory) when the CT's get their mitts on the hostages; all you're doing at that point is cleaning up a mess that shouldn't have happened, which the objective was to _prevent_ happening, and which a player could in no way prevent from that position.

                        I honestly don't get the line of reasoning - "OK, I'm supposed to prevent the hostages from being rescued, so, to do that, in case they _do_ get rescued, I can wait here and grab 'em back. Achmed'll sure be proud!" Heh. No, I don't think so.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Map Boundaries???

                          All of this is really only an issue with the hostage maps. On de_ maps, the defense is allowed to camp the two places where they know the T's will be.

                          How would a team of CTs know where the terrorists are starting from? Having set spawn points is a limitation of the game. If the game allowed for larger maps and random spawn points while still focusing on the objectives, that would be great. But it doesn't, so we have rules to artificially simulate the fact that the defensive team should have no idea about the enemy's staging area/spawn.
                          I really do think it's only an issue for T's in a hostage map. The T's would know where the CT's are starting from because of the giant chopper that over yonder with all the people jumping out of it. An objective can't be the hostages, as an objective has to be "something worked toward or striven for; a goal." It can't be an object or person. The goal is to keep the hostages from being rescued, which only happens when they reach the rescue point.

                          I honestly don't get the line of reasoning - "OK, I'm supposed to prevent the hostages from being rescued, so, to do that, in case they _do_ get rescued, I can wait here and grab 'em back. Achmed'll sure be proud!" Heh. No, I don't think so.
                          They aren't rescued until they're brought to the rescue point! That's why it was named that. ):

                          Blah! The only reason I argue my point is because I love the people who I spend time with on the TG NS server, and I've seen quite a few of them on the CS:S server. I'd really like to play with you all on the CS:S server too, but I just think it's so vanilla for the T's on the hostage rescue maps.

                          In conclusion, I guess I'll just have to suck it up and play CT. (;

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Map Boundaries???

                            I think the idea behind the game is that the t dont know the cts are comming and are just defending thier site as a group of soldiers would a bridge. And the CT are guarding a bomb site as soldier would a command post. Either way in real life i dont belive either side would know the other was on thier way, therefore, in "real life" hlaf a defending force would not leave their hostiages and or defensive position to hunt an enemy that might or might not be present. i feel absurd talking about a game in this way. Now with a larger force of more than seven men, you wuold send out scouting parties. But this is beyond the scope of cs. I cant wait for BF2.

                            Ignore spelling errors

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Map Boundaries???

                              Originally posted by Gooshy
                              To specifically address the issue of camping at the 'V' or under the apartment windows to intercept - hey, the T's have _already_ suffered a moral loss (and the CT's a moral victory) when the CT's get their mitts on the hostages; all you're doing at that point is cleaning up a mess that shouldn't have happened, which the objective was to _prevent_ happening, and which a player could in no way prevent from that position.
                              I propose a gentleman's agreement then: once the CTs have the hostages in tow, no more shooting/knifing until the round ends with their rescue. Since the Ts have failed their objective, it would seem only fair to let the CTs win at that point.

                              I honestly don't get the line of reasoning - "OK, I'm supposed to prevent the hostages from being rescued, so, to do that, in case they _do_ get rescued, I can wait here and grab 'em back. Achmed'll sure be proud!" Heh. No, I don't think so.
                              It's not "In case they DO get rescued", because if they're rescued, they're off the map and CTs win. It's "In case the CTs manage to get the hostages in tow": this tactic keeps in mind that the CTs have to run in two directions in order to complete their objective, and DOES in fact prevent the rescue of hostages.
                              [volun2]
                              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

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Map Boundaries???

                                Originally posted by Pokerface
                                The picking and choosing of reality-like elements bugs me.
                                This happens with people talking about NS, too. I imagine it happens in other games as well. It hurts one's credibiility when he unconditionally applies realism as a justification for a set of decisions or rules. The farther you get from that unconditional nature of the application, the more credibility that application tends to have with me.

                                We humans like to justify things, and "it's more real" just sounds so good, nevermind the very detrimental effect some of those "justified" things can have on gameplay.

                                You just have to be careful, I suppose.
                                Steam Community? Add me. | 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. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

                                Comment

                                Connect

                                Collapse

                                TeamSpeak 3 Server

                                Collapse

                                Twitter Feed

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X