Nuke, Militia, Models coming to CS:S

[Scanner]

|azure| wrote..

Bring out some original maps please.

You're aware of this concept of "custom maps"? If not, here's just the first page I tried. I'm sure there's dozens of sites that leap to mind that also host custom maps.



http://www.csbanana.com/?section=viewlist.maps.games.main



Right now, I see 1,962 CS:S maps reportedly available for download at that link. Enjoy.

[ukHazard]

Grimbal wrote..

What's wrong with the hotboxe's?

1. How about the dodge body flying about 2 foot in the air and that's from a Mp5 not Awp!



2. The so called bullet lag.



Could Gladly add more

Please do, as you've named false ones so far.



Bodies flying have more to do with Havok Physics than Hitboxes, and there is no bullet lag unless you use dodgy settings. However those settings I would like to see locked down (though CSP does the job for now).

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Cliffe, I don't know why you bother sometimes, heh. Honestly think many people in this community really have any concept of how much work goes into this stuff? To them HDR is three letters, not a combination of artwork, level design issues, and programming to try to create a subtle but flawless improvement.



I'm glad to see nuke and militia coming to CS:S. Sure, I'll still probably prefer CZ at the end of the day, but it's good to see CS:S get an excellent competitive map, as well as one of my favorite pub maps. It will add a lot to the experience, in my opinion.



Also looking forward to the extra HDR effects, though in CS:S sadly I have to turn graphical details down quite a bit to make sure I don't ever get FPS lag. That's probably part of why I like CZ better... when you're really competitive, "looks" goes out the window in favor of even a few extra FPS. Sadly my 2600+/GF6600GT/1gigDDR400 solution, while decent, really isn't sufficient to have a lot of eye candy in Source games and always be smooth.



As far as guys like Grimbal go, seriously, just ignore their arguments. They're based off of impressions that they cannot substantiate with any visible proof.



If you get an aimbot, lock it onto someone's head (or whatever other part you choose) and make a video for us all of consistant misses across several situations, then your point will be proven. Until such a time as a video like that is released to the public, the argument carries absolutely no weight.



Got complaints about hitboxes? Get crackin' boys. Let's see that video.

[Scanner]

Yeah, the hitboxes used not to line up with the model on the screen at times, but... come on. That was fixed months ago.



I found CS:S to be a blast to play after they worked that bug out. I was disappointed that Valve released it clearly before it was ready in a move solely dictated by marketing ("Thou shalt provide more incentive for people to buy the HL2 engine even if they don't give a hoot about anything but Counter-Strike!"), and I'm still mistrustful of any New! Improved! releases they might put forward because of it. (Present foot, insert bullet.) But even more enticing than the cool eye candy was the lack of hackers--quite refreshing after the suspicion and annoyance that was so common on 1.6.



In fact, I'd probably be playing CS:S full time right now instead of CS1.6 if it weren't for the fact that I only like to play with my brother and his computer is incapable of running CS:S.



In summary, submit your proof (in non-anecdotal form) with the latest software, and then we'll talk. Till then, I'm happily unaware of much of a difference.

[Spliffmonkey]

Hey Grimbal, please do add more... come on, I want to see this..



LoL, you are just a garbage shot, my sadly deluded geek.



Back up your arguments, or the only thing you continue to prove is your ignorance.

[Grimbal]

Edited by [user="5847"] @ [time="1130551679"]

-:Nighthawk:- wrote..

As far as guys like Grimbal go, seriously, just ignore their arguments. They're based off of impressions that they cannot substantiate with any visible proof.

Abit uncalled for but none the less.



Right Nighthawk you inply that my comment toward's Cliffe were aimed at just him, When the fact of the matter is i was talking to the Company Valve seen as they run things now right.. and he is a Valve employee for them right.. get what i mean. Ok back to the the reason i am posting. Ah right the hitboxe's ok.



(Take this for instance as just 1 example)

If there is nothing wrong with the hitboxe's how can you shoot someone in the head with a Eagle,Mp5,Mac10 etc and it give'a you a 1 shot headshot 100 in 1 hit not everytime but i tend to be seeing it alot of the time, Yet sometimes when you are using Colt,Ak-47,Aug a more powerful weapon you recieve 89 in 1 hit, You end up dead you check the guy from your 3rd person view notice you hit the guy in the clear visor of his goggle's, Yet this shot did not register as a headshot how can this be?



More power pack's more of a punch i would say.



So your telling me a piece of glass is more bullet proof than the actual helmet you buy?



I can asure you that you will be sadly mistaken..



So if this isn't a problem with the consistency of the hitboxe's registering wrong then i would like to see what is...



As for you Spliffmonkey

Spliffmonkey wrote..

Hey Grimbal, please do add more... come on, I want to see this..



LoL, you are just a garbage shot, my sadly deluded geek.



Back up your arguments, or the only thing you continue to prove is your ignorance.

Im not being ignorant, I do have a job and I do have a life outside of CS:S after all don't we all and for your proof check up above it's all there for you to read. Im sure a number of people will agree with me...

Grimbal

[Scanner]

Grimbal, I would direct you to the research done by these fellows:



http://keepitreal.nuclearfallout.net/We...ide/index.htm



Some of the work they've done should answer your questions about just how much power each weapon has in comparsion to the others in terms of shots to the head with/without helmet or vest or whatever. They've got what appear to be pretty exact numbers. The quantities that are arbitrary are explained in their FAQ.



Check it out. It might help you some.

[Spliffmonkey]

Grimbal, look up proof in the dictionary!



You've obviously lost the meaning along the lines somewhere.



Subjecture, false statements, plus your own flawed opinions, does not constitute proof.

[Grimbal]

Edited by [user="5847"] @ [time="1130612369"]

So your saying there isn't a inconsistency of hitboxes?, Your a joke



Woo look at this



M4A1 (5.56x45mm NATO)

··Base Damage Head: 131



Mp5-Navy (9mm)

··Base Damage Head: 103

[Spliffmonkey]

Nope, you still haven't grasped the 'proof' concept...



/sigh



Believe what you want you ignoramus.



"ignoramus

n : an ignorant person [syn: know nothing, uneducated person]"



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=10&q=ignoramus

[Grimbal]

Says you shouldn't that be a ignorant person..., yet im not ignorant there is a great fact to this, You don't even know me. And the proof concept is how many people complain about the way the hitboxes are, then how many people give postive feedback about them, i think the negative's response's more than triple that of the postive. Dont really need proof when you play the game thats the proof...