Bounds

[kregoron]

For those that don't know the bounds
The bounds are based on the old CS:S maps limits, so i expected them to be the same in CS:GO, they worked perfect before, so should still be fine..

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1540[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1541[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1542[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1543[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1544[/ATTACH]

Edit: Italy map adjusted, T's can now enter the left door towards appartments, but should stay above stairs, this will allow CT's to still use the building as a prep point for rush, and should keep the balance

[kregoron]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1539[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1537[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]1538[/ATTACH]

[b00n]

All still look fine to me, the only thing that I think needs changed now due to map changes is on Italy - the centre boundary should be extended to allow T into the door on the left, since they can access that area from the left hand side anyway.

[kregoron]

All still look fine to me, the only thing that I think needs changed now due to map changes is on Italy - the centre boundary should be extended to allow T into the door on the left, since they can access that area from the left hand side anyway.

Ill have a look when i get home... feedback is awsome, as there were just based on the old maps.

[Blunt]

Cheers Kreg.

On b00n's point, I think the middle boundary is too generous for Ts.
As a rule on Italy, I'd say T's should not be going down any stairs at all.
Thoughts?

[Benny]

It's been a while since I raised this one but I feel a little spikey so...

As a CT why should you expect to run freely up to a point without any risk from mad terrorists hell bent on destruction?
Why as a T would you expect free approach to a known bombsite?

If it's not spawn killing it's fair game.

(but I will of course abide by the decisions and always stick to the boundaries anyway. I agree that stairs should be the limit on Italy)

[Gone_Away]

It's been a while since I raised this one but I feel a little spikey so...

As a CT why should you expect to run freely up to a point without any risk from mad terrorists hell bent on destruction?
Why as a T would you expect free approach to a known bombsite?

If it's not spawn killing it's fair game.

(but I will of course abide by the decisions and always stick to the boundaries anyway. I agree that stairs should be the limit on Italy)

What a well balanced response (read: sitting on fence).

What about access to the end of the long corridors (both left, right and middle)? No shooting around corners (unless you're DuVel / Ducky of course ).

Also, I'm OK with the T's being upstairs in the house as a simple FB will sort them out. As long as they don't stick their heads out and snipe at the approach.

I think we need to be a bit more liberal with our thinking if we are going to take the game seriously. We went on a compettition server the other night and got slaughtered as our strategy wasn't up to scratch.

[kregoron]

Cheers Kreg.

On b00n's point, I think the middle boundary is too generous for Ts.
As a rule on Italy, I'd say T's should not be going down any stairs at all.
Thoughts?

Well if your thinking of the upside down L shaped stairs in mid, we always allowed it, so T's wouldnt be limited to the first level, to defend towards middle approach.

[kregoron]

It's been a while since I raised this one but I feel a little spikey so...

As a CT why should you expect to run freely up to a point without any risk from mad terrorists hell bent on destruction?
Why as a T would you expect free approach to a known bombsite?

If it's not spawn killing it's fair game.

(but I will of course abide by the decisions and always stick to the boundaries anyway. I agree that stairs should be the limit on Italy)

Well if you got a bunch of hostages to defend, would you run 200m away in an attempt to kill an attacking bunch of CT's?

[b00n]

I think we need to be a bit more liberal with our thinking if we are going to take the game seriously.

I'm confused, have you played this game with us? :g:

[smilodon]

Benny, I may be wrong but I believe we relaxed the strict boundaries some time ago. CS in dMw became an objective based game rather than a boundary based game. The guides on the dMw web site relate to sticking to the objectives rather than crossing or not crossing a line. The map boundaries serve as a good guide in that moving beyond them needs a reason i.e when hostages are on the move the T's can obviously take any route to intercept get them back and so the images posted in this thread serve a useful purpose to help new players understand the concept. But they're not set in stone, unless I'm very out of touch with CS and things have moved on again? :g:

[Benny]

Oh I know. My point, albeit badly phrased, was that we shouldn't rely on hard and fast lines. It's an argument as old as the game

I'm relaxed now, but my lag has killed my game tonight sadly. Roll on GEA install next month.

[Blunt]

I'm pretty relaxed about bounds TBH.
As long as people don't frag hunt I don't mind if they're "a bit too far"
I'm used to playing with bots, and they really take the mick!
so I'm on the watch for 'back scuttlers' and other ne'er-do-wells.

[kregoron]

back in cs:s days, we tests more lacks bounds a few times, with dmw chaps, it isnt a problem, but when you start getting new people on the server, it changes, then its impossible to admin lacks bounds, as they will keep pushing those bounds over and over. and when you finally say stop, they start complaining that they were allowed too the last few rounds.

[Chaosphere]

Ok so I'll come right out and say I'm new to Counter Strike, so I'll understand if my opinion goes against things that you lot have been doing for years now, and ultimatley I'll just abide by whatever rules you set in place.

However, I still have an opinion that I think I have a right to voice, and it pretty much lies around this fuss about bounds being a tad ridiculous. If CS is about realism, why do we make invisible boundaries that people can and can not cross? It just makes no sense. Now, a distinction needs to be made between a lone CT running off on his own and deserting his team and the objective - that goes against the teamwork based nature of the game, and should not be allowed. But, if a team decides to send one of its members off to flank the terrorists, with that member thus crossing these boundaries, why on earth is that a bad thing? The lone wolf is going off with support of the team, not just hunting kills. Unfair to the terrorists? Oh, sorry, I didn't realise war was fair. The fact remains that the lone CT is now on the hostile side of the map, alone, outnumbered and outgunned. Terrorists should be looking for this sort of thing, ready to kill the CT when he pops up - not getting shot in the back and then complaining about it over TS.

This is just one example, but I think it conveys what I want to say. These boundaries make no sense. I went over to the other side of the map to get behind the terrorists as they were advancing on the bomb site, and got my *** bitten off for doing it. As far as I was concerned, I was just being 'tactical'. Things like that are fair game in any other tactical shooter, so why on earth not in CS? In that instance, sure, I didn't know the rules and I broke them, so fair enough for telling me off. However in an additional point, there is telling someone off and then there is ripping their head off and playing basketball with it. Maybe some of us should try to be a little more civil when someone breaks a rule they never knew existed? Not all of us have been dplaying CS for 10 years now.

tl;dr, I agree with Benny -

"As a CT why should you expect to run freely up to a point without any risk from mad terrorists hell bent on destruction?
Why as a T would you expect free approach to a known bombsite?

If it's not spawn killing it's fair game."

These rules make no sense to me. They put strange artificial restrictions on something based on realism, teamwork, and tactical play.