- This topic has 23 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Most of the CT defense is AWPing. That is why they put the bridge, a long stretch of shelterless hell. There are long straights like this in water too, with very little shelter. Same with Double Doors. The map was made for awping. A skilled awper can hold down bridge, another can take down water or B. I have picked 1 AWP. This is because Ts can mass rush bridge if they feel, only taking min casualties because there are not 3 awpers. But one AWPer at bridge can take down a few guys, reducing their numbers. If it was 0 AWPers then Ts would have a big advantage and i wouldn’t be able to own yahoo anymore.
Nickname said:
1 would make the majority happy.That was me. I don’t really care what the limit is but there needs to be at least 1 for the map’s dynamic to stay authentic.
I vote to play the map as the developers intended. unlimited awps.
I have played several time where T’s final round win scoor will be something like 8 to 3.
All awps or no awps, its not fair that the one or two awpers get the awps the entire game as long as they stay alive.. just going to promote camping.
We have restricted awps in the passed and *edited*ed everyone off… see this thingie and READ
The club does not need to repeat history. maybe the wise men will chime in.
I agree, i don’t think the # of awps need a limit. The server already shields them from a lot of things, which
are questionable but, comon… this is something that was placed in the game and priced expensively for a reason.
If you don’t like awpers, deal with it. Crying about it doesn’t get the awper killed.
AngelEllaine said:
I agree, i don’t think the # of awps need a limit. The server already shields them from a lot of things, whichare questionable but, comon… this is something that was placed in the game and priced expensively for a reason.
If you don’t like awpers, deal with it. Crying about it doesn’t get the awper killed.
I play to have fun, having fun to me is not having the team rush stall out after the first few unlucky people got insta killed at bridge or double doors. Then it becomes a straight up camp fest. Whoever can wait longer until the other team gets bored and advances. And that is a long time to wait and do nothing.
One AWP per team is perfect IMO, fine, you can guard Bridge, Water or Double Doors, but you can not guard all three at once allowing the rush to change directions, they run into a blast of m4 fire, but its better than some good AWPers, at least now they stand a chance.
I don’t know what you’re talking about Nodice, but AWPing is the ultimate camper if i’v ever seen one, and you want unlimited AWPers?
well right now it is restricted to NO AWPS. THIS MUST BE CHANGED NOBODY IS HAPPY WITH THIS SOLUTION!
Ok, looking at the votes it’s obvious people want at least 1 AWP per team. I’m going to go ahead and call this one and add 1 per team back. If that brightens spirits I might try 2 but since the majority want 1 we’ll stick with that for now.
Messagine Liam.
Just got done playing Aztec, it turned into an auto snipe fest. I am not sure what is worse, mass AWPs or mass Autos
ZODMAFA said:
Just got done playing Aztec, it turned into an auto snipe fest. I am not sure what is worse, mass AWPs or mass AutosThis was another reason I didn’t want AWPs restricted, they keep the autosnipers in check. The one thing that gives an autosniper pause is hearing an AWP where they were about to peek out and start autosniping.
I really don’t want to restrict both because it would set a precedent to restrict them on all maps. I can’t say I won’t do it but it would take some hellacious forum voting to make me do it.
Let’s see if one AWP per team helps, if it hasn’t normalized after a day or two I’ll toy with other options.
Or we could just put things back to how they were and not restrict anything and just tell ppl to stop *edited*ing. You know, play the map how it was intended.
- The forum ‘Counter-Strike: Source Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.