mailbag: cs = 3

[Eagle25]

could i be told why so many ppl say CZ AND CS2 ffs there both the same, counter-strike: condition-zero.

[.nap]

Eagle25 wrote..

could i be told why so many ppl say CZ AND CS2 ffs there both the same, counter-strike: condition-zero.

CS2? CS2 isn't the same as C:CZ.

[The Who?]

j|t wrote..

CS2? CS2 isn't the same as C:CZ.

no. If im not mistaken, CZ is still based on a tweaked halflife engine while cs2 will be on a brand new state o the art engine.

[reverse]

where does rizzuh post the new mailbag topics? i cant seem to find them and therefore cannot submit anything.



odd.



» r3v

[mouth]

Z3U5d90d wrote..Guidelines are set by THE MAN for it is him who controls us. Baaaaaaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaaa

Christ, what a load.

[Dr Delinquent]

GonePostal wrote..

If the center of the crosshair is not definate, you will probably not be able to accurately center the target in the area of randomness.

I assume that by this you mean to say that when the crosshair is fully expanded, the center is not as definite as when it is fully contracted. I've got news for you, buddy: many people find interpolation between four points in order to find a point equally distant from all of them not all that difficult.



Another thing to consider: recoil. Take the AK-47. Hold down the trigger. Where do the bullets end up hitting? Above the crosshair. If you were to use that little diagrammatical example posted above, you would be more likely to hit your target in the example with the crosshair expanded than the one with the crosshair contracted. You're failing to take into account the fact that the center of the crosshair does not necessarily represent the center of the aiming cone.



If I were to have my way with the accuracy, I would design a system such that whether or not a headshot is allowed on a particular bullet fired is inversely relative to the distance of your target. So say you had a target 50m away - say about the distance from the gallery to the bombsite, across the water in aztec. At this range and above, you would be able to get headshots with an AK-47 or colt only when stationary and only on the first bullet of a burst. By the "first bullet of a burst" I mean the first bullet after the level of accuracy has returned to its optimum state. At 25m, you might not be able to get a headshot after the third bullet - or however many bullets were deemed the amount after which random inaccuracy became a greater factor in the placement of your shots than the location of your crosshair. With SMGs, you would simply not be able to get headshots at distances greater than some value. Why? Because in CS as it stands, the first AK or colt bullet of a burst - using the definition above, and while stationary - almost invariably hits the exact center of the crosshair; the aiming cone is very narrow. After the first bullet at ranges greater than 50m, you cannot expect to hit where your crosshair is pointing. With SMGs, you can never rely on hitting the exact center of your crosshair. Get the idea?



I wouldn't care if it was "stupid" or "unrealistic" - as it would certainly be accused of being - that you could never hit someone in the head unless you explicity aimed at it; or that even if you were aiming directly at it, you couldn't hit a head if the random accuracy coded into the game happened to land a shot dead in the center of the aiming cone. It would mean that at long last, headshots were deserved.

[narby]

Why is this being debated? If you don't like dynamic crosshair just turn it off

[Dr Delinquent]

Edited by [user="2592"] @ [time="1024851486"]

The conversation, if you could call it that, has progressed from an argument over 1.4's dynamic crosshair, to one over the expanding crosshair in general, to wild or otherwise speculation and suggestion regarding CS' accuracy system. Get with the times! :P

[GonePostal]

If you just took a 5 shot burst with the AK, and now the crosshairs are slowly shrinking, this is the time the diagram is set in. The random cloud is set around the crosshair, there is no more recoil, but still the cloud is rather large. If you took a shot at this time, the 1st bullet would not be very accurate and would fall anywhere in that cloud. To make matters worse, it is more difficult to center the target in the cloud to increase your chances as much as possible that your target will be hit by the 1st shot. Get my drift?

[narby]

oh ya sorry.

[mouth]

Dr Delinquent wrote..

The conversation, if you could call it that, has progressed from an argument over 1.4's dynamic crosshair, to one over the expanding crosshair in general, to wild or otherwise speculation and suggestion regarding CS' accuracy system. Get with the times! :P

It went from a followup for the mailbag to "Rze is a fascist". cl_dynamiccrosshair never had much to do with it at all.

[Unregistered]

its funny how when i fire the ak full auto i get more headshots then firing in bursts or single fire... umm interesting?

[rizzuh]

Edited by [user="2065"] @ [time="1024854691"]

Spoonman wrote..

So people who actually, accurately aimed for the head at long range should score a headshot. However those who went full auto at long range would have almost no chance of scoring a headshot.

You quoted two unrelated parts. The entire recoil system of CS is screwed, scoring headshots is almost always a luck of the draw situation when you're at any significant distance. What should happen in real life with aim cannot justify a headshot that comes from an aiming system that has nothing to do with real life and is largely arbitrary.



If I didn't take the comments system seriously I would not have coded it. I do not censor or ban people based on their viewpoints (the exception would be people who work here, whom are not allowed to say anything bad about the site for obvious reasons).

[spiffman]

if any of you know me from the cpl forums, you also know that the post that follows these words will probably be lengthy. i'm going to open notepad, type it out, then paste:



pastey!!!!



I, personally, have been around CS since a friend gave me a burn of it at school and a copy of Half-Life. I bought Half-Life a month later and started playing cs at beta 2. I remember so many changes and mishappen bugs along the way that I couldn't tell you which change came from what, but merely that it changed (remember planting the bomb anywhere? now THAT was cool). ...and I guess that's my disclaimer.



Basing arguments on an idea of whether or not something was good or bad for the game is shaky to begin with. Jumping, knifing damage, awp accuracy, gun prices, whatever it is, it seems like there is always someone to complain, and after a month, they're voice fades away to the same world as every left sock I ever put into the dryer. We don't hear you anymore. It's become so overtly repetitive that I wouldn't doubt that some people might almost quit the game simply because of the consistency that comes with the whining instead of the changes! Either that or stay out of the light completely and just play. Never visit a site, act like it's a game and you're not trying to change anything. I guess that's what you should be doing because if you haven't gotten the point by now, THEY DONT LISTEN. And just to keep with the consistency that you demonstrate in reminding us that you hate the changes after every single patch... I'm not listening either.



Now, if you're stopping reading because I'm ranting, congradulations, get off the train. Be wary, however, it's already doing 80mph.



First I'd like to address the crosshair thing. I'm a deathmatch and RTS player at heart. CS is almost to that point, but having never (or rarely) been accepted into the community, it feels hard to get the same sort of emotional drama and attachment no matter what skill level I could compete at. I used to play StarCraft and Quake competitively, and I was a big name in both of them (not huge, but at least people knew me). The point, though, is that those games weren't based on randomness. Now I really don't think that it is fair to say that CS entirely is random, but it allows for some completely new player to pull off a headshot with a TMP while falling 40ft and still claim the game is striving for any degree of realism. No. That's it. No. So the crosshair thing really comes down to this. You can in fact make your shots better, even if they are random, simply by keeping the crosshair close.



Imagine a circle around your crosshair, constantly expanding and contracting to match the area in relation to where you are pointing where the next shot may possibly hit. This allows us to see that the shots are following at least two rules: 1. Go in the direction the person is pointing. 2. Expand or contract the actual place being hit by each bullet based on the players movements and previous number of consecutive shots. More importantly, keeping this circle on the player that you are attacking seems to increase your chances, while keeping the player only partially covered with said circle (say, aiming just off to the right) decreases the target's ratio to the size of the circle (especially if you're spraying, which is all too common anymore). Somewhat suprisingly, the bullets almost seem to purposely miss the place that you are pointing at, but move your view to immitate recoil at the same time. This makes our circle more of a doughnut, and moves our aim every time a round exits the weapon.



With that said, there is still aim involved, but it isn't deathmatch aim. In a deathmatch, aiming for the head isn't always as important, but aiming in general is. The fact that it is much LESS realistic in a game like Quake or Unreal Tournament means that the level of skill (or TYPE of skill) can be changed from teamplay and coordination to sheer skill per player in ability to move fluently and aim and fire rapidly. All at the same time, no less.



For this reason, let's not put them on the same level, but make sure we recognize that you can't put the games on the same playing field and expect to have a discussion that makes anyone happy. But that really does illustrate our differences in beliefs about aim vs hit. If you want one type of game, go there. If you want randomness to play a role, come here.



The community is a totally different thing now as well. In Counter-Strike, it used to be a simple fad and it was all but going to pass. The old CSNATION (I mean, the OLD one w/ the CS FONT all over and the yellow and... yeah) was cool. It was what I'd start my day with (just after starcraft.org and stomped) and it was the hub for a community to form. Eventually the "DOMAINOFPAIN" grew up and blew up and changed its name and went from news to eSports news and... whatever the case, we're left now with a community with too many people, and too many opinions. It's hard getting anywhere in a community, and I'm betting that no matter how many people are playing, there are still hundreds of guys (or girls?) out there that wish they could make a name for themselves in Counter-Strike. I used to be one of those, but I was brought up by someone who really took me in and was given a chance and now I'm worth half a crap when I talk (unless you really don't care, it is up to you, after all, reader).



All I really want this to say is that we're all part of a new game that won't die and we're all talking (CONSTANTLY for some of you). I really don't know where this community is going, but I know where I'd like it to be and I know that all I can do is push it that way. Bear with me and wish CS a happy birthday as our game, and a congradulatory birth as a competitive sport.

[-Aragorn]

PS: just like i want our rze to live forever. :P

Psshh, both me and you know that there are a thousand little rizzuh's out there willing to take his place :-/