Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Map Boundaries???

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

  • Tempus
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    That slope is getting slippery...

    Leave a comment:


  • Yer Mom
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    I see more relevance of this post in de_cbble than I do on Italy.

    On cbble, I see a very delicate contraversy. At B, there is the hallway. CT's get there sooner than T's, so they could move forward into the hallway. This would change a LOT about the game. With proper communication, B will be held on both sides. Actually, regardless of proper communication, B is held on both sides, as the only other way to B is through A. Why go to B if you're already at A?

    I can understand how this IS PCS. In fact, I get extremely angry when an admin calls me out for doing this. It's the best way to defend B, concidering the crowded choke point it gives CT's. When T's hit B, they spread and dominate. It always proves to work. If CT's take that hallway, it's going to take some SERIOUS teamwork, dare I say PCS work, from the T's to retake the hallway and be able to plant at B. If the T's mess up, they lose too many people to plant in the hallway and they can't defend B as well.

    Do you see my logic here?

    Taking this hallway has to be the MOST PCS oriented thing I've ever heard of, yet we still claim it as rushing.

    I agree with the admin. A rusher can be defined as someone who is past certain, NOT SET, boundaries that would be concidered too far away from their objective to be able to defend, and almost definately LOSE, it. Stop calling it out every time someone goes to B when the rest of their team is at A. Distraction FTW. Besides, if I'm on T's and I take my leader role, as I try to do often, I play against the "hunters" and "rushers", using them as distraction while me and the "team" go to a different site and wait for them to die/kill some of our enemies.

    Rushing is not something to claim not doable. If anything, it's a VERY good addition to the PCS ruleset. We all know how much a rusher throws the ENTIRE CT team off. Why not plan the rush, instead of throw down and argue with the "idiots"?

    -Mom

    Leave a comment:


  • Vulcan
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    when it was semi private not many people utilized it. Maybe as our membership grows in CS it will be more feasible. I think playtimes and duration of playtime limit this atm.

    Leave a comment:


  • Xen
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    Verbose it's all kewl I may have missed it with all the chatting going on.

    Originally posted by verbose
    Regarding the other rushing pubbies: I must stress that some attempts to correct the playstyle were not, in my eyes, the standard TG professionalism. For pubbies that just don't listen, admin intervention should be the solving factor, not yelling at them in public chat. They won't heed the advice, and other players will be turned off by the tone. Again, I'm not pointing fingers as that solves nothing; I just want to remind everyone that their actions represent the TG community.
    Verbose brings up a very good point, not only do the offenders see how we handle them but so do the regulars and those that are thinking of joining our community. This is what I see as the only problem with having a Pub server, trying to get the Pub's to play by PCS rules. Map boundaries work in pub servers but I think they limit tactics. Such as Flanking. Many de_ maps are setup for flanking Dust2 being a perfect example. If there are CT's at B and they hear bomb at short A flanking is allowed. if same CT's at B hear long A they will be chastised for going around to the DD and flank. Atleast that is what appears to happen.

    I have a possible solution. Turn one server into a TG registered server. Anything tactically goes, as long as, it adhears to PCS rules. Maybe even lengthen the planning time to 45sec-1 min to allow more complex plans to come out. Anyone that has access to the forms can get the PW to the server and play by the PCS rules. Use the Pub server as a learning tool and Pub Relations. Make it completely clear that the PW'ed server will not tolerate rules violations. The Pub server could be more flexable so to keep pub interest in PCS.

    More spare change.....

    Leave a comment:


  • verbose
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    I thought I answered you Xen. If I didn't, my apologies. You were the first one to challenge me, and I thought your challenge was justified given how far into the cellar I was. It was after the next round were I was just inside the door that another member yelled out. That was what cranked up the "WTF mate?" factor.

    I only brought up my personal situation as a handy example when discussing the general boundary situation. We can debate "yea or nay" votes on a given boundary instance all night long. What I wanted to stress is that hard boundaries should not be focused on. I think I got my point across well though earlier.

    Regarding the other rushing pubbies: I must stress that some attempts to correct the playstyle were not, in my eyes, the standard TG professionalism. For pubbies that just don't listen, admin intervention should be the solving factor, not yelling at them in public chat. They won't heed the advice, and other players will be turned off by the tone. Again, I'm not pointing fingers as that solves nothing; I just want to remind everyone that their actions represent the TG community.

    Leave a comment:


  • Xen
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    Verbose as one that questioned your placement all I asked was if you were in communication with your team at the start of the next round. I personally feel that as long as your team knew were you were I see no foul. I never got an answer on that. So I brought up with other TGer's about it which is prolly where the flaming started so I appologize. We had bad issues with T's rushing to CT spawn from the cellar side right after all that so people were abit touchy about "bounderies". Over the Top was one of the rushers going that way a lot.

    Leave a comment:


  • verbose
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    Originally posted by TheFeniX
    Communicate your desire to be down their with your team. When the CTs start whining, your entire team can speak for you as well.
    Oh I do. I'm verbose in speech as well as in writing :)

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFeniX
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    Communicate your desire to be down their with your team. When the CTs start whining, your entire team can speak for you as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • CingularDuality
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    Originally posted by verbose
    There are portions of a map where it's obvious that a Terrorist -- when the hostages are still in the original location -- is not guarding his objective, but there is also a large gray area that can shift rapidly from inappropriate to appropiate and back depending on circumstances. This is why the intent of the player, and the appropriateness of his actions should rule, not some "do not cross, ever" line. Remember, as stated many times in this thread, the PCS is a set of *guidelines* to help a certain style of gameplay happen. Fun is not had by either side when a fight over a supposed no-cross violation is started.
    Well said! I wouldn't like to see Terrorists in the cellar all the time, but as you pointed out, it's certainly closer to the hostages than some other common T vantage points... I think you'll find that once the CTs expect it and are more careful, that it's not a very advantageous location, but if you catch 'em off guard because they're playing lazy, then most ambushes are very fruitful...

    Leave a comment:


  • Wyzcrak
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    You damn fragmonkey.





    lol

    Great, great post V. Quality from you, as usual.

    Leave a comment:


  • verbose
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    Not to flog what would be assumed to be a dead horse, but it's evidently not *dead*.

    Some appear to be forgetting the spirit of the PCS guidelines, instead crying "foul" whenever unpublished no-cross lines are violated. The PCS FAQ states:

    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.
    I was yelled at for moving into the cellar as a Terrorist on cs_italy. I will grant that the first time I went in there, I probably went in too far, taking up a defensive position covering anyone rounding the botttom of the stairway. Retreating should my teammates at the long hall fail could have been difficult unless they gave advance warning that they needed backup, but it wasn't a terribly long run. I obviously did not rush, but I was pushing the envelope for effective guarding of the objective.

    That wasn't the problem though. The chat discussion immediately following about Terrorist boundaries was inconclusive. I realized my tactical mistake of the previous round, and instead dropped just inside the cellar door. From there, I could listen to approaches from <i>three</i> directions, could fire effectively on two of them, and could easily fall back further if need be. My camping position was literally less than 2 seconds from where I spawned. However, I was "in the cellar", and I got flamed for it. Had I not been a TG member, but instead a pubbie and prospective community member, I would have bailed after that verbal assault with a very bad taste in my mouth. I wonder if I would have been yelled at had I been just outside the door, under the bridge? See the problem with arbitrary unwritten boundaries?

    I think I was operating well within the PCS spirit, as well as the exact words of the FAQ. It seems that too much focus is beign placed on undocumented boundaries, which only serves to create tension between players, alienates those who don't know the "assumed" boundaries, and risks a bad community reputation and loss of potential new players if the way my situation was handled on-server is typical. Some other players on the server were later flamed, and it seemed inappropriate to me. The focus should be educating players new to the TG community how the game is to be played here, not yelling at them for breaking rules...err, guidelines that they may not have been aware of.

    There are portions of a map where it's obvious that a Terrorist -- when the hostages are still in the original location -- is not guarding his objective, but there is also a large gray area that can shift rapidly from inappropriate to appropiate and back depending on circumstances. This is why the intent of the player, and the appropriateness of his actions should rule, not some "do not cross, ever" line. Remember, as stated many times in this thread, the PCS is a set of *guidelines* to help a certain style of gameplay happen. Fun is not had by either side when a fight over a supposed no-cross violation is started.

    Leave a comment:


  • tekunogekai
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    Originally posted by Samurai
    No, you weren't. The ideal outcome for the Ts is for the CTs to never even get into the hostage house in the first place.
    See next quote...

    Stop splitting hairs. You know what I meant and this thread is not about your definition of what "rescued" means.
    I don't think anyone hinted that it was.

    Stop right there. Right there you're admitting that your "ambush tactic" is flawed. Nothing else needs to be said about it.
    This is rediculous. You're saying that because I can't confirm that the ambushing team wouldn't die in their attempt that my tactic is flawed? By this definition, all tactics in CS are flawed.

    Nobody ever said "rush the CT spawn" as in "rush the CT spawn at the very beginning of the round. In this thread "rush the CT spawn" means "running to the CT spawn to cut off their rescue attempt after they capture the hostages."
    Take a look at the second quote down (again). I interpreted it my way, though I might be wrong in the view of the majority. Rush in CS, to me, means moving to an area as quickly as possible at round start. Oh, and I'm the one who started the "running to the CT spawn to cut off their rescue attempt" topic in this thread, so I naturally used my view on the word.

    All I can say here is that you're an idiot.
    No, I've been debating this entire time without having to insult someone in an attempt to add weight to my argument.

    How is it more difficult to take up defensive positions near your other teammates, in cover, near the place where the CTs are headed?
    I fail to see how this is distinguished from my ambush setup. It would be a coordinated effort with teammates, there is ample cover (I've written much about this cover in this thread), and the whole point of my idea is to be where the CT's are headed.

    Why bother going to their spawn for an ambush when you can just set up an ambush around the place the CTs have to go before they can head back to their spawn?
    Because of flashbangs and HE's.

    That makes no sense to me.
    Better than calling me an idiot!

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa

    Take a logic class.
    Ironic, after calling me an idiot.

    There are at least 2 things wrong with this....

    1 - You are talking about italy and only italy. How many maps are in the rotation these days? There are plenty of maps where the Ts can take a separate route from the CTs and get to the CT spawn before the CTs do.
    I'm only talking about Italy because I feel that it is affected the most.

    2 - If I'm guarding the exit from the apartment on the T side (like on the T side of the railing part of the bridge), I can easily beat a CT to their spawn from there if they are running down the long hall route toward the market. I don't even have to be inside the apartment at all to make it there faster.
    My point on this was that if PCS was in place and working, you wouldn't be there (the only PCS-acceptable camping place from which you can beat a CT to CT spawn) if the CT's were at the hostages, so there's no reason to include it. PCS logic (as I understand it): If the CT's kill your teammates at the house, and are making contact with the hostages, then by camping the apartments you're aren't coming to the aid of your team.

    Because then those players in an "intercept" position are:

    1 - NOT in a position to back up their team and help keep them alive.
    Yes they are. The only factor is communication, which PCS feverishly encourages. As I said before, it's easier to help keep the team alive if you're called back to base and are coming up behind the CT's.

    2 - NOT in an ideal position to help stop the CTs from ever getting to the hostages in the first place, which is the whole point you keep missing.
    I don't miss the point. I get the point. If the CT's absolute objective was to "[get] to the hostages," then there would be no reason to leave the hostages.

    3 - NOT in a position where the rest of the team can easily back them up if they need it.
    I agree.

    4 - NOT in a position where the rest of the team can back them up without leaving the hostages unguarded, which again, is the whole point you seem to keep missing.
    I'm not missing the point. I think you're missing my posts. If you'd read what has been written in this debate before jumping in, you would understand that I've proposed these ambushes as small (2-3 player) maneuvers. Look into what you've said:

    NOT in a position where the rest of the team can back them up without leaving the hostages unguarded...
    Yeah. So by this logic it's bad to be anywhere but inside the house.


    The rules do not state that if you are camping inside the apartment, and the hostages get captured by the CTs, that you have to fall back to the house first and then chase the CTs to their spawn. That would be pointless.
    The point is that if the team was communicating, and utilizing PCS (thus coming to the aid of the team), then the people camping house would obviously announce that they were in trouble, and thus the other T's would head toward the trouble. If you sit there and let the entire team die while you're camping apt. exit, then sure - there's no reason to run to the house when you're the only one alive. You're going to be hard pressed to get a clear shot.


    And again, you are talking about italy only, and there are a lot of maps where it is very easy for the Ts, in a defensive position (which IS spelled out clearly in the rules), can beat the CTs back to their spawn without resorting to camping in the middle of the map.
    I don't see your point. What are you arguing here? I understand I'm only dealing with Italy with my examples... so is that bad? READ what I've written. I proposed a way to make the game more versitile for T's; who cares what map it is, it's just easily illustrated on Italy.

    Again, if the Ts are doing their job and defending the hostages, the Ts will never need to do this. It is much MUCH easier to kill all the CTs while they're on the way TO the hostages than it is to chase them down after letting them slip through the defenses.
    I disagree, and I won't bother posting why I disagree as I already have in this thread.

    What you describe is a good strategy, and I agree that it can be an effective one. I too have seen it work countless times on other servers.

    Unfortunately it's not legal here.
    That's what I was trying to change! That is if it is officially illegal.

    Why? Why shouldn't they still have to get them back to their spawn? Getting to the hostages and capturing them is only part of the CT objective.
    This time, you've missed the point. You haven't read what I've written, yet you're arguing with me over things I've said that relate to earlier posts. My entire point is what you've just said - the objective is to rescue the hostages by getting them to the rescue point, thus the "objective area" mentioned in the rules leads to the rescue point.

    You have "proven" nothing. I see nothing in your argument that even remotely resembles an irrefutable statement. You've provided evidence, nothing more, and that evidence is flawed and it only counts as "proof" because you claim it does.
    What, you want me to post map measurements? You don't even have an arguement, you just want to argue. The quote of yours before this one is of you completely contradicting yourself. Let's look at it again:

    "It is much MUCH easier to kill all the CTs while they're on the way TO the hostages than it is to chase them down after letting them slip through the defenses."

    Then you said:

    "What you describe is a good strategy, and I agree that it can be an effective one. I too have seen it work countless times on other servers."

    Please explain EXACTLY how this is against the rules. That platform is part of the hostage house, and a perfectly legal place for a terrorist to be.
    I thought I had, though I see I did by way of suggestion, not exact statements. I wish I could express my idea for everyone to understand, but I'm not a great writer.

    The term "rescue" can be interpreted a few different ways. Your interpretation is not the only one. Don't be condescending.
    You're obviously trying to dominate my argument by seeking a negative in everything I write. Once again, there's irony in you calling me an idiot.

    I can still use my knife, can't I?

    I'm predicting that you'll miss the humor in that statement.
    You say this directly after telling me not to be condescending? I don't want to defend myself against deconstructive flaming, which wasn't even an issue in this thread until you posted.

    But it's not a VIP map, it's a hostage map, and we have rules for hostage maps. Like I told you, your idea is not a new one, and it IS a good one. It's just illegal here. The reason is that it's not OK to let the CTs capture the hostages under any circumstances, much less rescue them. Don't even let the CTs get into the hostage house in the first place.
    This would be perfectly fine to me if the CT's never got into the house.

    If that reasoning is not good enough for you, then disconnect whenever italy comes up in rotation.
    Please read my previous posts.

    The rest of us will be having a good time playing within the rules that have been set. Which is the way we like it.
    Alright, I'll feel bad knowing that I'm an alien I suppose.

    BTW, I like your idea about making a VIP version of italy. I think that would be really fun to play.
    Yeah... I think it would make the PCS rules more seamless.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vulcan
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    well since the teams are even, you can only spread yourself out so much. Even an attack from the rear has it's disadvantages. Let's set T/CT specifics aside. Any organized squad when confronted surveys the attack and reacts accordingly. If your being flanked, look for a position out of the flank or get in a solid defensive position and fight it out. If the other squad decides to split up completely to surround you, this makes all areas weak to a full force attack. The team being surrounded would move quickly as a complete unit to break through the line. Tactics is a complicated aspect of the game but alot of the vets here can prolly chime in on more specific type things.

    Most people who play CS don't think about advanced tactics because the nature of the game is to go blasting other players away. I hoping my map will help show everyone what you can do when you have consisent communication, planning and roleplaying. Roles are very important imo to the sucess of a strategy!

    p.s. I know alot of players know this type of thing i'm just stating for all eyes to see.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tempus
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    The point is valid, but we must remember that one team's role is offensive, and the other's is defensive. If we were to allow unlimited flanking, particularly on bomb maps, this will reverse the roles, as once the Terrorist team is located, it will likely be pinned down on two sides. If this becomes typical, then the Ts will have to resort to rushing more often, as taking time to assault a position will be only inviting an attack from the rear.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vulcan
    replied
    Re: Map Boundaries???

    Section 8 brings up an interesting point here. One thing i consider a problem with boundaries is players get to comfortable not watching their backs. This is bad imo. The team that's playing offense seems to get in a frame of mind that they only have to watch in front of them to the bombsite. This is not true, and is not tactical either. once you cross into a "neutral zone" you better have your flanks watched. When you start playing maps where boundaries are no longer an issue this is vital.

    Leave a comment:

Connect

Collapse

TeamSpeak 3 Server

Collapse

Twitter Feed

Collapse

Working...
X