Thread: Question about gameplay in server?

Last night in Mirage, first two rounds one or two CTs (from a full complement) went B. Same thing usually happens every time the map starts...

Originally Posted by naerok

wait what? are we looking at the same screen shot? so if they had a better team than why are they getting curb stomped?

who do you think has skill?

did you notice only 3 people dead and the whole ct side is dead?

If it was a lack of communication after 15+ rounds they ovb needed help.

Maybe we are looking at different screenshots!

I see Pretend, Lee, Rezzo, Jack, Remedy, Stinkipuddin, and Phantom on CT side. That seems like quite a few skilled players to me. Hell, if you look at rankings, CT side has 4 out of the top 10 players in the server on their team!

I also happen to notice 4 people dead on T side (you claim there were three). You claim that only 2 CT's have positive ratios where I see 4 CT's with positive ratios (Pretend, Lee, Remedy, Stinkipuddin). I also see a lot of CT's with very close to even scores, and the same thing for many players on T side. In the event of a true "curb stomp" or "steam roll" I expect the scores of one team to be overwhelmingly positive and the scores of the opposing team to be overwhelmingly negative (where the average player is ~5-15).

There were good players on both teams, you guys were obviously playing T side correctly, and they could not establish a defense on CT side in spite of the quality of players they had. This is not a matter of poorly balanced teams, it is a failure to unite the CT team into an effective unit.

So yeah, probably were looking at different screenshots.

ps. Looking at the logs, you switched yourself to CT side at 10:37 pm, were switched back to T side at 10:38 pm. At 10:40 pm, you said in chat "12-4 no move?". I am not an admin in CSGO, and I am unable to view admin chat logs, but is that the message to the admins you were referring to?

One way to look at it being a curb stomp is to not only look at the frags and players on both teams, but look at the deaths. 16 rounds were played, the majority of the CT's died almost that many rounds, with a few who managed to die a little less probably because they ended up alive on the "4" rounds won or intentionally/unintentionally saved a gun. Now look at the T's, it seems like the bottom 3 are the only ones who consistently died on rounds. CT's can have a few or more with just barely positive ratios, but if the whole CT team is basically dieing pretty much every round, they are clearly getting stomped =/.

Scores don't mean much to me. I mean, they can, but at the same time you can have a really tough one sided game come close. For example, just a few days ago:

This was a really hard game just 3-4 days ago. We struggled the entire time, but were able to put rounds on the board REGARDLESS of our scores. I'm sure a lot of my team was disappointed and disheartened at the match and thought it was unfair, but I left with a real sense of gratification. Against players on point with their game we were able to give the CT's a run for their money.

This is what TPG is about. Shit, this is was CS is about to me. Yeah, we like the game to be as even as possible, but overcoming those odds and taking rounds -- however close they may be -- against a superior team is far more gratifying than winning a blow out. Not a single positive score on there, but as the caller I left that game really satisfied and I think I told you guys that. Yeah, disappointed we didn't win, but satisfied we won THAT many rounds.

I think admins here do a good job of trying to keep things as even as possible, but too much action leads to over-balancing and counter-stacking. Putting the pressure on a team to perform beyond their usual skill set, with an determined caller, is far more important to the gameplay than relying on the admins to play a very delicate guessing game of balancing. Put those bootstraps on folks... if you're losing don't complain -- play harder.

I wouldn't really say you gave them a run for their money by looking at that score, its a borderline beatdown IMHO and I'm not even taking the F/D ratios into account yet. There will always be players who can take a loss knowing they went down fighting and players who have a harder time dealing with losses. If I lose or am losing in a TPG game or a scrim I tend to ask myself why and what are we doing wrong. Now I wasn't there for your game Affinity, but just by looking at that scoreboard what instantly pops in my head is that the T's did not have people capable of getting a early pick or entry frag to open up the round for the team or they were just having an off day with their shots. Now when I actually compare the deaths on both sides vs rounds played and then the frags between the 2 teams, I personally would have liked to see mattdeamon or thermacrit moved over to the T side if I was in that game. Neither are the CT's best players nor would they make the game extremely one sided imo, nor would they guarantee a T comeback for the win, but I think a switch like that could have possibly secured the T's an extra 2 rounds or possibly 3 which would then actually make it a close game. Players can try their hardest in a game or scrim all they want, but without more practice and experience they won't instantly become a top player in that very game.

Oh, definitely. A switch would have definitely helped even the score for sure and no, it wasn't a "close" game objectively, but it felt close. It felt like a good fight.

I am not disputing the fact that teams were potentially uneven, just highlighting a different factor since the focus here has been on Kill-Death ratio in reference to game balance. If I were to look purely at the scores I would guess a maximum of five rounds for the T's (even that's a stretch IMO) those extra three taken were oh so sweet because it was so damn hard to get them.

Ideally I'd like to see a 16-14 win/loss ratio every single map, but that's not going to happen no matter how expert our admins are at balancing. It's the nature of the game. This was just my most recent example of the BEST kind of game: when you go up against a superior force and persevere. Clearly that wasn't the case this time, but I think we've all been in one of those on TPG; where the other team is stacked to hell from the get go and you win strictly based on teamwork. They are few and far between, and to be honest it's much more likely to get steam rolled, but every once in awhile it happens.

I was proud of that map and the team that played with me on it otherwise I wouldn't of screenshotted it. I guess it's not logical and I'll back down because I'm not arguing with you. Shit, I agree with you more than anybody. I'm just trying to convey that you can indeed get a feeling of satisfaction even when losing, and your attitude in-game has a lot to do with it. Not that you have a poor one, I enjoy playing with you more than most because of your practical nature, but I just think players like you have a lot more weight in how a team feels about teams and should stay as positive as possible because of that.

Just my 2 cents, buddy. <3

Admittedly did not read all of the posts, but I have a few thoughts.

A close match is always going to be the best because everybody on both teams will be involved and enjoying the challenge. Sometimes a landslide is fun for the winning team, but it obviously sucks for the losing team. Sometimes players on that winning team don't like the landslide and would prefer the challenge. The curb stomping is relatively ok for one map. It gets tricky when the CT this map go T next map to mix up which side they are playing, and the other team that was T goes CT. Now you have those same teams with perhaps bad chemistry or lack of skill or whatever the reason playing against each other. And maybe that next map is CT sided and the previous was T sided. Uh oh. Two curb stomps in a row. That's when you start to see rage quitters.

The easiest solution is to try and balance the teams when starting the next map. Just a thought.