Thread: CS:GO restrictions?

I don't expect many to agree with my opinion on the AWP but I just wanted to make my opinion known for what it's worth. I love the unrestricted AWP usage regardless of what team I'm on, winning or losing.

You guys know I'll play whether you restrict it down to 1 per team or not. I'll just quietly bitch and moan about it when it's already in use and I can't buy it... but what else is new? =)

Why not just keep it like the previous CSS servers? Everything stays and anything restricted is done with a in game vote by the players that are in the server at the time.

Originally Posted by jason_jinx

Why not just keep it like the previous CSS servers? Everything stays and anything restricted is done with a in game vote by the players that are in the server at the time.

That's not how it's done on the CS:S servers presently.

I am starting to agree that it is more map dependent. For example - Nuke and Inferno the mollys just force the map to be played slow play. Whereas dust 2 I feel there are alot more rush avenues and the mollys didn't kill the rush since it is more open. I dont want to even imagine playing a map like chateau lol.

Originally Posted by Gunny

I think the calls need to be adjusted to deal with all of the different weapons. I know this will work because i have played when the normal calls that everyone is used to use from css where changed up and we were successful.

Play the game and be creative when you are calling.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

At this point I dont think its a balance issue but rather a variety issue. The team can easily make the call on de_nuke to be slow play and it will be the right call every time. A full team rush against a competent team is suicide so the only call to make is slow plays.

I am very much against restrictions and strategic item banning. I haven't played CS on years and years so maybe I just need to re-educate myself but these are tools meant to counter game play.

I read that the molly is killing rushes... isn't that what they're for? If your team rushes mine and wins 3x then maybe it's about time to pull out a few bottles of molly. If your shooters are better then it's time to start throwing flash bangs.

I'm the player that sucks really bad but utilizes every tool to the full extent to somewhat compensate. So my vote is to always leave the tools available.

Originally Posted by PuppyF4RT

I am very much against restrictions and strategic item banning. I haven't played CS on years and years so maybe I just need to re-educate myself but these are tools meant to counter game play.

I read that the molly is killing rushes... isn't that what they're for? If your team rushes mine and wins 3x then maybe it's about time to pull out a few bottles of molly. If your shooters are better then it's time to start throwing flash bangs.

The problem is based on the common design for popular maps. Which mostly stems from limited routes and very tight choke points. However these design elements fit well into the pace and mechanics of the game itself. Yes you can have wide open maps, convoluted structures, maze like complexes, dead strait head on designs. But none of these style of maps will play well with the weapon set and standard round times that go with the game.

The original assault/militia are perfect examples of how a map may seem to fit well into the sub-genre but do not play well for most. These are both hostage rescue objective maps that give a semi-balanced mix of close combat, distant combat, and plenty of cornering. I played both of these a TON from the beginning into 1.6, yet both ultimately fell out of favor with the community as time went on. (militia less so)

Why? Because your average player learned to easily shut down the limited routes. The meta-game rapidly developed into a race of who can get the most snipers and run the clock down (hence T sided). The maps that provided the most reward for non-mobile defense fell out of favor. Instead maps that engendered other strategies such as fakes/rushes/penetration plays (aka slowplays) soon became the big thing.

Most of these maps are bomb / bomb defuse maps. So now we are left with that as the primary mold this community (and this time I mean TPG) play with. Multiple but still limited routes, tight connecting choke points, and lots of corners/doors (with restraint). This is what allow the above mentioned strategies to succeed evenly as counters.

So where am I going with this? Well we are a teamplay community. Such hurdles of difficulty are what we strive to endure and manage through. However we are still a public environment and it is rare to have a well balanced set of teams all of the time. So we need to hinder the major trends of the meta-game. Restrict AWPs (not remove), and other very powerful tools/weapons that every player will gravitate to. By doing so you promote a much broader spectrum of strategies. No longer is it about throwing incendiaries into every choke point, or posting up every possible sniper at any entrance. Or playing the 'peak-and-shoot every route' game. It becomes a game where you can utilize the rest of the tools/weapons provided to you even in the latter part of the game.

You can look through my other posts in this thread and see I have been a huge proponent of not restricting anything. But I am, in truth, playing the devil's advocate on this one. As I do believe every single thing you can buy has a purpose and place at TPG. To make us an exciting and well balanced place to be, though, we need to break the meta-game trends so we start to think as a team and not focus toward a self-centered need to use the best weapons -- rather the best strategies of teamwork.

The only way to do this is limit some items per team. And that has shown to be very successful here.

Originally Posted by GReYVee

Why? Because your average player learned to easily shut down the limited routes. The meta-game rapidly developed into a race of who can get the most snipers and run the clock down (hence T sided). The maps that provided the most reward for non-mobile defense fell out of favor. Instead maps that engendered other strategies such as fakes/rushes/penetration plays (aka slowplays) soon became the big thing.

Not to go off topic...but there is a reason we don't play CS maps here. They don't cater to strats like De maps do, as you said. CS maps are about hitting point A(where the hostages are) and then hitting point B (Where they have to be rescued). It never deviates from that ever. The problem with that style of play is that most maps end up as death match. T's realize that no matter what happens the CT's have to go to point A and then the have to go to point B. Which in turn, makes the T's play either point as a whole, cause that is the best way to play as a T. DE maps however give you the option of playing Point A OR playing point B. Which allows for said calls.

I'm still waiting for a good anti-DE map where CT's are on the offensive, and still have "options" like the T's have on De maps.

But back on topic. Greyvee, you really hit the nail on the head.