AWP Votes

**PBJT** · 01-09-09, 03:53 AM

Quick preface: I love awping, and it is the gun I prefer 90% of the time in 5v5. That being said...

Can we ban the awp from the server? I really feel that just one awp can ruin a good ttp style map. I've seen this happen over the course of the past couple weeks. One or two rushes in a row demolished by a couple of awps. And then the T's fold into a slow play style for the rest of the map because they don't want to rush (understandably) into a death trap.

Then you have everyone bitching about people awping on the winning team, etc.

IF I RAN THE 2 CSS SERVERS MY WAY:

I'd run one server scopless (no awps / autos / scouts) and one server that allowed all scoped weapons (no ban votes on awps or autos). This worked extremely well in a community I previously played with and server pop was high on both all the time. Just some food for thought.

EDIT: Typo

**Mudstalker** · 01-09-09, 04:04 AM

I think the only time people really have a problem with someone awping is when there's an unneeded amount, say three awpers on d2...do you really need three people awping on d2? (at least thats the only time I have a problem with it)

Besides, awpers are pretty easy to kill, you just gotta flank them.

**kyle700** · 01-09-09, 04:11 AM

Because it's VERY easy to flank a CT looking down mid with a AWP on D2...
:P

**Pineapple!** · 01-09-09, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by firework700

Because it's VERY easy to flank a CT looking down mid with a AWP on D2...
:P

or a CT in the back of B site on de_cbble.

**CivilWars** · 01-09-09, 10:04 AM

I know we just had a long topic on this, so I am not going to say much other than I totally agree that the AWP kills the strat calling. I know all you hardcore CS:S gurus will say just smoke, flash, and/or flank them and they are easy to take out, and you may be 100% correct, but from my experience when the losing team uses an AWP for a round or two the other team grinds their play to a snails pace to keep from getting picked.

**~~Syrringe~~** · 01-09-09, 10:18 AM

I think this issue has been brought up more than any other one here @ TTP. The admins can throw up a vote at ANY TIME THEY PLEASE or when they get a request. The vote is quick and can quickly put an end to any whoring that should take place. We've also gone over restricting it to 1 or 2 a team...but we figure, as soon as a good game flow that hasnt had the awp involved, gets thrown off by one team that buys 2 or 3 awps and then its discourages the other team, we'll throw a vote right then and there. Its that simple. If we DID ban it, it would totally eliminate the possibilities of game flow disruption, I dont think we'd lose ANY regs if we banned it...ya know?

**CivilWars** · 01-09-09, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Syrringe

If we DID ban it, it would totally eliminate the possibilities of game flow disruption, I dont think we'd lose ANY regs if we banned it...ya know?

QFT

**PBJT** · 01-09-09, 10:34 AM

I can understand that, which is why I suggested doing one server scopeless and one server where all weapons were allowed.

**Pimp Trizkit** · 01-09-09, 11:08 AM

Sigh....we do have a search function for a reason...and this was discussed, what...3 days ago(not to mention dozens of times in the past)?  Here...you'll find any answer you want about awps and TTP.  Enjoy.

Originally Posted by Gideon

Another AWP thread that's like a dog chasing its tail...  This has all been discussed before and the reasons for arriving at the decisions TTP have regarding the AWP have been thoroughly debated.  All you have to do is a little re"search" in the forms to find that out.

Why say it all again when it has all been said before?  So, instead... here are a few quotes from BD, and some links at the bottom so that you can view the debates in their entirety until your hearts content.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

"it's part of the game".....

I have made some good speeches about that comment.

"it's part of the game" huh?

Well, so is friendly fire, havana, hacks, dick heads, and CAL-clan whoring.  Should we go ahead and endorse those things too?

How about low grav, and slow motion?  How about everyone runs backwards when they press forwards?  How about scouts and knivez only?

The game is what WE decide it to be.  Not how it's made.  We're the server, we're the players, we're the community, we're the admins.  We vote, we decide.

so.....decide.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

my personal rule/standard is.....after I see about 4 or 5 deaths due to an awp, regardless of what team it's on, I put up the vote.  Some maps, maybe even sooner.

Some admins might be less attentive....or they might be more tolerant of the awps.

but no admin is allowed to ignore an "awp vote" request.  If you make a request, and an admin does nothing....report it....and let us handle it.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

even then, this post is locked.  YOu guys haven't brought up anything, at all, that hasn't been discussed as nauseum.

Go find the awp threads, which will answer why the votes can not be criticized, why "limiting the awp" to 1 or 2 per team is impractical and unfair, and why the awp, truly, and undeniably, is a stupid, stupid weapon.

Part of the game, yes.  As realistic and fair as others, no.  And that's why you lose votes when they come up.  Pwn all you want......awps are bad form.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Seems people didn't bother to read the previous posts........too bad.

next person that says "it's part of the game" is going to get in a serious argument with me.  Don't say it again.  Not to us.  Go talk about it in a player forum, and not to server admins and config guys.

Nothing........not even the ability to fire your weapon, is part of the game....unless we want it to be.

DWP is part of the game because of ethical reasons.  It was created to bring balance, we argue for balance, so we support DWP.

As DWP as OBVIOUSLY pointed out, there are several things wrong with CS.  Namely, the AK, the M4, and the Deagle.  And.....as I'm sure I said somewhere in this argument....if we're going to be permanently restricting weapons like the AWP, we need to be sure and take all the bullshit weapons out, or even the unmatched weapons.

Reference p-stats to see which weapons don't match their opposite team counterparts.

The AWP is a throwback to 1999, and no one can deny that.  If you want games to perform like it's 1999......then keep supporting the weapon as if it's "skill based" and legitimate.  Same with the deagle, M4, and AK.  And then......get slapped by DWP in your mouth.

The only real problem with the awp, that I have, is that......if half the team is using it.....the gameplay, as a whole, is destroyed.  A whole lot of standing around and shooting, and not a lot of ground taking, objective seeking, bomb planting, hostage rescuing.

A whole lot of "ring of fire" scripts running, slaying those who think it's more fun, and more important to AWP rather than to do their objective based tasks.

"but bigdog.....I can win if I shoot everyone on the other side". 

Of course you can.  And you can do that in Quake III, or Unreal Tournament 2K6, or some other game that ISN'T FOCUSED ON OBJECTIVES.

"but bigdog....it's part of the game"

slapped.....slapped again........and then, your forward speed, side speed, and ability to use your mouse are removed.

"but _______.....slow motion and no-mouse is part of the game".

My comment about 99% of the time it gets restricted still stands.

We HAD an automated awp vote system in place.....but the recent updates to valve have ruined it.  AWPing is for different kinds of games, focused on twitch-shoot principles and solo achievement.

If you like to awp.......and it's not a SPECIFIC part of the team strategy......then you aren't a teamplayer.

It's not that it's anything agianst snipers.  There's snipers in BF2.  SJT is a hell of a sniper in 2142.

But we are all playing a role in that game.  HE's a sniper who also has active-camoflauge, C4 explosive packs, and hand grenades.  He covers my ass, and destroys the enemy ability to track us, kamikazes his ass into vehicles to attach explosives and detonate them in emergencies, and he holds territory as directed by the commander/squad leader.

He does NOT sit in a spawn area, waiting for things to walk in front of him.

And, given CS's size....that's about all you can do with an AWP.  You certainly don't have time to rush anywhere with it.  You aren't going to see an awper rush the bridge on aztec, leading the pack.  Or on assault, being the first one in the door.  Or on dust, rushing left, first to the site.

They're in the back....last ones......too slow to rush.......in protected, ineffective areas of the map.

..................so tired of writing.  Can't we just skip to the end?  Don't we all know who's right by now?

Links for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.texasteamplayers.com/index.php?topic=674.0

http://www.texasteamplayers.com/index.php?topic=11284.0

http://www.texasteamplayers.com/index.php?topic=3065.0

http://www.texasteamplayers.com/index.php?topic=2096.0

http://www.texasteamplayers.com/index.php?topic=52710.0

Locked.