EPT
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - Page 291
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
| ||
|
beefhamburger
United States3962 Posts
| ||
|
NovaMB
Germany9534 Posts
| ||
|
Qbek
Poland12923 Posts
On November 30 2013 03:54 beefhamburger wrote: Why is CS:GO worth less than CS:S? ($15 vs. $20) same reason hl2 is less than hl1 | ||
|
DinoToss
Poland507 Posts
On November 30 2013 02:29 Souma wrote: Nuke is way too CT favored though. Every map is skewed slightly one way or the other but Nuke is heavily CT favored. I don't like it at all. 1.6 maps were super crazy imbalanced, and some were to the point of ridiculousness, the time were people played aztec, cbble or prodigy... oh fucking god, i still blame cbble for destroying my "career" :p Post 2005 no one played those maps competetively, thank god. however maps like dust2 were positively imbalanced, i think it is because aggressors were slighly favored, when agressors are favored they can present more interesting tactics nuke and train were extremely team play reliant for terro, shitty teams got smashed because they couldn't sync their attacks and flashes. Nuke was always interesting because it had complex wallshotting mechanics, before meta-game switched to short time duration, the whole foreplay was all about spamming the upper wall. Researching "hax" spots was pretty funny. i don't like most changes on CS GO maps, they are kinda limiting, thats why we see so low usage of AWP. They need to bring back long range spots on maps, it works both way gives ct a bigger range of tactics (offensive positioning) and terro can try to pick up CT one by one before entering if CT use daring tactics. | ||
|
beefhamburger
United States3962 Posts
Which is? (hl 1 = hl 2 btw) | ||
|
Qbek
Poland12923 Posts
It's mostly about them wanting you to play the game that has more further income possibilities. (GO's micro transactions earn them fuckloads) | ||
|
jaymik
Korea (South)425 Posts
| ||
|
ketchup
14521 Posts
| ||
|
WindWolf
Sweden11767 Posts
| ||
|
jaymik
Korea (South)425 Posts
| ||
|
okum
France5778 Posts
On November 30 2013 06:17 jaymik wrote: dosia 100 -> 0d by a molly hahahaha That was beautiful... and then another molotov kill in a round right after. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
On November 30 2013 05:51 WindWolf wrote: So now I have bought the game now. Will play a bit offline before starting to play online Or just play casual modes like demolition or gun games (on the play tab). These can be fun even if you don't know what you are doing. | ||
|
coL.hendralisk
Zimbabwe1756 Posts
| ||
|
Pibacc
Canada545 Posts
 | ||
|
Durp
Canada3117 Posts
On November 30 2013 04:20 DinoToss wrote: 1.6 maps were super crazy imbalanced, and some were to the point of ridiculousness, the time were people played aztec, cbble or prodigy... oh fucking god, i still blame cbble for destroying my "career" :p Post 2005 no one played those maps competetively, thank god. however maps like dust2 were positively imbalanced, i think it is because aggressors were slighly favored, when agressors are favored they can present more interesting tactics nuke and train were extremely team play reliant for terro, shitty teams got smashed because they couldn't sync their attacks and flashes. Nuke was always interesting because it had complex wallshotting mechanics, before meta-game switched to short time duration, the whole foreplay was all about spamming the upper wall. Researching "hax" spots was pretty funny. i don't like most changes on CS GO maps, they are kinda limiting, thats why we see so low usage of AWP. They need to bring back long range spots on maps, it works both way gives ct a bigger range of tactics (offensive positioning) and terro can try to pick up CT one by one before entering if CT use daring tactics. Maybe everything changed since I last played 1.6, but isn't de_train one of the most imbalanced maps that's still played competitively? Like 10-5 CT:T scores on Train for T's were considered pretty decent the last time I played.. Even the last pro match I watched had T's on train just getting shit on over and over again. Personally always found Nuke to be my most favourite map to play T-side, even in spite of the difficulty. I always liked the subtle variances T-side strats have on that map, and definitely found it easier to play T than other maps like train, prodigy, cbble, or aztec (lulz easiest 15-0) | ||
|
chesshaha
United States1117 Posts
VG vs NiP is hard to call, ScreaM had lots of off games and forest and GTR also didn't perform well so far. But I still gonna pick VG because of shox, can't for the matches though. Don't forget about the All Stars match tomorrow too! | ||
|
misirlou
Portugal3289 Posts
On November 30 2013 07:19 Durp wrote: Maybe everything changed since I last played 1.6, but isn't de_train one of the most imbalanced maps that's still played competitively? Like 10-5 CT:T scores on Train for T's were considered pretty decent the last time I played.. Even the last pro match I watched had T's on train just getting shit on over and over again. Personally always found Nuke to be my most favourite map to play T-side, even in spite of the difficulty. I always liked the subtle variances T-side strats have on that map, and definitely found it easier to play T than other maps like train, prodigy, cbble, or aztec (lulz easiest 15-0) Since you have to play 15 rounds on both sides, it balances out really. Doesn't matter if one side is too CT favored, the better team will win more T rounds. Unless the map is almost 15-0 100%. Look at NIP on train yesterday, for example. They started T and bagged 6 rounds np, then proceed to win 10 0 or 10 1 at CT, this was on quarters IIRC | ||
|
SyNc`
333 Posts
On November 30 2013 08:42 misirlou wrote: Since you have to play 15 rounds on both sides, it balances out really. Doesn't matter if one side is too CT favored, the better team will win more T rounds. Unless the map is almost 15-0 100%. Look at NIP on train yesterday, for example. They started T and bagged 6 rounds np, then proceed to win 10 0 or 10 1 at CT, this was on quarters IIRC It doesn't exactly balance out because if you get t side first and lose 13-2 or 12-3 or something extreme then your ct side relies too heavily upon winning pistol round. Its not like every match goes to 30 rounds. | ||
| ||
