Passerby97

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.

it's called a metroidvania.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.