Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Captain Kidd

We were saying that 5v5 is the only way to play 'competitive' cs. You were now talking about non competitive. I agree that pub 10v10 is fine, but not for competitive play.

The discussion isnt really on the best mode though, but on whether moving from CS1.6/CSS - where you can play with anywhere up to 32 players, including 5v5 - to a limit of 10 players (if ive understood this correctly) is a good thing. Its kind of indicated by your wording 'were now' - its were really, isnt it? I and others were talking about non competitive as well as competitive when a poster interjected solely to point out competitive means 5v5 - restricting the subject matter more than I think we should

It seems pretty hard to argue that making 5v5 play the only option is going to improve the game when - even if 5v5 is the only way to play competitive (which i wouldnt know about, im a 'pug') - the 16, 20 and even 32 player options were so popular.

Its not just a game for competition - its supposed to be enjoyable for the average player and i just dont think itll look like a step forward with smaller servers, maps and infinite ammo


Its kind of the same thing on differentiating terrorists and CT's, including with guns. It might just be rose tinted glasses but i swear the early betas had a larger differentiation between CT's and T's then CS1.6 and CSS. Closing the gap - by making the guns behave similarly and giving equal equipment - is good for competition, but imho differentiation and map design can be used to good effect to make CT's feel more 'special forces' than T's.

In thinking 'tactical' i think of maps like assault - im the kind of player that liked the more 'tactical' feel in the early betas (although i dont think assault was in them) and feel the game works when doing the smart thing - like holding the building if you are T's and sneaking in and feighning assaults if you are CT's - actually brings some advantage and that it doesnt really work if T's run out of the building in assault all the time to harrass the CT's. The way i see it, CS is not about competitive play in the first place - its about a semi realistic portrayal of real world combat with addictive and balanced maps, respawn and game modes.

Imho a lot of 'competitive' players get so good that the game pretty much breaks - it becomes a series of headshots rather then a tactical shooter. Maybe it wouldnt be good for competition, but bringing back a more 'tactical' feel would, imho, revive some of the old CS magic - then again, maybe its just rose tint

[Captain Kidd]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

The discussion isnt really on the best mode though, but on whether moving from CS1.6/CSS - where you can play with anywhere up to 32 players, including 5v5 - to a limit of 10 players (if ive understood this correctly) is a good thing. Its kind of indicated by your wording 'were now' - its were really, isnt it? I and others were talking about non competitive as well as competitive when a poster interjected solely to point out competitive means 5v5 - restricting the subject matter more than I think we should

It seems pretty hard to argue that making 5v5 play the only option is going to improve the game when - even if 5v5 is the only way to play competitive (which i wouldnt know about, im a 'pug') - the 16, 20 and even 32 player options were so popular.

Its not just a game for competition - its supposed to be enjoyable for the average player and i just dont think itll look like a step forward with smaller servers, maps and infinite ammo


Its kind of the same thing on differentiating terrorists and CT's, including with guns. It might just be rose tinted glasses but i swear the early betas had a larger differentiation between CT's and T's then CS1.6 and CSS. Closing the gap - by making the guns behave similarly and giving equal equipment - is good for competition, but imho differentiation and map design can be used to good effect to make CT's feel more 'special forces' than T's.

In thinking 'tactical' i think of maps like assault - im the kind of player that liked the more 'tactical' feel in the early betas (although i dont think assault was in them) and feel the game works when doing the smart thing - like holding the building if you are T's and sneaking in and feighning assaults if you are CT's - actually brings some advantage and that it doesnt really work if T's run out of the building in assault all the time to harrass the CT's. The way i see it, CS is not about competitive play in the first place - its about a semi realistic portrayal of real world combat with addictive and balanced maps, respawn and game modes.

Imho a lot of 'competitive' players get so good that the game pretty much breaks - it becomes a series of headshots rather then a tactical shooter. Maybe it wouldnt be good for competition, but bringing back a more 'tactical' feel would, imho, revive some of the old CS magic - then again, maybe its just rose tint

All i am saying is that we were just talking about competitive, so please don't interpret that as wanting 5v5 as the only mode. I am fine with other modes i.e 15v15 but as long as 5v5 remains an option. I disagree on your point about competitive players getting so good that the game breaks. The game then gets more tactical (i.e how your team co-operates and your strats) instead of your typical pub situation of the two teams rushing each other and on meeting each other having a spray to the death.

Have you ever seen top level netball? That's when the game breaks from players getting too good.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Captain Kidd

All i am saying is that we were just talking about competitive, so please don't interpret that as wanting 5v5 as the only mode. I am fine with other modes i.e 15v15 but as long as 5v5 remains an option.

Dont take this the wrong way, but actually, that was off topic and what you responded to was never under discussion. Let me quote the grand total of 2 posts that focussed on whether competitive play should be 5v5;

Originally Posted by Nashkell

5v5 is the only way to play competitive cs.

Originally Posted by Captain Kidd

Playing a map on a pug server with 20 players is not competitive. I agree 5v5 is the only way to play competitive counter-strike.

Neither of these was on topic. Before that the discussion was squarely on whether 32 player servers were worthwhile (ie public servers) and whether the game would in fact limit public servers to 5v5. There was no question that professional/ranked play would support 5v5 - and no discussion on the topic either. Your next response;

Originally Posted by Captain Kidd

We were saying that 5v5 is the only way to play 'competitive' cs. You were now talking about non competitive. I agree that pub 10v10 is fine, but not for competitive play.

The operative word is WERE not 'now' - we WERE talking about non competitive play because what should be the norm for competitive was NEVER the topic.


The discussion on the last few pages began because there was uncertainty about whether public servers would be more than 5v5 and some people then started arguing about 32 player servers (whether they should be considered the 'norm' for public play or whether they are worthwhile at all). It roughly began with this post back on page 5

Originally Posted by DUO

i dunno - it wasnt clear from the vid (mind u i was a little tipsy when i watched it last night)

they're going to have 2 ladders - single ranked and 5v5 ranked.
they're making the maps smaller: eg nuke - ramps and under all gone, train down to one bomb site
they're focusing more on strat and teamwork.

so im not sure if they're going to have the 32player servers. i think we may get 5v5 pugs based on single rankings ?

As far as ive seen, theres been no concrete statement on how many players public servers will support. Im not sure they are heading in the right direction with reduced bombsites, less players and unlimited ammo.

Originally Posted by Captain Kidd

I disagree on your point about competitive players getting so good that the game breaks. The game then gets more tactical (i.e how your team co-operates and your strats) instead of your typical pub situation of the two teams rushing each other and on meeting each other having a spray to the death.

Have you ever seen top level netball? That's when the game breaks from players getting too good.

'Tactical' has a different meaning to you and me. To you it means 'tactical' in the sense that tactics are required more than on a public server, which is absolutely true. But what i meant by 'tactical' was in the sense of 'tactical shooter' - ie, REAL WORLD tactics of Close Quarters Battle, anti terrorism operations and generally how to behave where you are being shot at by guns.

Imho those 'real world' tactics have little to no value once you get to upper level play, but CS was originally designed to be a semi realistic 'tactical shooter'. Thats why i reckon the game 'breaks' - it no longer requires real world tactics. To be fair, this happens on pub servers probably just as much anyway - but back in the betas, people used to be more careful and tactical in how they played.

And no, i have never seen ultra competitive netball (but i bet i know why you watch it!)

[Captain Kidd]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

Dont take this the wrong way, but actually, that was off topic and what you responded to was never under discussion. Let me quote the grand total of 2 posts that focussed on whether competitive play should be 5v5;


Neither of these was on topic. Before that the discussion was squarely on whether 32 player servers were worthwhile (ie public servers) and whether the game would in fact limit public servers to 5v5. There was no question that professional/ranked play would support 5v5 - and no discussion on the topic either. Your next response;

The operative word is WERE not 'now' - we WERE talking about non competitive play because what should be the norm for competitive was NEVER the topic.


The discussion on the last few pages began because there was uncertainty about whether public servers would be more than 5v5 and some people then started arguing about 32 player servers (whether they should be considered the 'norm' for public play or whether they are worthwhile at all). It roughly began with this post back on page 5

As far as ive seen, theres been no concrete statement on how many players public servers will support. Im not sure they are heading in the right direction with reduced bombsites, less players and unlimited ammo.



'Tactical' has a different meaning to you and me. To you it means 'tactical' in the sense that tactics are required more than on a public server, which is absolutely true. But what i meant by 'tactical' was in the sense of 'tactical shooter' - ie, REAL WORLD tactics of Close Quarters Battle, anti terrorism operations and generally how to behave where you are being shot at by guns.

Imho those 'real world' tactics have little to no value once you get to upper level play, but CS was originally designed to be a semi realistic 'tactical shooter'. Thats why i reckon the game 'breaks' - it no longer requires real world tactics. To be fair, this happens on pub servers probably just as much anyway - but back in the betas, people used to be more careful and tactical in how they played.

And no, i have never seen ultra competitive netball (but i bet i know why you watch it!)

Ok, my bad.

[the_antipop]

Three Ingame videos and Screenshots:
http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/119/1190745p1.html

Not as good as I was expecting... But it'll do. Some of the weapon models look crap, there are better ones in CSS (Community mods). Map and player models look pretty good.

[amac38]

Thanks for the share anti-pop, brings back so many good memories.

I will be keen to try it out!

[gregpolk]

If they can easily port CSS content to it I'll definitely pick it up. Most of the CSS I play is for gun game, break floor, surf maps. It'd be nice to have the more intense 5v5 match making there but with the option like CSS of just dicking around on a 32 player gungame map.

Gabe wants to get pc/ps3 play working with it? Best of luck with that, MS tried it in the past and we know it just doesn't work in a shooter. I can't see it happening. It might work alright in portal 2 because you're working together but not with a game that requires such fast and accurate aim as CS.

[the_antipop]

Originally Posted by gregpolk

Gabe wants to get pc/ps3 play working with it? Best of luck with that, MS tried it in the past and we know it just doesn't work in a shooter. I can't see it happening.

I reckon it could work. As long as they have filters for it. So you can choose to play Cross Platform, or just on your standard platform. So if you have a mate on PS3 etc you can occasionally play with him, but then can easily switch back to your platform.

[gregpolk]

You're right it might work for the more casual scene so long as you could filter it out if you're not interested in that. I certainly wouldn't object to the addition of the feature so long as I can disable it.

[Captain Kidd]

Please make the game look more professional Valve :T

[Mat Pav]

Originally Posted by Captain Kidd

Please make the game look more professional Valve :T

^ This
I don't like the look of the guns, looks too much like COD.
The Ak sounds shit as well.

[samos]

Will do almost anything for beta key!

[walker_2003]

molotov and stun gun and more noob friendly maps? nothing to exciting

FOV looks crap and guns too small.

[Littledragon]

the one thing i HATE, is that tf2 shit where 'x killed you' , and 'your nemesis is'. but looks like it'll be in it, will have to deal, maps look good though!

[Linkin]

Originally Posted by walker_2003

molotov and stun gun and more noob friendly maps? nothing to exciting

FOV looks crap and guns too small.

Newell said in an interview that what players got to play was still very much the console version. Buy menu, HUD, etc. So I'd imagine fov falls into that as well, along with graphics.

I can see elements from CS and some COD-like things as well, from my brief experience with that game (SP only though!)

I'll probably stick with Source for the majority and play a little GO until the game is up to scratch before switching over.

I do hope they polish up the guns, models, textures, etc. Overall the weapons look a lot like L4D2.

And praise jeebus that they actually have correctly modeled guns now! They still have that slapping the side of the gun to release the bolt nonsense, it's less effort just to pull the charging handle... But at least he isn't pulling the forward assist!!

Originally Posted by Littledragon

the one thing i HATE, is that tf2 shit where 'x killed you' , and 'your nemesis is'. but looks like it'll be in it, will have to deal, maps look good though!

cl_nowinpanel 1
cl_disablefreezecam 1



I agree maps look awesome, but I want to hear how it all sounds. Molotov and stun gun add new elements as well.