no more skill in css?

[jediobi1]

so i was playing css all night and joined like 8 or 10 servers during the night and everysingle one had atleast 3 awps in them, has the skill in css gotten so bad that no one can use the other sniper or regular weapons?

[slb785]

Find a server that doesnt allow awps or autos

[Twigglish]

When did it have skill?

[Neural Net]

CSS never required much in the way of skill. It has outdated game play that doesn't enable any significant tactical advantages to intelligent players. Reaction speed and accuracy is all it ever took, and the netcode is terrible. The game will deliberately "forget" about bullets - start up your own LAN server, enable hitbox viewing then see how every gun might as well be a single shot weapon. This means cover fire is useless and grenades might as well be water bombs for all the effectiveness they have - compare them to the damage an AWP can do and you quickly realise this game is plain and simple retarded.

[PhysX]

When did it have skill?

1.6 :)

[Twigglish]

1.6 :)

1.5 was the snazzle dude.

[Vengance_01]

CS Source is good for a fast pace kinda run and gun style. Not as bad as COD 4. As long as you take the game for what is and just have fun, then you should be good.

[madhatter256]

I play CSS like it's crack. I'd play BF2 but you need a good friend or be good at it and be in a clan in order to have fun. BF2 just requires teamwork. CSS, really does not, so therefore that's why I play that game, that and sometimes L4D and TF2 (no teamwork in that needed lol).

I'd play COD4 but meh.

Lately I play the gungame servers. I play in the OBC clan servers. Look them up. They are nice, only 1 AWP allowed in the regular server per team. Trust me, if you look hard enough you'll find a mature server. But like any public server, you'll once in a while get an ***hat and a cheater.

[redrumy3]

awp you need skill maybe not in pubs cause its a pub but league wise you need skills with an awp, when i pub i play in a no awp/auto server,no cursing allowed, no porn spray etc really like playing there good players, been playing in same pub server for 3 years now :)

[WonderingSoul]

I'll take DoDS over that CSS nonsense anyday :)

[SteveLord]

awp you need skill maybe not in pubs cause its a pub but league wise you need skills with an awp, when i pub i play in a no awp/auto server,no cursing allowed, no porn spray etc really like playing there good players, been playing in same pub server for 3 years now :)

Which makes it a 3 gun game when you include the M4 and AK. League play is nothing but picking path A or path B to either bombsite and just walking until you make contact. Then it eventually becomes a battle of who has the better AWPer.

Can't even enjoy pubbing when half the servers requires you to download their stupid soundpacks.

I'll admit I liked 1.6 days better for the gameplay, but the amount of hacks and modded servers is ridiculous.

[doz]

Not really Steve. Maybe Cal-o is like that, but once you move up, its alot more than that.

[JamesXP]

I only play instant respawn gungames, I'm a pretty terrible player tactical wise, but I think im pretty accurate, so gun games are good for me :P

[BlitzPuppet]

1.5 was the snazzle dude.

Try beta, when they actually had servers other than Dust or Dust 2....and game modes like Vip.

What the hell is so special about dust anyways? It's such a boring map....I miss oilrig and the airplane one :(

[mage_x]

If you're complaining about people AWPing too much and saying it takes no skill, I would suggest looking at your own skill as the issue here. As for strategy, Counter Strike is actually a very deep game. It's obviously not a pure strategy game by any means, so you shouldn't expect it to be such, but if you play at a high level (main+), then strategy and timing becomes a very big part of winning.

At any rate, if you want to play with better players, then join a competitive team and play in leagues. Complaining about skill level in pubs is really pointless.

[Neural Net]

If you're complaining about people AWPing too much and saying it takes no skill, I would suggest looking at your own skill as the issue here. As for strategy, Counter Strike is actually a very deep game. It's obviously not a pure strategy game by any means, so you shouldn't expect it to be such, but if you play at a high level (main+), then strategy and timing becomes a very big part of winning.

At any rate, if you want to play with better players, then join a competitive team and play in leagues. Complaining about skill level in pubs is really pointless.

Having watched a number of 'pro' matches, CSS comes down to accuracy and reaction speed. Those two things above all else (by a huge margin I might add) dictate whether you win or lose. It is not strategical, it's tactical if anything and tactical it's not, first encounters tend to be the only encounters and matches tend to be over with 10 seconds of the teams meet each other. I'm sorry but if you're saying this game requires a lot of thinking there is a whole lot of other games out there which require a lot more tactical thought.

[usp8riot]

Since when is knowing to use the best weapon and having fast reactionary times along with accuracy under pressure not a skill? That is if the AWP is not the best weapon. If not, they're only handicapping themselves, what's the complaint? I don't play CSS but rarely, it's a little to slow-paced for me. Are you so good it's gotten boring or so bad you feel you have to complain?

[Marshmallow64]

Its knowing where to position yourself on the map. After that it is your accuracy skill that you can practice. People only use 3 main weapons, M4, AK47, and AWP

[mage_x]

Having watched a number of 'pro' matches, CSS comes down to accuracy and reaction speed. Those two things above all else (by a huge margin I might add) dictate whether you win or lose. It is not strategical, it's tactical if anything and tactical it's not, first encounters tend to be the only encounters and matches tend to be over with 10 seconds of the teams meet each other. I'm sorry but if you're saying this game requires a lot of thinking there is a whole lot of other games out there which require a lot more tactical thought.
Of course, I realize this. I never claimed that this was the most strategic game in existence or anything like that.. it isn't.

If you've only watched "pro" matches and never played in a higher level league (making an assumption here), then you are only watching the surface. There's a lot more going on than you think. Individual accuracy and reaction obviously does play a big part, as well. It's an FPS game after all, not a turn based strategy game. It seems you are mistunderstanding the main concept of the game if you think that is a problem. Now, it's not like I'm saying CS is a game of chess. It clearly isn't; however, saying there is no strategy or tactics in the game at all is just wrong. There is a lot.

first encounters tend to be the only encounters and matches tend to be over with 10 seconds of the teams meet each other.
You need to look at more than a single round or interaction with the opposing team. Saying a CS match ends in 10 seconds is like saying there's no strategy in fighting games because you just press a button (or combination) to do a single move that lasts one second. This is not true, though, and there is a ridiculous amount of strategy, planning, and mind games at the higher skill levels in fighting games.

I think you are also misunderstanding what strategy and tactics actually are. A strategy is an overall plan that, if properly executed (hopefully) will result in reaching your goal, in this case, winning the round. Tactics are tools you use to execute the strategy (peeking corners properly, smoke positioning, etc). How you can say there is none of this in CS baffles me.

[SteveLord]

Not really Steve. Maybe Cal-o is like that, but once you move up, its alot more than that.

When I finally got into it, I played in Cal-IM. I played CS since beta 6.4. :beer:

[Neural Net]

Of course, I realize this. I never claimed that this was the most strategic game in existence or anything like that.. it isn't.

If you've only watched "pro" matches and never played in a higher level league (making an assumption here), then you are only watching the surface. There's a lot more going on than you think. Individual accuracy and reaction obviously does play a big part, as well. It's an FPS game after all, not a turn based strategy game. It seems you are misunderstanding the main concept of the game if you think that is a problem. Now, it's not like I'm saying CS is a game of chess. It clearly isn't; however, saying there is no strategy or tactics in the game at all is just wrong. There is a lot.


You need to look at more than a single round or interaction with the opposing team. Saying a CS match ends in 10 seconds is like saying there's no strategy in fighting games because you just press a button (or combination) to do a single move that lasts one second. This is not true, though, and there is a ridiculous amount of strategy, planning, and mind games at the higher skill levels in fighting games.

I think you are also misunderstanding what strategy and tactics actually are. A strategy is an overall plan that, if properly executed (hopefully) will result in reaching your goal, in this case, winning the round. Tactics are tools you use to execute the strategy (peeking corners properly, smoke positioning, etc). How you can say there is none of this in CS baffles me.

Strategy is at a higher level of military procedure than tactics, and the operational level is above strategy. None occur at the same level, but they do all have to connect in order for an operation to work. CS is at the tactical level. The only strategical factor in the game would be the spawn location, but that is chosen for you. A good example of an FPS where you can play at a strategic level is the battlefield series, playing as a commander.

Strategy is about how you move groups of forces not just individual squads or soldiers to engage the enemy. It is more about movement than it is about engagement, which is where tactics comes into play.

Of course I must be mistaken however, having learnt the law of war from a lawyer of international law and a retired high ranking navy officer during my degree. :shrug:

[mage_x]

The only strategical factor in the game would be the spawn location, but that is chosen for you.
I'm not sure how you can keep a straight face while saying this, if you are at all. Your definition of strategy seems to be extremely narrow. To be honest, I think you just hate the game and don't want to admit that it plays with any sort of strategy.


Strategy is about how you move groups of forces not just individual squads or soldiers to engage the enemy. It is more about movement than it is about engagement, which is where tactics comes into play.

So what you're saying, since there is no strategy in CS, is that you run straight towards your enemy with no kind of thought until you reach each other, then employ some kind of tactic to kill one another. Or are you saying the game is too small (10 players, relatively small maps) for there to be any strategy, or that since there isn't a designated "commander" type player, that there is no strategy?

I guess I wasted hours upon hours of my time creating non-strategies while I played CS competitively.

[MadMan007]

When I can go to various pubs and see the same player(s) on different servers consistently scoring high I have to think there is some skill involved. someone said that it takes 'accuracy,' if that means being accurate with your shots that's called skill in my world. There is some luck too of course with the randomness of weapon fire but that's what made CS different back in the day, other games copied that.

[tom10167]

the highlight of my day is when I p90 some awper from 15' away standing completely still and watching him chatrage about it for the next ten minutes

source is awesome

[Neural Net]

I'm not sure how you can keep a straight face while saying this, if you are at all. Your definition of strategy seems to be extremely narrow. To be honest, I think you just hate the game and don't want to admit that it plays with any sort of strategy.


So what you're saying, since there is no strategy in CS, is that you run straight towards your enemy with no kind of thought until you reach each other, then employ some kind of tactic to kill one another. Or are you saying the game is too small (10 players, relatively small maps) for there to be any strategy, or that since there isn't a designated "commander" type player, that there is no strategy?

I guess I wasted hours upon hours of my time creating non-strategies while I played CS competitively.

I'm saying you don't know the meaning of strategy. You mean TACTICS, not STRATEGY but you have confused them and use both words when you only need one. CS requires tactics, yes, but it does not require as much as other games have the potential to. It is certainly more dependent upon reaction time and accuracy than tactics due to the limited gameplay. It's a simple equation you fail to observe: less options = less tactics available = other variables take higher importance.

[GBH]

1.6 ftw

[mage_x]

I'm saying you don't know the meaning of strategy. You mean TACTICS, not STRATEGY but you have confused them and use both words when you only need one. CS requires tactics, yes, but it does not require as much as other games have the potential to. It is certainly more dependent upon reaction time and accuracy than tactics due to the limited gameplay. It's a simple equation you fail to observe: less options = less tactics available = other variables take higher importance.
Neural, since you are going to bypass everything I say and repeat your same line over and over, I'm just going to forget about this whole semantics dispute you started. It doesn't matter whether there's strategy or tactics, anyway. Your original claim was that CS has never required any kind of actual skill. This is obviously proven incorrect by the fact that there are players who are consistently better than others, and not just better, but many levels above in skill level. If the game took no skill, then it would all be pure luck. Clearly, the game takes skill, and requires more and more as you go through the ranks, so to speak. If you took your average open or intermediate team (first two league levels, basically), and put them against a professional team, they would just get rolled over. It's not because the better team's reflexes are 0.005 seconds faster, either. After a certain point in skill level, everyone knows how to use all the weapons correctly. The main difference doesn't just lie in your individual shots and reflexes, but rather in team play and the strategies (I used that word again!) and tactics you employ.

[moocow]

Neural, since you are going to bypass everything I say and repeat your same line over and over, I'm just going to forget about this whole semantics dispute you started. It doesn't matter whether there's strategy or tactics, anyway. Your original claim was that CS has never required any kind of actual skill. This is obviously proven incorrect by the fact that there are players who are consistently better than others, and not just better, but many levels above in skill level. If the game took no skill, then it would all be pure luck. Clearly, the game takes skill, and requires more and more as you go through the ranks, so to speak. If you took your average open or intermediate team (first two league levels, basically), and put them against a professional team, they would just get rolled over. It's not because the better team's reflexes are 0.005 seconds faster, either. After a certain point in skill level, everyone knows how to use all the weapons correctly. The main difference doesn't just lie in your individual shots and reflexes, but rather in team play and the strategies (I used that word again!) and tactics you employ.

+1. That statement can be put with almost any team-based FPS. For example I play COD4 and that is very much part of the equation. Even if another team is better than you are and can react that .0005 seconds faster if you employ proper strategies you can negate that. Personal skill is great, but if you dont have a TEAM you're not getting anywhere.

[jediobi1]

all im saying is this, the awp takes no skill to use, you aim, shoot and whoever shoots first is dead, that easy, no skill needed to use, so why not use the scout which does take skill to use and doesnt one shot kill someone, the awp is nothing but a non-skill noob or n00b weapon

[madhatter256]

all im saying is this, the awp takes no skill to use, you aim, shoot and whoever shoots first is dead, that easy, no skill needed to use, so why not use the scout which does take skill to use and doesnt one shot kill someone, the awp is nothing but a non-skill noob or n00b weapon

IMO. The awp is a noob killer, but in clans, awping against skilled people does require skill.

Now the Scout requires much more skill than the AWP.

[usp8riot]

Can we earn points for complaining in warfare? "Hey, no fair, _____ used _____ rifle". You have awp's at your disposal, use them if you're jealous of the ones who use them. If you're mad because they kill someone in one shot, what's the scout do, two shots? Won't you complain about it being no fair when you have a 3-shot weapon and they have a 2-shot weapon? The complaints never end. Why don't we just make a game where all is equal and there is no option to choose weapons and characters with different abilities? Don't get mad, get even.

Complaining about cheaters is another thing but I hate complaints towards people who take advantage of situtations to get more kills. There's no such thing as cheap shots in warfare. You take it as you give it.

[bLack0ut]

css never required skill... hitboxes were completely changed from 1.6 and made it cake. Even 1.6 wasn't that great... 1.3 was CS's prime due to bunny hopping :).

Whoever says m4, ak, and awp are the only good guns absolutely suck. When I was bored I used to go into pubs, pick a single gun (mp5, deagle, usp, glock, shotgun, bullpup, scout, etc.) just to see how high of a K:d I could get (btw, para is completely underestimated). Most awpers who play on bomb/escort maps suck as well, so getting killed by them is a testament to how bad you are.

disclaimer: played cal-im, was the awper

[Neural Net]

Neural, since you are going to bypass everything I say and repeat your same line over and over, I'm just going to forget about this whole semantics dispute you started. It doesn't matter whether there's strategy or tactics, anyway. Your original claim was that CS has never required any kind of actual skill. This is obviously proven incorrect by the fact that there are players who are consistently better than others, and not just better, but many levels above in skill level. If the game took no skill, then it would all be pure luck. Clearly, the game takes skill, and requires more and more as you go through the ranks, so to speak. If you took your average open or intermediate team (first two league levels, basically), and put them against a professional team, they would just get rolled over. It's not because the better team's reflexes are 0.005 seconds faster, either. After a certain point in skill level, everyone knows how to use all the weapons correctly. The main difference doesn't just lie in your individual shots and reflexes, but rather in team play and the strategies (I used that word again!) and tactics you employ.

I'm not arguing about semantics. You just don't know the meaning of the words you use. Playing an individual soldier and saying you use both tactics and strategies in the same situation is simply absurd but you fail to see that. I also never said CS is pure luck and I never said CS requires no skill. Read my posts again. :rolleyes: I said the dominant factors in CS are a players accuracy and reaction speed. Tactically speaking CS is extremely simple, of course there are different levels or players but even the addition of a sprint bar would add another tactical level to the gameplay. Now are you beginning to see how relatively un-complex it is? Stop wearing rose tinted glasses when you look at CS, it's tragic.

[sobe]

I'll take a hop in here due to having played in both CAL Main and CEVO Main.

Personally, I think awping, in all honesty is one of the harder guns to master... You can think I'm stupid for saying that, but if you've played ANY decent player with the awp, it's more than point and click.

Watch some demos of kSharp awping, tell me his quickscopes and flick shots require absolutely NO skill to do. Same goes with fr0d, nickn0it, Devour, and so on.

IMO, people who complain about the awp are people who just suck in general, don't know how to kill an awper, or suck at awping against a decent awper.

To throw out something along the lines of, "That gun is a one shot gun, just point and click". Clearly one of the most unintelligent statements I've heard by far. Almost every gun is "one shot", and wait, what do you do with the other guns before you shoot someone???? You point and click!!! NOWAI!!! Like, omg, you dont point and click with the m4? Deagle? AK? USP? You have eMAZING skill if you don't point and click with those guns.

If you learn how to aim, you can kill someone in one shot, with nearly all the guns. So is that unfair? Should there be no hitbox regions, should the body all be one giant hitbox since someone is not skilled enough to be able to shoot at the head?

I'm not the best player around at all, but that is my view on it. Of course, my personal view, nothing slanderous intended.

[SeasonalEclipse]

I remember one day I rushed in on a group of snipers on CS:S with a auto shotty and spray prayed em all. Those were the days.

[SteveLord]

I'll take a hop in here due to having played in both CAL Main and CEVO Main.

Personally, I think awping, in all honesty is one of the harder guns to master... You can think I'm stupid for saying that, but if you've played ANY decent player with the awp, it's more than point and click.

Watch some demos of kSharp awping, tell me his quickscopes and flick shots require absolutely NO skill to do. Same goes with fr0d, nickn0it, Devour, and so on.

IMO, people who complain about the awp are people who just suck in general, don't know how to kill an awper, or suck at awping against a decent awper.

To throw out something along the lines of, "That gun is a one shot gun, just point and click". Clearly one of the most unintelligent statements I've heard by far. Almost every gun is "one shot", and wait, what do you do with the other guns before you shoot someone???? You point and click!!! NOWAI!!! Like, omg, you dont point and click with the m4? Deagle? AK? USP? You have eMAZING skill if you don't point and click with those guns.

If you learn how to aim, you can kill someone in one shot, with nearly all the guns. So is that unfair? Should there be no hitbox regions, should the body all be one giant hitbox since someone is not skilled enough to be able to shoot at the head?

I'm not the best player around at all, but that is my view on it. Of course, my personal view, nothing slanderous intended.

Obviously the AWP is the only gun that can kill you 1 shot most of the time, if not leaving you with practically no health no matter where you get hit.

As for "quickshots" and "switches." Please......its called scripts and macros. Let's be realistic here.

[sobe]

Obviously the AWP is the only gun that can kill you 1 shot most of the time, if not leaving you with practically no health no matter where you get hit.

As for "quickshots" and "switches." Please......its called scripts and macros. Let's be realistic here.

Yes, because on LAN that clearly shows, much less on DirecTV.... Clearly you don't know too much about skill in CSS.

[bLack0ut]

Obviously the AWP is the only gun that can kill you 1 shot most of the time, if not leaving you with practically no health no matter where you get hit.

As for "quickshots" and "switches." Please......its called scripts and macros. Let's be realistic here.

You know that headshots with m4 and ak47 are also one-hit kills? As with bullpup and a whole bunch of other guns? It really isn't too difficult to headshot with those guns if you know how to strafe.

As for "scripts and macros"... you must think bunnyhopping is also a script/macro too, right?

[SteveLord]

You know that headshots with m4 and ak47 are also one-hit kills? As with bullpup and a whole bunch of other guns? It really isn't too difficult to headshot with those guns if you know how to strafe.

As for "scripts and macros"... you must think bunnyhopping is also a script/macro too, right?

I don't know How I can spell it out any clearer than I already did. Especially to people obviously familiar with CounterStrike. The AWP can hit you ANYWHERE with 1 BULLET and either kill you or almost kill you. The M4 and AK do not do this.

As for scripts, just google them and they're out there. Many of them geared toward AWP use. Using scripts does not constitute as great skill.

[Neural Net]

I don't know How I can spell it out any clearer than I already did. Especially to people obviously familiar with CounterStrike. The AWP can hit you ANYWHERE with 1 BULLET and either kill you or almost kill you. The M4 and AK do not do this.

As for scripts, just google them and they're out there. Many of them geared toward AWP use. Using scripts does not constitute as great skill.

This is exactly why the AWP is a noob weapon. I don't see how people can't see that in this thread either. If people are so skillful with an AWP and just get head shots, why don't they use the scout? Instead every 'pro' here has adamantly defended the use of an AWP while also saying that head shots are easy.

[Kenshiro]

I think CSS is defniitely outdated. AWP is ridiculous. Still remember those players can just jump of out of a corner holding the awp, and one shot kill the other guy shooting the toes. That is just stupid. Not only that, some map are just so badly balance and gave significant advantage to the other team.

[madhatter256]

the only script I use is a buy script that I made from which I learned from a tutorial.

CSS is just very random at times. Once I've done 99dmg in 27 hits with an MP5 gun. I've also done a headshot via the M3 pump shotgun at a VERY long distance before, the same with the noobcannon autoshotgun. I've also seen someone get a headshot from a mac10 gun from a very long range as the shooter was spraying, not just a single shot crouched.

You have to be in control to know how the weapon will behave.

The game doesn't require real world skill like some of you complain that it should. COD4, BF2, all do not require real world skill, too. You just need to know how the game mechanics work and that is skill!

Chances are some of you cal-O pros etc posting on here might not be as good as in other FPS games (I'm not saying you are), it depends on the person. There are some people that ONLY play CSS and nothing else.

Are any of you still in a CAL oriented clan btw? PM me because I'd like to see if I can join or see how different these people plan than casual players. I've been playing CSS since 2004 on and off, but it wasn't until I got my Deathadder that my K:D ratio has gone up a lot.

[Kenshiro]

Being random at times, that I can live with. That's why they call it random. But the AWP ain't exactly random. This so powerful, accurate, and fast that it became ridiculous. Of course, everything need skills. I guess the issue here is talking about balancing of the weapons itself. The awp is just so ridiculously overpowered.

[moocow]

Honestly, this complaining about guns thing is completely nonsense. People don't complain about the queen in chess because it can capture other pieces easier. If you dont like people having an advantage in a pub server because they use a weapon, why dont you play in a (organized) scrim where superior strats can overrule someone with a better gun? Someone with an AWP isn't going to be at an advantage over someone with an AK if the AK is coming from their behind, now are they?

Also, the topic of not needing skill is just out there. If someone is faster with a weapon than you, thinks faster, or just plain faster isn't that considered skill? Last time I checked in pretty much every major sports draft SPEED was a highly regarded trait . Just because games are all mental doesn't take away from the fact that someone has a skill. And saying someone has a macro or bind is just stupid. If you play with better players you actually realize how much faster some people are than others. Generally the "baddies" will say someone is cheating, but if you play enough or have those special talents you can obviously do things others cant.

[Zurvan]

I dont have an idea about the weapon this thread intends to discuss, but I've become interested in the strategy vs tactical dispute after read quite a few posts.
CS/S may be a very simple game, so as to say it has less variables that a player controls,compared to other games. However, player controlled variables are NOT the only parameter for the game being simple or complex.
Whether it be a FPS or an RTS/TBS the skilled player always has the lead. Skilled implies one with more practice and consistency (better eye-hand co-ordination for FPS). Practice wins over innovation. Whether the game has 10 variables that you can alter or 1000, in the end people who have played more will know more and beat you to it. This holds even more importance when gradually, as the game ages and people have explored all the ins and outs of it.

So how does it matter if the game is tactical or strategic ? Its just a LINE of THOUGHT, and they are very much predefined. Most pro teams know how to go about it, and its almost the same game after game. You can try new stuff, but it will rarely come good against people who have tried each setting to the fullest. You can amuse yourself by saying, "oh that game just requires me to buy a gun and frag" . Even if it had 10 more things you could do, skilled people would still PWN you in the end.

In no way do I imply that I favor this. Games are, and will remain very limited. Unlike life, best paths are easily identified. So in the end there's the master, the novice, and the wannabe-master-currently-whiner.
Tactics and strategy are not very different in the gaming world.

[Neural Net]

I dont have an idea about the weapon this thread intends to discuss, but I've become interested in the strategy vs tactical dispute after read quite a few posts.
CS/S may be a very simple game, so as to say it has less variables that a player controls,compared to other games. However, player controlled variables are NOT the only parameter for the game being simple or complex.
Whether it be a FPS or an RTS/TBS the skilled player always has the lead. Skilled implies one with more practice and consistency (better eye-hand co-ordination for FPS). Practice wins over innovation. Whether the game has 10 variables that you can alter or 1000, in the end people who have played more will know more and beat you to it. This holds even more importance when gradually, as the game ages and people have explored all the ins and outs of it.

So how does it matter if the game is tactical or strategic ? Its just a LINE of THOUGHT, and they are very much predefined. Most pro teams know how to go about it, and its almost the same game after game. You can try new stuff, but it will rarely come good against people who have tried each setting to the fullest. You can amuse yourself by saying, "oh that game just requires me to buy a gun and frag" . Even if it had 10 more things you could do, skilled people would still PWN you in the end.

In no way do I imply that I favor this. Games are, and will remain very limited. Unlike life, best paths are easily identified. So in the end there's the master, the novice, and the wannabe-master-currently-whiner.
Tactics and strategy are not very different in the gaming world.

I would disagree to variables part of your argument. A friend of mine is incredibly skilled when it comes to CSS, he uses the Scout and more or less gets headshots with every shot, each time aiming for a split second then firing. It's uncanny to watch and far beyond my aiming abilities. Having said that, his hand and eye co-ordination translates into any FPS (with some adjustment) and we went head to head against each other in UT3. UT3 is far more flexible, has a lot more variables, and he just couldn't match me. Yes a factor of this is that I knew the game better than he did. The other factor is that I outsmarted him at every turn which negated his advantage in reaction speed and accuracy. I kept changing tactics and he couldn't adapt to my playing style. In this respect CS is severely limited and outdated. When more variables are available, aiming and accuracy become less important and the decisions made by players becomes more important, in my experience.

Regarding the strategy vs tactic debate, it's an FPS, it is not an RTS. Warfare when you're on the ground controlling an individual soldier can only ever be tactical, and that's a fact. If you want to warp the meaning of strategy to suit your own ends then do so, but it's still incorrect. :)

[Kenshiro]

At least with the scout, it's a weaker gun. Going for fast headshot is somewhat still acceptable. The AWP is just ridiculous. One shot kill on a toe. Figure that one out......

[>HyperlogiK<]

I'm saying you don't know the meaning of strategy.

I beg to differ, strategy and tactics have somewhat different meanings in everyday language than they do in military jargon. The question with a military themed game is whether you apply the definitions which apply to games or the definitions which apply to the military.

Broadly speaking I have always thought that CS has been little better than a somewhat cooperative twitch and shoot. You need Battlefield sized game areas for brains to come into it.

[Kenshiro]

I dont think there is much strategy in pub game, except trying to overrun the other team with numbers.

[Insane Scyth]

I would disagree to variables part of your argument. A friend of mine is incredibly skilled when it comes to CSS, he uses the Scout and more or less gets headshots with every shot, each time aiming for a split second then firing. It's uncanny to watch and far beyond my aiming abilities. Having said that, his hand and eye co-ordination translates into any FPS (with some adjustment) and we went head to head against each other in UT3. UT3 is far more flexible, has a lot more variables, and he just couldn't match me. Yes a factor of this is that I knew the game better than he did. The other factor is that I outsmarted him at every turn which negated his advantage in reaction speed and accuracy. I kept changing tactics and he couldn't adapt to my playing style. In this respect CS is severely limited and outdated. When more variables are available, aiming and accuracy become less important and the decisions made by players becomes more important, in my experience.

Regarding the strategy vs tactic debate, it's an FPS, it is not an RTS. Warfare when you're on the ground controlling an individual soldier can only ever be tactical, and that's a fact. If you want to warp the meaning of strategy to suit your own ends then do so, but it's still incorrect. :)

UT and CSS are very different games with very different paces. I have destroyed many CSS players that would normally slaughter me in CSS. I think the bigger difference is the game play mechanics of these two games (speed,how guns fire, jumping), not the tactics you can use.

[Neural Net]

I beg to differ, strategy and tactics have somewhat different meanings in everyday language than they do in military jargon. The question with a military themed game is whether you apply the definitions which apply to games or the definitions which apply to the military.

Broadly speaking I have always thought that CS has been little better than a somewhat cooperative twitch and shoot. You need Battlefield sized game areas for brains to come into it.

Well yes I agree. The Battlefield series of games starts to involve strategy due to the commander and squad based gameplay. CS just doesn't have this.

'Strategy' and 'tactics' are defined first and foremost by their military meanings, it isn't jargon - go check for yourself on dictionary.com. I see your point, but when you're talking about virtual military maneuvers in a game, then surely you should use the words with their military meaning in mind. Insisting that the game is strategic is quite different from the meaning of the word you describe as being its everyday use. Otherwise nearly every game could be defined as strategic, which is incorrect.

[Zurvan]

Yes a factor of this is that I knew the game better than he did. The other factor is that I outsmarted him at every turn which negated his advantage in reaction speed and accuracy. I kept changing tactics and he couldn't adapt to my playing style.
Exactly what I was trying to say, you had more practice (implied 'idea') with UT3 than your 'more talented' friend.
I dont know how much gameplay has changed, but I've played a lot of UT and some UT2k4, and one thing I am sure of is, in right hands sniper rifle IS the MOST POWERFUL weapon whether it is close quarters or zooming in the scope. I'll advise you to give your friend some time with the sniper rifle and play him again as an experiment. Your tactics wont work.
UT, a great game it is, is also highly arcade-ish. Sniper rifle doesnt need a stable ground to headshot. Only modes that require some teamwork (call it tactics/strategy) if you want) are CTF/Siege in UT and CTF/ONS in UT2k4


If you want to warp the meaning of strategy to suit your own ends then do so, but it's still incorrect. :)

I guess you didnt read my previous post fully, I'll highlight it for you again
Games are, and will remain very limited. Unlike life, best paths are easily identified. Tactics and strategy are not very different in the gaming world.
So RTS is strategy eh ? From what I've seen most competitive games dont look like they are.

[Neural Net]

Exactly what I was trying to say, you had more practice (implied 'idea') with UT3 than your 'more talented' friend.
I dont know how much gameplay has changed, but I've played a lot of UT and some UT2k4, and one thing I am sure of is, in right hands sniper rifle IS the MOST POWERFUL weapon whether it is close quarters or zooming in the scope. I'll advise you to give your friend some time with the sniper rifle and play him again as an experiment. Your tactics wont work.
UT, a great game it is, is also highly arcade-ish. Sniper rifle doesnt need a stable ground to headshot. Only modes that require some teamwork (call it tactics/strategy) if you want) are CTF/Siege in UT and CTF/ONS in UT2k4



I guess you didnt read my previous post fully, I'll highlight it for you again

So RTS is strategy eh ? From what I've seen most competitive games dont look like they are.

Snipers are easy to counter in UT3, it's called using the terrain to your advantage. As for your last sentence, huh? The game play mechanics of a game determine whether it's strategy/tactics or not, not the way it is played, because you are limited by said framework.

[Zurvan]

Snipers are easy to counter in UT3, it's called using the terrain to your advantage.

Earth style , mud wall jutsu :p


As for your last sentence, huh? The game play mechanics of a game determine whether it's strategy/tactics or not, not the way it is played, because you are limited by said framework.
So a RTS played like RTT is S not T ? Does it even matter ? :santa:

[Neural Net]

Earth style , mud wall jutsu :p


So a RTS played like RTT is S not T ? Does it even matter ? :santa:

LOL Don't bring micro managing into this! :beer:

[sobe]

Snipers are easy to counter in UT3, it's called using the terrain to your advantage.

I'll just make this last post about sniping in CSS since that is the original topic of discussion. Your quote, same applies for CSS, again though, not for those unable to play at a higher skill level.
Quick example of ignorance in saying, "zomg awp is a noob gun". You have a team in CSS playing against another team at a LAN offering the winner $10,000. Are you honestly going to tell me, that if you have a teammate that is a sniper, if he chooses the awp, you are going to bitch at him and tell him he's a noob with no skill since he didn't choose a scout.

CSS end result is teamwork to win the rounds, regardless of what weapons are used. On one of my older teams we had a player that could use the AK long distance as if it were an awp of his own, VERY exceptional player. If there were more people in the game that could rip kids with the AK like him, I'm sure it would boil down to more kids chanting, "AK is a noob gun, stop 1 shotting me!!!!!!!"

Nearly all the rifles in CSS are 1 hit 1 kill guns, of course if you suck at aiming, then that is a problem of your own skill level which should be corrected by your own practice of the game, be that from Muscle Memory to deathmatching, whatever you prefer.

For those that think awping is easy, I'd simply LOVE to see you play an actually good awper, NOT one from a pub with little pubstar kids.

Personally, I used to be an awper scrimming alongside fr0d and a few others, I'm sure they weren't trying amazingly hard so I won't say that in the least, but I've come across some simply amazing awpers. And some like kSharp with the sickest flick shots I've ever seen in the game.


I will say this however, I suppose if you are in a pub and are personally offended by kids using the awp, then just got to a no awp server.... I mean honestly, complaining about it only makes you look like a baddie that has to resort to verbally abusing a weapon available to everyone in the game.

[SteveLord]

This thread is just chockfull of "omgz you should play against pRo playerz. you are automatically a n00b" type of ignorant rants. About as dull as the classic "game X isn't bugged, your comPuterz just sux lmao" debate.

[CrystalMethod]

I'm saying you don't know the meaning of strategy. You mean TACTICS, not STRATEGY but you have confused them and use both words when you only need one. CS requires tactics, yes, but it does not require as much as other games have the potential to. It is certainly more dependent upon reaction time and accuracy than tactics due to the limited gameplay. It's a simple equation you fail to observe: less options = less tactics available = other variables take higher importance.

That's a byproduct of server settings and availible maps. Most of the CSS maps are "DE" maps. You hardly see any "CS" maps anymore. If the round settings are set for 30 mins+, you can bet no one is going to be eager to rush in and "spray and pray". If you extend the round time, it doesn't become as appealing to rush in and shrug it it off.

Unlimited time rounds's without a respawn change a game DRASTICALLY. Take out the respawn during a round and you know what happens? The sniper is left spending 45 mins, an hour, maybe 2 hours, possibly more taking out people one by one. Meanwhile most people message him/her to get a move on, and rush in, or just die so the round is over.

If you want strategy and tactics, try Operation Flashpoint, join a server without a time limit.

[Zurvan]

If you want strategy and tactics, try Operation Flashpoint, join a server without a time limit.
ye , thats a real game
too bad its sequels are delayed :(

[sobe]

This thread is just chockfull of "omgz you should play against pRo playerz. you are automatically a n00b" type of ignorant rants. About as dull as the classic "game X isn't bugged, your comPuterz just sux lmao" debate.

No no, just better players than you find in pubs was what I was aiming for.

I just find it amusing that people love to complain about something they suck against. If you suck against it but others can clearly do fine against it, there is something wrong with you, not the gun.

[SteveLord]

No no, just better players than you find in pubs was what I was aiming for.

I just find it amusing that people love to complain about something they suck against. If you suck against it but others can clearly do fine against it, there is something wrong with you, not the gun.

Of course. That's just a different dose elitism and ignorance that CSers have been forever labeled as. Let's continue to be honest here.

"Those who play in public servers are the n00bs of the earth, are not entitled to an opinion about the game, especially the AWP. Declaring that you've even set foot in a public server is a sin. Even though CAL is currently dead, if you didn't play against the best in it and your Steam ID is 6 digits or longer your word is worthless."

[Neural Net]

Of course. That's just a different dose elitism and ignorance that CSers have been forever labeled as. Let's continue to be honest here.

"Those who play in public servers are the n00bs of the earth, are not entitled to an opinion about the game, especially the AWP. Declaring that you've even set foot in a public server is a sin. Even though CAL is currently dead, if you didn't play against the best in it and your Steam ID is 6 digits or longer your word is worthless."

You're right, the arrogance from these 'pros' is oozing from this thread.

[sobe]

lol, nah. It's the lower digits you need to watch for now, especially since you can get a 4 - 6dig from a closing local LAN center for $15 or less.

And pfft CAL :P Please don't even mention it xD CAL was a league filled with uneven placements and Invite/Main players playing in Open. I'd go so far as to say TWL had a more even experience of players playing against each other than CAL. And as of late CEVO has turned into CAL.

It's the kids that complain when an 7 or 8digit is killing them while they have a 5 or 6 digit and saying, "Oh you hack because you got a 9 million dig steam id, you just bought the game!!!!!" Hell, the current main ID I use is an 8digit, I have nearly all steam games on it, thus I use it the most. Love when kiddies cry in the middle of a scrim about having an 8digit that I just bought the game, even though I've had the 8dig for over a year lol.

[Aynjell]

You all should be playing real games like Unreal and Quake, anyway. Just think, you could be arguing over which is better instead of how stupid the game you currently play is. :)

[Neural Net]

You all should be playing real games like Unreal and Quake, anyway. Just think, you could be arguing over which is better instead of how stupid the game you current play is. :)

Well who plays Quack still? :beer:

UT3 is fun but riddled with cheaters and high ping servers. I usually get 20-40 ping, I had 100 ping a couple of nights ago and I could hardly hit anything! It was highly amusing :santa:

I'd like to see a new Battlefield 2. Not this silly watered down Battlefield 1943 / Battlefield Heroes nonsense. I played the heroes beta for about an hour, then deleted it. It plays like its graphical style - no depth to it whatsoever!

[madhatter256]

But even BF2 pub servers are filled with exploiters/glitchers and cheaters....

[Aynjell]

Well who plays Quack still? :beer:

UT3 is fun but riddled with cheaters and high ping servers. I usually get 20-40 ping, I had 100 ping a couple of nights ago and I could hardly hit anything! It was highly amusing :santa:

I'd like to see a new Battlefield 2. Not this silly watered down Battlefield 1943 / Battlefield Heroes nonsense. I played the heroes beta for about an hour, then deleted it. It plays like its graphical style - no depth to it whatsoever!

Unfortunately, nobody. The whole world has moved on to playing games based on real wars, etc. I hate games like that.

[Neural Net]

But even BF2 pub servers are filled with exploiters/glitchers and cheaters....

That's certainly true if you go onto a server without any decent admins, otherwise it was a highly enjoyable game, at least when I played.

Unfortunately, nobody. The whole world has moved on to playing games based on real wars, etc. I hate games like that.

Yep, it's a shame, currently the only fps games I play are TF2 and UT3, the online FPS genre has seemed to have hit a bit of a lull recently. Personally I blame the onslaught of controller friendly console ports... FLAME ON! :beer:

[Aynjell]

That's certainly true if you go onto a server without any decent admins, otherwise it was a highly enjoyable game, at least when I played.



Yep, it's a shame, currently the only fps games I play are TF2 and UT3, the online FPS genre has seemed to have hit a bit of a lull recently. Personally I blame the onslaught of controller friendly console ports... FLAME ON! :beer:

Some are great games, though. We should hook up for some UT3 sometime.

[madhatter256]

And BF2!! Xfire: madhatter256

[Xymurgy]

As you get better in CSS, AWP's are less a concern. I really only die from them if I'm not paying attention, or the opponent would have killed me anyway. I hate shotguns way more.

[LufbraDan23]

I think that skill might be going downhill.

I played on css for the first time in a year the other day and owned 3 of the 5 games i played.

Let me be clear, i am not very good. I didnt even remember the game mechanics when i picked it up the other day. I am by most accounts a css n00b with terrible reactions. However, everyone i played just happened to be even worse :S