What you really need is a server full of friends to play with.
That's where the fun is. Ah, the days of fucking around on Jeepathon_2k1
Printable View
What you really need is a server full of friends to play with.
That's where the fun is. Ah, the days of fucking around on Jeepathon_2k1
I've only been around since 1.5, though I've played 1.3 once, with bunny hopping ^.^
I started at 1.4 and usually play 3-4 hours a day or so. Got banned for the 3rd time in 7 days from one particular site...bastards.
I used to think M4>AK, but now it's AK all the way. 2-3 Round bursts are deadly.
Great game.
The beta versions were far better than the game is now. Shotguns were actually useful. You didn't have to deal with smoke/flashbang grenade spamming. Pistols and the MP5 were way more accurate. Etc. Etc.
I remember playing back when Colts were always silenced, and they all had scopes too. The Sig was the biggest piece of crap ever (it's more or less equivalent to the Aug now).
Beta 1.6 rocked until they weakened the riot shield.
The major problem with CS though isn't really the weapons. It's the shitty map design. Implementing the riot shield "fixed" some glaring flaws in a lot of CS maps, but Valve then weakened the shield to the point where it is now basically worthless, which makes a lot of the maps suck again.
I still play it from time to time. Battlefield 1942 is better in almost every way now.
I can't get into CS after playing MoH:AA and Vietcong. I can only devote my time to a few games, and CS doesn't seem to be getting a spot.
Im glad I didnt play the game back in the beta days... because I dont harbor some stupid memory of how the game "ought to be" and turn into some bitter Valve hater in the process.* Oh well.
Mamoscott, Lucas just asked who plays the game, he didnt ask for a dissertation on CounterStrike's history. And that goes for all of you! Muhahahaha!
As for the Counterstrike vs. Battlefield 1942 deal... BF may be a better game, in fact, it probably is, but its hard to find out because people don't know what the fuck they're doing. It reminds me a lot of Starsiege: Tribes, which was a conceptually brilliant game, and it was executed really well... but most people had no idea what the fuck they were doing, and all that ended up happening in every game was a bunch of people zipped around in jetpacks getting sniped while the three people who did know how to play got creamed everytime they tried to get the flag.
Whenever I play Battlefield 1942, nobody acts in teams, people run their teammates over, they stand in the base and snipe while the other team is setting up tanks at all the flag points, they steal planes and use them just to fly in figure 8s, I dunno... the game is brilliantly realized, but people just don't know how the fuck to play the damn thing right, so games never really end up being as fun as they should be. For better or worse, CounterStrike has been around forever, so people have a feel for how the game plays and how to work in teams, etc. Thats not to say there are problems (AWP), but at least the flaws in CS are mainly technical... in Battlefield or Tribes, the flaws are the players.
*I actually feel that way about Team Fortress Classic, but that's neither here nor there
edit: What the fuck is Vietcong?
God forbid I talk about Counter-Strike in a Counter-Strike thread, right? He asked who plays the game. I responded, because..get this...I play the game too. :kirby:Quote:
Originally posted by diffusionx
Im glad I didnt play the game back in the beta days... because I dont harbor some stupid memory of how the game "ought to be" and turn into some bitter Valve hater in the process.* Oh well.
When did I say I hated Valve or that I was bitter? I never did. Valve didn't even design most of the CS maps (or the mod itself). They just bought the rights to use the maps in the retail version of the game.
I also never said that the beta versions were how the game "ought to be". All I said were that they were far better than the current incarnation of CS.
Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be one of your strong points.
The players in CS are just as much of a problem as in any other game. Unless you play the game in a clan or very seriously/professionally in constantly moderated servers, almost no one in Counter-Strike plays the game as it is supposed to be played.Quote:
Originally posted by diffusionx
For better or worse, CounterStrike has been around forever, so people have a feel for how the game plays and how to work in teams, etc. Thats not to say there are problems (AWP), but at least the flaws in CS are mainly technical... in Battlefield or Tribes, the flaws are the players.
The objectives in CS are to plant/defuse bombs, rescue hostages, escort the VIP to an escape point (etc), but 99% of the time, CS players care too much about their kill/death ratio to even consider completing their team's objective.
How often does a CT camping with an AWP go after a planted bomb, especially if he's outnumbered? Almost never. How often does a terrorist player plant the bomb and run off to somewhere else on the map looking for someone to kill, only to find that a CT snuck into the bomb site and defused it without having to fight his way to the bomb (that the terrorist should have been guarding)? These are just a few examples, but there are a million others I can come up with.
If you're going to fault a game like BF1942 for its players, you've got to do the same for CS. And CS' player base is much larger, so they've got idiot players to spare.
CS is an objective-based team game, but as its gained popularity, that concept seems to have been pushed to the wayside in favor of deathmatch play and "l33t" kill/death ratios. :kirby:
Ive played cs on and off for a while. Now, i must say that back in the day mabey 2-3 years ago the game hit its peek. However, the modificatoins they made over the years didnt ruin the game at all, just made it more of a deathmatch game.
If your gonna use a submachine gun dont use the p90(3-3) the bullets arnt that accurate and the projectile weight is only...2... i believe, compared to the mp5's(3-1) projectile weight of 8. I would stick with the mp5. It has better aim, hits harder, and is cheaper to use allowing you to get a more powerful gun quicker if you desire so.
Now, for the mac10 (3-4) it has a projectile weight of about 15-16, 15.2 if memory serves. Close range combat will be much more effective with the mac10 then the mp5 plus the Mac has a better rate of fire. The problem with the mac10 is that if your at any sort of a distance you cant hit shit unless you stop and crouch but its not a rifle so thats not a good idea, you'll probably be at the shit end of that stick. Id stick with the mp5, learn how to use it its a great back up weapon when your low on cash and will pop the enemy's melon just as good as the Mac.
I dont know about you guys but i cant have a favorite rifle, they each have their own perks. It all depends on how im playing if i cant stop running around then ill use the m4 but if im feeling Slithery Dithery then ill probably go ak.
I used to be all Commando (4-2), it has a good recoil pattern if you can get it down but its one of the harder patterns to control. Its alos damn powerfull but i can see why someone would choose the aug (4-4) over it, it jsut comes down to what team you pick the most i suppose.
I play alot so anyone whos got gamespy can add me to their buddy list on gamespy. My name is El_furio just send a request and ill verify so i can get to beating your ass
Ahhh the good old days when sentry guns would shoot instantly on site and concussion grenades could send you half way across the map in 3 seconds :)Quote:
Originally posted by diffusionx
Im glad I didnt play the game back in the beta days... because I dont harbor some stupid memory of how the game "ought to be" and turn into some bitter Valve hater in the process.* Oh well.
*I actually feel that way about Team Fortress Classic, but that's neither here nor there
Did you see my footnote at the end? I feel EXACTLY the same way you do, but about TFC. If you ask me, Valve all but ruined my favorite game ever. I was being tongue-in-cheek... perhaps I did a poor job of it, but I tried.Quote:
Originally posted by Mamoscott
Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be one of your strong points.
I see what you're saying, but I see an equal amount of good stuff going on in games - teams switching up tactics if they're losing, attacks and counter-attacks, etc. If we get slaughtered on the bridge in aztec or whatever, most know to defend the bridge more. I mean, we aren't SWAT, but it's decent. As for the terrorist bomb/guarding thing, I honestly dont see that that much... whenever I plant the bomb, I camp right near it to protect it, and I think a lot of others do too.Quote:
How often does a CT camping with an AWP go after a planted bomb, especially if he's outnumbered? Almost never. How often does a terrorist player plant the bomb and run off to somewhere else on the map looking for someone to kill, only to find that a CT snuck into the bomb site and defused it without having to fight his way to the bomb (that the terrorist should have been guarding)? These are just a few examples, but there are a million others I can come up with.
When I compare this to Battlefield, there are times Im playing and I can do nothing but hit the L button to teamtype and say "YOU GUYS FUCKING SUCK T$WJTOI U$OIJ$T@$@@@$OI$TJOIT$" because Im just in complete and utter awe at the total stupidity and lack of strategy that the team has. It's like Starsiege Tribes all over again, and I was never able to fully get into Tribes because the strategy in-game was just so weak...
Also, I think some maps facilitate kills, and some bomb planting more. I see a fair amount of bomb planting, on, say, dust2 or aztec, and I see a lot of hostage rescues on, say, office italy. In spite of that, I think most of the maps are good. I once did see someone say "dont plant bomb, its gay", but who cares about people like that.