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.

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.

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.

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.