CSPromod Map Pack Released

[Scanner]

DevgruSeal H.E wrote..

VALVe...changed line of sight, and flooded the maps with useless props that push you backwards.

Gosh, it'd be a shame if the game were made harder in some way. Haven't "pro" gamers been bitching for years since 1.3 that the game was being made too easy?

DevgruSeal H.E wrote..

I'd like to see some classic maps like siege, backalley, vegas, etc, in the pro mod. Yeah, they aren't "Pro" but they should belong on the pro-mod engine

Your maps have been declined, because they are too unusual, quirky, or otherwise enjoyable to play. Only maps with routes and strategies that have been baked in over the course of years, and can be ported to the ProMod engine so that they no longer have slight tweaks to any part of the map or shadows to hide in or props that might trip you up, or any other modifications in general that might make teams think can be used. Have a nice day.

[entRo]

The line of sight and geometry changes I really don't care about, but honestly, if Valve won't fix the physics props, get them the fuck off the map.

[FlyingMongoose]

I agree: Source quality textures (and some shadows), but 1.6 gameplay will make these maps (and CS Pro Mod) thrive amongst BOTH sides of the arguments.

[Thortok2000]

I like maps that require stealth and tactics instead of pure 'strategy'.



I like maps where it is actually useful to walk, instead of running everywhere being the better option.



Backalley's still my favorite.

[Mofio]

Pros should be able to play different maps.

I think some ppl just use excuses when they loose. IT WAS THE DAMNED MAP..ITS NOT LIKE ITS ALWAYS BEEN...DAMNED I HAVE TO LEARN SOMETHING NEW.



When u compete u play on both sides, have the same opporunity to win..but then again if u meet a good team that has practised then u eat nades and see flash.



Even the old communists arent as conservative as some CS players.

[entRo]

That's probably because communists weren't/aren't conservative.

[Mofio]

Oh no?

Think the trabant looked the same for 30 years...

[DaRk-AnGeL]

Mofio wrote..

Pros should be able to play different maps.

I think some ppl just use excuses when they loose. IT WAS THE DAMNED MAP..ITS NOT LIKE ITS ALWAYS BEEN...DAMNED I HAVE TO LEARN SOMETHING NEW.



When u compete u play on both sides, have the same opporunity to win..but then again if u meet a good team that has practised then u eat nades and see flash.



Even the old communists arent as conservative as some CS players.

The issue in question is the fact that CS:Source maps contain so much unneccessary geometry, that it actually diminishes the gameplay experience for a huge amount of people. Take the barrels for example....



Any team can adapt to the crazily designed tunnel entrances of dust2, but when you take 10 or 20 of these idiotic design flaws together, the game becomes a nightmare to play. It isn't fun, and for what the CS franchise is seen and used as, it certainly isn't well designed.....

[BUveed]

Scanner wrote..

Gosh, it'd be a shame if the game were made harder in some way. Haven't "pro" gamers been bitching for years since 1.3 that the game was being made too easy?

No. They've been bitching since beta 5.2 was over.

[Scanner]

DaRk-AnGeL wrote..

Any team can adapt to the crazily designed tunnel entrances of dust2, but when you take 10 or 20 of these idiotic design flaws together, the game becomes a nightmare to play. It isn't fun, and for what the CS franchise is seen and used as, it certainly isn't well designed.....

Perhaps quirks and strange geometries are a closer approximation to real life situations? I think we can all agree that the Source engine was an effort to allow greater realism (at least in terms of the presentation). Personally, I'd be astonished if I walked into a random public area to find it had been previously designed with a gunfight in mind. Who designs a railway yard or an office building thinking, "oh crap, we can't leave this desk here... not only is it a fire hazard but it will present an unwanted obstacle to the SWAT team if they need to be called"?



Please don't assume that "less realism = fun" for everyone.



--Scanner

[Hutz]

Edited by [user="311268"] @ [time="1169607542"]

Sorry you need to do more than make a 1.6 reskin in order to Source-ify a map.



The ideals of CSP were to make a game Source AND 1.6 players would want to play, plus a game that spectators would be willing to watch. These maps show that the mod authors are simply Source-haters who want their game to look nicer for themselves but don't care what anybody else thinks.



If you want to keep 1.6 gameplay, fine, make a bunch of nice, stylistic 1.6 remakes like have been done with competitive maps (mill, fire, the latest verison of strike). Those maps definitely feature Source-level detail (especially fire and the version of strike being released soon), and they run spectacularly compared to Valve and Turtle Rock's efforts. Plus they don't feature annoying trash/barrels in places where players normally walk.



But even those maps don't feature every last trick that 1.6 had. Some are gone, and some new ones have taken their place. Live with it. If you need to preserve every last detail so badly that you can't add a polygon of extra detail to the maps, well maybe porting to the Source engine is a bad idea.



An additional thought: they don't want the community making their own screenshots because those particular angles show the most amount of detail in those maps. Any other part of the map is going to look pretty barren (not that the released screenshots are that impressive to begin with).

[kalabalana]

Look. The fact of the matter is, source is nub, it was designed for nubs, nubs love it, and a lot of people are forced to play it now because that's where the money and some of the top players are. It's not a skill game like 1.6, and this is seen in source's overly steep and small learning curve.



BUT all the new players to cs (3 and less years of play) don't like getting their asses handed to them, so they play source, and will complain and whine when other people tell them cs source is simply 1.6 nubbed down to the extreme.

[Scanner]

kalabalana wrote..

It's not a skill game like 1.6, and this is seen in source's overly steep and small learning curve.

I think you mean gradual, not steep. Steep would imply great difficulty in getting good at CS:S, whereas gradual and short would imply it is easy and quick to get good at CS:S. Let's hope the rest of your argument has been thought out better...

kalabalana wrote..

BUT all the new players to cs (3 and less years of play) don't like getting their asses handed to them, so they play source, and will complain and whine when other people tell them cs source is simply 1.6 nubbed down to the extreme.

Well, so much for that theory. Are you serious? Or just trying to troll? I've played since retail 1.0, and actually had a difficult time when I started out with CS:S. In the end, I don't know that either is easier than the other, they're just a different skillset. On the whole, I'd actually be tempted to say that CS:Source is harder than 1.6. For a brief time that I went back to 1.6 because my brother's computer couldn't handle Source and he started playing 1.6 again, it was amazingly easy.



I'll just assume that you either a) don't know what you're talking about, or b) are trying intentionally to start a fight.

[peagle]

kalabalana wrote..

it was designed for nubs

Site source please.



Personally I feel that if you are a skilled player, you'll prove it by outplaying and scoring in Source. If anything, being "nubbed down" makes it more of a challenge.