On August 29 2011 05:37 RaLakedaimon wrote: Can someone that's been around CS for years answer this question: why does everyone and there mother say "I was competitive in (insert CS game here)"? What the hell does that even mean? I literally here that every day when looking at either CS news or videos. -_- I look at it in BW terms were it means you played at a high enough level to win and participate in the "low tier" tournaments but never broke out into the big show like TSL/WCG or moving to Korea etc. Can someone elaborate please?
When they say competitive they usually mean they played CAL (or CEVO or ESEA) at a somewhat high level. Think of someone that plays regularly in weekly tournaments but isn't on a big sponsored team or going to MLGs or anything.
In team games theres usually a pretty big distinction between playing competitive and casual/pub/whatever. This doesn't really exist in starcraft because of the 1v1 format. Its the same for the Dota type games too.
On August 29 2011 05:37 RaLakedaimon wrote: Can someone that's been around CS for years answer this question: why does everyone and there mother say "I was competitive in (insert CS game here)"? What the hell does that even mean? I literally here that every day when looking at either CS news or videos. -_- I look at it in BW terms were it means you played at a high enough level to win and participate in the "low tier" tournaments but never broke out into the big show like TSL/WCG or moving to Korea etc. Can someone elaborate please?
Because there are legions of people who hear CS and think the game is all about public 32 player servers and 16 vs 16 fights in horrifically linear maps with insane 5 minute rounds where you simply charge forward, die and watch a bunch of inept cowards engage in a contest to see who can do the least for the next four minutes.
I have been actually playing CS for past 12 years... I remember playing 1.0, 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, and etc... But I never hit the competitive scene due to my age at that time and constant traveling between countries. What steps would I take towards finding a competitive scene in the states, I seem to have good reflexes/teamwork/communication and pwning random pub servers is fun, but would love to try playing actual clan wars. Are there tryouts, practices or any private teams that look for players publicly from time to time.
On August 30 2011 21:17 Am0n3r wrote: Are there tryouts, practices or any private teams that look for players publicly from time to time.
Usually on fourms theres a section for recruiting. Although i don't know where the CS players hang now, used to be places like gotfrag etc. Usually you'd get invited to play with the team a bit, couple practice matches, hanging on server for a while etc. Then they'd make a decision on you. That's what I've experieneced, maybe higher level teams have more stringent policies, ie past experience, results. Check for recruitment threads on counterstrike forums though, your best bet. some clans will advertise on their own servers too.
On August 30 2011 21:17 Am0n3r wrote: I have been actually playing CS for past 12 years... I remember playing 1.0, 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, and etc... But I never hit the competitive scene due to my age at that time and constant traveling between countries. What steps would I take towards finding a competitive scene in the states, I seem to have good reflexes/teamwork/communication and pwning random pub servers is fun, but would love to try playing actual clan wars. Are there tryouts, practices or any private teams that look for players publicly from time to time.
ESEA is the only thing left in the US, bascially. Through there (it's a paid service) you can set up scrims and other things, with pick up groups.
mIRC is a good way to get started competitively. #FindRinger on Gamesurge.net was where I used to go all the time when I was playing solo dolo, but I dunno how that works today. ESEA runs the shit, and their paid servers are worse than pubs sometimes.
Oh come on.. CS 1.5 not accessible? It was & is the most popular FPS on the market, and exactly because IT WAS ACCESSIBLE. That is the point. And that is what CS was crafted for: round based gameplay, elimination of movement in combat, slowing of movement in general, elimination of map power ups. All to serve one purpose: decrease learning curve compared to quake/ut -style games, make it more accessible for general populus. The stuff you point out is trivial and gimmicks compared to actual acrobatic combat in faster games.
CS was not meant to be accessible. It was a mod that got very popular because multiplayer was gaining popularity. Yes, it was dumbed down a little with each patch, but it maintained its high skill cap over the years. Source, however, was meant to be accessible. It was created by Valve and desgined to sell (and man did it sell!). The CS mod for HL1 was a community driven game.
Not sure what u mean by acrobatics, but I listed all the things that go above and beyond the game after first download that make it unique/difficult to play, not to mention .cfg settings and mouse/mousepad preferences. I believe CS is responsible for the mouse/mousepad market developing.
This doesnt make sense. Multiplayer was becoming popular in 1996-1997 when QW and Q2 came out, and yet later on 1999 2000 when it was already established those same players flocked over to CS.
CS 1.6 is the most popular fps game in the world, and yet it is not accessible? How can this be for years, long after multiplayer FPSes have matured? The answer is It is as main stream as shooter games go, it is ridiculous to hear CS fans say that the game isnt such. Whatever the original ends or goals of Gooseman were, the reality is that the design of the game clearly implies suitability for mainstream casual player shooter.
The design is genius in that manner - that even the copies of it make great success popularity wise. I mean look at Urban Terror, the q3 mod. Almost a CS clone, and is way more popular than original q3 or other q3 mods. All because it copies the same magic CS formula that made it so popular in the mainstream: no movement during combat, combat ending in a couple of second burst exchanges followed by long downtime, little acrobatic abilities, no power ups. And if you look at the other popular shooters - BF, CoD, its again the same formula. This is what works best for getting high amount of players, this is the magic formula.
What about the context though? Remember there wasn't a level up system like COD in pubs or competitive play during CS 1.5. Some mods for CS existed, but most people played pure CS, where u tried to get ur K/D up as a personal goal. COD has become all about achievements and powerups that reward u for raping ur opponenets. In 1.6, there is no reward, just a good K/D. You have to start from scratch every round. COD has S&D but it doesn't live up to the bomb-site style of CS.
I mean the mod wasn't meant to be accessible in that it wasn't desgined by Valve. Valve started including it in a collection because it had already become so popular. The reason many of us are skeptics already of CS:GO is because it is Valve developed, like Source was. CZ was merely a reskin of CS. I don't want a re-engined 1.6 personally. I'd like new stuff as well but the same hitboxes/character movement at least in CS 1.6.
If ur defining mainstream as being able to hit that skill cap quickly, then no, COD does not match CS 1.6, or Quake Live, or Starcraft 1/2, or LoL. These are just some of the games that have proven worhty of competition by the majority of the e-sports community. I think most of us here know why COD and Halo are at MLG in the US...
+1 Jibba +1 WintrRR
On August 30 2011 21:58 zachMEISTER wrote: mIRC is a good way to get started competitively. #FindRinger on Gamesurge.net was where I used to go all the time when I was playing solo dolo, but I dunno how that works today. ESEA runs the shit, and their paid servers are worse than pubs sometimes.
I've always thought ESEA servers were too laggy. I still hit up #findringer as well.
On August 28 2011 16:03 T0fuuu wrote: I guess this is just how the cs/css community is. They just bitch about new versions compared to old versions and never want to play anything new. Whether its with different recoil, different movement or heaven forbid... different maps! Part of it is elitism where people genuinely believe that they are better because the play a better game (just like people are better because of where they are born) and the other part is because of a largely dead or dying competitive scene which leaves gamers with less time to play games and more time on forums whining and being bitter. Alot of the enthusiasm has been sucked out and i hope csgo can put some back into the community.
Or the game is actually gonna be bad? If blizzard came out with sc2 and sc3 during the last 12 years do you think that people who said it's not as good as bw are just whiners or elitists? Cs 1.5 and 1.6 was one of the best competitive e-sports of all time and its not fair to lower the bar because game designers ignore keeping some of the best aspects of 1.5 and 1.6.... In the same vein its incredibly foolish to think that games like sc2 will ever get certain aspects right like bw nailed. I hope you don't call bw enthusiasts elitist and ' never wanting to play anything new ' It's one thing if they are obnoxious about it but if its just not their style and they have a valid reason such as the previous version simply being BETTER, there's not much you should say.
I think one of the most trite and ridiculously stupid arguments that exist in the world is that if you haven't tried it then you can't have an opinion of it...there's tons of that logic in this thread.
Dumb animals can tell fire will burn them without actually touching it.
BW elitists are bad because they complain the game is too easy and takes no skill after playing for a few months yet they still cant get a weekly cup or tlopen victory by the time they quit and go back to bw. So yes, bad and middling players complaining about the lack of skill in game X is elitist and just shows how arrogant they are.
Im not saying that people that enjoy/prefer playing bw are elitist, they are just fans of the game and thats good for them, but the people that make a habit of trolling other gamers for bw being BETTER are just plain bad.
A perfect example of an elitist would be middling CS 1.6 player that hasnt had any noticeable tournament victories to show for his decade of gaming yet never misses an opportunity to call CS:S players bad because they play an inferior game.
You could look at QL and Q3 scenes if you wanted to see proof that pro players can change games to an easier game (10 min duels, weapons less tiered, fast weapon respawn, ammo increase) without the level of competition suffering. A game doesnt have to be played for 10 years like bw or cs to have a high skill ceiling and competitive community. Even at QL's imminent death from the proscene its probably at quakes highest competition level with multiple players internationally that could all win a tournament, even compared to the golden days when there were maybe 3 or 4 at best. You could even look at real professional gamers that made the change from q3-> cpm -> q4(the cs:s of quake) ->q3 -> QL and appreciate that even though they played competitively "worse" games in an elitist timescale that they still did it professionally without the elitist bitching, got the money and raised the overall skill of quake and moved onto the next game. People like cooller or cypher don't get called sellouts or noobs that couldnt play game X because they followed whichever game was paying more money, instead they get respected because they can take an inferior game and raise its skill ceiling and show that even after playing for so long that they still havent reached their full potential, yet alone the game's.
Anyways when did you have more fun playing cs? When the community was big and there were lots of new teams and players to be made from pub? Or now when the overall standard of play is much much higher but there are fewer teams to scrim and tournaments? High skill does not always mean the most fun and thats all that really matters to gamers.
Really great post. +1
Valve did bring in a few 1.6 pros with the CS:S pros. I watched a video where they talked about it and said that on day 1 the recoil was terrible, free armor, and grenades did a ton of damage not soaking up any armor. They explained some concerns to the developers and gave detailed suggestions. Then on day 2 they had a new version which was very tweaked with the suggestions they gave. The consensus was that the game had flaws but in only 1 day they addressed some of the issues. Valve has also said they have been trying to learn from the mistakes they made with CS:S, so people should give them a chance. Valve has done a lot of rights with other games and only a few wrongs.
Even if this game doesn't live up to the same 'skill ceiling' that 1.6 has. This will be a competitive game not only because its name is counterstrike, its made by valve, and its a multi platform FPS game. But because it has ELO and competitive play built into the game, which if you think about it you can get competition from that alone. Like the post I quoted, even if the game has a lower skill ceiling there will still be top players and top teams. Its almost a moot point trying to say that it takes less skill to be at the top of 'X' game, if you truly believe this then every last person who was pro and trying make it big/money would just be playing whatever 1 game had the highest prize pools and largest scene.
I am excited for this game. I know it will be fun but I hope they make it GREAT throughout the beta. Too all the complainers, if you're going to judge something thats okay but why invest so much emotion when its not even in beta yet and you don't know what is planned?
On August 29 2011 05:37 RaLakedaimon wrote: Can someone that's been around CS for years answer this question: why does everyone and there mother say "I was competitive in (insert CS game here)"? What the hell does that even mean? I literally here that every day when looking at either CS news or videos. -_- I look at it in BW terms were it means you played at a high enough level to win and participate in the "low tier" tournaments but never broke out into the big show like TSL/WCG or moving to Korea etc. Can someone elaborate please?
there's a higher pool of "competitive" players in cs simply because its a team game and not a solo game like bw (popularity is another factor). i say i was a competitive cs player because i formed and lead a sponsored LAN team in northern california that entered local tournaments throughout but never made it big like going to CPL... and i'd assume those who played in CAL-x would call themselves "competitive" players.
To me 'CS (1.6 or CSS) with a rejuvenated popularity, modern conveniences and prettier graphics' is all that i could have hoped for. 5v5 scrim matchmaking? Holy balls. Most people are looking at this with sceptical eyes, scrutinising every new piece of information furiously. To me, I see this game as a metor that's on a direct course for my world. When it hits, that's it, I'm done. 5v5s all night and all day, give me that sweet sweet CS fix.
On October 07 2011 19:14 Tomken wrote: They should really just skip the whole PC part, it's just pain to see how bad the game is.
how bad the game looks or how bad the game plays? a) I could care less about game graphics (I don't have a top end rig, and think it's good when more people have access to a game) b) I never trust game play footage to show how good/bad a game is - have you played it?
On October 14 2011 08:18 garlicface wrote: I don't follow CS, but holy shit this Volcano guy is making some sick shots. Is he one of the better players in the scene?
I don't know, I think he's just an average american pro. It's hard to see because source is much more forgiving when it comes to precision.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://67250.com/gallery2/d/369-3/67250oglribbon.jpg)
