He's the coach, and besides, gotfrag flamed him every day after he returned to 1.6 and played poorly. I saw at least 2 posts a day during a 2 or 3 month period where someone was saying, "omfg moto sux!/1;1;1jlkj!" He has better things to do with his time than get called crap by a bunch of 15 year olds.
That said, the main advantage to using Moto at this point, would be his strat calling.
#11, please dont make yourself look stupid by saying "source is easier than 1.6." it's probably the most overused statement on gotfrag with no real validity to make the statement true.
Source has 18% bigger models than 1.6, with 36% more hittable surface area and 76% larger heads. Source has up to 40% less recoil (depending on the gun) than 1.6, making the guns easier to control. Source has more powerful flashbangs than 1.6, increasing the number of player deaths while blind. Source has the exact same movement speed as 1.6, which means that proportionally, models move more slowly. Additionally, as proven time and time again, top 1.6 players are able to transition to Source and continue to compete on the highest level of competition, while the opposite is not possible.
So, "Source is easier than 1.6" is definitely an entirely invalid, fabricated, unjustified point. Seriously, you fools, stop tarnishing the forums by spreading speculation and lies.
I just don't think moto has the time or the will at age 25(?) to dedicate himself to counter-strike. When the guy practices a lot, it shows..you see him rip SK apart on inferno and other teams..i just don't think he has to time to put into CS anymore.
If moto went to source I can see him being like sunman. Sunman destroys source because its a fresh and new start for him. I think moto just needed that fresh start so I personally think moto would do quite well in source.
No, actually, that's not the case at all. When a game is made easier overall, players do not benefit equally. When a game is made easier overall, players at a lower skill level benefit much more from the change than players at a higher skill level.
Example:
If I were playing Kobe Bryant in horse, shooting jump shots, I would get absolutely destroyed. But let's say we played again, on a basketball hoop with the rim size doubled. Would I still lose? Probably. But I wouldn't lose by [b]as much[/b], because Kobe wouldn't really benefit from the larger rim size, since he could already hit his shots with the smaller rim size. I, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from the larger rim size, since I'm not as good at shooting baskets. So, would this change make shooting hoops easier for [i]everyone[/i]? Yes, absolutely. That's not disputed. The relevant question is, who would benefit [i]more[/i] from the change? Obviously, I (the lower skilled player) would benefit more, and the game would be much closer.
Example 2:
If I were playing DDR (random example, I know, but it's a sound analogy) on "expert" mode against someone who was really good, and who had already mastered all of the songs at that difficulty, I would get destroyed, because I haven't played that much DDR (although I do have some rhythm :p). But what would happen if we switched the difficulty level down to "medium"? Obviously, the competition would be much closer, even though it would be easier for [b]everyone[/b]. This is because a player who's already mastered "expert" mode wouldn't really gain that much from moving down difficultly levels. I, on the other hand, who couldn't handle "expert" mode would benefit immensely from moving down to "medium". Again, I might not necessarily win, but it would be much closer.
These two examples deal with narrowing the skill gap in a given activity by making it easier for [b]everyone[/b]. People bring this point up all the time: "Yeah, Source is easier, but it's easier for everyone, so it doesn't matter" - NO. [b]Wrong[/b].
The fact that when a game is easier, it's easier for everyone, is totally irrelevant in the Source/1.6 discourse. The [b]relevant[/b] question is, "who [i]benefits[/i] from Source being easier?" And obviously, just as a basketball player who couldn't hit as many shots with a smaller hoop would benefit [b]more[/b] from a doubled rim diameter than Kobe Bryant would, and a DDR player who couldn't beat "expert" would benefit [b]more[/b] from moving down to "medium" than a player would could already beat "expert" would, gamers who can't play at the top level in CS 1.6 benefit [b]more[/b] from moving to Source (the easier game of the two; a game with bigger targets, easier guns, relatively slower movement, and stronger flashbangs) than the gamers who already [i]could[/i] play at the highest level in 1.6 do.
This is why it's called "narrowing the skill gap", because all of a sudden, there is tight competition, where before, there was no tight competition. Everyone in Counter-Strike culture knows that Source players cannot transition to 1.6, while 1.6 players can transition to Source, and that if a team like Hyper were to play a team like coL in 1.6, it would be an absolute blowout. But in Source, since the skill gap has been narrowed, there's legitimate competition all of a sudden. The teams are at the same level. This is because, when a game is made easier, even though it's easier for [i]everyone[/i], the change serves to level the playing field, because players of a lower skill level benefit [b]more[/b] from the change than players of a higher skill level.
Rector hasn't secured the 5th spot yet so don't count moto out yet.It would be nice to see a moto come back that's for sure.. I kind of miss seeing his innovative strats.
#24 The question at hand isn't about level playing field or advantages in Source and what not. 1.6 players (and now Source players apparently) just stress how much more difficult it is to be a top-tier player in 1.6 than in Source, which is entirely based upon the FACT Source is easier than 1.6.
And #16's facts only justify that. With models being easier to hit it DOES level the playing field a bit more in terms of how much easier it becomes to be considered "skillful" and have "aim" therefore making Source easier... but there's the aspects of chemistry (teamwork) and those little things it takes to be top-tier.
Example: Just because it's easier for a player to hit the models, doesn't mean he can follow a strat or have good chemistry with a team. (Case in point: bigwie)
The whole argument seems to have Source players shooting their own feet by saying it's "not easier than 1.6". It IS easier. That's why the skill gap has been narrowed. Common sense.
And 1.6 players can make the transition smoothly BECAUSE 1) Source is easier and 2) Especially in FPS's, skills are HIGHLY transferable.
Example: I was average in 1.6. Got good at Quake 4. Now I'm AMAZING (sike) at 1.6.
Oh and I played Source recently. Two things: 1) Too easy 2) Too boring
#16 "Source has 18% bigger models than 1.6, with 36% more hittable surface area and 76% larger heads. Source has up to 40% less recoil (depending on the gun) than 1.6, making the guns easier to control. "
Have you actually done the math yourself? OR are you taking somebodys word who loves 1.6 over it..?
The head is certainly not 76% larger... god if i told you 2 jump off a bridge because u'd get into CPL u probably would also!
LOL, you guys are crazy. Play what you want. Ill choose to play source because 1.6 is boring to me cuz I started back in the 1.3 days and I am sick of the 1.6 graphics, source is more fun and looks better and is a superior game than 1.6. I can still play well in 1.6 but it is harder, simply because the models are smaller. So heres the deal, you like 1.6 , go play it, you like source, then go play that, and if you like both, then play both. But i can tell you this, noone is going to loose any sleep over which game you like more and which game you think is better cuz when it comes down to it, you will probably continue to be a leet poser and play whatever the pros are playing. we dont want you 1.6ers who just trash source and talk constant smack about it, learn to live with it or play BF2.
#39 he is using stats... that were created when the game first game out for the "gorilla" models. And there is NO WAY that the Source recoil is only half the strength of 1.6 reocil. I've seen videos of them side-by-side and htey are nearly identical. Also with things like the awp delay DECREASING, it is essentially making it so pro players can play FASTER and BETTER.
moto > rector
That said, the main advantage to using Moto at this point, would be his strat calling.
but at least moto had some strats and was a good ingame leader, rector is just... blah
but hes sitting out because he gets payed to be the coach
probably some 14 year source kid who never played 1.6 and plays in pubs and thinks hes good :/
and motos clutch on inferno wrecked :D
Source has 18% bigger models than 1.6, with 36% more hittable surface area and 76% larger heads. Source has up to 40% less recoil (depending on the gun) than 1.6, making the guns easier to control. Source has more powerful flashbangs than 1.6, increasing the number of player deaths while blind. Source has the exact same movement speed as 1.6, which means that proportionally, models move more slowly. Additionally, as proven time and time again, top 1.6 players are able to transition to Source and continue to compete on the highest level of competition, while the opposite is not possible.
So, "Source is easier than 1.6" is definitely an entirely invalid, fabricated, unjustified point. Seriously, you fools, stop tarnishing the forums by spreading speculation and lies.
its just going to take a few weeks for ronald to come back home
BUT everyone has to realize that everyone has those advantages when playing source... it's the same playing field
source pubs are easier then 1.6 pubs, now THAT's true
coL seems to have great chemistry right now, I don't see rambo coming back :/
And who cares which is better or which is easier. Let's all have fun, and TK eachother in pubs. :)
No, actually, that's not the case at all. When a game is made easier overall, players do not benefit equally. When a game is made easier overall, players at a lower skill level benefit much more from the change than players at a higher skill level.
Example:
If I were playing Kobe Bryant in horse, shooting jump shots, I would get absolutely destroyed. But let's say we played again, on a basketball hoop with the rim size doubled. Would I still lose? Probably. But I wouldn't lose by [b]as much[/b], because Kobe wouldn't really benefit from the larger rim size, since he could already hit his shots with the smaller rim size. I, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from the larger rim size, since I'm not as good at shooting baskets. So, would this change make shooting hoops easier for [i]everyone[/i]? Yes, absolutely. That's not disputed. The relevant question is, who would benefit [i]more[/i] from the change? Obviously, I (the lower skilled player) would benefit more, and the game would be much closer.
Example 2:
If I were playing DDR (random example, I know, but it's a sound analogy) on "expert" mode against someone who was really good, and who had already mastered all of the songs at that difficulty, I would get destroyed, because I haven't played that much DDR (although I do have some rhythm :p). But what would happen if we switched the difficulty level down to "medium"? Obviously, the competition would be much closer, even though it would be easier for [b]everyone[/b]. This is because a player who's already mastered "expert" mode wouldn't really gain that much from moving down difficultly levels. I, on the other hand, who couldn't handle "expert" mode would benefit immensely from moving down to "medium". Again, I might not necessarily win, but it would be much closer.
These two examples deal with narrowing the skill gap in a given activity by making it easier for [b]everyone[/b]. People bring this point up all the time: "Yeah, Source is easier, but it's easier for everyone, so it doesn't matter" - NO. [b]Wrong[/b].
The fact that when a game is easier, it's easier for everyone, is totally irrelevant in the Source/1.6 discourse. The [b]relevant[/b] question is, "who [i]benefits[/i] from Source being easier?" And obviously, just as a basketball player who couldn't hit as many shots with a smaller hoop would benefit [b]more[/b] from a doubled rim diameter than Kobe Bryant would, and a DDR player who couldn't beat "expert" would benefit [b]more[/b] from moving down to "medium" than a player would could already beat "expert" would, gamers who can't play at the top level in CS 1.6 benefit [b]more[/b] from moving to Source (the easier game of the two; a game with bigger targets, easier guns, relatively slower movement, and stronger flashbangs) than the gamers who already [i]could[/i] play at the highest level in 1.6 do.
This is why it's called "narrowing the skill gap", because all of a sudden, there is tight competition, where before, there was no tight competition. Everyone in Counter-Strike culture knows that Source players cannot transition to 1.6, while 1.6 players can transition to Source, and that if a team like Hyper were to play a team like coL in 1.6, it would be an absolute blowout. But in Source, since the skill gap has been narrowed, there's legitimate competition all of a sudden. The teams are at the same level. This is because, when a game is made easier, even though it's easier for [i]everyone[/i], the change serves to level the playing field, because players of a lower skill level benefit [b]more[/b] from the change than players of a higher skill level.
i'm saving your post and i'll paste it whenever that stupid argument is brought up
im not bashing source, seeing as how i play it, its just the truth
rector > moto
And #16's facts only justify that. With models being easier to hit it DOES level the playing field a bit more in terms of how much easier it becomes to be considered "skillful" and have "aim" therefore making Source easier... but there's the aspects of chemistry (teamwork) and those little things it takes to be top-tier.
Example:
Just because it's easier for a player to hit the models, doesn't mean he can follow a strat or have good chemistry with a team. (Case in point: bigwie)
The whole argument seems to have Source players shooting their own feet by saying it's "not easier than 1.6". It IS easier. That's why the skill gap has been narrowed. Common sense.
And 1.6 players can make the transition smoothly BECAUSE 1) Source is easier and 2) Especially in FPS's, skills are HIGHLY transferable.
Example:
I was average in 1.6. Got good at Quake 4. Now I'm AMAZING (sike) at 1.6.
Oh and I played Source recently. Two things: 1) Too easy 2) Too boring
SOURCE IS EASIER. Money talks. 1.6 will be back.
#16 = #24 :p, same guy~
you make some decent points tho.
but to everyone: if you haven't read #16 and #24, do it now
"Source has 18% bigger models than 1.6, with 36% more hittable surface area and 76% larger heads. Source has up to 40% less recoil (depending on the gun) than 1.6, making the guns easier to control. "
Have you actually done the math yourself? OR are you taking somebodys word who loves 1.6 over it..?
The head is certainly not 76% larger... god if i told you 2 jump off a bridge because u'd get into CPL u probably would also!
#24 ftw
you're assuming the better player learnt the game at a higher skill level than the worse player.
nice layout thought, good job.
I totally agree that source is easier and that it narrows the skill gap, I just wanted the evidence so that I could show others who are in denial.
New Radar = Less Communication
Though besides that watch CS players run strategies, then source players, and tell me who honestly is more coordinated.
More Pages
Submit Comments
This Thread is Locked
Sorry, but this thread is locked and no additional comments can be posted.