Bounds

[kregoron]

I don't have an issue with someone probing the defense and then rethinking their attack strategy. What I do take offense at is attackers being allowed to do that without risking getting harried in their retreat. All they have to do is step back behind the boundary, and they're safe. No need to take cover and brace for the counter-attack. Then they can just stroll with impunity behind the boundaries, and show up someplace else.
Basically, what I'd really like to see is that the second an attacker breaches the boundary, he's fair game, and you're allowed to pursue him (within reason) beyond the boundary again.
After all, it's TACTICAL Counter-Strike. There's a reason swat teams and combat troops practise tactical retreats, cover on return, that sort of thing. The enemy WILL pursue if you break off the attack.

I feel this proposal needs a bit of study, since it both covers the initial thought of the boundaries (Prevent defender from using rush tactics), and eliminates the annoyances of them. After all, when the attacking team reaches the boundaries, they're no longer in need of the rush protection. They've staged and commited to the assault.
When the assault is on, it's just stupid for defending to all rush through the boundaries as well, because attacker is probably going to be at the objective already. They do have the option of cutting through areas previously denied to them, which is a good thing.
This proposed change also opens up for a new ambush assault tactic. Probe the defense, sod off, and let the pursuing defender realize "Oh ****, it was a trap, there's two guys with M249's here..."

I simply do not see a negative with this, because it's all dMw players on the servers anyway. If someone decides it's a good time to sit in a corner "polishing their sniper rifle", the rest of the team will pretty quickly let them know what's what. As far as I can tell, it's a win-win, in keeping with what I understand was the initial thought, as well as removing what some people see as an exploitable annoyance.

1. If counter attacks were allowed, the second you run off to retaliate, you break the corner stone of TCS, your objective to guard. Chasing a wounded attacker, is not focusing on guarding your objective, thats chasing a frag.
2. Suddenly thing would rapidly get out of hand, as pubs would scream i saw an attacker and run off.
3. Remember attackers can't do that indefinetly, they are on a time limit, and also has the objective as their main focus.

[kregoron]

All fair points but it's the term 'counter attack' that I guess is the issue. Playing 'devils advocate' a bit I'd ask the question why would there be a counter attack in TCS? On a hostage map T's won't counter attack, they have a mission objective to defend the hostages and that doesn't include chasing CT's across the map. It includes getting defensive and covering approach routes to the hostage location. CT's won't counter attack on a bomb map as their job is to defend the bomb sites not hunt T's. These are the ideas behind TCS. Obviously killing all the enemy is a pretty good way to achieve the objectives. But in TCS we sort of ignore that choice in the quest for better game play. We create fixed roles for the two map types, defend and attack.

I suppose it's about play styles. We created TCS and map boundaries to 'force' a specific play style we could all understand and enjoy. It wasn't real life and it did restrict free play, but the community felt that the style of play made CS better and so we stuck with it. Sometimes the T's have an advantage that they can control the attack and set the pace of the game by choosing when where and how to hit a bomb site. The CT's have to set up their defence and wait for the attack. Sometimes it's the CT's that decide how the game plays out when they choose how and when to assault the hostage locations. We swap sides and change maps so we call get a go at playing different roles.

Common sense will usually dictate how boundaries are dealt with, if you need to dodge round a corner to tag a fleeing enemy you have already hurt then maybe that's Ok but running round through the enemy spawn to shoot them in the back isn't TCS. The main thing is rules need to be simple. In the past we found that the broader we made them the harder they were to follow. We would interpret them differently and this lead to confusion. I think the pursue rule could work well. But we might all have a slightly different idea about how far we can chase a player. I might decide to follow you a lot further than you would me. It could get complicated.

Some of the original dMw CS players (like me) really like the TCS rules and we might seem a bit reluctant to see them change. If so it's only because we've spent hours and hours enjoying the TCS play style and are possibly a bit worried about changing them with CS:GO. I think the LAN will be a great place to discuss all this as well.

Exactly my point, bounds are just a means to make people stick with the objective, yes the bounds was mostly created to enforce the TCS style to publics. But also to reasure..
This is what makes our cs servers differ from all the other servers out there.
As someone nicely posted, browsing the interwebs for tactical counter strike lead this way.

[Doorman]

And the pendulum swings back to.... Boundaries. :yahoo: