• Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

A new Counter-Strike mod idea! Counter Strike Extreme

This topic is 5708 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

To start, what Im proposing is a Pay Service for an upscaled version of Counter-Strike that allows for more organized play than can be found in both the Public Server play and even in Clan communities. Here are the details and reasoning: (not too long ) Has anyone here ever played Laser-Tag. The nice thing about going to a laser-tag game compared to trying to find a public Counter-Strike game is that the laser-tag game is moderated by a human-being who divides the teams fairly based on player experience. In a CS game the teams get stacked and you most often find you self on either side of a boring situation: your on the losing team with a team score of 0 wins, or your on the winning team and getting no competition from the other side. The other problem that occurs is that even if you do have a good game going, players up and leave either team, thus upsetting what WAS a good game. Now I know all of you CS fanatics will say "Dude!, Public play is only for practice, not for playing organized scrim play. You need to join a clan!", and I know this. The only problem is that there is very little organization to the way in which clans compete and scrim. Trying to get 5 of my friends together on one server is very tough, and what about pple who dont belong to a clan, or dont want to belong to one? Enter a new game idea! A Pay service for CS Scrimming and matching similar to paying for Everquest or other RPG type games (not similar to the games, just the pay part). In this scenario, you have pple who come into a match-making area first, and a HUMAN moderator divides the teams fairly, and also checks for cheaters ect..Then the game starts, but with a couple twists on the original CS game First, the Idea of having a commander/non-player position. When CS 1.4 came out w/ the overhead obeserver mode (the one w/ the whole map and characters are circles) I thought that it would be a great Idea to implement a command position where one player doesnt actually play but directs the action as a commander, using a modified version of that overhead map, as well as all the other spec modes except modified of course so that the commander cannot see the enemy players or be in free-look mode. This command position could be a rotating position of course. The commander could have a host of tools that allow him to send waypoints and even take up specific positions/paths of movements in a micro-managed firefight. And if players do not do what the commander says, you have the moderator to put players in oberserver mode if the player misbehaves or doesnt follow orders from the commander. Second, I also thought of a further modification that expands a bit on the original CS idea of having objectives (bomb a site, rescue hosties). The problem with CS now is after awhile players get tired of playing a game where they KNOW where the bomb site is, and they KNOW where the hosties are. The way CS is now, once you have played a map a few times, the variation in game play and predicatbility becomes quite boring and monotonous. Well, what if you had a much larger playing area, and each teams commander could have about 20 seconds or so of pre-game setup where they decide where to have there teams placed in certain predefined zones and have ANY place in a certain zone a legitmate bomb-site/hostage site. There would obviously be restrictions as to which zones the CT''s and T''s could place there teams start positions/objective sites, but given a larger map, say a map the size of decent size college campus w/ many multi-story buildings, the re-playability of just ONE map would make almost every game totally different from the last. There it is.. tell me what you think? How much would people pay for a Counter-Strike Extreme Online Matching and Scrimming service? I would personally pay 20 bucks a month to be able to go into a well organized game anytime of day and play a great game of CS Extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
20 bucks a month to play an outdated engine.

Why not take your idea, and apply it to a game that''s engine isn''t prehistoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are hundreds of mods for the Half-Life engine out and they are free. I seriously doubt that people will pay $20 a month for a mod just like the rest.



I know only that which I know, but I do not know what I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well actually Daishi, if you read the post, you would see that im not just proposing a new mod, but an actual SERVICE, one that is moderated REAL HUMANS throughout the play of the game. Tell me one FPS game that does that? Like I said, you would feel like you walked into a Laser-Tag game, but in a virtual sense. As well, name one mod for an FPS that has a commander that does only that?. This idea would make the game more organized, and people would specialize in building tactics as commanders, and certain people would become famous in the community as being great commanders. So no, what Im proposing is something much more organized then the typical Half-Life mod.

As to the remark about the engine being old: this is true, however this very same engine is probably the most played on engine in history next to the Quake series. Counter-Strike is by far one of the most successful and still the most played FPS mod to date. But dont think I dont feel somewhat the way you do: People might find it hard to actually PAY for playing in this engine. I personally dont even know if the engine could work on the larger scales im proposing. So, you are right a newer, different and even more secure engine would attract people better. The reason I wanted to stick w/ the Counter-Strike game is because I dont want to recreate the wheel: Counter-Strikes firing, damage, and movement models are fine-tuned and people play the game in droves for these very reasons. In that case one would have to re-build these firing models from scratch in a new engine.

Thanks for the comments.. and btw.. 20 bucks a month was kind of joke, but maybe not since im proposing actually paying staff to do this work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by TheEnderBean
this very same engine is probably the most played on engine in history next to the Quake series.


Half-Life is built on Quake 1, with bits of Quake 2 added in.



Superpig
- saving pigs from untimely fates
- sleeps in a ham-mock at www.thebinaryrefinery.cjb.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
No personal attacks, AP.

If you have a point to make, make it reasonably and respectfully, or don't post here.

[edited by - Wavinator on July 1, 2002 12:58:56 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
How much would people pay for a Counter-Strike Extreme Online Matching and Scrimming service?


I wouldn''t be willing to pay for such a service. I play CS regularly, and I rarely have a hard time finding a good game to join. Playing against an evenly-matched team is fun, and playing against a heavily-stacked team is pretty fun, too (similar to what the recent AP mentioned). Regarding cheaters, I''m not sure how much more effective a human moderator would be versus CSGuard and kick-votes -- in any case, I''m certainly not bothered by cheaters often enough that I would pay money to avoid them.

Regarding your idea for a commander, I think there''s a recent game that has something along these lines (maybe it was an "intel officer" or something). If you want to require players to obey the commander, you could simply give *him* the power to kick players to observer mode... I don''t think that a moderator would be necessary.

As for map variety, it''s been my experience that players don''t like being lost on a new map. They like playing the same old map over and over again, and I wouldn''t say that it gets monotonous. Having a larger map with varying objective locations sounds interesting, though. One problem with large maps is that people get spread out and it takes forever for the round to complete.

There are a lot of CS players, but CS was free to begin with, and I don''t think you''re going to be able to squeeze any money outta them with your idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first off, many good servers already have moderaters who admin the server. some are mean, some are not. you moderators could not know who plays good or not unless you keep stats which would be pretty meaningless since the game is not based on kill/death alone. its a team game with objectives. most players dislike being on the team they dont want to play on. they will leave the match and join one in which they can play the team the went. this is especially true for ppl who play online with friends.

5mins (though mahy servers run 3mins) rounds are VERY short. there is no way a commander could do anythign useful. there already is a built in planning time. most servers turn it off, or lower it to 5 seconds. it used to be around 10-15 seconds. also hl cant handle huge outdoor maps, or huge maps in general. the engine is not designed to push the polys in that fashion. you would be raising the required min pc by quite a bit.

ppl play cs as if it were team deathmatch. ts cant camp the hostages or ppl complain. cts cant camp the bomb site or ppl complain. ppl get sick of waiting 3mins. imagine a large map, and waiting 5mins or even 7mins if you get killed early? players need to play the game correctly and try to play as a team. try to complete the objectives, anmd not worry about their stupid kill/death ratio. also i think it would help things if maps were slightly larger, but players need to respawn after some time (a la global warfare). you cant have large maps with longer battles, yet ince you die your dead till the next round. it gets rather boring sittin there and watching. another reason why NOONE would pay for such a service. why should i pay money to join a server, and i may get killed early in the round and sit there like a moron for most of the round waiting for the next one?

maps getting boring? complain to the idiots that hate any of the new ones. very few servers run new maps because the cs community as a whole are immature. there is no one creating map packs, and too many newbies running default setting servers. in fact the cs team REMOVED maps from the distro. notable the assaination and escape levels. yep thats right, two modes of gameplay that are supported, dont ahve any maps with the newer versions. i have 161 maps for cs. though servers only play about 3 maps (de_dust, de_dust2, de_aztec) most of the time. most ppl have not even played the new maps with teh new version since no one likes them since they suck at the map. they rather play de_dust since they know it so well and everyone raves about it (i think the map is pretty boring and VERY ugly).

the idea that a "commander" player could kick whoever he wants to observer mode is even stupider then having paid ppl to police the server. some random idiot can control the team? hwo silly is that. now i join a server and the commander dont like me so he boots me to being an observer. or i play well and am doing better then the commander, so he kicks me so his score can get better (in fact admins have done this to me at times, especially if they were on the losing team with their clanmates making up the team).

you want oragnize gameplay? find one of those cheap game hosting sites which lets you rent part of a server to run cs on it. then you are the admin and can police the server. you can even have it password protected and only give the password to ppl you know who will play by the rules. being the admin you can force even teams, kick obnoxious players, etc. make the server public and have good friends help police the server. amke it known that the server is meant to be played as cs and not deathmatch i the motd. set teh preplan time to a decent amount. though i think cs needs a drawblae map (a la myth) to make planning time worthwhile. have newer maps in the rotation so gameplay dont get stale. get the escape and assaination levels to help increase the varity.

ppl who dont belong to a clan, dont care about organized team play. they play so they can get good scores for themselves. they play for high kill/death ratios (pretty much a meaningless number in cs since its about the team doing good, not just a play or two). most teams lose because the are not playing as a team.

why dont you make a nice large level? the tools are freely availible. you can see why the maps are the size they are. hl is old, and outdated. its not optimized liek the newer engines. its meant for in door style levels. ut on the other hand could handle something like a campus. it has a better system designed to hanlde out areas and indoor areas well.

just remember, the larger the map, the longer the gameplay time required, the more aimless walking, the more the team gets seperated, the more pl who get killed early will quite because they dont want to what 10mins for the next round. you need to know the target else you cant expect the players to find it. it will get tiresome searching for the target each round. again, especially if you get sniped early. plus there are likly to be spots on the map that are very easy to gaurd (ie only one entrance). also who gets to decide where the item goes? a random person? just go through in order? a tough call.

new cs versions actually REMOVED the randomness you talk about because ppl disliked it so much. ts cant move the hostages anymore. the reason? made the matches too long since the ts would camp out while the cts looked aimlessly. made for a long boring wait for the ppl hwo died early in the match. but quite strategic since a single t could win by hiding the hostages well even if he was going against an entire ct team. the t would eventually be found if the match time was long enough, but since cts would be dispersed, its easier for the t to take them down one at a time. also if the hostages die, the t just needs to hide since the cts can only win by killing the t. again slows gameplay, and ppl area against that because they want fast action, but fake realism.

try playing sum of all fears. nice realistic game with pretty large maps.

try sof2, the random levels are HUGE. exactly what you are looking for. though many ppl disliek them since the game turns into a snipe fest. thoughs ince you respawn in ctf or team deathmatch its ok. infiltration however woudl get boring (and i dont think the random maps support that) since you woudl have to wait so long. rounds last about 15-20mins.

i dont even attempt to understand why ppl play cs as much as they do now. all of teh good levels are never played. new levels are not on any server. ppl play it as if it were deathmatch. each version gets worse. accuarcy continues to drop for guns while features are removed (like ts moving hostages or the other gamplay style maps). oh well, fortunatly there are MUCH better games out there to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To A Person: Fisrt off, you make great points about pple not wanting to pay to sit around dead.. and I''ve actually thought about the same idea you had which would be to have a minute long death time.. than you respawn.. and for the big map you could have a slighly longer map time. I disagree that 5 minutes is not enough time making a commander "meaningless". This is not true in real-life.. as real life battles last only a couple minutes if that... and the commander makes all the differnce. But Im also proposing the possibility of having lets say 8 different possible bomb plant spots, and in the pre-game they decide which one to go for. Once its selected, they must bomb that objective. And as in real-life, the CT''s dont know (often) the exact spot the T''s plan to bomb. THe commander will actually steer the action more because every bomb-site entrance will have a camera, and during pre-game the commander for that round will decide who to give the heart-monitor''s to. These heart-monitors/ coupled w/ camera''s will allow the commander to direct their teams toward the action, or a couple of pple to check out a disturbance (destroyed camera, or smoked up room.. which could be a deploy). If you dont know how Heart-Monitors work, basically they detect nearby heartbeats, so that when the commander is traking in team in the 2d overhead view, they can see enemies around corners ect. Do you see now how this might work? And I agree about the respawn idea.

You also mis-understood on a couple points, one of which I dis-agree to a point. On the point of commanders being able to kick: Everything you said is true if commanders could boot pple and such, which is why I never suggested such a silly idea.. only the MODERATOR who is not in anyway biased, will have the ability to resolve any major conflicts which may result in booting disturbing players. This is a checks and balances system, and also remember that the commander position would be alternating, meaning one person does not have to be the commander the whole time because they might like to play as well.

Also the other point about the moderater spliting up teams and theories about elite players and teamplay: First off I would only suggest that the Moderator do what Marshals do for a typical real-life Laser-Tag game, which is to ask who has played longer, and who considers themselves good or belongs to leagues ect.. but now that I think about it, every player is registered and we would keep detailed stats on that player. About your argument that a player w/ a 66 percent kill death ratio does not make a differnce, its all about teamplay: I dare you to put the 5 best players on one team and let the other team have average shooters, and then place a bet w/ me on which team will win. Somehow I dont think you would bet on the rookie team. Usually, the guys w/ good K/D ratios have played awhile and also are familiar w/ teamplay, and in fact, use thier teammates and teamplay to help them achieve thier high scores: Because when you work together w/ someone you tend to do better than when you run solo all the time. Ingorant noobs who think they are playing Quake go run point and lay down like a 2 dolla ho, wheras good players run w/ thier teammates. So I totally have to disagree on that point because this is a tried and true practice in just about any teamsport from Basketball to QSar (Laser-Tag), and always plays out to be true in Counter-Strike: Never Stack Teams.. its just suks.

Anyway, there are bound to be little issues, and in general I would just solve them by giving the benefit to the customer. For instance you argue about pple wanting to be on the team they want be on or play w/ who they want to. You dont think that cant be solved for the most part? Brainstorm, solve the problem.. dont just throw an idea out the window because of a little issue. I would solve it by first off, giving priority to people who show up first in a game room which has a pre-set time schedule available to everyone. Now, nothing can be done about making everyone happy and being on the team they want, and this is true by pure logic and is true in CS right now. If everyone got thier own way, one team would always have way more players than the other.. compromises must be made.. sometimes I have to play w/ the lameass Ak47 as a T because there is no room on CT which I prefer.. thats just a fact. So, I think good ole fasion first come first serve is a good policy. Also, I would give priority to lets say 4 or less pple wearing clan tags. This means that they will be grouped on the same teams, or if they would like to divide than that is fine as well. The reason I say 4, is because anymore then the clan should go to the Clan Scrim rooms, where clan memembers join chat/match making rooms and talk crap to one another until they decide to scrim right there.

Anyway, my point is that a little creative thinking can solve any number of technicalities. But this is why I need you to keep bringing up anything else that might not work or could pose a problem. Thanks for your insights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:

Original post by TheEnderBean
First, the Idea of having a commander/non-player position. When CS 1.4 came out w/ the overhead obeserver mode (the one w/ the whole map and characters are circles) I thought that it would be a great Idea to implement a command position where one player doesnt actually play but directs the action as a commander, using a modified version of that overhead map, as well as all the other spec modes except modified of course so that the commander cannot see the enemy players or be in free-look mode. This command position could be a rotating position of course. The commander could have a host of tools that allow him to send waypoints and even take up specific positions/paths of movements in a micro-managed firefight. And if players do not do what the commander says, you have the moderator to put players in oberserver mode if the player misbehaves or doesnt follow orders from the commander.



that and the idea of "reinforcements" is WHAT GLOBAL OPERATIONS IS ALL ABOUT!!! have you ever heard of it? it''s CS with all those named by you "enhacements".

go check it out: http://www.globalopsgame.com/



---
shurcool
my project

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you see the difference though is with your system i am paying for a service. thus having the inconvience of finding a server that i can play on the team i want becomes me not getting what i am paying for (the whole point is to enhance the game). thus if i join a server, and play really well that day. the moderator may place me with the other team who is a bunch or morons who dont know how to play cs (ie they play it as deathmatch). thus now the gameplay expierence i am now paying for is being ruined.

cs is currently a free game. when ppl buy it at the store they are buying the hl engine to play cs on. thy can install other mods as they please and play them. you are creating a bunch of privite servers with special rules. this special rules are things that work when the parties involved are reasonable. most cs players are not that way and will leave the server when they dont get their way.

also being such a service, you will have to foot the bill for ALL the servers. you will have to pay for bandwidth and the computers they are run on. you will have to make sure their are enough servers to go around (at least one hundred per 1000 ppl). you will also have to make sure they are dispersed enough so everyone can find a server with a good ping thats not always full or empty. you may say "well i can let other ppl run servers". well then, you still have to compensate those ppl. most will want money. since it costs money to run a server. and in the end, the person running the server, paying for the bandwidth, owning the cpu, paying for the electricty, etc ahs the last say in anything that goes on in the game run on the server.

someone with a high K/D ratio could have merely camped and sniped ppl. staying hidden. maybe taking many many rounds and hours of gameplay staying away from the enemy. since all the maps can be won by wasting time, someone just needs to kill an opponent and go hide letting the opposing force win or the team handle defense. they could have a very high K/D but never actually helped the team much at all. just because someone kills ppl in the game without dying much, does not mean they are a team player nor are they good. while i agree some ppl with high K/D are good players, it only can signify they are helpful in one aspect. dont even state that playtime can be used to help determine things in relation to K/D. maybe the team he was on was terrible because the moderator wanted even teams. now his score suffers because no one defends him. or he is on a team with extremly good players and does not get a chance to kill ppl much. i can think of tons of scenarios where the statistics are lying about how good the player is. most of them happened to me.

if teh team loses a lot, but the player has a good K/D is the player a team player? how about if the entire team has a GREAT K/D ratio, but lost every round. does that make them a good team? it only takes single person completing the objective, but killing few ppl to completly destroy what the K/D means. what if i sacrifice my life so that my team can advance? such distractions are used often in virtual combat situations. if there is a high probablity of me dying in the aftermath, yet my team completes the mission. it was for the greater good. yet my individual score suffers greatly. its not to say i could not kill the opposing team, but doing probably would have resulted in a lose due to a short time limit.

you yourself stacked the team. you said take a group of players with great K/D ratios and rookie players. i am saying some good players have lousy K/D ratios due to circumstances beyond their control. like sacrifices and actaully completeing the objective which results in less of the oppsing force being killed. i can garuntee i can find a group of "elite" players with high K/D and pit them against a group of team players who have avg K/Ds. i have gave planety of examples on why someone with a reletivly low K/D can still be an exceptional player. i have playedon servers where the LOSING team had player scores of 56/4 and the winning team had scores of 10/7. its all a matter of whether the objective is completed and not just killing the other team.

name ANY real battle that lasted 5 mins. most last hours at least. remember, just because there is no actual shooting does not mean the conflict is over. take a look at black hawk down. the entire mission was supposed to take a mere few hours (about 3 if i remeber correctly). instead something went wrong and turned into a multi day mission. during the entire time was a combat situation. even during the waiting because the enemy could have striked at anytime.

i seem to have misunderstood slightly the power of the commander. though it still stands its silly. most players dont want to pay for something in which they have to follow orders. things may go round robin, but if the commander sucks the team will lose if they listen to the commander.

5mins definatly will make such a commanding unit useless. esepcially since there are only 5-8 ppl on a team at once. not much to command since the match will likly be resolved in only 2mins. furthermore, usually squads split and choose their own commander. thus the players respect and will follow the commander. if the commander is arbitraly chosen, players wont follow.

also, ts picking a location to bomb. nice concpet but the main flaw is the time element. you say places will have cameras. great, but it results still having to get the tropps across the map in timly manner. something quite diffiuclt. maps would have to be lareg enough to make the bmob choice useful. curently the two choice system works well. anymore and cts are too dispersed to be effective.

for disterbences to work this means a small group of ppl would risk their K/D for the good of the team. its likly they will get caught and killed. thus while they helped the team, the individuals scorce suffers as a result. the main reason why ppl play cs as deathmatch and why cs in general is not much fun to play. no one wants to get a low K/D.

you even yoruself say its a matter of compromise. so ppl can compromise just as well on public servers. you just need to find the right servers. the same thing would happen with your idea. i am gald though you are taking this critizing correctly and using it to flesh out and fix any flaws that may be there.

you should do a public test run of it with a few servers for free and see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"A Person":
First I must address your argument that I would need "(at least one hundred per 1000 ppl)" servers. Do that math again dude, seriously. Are you suggesting that 1 server can only has 10 players: 10players times 100 servers is 1000 players. In fact 100 Dual procesors could run about 2 games consisting of up to 20 players per game. Thats 40 people per server times 100 servers is 4000 pple per 100 servers. Proabably could do more based on the number of pple they are planning to host on Planetside per servers which is in the 1000''s per server I believe. Planetside is a new MMOFPS that has not come out yet, but is nearing completion. To quote "How many people will be able to play at once? Thousands will play on each world. The servers themselves have capacity for hundreds of thousands of subscribers." Thats 100,000''s of players in FPS in 10 linked 8km by 8km maps!! Thats 640 square kilometers of indoor and outdoor playing space! Dont tell me about techincal limitations, cause what im suggesting is small stuff compared to the price of keeping EQ and Planetside server farms going! Go check it out at http://planetside.station.sony.com/faq.jsp

Some good points again.. but I will have to say that you are wrong on many points. First off, yes I totally agree that you dont want to be on a team with rookies. This is why I would have seperate servers for beginner, intermediate, advanced based not just on KD ratios, but more advanced statistics, which also help counter another of your arguments about someone being a sniper and camping to get good KD ratios, because stats could show that you are this type of player. Again, what Im proposing about the overall organiztion of the Service is based on tried and true models for real-life Laser-Tag/Paint-Ball communities: They have League play for different levels of skill, and thier games are highly Marshalled. Their "public" level games are organized as well by Marshals, and yes noobs are allowed. But once you reach a level of eliteness, then you will most likely join a League team and play with higher caliber players. This model would translate perfectly to an online community.

But at this point I must digress about the aspect of good KD ratio players: My brother is a bitch to play w/ as a teammate, but is a great twitch player and plays M4A1 commando style and gets typically a 66% or better KD ratio (thats 2 K to 1 D). I support him by watching his flank, or tossing counter-measures and advancing w/ him in a timed manner. Now, that said, when you have your good point men, they make a MUCH bigger differnce for the team the run-and-sacrifice-my-life player.. which if you watched Black-Hawk Down, and as my bro, who has been 6 years in the Navy knows (he was in Desert Storm), you dont EVER foolishly send men into a death-trap.. reason: Your men are WAY more usefull to your squad alive then dead. This works out to be totally true in CS as well. For instance, you would RARELY advance a team up the dark long hallway (read the Official Strategy guide by Valve for League Play tactics) In Italy, and, also stated in the CSOSG, the T''s always camp the house are from several differnt positions, and dont rush to the market (this is for 5 on 5 league play).

The reason CS was created was to simulate small team Counter-Terrorists strategies, and any CS league player (Ive meet many) would tell you that if you think like its real life (to a point) and play w/ more of a sence of life-preservation instinct, your team and you will do much better. And yes, you are right from time to time I have been on the team w/ the lower KD ratios, and even overall lower scores and we managed to win most of the games because we played together well, but that is the exception, big time.

And I totally disagree w/ you that "it only takes 1 player to complete the objective". To which you then contradict yourself by using an argument that a player who sacrifices his life contributes to achieving the objective (yes I know, it was used for the K/D ratio argument, which I already countered above). Yes, the guy who sacrifed himself MAY have helped the 1 guy bomb the target, or diffuse the bomb, but I GUARANTEE you that the guy the guy w/ the great KD ratio who killed half of the enemy team made it even POSSIBLE for the 1 person to achieve the objective. Because when some eliminates 4 out of 10 of the enemy team, it makes the rest of your teams job MUCH easier. This is true in real-life: Your point man in a real-life CT team is a Twictchy crazy ass mofo who can take down MANY enemies before they can even pull thier triggers. But the point-man also needs MAJOR tight back-up, because he is also the first to get wacked if things go wrong. For instance, real-life Seal, or Marine teams of 10 to 20 mean can eliminate 100''s or more average enlisted-level enemies, Reason: They move in tight formation and are extremely fast, accurate, smart and extremely organized w/ 1 person leading things on the field, or from a mobile command, or both if you are in a chain of command.

You also missed my time thing. When I say 5 minutes, Im talking about small parts of what you saw in BHD, and Im also suggesting that my idea would have a little more time like 10 minutes. For instance, when the Blawk Hawk went down, the main characters team needed to get to the copter: That objective needed to be completely fairly quickly, probably 10 or so minutes. In fact, that would make a great CS mission for my idea . And as you saw in the movie, the main character needed to make many decisions and manage many little skirmishes to get to the Black Hawk. There was no democracy. And if pple pay to play, and they know what to expect, then your argument that they wont like taking orders and just want to do thier own thing.. well its not much of an argument because that person is an immature moron and should be kicked off by the moderator so he can go complain even more in CS servers. And if a commander suks, and gets thier team killed, then they will probably not want to command again, and neither will thier team, in which case you let someone else do it until you get someone who has a litte Patton in his/her blood, and then you let him command until he gets stale, and then you try to find a relief pitcher, ect, ect. I just think that there are enough 20''s to 30 somethings out their who game and would like this idea, because any Military rat will tell you that democracy in battle gets EVERYONE killed. When you are regular American citizen, we take for granted that democracy has its place, and its definitely not in battle. This is why many new enlistee''s get a major case of culture shock when they join the Military. They expect that what they think means a load of crap, and it dont.. they make men learn to react quickly to orders and never to move on thier own, because THAT is what will save thier lives in battle. Stupid little self-absorbed teenagers will never understand this, and this is why public servers suk for the most part, unless you find a mature crowd.

Anyway, we can just agree to disagree.. My point is that online gameing has yet to mature because of annonymity and control factors. And games like EQ, which are pay services, show thier success because all those people who payed to play want something for thier money, and will do thier part to make the game world a fun place. I think this could translate to a LaserTag/Paintball style of FPS play, organization-wise that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A person, you said:

"you see the difference though is with your system i am paying for a service. thus having the inconvience of finding a server that i can play on the team i want becomes me not getting what i am paying for (the whole point is to enhance the game). thus if i join a server, and play really well that day. the moderator may place me with the other team who is a bunch or morons who dont know how to play cs (ie they play it as deathmatch). thus now the gameplay expierence i am now paying for is being ruined."

Ok, here you are just trying to build a straw-man argument about how a paid moderator is going to ruin your game, when in reality, this is the EXACT problem Im trying to get away from on those REAL CS server that have that freaking lame-ass Auto-balance which constantly switches me to the other team when Im doing the best on the winning team. In my situation, and I will re-itterate, that my Moderators would act in the interest and will of the player. The moderator will first ask if any of the top players would want to join the other team for balancing purposes, and in most cases (heck even I have bit my tongue and switched to T someone will volunteer. The other thing the moderator could do is find another available player in a match-making room to join a team that is getting stomped. He would never arbitrarly move someone w/out thier consent: The are paying customers. But even paying customers must make some compromises and have good sportsmanship to play, because that is the kind of caliber player a pay service would attract, and demand. People who lack sportsmanship in CS that never offer to switch to the losing team to help the game out, are not welcome in my idea. Those same people probably act in other ways to ruin game play anyway.

Of course, I would also offer regular season Tournaments for Clans, and regular daily dynamic Clan Scrim/Match servers, where a group of 5 or more clan memebers joing a match making room and .. well you read that in the last post right

Anyway, just had to retort on that argument



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the auto balance you seem to dislike is very similar to how you wanted to balance teams before. take the good players from the team with more ppl and place them on the team with the least amount of ppl. moderators will act in the interest of friends/regilars on the server and this cant be helped as its human nature. assuming everyone is equally a stranger to the moderator, he will not act in the interest of an indiciual player, but try to act for the entire group of players. thus you have a system in which the moderator will have to decide whats best for the server. there will be times he will move players to other teams when they dont wish to be moved in order to balance the teams. the player will then dislike the team they are on and either quit and find another server or simply play on a public server. and even with a democracy where ppl vote, some players will simply refuse to move arguing that the moderator is not forcing others to move and that they equally pay the same x dollars per y time. so its not fair that because they are better players that they be moved more often then bad players. of course the oppisite will hold true if you decide to just move newbies. then again if teams keep switching you dont get the sense of being a team, and thus will be more individualistic in playing.

though you are correct, its very likly that only players who are sportmanlike will join the service. however i think having ppl switch teams in a middle of a map makes the game less team like. since now you are a "traitor" since you switched and must learn the tatics of the other team. furthermore you know what the now oppsoing team had planned. they coudl switch the plan, but you still know the basic strategies that happened.

so you say 10mins per round? reasonable, especially with larger maps, but this means on avg a dead player will wait about 3-5mins per round. this is a pretty long time doing nothing, especially since i notice on most servers ppl whine when games take longer then 3mins. for instance many times my entire team will rush except for a few ppl including me (ie me and 2 ppl). we are playing has defense, and the aprt of the team that rushes gets killed because the cts decided to camp their spawn. now me and my teammates wait at our spawn by the hostages. and we wait, and wait. one of my teammates gets board and decides to go looking for the cts, and gets killed. so it becomes a 2 on 6 match. cts that die complain that the ts should start moving. ts complain the cts should start moving. depending on the team the admin is on he complains for a team to start moving. would a moderator intefere in this game? technically he should not and let it play out. because with 3mins remaing the ts could still win if the cts dont attack. vice versa the cts could win with a last minute attack confusuing the ts or hoping the ts get bored and walk into the cts trap. on a pay for for service server, ppl how died early will dislike waiting. thus some form of respawn would be required, but then even 10min matches will be too fast. instead 20min matches would be best. since a 10sec respawn rate would become useless if mathces are short,

when i say servers, i mean actual instances of the game running. i was being somewhat less then optimistic pretending that all players will wish to play at once. furthermore you need that slack so other who will join the service will see that their are open servers during their free trial (naturally you would have some form of limited time free trial so players can see how everything works). in either case, can you afford to rent or purchase the hardware required?

yes its true in real life sacrifices get the team nowhere. however, sucide bombers have done quit well in achieve goals. kamikaize (definatly spelt that wrong) have also proved that suicde tactics can work when you out number your opponent.


i guess the problem is that i tend to see the cs community as immature as a whole. its the community that made cheating a rampent problem. sure cheating was in other online games before cs, i have even see those early cheats. i never used them, but found their development intriguing. most of the development was to create ai bots to play against, some however felt it better to create bots that enhanced the player skill. in the quake community the players respected each other. camping was not done much, and pverall it was fun since teh community created a multitude of mods and server ops ran new maps and mods.

the hl and cs community are not like this at all. first ppl complain about camping in cs when its an integral part of the gameplay. i dont care to remember the number of times i was kicked because i was protecting the hostages or bomb site and the dead admin on the oppisite disliked me always finishing of his team because they came in one at a time thus easy pickings. most admins now have chnaged their attitude about camping and expect it now. the server ops dislike runnign new maps. mainly because players dont play good on them so the players hate them. also nobody has bothered to make map packs like the quake community did. so even running custom maps can be a hassle. though i am sure your service could remedy this, assuming you could convince players to download the maps (since you have to get permission to place them on any sort of cd to give). though i would get permission from the mappers before placing them on pay for play servers. they may want compensation (which they are entitled to).

would you bring back escape and assaination maps? most players have never even played nor heard of them. heck even some long time players dont remebrr them nor even played them. they were unpopular due to the round robin (ie who gotto be the VIP) and extremly team oriented (and strategic camping) required.

you have to realize that when ppl pay for a service they want to get everything. they expect perfection. heck ppl complain about free software. also dont forget, many players who would like to join the service cant. either they are under age, cant afford it, dont got a credit card, etc. this limits things greatly. also being a pay per play service, you would have to get permission from valve to even use this idea. mainly because you are charging for playing which is against the EULA. i know its a matching service, but unlike gamespy you are actually charging players to actually play a game not owned by you. with gamespy you are paying for the browser, not the actual gameplay. however i may be wrong and you may be able to get away with it since you own the servers being used. though i would highly reccomend talknig with valve and finding out because you dont want to get sued. i know for a fact you cant use the name counterstrike since that trademarked.

again i suggest setting up a few test servers and seeing how things work out. realize that ppl who get free trials will disrupt gameplay more then actual paying players. also realzie you MUST have some form of free trial for ppl to test whether they like the service. this is mainly where i think the service will fail. you will always have an influx of trail players who dont always listen nor respect all the rules.

though i think no matter what we each say, the only true way to prove anything is to actually have a test run of the service. ie a few servers that are password protected and invite only. you could use admin mod to have a form of player registration. i am pretty sure it supports such a thing. which are made public only on certain days or times in which the new players may join and moderators can decide if their behavior is acceptable to be a regular player on the server. this is something done on many servers, only trusted ppl are allowed to play on the server.

you would be surprised how quickly a nice friendly player becomes stubborn when he is paying for the privilage to play on a server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Person:

Good points again, but to clear some things up:

I totally agree about tossing up teams in the middle of the game, which is why the teams will be attempted to be balanced at the beggining of the game. Usually this works out great at a Laser-Tag event, and I've been freinds w/ several Marshals at my local Qsar here in San Jose, Ca, and they always acted professionally, because they were being paid, and had thier bosses to be accountable to if customers complain about Marshals. So I just think that this is not a new concept whatsoever, and has been very proven. In fact EVERY major team sport has a refferee (sp?) or 2 in them. Without Refs you have chaos. Also, Marshals dont tend to stop the game once its started, and think I would just make that the same rule except in EXTREME circumstances, like its currently 10 games to 0, or couple players need to leave for real-life reasons, so that the Marshal has to go out to the matching area and dig up a coupld of players. This so often happens in real CS that it sickens me.. who would want to continue playing on EITHER side of such a stacked set uf teams?! Of course there will be times when Marshals, being human, will err. This is why companies have checks and balances. For instance, to prevent Marshals from acting unfaily, all the major text messages and voice interaction will be recorded so that if a Marshal is out of line, I, the boss, would just verify the complaint and admonish the guy for being a jerk to our customers and if he does it again hes fired. In fact many companies, regardless of the type of company, will fire customer service agents right away if they get more than 3 complaints in certain time period.

As to the time per round: This is all theory of course, and it would need to be fine tuned once I map out the large environs, and play test it a bunch. I would not use the HL engine I dont think. Probably the UT engine, which someone suggested above. If I did go w/ the HL engine or another engine for that matter, I could create any mod and I believe its legal to sell it. I honestly havnt checked into the details of that, but Im sure there is way to do it legally. Back to the time thing: 10 minutes could probably work, if you had a 1 minute long death wait, and then respawn, as I said in the last a couple posts back. This way if you die really early, you will be back in time for plenty of play. And if you die really late, the longest you will wait is 1 minute. If the whole teams gets slautered in under a 1 minute, then the other team just deservers big time props As to map size, Im thinking on the verge of 2 times the size of Dust2 and such.. with some multi story buildings.

you said: "i guess the problem is that i tend to see the cs community as immature as a whole. its the community that made cheating a rampent problem. sure cheating was in other online games before cs, i have even see those early cheats. i never used them, but found their development intriguing. most of the development was to create ai bots to play against, some however felt it better to create bots that enhanced the player skill. in the quake community the players respected each other. camping was not done much, and pverall it was fun since teh community created a multitude of mods and server ops ran new maps and mods."

I 100 percent agree w/ ever word said here! Even "pverall"
Seriously though, this is EXACTLY why I would like to create a pay service. I mentioned EQ because its about one of the most popular game ever, if not the most popular, because when people fork out even a little dough for something, they take it a bit more seriously, as do the people making them pay. Iam of the opinion that the FPS community will never evolve into something more meaningfull unless we weed out the lameasses and start charging a reasonable amount in order to bring the level of sportsmanship and teamplay to the next level. This has shown itself to be true in just about every aspect of life, not just games. Remeber the axiom: "You get what you pay for". And if you dont pay crap, you get crap..ala what you get in CS half the time, and all the arguments you made.

You are correct of course, the only way to is to actually do it. When speak of whether I have the money to buy all equipment: Of course not, and neither did most of the big CEO's when they started off. You have to get loans, have a business plan..its complex, and Im not even ready yet. But I have lots of ideas, that are not just knock-offs of the original, like this particular idea is. This is one of my least original ideas. This idea came to me, because it just seems to make sence, given that the RPG community has evolved by leaps and bound over the FPS community. I think Verant see's the same thing I do, which is why they are attempting exploit a whole new market w/ the creation of Planetside. Verant makes EQ btw

About building a player base in this idea, and people complaining: Thats what customer service is about.. The whole idea is to give people less to complain about, and more time concentrating on teamplay and having fun. Also remember, this is not just CS, this is full-blown re-mod of the game. Im not just going to throw in some bigger maps and thats it. There is the commander modifications, there are pre-game setup modifactions that just dont exist in CS. So it is a different game in that sense. I used to be in Customer Service as a PC technician, so Im VERY familiar w/ how pple complain when they are paying for something .. and thats just how it should be



[edited by - TheEnderBean on July 5, 2002 6:24:17 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"As for map variety, it''s been my experience that players don''t like being lost on a new map. They like playing the same old map over and over again, and I wouldn''t say that it gets monotonous. Having a larger map with varying objective locations sounds interesting, though. One problem with large maps is that people get spread out and it takes forever for the round to complete."

First off, I actually didnt suggest a huge amount of map variety. I personally think that most people play a select few maps over an over. But they will get sick of it eventually. Which is why they will find a couple new maps to play over and over. BTW doing something over and over and over and over.. is the very definition of monotonous Its just a matter of when a person finnally realizes how monotonous they are being, or when they tire of it... If they never tire of it.. that could be sign to seek counseling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you make a new mod. then its not counter-strike, its another psudeo realistic counter terroism mod. you would not be able to call it counterstrike extreme. the players you would draw would not be from the cs community anymore, since most wont even try new mods let alone give them a chance (ie americas army, global operations, sof2, etc). they complain its not cs. they dislike anything thats not cs, its actually a shame. fortunatly those are the exact players you dont want playing your mod. the other players who actually play other mods, tend to be more serious and play the game as its meant to be played.

being a new mod that you are charging for, you will have to get a liscence from the game company that produces the game. NONE of the games allow commercial mods to be developed without paying some liscencing fee. i am not sure how they would handle this service scheme. you would have to ask them, but if you are trying to get around the liscencing fees you would definatly have to release the client and server parts of the mod for free. not 100% sure, but they may not include charging to play on particular servers (but the wording may be such that ANY profit made from the mod may require the liscenceing fees which makes sense). i would email them to find out.

i understand ppl dislike being lost on new maps 9mainly because their K/D ratios go down because of players who learn the map quick or play as a team), but if you bother to learn the maps (just like you had to learn the old ones) it would not be a problem. you yourself stated that you needed to increase the map size because many of the maps get boring since the same thing heppens each round. with a wide variety of maps this is reduced since their is greater chance that the maps require different strategies. also with new maps, there is actual strategy involved learning the map. good players will quickly find their bearing, and complete objectives after a few rounds. furthermore it adds even more excitment to the game because you truly dont know or have reference the "timings" of the map. you dont know how long it takes a ct to get from their spawn to a particular intersection. you dont know the camp spots players may use. you dont know the choke points too well that other players may use as an advantage. you dont know all the entrances and exits. playing the same level over and over (even a large one) will eventually become boring. the 4 or 5 maps being rotated on 80% of the servers have almost all been around since the early versions. you cant say that playing the same maps every day, or even in the same playing session is fun. i went to one server played de_aztec, it went to cs_militia, but the admin switched it to de_dust. after dust came de_aztec again. you best believe i left the server quick. i nice feature i would like to see in games, would be a map rotation list.

you cant say that cs_747, cs_thunder, cs_militia, cs_italy, cs_office, as_highrise, as_oilrig, de_vertigo, de_nuke, de_cbble, cs_backalley, de_train, etc (ie the older maps) are maps that are considered new. while many newer (which makes a majority) players may have never played (oe even heard of) those maps, they have been around a long time and should be in the rotation. i noticed only maps that are deemed fun are maps in which deathmatch tatics will work well. this is a shame since the older maps were quite fun.

i want a huge amount of map variety. its a good thing. learning new maps is fun. its actually more of a test of skill then playing the same old maps over and over. anyone can learn a map after 100 plays. a good player will learn it after only 3-5 plays. it dont mean he will know it perfectly, but well enough to know where he objectives are.

though it seems to that you too think the majority of cs players need to seek consuling, heh. i hope you did not think that i felt that way, beacuse i dont. i merely am going by your traget audience (ie cs players) and how servers have been run. also how fast they clear a server if a map comes up that is "new". even if they have the map. though most cs players and server admins dont seem to think large map rotations (even just the standard levels with that come with the game) is a good thing and stick to only 3 or 4 maps.

btw the maps i listed i have not found on too many servers at all. either the admin switches the map (they dont know how to set the server rotation correctly), players vote a played out map, they just leave the server, or the map just simply aint in the rotation. this is why i dont play cs anymore, i could handle the cheating. mainly because as a team you can take out a cheater quite well. especially since if they become to blatant you can get the players to vote him off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I KNOW there are alot of cs players that are ready for something more directed and more teamoriented. All Im suggesting is something that FORCES teamplay.. something that makes people work together. For instance, anytime you have some task in a game, make it so that it REQUIRES 2 peoples cooperation to do it. For instance, I heard of a game that had one guy feeding the gun, which made the gun shoot faster, while the other guy shot it.. although in this case 1 guy could do the job, it was much more effective w/ 2. Likewise, when you have a cool-headed non-player commander, as in my idea and in Global Ops, who could use a Life sign detector (so cool!), that would make the guys on the ground work w/ him to locate enemies. And also the commnader has cameras all around the potential bomb sites. I talked to someone and finally decided, due to your good points, that we should probably go with about 8 possible bomb sites, or hostage sites, all of which have cameras and remote life sign detectors (RLSD''s) And to counter RLSDS possibly being in a next room, the terrorist could have one specialst that could have a special techy way of scanning the next room to search for cameras, and RLSD''s. Again, its about forcing teamwork.. if you played this game you wouldnt go anywhere w/ out your commanders assitance, or your on the ground techy guy.

IDEA ALERT! I just thought of a small addition, that heck, could be thrown in to cs as it is right now. What if you could set grenade traps on doors! So if anyone opens the door..booom! Just a little added tactical spice.. people would be real careful when opening doors..

Anyway, of course the name is not my main issue, or even for that matter what engine to use. Im still the theoretical mode, and I would need someone to help do the mod''ing and I would need about 50 pple to playtest it. Part of the playtesting would be in part to develop the actual possible strategies, and the commication protocols. This way when someone joins the service, they are taught how to properly speak and relay relevant information, and properly relay enemy positions by using proper location names. There is also a communication chain of command: not everyone can talk to everyone else. The commander can speak to everyone on his team at any time, and the teamleaders on the ground would be the only people who can speak directly to the commander. This way, when customers first join they feel they are part of an existing organized community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ie Americas Army: Operations.

the simplest way to make it teamplay is disallow win by killing the enemy team. this forces teamwork since you HAVE to complete the objective (ie plant the bomb get the hostages).

having a chain of command is not required, and again will cause uneasiness since some ppl will not have input. it is a game not real life army. you dont have enough ppl in the server for chain of command like you describe. most platoons contain 30 or so ppl (might be more) reporting to a single officer. smaller groups always report to a single leader (ie the size in cs and most gams).

you dont want to alienate customers either. if they have to learn how to talk, restrict them from speaking to certain ppl on the team, etc then they will feel they are not making a contributaion and wont have fun. simply put, if the leader if the squad leaders become relays to the other squad leaders and the commander. thus will spend more time chatting then fighting. on the field, chain of command is very strict and soldiers are trained to follow orders. a paying customer does not want tp pay so that they are told what to do. yes i know you have round robin with whose the leader (which means sometimes ppl wont be leader depending on map length and which means the leader may not be leader for too long), but i think the players should choose how they wish to run the team. granted some ppl are morons, and dont play the game right. imagine now giving that moron control over the team. how about squads not communicating becuase the main general refuses to relay the messages? how about problems with slow typers or ppl who refuse to use voice chat?

in any case the customer wont feel like they are part of a team. just like when you goto school do you feel like your a part of a team? how about when you goto a movie where the usher seats you (since the usher is basically acting as a commander)? this is what you suggest. someone feels like a part of the team when they are accepted by the team and they accept the team. i konw when i play a team game online, it feels like a team as we communicate and throw strategies back and forth. as we win or lose together. as we help each during the game. i dont need someone barking orders or some restriction of communication to feel like i am part of an organization or team. i just need to play with the same teammates long enough and communicate with them.

for instance to you feel like your part of an organized community here at gamedev? there as moderators, but there is no heiarchy. you are free to speak, and moderators only censor messages that could get them in trouble legally or could cause major problems on teh board (ie spam, threats, off topic discussions, personal attacks, etc).

think about that, it will help you see restriction is not always the correct solution nor is realism always fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement