Thread: CS:GO restrictions?

Originally Posted by Adretheon

I've yet to see a game where CT's used effective mollies and it was still a close fun match. The only time I ever see T's rape ct's is when CT's don't use Mollies. This, to me, says that there's a bit of an imbalance to using the mollies.

The incendiary nades on nuke make it very CT sided (in my opinion). Ramp rushes are completely closed once an incendiary is thrown forcing the Ts to either: spread out and slow play, try a delay ramp rush or try and take upper.

I was calling on nuke last night and there were a number of ramp rushes that were shut down by incendiary nades (on top of the 4/5+ awps that were on CT). A couple of times the CTs managed to throw incendiary nades through squeaky/window/ramp into lobby forcing us to move back towards our spawn or roof. I think incendiary nades are cool, but I don't think TPG is the place to use them. Unrestricted I guarantee that rushes will be cut down in certain maps forcing slow plays like no other, other maps maybe not as much. I think having 1 or 2 per team is more than enough and still allows for rushes to be called.

With that said we didn't win the game but it was still sort of close: 16-12 for the CTs. Mind you they constantly had 4+ douchebags with awps every round and a pretty consistent barage of incendiary... I wonder what will happen when/what restrictions are made. With the amount of slowplays the fun factor was like 5/10.

Please do not ban the AWP. There are more people (myself included) that bitch when there is only 1 awp per team than there are the bitch about the AWP being present by more than 1 player.

People complain about the AWP when they are losing because it's easy to blame the gun for your losses. When it's restricted to 1 player people complain about the teams being stacked or some other item in general. It's always something...

It's part of the game and I think it's time we embrace the challenges presented in big boy counterstrike. If you need some diversity or AWP reprieve then go with a non-awp server and an open play server and if the open play is consistently dead then do what you must, but at least give it a shot.

Thanks for listening to my obnoxious opinions. =)


p.s. The molotov cocktail is a bigger game changer on maps with heavy chokes than the awp. It effectively neutralizes any real attempt at a rush if people use it properly.

Originally Posted by Rad

Please do not ban the AWP. There are more people (myself included) that bitch when there is only 1 awp per team than there are the bitch about the AWP being present by more than 1 player.

People complain about the AWP when they are losing because it's easy to blame the gun for your losses. When it's restricted to 1 player people complain about the teams being stacked or some other item in general. It's always something...

It's part of the game and I think it's time we embrace the challenges presented in big boy counterstrike. If you need some diversity or AWP reprieve then go with a non-awp server and an open play server and if the open play is consistently dead then do what you must, but at least give it a shot.

Thanks for listening to my obnoxious opinions. =)


p.s. The molotov cocktail is a bigger game changer on maps with heavy chokes than the awp. It effectively neutralizes any real attempt at a rush if people use it properly.

Not to be a dick, but the next time the server has a majority of regs on CT side with 4+ AWPs almost every round you should go T and see what it does to a rush. Remember the 3 AWPers outside on nuke? Destroyed the Ts attempt of going outside to A multiple times. There were AWPs consistently set up in garage/outside/CT spawn/catwalk/heaven/ramp... combine that with the amount of incendiaries that you guys were throwing around and it isn't very fun. If you don't mind playing the slow game thats cool, go to a shit pub with no rules and where nobody goes for the objective. TPG isn't based off of the "slow play way" - we play for the objective and not for kills, right?

Edit - I don't think the AWP should be banned, but like the Source servers 1 per team is plenty.

Originally Posted by VinDeagle

Not to be a dick, but the next time the server has a majority of regs on CT side with 4+ AWPs almost every round you should go T and see what it does to a rush. Remember the 3 AWPers outside on nuke? Destroyed the Ts attempt of going outside to A multiple times. There were AWPs consistently set up in garage/outside/CT spawn/catwalk/heaven/ramp... combine that with the amount of incendiaries that you guys were throwing around and it isn't very fun. If you don't mind playing the slow game thats cool, go to a shit pub with no rules and where nobody goes for the objective. TPG isn't based off of the "slow play way" - we play for the objective and not for kills, right?

Edit - I don't think the AWP should be banned, but like the Source servers 1 per team is plenty.

working on it....we are aware of the issues

Originally Posted by Rad

Please do not ban the AWP. There are more people (myself included) that bitch when there is only 1 awp per team than there are the bitch about the AWP being present by more than 1 player.

Please. Compare the amount of bitching threads about the awp with our CSS setup (complete restriction on 1 server, 1 awp per team on the other) to before, and the results speak for themselves. It was negligible in comparison. "It's part of the game" isn't a valid argument, especially considering the style of game we run at TPG. What everyone seems to be overlooking is the fact that this game was focused more toward 5v5 than it was toward larger public games. Mollies and awps aren't such a big deal in the 5v5 environment. But put them on a larger setting and you can easily see what they do to the balance of the game.

This isn't about being resistant to change, either. Any decent defending team can shut down any rush on any of the maps with only half the team having mollies. And that's simply not conducive to the TPG style of play. Some people still haven't picked up on its advantages, which is why you still witness rounds of that not happening. I have an open mind, but it's just too plain to see.

Counter strike is counter strike. There are variations between them, but the maps are essentially just remaps of previous versions. So you can say it's new or it's not CSS to try and prove a point, but that's not really saying anything.

Lets not forget about the auto-snipers as well, they still wreck faces. I'm all for limiting the awp/auto use, but not the molotovs. I honestly don't mind if a CT tosses one while we're us T's are trying to rush something, we call an audible and try something else. Big deal. So tired of the complaining about it. I came back to CS b/c of the new weapons and new twist on an old favorite. Why do you guys insist on cramming the age old ways down our throats on a new game? Make the switch or go back to Source! I really wanted to see some new tactics developed and strats called, not people complaining about how they can't do the same things they did in Source. Sheesh.

Some calls on some maps, you can audible pretty freely on. But, on rushes, timing is everything. If you want to rush ramp on nuke, but it gets blocked by a molly, calling an audible to go straight in would be disadvantageous since CTs would already be setting up and waiting. Your post makes the assumption that the CT team is pre-mollying before they even spot a T, but once players wisen up, they'll wait until they see 1 or 2 Ts before they toss it right in the middle of your rush. There's no audible for that. If your team stops, the front of your rush is cut off, and the CT team is rotating to your flank while you wait.

You can make your calls as diverse as you like, but with effective molly usage, it won't matter.

Originally Posted by Pimp Trizkit

Counter strike is counter strike. There are variations between them, but the maps are essentially just remaps of previous versions. So you can say it's new or it's not CSS to try and prove a point, but that's not really saying anything.

I could not agree more with this statement.