Posts by Passerby97

Quote from Interfearance

On 4/16/2020 at 6:42 PM, Interfearance said: Good luck cheating with their intrusive anti cheat. You will end up paying big for cheats. Both a good and a bad thing.

Intrusive cheats do not prevent cheating though. Always-online rootkit made by a company owned by a Chinese puppet firm that runs on start-up without an on or off button? That doesn't have anything to do with preventing cheating. Yes, script kiddies are easier to catch but rootkits connected directly to the internet are usually considered malware. Without going into to much technical detail just remember this: Most cheats aren't obvious aimbots or wallhacks, but smaller effects such as no recoil which are pretty easy to integrate with mouses to an undetectable degree even by someone with no knowledge on the technical details. Your mouse simply tells your PC that you move your mouse in a certain way whenever you press a button. But your PC has no access to that mouse's anti-recoil cheat, only the results of it's calculations. Cheats that never run on your PC are surprisingly easy to set up with the right tools. And they are very cheap as well. No anti-cheat system fixes online cheating. They can only lower the amount of script kiddies.

A site is a braindead site: with a single smoke, you can split the entire bombsite in two, letting you get a free plant and play retake from ramp. CTs only chance to defend is by rushing ramp. But Ts get to ramp before Cts do. Every game on on Vertigo: Each round T side just rushes A ramp and plays retake from ramp. After the update, before the update. The map is still bad. I don't know why they remade the sites on this map in the first place. Wasn't the first CS:GO vertigo version just a fine defusal map? They could have just done the original T spawn changes so the spawns would not be on top of each other and given the hr mpdel and texture treatment. Yeah, there were couple dumb boost spots, bad model hitboxes and visibility problems. But they didn't need to change the entire map's layout to fix those. Could have given it the Inferno remake treatment: Change as little as possible and focus on visibility. Even if this map will someday be good, I don't know why it's even called Vertigo anymore. Cobble always retained the basic layout, and Overpass was made by Valve so remaking it drastically was fine.

Quote from Squad

9 hours ago, Squad said: Currently playing through Guacamelee 2 and it does a similar thing. The levels themselves don't change, but your character gains extra abilities that allow you to reach previously inaccessible spots and progress through the game.

it's called a metroidvania.

Quote from Interfearance

15 hours ago, Interfearance said: @Passerby97 Valorant already looks like the gameplay will at least equally viable in competition when compared to csgo. with the 15 dollars to not get hackers in your lobby in cs, you can get good characters in valorant.

It's bad to force everyone, including the hackers to pay a fee, but somehow it means hackers pay less than in a model where hackers don't have to pay the same as serious players? You don't have to buy all the new heroes to cheat, you know.

Quote from text_fish

3 minutes ago, text_fish said: I god I shouldn't have got you started again.

Sorry, but you got pretty hostile back there. If you think I am wrong on something here, please just tell me what it is and I wouldn't need to specifically ask you what it is you have a problem with.

Quote from text_fish

23 minutes ago, text_fish said: Passerby, in this case I think you've been banging your "there's an elite and powerful cabal at the top of Mapcore who pull Valve's puppet strings" drum for so long that people now just find it funny rather than disagreeable

That's not my view at all. I simply think that the judges decide what maps win competitions, and maps that win competitions get into the game. There's no cabal or conspiracy there. I don't understand what it is specifically that you're actually even disagreeing with here. Those two are facts. I am not sure how you can disagree that judges judge competitions or statistics have numbers on them. Interfearances comments about which maps gets accepted to the game is understandable concern and I didn't see any hints of a conspiracy in that either. Warowl himself critized the judging competition's scoring system in his video about the competition. I think his criticism is understandable. This video is the reason I realized the mapcore trend and made this account in the first place. I think it's fair to point out that even if one of the judges thinks there's a high chance he's selecting a map for next the CS:GO operation, that might have some merit and not be some conspiracy theory on how they faked a moon landing on Lunacy. (which totally is the backstory of that map btw)

bit off-topic, but what does the LOL reaction mean? It seems to be used completely randomly in this thread: agree, disagree, funny reply, normal reply...

Quote from Interfearance

14 hours ago, Interfearance said: Im not gonna talk about csgo anymore on this thread, but do you seriously think that valve's model is game

And about the live service. Have you heard of a little game called r6? yeah you have to buy the ops to get in quick. Is anyone complaining about it? Is the competitive scene collapsing because you have to play the game to get ops?

Your definition of competitive games is so loose and nonsensical it would include my internet bill. After all, if it being a live service does not disqualify something from being a competitive game, why wouldn't my internet provider's bill with no clear rules be considered a sport the same way you defined live service like LOL and R6? In similar vain, wouldn't every online competition be a valid esport then? New Esport: The top 1000 fastest to sign up to website.com get 30% off their first purchase! Your argument falls apart the moment you put it into reality. Valorant isn't different to that 30% sign up advert: Competition is secondary to getting those signing up/buying new unlockable heroes because of the competition. You have failed to define competitive games beyond having a competition. Well done, every advert with a time limit is a new esport. These live service games again, are only competitive to sell their live service model more akin to a pyramid scheme than a competitive sport. when you look it through these lens, it's a miracle people still fall for this trick. Wasn't there a big campaign against live service games with EA and Activision a few years back? 'Competitive' Is the new 'lootbox' of game pitch meetings.

Quote from Izuno

On 11/6/2003 at 4:30 AM, Izuno said: Can a single player first person shooter (with a story) have non-linear levels?

-by non-linear levels I mean you have multiple ways of completing an objective, and the levels themselves are "open" in that you can go almost anywhere for longer distances than you can in typical FPS levels.

Yes. There is in fact a well-known cult classic made in 1999 that defined a entire game genre where this exact thing happens an which in it is the only member of to this day. Deus Ex. I could fan over this game and it's themes and how it even decades later reflects on to current effects. But more importantly for this thread, it's a game where levels are open without any invisible walls. They are small levels and not a fully fledged open world, so I think it fits your definition pretty well. Deus ex has a linear story, but every objective can be tackled in as many creative or boring ways as you wish. You can open a door of angry genetically engineer test subjects at the patrols below, or throw a gas bomb below their feet and decapitate them so the alarm would not be set off. Or you could use a little hole in their patrols to sneak past them. Or you could backtrack to some other area of the map and try some environmental puzzle solving to skip that area. While the story might be linear, like the level design of Half life, it doesn't feel linear. You can kill key characters at almost any point in the story. Even after 20 years of it's release, There still has not been any games that did what it did even remotely as well. Wanting to design anything open world with linear story and not knowing Deus Ex is like trying to make orchestra music without knowing Mozart.

Quote from Interfearance

11 hours ago, Interfearance said: They have milked us for years and you are calling riot a cult. IRONIC

How is CS milking its players? CS is a one-time purchase. After paying once, you can play 10 years later. That is a fair model. Especially now, as the game is free-to-play and has no cost for playing competitively. In CS, your character or account doesn't get better over time, you do. That is not true at all for games that are live-service first, a competitive game second like League of Legends or Valorant. I have no idea why they are even called competitive games. Starting with a fresh account gives you at most times a disadvantage great enough to not be able to win against lower skilled opponents, who have the meta heroes unlocked. The live service is literally more important than the competitive integrity of the game. In a live service game, pro players are required to buy the heroes at launch to get a competitive advantage. Pro players have to pay the developer a fee for playing their game competitively. The game isn't a one-time purchase. Wouldn't you call that milking?

Quote from blackdog

3 hours ago, blackdog said: Criticise the judges all you want if you don't like the winning maps, but you can't place any responsibility on them regarding what ends up in the game

You haven't really showed me that you disagree with me on my view that top Mapcore has been deciding maps for many years now, so I am not really sure what else outside to appeal to ignorance can be used to defend their judges from being at fault for what maps get accepted. I think you're misunderstanding something here as well. I replied to Interfearance's comments about which maps are being accepted to the game. I don't really care what maps get accepted into the game myself. I just play on community servers anyways. I also fail to understand what Warowl, one of the judges on the latest competition, getting a map removed from the game by rallying his followers is meant to prove.

Quote from blackdog

2 hours ago, blackdog said: Well who’s “fault“ is it? Is not like the Mapcore admins have any say in what the CSGO team does. I don’t understand the hostility or at least hostile tones for something that is actually good for the community.

I am not trying to be hostile. I am again, just saying that mapcore competitions mostly what decide maps in the game. So, again. If you dislike what maps get into the game the fault should be directed at the judges of those competitions, not the people at valve, who trust those judges and follow their decisions. It's not Valve's fault the most efficient way to get high quality maps is by following mapcore and it's competitions. Mapcore has an indirect communication channel to Valve. There should be nothing hostile about that.

Quote from blackdog

2 hours ago, blackdog said: I mean a system with frequent rotation of the official map pool was advocated by @FMPONE and Volcano ages ago.

Map rotations really hurt competitive aspect of the game, however. It's not like the size or the texture of the soccer field changes for pro players based on season. It's always same size, always on grass. Forcing the players to value relearning the playfield over improving in the game will really hurt the competitive nature of any game. If you want nothing but more pure map diversity in the game without affecting game balance or length of matches, we could just be playing each map in pro scene only up to halftime, playing 5 maps, winner being first to 40 round wins. That would actually lower the length of each match from the usual 3 hours of playtime when going to the last 3rd map to more manageable 2.5 hours when in the last fifth map. No actual part of the balance of the game or maps changes. You just play one side on each map. Of course, some maps might be heavily favored towards either team. Because of that, the team who didn't pick the map picks the side they play the map on. That would mean badly balanced maps would rarely get picked and it would be obvious which maps should be removed from the game. Cons would include no more knife rounds so I get why it won't happen.

I have seen this story in many games now: 1. New competitive game advertised to be made by competitive game lovers to competitive game lovers. 2. Couple months after launch, new heroes start dropping. 3. Real balance updates start giving away to new hero dropping: Either full-on new heroes with no rebalance like Overwatch or everything gets rebalanced every 2 weeks to keep the game from being stale like in Rainbow Six Siege. 4. Therefore game loses all competitive integrity and becomes a Dota/LOL type of game with constant updates: If you cannot keep up with the updates, the game becomes unplayable. Also each hero has to be individually unlocked, so if you do not play or rather pay constantly, then you can't play the game competitively. 5. Basically, the game is no longer akin to a sport but more to a live service app like WoW. Because of this, the game's competitive community cannot stay alive without prize pools given by the company, which gets its money from people buying the heroes or skins. This means the game cannot stay alive without constant updates adding more heroes and skins. Look at something like Counter Strike 1.6, Starcraft or Super Smash Bros Melee, 20+ year old games which are the classics with no updates that are still played competitively. These are what most would consider esports. Do not get tricked into the live-service model just because it tries to steal the legacy of the classics not with competitive prowess, but by pulling part of it's revenue into competition prize pools and becoming a live-service model nobody can take as seriously as the classics it tries to replace. Live-service competitive game. Such a great little scam, because people aren't wise enough to avoid it yet.

Quote from blackdog

18 hours ago, blackdog said: Man I don't Reddit, but apart from one Wingman contest last year, I don't remember hearing of any other contest for CSGO mappers.

Exactly. Only thing I've been saying is that it's not valve's fault they select maps someone might not like, valve just follows the only mapping competition religiously. I would rather have valve would ask the community for map suggestions directly via some rank-based voting system, but I digress. If you wish there would be more maps the community likes like Junction, try to change who will judge the next mapping competition because that's the only influence you can have on the matter.

Quote from Radix

2 hours ago, Radix said: The fact that Valve only picks Mapcore maps is because pretty much every good CS:GO mapper is at Mapcore.

Valve also tests every candidate internally, that's why some awesome looking maps sometimes don't get added (because they are not fun, completely imbalanced, exploitable, not optimized (low fps) or whatever).

I respect that you took time to write this, but this is not really a response to anything I said. Yes, maps that are sent to Mapcore get accepted because most maps get sent to mapcore. But maps that Mapcore doesn't acknowledge aren't accepted to CS. Anubis has 50-100 fps lag spikes on medium rigs. Ruby and Breach got completely remade midway through their in-game rotations. Not every map can be perfect when first accepted into the game, and that clearly does not stop them from being accepted. What clearly does, is if Mapcore is the one who acknowledges the maps. There's nothing wrong with that. My point this entire time has been that if you want to change what competitive maps get accepted into the game, you want to get a top position in mapcore and get to be a judge in a competition, there's no reason to ruffle Valve's feathers about that.

Quote from Lizard

55 minutes ago, Lizard said: Of course I can.

- Biome and Sub-zero added on 9.10.2018

- Season and Abbey added on 24.01.2019

- Workout and Ruby added on 25.04.2019

- Seaside and Breach added on 31.07.2019

- Jungle and Studio added on 18.11.2019

- Anubis and Chlorine added on 1.04.2020

Majority maps added by valve were not a part of mapcore contest. And even if they were. Its obvious they have the highest quality out there so it is a good decision to add them.

Display More

I appreciate the well-thought out response. Season, Workout and Seaside were returning maps. Can't really count them in as accepted maps, they were accepted long before this trend unearthed itself. Sub-Zero and Season had huge community hype surrounding them because of their creator, FMPone. I addressed that already in my original post. Ruby and Breach were not part of a mapcore contest, true. But they have been both independently acknowledged by Mapcore's own Twitter account. That isn't true of maps like Jungle, which is a casual map. For context, Mapcore for what I could find, has never individually acknowledged even contest-winning maps. In short, I still do believe my point stands. Any recent map added competitively into CS by Valve has been directly through the influence of the top of Mapcore.

Quote from Lizard

55 minutes ago, Lizard said: Majority maps added by valve were not a part of mapcore contest.

From the listed competitive maps, when not counting maps added back from past operations, Mapcore contest winners would be 5 out of 8. That's a majority.

Quote from Lizard

2 minutes ago, Lizard said: You are so wrong...

Can you elaborate? Hasn't Valve added exclusively Mapcore contest top maps lately, with the exception of Jungle for Dangerzone?

Quote from Interfearance

On 4/2/2020 at 2:54 AM, Interfearance said: @NikiOo There is a lot to respond to, and you have some good points. What I will part with is that I am entirely sure there are non-clover maps that could be created and widely accepted by the community. No, not as a novelty or something built for the hell of it, but for different and cohesive gameplay. I thought Junction was a really well done alternative layout, much better than nuke which I have played MANY games of. Valve is the culprit?

You are exactly right. Junction was awesome map and there's no good reason why it wasn't added to the game. But please also realize that Valve doesn't decide the maps accepted to the game anymore like they used to. Now they seem to purely accept Mapcore contest winners or maps from famous mappers.

The only way you can get maps like Junction into the game is to focus on getting them at the top spot in the next Mapcore contest, or get huge community reaction likes of a "new map from the maker of [popular map here]".

Sadly only few hand-picked judges in this third-party website decide what maps get the fabled top spot. This means nobody but them control what maps get accepted to the game. Effectively nobody else in the playerbase has any power to even slightly influence what maps get accepted to the game.

So no, if a map you like doesn't get accepted, it really is not the fault of Valve.

Quote from DMU222

On 3/25/2020 at 12:11 AM, DMU222 said: Honestly, 'weird' maps like Nuke or Inferno are still four square in a sense. If you untangle the player paths and spread them out, the same exact layout is powering every single map currently in the game. What makes these maps unique is the way they tangle/reposition each path, and the arena design of combat spaces.

Inferno doesn't have a middle route that has connectors to both bombsites. I am not sure if you can call it four square. Isn't it more like a single triangle?

Great graphics and interactivity, but I couldn't get immersed at all. I don't really get this game. I only got my headset to play flying simulators so I guess I'll just refund. There's couple immersion-breaking bugs in the game. Do you guys know if Valve is going to be fixing these after launch? Smooth turning is non-functional so I tried not to use it and I constantly got wrapped in the cables. Explosions look low-res compared to everything else. A lot of physics bugs in the first chapter. Kinda let down, I wished physics wouldn't break constantly. The QZ feels pretty easy so far. I used the jump mechanic to avoid the zombies as I was low on ammo. Is the rest of this game as trivial? From the forums: The lefty support is broken. That's a shame, can't share this with my brother either.