Gulliver Thoday

REMOVED

REMOVED

Great! Thanks man, nice starting point!

Yep, this basically seems to be very similar to what I was suggesting. Allowing the CTs to get to a closer "evac" zone which they have to defend for a period of time whilst waiting for extraction (the physical extraction process not being necessary to be playable). I really think it would be an interesting idea to look into and could provide mappers with some new dynamics for layouts. I also came to the conclusion that the best way to achieve this would be using vscripts, sadly however it is something that I personally have never used. I would love to learn vscripting simply because it opens up new possibilities for mappers but it seems there is very little in the way of practical documentation or tutorials on the subjects. It seems that in order to figure out how to write the correct scripts you would really need some prior experience in C++ and coding for Source, which unfortunately I don't have If anyone knows of any good info about how to write vscripts then links would be greatly appreciated.

Heya That definitely looks like it could be an interesting layout... I like the idea that the hostage rescue -> rescue zone phase of the round enters into new territory rather than returning through territory the CTs have already battled through once. Tbh I find it a little hard to imagine how a map will be in reality just by looking at an overview so this next observation may not be entirely correct. The one thing that concerns me a little with your current spawns is that it looks like the Terrorists may be a little vulnerable to being flanked by the CT team... this looks like it may especially be a concern for the T1 Spawn. It appears the CTs could push the Terrorists spawning in the T1 Spawns from 3 different sides at the same time which could be very difficult to defend against. If those T1 Spawns all die then that appears to leave the center of the map in CT control, giving them a pretty clear run towards the rescue zones. It looks like for CTs attacking the H1 spawns while trying to kill all the T1 Spawns during the attack would be by far the most preferable strategy, as it appears they would gain dominance of the entire middle/south side of the map. Do you think there is a possibility that the CTs would end up pushing the H1 hostages for a majority of the rounds? However it is a little difficult to tell from just the overviews, would really need to look around the map to get a better feel for it.

It really wasn't my intention to be rude to anyone, I guess I can just be a bit blunt when presenting my ideas sometimes Although I am never one to advocate pandering to the masses, I am also a realist. CS mode is not as popular as de mode, and it would be nice if it would be more played. I do feel by meeting de mode half-way and relieving some of the pressure and randomness on the CTs in the second half of the round, that players may feel more comfortable with the mode. Tbh it would be really nice to see the old VIP mode revived so we could have cs as more standard/straight-forward hostage mode. As you correctly point out, this whole discussion is about mapping our way to a more balanced mode... which is still basically what I am talking about. I am not expecting and official changes to the mechanics of CS mode here. Will commented is his reply Which already isn't a million miles away from what I am talking about. And on this note, could the following be a possibility: Rather than having the CTs have to head back towards their spawn to get to the hostage zones, would it be worth considering them having to push on further into the map rather than returning? The important point to bear in mind with this suggestion is that you wouldn't necessarily have to place the rescue zones between the hostages and T-spawn... so they would not be pushing towards T spawn. You could have the rescue zones located in an area of the map only accessible by routes starting out near to the hostage spawns. As a very crude explanation you could arrange the map in a kind of "T" shape. The teams would spawn at each end of the top bar of the "T". The hostages would be located where the vertical bar meets the top bar and the rescue zones located at the bottom of the vertical bar. That way both teams have to push to the hostage spawns first before being able to move on to the rescue zones. You could even maybe block the paths to those areas of the map for the first 30 seconds of the round. This may give the feeling of the round "opening" up as it progresses, rather than simply returning into old territory. The other thing is that because the paths to the rescue zones would only really become relevant to gameplay AFTER a hostage has been recovered, then it is possible to design those areas specifically with the CTs evacuation in mind, thus balancing that part of the map maybe a little in their favor to compensate for the higher loss factor in being the aggressive team. Maybe one of the flaws in CT mode is simply that mostly mappers will make their maps with the assault phase of the round in mind... how the CTs storm the hostage areas etc and far less in terms of the return journey. Maybe expecting the same environment to pull double duty for both phases of the cs round is in itself part of the problem? Having a system where both teams are forced to push further into the map from the hostages to reach the rescue zones will allow for greater control over the fine-tuning of each phase of the round? Anyway, just a thought.

I'm sorry but I really don't think I was trashing anybody out. I did disagree with what was said and I do believe that the arguments presented were not really relevant to the point of what I initially made. IMO, the statements made about the defending team "failing" and deserving "punishment" for losing the objective do show a fundamental misunderstanding/misinterpretation of round dynamics. I believe the question we were addressing is "how can we improve cs mode and to what extent should it be similar to de mode" and NOT "is de mode itself unfair/bad/broken" which is essentially what was being argued. I disagreed and I said that frankly, but I wasn't rude or insulting on a personal level at all. Once again I feel that Blade made far more insightful and relevant observations/comments I agree with your sentiment here. I don't think that turning cs into a carbon copy of de mode is the correct way to go either. At the end I commented that you could literally put the hostage into the evacuation zone and once that zone was taken the countdown would start... but this would be more or less a carbon copy of de mode and tbh I don't like the idea and it wasn't really what I was advocating. I do however stand by original suggestion(s). Adding evacuation zoneS near to where the hostages are situated could definitely be an interesting avenue to explore in CS mode. And if you consider it more carefully I think people may start to see that this WOULD introduce enough variation into the game mode to differentiate it from de mode. Firstly the evacuation zones would be nearby the hostages, but not literally in the next room, so the CTs would still have to take the hostage to the evacuation zone, they would just be nearer than the current rescue zones. Secondly you could have 3 or even 4 possible evacuation zones for a 2 hostage map... this would mean CTs would have a choice of zones to go to AND that the Ts would not necessarily know which zone they had gone to (in de mode once the bomb is planted the remaining CTs know exactly where it is). The Ts could be given a far wider choice of defensive options (map design dependent) as they could either concentrate their strategy on preventing the CTs from obtaining the hostage OR preventing them from reaching the evacuation zones... in current CS because the rescue zones are always behind the CTs (at the start of the map) the Ts cannot really make their main strategy to defend those zones first as they must always run past the CTs in order to get there. I also think that this system could make things MORE interesting for mappers... As opposed to designing a map where the CTs have to get from a starting point, to and objective and then back again, the maps would need to be designed to allow the CTs to get from a starting point, to an objective and then on further to a secondary objective. This adds an entirely new dynamic/mechanic to think about when mapping that isn't present in either current cs OR de mode, far from limiting level designers I believe it could offer them interesting new avenues to explore. It is true that often small changes to the rules of a game can have a dramatic effect on the balance, strategies and they way in which the game plays out. If done correctly I believe this could offer different gameplay whilst addressing the fundamental imbalance of cs mode by adopting certain principles of the de round structure. Despite Blades very coherent analysis of cs round dynamics I do stand by what I originally said. I believe if you consider cs games and maps collectively on average you will find that the CTs are more often placed at a disadvantage by being forced to play the aggressors for the majority of the round and rarely being able to play defensively. In a large number of cases if the CTs manage to secure a hostage the Ts will push straight to the rescue zones (more often than not arriving first because of the slower CT movement speed with hostages) and the CTs will once again be forced to mount an offensive to secure the zone. I appreciate Blades comments about covering/securing/defending the return route to the zones, but I think at this point it is worth mentioning (which we haven't so far) that map design must often be considered differently depending on whether we are talking about 5v5 competitive games or more causal games with larger teams. In 5v5 competitive games when there are two objectives to defend (sites or hostages) the defending team will usually adopt either a 2-3 or a 2-1-2 defensive strategy (obviously map dependent). Statistically the attacking team will more often send all 5 players to the same objective, which means on average the most common first exchange in the game will be a 5 on 2 attack. Given defensive advantage, the most common outcome of a 5 on 2 attack will be the two defenders dying whilst taking 3 attackers with them, once again on average. So after securing the hostage the likelihood is that the CT team will only have a couple of players left alive (with maybe a 3rd very injured) so at that point the idea of covering the route back to the zones is not really plausible. One CT will have to carry the hostage, and the second will accompany them normally, providing essential cover and checking the path ahead. With larger teams then obviously the strategy does open out more and allow for very different possibilities. Another very interesting point Blade raises (which is really an entire topic in itself) is that of game mode design vs. map design. Basically to what extent can or should level design compensate for a fundamentally imbalanced game mode? I do definitely think that there is an case to be made for the argument that imbalanced game modes offer interesting challenges to level designers and can provide a wealth of creative possibilities. HOWEVER... level design is NOT EASY... even with a game mode as simple and tried and tested as defuse sometimes mappers get it very wrong, with levels that are frustrating, unbalanced or boring to play. Once again (if you consider all custom maps together) if the game mode is in itself fundamentally imbalanced then a greater percentage of the maps for it are also likely to be imbalanced, whereas statistically if the game mode itself is balanced the chances are a greater percentage of the maps for it will also be fairly balanced. Obviously I am not really talking about changing the game mode here anyway, what I am suggesting is in itself a mapping/level-design solution to the problem. Basically it would be a case of placing the hostage rescue zones closer to the hostage spawn points, but the preventing the round to be instant won once the zone is reached by adding a timer to proceedings. This addresses the fundamental flaw in cs mode by allowing the CTs to play more defensively late round, it offers new level dynamics by providing a choice of multiple rescue zones, it can also offer new strategic possibilities because if the CTs find themselves too pressured at one extraction zone, they can smoke and flash to cover their retreat and then try to make it to a different extraction zone and can actually lead to an entirely new style of map design never before seen in Counter-strike game modes (I won't elaborate on this now) Like I said, done correctly, I do believe this system has the potential to adopt certain principles from de mode whilst still retaining enough individuality to make worthwhile as an independent mode in and of itself. One of the reasons that I believe CS has always been a popular esports game is down to its inherent simplicity and balance, no gimmicks, exploits or randomness, just a pure test of strategy and aiming skill. And de mode is the epitome* of simplicity in game modes, and the trade off between attacking and defending as the round progresses gives it a perfect internal equilibrium that helps makes it so popular. CS mode has never been so popular especially in competitive contexts, partly due to greater randomness (and silly exploits) in the past with hostage escort mechanics, but even now I think a round of cs feels less precise and maybe less controlled than a round of de... the imbalance of CTs having to go back all through the map with the hostage while weaker, sometimes the outcome simply determined by choosing to go left rather than right and not bumping into a T that way, still makes a cs round feel more random. I would love it if cs were to become as popular as de mode and really become an alternative equivalent of de mode. I do think this strategy has potential, and if people can look past the ways in which it may adopt principles from de mode to help balance the round and instead focus on all the things that would still work very differently from de gameplay I think maybe they will start to see the same. *btw, epitome means "a perfect example or representation" of something, not the opposite, I don't think you meant that an "AWP sniper rifle with 25x telescopic sight, quickscoping and headshotting opponents" is really the epitome of realism

That was kind of the whole point of my argument... that cs mode should not be trying to differentiate itself de mode! Rather than seeing de and cs as two completely different game modes, they should be seen as two halves of the same game mode... with one mode offering initial advantage to CTs and the other offering initial advantage to Ts. Sry I have trouble making sense of this as it doesn't seem to relate much to what I was saying... Firstly PHASE 2 of the game would see the CTs staying in ONE area in the map waiting for extraction to arrive, so there would be no question of "T running behind Ct's to try to catch up with them" because they wouldn't have to go anywhere. You say that if the CTs have the hostages then that means they have already "rekt" the Ts (who failed to defend correctly) and therefore the Ts deserve to have a countdown against them and shouldn't be given the "extra" advantage of knowing where the CTs are... however I feel that this analysis shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of a CS round. In both modes (de and cs) the team initially defending at the start (CTs and Ts respectively) HAVE to split and defend TWO different points whereas the attacking team can send their entire TEAM against only one objective. The defenders have to protect TWO different points with the same number of players as the other team has available to attack just ONE point. It makes it likely that the objective WILL initially be lost, and not because the defending team hasn't defended properly, but just because they HAVE to spread themselves more thinly. However whilst the defending team may well lose the objective, it is likely they will do more global damage to the opposite team during the exchange, meaning at the moment where the objective is seized the team that secured the objective will be weaker... but they are at a strategic advantage because they only have to defend that area for a limited time. In a 5v5 bomb match (for example) the Ts may take one of the sites, killing 2 CTs... but there is a good chance they will lose more than that themselves and/or the remaining players are injured, once the bomb is planted the CTs KNOW where they have to go, but now they are the attackers and have a limited time to retake the objective. It is exactly the same dynamic. I suggested the possibility of having maybe two extraction zones near to each hostage so they wouldn't necessarily know which zone they had chosen to go to, which (if implemented) would provide a variation over de gameplay mechanics. Basically you start out by saying that this suggestion for cs doesn't differentiate itself enough from de mode, but then go on to say why they suggestion is also imbalanced in itself... does that mean you think de mode is unbalanced in the same way?

(Ideas come towards the end, the first part is more a recap) Really nice article Will2k, I agree with pretty much everything you said, and the info was well presented and clear. I also feel Blade made some very insightful and relevant points. Although de maps are undoubtedly more popular, I do believe that hostage gameplay needs to be explored and developed further. The problem is simply one of battle/combat mechanics which is as true in games as in real life... an attacking force (which is obliged to advance and take an objective) will always be at a disadvantage to the defending force. An attacking force will almost always suffer greater casualties than a defending force. For this reason de maps are fundamentally biased in favor of the Counter-Terrorists and cs maps are biased in favor of the Terrorists, and is why I believe it is important to retain both modes. Obviously individual map design can help to neutralize this bias, but in many maps it can still be seen Blades summary of the phases of the round is a great way to explain this, although personally I would simplify his model a little and say that essentially (for both cs and de) the round can be divided into two phases. In defuse: PHASE 1 = Terrorist team attacking and securing one of the two bomb sites allowing the bomb plant. PHASE 2 = Terrorist team defend the bomb site against remaining CTs until the bomb explodes. What is vital in this setup is the switching of roles from PHASE 1 to 2, the Terrorists who may have suffered more casualties in PHASE 1 can the switch to defending in PHASE 2. This makes de mode internally more balanced with late round mechanics compensating for earlier imbalances. In hostage however it is obvious that: PHASE 1 = CT team attack and secure one of the hostage areas and recover the hostage. PHASE 2 = CT team push back through the map and attack the rescue zones to release the hostage. The reason the attacking force are always at a disadvantage is simply the fact that they have to move in order to take the objective, which means leaving cover and exposing themselves. In hostage rescue the CT team is forced to spend the entire round on the move, making them more vulnerable, and in both PHASE 1 and PHASE 2 they can be seen as the offensive team. This means the mode lacks the internal balance seen in de mode. I also completely agree with Will that there is nothing wrong with evolving cs mode to be more like de mode... So bearing all this in mind (and yes, I know mostly what I said was a summary of things others have said here, but it helps to make the thinking behind this next idea clear) I think a solution with a lot of potential would be the following: PHASE 1 of the round remains unchanged, two hostages in the map and the CT team must attack and secure one of the two hostages. However in PHASE 2 things would change... rather than making their way back through the map to one of two rescue zones, what you would have is this: VERY NEAR to where each hostage is located there would be a couple of EXTRACTION zones. The idea being that rather than going back all through the map the CTs take the hostage to one of the close by extraction zones, and then they have to wait there for 30-45 seconds with the hostage while an extraction vehicle comes (by helicopter or boat or car or whatever) It can be an instant win situation like the bomb exploding, as soon as the time counts down and the extraction arrives the round can be over (I am not suggesting players would have to physically place the hostage into the vehicle and let it leave) This would even out the round by allowing CTs to play defensively during PHASE 2 of the round. The extraction zones themselves would need to be designed a little like they were bombsites and need to be close to the hostages. Although in the current cs mode this system is NOT catered for, I am sure it would be possible to achieve it entirely through mapping. Details would need to be tested, maybe the hostage can even spawn within the extraction zone and the countdown can start as soon as a CT recovers them.