|
|||
Bootman is here to bring us the Adjustable Defense. In the recent months he has shown us the power of playbooks, which are are all based around the "predictable defense" theory. In this article bootman aims to prove that it is time to see much more in-depth defenses coming from the top teams around the world. In two of my more recent articles I brought up my "predictable defense" theory. It is basically the idea that all Counter-Strike players choose to play a small, select number of setups in defending their bombsites, due to that fact that they have had the most success in the past from playing these spots. Playbooks do the homework for teams, but the reality is that if you understand this theory, you can break down a team's defense in about twenty minutes. In this first portion of the article, before I begin to go map by map, I will explain some basic styles of defense. Once you understand these different types of defense, the number of possibilities for setups and cross-fires becomes nearly infinite. Standard setups: These are the easiest and most basic setups - setups that pretty much anybody who plays competitive Counter-Strike knows and understands. We see this mostly with lower tier teams (CAL-O/IM) that don't put too much thought behind their defense. Some examples are: de_dust2: 1 B, 1 middle, 2 catwalk, 1 long A. de_inferno: 2 crossfire middle, 1 hallways, 2 B. de_nuke: 1 outside, 1 floor in upper bombsite, 1 rafters, 2 ramp room. de_train: 1 alley, 1 middle, 1 ladder, 1 inner top ramp, 1 inner low ramp. de_cbble: 1 left halls, 1 middle, 2 close bombsite B, 1 sniper in the back of the site. These setups areas are most common because they are easiest and most obvious to someone intially surveying the maps. Aggressive setups: These setups are for teams that have great colt skill (they are rarely played with an AWP) and also have a great flash & peek style of play. These are teams that play in a sort of standard setup, but will continuously pressure attacking offenses. A great example of this style is team Rival. Defensive setups: First off, I would like to say that this used to be a great tactic before the money system change. However, now that terrorists receive money for just getting the bomb down, a defensive setup is a horrible tactic when played against a decent team. These kinds of setups are all about teamwork. The defensive setup is based off of playing far back or overloading one part of a site (i.e. catwalk on de_dust2 or spawn side on de_inferno). The reason why this is risky is that, obviously, while one side of the map is stacked, another part is severely undermanned (i.e. hallways on de_inferno or outside on de_nuke). The logic behind this tactic is that as the Counter-Terrorist team, you have enough trust in your ability to retake bombsites. More than often, teams give up multiple bomb plants because of this setup, which is why I don't favor defensive setups with the new money system. Now that we have briefly gone over each of these setups, take a second to imagine if a team used the three of these randomly throughout a match? Can you imagine the number of individual play styles each of the five players could have for all of these setups? It kind of makes you wonder why we don’t see the best of the best doing this more often. In the rest of this article I will go over several maps and explain how each of these setups can be used. |





User Comments
like a straight guy loves a straight guy. you know
if you're gonna criticize #7 at least give a reason
btw: this doesnt mean its a bad article, gj :p
plz
#16 i was thinking the same thing ;p
i've always been a proponent of aggressive ct setups, and basically doing really unpredictable things as ct (as well as t btw)
also a good thing to remember is to never do something alone as ct (except for when u have an AWP, or when u cover something from close range like train ladder room) but that's also obvious ;p
#22, you are completely and utterly wrong.
Nice article.
The article points out the fact that people complain about needing new maps, when there are MANY variations that could be used on not only terrorist strats, but CT set ups/stacks/strats. I found it pretty interesting. But it does sorta seem like a shot at teams who complained about his playbooks giving away their strats/positions. =p
bootman: nj man, always enjoy reading ur articles, altho i disagree w/ some =P (ps - miscellaneous setups are the best =P)
btw many spelling mistakes :O
Before I give my rebuttal to the crap I've been reading for some months now. I would just like to say I'm advocating the countless world class teams that you have bashed.
Every sport that has a "standard defense." The reason for this is, it most logically makes sense defensively. Sure they could adjust to the style of a player. For example, in baseball, how come 3 people don't play left field when facing a right-handed batter? Even though 80% of the time a right-handed batter hits the ball in that direction? Because players at these levels have the ability to adjust. That’s right. A right-handed batter would obviously see the gaping hole in right field, and has the ability to adjust to that defense and send the ball in the opposite direction. I guess you could call this the, “Adjustable OFFENSE theory.”
Yes it’s hard to compare a sport like baseball, to competitive Counter-Strike, but the same logic and theory applies to anything competitive.
Professional teams are able to spot, scout and recognize the glaring weakness left by using a “non-standard” CT setup. This is often the case even on lower tier teams. For someone who plays counter-strike competitively, how come ECO round bombsite stacks hardly ever work? It’s very rare, at least on a main level, which an entire team actually comes into the stacked site. It’s done through scouting and playing by ear. Which I think you undermine at this level.
There’s also more of a risk factor involved when either playing aggressive or passive. I’ve heard you say that it’s a “risk” worth taking. Sure, you’re absolutely right – when it works. Though how about the times when it doesn’t? Was it still worth it? Obviously not. Taking unnecessary risks only lead to one thing, and one thing only: INCONSISTENCY. I can assure you, between teams that takes more risks and teams that takes less risks, one will appear to be a lot more consistent in their results.
Not one single world class team is ever predictable on their offense. World class teams have a wide, wide variety of attacks on either bombsite. I guarantee you, you wouldn’t be able to tell me with certainty what SK was going to do on offense, when say they’re say, leading the game 8-2 as T’s on dust2, and they went B 7/10 times. Pretend you tell your team to play the 1-2-2 setup, and you luck out, they went B and you win the round. Okay, but what about the next round? Or the next? You cannot keep taking risks like these because you will lose in the long run – it’s inevitable.
Standard defenses are not at all predictable. You’ve done a SK play book, tell me, you know exactly where SpawN will be playing bombsite B using a standard defense on inferno round by round? No. Of course you’ll know he’ll be there, but unsure of his exact location. That’s not so “predictable” anymore is it? It’s like a batter trying to guess the exact location of a pitch. Of course he knows it’ll be someone in the vicinity of home plate. But does he know the exact location? That makes a big difference.
aint gon happen
bootman, get a life
More Pages
Submit Comments
Registered Users Only
In order to post comments, you must be a registered member. If you have not registered, it's free and easy!