wtf?

hahahaha verry nice, but VoO screams at every kill he makes in quake3 :P i heard it even on the shoutcast !

here

haha very funny and he is right :P

wat

stop majoring this bullshit
(try 7)

LOLOLOLOLOL

well done!!
so funny!

I always knew cs players were stupid, this just confirms it.

[x]Fail

im sure i'll get flamed but here i go...

i dont see why everyone hates counter-strike so much. the counter-strike community certainly doesnt hate quake 3 nearly as much as we hate seem to hate counter-strike and its really unfounded hate anyways. they are different games. at the top levels competition is still insanely difficult but i think starcraft is probably tougher than both games. o well time to check the video and find out why i hate cs!

when we say we hate counterstrike, we dont exactly mean we hate counterstrike, but we hate the typical counterstrike player.
There are several symptoms that identify a counterstrike player:
- Player is at an average age of 13-15 and gets easily pissed by everyone.
- Player talks 1337 speech all the time.
- Player is calling others noobs all the time, even if he gets owned by them.
- Player uses cheats and calls others noobs for not using cheats either.
- Player enjoys camping, but he doesn't do it outdoors.
....

not all symptoms appear simultaneously.. sometimes there even are exceptions, but they're hard to find.

Also:
-Has a rollercoaster haircut
-listens only to horrible music
-has a profile pic of himself shirtless
-boasts how he once drank 2 bottles of cider before becoming drunk
-plays in a clan with an unfunny name only he and his retarded friends thinks is funny
-is retarded

The bigger the community, the more likely people like that will be there. If Quake had that many players, it would be in the exact same boat. Just look at WoW.

of 10 btw

wait thats not supposed to be there.

Bit harsh TBH. 8.5.

Also playing Haze at the moment and all I can say is you can't cheat Karma :)

i found myself confused multiple times what to do, where they are attacking and so forth, that killed my experience a bit. otherwise its probably one of the best sp games ive ever played together with cod1 and painkiller :)

hahahahahaha

was that supposed to be replied to me? i can't see whats funny

That Haze and Painkiller are two of the best sp games you have ever played.

yes, i tend to get bored if its not enough action.

Actually I was taking the piss out of Haze and Free Radical Design.

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllol

Is Uwe Boll your favourite director!?1?!

hahahaha omg, you called him a "director"

I was feeling generous :o

HE-HE.

i like movies like the machinist, 21, pi, garden state, fight club. quite the mix really.

I wonder where this post is going to land

And don't call my Shirley.

Deserves more than 7 I think

see 28 :D

- Player enjoys camping, but he doesn't do it outdoors.

$$$

You'll find people like that in pubs. The competitive community is already much better, and it's easy to find really cool and mature players everywhere. When I see some of the discussions here about walter, quake in the US, cpm vs vq3, xerp, stuff like that, frankly it's not much better.

Competitive CS Conversation:

A: pz shitty!
B: rofl
A: wow ur terrible
B: just stop talking baddie
A: get outta open, kthx
B: Pretty sure we just peaced u out
A: plz, keep talking scrub, its funny
B: LoLuMaD ??
A: haha get on my level
B: get on ur level? plz, get outta ogl then come talk to me
A: ROFL....k cu at lan shitty
B: we'll roll u bitches, cya there

wrong. that would be pub cs conversation idiot

No that's pretty accurate to how some players of many teams in CAL-im CAL-m talk. The attitudes of players sometimes can just be incredible. Seeing cheating is so bad in competitive and public CS it doesn't even mean much at all to be good at the game and thus cop an attitude... Although often times it's just more mature players pretending to act that way for fun. Like I don't think anyone who's 17 and says pwned after killing someone is being serious in most circumstances.

kinda similar to raging donks playing poker online

I guess you havent played on xs4all ctf pub servers then, coz that pretty much sums up half the people on there.

I hate counterstrike too, but this video is in no way funny AT ALL.
In the first minutes he looked like a typical counterstrike player, but the rest of the video with him comparing counterstrike players to animals is just nonsense.

take it serious

The show was lol. Being sarcastic towards yourself is always funny for me, so I'm looking forward for the next Sasha show. Maybe he'll mock Quake and it's players next. :D

Would be an interesting experiment if you ask me.

Possibly the worst majored news I have seen on this site...

(Also - I disregard anything that someone who tried to take over the CPL when they were on a downward spiral says)

on april 1st...

Whoops :) Stopped reading after "acquired the CPL" and went off in my own little world!

oops! :p

i guess its major because of the fact that its a news post to which people can reply, and they actually go into its own thread ;)

It's not that CS is a bad game or all cs players are bad.

it's just 99.9% of them are sort of I dunno 13-16 yr olds who bascially over run net cafes and make so much noise and have no thought for other people.

They are tolerated because keep net cafes in business, so people have to put up with them. Which is why they I H8.

I personally prefer the latent homosexual, border line socio path vibe of the quake community!

tbh the scientific reason why we (we being a large group of quake players) is because 'CS people' claim to have better tactics than people use in quake.
While in scientific theory the more dynamic a system is, the more options (aka tactics) it will result in. And well I don't even think CS players would argue that quake is a lot more dynamic (having dynamic spawn systems for players and items), yet they still say CS is the more tactical game....

You don't understand. The longer it takes to travel from one corner of the map to the other and the more random the bullet spread is, the more tactical the game becomes. Gah, it's so simple!

TBH some maps take longer to traverse in Quake than in CS

learn to strafejump noob.

:X

It's a totally different game, you really can't compare, but what I will say is that the pace of CS and mechanics of CS will naturally create the perception of a deeper strat because the pace of game will throw up less strategies per 10 minutes than a game of Quake 3 so the player is more aware that it's at the centre of the game.

A quaker will be doing the same, but the mechanics of Quake mean most decent players have to calculate their strats almost as they happen (because they constantly get uypdated beyond the basics) and therefore it does not feel as strategic because you calculate so many varaibles of play you take it for granted.

*what you do with updates = tactics
(even CS tactics are developped like this with some resolving around a sort of scout one area, then chose which to attack)
in quake there are more updates ==> deeper tactics imo.

But well imo you can compare how tactical a game is... maybe because I like to think about why players do certain things in quake, and also when I spec some cs (yes I do sometimes I am a sinner :(). but well I'm not into cs so I often miss a 'choice', but even to me it is clear that (even though there might be different reasons for doing things) you wind up doing the same tactical move (so each individual action in the team) in cs more often then you do in ctf / tdm in q3. Simply because in CS everything is a given (how long it takes to get somewhere, where you have to get etc.)

deep upodate tactikk

Wow. Just wow. Counter-Strike IS a more tactical game. Timing items and map control require a LOT less tactics than a top cs match where basically every round is carefully prepared. Top teams spend literally days preparing maps alone on a server (without an opponent), and they usually have to do this before each big event since everyone watches demos of the other good teams to analyse their tactics.

This is exactly the misconception I am talking about.

I know quake and I don't care how many variables you have to take into account constantly, it's still way less strategic.

You think top players/team in Quake don't/didn't prepare things in the same way?

I seem to remeber cooller drawing diagrams for av3k on routes/things to do to help him beat toxic.

There are far greater thing happening in a quake match:

- The maps themselves offer far more options/choices than a CS map does and far more places to gain a positional advantage
- Items that need to be collected/managed in order to gain an advantage over the opposition
- More weapons that require different skill sets, this means more tactical choices need to be made in every situation
- Speed/Methods of travel, this means more options need to be considered for all of the others as a player can be anywhere at any time
- Current and Opponents status (Health/Armour/Ammo), more varience than dead/not dead

And that's just touching the surface. All of these require you to have a planned strategy in advance, routes to take, items to prioritise, weapons to use, weapons to avoid, positions to avoid, places to ambush and more. Then you also have the individual tactics of each situation that you need to adapt to. All of these are constantly changing and updating due to the nature of a score based time limit game as opposed to a round based game (Where you don't adapt nearly as much in each individual round).

Yeah, and he did these drawings on a pizza box, enough said. I know all that you mentioned. But you obviously don't know much about how competitive CS is played.

TBFH APPLES > ORANGES

This man is a genious,

Just because it is played in a competitive manner doesn't make the game more strategic/tactical only that often the strategic/tactical side of the game in Quake is often ignored due to the casual nature of the player base (now).

Does it really matter where the drawings were made, I'm pretty sure they would have come with detailed explanations said directly to av3k from cooller. Not to mention both players are experienced and have practiced a ridiculous amount of Quake over the years.

It is more strategic. You do not know how CS works at that level. I know how both games work.

Quake IS more skilled on an individual level. Even if your really good in CS you still can't do anything if 2 decent people start shooting at you.

Basically CS is a lot more random(which makes teamplay more important). Also the reason I started playing quake instead. Atleast in Quake I don't have the feeling I get outlucked or my teammates are playing shit. I'm the only one to blame for a loss.

Btw saying how serious Counter-strike players are about the game doesn't mean shit. WoW players practice very hard too for events and discuss 'tactics'. And we all know WoW as an e-sport is as bad as competitive high card.

At no point did we mention individual skill, that's a completely different debate. We were talking about the strategic aspect.

Quake's focus is more on raw skill, experience and timing.
CS is more about coordination and excecution.

The thing with Quake is that there has to be some quick decision making so most of the things you do are based on previous experiences and instinct. This may seem less "strategical"

I was kidding lately, oranges > apples ofc

you´ve obviously never played serious TDM, the idea of cs being more strategical is laughable.

It's obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. It really is. I'm very familiar with how quake works, whether it's 1on1's, TDM, CTF, thank you. It has nothing on CS when it comes to strategy and tactics.

---

yeah I know :p It's a pity though to be so narrow-minded, but I guess it makes them feel good about themselves. I mean I played quake before cs and I love both games, but to say that quake is more strategic/tactical is simply ignorant :]

---

Coach is dumb and a drawback but even with the coach it's still on another level in comparison to CS. I think what you and the Belgian are talking about is how serious the top teams work at them and how far they train them rather than the mechanics of the actual game.

Anything you can do in CS you can do in TDM/CTF, CS teams may have taken it to another level due to the highly competitive scene however that has nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the game but rather the the competitiveness of the scene (!).

I can guarentee that if TDM/CTF had exactly the same support as CS currently does that the teams would take it as seriously and the tactics/strategy employed would be quite great at the top level.

---

This is all a misunderstanding perhaps then :o (Although I'm sure the Belgian will still disagree)

---

Much agree :)

haha, you are laughable. the only thing you´ve said in this thread "i know both quake and cs" in 10 different ways. think anyone gives a shit what a random newbie like you has to say? go play cs with your 14 year old neighbours or something and gtfo this site, idiot.

BRAIN/SMARTS/INTELLIGENCE REQUIREMENT OF CS AND QUAKE:

CS: PREPLANNED attacks on bsite. you may think you're tricky when you fake a rush flashes/smokes, do a delayed rush, hit two places at once, rotate twice, jump on each other to get to the top of a box, and whatever else you think is so "strategic". In the end of the day, after your plan has been executed and the bomb is down, all that is left it "WHERES LAST GUY WHERES LAST GUY?" And the round starts over and you use another one of your plans. THIS is what gives you the impression of strategy and deep thinking. All YOU'RE doing is what your caller tells you to do; you don't think for one second.

Quake: In comparison, Quake requires a LOT of brain during a 15min 1v1. Timing RA and Mega already take a substantial amount of focus, which is why some people use timers, analog clocks, or friends to time for them. Then you have to think about things that inkind said: positioning, movement, items, weapon switching (huge), etc.

In conclusion,
Just because you can spend one week planning some rush on A, it doesn't mean shit.
BUT IN THE END IT IS APPLES AND ORANGES....
CS = coordination
Quake=skill

I think it says enough about your judgement if you think cs is only about calling a tactic at the beginning of the round :) Most of the time strat callers will adapt to what the enemy is doing during the round and not decide everything at the spawn unless it's about rushing somewhere. So will each player since the x vs x situations are never the same.

Just thought I'd tell you TDM/CTF require more co-ordination than CS too :)

This guy is either a total moron or just "trolling".

Either way I'm sure this "discussion" will be read by someone who might benefit from it.

Ah, to be young again... and an idiot...

you must be a troll

heh, tdm is clearly more strategic

I have to give you that : most Quake players (or I should say, Q3/Q4 players) largely overlook the strategical and tactical aspects of Quake, especially in team games - this is however not true when it comes to 1on1.

That is largely due to a flawed balance which let FFA and good aim alone work to a certain extense, without having to work much on your teamplay and tactics.

you are mistaking tactics with strategy. Strategy would be a trend that you see all game long, like letting the enemy take bombsites reasonably easily, and then working on retakes.

Tactics would be little things that fit together in order to form the strategy.

for instace, if-22's strategy would be to play defensive and retreat alot until he feels he has a hp/ap advantage when he usually pushes a tiny bit or whatever. His tactics would be to try and catch his enemy in the open with the LG. anyway, you see what i mean :P

With regards to whats more strategic or tactical, i think that both games are pretty distinct, although both have a healthy dosage of each. :P

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1571298#pid1571298 :p

How do you know what I do or do not know about?

It doesn't matter how it works on that level, as the points I made still stand. It is more strategic and tactical.

Because you're only mentioning points that have something to do with Quake, then comparing them to CS, and it's obvious that you don't have a clue about how professionnal cs is played. CS is more tactical/strategic to the vast majority of people familiar with both worlds.

Yet you've not raised any points for or against CS/Q3. You're argument is "CS is more strategic/tactical, because they train hard and I know both games" (Basically you have no points)

I'm very familiar with CS by the way, probably just as much as you are with Q3.

Because I don't think a gameplay can be accurately summed up in a few short sentences (this goes for both quake and cs). Think what you want m8, there's no way I'm convincing anyone here like ubr pointed out. It's just funny that's all :)

Here's the thing, any tactic/strategy type that is found in CS is also found in Quake and then Quake has more things to consider and take advantage of.

If you can't put ideas into words, or at least be able to give a general idea of something usually indicates you've no idea and that you aren't confident in your opinion.

I'd love for you to change my mind, really I would.

Can't use words? You can always use videos, diagrams, articles others have wrote. For a game some brimming with strategy and tactics surely this would be a walk in the park with ample examples that clearly outshine anything Quake could offer?

dude you're so right and he has already given up, so don't care

Was just curious why he thinks that way

The answer is because I know what I'm talking about.

If you knew what you are talking about in general you would know that yuo can't know whether you really know what you are talking about now. You only know that you think you know what you're talking about, which is never good enough ;)

"Here's the thing, any tactic/strategy type that is found in CS is also found in Quake and then Quake has more things to consider and take advantage of."

No, that's not true. How can you even possibly think that? You don't have a money system in quake, and the money system is one of the things that matters the most strategically in CS. You have to completely adapt what you're going to do based on what you're able to buy (which is completely different from what weapon you currently have in TDM for example). Not only this, but whether or not you have grenades is something the leader must take into account each round since flashes/smokes play a vital role in attacking bombsites or faking attacks. Such features are non-existant in quake. These two extremely simple examples show not only that your statement is completely wrong but also that you don't understand how cs works, like I said, since you didn't even take those into account.

You're asking for articles etc, simply head over to gotfrag and go read their playbooks. They're extremely basic and are usually about a couple of selected tactics used in a match (such as a bombsite re-take with the analysis of the movements of the five players) but they should give you a good idea of what cs is about even though it's only the tip of the iceberg. Nothing beats watching demos though.

You have to completely adapt what you're going to do based on what you're able to buy

You have to completely adapt what you're going to do based on the areas/weapons/armour/health/powerups you have on the map at any given time.

Not only this, but whether or not you have grenades is something the leader must take into account each round since flashes/smokes play a vital role in attacking bombsites or faking attacks.

Not only this, but whether or not you have railguns/lightningguns is something the leader must take into account at all times since these weapons play a vital role in attacking areas/picking up spawn kills.

Not only this, but whether or not you have rockets/grenades is something the leader must take into account at all times since these weapons play a vital role in faking attacks (Yes, really you can fake attacks!) on areas.

The buy system is a fairly simple risk/reward system, risk buying now to win a round? or save now and risk throwing a round in order to come out as dominant a bit later.

This is comparable to TDM in many ways since you can cess areas (giving away kills) in order to weaken/take over an area in the hope of then exerting dominance a bit later or you can stack up and try to switch the game around using a powerup or just a well timed/co-ordinated attack.

Ideally teams plan out how they attack certain areas with certain weapons at certain times (with precision and co-ordination) in the exact same way as top CS teams do.

just replying to this one cause it's last in line.

both of you won't ever get anywhere if you do it like this.

First, you need to agree on some kind of measurement for how tactical /strategic a game is:

for example it could be:
the number changes of variable the average player can to take into account during 10 seconds of actual game play.

or

number of the fundamental strategic decisions set before one map game that the players of the best teams of each game have to obey.



If you don't do that you'll indeed be doing what wata said, comparing apples and oranges.

It's not apples and oranges because despite what is on the surface the games are actually very similar in regards to how they work just the overall aim is slightly different.

Besides TDM wins on both accounts of those proposed measurements so it doesn't matter :)

In terms of strategy before each "round" there are more things to take into account in a TDM game.

In terms of strategy during each "round" again there are more things to take into account and these things change more often during the round and quicker in a TDM game.

Same thing goes for tactics there are more things to consider as I already discussed above in a TDM game.

yeah round based and continous spawns are really very much the same.

Having one or two contants goal and around three that come back after som time is also very similar...

"You have to completely adapt what you're going to do based on the areas/weapons/armour/health/powerups you have on the map at any given time."

Absolutely not comparable to how the money situation influences the tactics in CS. The same goes for your following two paragraphs. The fakes in CS are so much more elaborate it's not even funny, and they're executed completely differently. It's the same again for holding and attacking areas in CS, every player's actions are MUCH more coordinated and precisely prepared. I don't get how you can possibly think the two can be compared, seriously, stop it :)

You're talking about something different to the rest of us.

We're talking about potential depth and you're talking about the current standard of strat/tactic implementation and execution.

No. Again, the money system, the flash & smoke grenades, the pace of the game (which are all part of the gameplay) are three simple examples of how your claim that "any tactic/strategy type that is found in CS is also found in Quake" is wrong.

The concept behind them is if not the same, very similar in principle. The idea behind them is to cause the same effect, how they are executed is obviously different (But by no means are they more difficult in CS).

You fake attacks on certain routes in TDM in order to increase the chances of success from the actual attack routes.

The use of Smokes/flash grenades to fake attacks on one route/bombsite has the exact same purpose, just the implementation is different due to the differences in game.

Just as in CS you can trade rounds to save money/risk money to get rounds, in TDM you risk frags to gain item advantage in order to gain frags, or you risk item advantage in order to save frags.

"the pace of the game" is an interesting one as you can slow TDM games down considerably to an almost CS speed.

The fact that in CS these are more finely tuned, pre-planned, co-ordinated and executed doesn't make the game more strategic and tactical it makes the scene itself more strategic and tactical.

The fakes in the two games are completely different from a tactical point of view. Just because you label them "fakes" don't mean they can accurately be compared. Just like attacks can be very tactically different in duke nukem, quake 3 and cs. Just because they're all "attacks" doesn't mean they can be compared when it comes to the tactical aspect.
The influence of the money system is completely different from "risking frags". It blows my mind that you're comparing the two.
And no, TDM even slowed down doesn't have as slow a pace as cs.
Your comparisons are flawed.

They aren't a perfect match, but the same ideas are behind them and in a sense they are employed in a similar way.

Everyone starts with the same money, winning rounds wins extra money, losing rounds means you don't gain as much. So the money system boils down to what the team is prepared to risk in terms of it's long term ability to pay for items in order to win rounds and gain an advantage in terms of money. The money dictates the tactics available and the tactics needed can also dictate the amount of money needed to be spent. Knowing when to call which plays during a game is therefore essential.

This is very similar to the system of cessing vs stacking found in TDM, where frags are the money and item control is a round.

Just because it's a "mechanical" system that happens in between rounds doesn't make them worlds apart.

The same goes for attacks, you look for positional and numerical advantage (Using fakes to bait the opponent) and then use synchronised co-ordinated attacks to overwhelm the opponent. For defence you obviously try to do the opposite and to not get baited.

I'll agree that flash/smokes have no true comparable situation due to the nature of how they work.

Lastly I've seen plenty of TDM games as slow as CS games.

No they're not employed in a similar way.
No, it's not similar to cessing vs stacking. Frags aren't money: you win a TDM match when you have the most frags, you don't win a CS match when you have the most money. Likewise, if you control the items during an entire match but still somehow end up not having the most frags you'll lose the game in quake, while if you get to 16 rounds first you'll win the game in CS. Furthermore, the money system also dictates how the end of a round is played, not only the tactic decided at the beginning when you look at what everyone can afford. The money system also dictates how save rounds are played for terrorists, who will have to come up with a tactic that, if it doesn't allow them to win the round, at least allows them to plant the bomb. A round lost with the bomb planted is very different from a round lost with no bomb planted. It touches so many more aspects of the game than what you described in quake.
I already addressed what you said about attacks: you're looking at this from so far above that your comparisons become meaningless. Just because you have something called "attacks" in both games don't make them similar. Bombsites themselves have no real equivalent in quake, they're not comparable to a quad room for example.
No, they're not as slow as CS games. For example, the pace of CS means that when planning an attack on a position you'll place your players in order for them to constantly cover each other from every corner (for example when you're entering a T area, one looks left and one looks right, with the third one flashing from behind and they turn at the second the flash explodes). Even if quake players pay attention and help each other, it's not comparable to CS.

I never stated it was a direct 1:1 comparison however it is essentially the same concept. So lets switch it up then, Items are the money, Frags are the rounds (In fact this comparison works far better anyway).

The items you have under your teams control dictate your strategy and the tactics you employ at the start, middle and the end of the game. In order to win the game you need to call which items you are willing to risk in order to gain frags.

Now in order to maximise the possibility of gaining frags you need the best items (and the powerups). Therefore you need to plan where/how/when you attack an area, you can fake an attack on an area when in fact you're simply baiting the opponent in order to increase the chances of success of the actual attack.

This is essentially the same game as played in CS, just CS is a striped down and simplified version. You base your tactics and strategy around what you can spend now and what you can spend later. In order to maximise the chances of gaining money you need to win rounds (frags) or plant the bomb (get the powerup). The more money you have the greater the ability your team has to win rounds.

Attacks have the same purpose (gain items/powerups/money without throwing away too many frags or in this case losing items bought via death and rounds) and are executed in a similar fashion with the team having to co-ordinate attacks at the right time, with the right weapons at the right place. You can fake attacks at one area in order to distract and divide the opponent in order to increase the chances of success of your actual attack (you can double fake too etc).

TDM games can be slowed right down so that players are co-ordinated in exactly the same way as you describe things work in CS. Just because it is not commonly seen doesn't mean it's not possible. At any rate strategic/tactical =! slow pace the two aren't linked in anyway.

In CS you get money by fragging and winning rounds, and the outcome of a round has an impact on the entire team's money. In Quake you get items by going over them at the right times (which is possible when you control them), and they affect one person (who's obviously not going to attack his team, but it's still one person per item). So no, it's not "essentially the same".
Fakes in quake basically consist of one or a few people going somewhere, and/or shooting some rockets/grenades etc. Fakes (and double fakes and so on) in CS are completely different, for example via the use of grenades. There are also techniques like attacking a place to put someone there then switching to another site so that he can take out the rotating CTs from his new position. It's much more elaborate than in quake and the mechanics aren't the same. You've given me nothing but the definition of a fake, and I've said countless times that you have to go deeper than just "you can do fakes in both games".

If one player on your team has a rail and red armour it directly affects the rest of the team, his increased ability to damage and survive allows other team mates to pickup more items and get frags. If the other team kill that player and take his rail that affects his team in a positive way and yours in a negative team.

Just because the initial affect of one player picking up an item means he's got that item doesn't mean it affects the team.

The way I see it you're looking at TDM as "Team Free For All" and thinking that it's just FFA but where you don't shoot some people and partially work together. This is one way to play but it's not the only way, and if you wanted you could easily practice/train elaborate tactics and strats.

Fakes in quake basically consist of one or a few people going somewhere, and/or shooting some rockets/grenades etc. Fakes (and double fakes and so on) in CS are completely different, for example via the use of grenades. There are also techniques like attacking a place to put someone there then switching to another site so that he can take out the rotating CTs from his new position. It's much more elaborate than in quake and the mechanics aren't the same.

Firstly, you've shown no reasons why the fakes are any different except the use of smokes/flash bangs which in all honestly is barely different at all (I did however say already that there is no real equivalent in TDM, although you can still use PG/RL/GL//MG fire to fake in a similar way).

You clearly haven't considered the fact that you can do exactly the same thing as you proposed in the quote above in TDM. Attack one area leave a guy push to another area and the other guy can cover them and/or pick up spawn frags. The same idea, similar methods of achieving the idea.

This still doesn't mean it has the same impact as the money situation in CS.
No that's not the way I'm looking at it.
Flashes & smokes are very different, not "barely".
The impact is still not going to be the same and the tactic won't work the same way at all, making it pretty useless in quake. The guy you leave won't have the same role (this is also linked to the pace of the game).

The importance/impact of a tactic/strategy was never my point. Only that you could employ the tactics if you wished to, whether or not they would achieve anything is a different matter entirely.

I still disagree on faking, while the specifics are different the concepts are still similar and flash/smoke grenades aren't as far removed as you think (But I already agreed they were not directly comparable with anything in a current TDM game)

This all comes down to one thing, CS forces things to happen through the mechanics of the game whereas TDM doesn't force anything at all to happen.

I've fairly been careful not to specifically refer to TDM as Quake/Q3 after the second/third post I made or something like that despite my examples being from Q3.

Because my point is that TDM is more strategic/tactical, you could easily have a TDM game with flash bangs/Smoke grenades and then you'd have a carbon copy for the tactic/strategy of using them. It would still be TDM just now with flash bangs and smoke grenades.

You can't do the same with "tactical" FPS's like CS as they stop being that type of game and eventually would just be TDM anyway.

You're still not looking at how fakes effectively function tactically. Again, calling them "fakes" don't mean they work the same way and are equivalent tactically.
Flashbangs/smokes in a quake-like game regarding the speed (such as Q3 TDM) would lose almost all of their interest. They're used in CS in a way that is completely unfit for Q3. And they're only in CS anyway so that point is irrelevant.

Way to ignore the rest of what I said, and besides it's possible to make them work so that they are interesting. Try thinking outside the box.

The rest of what you said is basically you repeating what you've already said in previous post. You're still not looking at how things work in the game, you're limiting yourself to labels like "fakes".

No I'm not, I understand how a fake works in both games and have therefore enabled myself to make comparisons between them, you're still stuck at "they're totally different" but providing no evidence to your opinion.

ubr gave a very good example of why they were different. I also advised you to check the gotfrag playbooks where you'll easily find more about how fakes work in CS.

Gotfrag playbooks are PRIME as far as I can tell.

And yes ubr gave a good example but it was not a definitive answer on the matter, you've offered nothing at all which leads me to believe you don't understand EITHER game (whereas I ubr seems to understand CS)

http://www.gotfrag.com/cs/features/
"A page from the playbook of..."

Well I'll give you another example: when I mentioned the possibility of attacking a position to place someone there to catch the rotating CTs once they realise it was a fake, you said you could have the same thing in TDM. How exactly do you plan on doing that since you don't have two quad rooms (which would have to be controlled by the same team)? Oh and by the way I'd like you to give me ONE demo where people attack a T position as slowly as what I described in CS. Just one.

Quad and Battlesuit?

So you're going to completely leave the quad room to go to the other one?

You can do if you wish to. It's a legit thing to do which COULD work if done properly.

So you're going to completely leave the quad room to go to the other one?

You could do, if the situation presented itself, or you could split 1:3 or 2:2.

Depending on the timings (The timings are often like this though) you could attack the quad, move to battlesuit then return to Quad with the battlesuit (Or the other way around).

That's my point. You can afford to leave one room because of the timings. This isn't the case in CS, it's either one site or the other, which precisely means it doesn't work the same way :]

Nice try. I didn't say you should, I said you could just like in CS you can all choose to use Shotguns and just run into a bombsite in single file and not fire a shot (This is a strategy, it's a losing strategy but it's still a strategy).

Here's the thing, any tactic/strategy type that is found in CS is also found in Quake

I never mentioned winning strategy/tactics or importance/impact on the game.

So how exactly are you going to put him behind defense lines without smokes/flashes, unless the enemies are completely blind?

It's entirely possible to do this, it's not easy but it still is.

I'm happy to concede two things that have no true comparable to Quake in terms of the raw mechanic (But not the motive behind the strategy) and that is the planting of the bomb and the smokes/flash bangs.

But then you wouldn't be achieving what the purpose of the tactic is in CS, because you don't have smokes/flashes. Oh and I'm still waiting for that demo.

So the purpose of getting behind enemy lines in CS is so you can use flash bangs and smoke grenades?
Not to get behind enemy lines covertly?

Go search for any demo of q3dm7 where the teams don't cess (or some of the older sk/unmatched q3dm14tmp/q3dm7 demos).

There are q3dm7 demos out there where an attack doesn't happen for over two minutes with the RA/RG team leaving the MH/YA/Quad to the opponents. This seems to be pretty consistent with most CS rounds where usually combat has taken place within two minutes.

No, but the flashes & smokes both help him get behind the lines and create a fake, to avoid exposing anyone else and to allow everyone to go back to the other site faster. And again, you do not have something truely equivalent to two bombsites in quake.
Those demos are not what I asked. When I mentioned the pace of the game it was in regards to extremely slow attacks like the example I provided with the attack on a T position, and how you have people checking every corner. It has nothing to do with waiting before you suddenly attack like what you mentioned.

Erm, I've seen plenty of times when angles/directions have been covered in such a way in TDM, it's just not so obvious.

Then I'm asking you for one demo.

He told you a link to go searching for it, just like you pointed him to Gotfrag instead of providing a demo. Fetch!

I answered what he was referring to in the second part of comment #244. I'm telling you, you're so raged that you have trouble reading properly :D Calm down m8 :]

You didn't even watch the demos.

That's because he described to me what he was talking about, which wasn't what I was referring to. Now you're not reading his posts either?

I read it just fine - but you didn't even watch the demos to see if they had what you were looking for. I suppose you have enough trouble attempting to put together a coherent argument, what chance do you have of understanding a Q3 demo? Care for a 1v1?

So he's telling me the demo contains something that I'm not looking for, but I should check it anyway just in case it has what I'm actually looking for? Meaning the chances are just as bad as if I had picked any random Q3 demo in existence, while my position is that it doesn't happen in Q3? Great logic there!

You say it's not true, but you don't know because you don't watch/play Q3. You wouldn't begin to be able to understand what goes on in a 1v1, let alone TDM. You don't even know enough about CS to attempt an argument for it.

So basically your point is "since I have nothing to say I'll attack you personally". That's great m8, soon you'll be ready for primary school! :)

You asked for demos from Q3 with which to prove a point, yet you did not provide even demos of other players to promote your point. At this point, requesting demos from you is to help to walk you through why you are wrong - step by step. You couldn't possibly understand this on your own, as you have so adamantly proven.

Comment #270.

Comment #109

Comment #270 answers comment #315. The comment you mentioned doesn't answer mine. Nice try.

You couldn't possibly understand this on your own, as you have so adamantly proven.

The claims you are making now are completely unrelated to the argument you were making. You'll have to do better than this.

At that point we were talking about demos. Your comment #315 still refers to demos, and my comment #270 answers this. If you want to go back to something else I said, reply to the right comment, thanks.

Forgetting which comments you are replying to now? The demos in question for the request were of your own.

Please go back to reading the comments... :) I asked inkind to provide demos to support his claim, he never did, you asked demos from me when I said the pace of CS was slower than the pace of Q3 TDM, I gave you links. We're still having the discussion below.

I'm not going to waste my time digging out demos just for your benefit.

Mostly because I don't really think doing so would convince you anyway, I doubt you'd watch them properly.

Now you'll no doubt claim that this proves I'm wrong because it shows it's not an important aspect or it doesn't have the same impact. I'd like to say again, that was never my point and I've never argued against that.

That's because there is no such demo :)

I could get a TDM game tommorow with my clan and ask them to play that way with me if you REALLY want me too, we'll no doubt get destroyed but that doesn't matter.

Like I've repeated over and over, you CAN play TDM as slow as CS if you want to. This doesn't mean it's a winning way to play, just that the option to play that way is always there for you to attempt.

And like I said, you can also choose not to move at all the entire game, but that's not the point. The point is that the pace of the game doesn't allow for slow movement and attacks like in CS in TDM matches since it's inherent to the game that they would be no use.

But you can play that way and sometimes the pace does allow for it to work.

When teams don't cess q3dm7 the pace of the attacks drops dramatically and allows for the stuff you are talking about to take place.

This can also happen on ospdm5 where it's quite easy to cause "standoff" situations where one team has the RAIL/QUAD area and positional advantage for the MH and the other team has YA/YA/RA/LG.

There are loads of angles and areas from which the railers can hit hard and thus when attacking quad it's vital that all angles are covered (As is the case when defending quad).

That's a slower pace, that's not a pace like in CS :/

Demos of you playing CS and TDM?

You're like a kid shouting in the back seat while the parents are talking :) Don't you have other threads to troll? Or you could be spending this valuable time at anger management classes!

So you have no demos? I can only find some mini comps, which look like mostly pug level activity, and a couple 1337X0R CS vids with poor editing and substance.

Mini comps such as ESWC & WCG qualifiers? :) And mentioning a video I made five years ago, wow, someone's really running out of things to say :D Go take those anger management classes m8, they'll help you out!

So, you have nothing?

No, YOU have nothing :D Forced to look for my nickname on teh internetz because you don't have any arguments :D Don't rage m8!

Don't get raged, mate, just make a demo.

A demo won't help you get out of the hole you dug yourself in ;)

You asked for demos to deny your claims, so you must have demos to back them up. I guess you talk about games, you don't play them. I'm sure you'll fit right in on ESR!

My claim was that the pace in Q3 TDM is faster than the pace in CS. Virtually every single CS demo proves this.

So... when did you play TDM?

Are we still talking about my claim? Because you keep changing the subject :]

Your claims have already been torn apart. Now we just need to help you understand why you were wrong. If you provide us some demos, we can give you some pointers!

So you're saying that Q3 TDM has the same pace as CS? :)

Were you attempting to make an argument out of that? 2/10

- "My claim was that the pace in Q3 TDM is faster than the pace in CS."
- "Your claims have already been torn apart."

You still can't read, can you? :)

Forgot what you were arguing about?

You did, certainly.

Swift.

Just like your reply to comment #277, you don't have much to answer to that heh? :)

Why would I? You pointed something out which only strengthens the fact that you're wrong, and has nothing to do with the original argument (strategy) that you have abandoned. Should I make the claim that CS uses less resolution textures or less polygon models now? How about a worse netcode?

Tssk tssk, re-read the previous comments. I said "My claim was that the pace in Q3 TDM is faster than the pace in CS" and you ended up answering "Your claims have already been torn apart". So this either means you think that Q3 TDM has a slower pace than CS (or equally fast), which is obviously wrong, or that you're not capable of reading posts properly and having a discussion on this. Nice try :)

Your claims were to strategy, saying that the pace is different is something that nobody has disagreed with. You have provided nothing which would prove, in any way, that CS would have a deeper or more robust strategy set than Quake. You're comparing apples to oranges, when nobody was talking about fruit.

My specific claim here was about the pace. That's what you replied to. Next time read better and reply to the right posts.

Your reference to pace brought a request for demos. If you request demos, you must provide them - as my reply was requesting! The chain of replies following that were derailed... by you.

A request for a demo that would show one single example of what he was putting forward. Demos that show what I am defending are pretty much all the demos ever made. I'm telling you, you're not reading carefully.
edit: and by the way they were derailed by you since you didn't read carefully, like I showed in comment #290.

Demos that show what I am defending are pretty much all the demos ever made.

Then you'll have no trouble providing a single one, right?

http://www.gotfrag.com/cs/demos/
&
http://www.esreality.com/?a=demos, the Q3 TDM demos.

Pick any demo you want, they all support my claim.

Every single one?

Yep.
*waits for Vedic to go through the list for hours in order to find a demo to prove me wrong, then failing*

You haven't even watched every demo.

Then you'll have no trouble providing a single one, right?

I didn't have any trouble and I provided plenty.

I asked for a single one. An accord will help so you can't take back your answer later when you say that it's an exception.

Either way, you seem to think I need to watch a demo to see how CS is played, as if I have not played it myself, despite the fact that I have sat in as a ringer on several CAL teams that frequent the LAN centers I work at! I'm sure I could do better than you in CS, let alone Quake 3.

ok I'll randomly pick one in both lists then.
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1573075
http://www.gotfrag.com/cs/demos/24458/
enjoy!

Nobody disagreed.

You did when you said the pace could be just as slow. This discussion is still going on above so I suggest you answer there.

Yes, COULD be.

Do you really not understand that word?

And I'm saying it couldn't be as slow in TDM matches. Again, we're already talking about that above so reply there please (or don't you understand that verb?).

I'll reply directly to the comments I want to reply to.

You're wrong, if you want to play TDM as slow as a CS game you can.

Look up the meanings of could/can as you don't seem to understand how it affects the things I'm saying here.

Yeah, if you want you can even stay afk the entire time and you won't even be moving. That's not the point. We were discussing the actual pace of the game and how it worked in matches. Refer to comment #302.

That was never what I was talking about. I made a statement that TDM games can be slow like CS. You've invented all this other stuff.

I have also never said that the pace of TDM is as slow as CS, because nine times out of ten it's way, way faster.

Comments #169 & #224.

Here's the thing, any tactic/strategy type that is found in CS is also found in Quake

I think I could try to make a point that any basic(!) strategy type can be found pretty anywhere, where strategies can be used. Be it in playing cs, quake or chess, fighting a war, dating girls or leading a huge company.
e.g. All of those have fakes.

However, the more specific you want it the less similar the strategies become.

This is why I wrote you two should first agree what you discuss and not have a go at each other right away ;)

That's why I keep telling him to look deeper than just "both have fakes" :)

true, but it's not like you're looking deep enough yourself ;)

I did say tactics too

The argument is the strategy, and the depth to that strategy. He's pointing out similarities between means, motive, and execution. If anything, what you're saying now is actually against your defense.

You've just pointed out that general strategy isn't dynamic, and that you only have a few outcomes to any situation. Tactics have no sway in the direction of the game, so you have to rely on pre-planned strategy and an ever-reducing number of possible results upon the removal of any player from the field. Random strategies ("around the world" is always fun) and blind luck can also shatter even the most well thought-out strategies, simply because of the weapon design, and the fact that death is permanent.

Controlling/attacking/defending/probing zones on a TDM map is ever-changing. While Quad can turn the tide of the game, you can't simply whore the quad room the entire game to win. You need control of weapons to use the quad, and armor to protect from losing it. Also, unlike CS, both teams are up against the same objectives as there is no T/CT, meaning that you have to worry about both O and D at all times.

Do you really believe that the money system makes up for this lack of interactivity and linear progression? You don't seem to even know the basics of TDM when you say crap like:

(which is completely different from what weapon you currently have in TDM for example)

Weapons don't just stay spawned at all times like they do the in FFA games you play - weapon control is just as important as armor and powerup control. This even goes for 1v1, as I'm sure comes as a shock to you. Even if you tried to argue the equality of CS to Quake in terms of macromanagement (which would be nearly equal, with Quake being more advanced), the micromanagement in Quake adds levels of depth to the strategy and tactics that CS couldn't even remotely compare to.

About the first part of your post, I mentioned earlier on how you precisely had to adapt your tactics to how the enemy was playing, which includes in the middle of a round. It helps when you at least try reading.

You still end up playing both offense and defense in CS, and both are way more advanced than in Quake :)

Way to take the quote out of context. I was pointing out the difference between a money situation that affects the entire team for the duration of a round and the situation in Quake. Try harder :)

Hey, keep making radical claims without backing them up - I'll keep pointing out how wrong you are.

Yeah keep doing that m8, and since you're in still in your own little world you can also be king. How cool is that?!

The best part about schooling you here is the fact that you have to come to terms with the truth eventually.

YOUR truth is hardly THE truth m8 ;)

Again, calling them "fakes" don't mean they work the same way and are equivalent tactically.

Do you even know what you're defending anymore? You sound like Bill Clinton when he said, "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." Saying they "don't" does not mean they do not, either, right?

Flashbangs/smokes in a quake-like game regarding the speed (such as Q3 TDM) would lose almost all of their interest. They're used in CS in a way that is completely unfit for Q3.

It's a different means to the SAME end. You're arguing semantics when the discussion is about strategy. Strategies employed in each situation are done for the same fundamental reasons. The difference is that quake has both macro and micromanagament, where CS only has macro.

Is there any more to your first paragraph than pointing out that I made a typo? Way to go man, you really got me there! :))

lmao, this is gold, CS only has macro now? wow, just wow :) Any progress on that whole "getting out of your own little world" thing? About the same end, you must not have been reading, I precisely said that you had to look deeper than that. Otherwise you can look at it from even higher and say both are about winning. Duh :)

Is there any more to your first paragraph than pointing out that I made a typo? Way to go man, you really got me there! :))

Typo? No, try again.

lmao, this is gold, CS only has macro now? wow, just wow :)

It's okay, let it out.

I wrote "don't" instead of "doesn't" :] Thanks for the kleenex m8, you need a chill pill though, I don't want you to end up hurting yourself! Don't get raged like that :D

At no point did I correct you for making a typo. Poor thing, you must be broken. =/

Then what exactly were you trying to say m8? :) I think you got confused there, maybe you shouldn't take this to heart too much :D

Due to your inability to read, and general idiocy, I'll do you the favor of actually writing it again.

Again, calling them "fakes" don't mean they work the same way and are equivalent tactically.

Saying they "don't" does not mean they do not, either, right?

You're arguing semantics here - saying that "they don't work the same" is as valid as saying that they do. You're attempting to fall back from your position because he used the word "fake" to describe Quake strategy, and you are attempting to now make it seem as if "fake" in CS has some sort of hidden meaning to it that can't be attributed to anything else. You have nothing.

Apparently you're not that good at reading either, since I explained that he had to actually look at how fakes work in both games and not just at the possibility of doing fakes :) Valid effort though m8, keep trying! :)

So what you're saying is that you didn't really say anything.

No, I'm saying that if you knew how to read it would have saved us some time! Don't they have schools in that own little world of yours? :)

Apparently you're not that good at reading either

School?

Yeah, but I'm not surprised that you're not familiar with the word!

Face it, you lose.

That image stop being funny 10 months ago, but again, a valid effort! :)

Your comparisons are flawed.

In that case, how can you say that CS is more strategic if you yourself have said that you can't compare the two? You haven't backed up your position at all, you're just repeating "OMG $$ SYSTEM IS SO STRATEEGIC" over and over, while denying his well written and thought out posts. While he gives excellent examples comparing the two, you have given neither a good argument against what he has said, or any indication that you have experience in either Quake TDM/1v1, or even CS.

In that case, how can you say that CS is more strategic if you yourself have said that you can't compare the two?

Can you accurately compare fakes in CS and fakes in Starcraft? Tactics/strategy in CS and tactics/strategy in Starcraft? Imo no, but I still consider Starcraft to be more tactical and strategic than CS.

you're just repeating "OMG $$ SYSTEM IS SO STRATEEGIC" over and over

No, that's not what I'm doing. Please don't use straw man arguments... I don't write in caps and I don't make such spelling mistakes. In these posts I have been providing evidence that his claim that "any tactic/strategy type that is found in CS is also found in Quake and then Quake has more things to consider and take advantage of" is wrong. I'm not doing anything else, and I already said where you could find more information on tactics/strategy in CS if you were interested.

Starcraft being an RTS is quite far removed from CS/TDM however you can still compare the strategy behind a SC fake to that of a CS/TDM fake, it's purpose is the same (To divide the resources of the opponent so you can concentrate firepower elsewhere on his stretched resources).

The tactics employed in doing a fake are of course quite different but ultimately not totally different and you can certainly find comparisons between them.

Like I said, you need to make valid comparisons, not just "they're both fakes".

The Strategy is the same. The strategy here would be to use fake attacks to divide the opponents resources so you can use you full force on his split resources.

Naturally the tactics employed in a CS and an RTS are quite different however even then there are some similar techniques employed.

#173

In these posts I have been providing evidence

No, you've been attempting to employ straw man tactics.

and I already said where you could find more information on tactics/strategy in CS if you were interested.

Since you are in a debate, the burden of proof is YOURS.

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1571505#pid1571505

^ and you ignore it completely and reply to a chain of replies to it.

No I haven't, you did in your previous post however. I provided the simple examples of the money system and the grenades to support my claim and answer that post.

All you have done is given a brief explanation as to how the game works, which you can get from a manual. You haven't provided any reasoning as to WHY this is strategic, HOW it offers strategy, or why TDM doesn't compare to them. I know you're wrong to begin with, I'd just like to see you try.

I'm sure you're a troll, as even a CS player would disagree with your points here. Please, though, provide information as to your high level background in CS and Q3 TDM.

All I've done is prove his "any tactic/strategy type that is found in CS is also found in Quake and then Quake has more things to consider and take advantage of" claim wrong, which is precisely what I wanted to do.
Yeah I'm sure CS players would say that quake 3 has more tactics & strategy, lmao. You really live in your own little world don't you? :)

All I've done is prove his "any tactic/strategy type that is found in CS is also found in Quake and then Quake has more things to consider and take advantage of" claim wrong

No, you've denied that they are alike, but you've done no proving to date.

Yeah I'm sure CS players would say that quake 3 has more tactics & strategy, lmao. You really live in your own little world don't you? :)

Any who knew both games would at least concede to the fact that the fundamentals are equal. I see you troll the sk forums as well, and you clock about 20 hours of CS a week, so you must be so bored that you have to justify your time investment in CS by defending the INTRIKIT STRATAGEEZ. You should play Q3 TDM for once so you actually have something good to troll about. I'm sure Walter will teach you how to strafe jump, and you two would get along quite well.

I've given fundamental aspects of CS that had no similar equivalent in quake, which is precisely what this was about.
No, the fundamentals are still not equal :) Nobody except a quake player would say this. And when you look deeper, it's even more different.
The last part of your post is basically a number of random ad hominem attacks. I don't see how having an SK account makes me a troll. I'm still not using caps and writing like that, but if you need to convince yourself that I do to make you feel better about yourself please go ahead :)

Once a troll, always a troll. By all means, continue to try to justify the time you spend in the game by attempting to defend things that you don't know about.

When was I a troll, and where exactly am I defending the time I spend on the game? :) You need to work on those ad hominem arguments, I'm sure you can do better! :)

Funny, coming from the one who refused to provide real debate material. All you've shown is that you're a disgruntled puggie who can't deal with the fact that his game is shallow.

Back to post #176 :) And you've shown that you easily get raged, don't lose to much sleep over it m8 :)

brb, camping behind crate

And loving it! As opposed to the one insecure enough to get raged by my comments :D

Still behind the crate.

Unlucky, I'm at the other bombsite! Looks like your tactic didn't pay off :D

No need for tactics, I have money. Money is so important in CS - if you only knew. It's like... amazing. It lets you buy flash grenades and smoke grenades. This is so deep, so I understand if you can't keep up. If you're lucky, your balls will drop and I can show you how to rock the AWP.

Yes, but since I'm at the other bombsite I'm planting and winning the round, thus winning money! Looks like you still have some learning to do :))

You don't seem to understand, you can't possibly compare the bomb site to money. They're totally different. Money can totally turn the tide of a game. Mostly because of flash grenades and smoke grenades. (<- pay attention, these are important, and contain myriad levels of strategy) Bombs, pshh.. As if. Bombs cost money to make. You just don't have a clue.

I can't hear you man, I'm trying to figure out whether or not my team should attack the quad room!! I mean there are so many tactical options, it's mind-blowing!! Either we attack with everything we have or we don't!!!! The possibilities are INFINITE!!!!!!!!! :)))

Clearly, you need more money.

You don't get it, "ITEMS ARE THE MONEY"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, no, I meant you.

Well I'd be using the money to teach you how to read! :)

epioc show
applause

To be honest, Go is better than both in tactics and strategy.
http://www.gokgs.com/
Blitz games have a thinking pace to them similar to DM.

lol just lol

I don't know man, I just kind of prefer games where bullets land on my crosshair.

That's part of what makes CS a great game, you have to master the recoil :)

please nigger
thats part of se game ..you have to master se luck

pretty much what he said. this would explain why there are so many upsets in high level cs, when you slap the tinest bit of spread of an instant kill headshot weapon there's going to be a huge luck factor involved no matter how much you "master" it.

shit, even halo, regarded by many ESR users as an even greater competitive joke than CS has more consistent tournament results. last major tournament they had a 1024 team bracket and the top 8 remained exactly identical from the previous one?? there are far too many one shot wonder teams in CS that win a tourney they never do anything substantial again for me to take it seriously.

if there truly was a way to completely master the recoil, then i'd concede the point, but there isn't. curiously, this game has finally been made, and it's called shadowrun.

haha yeah and the best thing about this is that bds called it way back in 2003/2004 or earlier

when nip then sk were schooling and winning everything he said something along the lines of 'we'll be caught up eventually, cs will peak and then random factors will decide the games from then on'

going to try find that

Well why do people consider zet to be the absolute best at mastering the recoil then? :) I agree that you'll never completely master it, but "pro's" still master it way better than less skilled people. The better you'll master your spraying and control the bullets even when you're not spraying, the better you'll get.

one thing that isnt often considered with regards to CS is the fact that significant portions of the maps see almost no action. This alone would reduce the tactical possibilities wouldnt it? in general, in dm games, action is more evenly spread throughout the map so perhaps there is more variety possible in tactics, i dno, i dnt really care.

check raise imo

you do realize that strategies and tactics are not the same?

Both play a huge role in CS. There's strategy because you have to plan everything before a tournament, and tactics because you have to be able to read your opponent and correctly apply the moves you have prepared with your team (I simplified ofc).

Just asking cause you just switched from tactics to strategies in the middle.

Just a little point along those lines: strategy and tactics are distinct. Strategy is an overall plan of action, like say to "control rail" (since blah player relies heavily on rail) or "exploit blah players tendancy to chase" - something fairly common to Quake. Tactics are specific plans of action like say "blah and blah smoke middle and push short at 1 minute, blah flash from long at 55 seconds, blah hit middle to deceoy baddies shooting crossover at 1 minute 5 secs, etc, etc" - something fairly common to CS.

It's fairly reasonable to assume that elaborate tactics are more suitable for a slower paced game as there are less variables to consider.. while general strategy without specifc predetermined plans of action are probably more suitable for a more dynamic game like Quake....

p.s. a strategy could be as braud as one where 'tactics' are avoided (with the aim of beinig flexible)... just to clarify to distinction.

Diz

You have tactics like that in Quake too.

e.g. How a team sets up for Quad/Suit or attacks RA, or railgun etc, How to grab the flat/meet escort in CTF or cover the exits/midfield if your flag is taken.

Setting up for Quad on q3dm14tmp for example you usually have X standing there with weapon x and y stand there with weapon y etc.

funny how random gamers on casual gaming forums think UT is more strategic than Quake.. just because it's slower

i imagine it must be confusing to take game decisions when you perceive the game as a FFA cess frenzy on q3dm17

shove preflop imo

aha... so CS is more tactical because it's more tactical and quake is less tactical because timing of items seeing how to pick up the most/keep enemies away/escape routes etc require less brain than running around a map without opponents for weeks.....

fantastic
this is animals

2EASY4US

Cs players giving animals a bad name!

:D!

i lol'd

They are like animals :(

daym Sasha is a black belt? lols

I lol'd (I'm drunk)!

my snails give a plus

Haha, beginning was slow, but got pretty good half way through =)

ahahha Vodka Putinka :)

video is shit, i want my time back :<

LOOL very funny, more videos with Tsapaev :)

RL ROFL!!!!! LOL!!!

The most convincing exhibit is for sure comments from the quake 3 fans.

/irony

<3

The first one was better tho

sounds like a monkey business to me

hahaha so funny :o)

he obviously speaks about hisself.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :D laughe my ass of :D

So he is the guy that sends out spam mails?

lol

since he's the new boss of the compnay, i'd guess he forced angel to do it

That would be Ivan, his IT guy.

stupid video imho.. will only amuse esr readers... oh wait it did

Hahaha that video is so funny. Even tho im a Counter-Striker :P

Whats funny to see as well is the effort done by Quakers to constantly remind each how bad CS is and that u have stuck with the right game for all these years. Well maybe just slightly sad also ;)

nice trolling, but no.

this entire fucking news article is a troll dude

I don't hate people for playing counter strike, I hate them for being so fucking stupid.

I are baboon

nice vid

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
nice job michal ;)

horrible video

LMAO I love the part where he put his sweaty socks in front of him when he did his push ups.. thats pretty creative haha.

Failure.

hehehe i just love esr responses to a "spoof" video ...it rly shows quality of ppl minds or just plain age :>

yeah cause everyone thought he was serious.
fucking retard.

He is??

Wait.. you mean he wasn't?! :O

wElL i ThInK hE wAs M4N||!!!1

i always loved that kind of humor.

and its funny how a lot of people just dont like the "coarse humor" in such videos. guess not everyone is made of iron, especially the ones taking themselves too seriously and "mature" hehe

your humor is so special, isn't it

well, i suppose, i take myself too seriously and "mature" because from my pov it's neither funny nor original.
carmac is more fun in real interviews.

guess you are boring person

LUL Exhibit #5

He himself is pretty entertaining but the video was weak :(

he doesn't funny enough..

CS might be bullshit, but at least CS players don't cripple their community with sinful pride. If a species does not reproduce and create a suitable environment for their young, extinction will inevitably occur.

No mother-fucker in their right mind wants to sit on a server for 3 hours waiting in line; especially knowing they will definitely lose 50-0.

if cs would have 1on1 it would be the same idiot

sorry for the idiot part

Kinda fun, lame, upsetting and brilliant.

Tsapaev a GOD

I love the part when he compares the shouting between baboons & the cs players, and then imitates their beaks with his hands. haha =)

beaks?:D

beaks are mouths innit?

Of birds.

hmmm, somehow I can easily picture cs-players sitting in a nesting waiting for mom to feed them.

funniest thing in the video is the vodka bottle

I actually saw all of it.

Awesome clip.

ps: It's always interesting to read up on discussion about an objective based game being compared to CTF/DM/TDM while both sides have most likely never played eachothers game at a certain level to even make the comparison. Discussing with most quake players is like discussing with some religious fundamentalist that is so sure that his faith is the one true faith.

i played cs ...its shit

what's even worse are clueless fucking idiots who can't comprehend the fact that maybe just maybe a lot of people have played a somewhat serious amount of both games and know what they're talking about