Outlook: Not so Good

[DevgruSeal H.E]

It often changed mine to bad rates.

[ioCS,undertaker]

In my opinion, yes CS: Source is way different. But they changed it in the wrong way. They should have done killing people harder, not easier. They shouldn't have made bigger models. They should have focused on game play and fun much more than visuals.



Balance between simplycity and having enough space to let people advance is very important. A multiplayer game should be easy enough to let newbies adapt, and hard enough to let experinced players always keep advancing. CS 1.6 was already easy enough, especially for being played for that much time. Even the newbies know every single trick on every single map. And shooting was not hard at all. After beta versions of CS, killing enemies kept getting easier and easier with new versions coming. Now it's at its maximum with CS:S. I think it can't be more asy than this for a multiplayer FPS.



About map voting, I feel the same with MikeJ. I always miss the old days when no map voting was present. But there still are some servers that people don't vote and just play the mapcycle. It just needs some little effort of trying diffrent servers.

[Thortok2000]

Zips wrote..

It's not as easy as everyone thinks to get answers from Valve. I've tried for two seperate interviews in the past. One on VAC that went unanswered due to the nature of the questions, and one general interview that also went un-answered.

On the contrary, I don't think it's easy, I think it's impossible. I don't think Valve GIVES interviews, leastways not on what the players want to actually know.

[Deletable_Man]

The only reason I find myself playing 1.6 rather than Source the few times I play CS anymore is this: Source feels slower. It could be the physics; it could be the actual movement speed... I have no idea. It could be a combination of things. The point is, it FEELS slower to me, and I don't like that. I like fast games in the first place. I play Quake 3 rather than UT, for example. So when Source comes out and I just feel like they've taken an average-speed game and slown it down even a little bit, I'd rather play 1.6. Actually, I'd rather play CZ (ignore the singleplayer), but it doesn't get supported well enough.

[Scanner]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Professional gamers will always gripe about changes regardless of merit, because it threatens the livelihood they've trained for. They cannot stand the thought of migrating to CS:Source not because it's different in a bad way, but because it's different, period. Imagine if the Tour de France changed from a cycling race to a distance running competition, and you're Lance Armstrong wanting to break the record--you'd be reluctant to participate.



Most of the technical and gameplay arguments put forth by competitive 1.6 players are just a veil to disguise that reluctance, and persuade the big competitions to retain their game of choice instead of moving on to something fresh and new.



(Yes, I'm including DWP in that blanket dismissal because it fits the argument. It's a minor change that affects what you can buy the first couple of rounds from week to week, but has no relevance with player positioning, communication, and planned group reactions to events.)



Oh, the irony! Public server admins having greater influence on the success of CS:S than competitive gamers. Zips is spot on with that one: If the greater percentage of Valve's bread and butter have few servers to play on, the game will indeed die. If you think Zips is wrong, and point to those graphical comparisons of the ratios of CS 1.6 players to CS:S players, then I merely ask you to create a second graph of Valve's income from CS1.6 versus CS:S. I've had much enjoyment on both games, but it neither saddens me nor surprises me that CS:S sees more development than 1.6. With capitalism and competitive criticism both enforcing a static state on 1.6, you shouldn't be surprised either.

[m4elite]

Zips wrote..

I don't mind DWP. I really don't mind any changes. Why? Because I'm not really a die-hard fanatic that can't adjust to change. I'm not in some league. I play for fun.

You are right, league players don't play leagues for fun. Ever.

[xbiox]

well boo hoo. just because valve wants to take a certain aspect of the game to another level people start complaining. if you dont like it, dont play it. Heck if i had it my way, everyone would be playing TFC still and waiting for CS to come out.



play the damn game and shut up..

[DevgruSeal H.E]

xbiox wrote..

well boo hoo. just because valve wants to take a certain aspect of the game to another level people start complaining. if you dont like it, dont play it. Heck if i had it my way, everyone would be playing TFC still and waiting for CS to come out.



play the damn game and shut up..

I love your debating skills. -_-

[Ryosuke T]

Edited by [user="216545"] @ [time="1163834364"]

I myself will never like Source even if its the same level of quality as 1.6. I just can't seem to find it fun.



I agree with a previous post about making a CS 1.6: Source. Source has TOO MUCH changes. I'm not talking about graphics and etc. But the maps are just out of its way. So much more gimmicks and etc for example de_inferno. Why did Valve made such a drastic change?



I prefer plain and simple. 1.6 definitely dominate in the art of gameplay. I don't think I will ever ever enjoy Source.



If Valve were to make a stupid move and mess with 1.6 the way is now, Valve can just say goodbye.

[FlyingMongoose]

Deletable_Man wrote..

The only reason I find myself playing 1.6 rather than Source the few times I play CS anymore is this: Source feels slower. It could be the physics; it could be the actual movement speed... I have no idea. It could be a combination of things. The point is, it FEELS slower to me, and I don't like that. I like fast games in the first place. I play Quake 3 rather than UT, for example. So when Source comes out and I just feel like they've taken an average-speed game and slown it down even a little bit, I'd rather play 1.6. Actually, I'd rather play CZ (ignore the singleplayer), but it doesn't get supported well enough.

Counter-Strike, in general is suppose to be "slower" it is not meant to be anything but Counter-Strike, or Counter-Strike: Source (independently).



The way the style of play is established is significantly different, AND slower than that of UT or Quake, so comparing the games is not a valid argument, because they are not the same game. You can compare UT and Quake and argue that they are very similar in nature, you can even argue that about Warsow, Quake, and UT, but Counter-Strike is not meant to be played like any of those games.

[Mofio]

Scanner..u make a good point!



Perhaps if they allow bullets to go through stonewalls and grenades damaging regardless of protection, perhaps then they will like CSS more.

(ironi on).

[Splatula]

Really... the dynamic weapons pricing is easily turned off serverside. You can't whine about a feature that you don't have to live with. Just go to a server that doesn't use the dynamic pricing. Sheesh.



As for blocking server admins from executing commands on my client... I'm all for that, when you consider the number of admins that abuse their so called "power." (9one1 of NYCFF anyone?) One major peeve of mine was heading to servers where they would change my rates all over the place. I understand some people abuse the rates, but a lot of people spend hours pouring over their configs to get the rates "Just Right" and server admins thinking that their particular rates are the best is plain ridiculous. Yes my config is read only, but when you join a server it will change them regardless, and you'll be in game a good 10 minutes before you realize, "Oh crap, I'm lagging out because the assholes changed my rate?" It means all the difference between playable servers and non-playable ones. This way I won't even get to the server if they have enforcable rates, it will just give me an error, and I can help leave that server empty.



Shutting off some of the craptastic sounds wouldn't be bad either. The mod programmers will be able to work with this command to give server admins decent access to the things they actually need... no server admin needs to change a players name to asspocket.

[FlyingMongoose]

You know what, here's the list of things that, since I started playing CS, people have "hated" that have changed.



1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 they tweaked some accuracies with some of the weapons and messed around with some of the hitboxes to make them so they would "WORK BETTER", isn't it ironic that these IMPROVEMENTS were hated?



1.4 removed the ability to "bunny hop".



I remember the possibility of an all out run ak spray bunny hop and not being able to get hit easily but having insane accuracy w/ the AK.



The radar changes in source, the dynamic weapon pricing.



For a while (and this is often suggested as a plugin nowadays), valve tried for "area hearing" when people used their voice chat, in other words, if you were within a certain area you could hear your opponents voice chat. It ended up being hated more than anything of that time and it was really buggy, sometimes being able to hear your opponents all the way at their spawn, as well as the concern about some maps w/ spawns that, while blocked from each other were nearby.



People bitched when "quick scoping" and "quick switching" was fixed, but honestly, I still see it done.



People bitched the last time they messed around with the order of weapons, they re-organized the weapons to base it on their prices and removed gaps.



This one's my favorite, for a very long time the auto-snipers were completely worthless, and people had called to either remove or improve them, they improved them and now people bitch because they're "too good".



So...what should we do?

Go back to the bunny hopping, insanely accurate weapons, and insanely inaccurate weapons, horrible health systems, ungodly head shots, bug filled flash bangs, exploit filled days of CS?



In my experience working in tech support, you hear, constantly, "We should go back to this old system, it was so much better." Most of these people forgot why they wanted to change it in the first place, and the majority of the time if you go back to that "old system" they hate it.



So do you people really want to go back to that? Because I honestly don't. I look forward to change, it's why I'm a huge fan of custom maps. It's why I love the changes in the game so far, because when I go to work, day in and day out, I deal with the same stuff, all the time, yes it's the same game when I come home, but I like to do something different now and again, and if I can do that within the game I know and love, all the better.

[Thortok2000]

Valve needs to improve its improving skills.



Things such as warning, discussion, reasoning, and consumer relations. Let the consumers know you hear them, and give reasons why you're doing what you're doing in spite of it not being liked.



I'm all for improving, but Valve just sucks at it. They get the ideas right, but the implementation and coordination all wrong.

[FlyingMongoose]

Yes, they do have trouble with implementation, but often times you cannot truly test the full extent of the possibilities of problems and whatnot while still in beta phases. Steam itself when it was first released people hated it, but if you look at it from the right standpoint, the concept is sound, and the idea is good. Seriously, never having to go sifting through the download sites, looking for good fast download mirrors that don't have lines, etc. etc. You can't tell me it wasn't as annoying as hell. Steam as a whole is a good idea, it was just implemented poorly on it's initial release. But I was in the beta, and during that beta phase, it was working quite well. Like I said, you cannot do full testing until released to the full public. This is also one of the reasons I will not be getting an Xbox 360 as it was rushed to the shelves to be first and is not as good as it's hype. The PS3 is still in it's first edition so there still could be problems so I'm not buying that yet, and the same thing will go for the Wii, I don't buy the first edition consoles of the next-gen because they might have problems, and the 360, had it's problems, most are fixed now. the PS3 will have it's problems as well. And same w/ the Wii.



Until fully released to the public, you cannot do a lot of valid testing on new ideas, software, and concepts. The dynamic weapon pricing, IMO, is a good idea, but as stated many a time, it's poorly implemented for the mass scale of the CS community.



I think one of the few "fixed" implementations that they did right the first time through is exactly the one I found the most entertaining in my previous post. the auto-sniper stuff. They basically made them worth their money.



I still think the anti-bunny-hop system they implemented isn't very good, it doesn't always work either. i prefer stamina-based anti-bunny hops systems. they're more reliable.



The anti-quickswitch/quickscope stuff still can be worked around.



And the biggest baddest that everyone's avoiding talking about is: VAC STILL DOESN'T WORK RIGHT.

Allow me to elaborate on VAC, it does actually detect (most) hacks, but detection isn't the only thing that I (as a server administrator) want. I want prevention, it's why I was always a fan of cheating-death. It works/worked well. Why? Because it prevented hooking in the first place, the most common method of hacks being 'injected' into the game. It didn't detect, just didn't allow it to happen at all. VAC still doesn't do this, and I REALLY think it should. Plus, their "delayed banning" I think is just a method to run up their numbers: "VAC banned so many people this banning period", but it doesn't say how many of these people were running hacks that were known as being detected, it doesn't say how many of these people were using what kinds of hacks. Or when they were banned, some of these hackers could still be around in the secure servers for months before they're actually banned. I want results now in that sense.