Bounds

[kregoron]

b00n, On the train map, after lots of people were gone me and a few OldSchool  CS-admins were checking the map and we concluded that while defending as CT on the right behind the sandbags is allowed as long as you don't go around the corner to watch into T-spawn. It might have been an "elastic" boundary but as said, I thought this would be alot within proper TCS.

We can move the bound to see if it does any difference.

Tho i think we concluded back then, that ct's already had a lot of ground to cover


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[kregoron]

The problem as Doorman rightly pointed out is that 'being sneaky' is pretty much indistinguishable from going off to hunt frags.  However I agree that the rules can simply be 'enforce teamplay' without boundaries.  The problem I see is that we can't have the 'kinda, maybe, sometimes' approach to boundaries we seem to have at the moment - we either need to have them or not. I can almost guarantee that if someone bit your head off, it wasn't because you went over a boundary or because you broke a rule, it was because that person was killed because they were playing to set of rules that they assumed everyone else was also adhering to. It needs to be clear for everyone exactly what rules are being enforced.

I don't think 'elastic' boundaries will work for the same reason, if you give people an inch then soon it'll be a yard, then two, then five, and shortly you find you're needing to enforce the boundaries of how far the boundaries can be stretched.  I'm fine with not having boundaries - it just needs a decision to be made and clarified for all.

Maybe we should reopen a public server on a friday night to demostrate for those new to CS why TCS rules exist? :norty:

I love you, your spot on.

Either we have em or we dont, the grey stuff...

We used to have two cs servers, one public with no tolerence to bounds, and one pw priv server with loose rules


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[b00n]

b00n, On the train map, after lots of people were gone me and a few OldSchool  CS-admins were checking the map and we concluded that while defending as CT on the right behind the sandbags is allowed as long as you don't go around the corner to watch into T-spawn. It might have been an "elastic" boundary but as said, I thought this would be alot within proper TCS.

I'm fine with that, but as I said it then becomes not really an elastic boundary, but just a boundary that is extended. That's fine too, so long as people know.  But situations like that are why I don't think it can work both ways. There's either a boundary, or there isn't.

[Chaosphere]

All well and good on our PW'd private server, but imagine trying to herd the cats that come when you've got a public server.
The TCS boundaries were in place to ensure that everyone, including pubbies, stuck to the ethos of "Doing the objective"
We managed to herd quite a few cats that way. Indeed many of them are still here.
b00n made a mod that allowed you over the boundary for a few seconds before you got auto-killed (a bit like no-mans-land in BF3).
And Whitey somehow managed to put no-entry signs on all our maps to indicate the bounds.
both these methods (plus the guiding hands of the admin team) managed to keep the pubbies in line, and keep them coming back for the gameplay.
So we know that the bounds do work.

But, like doorman, I'm not sure we need to be quite so rigid on our private server.

Yup, everything I have said is referring to our private server. I don't play on public servers, because they are utter mayhem and not fun. I would be fully in support of such things if we were running a public server! But I stick to what I have said with regards to our private server.

The problem as Doorman rightly pointed out is that 'being sneaky' is pretty much indistinguishable from going off to hunt frags.  However I agree that the rules can simply be 'enforce teamplay' without boundaries.  The problem I see is that we can't have the 'kinda, maybe, sometimes' approach to boundaries we seem to have at the moment - we either need to have them or not. I can almost guarantee that if someone bit your head off, it wasn't because you went over a boundary or because you broke a rule, it was because that person was killed because they were playing to set of rules that they assumed everyone else was also adhering to. It needs to be clear for everyone exactly what rules are being enforced.

I don't think 'elastic' boundaries will work for the same reason, if you give people an inch then soon it'll be a yard, then two, then five, and shortly you find you're needing to enforce the boundaries of how far the boundaries can be stretched.  I'm fine with not having boundaries - it just needs a decision to be made and clarified for all.

Maybe we should reopen a public server on a friday night to demostrate for those new to CS why TCS rules exist? :norty:

And yeah, I can see the problem. But it needs to be addressed by the team. If one of your members is running off to frag hunt with no prior discussion, and without the support of the rest, sure that is a problem. The emphasis lies with us as a community playing as teams, and not frag hunting - which surely we can do? (Again, only talking about private dmw only servers).

And I don't mind getting 'told off' for breaking a rule, it has happened in many games not just CS - thats what happens when you join a well-developed community. But some people have been able to tell me I am doing something wrong in a polite and friendly way, and others... not so much. Just something to think about. I name no names, and bear no grudges, but if I was a newcommer, I could have been quite put off of dMw within the first 30 minutes of arriving.

[faust82]

My point of view is that the boundaries are not instrumental for good teamplay. All it does is give attacking team a cushion to sleep on. The rest of the TCS rules are good, and they encourage the type of play we'd all like to see, but fixed boundaries are not condusive to this.
Sure, 95% of the time, good teamplay will dictate that you stay behind them anyway, as there's little tactical advantage to be had by crossing those points in most rounds. However, having the option gives three direct effects.
1. The attacking team can't roll up knowing they won't be attacked. This will force them to do a tactical approach from go, instead of just rushing to a staging point right behind the boundary and crashing the party from there.
2. It disallows the tactic of hiding behind the boundaries. A couple of times now, I've been really annoyed by someone doing a probing attack, and then falling back behind the boundary to hide. If boundaries aren't removed completely, at least give us the option to pursue fleeing enemies across them if they decide to exploit them like that.
3. It makes it necessary for attacking team to also think rear security. Don't know where that flanking attack will come from.

Part of a good defensive strategy is making the attacking team nervous. That does not happen if they know they can go certain places with impunity.

As a closing note, it's perfectly possible to be a fraghunting ******* and a poor team-player  and still stay within the boundaries, just as it's completely possible  to be a good team player and play the objective while still violating  them.

[Penfold]

But some people have been able to tell me I am doing something wrong in a polite and friendly way, and others... not so much. Just something to think about. I name no names, and bear no grudges, but if I was a newcommer, I could have been quite put off of dMw within the first 30 minutes of arriving.

This is not acceptable. There's ways and means of telling people and sometimes it's not always done properly. If you'd like to PM me names we'll watch out for it.

This is an interesting conversation and we'll discuss it next week at the Game Leader meeting at the LAN. By all means continue to debate and we'll see what we can do to accommodate the majorities' wishes.

[Tutonic]

I'm not a fan of having hard-set map boundaries, for reasons that others have expressed: they're not necessary on a private server, and they seriously restrict your tactical flexibility (and thus, in my humble opinion, make the game less interesting).

As a closing note, it's perfectly possible to be a fraghunting *******  and a poor team-player  and still stay within the boundaries, just as  it's completely possible  to be a good team player and play the  objective while still violating  them.                   

Excellent point.

Why can't we just have a common-sense approach? If you notice someone dashing around by themselves, largely ignoring objectives, then just give them a gentle nudge in the right direction ("Hey buddy, would you mind sticking with the rest of your team/guarding the stuff next round? Cheers."). It seems to me that this is much easier to enforce than having to explain the presence of an invisible barrier. Frankly most people who aren't old-school regulars will be baffled by this restriction.

Verbally threatening people with bans (which is what I've personally heard on the server) because they went 2 and a half yards beyond a certain barrel doesn't make the server a nice place to be for me.

Just lighten up, play the game, lead by example and stop obsessing over the minor details.

[gromit83]

Well then its easy. When Ducky and Duvel is on the same side, no rules :-P You need to play like a maniac on meth with crazy tactics to have a chance to win the round

[b00n]

My point of view is that the boundaries are not instrumental for good teamplay. All it does is give attacking team a cushion to sleep on. The rest of the TCS rules are good, and they encourage the type of play we'd all like to see, but fixed boundaries are not condusive to this.
Sure, 95% of the time, good teamplay will dictate that you stay behind them anyway, as there's little tactical advantage to be had by crossing those points in most rounds. However, having the option gives three direct effects.
1. The attacking team can't roll up knowing they won't be attacked. This will force them to do a tactical approach from go, instead of just rushing to a staging point right behind the boundary and crashing the party from there.
2. It disallows the tactic of hiding behind the boundaries. A couple of times now, I've been really annoyed by someone doing a probing attack, and then falling back behind the boundary to hide. If boundaries aren't removed completely, at least give us the option to pursue fleeing enemies across them if they decide to exploit them like that.
3. It makes it necessary for attacking team to also think rear security. Don't know where that flanking attack will come from.

Part of a good defensive strategy is making the attacking team nervous. That does not happen if they know they can go certain places with impunity.

As a closing note, it's perfectly possible to be a fraghunting ******* and a poor team-player  and still stay within the boundaries, just as it's completely possible  to be a good team player and play the objective while still violating  them.

I can see your point regarding the attacking team having a sense of security, I'm just not sure why that's a problem.  TCS is certainly a different style of gameplay to regular CS, and I think that some things about that style just need to be accepted.  There is nothing inherently wrong with boundaries other than it makes you play in a different manner than you'd play on other servers, and that's the reason many people, including me, came to play here in the first place. It's a casual style that historically has suited dMw players - slower paced and deliberately not 'nervous'.  It still allows for plenty of tactical play, just not the kind of tactics that you see on other competitive servers (one reason why, despite having decent players, the dMw competitive CS team generally got thrashed :lmfao:).

[Penfold]

Verbally threatening people with bans (which is what I've personally heard on the server) because they went 2 and a half yards beyond a certain barrel doesn't make the server a nice place to be for me.

As we have no admins for this game then no one apart from members of the dMW Council (and Blunt who's overseeing CS:GO) is in a position to make that threat. This applies to everyone regardless of whether they've previously been a CS Admin or whatever.

If anyone has any issues with any player then please report it back to Blunt or one of the Community Admins to deal with until we decide how we're going to push this forward.

We do not want to see bullying, aggressive behaviour or members telling off other members in an inappropriate way. We don't have so many members that we want to hack them off and make them leave. If someone doesn't know the boundaries then there's a right way and a wrong way to tell them. Please think about how you would feel if someone was yelling at you and threatening you with a ban.

Also, joking aside, if it's ridiculously one-sided (eg Ducky and DuVel are on the same side) please split up and swap. It's pretty obvious when the game is ceasing to be enjoyable.

All we want is for it to be fun. Let's not get totally OCD about it.

[kregoron]

I can see your point regarding the attacking team having a sense of security, I'm just not sure why that's a problem.  TCS is certainly a different style of gameplay to regular CS, and I think that some things about that style just need to be accepted.  There is nothing inherently wrong with boundaries other than it makes you play in a different manner than you'd play on other servers, and that's the reason many people, including me, came to play here in the first place. It's a casual style that historically has suited dMw players - slower paced and deliberately not 'nervous'.  It still allows for plenty of tactical play, just not the kind of tactics that you see on other competitive servers (one reason why, despite having decent players, the dMw competitive CS team generally got thrashed :lmfao:).

Spot on m8, spot on.
TCS is a very different style then normal servers, slower and bit other tactics then normal.
A ton of our old CS players myself included came to dMw servers and fell in love with the TCS concept.. We had full servers every night, newcomers and regulars.

[kregoron]

My point of view is that the boundaries are not instrumental for good teamplay. All it does is give attacking team a cushion to sleep on. The rest of the TCS rules are good, and they encourage the type of play we'd all like to see, but fixed boundaries are not condusive to this.
Sure, 95% of the time, good teamplay will dictate that you stay behind them anyway, as there's little tactical advantage to be had by crossing those points in most rounds. However, having the option gives three direct effects.
1. The attacking team can't roll up knowing they won't be attacked. This will force them to do a tactical approach from go, instead of just rushing to a staging point right behind the boundary and crashing the party from there.
2. It disallows the tactic of hiding behind the boundaries. A couple of times now, I've been really annoyed by someone doing a probing attack, and then falling back behind the boundary to hide. If boundaries aren't removed completely, at least give us the option to pursue fleeing enemies across them if they decide to exploit them like that.
3. It makes it necessary for attacking team to also think rear security. Don't know where that flanking attack will come from.

Part of a good defensive strategy is making the attacking team nervous. That does not happen if they know they can go certain places with impunity.

As a closing note, it's perfectly possible to be a fraghunting ******* and a poor team-player  and still stay within the boundaries, just as it's completely possible  to be a good team player and play the objective while still violating  them.

Most of the bounds are actually created so that defenders cant see directly to attacker spawn, but close...  Example, the only spot where attackers are a little bit secure from flank attackers are at the end of long tunnel, but 1 player with a good aim can make that position horrible for attackers.

Hiding behind bounds, tactical retreat, and you see it just as often on normal gun and run servers.. As you say yourself, attackers are just probing the defense, finding holes in defenders positions. But always remember attackers still have to focus on their objective, so if you find yourself getting shot at from for example a sniping ct at long tunnel on italy, well step asside and wait for him, he has to come to you for the objective.

[faust82]

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.

[smilodon]

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.

[faust82]

I'm not saying we should descend into public mayhem, that's not what I'm after at all. I like the general style we're doing now, but as you so brilliantly put it, skipping past the boundary to finish a guy off and then falling back into a defensive position again, that's an option I'd like to have. It's actually MORE in keeping with the style as far as I can understand it, because it forces attacking team to think more about their approach as well.
The objective will always be the objective, and as you say, you can't achieve your objective in enemy spawn, but I can see several instances where having the option to dodge boundaries would make me more able to achieve my objective.
Let's take Italy for instance. If CT's are coming up through the tunnel, and I'm stuck way on the other side at the wee bridge, my only approach option is to go up to the corner and get my ass shot off by CT sniper support. Boundaries prevent me from jumping off and taking the stairs or the tunnel.
As soon as they get the hostages, all bets are off, so in that position I have to make a choice. Die at the corner, or wait for the message that they have the hostages and rush for an ambush position. Neither is a very good one. If them breaching the boundaries means I could too, I could make all sorts of approaches and still be on target.
It's not a _huge_ problem, but it's a situation I can see happening.

But yeah, now is not the time to make big changes. The higher-ups are having a meeting at the lan, and I'm sure there'll be some lobbying opportunities there