EPT?
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - Page 57
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
CHOMPMannER
Canada175 Posts
? | ||
|
CamTSU
United States93 Posts
Let's be real, source brought nothing of value to the table as far as the game's progress as an esport is concerned, they retardedly dumbed down the gameplay, inflated the hitboxes, and were nothing but a cess pool of failed 1.6 players who couldn't hack it in a more competitive game, so they went to source. Nothing about that game is appealing to me. I think that cs:go is going to flop, just like source did, and it's because valve panders to the source players that we have this divide in the community that is like a cancer on our community. The only way to truly bring the game back to life is to simply forget that source ever even existed, just put it out of the development process as some kind of failed 3rd party mod, and listen to lurppis and companys feedback and work hand in hand with them to value the exceptional gameplay that 1.6 had, and destroy the embarassment that was source, once and for all. I am constantly just baffled at how dota 2's development (mostly thanks to Icefrog), is going so smoothly, they arent messing with the gameplay at all, it's bascially a clone of dota 1, with updated graphics. THATS WHAT WE WANT. How can cs:go's development be so drastically different, they know that source failed, so why would they even use it as a model, or its players for feedback? It makes 0 sense. | ||
|
Haggis
Scotland104 Posts
On April 01 2012 03:56 Jibba wrote: The article fails to point out that Valve had their chance to design a new CS their way without interruptions, and it bombed. I think he correctly points out that most hardcore people do prefer 1.5 to 1.6, but it further illustrates that most of the changes Valve has made since taking over from Cliffe and Gooseman have sucked. No, there isn't a reason to give Source players more input than 1.6, because no one plays their game. 1.6 drew 70,000 viewers at IEM Championships and Source is absolutely nowhere to be seen. Why should that take precedent, then? To this day 1.6 is the most played Steam game. Why on earth would you look to Source players for the model on creating a competitive game? Their competitive scene was marginal at best after CGS died, and even random pubgoers prefer 1.6 to CSS. The first thing they should've done is realized CSS was a failure and not the model to follow. Firstly CS source and 1.6 both use the same competitive model. That model is counterstrike. Source hasn't miraclously changed the format of counterstrike, what differs is the engine they were made on. Valve clearly didn't want to make a 1.6 clone when they released source because if they did it would have felt a lot more like 1.6, yes? At the end of the day they are business and they manufactured it to appeal to a wider audience as opposed to the hardcore e-sports scene. Personally I still prefere 1.6 like most people but Source isn't as bad as people make it out to be - at least nowadays it isn't, i'll concede it was pretty bad to begin with. If there is any truth to what Lurppis is saying - that HPE have rejected 1.6 pro's feedbacks - then I just find this completely crazy and dishearting. Surely HPE would want feedback from these teams to get insight into what makes a game last over a decade and pull in 60k at IEM? (arguably I don't think all 60k were unique cs fans am pretty sure it was overspill of LoL and to a lesser extent starcraft viewers waiting on there finals) but its ignorant to say "why earth would you look at source players for making a competitve game?". The fact is a very-high percentage of source players would have came from 1.6 or pre-1.6 already and they bring the benefit of having played competitvely in source and on the source engine - that CSGO is built on. CSGO isn't going to be a 1.6 clone so there's logic in there somewhere. right? Your correct in that source wasn't particuarly the biggest e-sport title but its very harsh to say it was a failure. if 1.6 was killed on Source's release, Source would have had a lot more success - maybe not all, but a high percentage of teams would have switched over, much like the switch from 1.5 to 1.6 (things are on a much bigger scale these days but there was the same outcry's. People adjusted and moved on.) Whats needed is shown in GeT_RiGhT's response. People need to accept change. The source community are open to change, the 1.6 community clearly are not. If CSGO fails then CS is pretty much dead as 1.6 like Quake has been dropped from almost every major tournament. <3 to Dreamhack for keeping it alive | ||
|
Elektrobear
108 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
And most Source pros were not anything in 1.6. They came from CoD and other games, and when the 1.6 teams switched they demolished them. You can use the Source engine to create a prettier game that plays similar to 1.6, the game that was exponentially more popular amongst both pros and casuals. It's not as if this is SC2 and they're adding new gameplay mechanics, they're just doing their "own take" on them, which the majority of the community doesn't prefer. And it's nothing like BW/SC2 where there was a shift to a more casual game with an easier learning curve - the learning curve is nearly the same for CS:GO and 1.6, the skill ceiling is just lower. If Valve literally recreated 1.6 on the Source engine, with the same ELO and find game systems, I think it would be more popular. Like, I do not see the reason to keep the Source Deagle or gun recoil as they have. You can argue about nade physics and other things, but those two stand out as just being terrible in comparison to 1.6. Why do people have to fade out at distance? The game design is pale as is, an extra level of blue at distance is terrible for players and spectators. | ||
|
LoLAdriankat
United States4307 Posts
On April 01 2012 07:16 CamTSU wrote: I am constantly just baffled at how dota 2's development (mostly thanks to Icefrog), is going so smoothly, they arent messing with the gameplay at all, it's bascially a clone of dota 1, with updated graphics. I wonder how things would've been different if Gooseman was on the dev team for CS:GO instead of making that shitty game he's been working on. | ||
|
tylervoss4
182 Posts
To introduce my background in fps gaming, I just play "good" casually in pubs. aka "pub stomper" CS:GO was all something else. No matter how long I played to get use to the different shooting pattern, and hit boxes, killing someone was by far the most difficult thing I've come across in all fps games. It reminded me of Halo:Reach where you had to kill someone with other teammates and not miss a single shot with this horendous shooting pattern. getting a headshot is more luck based in my opinion now. Even if the crosshair is right ontop of the persons head, it still has quite an accuracy range to hit it where you aim. That's just how I feel after playing 3 days pretty much non stop. CS:S always had this problem, things not hitting when it should. I feel like CS:GO still has the same problem, and should improve its responsiveness like cs 1.6 | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34507 Posts
On April 01 2012 07:16 CamTSU wrote: Unfortunately valve's inability to deliver what the real audience wants (cs 1.6), is going to be the killing blow for the game, in my honest opinion. Let's be real, source brought nothing of value to the table as far as the game's progress as an esport is concerned, they retardedly dumbed down the gameplay, inflated the hitboxes, and were nothing but a cess pool of failed 1.6 players who couldn't hack it in a more competitive game, so they went to source. Nothing about that game is appealing to me. I think that cs:go is going to flop, just like source did, and it's because valve panders to the source players that we have this divide in the community that is like a cancer on our community. The only way to truly bring the game back to life is to simply forget that source ever even existed, just put it out of the development process as some kind of failed 3rd party mod, and listen to lurppis and companys feedback and work hand in hand with them to value the exceptional gameplay that 1.6 had, and destroy the embarassment that was source, once and for all. I am constantly just baffled at how dota 2's development (mostly thanks to Icefrog), is going so smoothly, they arent messing with the gameplay at all, it's bascially a clone of dota 1, with updated graphics. THATS WHAT WE WANT. How can cs:go's development be so drastically different, they know that source failed, so why would they even use it as a model, or its players for feedback? It makes 0 sense. You can't really compare DotA to CS. DotA2 was made to be an exact clone, and the benefits of remaking it were new graphics, a new game engine (so future new heroes etc are possible and not constrained by WC3's aging engine), as well as inbuilt matchmaking etc. Why would CS need that? If you were to make an identical game to CS 1.6 but with updated graphics, that would be all you'd get - upgraded graphics. No one would play it over CS 1.6 as no one would care about it. They NEED to change the game a little to make it interesting and attractive to people. I'm no expert in CS so I cannot comment on source or anything but saying that Valve should simply release a new CS 1.6 doesn't make sense to me. | ||
|
Haggis
Scotland104 Posts
On April 01 2012 08:00 Jibba wrote: The switch from 1.5 to 1.6 was nowhere similar and no one quit. When CGS adopted Source, some people refused to play and the rest were just bought out. Besides a select few like Volcano and Ksharp, everyone else went back to 1.6 when they had the chance. And most Source pros were not anything in 1.6. They came from CoD and other games, and when the 1.6 teams switched they demolished them. You can use the Source engine to create a prettier game that plays similar to 1.6, the game that was exponentially more popular amongst both pros and casuals. It's not as if this is SC2 and they're adding new gameplay mechanics, they're just doing their "own take" on them, which the majority of the community doesn't prefer. And it's nothing like BW/SC2 where there was a shift to a more casual game with an easier learning curve - the learning curve is nearly the same for CS:GO and 1.6, the skill ceiling is just lower. If Valve literally recreated 1.6 on the Source engine, with the same ELO and find game systems, I think it would be more popular. Like, I do not see the reason to keep the Source Deagle or gun recoil as they have. You can argue about nade physics and other things, but those two stand out as just being terrible in comparison to 1.6. This is starting to sound like a post from HLTV.org now so i'll end it here. I don't want to argue about what game is the better e-sport, what teams beat what, what game has the better engine or whatever as we all know what the answer is. When 1.6 switched to 1.5, 1.5 was phased out. There was no alternative option. This was obviously not the same with 1.6 to Source. If Source had been called 1.7 and 1.6 was phased out then a high percentage of people would have switched, adjusted and moved on. Source would have been more of a success. Am sorry but Source players did not come from CoD, that's just sheer ignorance again. - At the time it wouldn't have been a bad thing as call of duty was a respected PC WW2 shooter, with a small competitive scene. It wasn't its current incarnation of mindless 12 year olds on xbox which your trying to imply. Regardless the Majority of source players are people who switched from 1.6, I don't understand why you can't accept that. As much as people want it to be a direct 1.6 clone it simply isn't going to be and its wrong to reject CSGO based on that fact. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
No, a large contingent of CoD2 players like Nightfall and other Hyper guys switched to Source. The only 1.6 players that switched did it during CGS and literally a dozen of them stayed, the rest went back to 1.6. I'm not trying to imply it's anything like MW players. I played in the first CAL CoD 1 inv season. CoD2 was the third biggest FPS when Source came out and that's where it got it's players, since 1.6 didn't switch initially and Quake players hated both types. Of course some 1.6 players switched. No top level 1.6 players switched though, until CGS. The people who played "both games" before then were completely nameless in 1.6. And most of the top Source players today fall in that category. | ||
|
Haggis
Scotland104 Posts
I don't want to argue about what players or teams where the superior breed, All am trying to put across is: CSGO is not going to be a 1.6 clone and its wrong to reject CSGO based on that fact. | ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
They are simply scared shitless to fail again like they did with source so they just sidestep the issue and hand it over to someone else to blame when it goes bad again. I have little faith considering how the game pretty much feels like any other COD title out there. | ||
|
Candadar
2049 Posts
:| | ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
| ||
|
storkfan
493 Posts
On March 31 2012 21:51 Kiante wrote: wow that's kinda dumb. why add extra movement restrictions :S Welcome to Modern CS. They have added more and more movement restrictions with every patch since the early betas. CS was originally a fast paced shooter, a sort of hybrid between quake style and the modern "tactical" slow crawler. well now its fully on the other side.. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
[United States] HoltzmaN Well here is a basic config of some basic CS:GO commands including rates which NEEDS to be set if you want reg. // Buy Commands bind KP_DOWNARROW "buy m4a1; buy ak47" bind KP_ins "buy vesthelm" bind kp_del "buy vest" bind KP_uparrow "buy hegrenade" bind KP_home "buy flashbang" bind KP_pgup "buy smokegrenade" bind KP_leftarrow "BUY DEAGLE" bind kp_pgdn "buy awp" bind kp_enter "buy defuser" bind kp_rightarrow "buy mp7" // These three reposition the gunmodel to mimic css more closely. viewmodel_offset_x "2" viewmodel_offset_y "4" viewmodel_offset_z "-2" // These two removes the shifting of the arm when crouching down. cl_viewmodel_shift_left_amt "0" cl_viewmodel_shift_right_amt "0" // This removes the bobbing of the weapon back and forth, when you run. cl_bob_lower_amt "0" // Rate commands (you do not want 33 lerp... these will help) net_graph "1" cl_interp ".01" cl_interp_ratio "1" cl_cmdrate 102.400002 cl_updaterate 102.400002 rate "30000" // Hud Commands hud_fastswitch "1" hud_scaling "1" hud_showtargetid "1" cl_autowepswitch "0" // Mouse Commands m_rawinput "0" m_mouseaccel1 "0" m_mouseaccel2 "0" // Basic Graphics (take // away to use) sys_vsync "0" //sys_antialiasing "0" //sys_aspectratio "-1" //sys_refldetail "0" http://play.esea.net/index.php?s=forums&d=topic&id=385558 The interp change helps a lot with accuracy. I still don't have confidence in the spray patterns, but you should get a lot more hs after changing interp. Maybe even too much. An issue with the mild movement penalties: the P90 may be the best/most cost effective gun in the game right now, I shit you not. The recoil pattern seems relatively accurate (not nearly as much shaking as 1.6) and there isn't a large penalty for doing it while moving. It shoots quickly and you basically just need a semi-lucky headshot to kill someone, even while moving. At $2350, you can keep buying it + armor as T and still make out ahead after losing. Obviously only tested it in pub 5v5s, but it's easier to score kills with it at short-med range than a Galil and Famas, especially with the large clip. I need a better way of measuring it, but I think it shoots faster than in both 1.6 and CSS. EDIT: I haven't played Source in a while, but I think GO movement is better than what I recall of Source's. It seems like you can jump nearly without a penalty, but I haven't tried bhopping. Maybe even better than 1.6's (just for basic jumping). | ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
SK-gaming streaming some random scrim right now, pay attention to the clarity of the graphics despite the low res shit stream. Gameplay is king. | ||
|
tuho12345
4482 Posts
 I want some FPS games so badly, haven't played any since MW2 on xbox. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On April 02 2012 04:27 Jibba wrote: The interp change helps a lot with accuracy. I still don't have confidence in the spray patterns, but you should get a lot more hs after changing interp. Maybe even too much. i thought valve locked interp settings not too long ago? i always play[ed] with as low interp settings as possible and it very much made css playable. how anyone can play 'stock' css is beyond me, imo. how valve even began to think interp was in any way acceptable in the first place is just mind boggling. | ||
| ||
