EPTCounter-Strike: Global Offensive - Page 1110
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Luolis
Finland7105 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 20 2017 01:53 Luolis wrote: I'll add my opinion quickly. I mostly agree with Rag in this. I very rarely or ever meet hackers on mm or so. Always weirds me out to see people going "omg everybody hacks" when i see maybe one in a month or two. Yeah +1 to that. Pretty sure there are subtle cheaters out there. And I'll admit\ to not playing enough or at a high enough level (unless GE is that much better than low Supreme/LEM) but my experience is more in line with Rags assesment. On September 20 2017 00:58 waffelz wrote: Unless I get disproven there is nothing to gain from it, otherwise we all either keep our believes or I ruin your experience a bit  I try to keep my rants to a minimum I find it amusing that the burden of proof is on the side claiming innocence. Based on some very flimsy anecdotal "I said so and I know better" line of reasoning. Thank god that kind of stuff doesnt pass for proof these days. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On September 20 2017 03:55 Rebs wrote: I find it amusing that the burden of proof is on the side claiming innocence. Based on some very flimsy anecdotal "I said so and I know better" line of reasoning. Thank god that kind of stuff doesnt pass for proof these days. Really? Is that really how you perceived the post? I couldn’t find any real allegation in the post exchange, no one gets accused anything so there is no real question of guilt/innoscence right? And to me high rank, extended checking of demos and a history of having done such things for events in the past, even if it was in 1.6 sounds like some quality in judgement to me. Combine it with this sentence where he admitted that his numbers are just as meaningless as the opposing ones. I feel like waffel already admitted that it is anecdote vs anecdote what do you want more? His last post is basically "Our experiences differ and there isn’t much more we can determine". He didn’t even try to use his rank as leverage by asking the other people involved what their ranks are, just explaining why he believes his opinion holds some value. We just heard anecdotes and just because someone has the audacity to back his judgement up by having dealt with the topic while at the same time seemingly trying to not come off as bragging or posing suddenly his anecdotes are worthy of criticism and not the ones of the others? Even when one admits that he definitely is less careful when checking his data? Sure he could be lying about his rank etc. but you then had to assume the same for the others and the discussion becomes pointless. He even thanked the guy he was disagreeing with for the exchange, unless he was being just smug with it this is basically the best of an internet discussion you could get… he even conceded points ffs, even in this forum this isn’t the norm. As far as I am concerned all he does is trying to not come of as the typical nutjob that cries hacker whenever he gets killed. I could chip in that I also definitely encounter about one hacker a week while playing definitely less than 50 games a week, more like 5-20 and I always check the replay if I report someone because since I am bouncing between DMG and LEM smurfing is still a thing for me. According to my rank I am not that good of course so I already subtracted possible smurfs from the at least one hacker a week but I didn’t chip in because I already knew this would turn into “I feel like x” – “but I feel like y”. I really liked the final statement of not being able to figure it out on either side so let’s just try to enjoy the game. And sorry for giving you crap, but to me at least his last posts seemed to really make an effort to try his best coming off as friendly and making clear he didn’t mean to talk down to people and I know that feel because I used to post like this until I finally got broken by people that always ignore your diplomatic attempts and instead flinging their BS at you because they didn’t like one tiny bit of posting while ignoring the whole rest. If people have a discussion and take the time to type lengthy and civil posts either show the decency in reading them fully or just stay out of it because this is one way how you get toxic posters. German brothers unite, I at least am with you waffel! | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 20 2017 04:36 Artesimo wrote: Really? Is that really how you perceived the post? I couldn’t find any real allegation in the post exchange, no one gets accused anything so there is no real question of guilt/innoscence right? And to me high rank, extended checking of demos and a history of having done such things for events in the past, even if it was in 1.6 sounds like some quality in judgement to me. Combine it with this sentence where he admitted that his numbers are just as meaningless as the opposing ones. I feel like waffel already admitted that it is anecdote vs anecdote what do you want more? His last post is basically "Our experiences differ and there isn’t much more we can determine". He didn’t even try to use his rank as leverage by asking the other people involved what their ranks are, just explaining why he believes his opinion holds some value. We just heard anecdotes and just because someone has the audacity to back his judgement up by having dealt with the topic while at the same time seemingly trying to not come off as bragging or posing suddenly his anecdotes are worthy of criticism and not the ones of the others? Even when one admits that he definitely is less careful when checking his data? Sure he could be lying about his rank etc. but you then had to assume the same for the others and the discussion becomes pointless. He even thanked the guy he was disagreeing with for the exchange, unless he was being just smug with it this is basically the best of an internet discussion you could get… he even conceded points ffs, even in this forum this isn’t the norm. As far as I am concerned all he does is trying to not come of as the typical nutjob that cries hacker whenever he gets killed. I could chip in that I also definitely encounter about one hacker a week while playing definitely less than 50 games a week, more like 5-20 and I always check the replay if I report someone because since I am bouncing between DMG and LEM smurfing is still a thing for me. According to my rank I am not that good of course so I already subtracted possible smurfs from the at least one hacker a week but I didn’t chip in because I already knew this would turn into “I feel like x” – “but I feel like y”. I really liked the final statement of not being able to figure it out on either side so let’s just try to enjoy the game. And sorry for giving you crap, but to me at least his last posts seemed to really make an effort to try his best coming off as friendly and making clear he didn’t mean to talk down to people and I know that feel because I used to post like this until I finally got broken by people that always ignore your diplomatic attempts and instead flinging their BS at you because they didn’t like one tiny bit of posting while ignoring the whole rest. If people have a discussion and take the time to type lengthy and civil posts either show the decency in reading them fully or just stay out of it because this is one way how you get toxic posters. German brothers unite, I at least am with you waffel! Wooaoo slow down bro... Im sure he made the effort and all. Nor did anyone implicate that he was lying. But theres guys like DanM (I set next to him at Norther Arena last year, + Show Spoiler + dudes a bonafide scumbag in real life that acts fake nice to you, didnt know who he was though) So forgive me if the "I watch demos and study shit " while certainly somewhat superior argument to mine or other people is not really a compelling one because its still extremely subjective. Just because the anecdote has more detail doesn't change the fact that its anecdotal. I am sure there is plenty of cheating. Maybe I am missing it. But to the amount that he is claiming you need way harder evidence than what he has presented I am afraid. Thats my opinion anyway. I can write you 20 paragraphs on my experience of not receiving cheaters. But it would be rubbish. The argument is not compelling enough for me personally as long as it still revolves around the same sample. I only quoted the end part of it because the rest of it was a rehash of what he was discussing with Rag anyway, I had nothing to contribute to that. What I did have to contribute was that I found amusing the idea that he felt he had "proven" anything. At best he made a somewhat subjective evidence based claim that people disagreed with and eventually agreed to disagree on. If he is ok to admit that its his anecdote vs our anecdotes then why is he asserting that he has successfully proven the cheating claim and that he must be disproved? Maybe it was just a poor choice of words but you cant have it both ways. No one really took offense to his "I dont mean to talk down to you, but hey,Let me GESPLAIN this shit to you" Fortunately we arent that thin skinned. So I am sure people are fine with that. And finally why would I criticize the anecdotes that I agree with and align with my own experience? They may well be worthy of criticism but not from me. + Show Spoiler + Anyway I am more than fine with people being caustic in their commentary, I am no different. But you should expect to hear something back then no? By the by I like him and respect his opinion nonetheless on like 90 percent of things, and while I am sure he appreciates the support I dont think he needs anyone to defend him, unless you have some weird forum white knighting fetish in which case, power to you. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On September 20 2017 05:30 Rebs wrote: Wooaoo slow down bro... Im sure he made the effort and all. Nor did anyone implicate that he was lying. But theres guys like DanM (I set next to him at Norther Arena last year, dudes a bonafide scumbag in real life that acts fake nice to you, didnt know who he was though) that make plenty of effort too. Youtube is chalk full of them So forgive me if the "I watch demos and study shit " while certainly a superior argument to ours but its not really a compelling one because its still extremely subjective. Just becauese the anecdote has more detail doesnt change the fact that its anecdotal. I can right you 20 paragraphs on my experience of not receiving cheaters. But it would be rubish. The argument is not compelling enough for me personally as long as it still revolves around the same sample. I only quoted that part of it because the rest of it was a rehash of what he was discussing with Rag anyway, I had nothing to contribute to that. On September 19 2017 07:04 waffelz wrote: But this isn’t really telling in either ways since they don't necessarily had to cheat in the game vs me to get banned and they don't have to get banned for cheating, so even though my numbers lean more towards my side, they are not an argument. Literally his third post is admitting that both sides don't hold an argument. And this "I am not saying he is lying and yeah he posts nice stuff but people can be fake. Not saying he is, just saying they can" is a very cowardish way of either implying that he is lying or a very unfortunate way to get your point across which is basically the thing you criticize in your own post. It is exactly the thing all those redpill and sceptic and whatnot charlatans youtubers do "I am not saying man, I am just asking questions". I assume you were aiming at those with the being all nice youtuber-part and you should realize you are doing exactly the same with this. Implying things so you can deliver a message while also not presenting any weakpoints to attack since you never made a clear statement and are able to excuse everything as a misunderstanding on the readers part. Important: I am not saying and don’t even want to imply that you are doing this on purpose, but rather just pointing it out since I believe you are not aware of it. his last post: And having 5 people or so in total with me being the only one where all 5 pretty consistently checking their demos is not very representative for either side of the argument I think. You can't deny that this: On September 20 2017 03:55 Rebs wrote: I find it amusing that the burden of proof is on the side claiming innocence. Based on some very flimsy anecdotal "I said so and I know better" line of reasoning. Thank god that kind of stuff doesnt pass for proof these days. This shows a completely different picture to the above. By quoting his final statement with your bit below you can't really deny that to everyone that only reads your post it comes off as waffel did nothing but say he is right because he said so and that he knows better than everyone else. In reality he made an effort to explain, concede and in the end mediate without throwing shade at anybody, despite being the only one that backed his suspicion up with more than "I just feel like it". Of course it still is not a real argument since the sample size is still just him, but he did more than the rest which your post completely twists. I don’t want to come off to aggressive, it is not a big deal of course since we are just in a forum but to me words are very important. They have a meaning and I try not to misrepresent people, and you just can't deny that this is a misrepresentation. Your conclusion never touches the fact that your opinion of MM not being as hacker riddled is even more worthless than his ( as you conceded yourself in that post) while both not being an argument of course. If you go try hard analysis on this, your conclusion discredits the opposing opinion while also negatively hinting at his representative. And even if he did concede just to appear nice, it doesn't chaange the fact that he in part gave up his position in the discussion, if his believes are affected isunimportant at this point. He admitted to not holdin an argument. Sorry for my harsh post, but your second post is even worse than the first one… Got ninjaedited, so I address the new part a bit shorter: No one really took offense to his "I dont mean to talk down to you, but hey,Let me GESPLAIN this shit to you" Fortunately we arent that thin skinned. So I am sure people are fine with that. He made effort to make sure he is not talking down. Despite certain people believing being offended is never adequate, it sometimes can be. Not in this case though. If he just said "I am GE" then yes, but he further backed it up and never confronted others directly with his rank. He never used it offensively (in the sense of using it to deconstruct an opponent), only defensively. You can’t accuse him of talking down here. And finally why would I criticize the anecdotes that I agree with and align with my own experience? They may well be worthy of criticism but not from me. Honesty. Basic decency. Treating others like you would like them to treat you. You can’t have a discussion in which you apply different standards to the opposing sides. The goal of a discussion is not to win (that’s a debate), it is about finding out the truth and expanding each other’s horizon. + Show Spoiler + Anyway I am more than fine with people being caustic in their commentary, I am no different. But you should expect to hear something back then no? I don't really understand this. Do you mean you are allowed to post not so nice because you don't expect it from others? Or that if someone posts not in a nice way, it is valid to answer in the same tone? The first one is just awful. Treating people respectful means trying to treat them like they want to be treated. If you are fine with getting toxic posts, that doesn’t give you a free pass on toxic posting. The second one would be a bit childish, break his toys because he broke yours? Despite not being relevant here, that is a very ancient and in my opinion bad way to go about. By the by I like him and respect his opinion nonetheless on like 90 percent of things, and while I am sure he appreciates the support I dont think he needs anyone to defend him, unless you have some weird forum white knighting fetish in which case, power to you. I could deconstruct the white knight comment, but I already stated my motivation: I see someone that posts positively in a way you don't see too often on the internet and that gets such a response. I value his effort and therefore a) want him to know because I know how disheartening it is and b) I am legitimately annoyed by it. I like TL a lot since its discussions even when they are bad are still better than in most other communities and I would like help continue to hold it to higher standards. And supporting something of value is always good, trying to ridicule it by calling out white knights seems a bit desperate. Sure he doesn’t need defending, but it doesn’t hurt if he hasn’t already given up on this. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 20 2017 06:06 Artesimo wrote: Literally his third post is admitting that both sides don't hold an argument. And this "I am not saying he is lying and yeah he posts nice stuff but people can be fake. Not saying he is, just saying they can" is a very cowardish way of either implying that he is lying or a very unfortunate way to get your point across which is basically the thing you criticize in your own post. It is exactly the thing all those redpill and sceptic and whatnot charlatans youtubers do "I am not saying man, I am just asking questions". I assume you were aiming at those with the being all nice youtuber-part and you should realize you are doing exactly the same with this. Implying things so you can deliver a message while also not presenting any weakpoints to attack since you never made a clear statement and are able to excuse everything as a misunderstanding on the readers part. Important: I am not saying and don’t even want to imply that you are doing this on purpose, but rather just pointing it out since I believe you are not aware of it. Im not sure how me acknowledging that disagreeing with his experience on this occasion, when I generally don't translates to some cowardly jab. My comment about the youtubers was to imply that the burden of proof to required to prove cheating is higher than what he provided. The post I quoted, he Basically made the argument about his sample of GE friends being more relevant than other peoples experiences. Ok fair but thats not evidence, thats an anecdote. Something we have established and didnt need to repeat over and over again. Outlined a pretty basic methodology of what he looks for in cheaters. Fair but not really enough for us to say. Yeah bro you are so right ! Then there was the good old profile check. Literally everyone does this from Silver onwards. And while theyre may be some correlation to this it still doesnt really provide any backup to the frequency he is outlining. But this too has a valid correlation to the activity he is claiming. Point taken. A subjective comment again about aim assist being hard to spot and that he can spot it and we cant. Wheres the demo analysis that proves this point? I am waiting... None of this is proof. He may well have proof but the you tube point was there are people who do this sort of thing at a much more detail oriented level than he just did and even there we find the evidence less than compelling so his posts in it of themselves are unfortunately not enough for us/me to accept it. I just left the door open for the possibility that he would actually provide real evidence because I acknowledged the possibility of what he was claiming while being skeptical. Is that so harsh? And he realizes this to. Hence the acknowledgement that it is frustrating and that he is mostly venting. Frankly having to say all this is just to show some "effort" is somewhat silly. But there you have it. I addressed my thoughts on it. I suppose we will just agree to disagree then. So much for all that effort. Right so we have established that neither argument is particularly compelling. That was basically the entire premise for my first comment. That neither side, including he had a compelling argument. Since we had established this fact I felt no need to address it AGAIN.. On September 20 2017 06:06 Artesimo wrote: You can't deny that this: This shows a completely different picture to the above. By quoting his final statement with your bit below you can't really deny that to everyone that only reads your post it comes off as waffel did nothing but say he is right because he said so and that he knows better than everyone else. In reality he made an effort to explain, concede and in the end mediate without throwing shade at anybody, despite being the only one that backed his suspicion up with more than "I just feel like it". Of course it still is not a real argument since the sample size is still just him, but he did more than the rest which your post completely twists. I don’t want to come off to aggressive, it is not a big deal of course since we are just in a forum but to me words are very important. They have a meaning and I try not to misrepresent people, and you just can't deny that this is a misrepresentation. Your conclusion never touches the fact that your opinion of MM not being as hacker riddled is even more worthless than his ( as you conceded yourself in that post) while both not being an argument of course. If you go try hard analysis on this, your conclusion discredits the opposing opinion while also negatively hinting at his representative. And even if he did concede just to appear nice, it doesn't chaange the fact that he in part gave up his position in the discussion, if his believes are affected isunimportant at this point. He admitted to not holdin an argument. Sorry for my harsh post, but your second post is even worse than the first one… Im sorry if you feel like I was misrepresenting what he was saying, I suppose I am guilty of assuming that someone wouldnt just read my comment in isolation. Id be sorry about that but tbh I dont give a fuck dude. Just because I didnt want to put the effort into rehashing the same lines where both sides are acknowledging that neither is a representative argument and simply wanted to point out that in the absence of neither having a representative argument the burden of actual proof to the claim lies with the one making the claim that something exists or exists to the extent they are saying. If i sat here and said. I saw ghosts, and you say Ive never seen ghosts, ghosts arent real. And I went ahead and laid out my methodology for how I experienced paranormal activity, how my friends and I went into a graveyard and heard spooky noises and since none of you have been in graveyards at 3 am you cant tell me im wrong. So disprove me... This is an extreme example obviously but do you see my point ? Thats the extent that I am going with this. If something happend to go up your ass because "words matter" I cant help you anymore. My comment was pretty straightforward and casually sarcastic. It didnt misrepresent jack shit unless you chose to take it in a vaccum and since threads can have a conversational tone it felt adequate. Clearly it was not for someone so I guess i can apologize but I cant promise to never do it again. You know what the really big problem I have with your comments and why I addressed them? You are falling into the typical forum asshole trap of criticizing the way someone says things rather the things they are saying. "Your post was garbage, let me tell you how garbage it was in the CS GO forum thread." Uhmm yeah, no thanks. I have no more time for that. 30 mins wasted for meaningless jabber over a random quip User was warned for this post | ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
Don't worry about my posting, I will continue trying to be online as good a person as I am offline and just like I would have walked away from this conversation in RL after the last page, it is the same here. But thanks again for the effort  | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany546 Posts
On September 20 2017 06:42 Rebs wrote: Ok fine I'll humour this stupidity.. Name calling. Im not sure how me acknowledging that disagreeing with his experience on this occasion, when I generally don't translates to some cowardly jab. I feel like I was pretty clear. You say people lie while at the same time saying ofc you don’t accuse him of lying. Why bring up that people are snakes at times at all? Again I don't accuse you of doing this on purpose, but this is basic rhetorical understanding. An extreme example that I don't want to equal in any ways to this but its the same with accusations of rape / sexual harassment: Despite being found innocent, the victims of those false accusations will all tell you that in reality it plays exactly out like that: People hear they got accused which results in most of them associating it with guilt. "Of course he was determined innocent, but you know...". I also never called you a coward that would require having posted that with a clear goal which I explicitly ruled out because you know, I try my best so people understand my intentions. My comment about the youtubers was to imply that the burden of proof to required to prove cheating is higher than what he provided. Again, he never said he had hard proof. And further down I explain why it is not so. In a binary question of does X cheat y/n the burden of proof would lie on the accusation but only because we as a society determined that innocent until proven guilty is the way to go. Basically made the argument about his sample of GE friends being more relevant than other people’s experiences. Ok fair but that’s not evidence, that’s an anecdote. Something we have established and didn’t need to repeat over and over again. Nope. As I quoted he stated multiple times that it while probably holding more water than the other statements, it also isn't an argument. Multiple times ( twice if I recall correctly, always as a follow up to bringing it up) Outlined a pretty basic methodology of what he looks for in cheaters. Fair but not really enough for us to say. Yeah bro you are so right ! Then there was the good old profile check. Literally everyone does this from Silver onwards. And while theyre may be some correlation to this it still doesnt really provide any backup to the frequency he is outlining. A subjective comment again about aim assist being hard to spot and that he can spot it and we cant. Wheres the demo analysis that proves this point? I am waiting... He never said he is able to sot the aim assist. He stated that it is impossible to spot reliably. Pretty clear. I'll admit this is a page back, and in a different discussion but there he even said he wasn't able to spot it on himself. And he gave further info so you could actually attack his positon in a appropriate manner. This guy actually was interested in being understood. And the profile thing checks out for me, I sold a bunch of accounts for an online game on a forum where they also sell legit looking csgoaccounts and that is legitimately how all these offers look. The only difference is that they occasionally have a rank slapped on top but you have to pay extra for that ofc. None of this is proof. He may well have proof but the youtube point was there are people who do this sort of thing at a much more detail oriented level than he just did and even there we find the evidence less than compelling so this post in it of itself is unfortunately not enough for us/me to accept it. I just left the door open for the possibility that he would actually provide real evidence because I acknowledged the possibility of what he was claiming while being skeptical. Is that so harsh? He never stated that his side was an argument, the opposite indeed, see above. Right so we have established that neither argument is particularly compelling. That was basically the entire premise for my first comment. That neither side, including he had a compelling argument. Since we had established this fact I felt no need to address it AGAIN.. But you addressed AGAIN that he held no argument, but not that yours doesn’t either. Which he already conceded himself. Im sorry if you feel like I was misrepresenting what he was saying, I suppose I am guilty of assuming that someone wouldnt just read my comment in isolation. Id be sorry about that but tbh I dont give a fuck dude. Just because I didnt want to put the effort into rehashing the same lines where both sides are acknowledging that neither is a representative argument and simply wanted to point out that in the absence of neither having a representative argument the burden of actual proof to the claim lies with the one making the claim that something exists or exists to the extent they are saying. Consider this: If someone reads just your quote, waffel gets misrepresented. If someone reads your quote and the whole discussion, people see that it gets misrepresented. I agree that I am nitpicking here, but your absolute denial of any mistake is quite impressive... Like dude I am not looking for a major apology or anything but it even is in your own interest. Either people got a wrong perspective or they think you are dishonest / didn't read his posts. If i sat here and said. I saw ghosts, and you say Ive never seen ghosts, ghosts arent real. And I went ahead and laid out my methodology for how I experienced paranormal activity, how my friends and I went into a graveyard and heard spooky noises and since none of you have been in graveyards at 3 am you cant tell me im wrong. So disprove me... Bad analogy. The existence of ghosts is neither proven nor disproven, you can only make guesses and there are 3 different positions you can take: you believe in ghosts, you don’t believe in ghosts, you don't have an opinion on the matter. Where the burden of proof lies is always on the side that opposes the viewpoint that is determined as fact/closer to being a fact. If there is no such thing, its the opinion that opposes yours, though you can't really use the burden of proof logic then to determine a objective outcome since both of you have equal right to put the burden of proof on the other person. If you believe in ghosts and we wouldn’t have agreed that ghosts most likely don't exist, to you the burden of proof lies on the person that wants to convince you that they don’t exist and vice versa. And the cheater question isn't even a binary one since we know there are cheaers, the question was how much at which point the burden of proof would rather sit on both sides since neither represented a commonly as fact accepted side. You could get nit-picky of course and saying that the vocal majority of the thread believed in fewer cheaters but at that point you should realize you are just trying to weasel out. Since the question of how common is cheating isn't even a binary one, both sides have to prove themselves before being able to pass the burden of proof on the other. This is an extreme example obviously but do you see my point ? I see your point, I understand your point. My problem is that you don't see where you’re wrong or you don't want to admit it. EDIT: Oh my god, ninjaed again... dude, words have meaning, context matters, phrasing matters... If we start with the accusations, you do the typical internet stonewalling of never ever baacking down with anything, never ever conceding any points and never ever admitting any mistakes. This stupid notion just because some people are oversensitive it is suddenly unacceptable to be sensitive to anything at all... And more namecalling as if I need to further proof my point. | ||
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
| ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
On a serious note, how do you guys feel about the p250 no longer oneshotting an enemy with helmet disregarding the range? I am not a fan so far. I liked the fact that every pistol round was dangerous as well and it also wasn’t that much of an issue I think. It only oneshotted at a certain range and most of the time you just had to choose the way to the bombsites that give you longer fighting distances. Yeah it is oneshot kill for 300 but range, aimpunch and not walking in alone should handle that. In general I don’t see the desired “more skilful use” with these pistol changes. The glock got spamfriendelier and worse at long ranges, where is the skill in that? I always thought precise aiming is more skilful than a close range pistolspam train. Though the glockchange becomes pretty irrelevant after the first round. The five-seven change I haven’t even really noticed. Seems like ADAD is absolutely unaffected by the change, maybe you no longer can shoot it nonstop while running. | ||
|
Sableyeah
Netherlands2119 Posts
As for Glock, I don't really mind. These changes only affect long ranges and no1 actually uses it to fight at that range anyway, hopefully CTs don't get insta dinked as easily but should be fine. Also as Launders said, the game shouldn't be subject to nonstop metachange as the game shouldn't only revolve around guns but maps as well. I would say a 7 mappool should soon be changed to 9 or have seasons changing 2 maps to be reworked on. There are many maps that the community and proscene are fond of but are still neglected. Also, sup with $2000 Negev? ^^ It hasn't seen a lot of play, even for that amount of money. Seems like their experiment with the turret isn't that succesful, giving away your key advantage the moment you mouse1 seems to be too much. Lowering the charging up time would make it too powerful, very hard to balance imo, might have just destroyed the best BM gun ;'( | ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
As to regards of metachange with weapons, I think I also feel the same. I really liked about csgo that each weapon at least in theory, like the bizon not being used only for meta reasons. And I don't really feel the pistol changes where necessary, even though the pre-nerf Tec-9 really annoyed me at times. And I am still super salty about the silenced M4 fire rate nerf which made me somehow unable to use that gun. EDIT: Negev is good for planting in a bangable spot and with bangfriendly maps in general. Other than that maybe for shooting through smokes but that works maybe in one round. | ||
|
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
I like the fact that if you want a true weapon on eco rounds, that's the deagle and it costs $700, not $300 that you can almost always afford. It also means there'll be more variety in the pistol rounds and that's welcome. Before that, seeing something else than a Glock or USP with the occasional tec9 was kinda stale. More options are better in my opinion. I think we can all agree though that the negev experiment was a true failure (the experiment itself, not having an experiment, which for once was kinda interesting). Even at the "encouraging price that's not meant to stay", people don't buy it. Also as Launders said, the game shouldn't be subject to nonstop metachange as the game shouldn't only revolve around guns but maps as well. I would say a 7 mappool should soon be changed to 9 or have seasons changing 2 maps to be reworked on. There are many maps that the community and proscene are fond of but are still neglected. Well, Dust 2 is in the work, and we've got already Nuke and Inferno entirely reworked, so I wouldn't say the game revolves only around guns. Again, I like that it's not changing too fast, and I really dislike 9 maps. Teams can't master 7, having 9 would only make the overall level of play take a big dive. Not even factoring in that maps haven't been figured out completely yet either (well, not all of them, looking at you *yawn* Cobblestone). The competitive map pool should stay fairly stable over time, even though a few maps like Tuscan or Season could use some more love. What could be done though is encouraging more diverse modes of play, for example having the operation map pool stay as some kind of rotating map pool for fun, and keep the active duty as is. That way, people that play conservatively, seriously, competition in mind can still play active, and people that want to try out new maps, are bored of the usual ones can play in the rotating map pool. About the more general topic of metagame change, I think a constant evolution, with tweaks and some change, isn't that bad. | ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
On September 21 2017 02:34 Ragnarork wrote: About the more general topic of metagame change, I think a constant evolution, with tweaks and some change, isn't that bad. Change is good, but I feel like more constant behaviour in terms of weapons is important since the weaponmeta already gets affected by the map you play on to some degree. And I am not sure if I like the rework of old maps when they are not problematic. I would more like to see new maps, which is very hard to do but still. Having a big mappool in events leads to random results for sure, I would like a system like in starcraft where you got seasons, the mappool for that season is defined, maybe always have 2 of the classics like dust 2 / mirage and then fill the rest with a random selection. Change pools every 6 month or so and always have the next mappool announced at the beginning of a season and teams should have enough time to get good on enough maps. Another thing with the weapons is the introduction of new weapons. In theory I really like the idea but not how valve handled it so far. Remember the revolve update? And how no one really uses that thing anymore? The cz seems like in a okayish spot at the moment, even though it lost its spot as secondary weapon for awpers. It is still a good forcebuy pistol. For the p250 I would rather have seen a price or kill reward change since it indeed was a very cost effective weapon, but I still never had the feeling that it was a major problem. Eco rounds should be dangerous and without kevlar that one shot potential was important especially since you had to be close for it to work and you get fucked by aimpunch with now got reduced. EDIT: If I want to get salty again I would rant about that if anything the problem with the p250 was the retarded ADAD mechanic of csgo but I don't want to fall into relapse on that one... | ||
|
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
Then, I don't think you should be able to one shot an opponent who bought full armor + rifle with a $300 gadget. That's just completely stupid economy-wise (the same way I still don't understand that the CT rifles don't one-shot at close or very close range), and reduces the use for money. That was basically one of the big issues with tec9 trains. For 5 x $1500 you get something that can outright wreck 5 x $5000 with way too much odds compared to the money difference. I don't think the "power" ratio of weapons should be exactly matching the money difference, but it should be really noticeable. And to me it wasn't noticeable enough before the nerf. Simply put: if you don't invest, you shouldn't get powerful weapons or protection. If you invest, you should. The recent update made that more clear cut in my opinion. | ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
On September 21 2017 07:03 Ragnarork wrote: Then, I don't think you should be able to one shot an opponent who bought full armor + rifle with a $300 gadget. That's just completely stupid economy-wise (the same way I still don't understand that the CT rifles don't one-shot at close or very close range), and reduces the use for money. That was basically one of the big issues with tec9 trains. For 5 x $1500 you get something that can outright wreck 5 x $5000 with way too much odds compared to the money difference. That feel when you face a T that thinks saving the few bucks for a helmet is a good idea vs CT and you end an hard eco with a free awp : D But the p250 was only oneshot on very short ranges that I feel like you could have easily avoided, the other ranges are unaffected by this. I feel like this change literally does nothing but make players that fail to realize that ecos play out a bit differently, the two shot range is the same. And when you don't land the first headshot close range you are usually dead anyways since you don't have any kevlar and the aimpunch on top of that. Sure it feels very frustrating losing to an p250 ecoround, but whenever we lose these I find it hard not to blame our approach to the round rather than the cheap weapon. The only thing I felt was problematic is that you get its price back immediately if you got a kill, so maybe lower the kill reward, but even that didn’t felt like a real issue. The ct-rifle not oneshotting is to soften up the defenders advantage I think, even though it already got a big hit through ADAD I still feel that it is necessary. And I don't think that it makes a real difference in very close ranges since you most likely hit them before / immediately afterwards anyways. EDIT: also about very close range, I learned that the USPs actually doest good damage to a helmet when the guy is standing right in front of you. You never stop learning | ||
|
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
The ct-rifle not oneshotting is to soften up the defenders advantage I think, even though it already got a big hit through ADAD I still feel that it is necessary. And I don't think that it makes a real difference in very close ranges since you most likely hit them before / immediately afterwards anyways. That's why I meant at close range, and that was mostly for consistency. How would a pistol one shot but not a full-fledged assault rifle? At medium to long range, it shouldn't and the AK should remain superior, for the defender advantage reason you mentioned. Sure it feels very frustrating losing to an p250 ecoround, but whenever we lose these I find it hard not to blame our approach to the round rather than the cheap weapon. The only thing I felt was problematic is that you get its price back immediately if you got a kill, so maybe lower the kill reward, but even that didn’t felt like a real issue. Yes, even with the one-shot feature on the P250, you still should play carefully around that. But still, I feel that this weapon was quite too powerful for its price anyway. When you combine this with running and gunning, you could just rollerskate headshot someone for $300. That's like.. not really appropriate eco-wise. If you want to do damage on ecos, you have to invest imo. The deagle is fine for that because that's still a pistol, that's quite cheap, but still, committing $700 makes a dent in your economy if you don't have much money and that makes the difference vs. a round with or without stuff, or the AK/M4 instead of a galil/Famas. So that's kind of a commitment and that actually springs a new buy-scheme. Right now, honestly, between a hard eco and people buying P250, there's not much. Just killing someone usually gives you enough to buy a P250. For a weapon so accessible even in hard-ecos (i.e. that does not impact your next buy), that was too much power. | ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
On September 21 2017 18:01 Ragnarork wrote: That's why I meant at close range, and that was mostly for consistency. How would a pistol one shot but not a full-fledged assault rifle? At medium to long range, it shouldn't and the AK should remain superior, for the defender advantage reason you mentioned. You are much more likely to die with the pistol if the first shot didn't connect properly. You are also forced to stay very close to get that effectiveness which is extremely dangerous against a rifle and vulnerable to nades. Yes, even with the one-shot feature on the P250, you still should play carefully around that. But still, I feel that this weapon was quite too powerful for its price anyway. When you combine this with running and gunning, you could just rollerskate headshot someone for $300. That's like.. not really appropriate eco-wise. If you want to do damage on ecos, you have to invest imo. The deagle is fine for that because that's still a pistol, that's quite cheap, but still, committing $700 makes a dent in your economy if you don't have much money and that makes the difference vs. a round with or without stuff, or the AK/M4 instead of a galil/Famas. So that's kind of a commitment and that actually springs a new buy-scheme. Right now, honestly, between a hard eco and people buying P250, there's not much. Just killing someone usually gives you enough to buy a P250. For a weapon so accessible even in hard-ecos (i.e. that does not impact your next buy), that was too much power. But you already could avoid that risk by not playing in a way where you are exposed to those oneshot distances. It was really short and you could just use HEs / molotovs to clear those corners. You can either take the risk or invest more into nades. The danger at mid/long distances stayed the same. I still feel like basically good use of the p250 got nerfed and bad map/economic awareness gets less punished. I still feel like the nerf was either not necessary or not strong enough since it only addressed one tiny bit of the pistol. The rollerskateheadshot thing is more a problem of the csgo mentality when it comes to guns and moving but I know I just have to accept that. | ||
|
porkRaven
United States953 Posts
Does anyone know how well csgo is doing in china? | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 21 2017 01:38 waffelz wrote: Shhhh. Don't be jealous because I am a beautiful forum princess who’s honour is worthy to defend . I know right. Talk about being more loyal than the king.. On September 21 2017 23:40 porkRaven wrote: I'm generally happy with the changes to the p250 & the glock. The damage falloff for the glock is greatly appreciated since it was so easy to prefire corners and goosh a ct at long range. The p250 hasn't really changed in my experience that much since I usually hide like a wiener with it and catch people off guard. I did miss a kill in my last match because of it though. The map pool definitely needs refreshed and add in good reworks like the inferno one. Santorini is an example of a perfectly good map that could be slotted in with no real issues. Cut that shit cbble and we're good. A new map is a great opportunity for teams to try new styles and create exciting strats and plays that we don't really see on a map that has been around for so long. At least they seem to be addressing some of the complaints with regard to weapon balance and I'm definitely on board for that. Does anyone know how well csgo is doing in china? Yeah the glock gooshing I have abused immensely, and it makes it way to easy to overwhelm a USP once you know you have necker. P250 hasnt changed much for me either, and Im not a run spammer with the 5-7s so that didnt matter much to me anyway. The whole concept of yolo moving iwth guns except the tech was something my 1.6 brain could never get used to. But its nice that its harder for people to do that at mid range. I wouldnt mind a cbble rework. I never bothered to play Santorini so I cant say. Id be down for something like Mill to be refreshed though. Even if it probably isnt all that great a map the nostalgia value is pretty strong. | ||
| ||
