No, I'm not using stats "that were created when the game first came out." I'm actually using stats that were re-researched just two days ago. It's simple math, and it's based on two very obvious methods of research: decompiling maps and models for 1.6 & Source. By decompiling maps and analyzing the different heights of "default" boxes (defined as the boxes that are just tall enough for a player to hide behind while standing - one unit greater than the player model). Using this simple method of research alone, you find that (surprise!) the ratio of Source model height to 1.6 model height is 1.18:1 (an 18% increase). This research is then confirmed by decompiling the models themselves, which furthermore gives you information about head dimensions and surface area.
You may indeed have "seen videos" where the recoil "looks" almost identical. But I assure you my facts are correct. I've been spending the last two months, in particular, spending about 100+ hours shooting at walls in 1.6 and Source, doing all kind of measurements, and taking all kinds of screenshots (yeah, I know, I need to get out more). So, the recoil to you may indeed "look almost identical," but I've done enough research at this point where what i've learned is beyond disputable.
To back up my point, I'll share one AK47 comparison screenshot with you, which is one of hundreds, but I think sums up the recoil difference pretty accurately:
While the research you have may be entirely valid, it still does not take away from the competitiveness of the game - it simply just changes the way better teams set themselves apart from lesser teams.
Your points of "source being easier" may be true. However, these points only apply to the individual skill aspect of the game. Since the skill gap between individual players is lessened, that would mean team play is more of a factor in order for a team to stand out from the rest.
With that said, you may argue that the majority of 1.6 teams have superior team work compared to source teams. There is certainly validity to that statement too - but also keep in mind that 1.6 has several times the player pool. With nearly four times as many players to choose from, of course you are going to be able to assemble better teams if you have so many more options - it's simple logic.
[b]#65[/b] Promod is on the Source engine (the name of the HL2 engine). When people say they don't like Source this, don't like Source that, they aren't necessarily talking about the engine... They are talking about the game. I mean, for example, if a DOD player said he hated Source he's probably referring to DOD: Source... not Half-Life 2. So to say Promod IS Source is right in the sense that it IS on the Source (HL2) engine... but not right in the context people are referring.
[b]#67[/b] So basically you're saying it's better to make players indispensable. Haha, nah, I see what you're trying to say, but it's not as logical as you think it is at first glance.
That's implying that the skill level at the highest level of 1.6 isn't close... From the looks of it, it is. It's still teamplay that separates teams. And you still can't be a top team without good teamplay. It's just the fact that it requires a more practice because of the way the game is designed.
A good game is a game that has a large skill cap/gap and teamplay. You want players to work together, yeah, but you also want the excitement of knowing that at any given time, a player can "turn it on" and take over a game for his team. Is that possible in source? Sure, I'm just saying... with a larger skill gap (which means a higher skill cap*), there's a nice individual element involved that keeps teams interested in players. Which is a good thing. It keeps the community watching each other.
[b]#70[/b] "easy" is relative... If Bob were to call Source easy, and Bob plays CAL-IM, that doesn't mean he can compete with CAL-I source teams. However, if bob is right, he can surely compete with Main teams in Source.
The other way around. If a Source player calls 1.6 hard, and he's CAL-I, that doesn't mean he'll be CAL-O in 1.6... It just means he wont be as good as he is in his original game.
So to make that argument I think is kinda unfair. To say that if someone calls a game easy, they should be "pro" at it isn't right. The reality is kinda the same thing as them calling a rookie in pro football "good," and a WR bad. It's all relative.
if source is so easy why aren't you getting paid to play it. this argument i never understood. they're two separate games made by valve using two different engines. do you think by saying source is bad that you actually accomplish something or is are you angry that you won't accomplish anything in this "easy" game because you're far too superior to get paid to play a video game that everyone must be good at because it is just that easy.
My argument is that there are several other factors that contribute to competitiveness other than just model size and recoil. GOOD players, SMART players will find new ways to distinguish themselves amongst others. Reaction times, angels, movement, nades - there's so many things that make a player stand out. GOOD teams will be forced to find even better ways to set themselves a part - better strategy, teamwork, etc. More emphasis is placed on things you may have not been used to in 1.6 and vice versa in source. Just because the things that determine the skill gap in 1.6 are not the same things that determine the skill gap in source does not necessarily make source a bad competitive game.
I'm not trying to argue that source players are better than 1.6 players - sheer numbers of players makes that a highly improbable gesture. However, I do believe source is a perfectly viable platform for competition and it's not the devil that so many people make it out to be.
#73 I'm not personally saying Source players are bad, or that Source is a bad competitive game - clearly it's one of the better competitive games, in the top 10 of thousands of games. The problem arises, however, when you have a game that is debatably the best competitive team play game, and it is being restricted for a game that many believe are not quite as good in that regard. If it were to rest on its own, and not interfere with 1.6, it wouldn't bother anyone.
And I'm not saying there aren't other factors that make a player good... But to say that because the skill gap is lower, more teams will focus on teamplay isn't exactly... correct. The focus is already on team play in 1.6. People play individually in CSDMs and with bots, but rarely ever do so when they have the opportunity to practice with their [i]team[/i]. What you're saying is implying that people in higher skill-gap games are deterred from team practice by the desire to practice individually, which, I'd say for 99% of the community just isn't so.
Now, speaking in-game... sure the lower skill-gap will make the outcome more team reliant, depending on how you think. But imagine if checkers was played 2 versus 2, with each player cycling moves. I mean you can think about it logically and say that because checkers is nerfed, the team will have to work together more... but the reality of it is that the chess game, while requiring more skill (and subsequently, smarts), requires just as much team work [i]because[/i] of the imbalance of skill between teams, and most importantly the [i]depth[/i] of the game. But that's implying that the jump between checkers and chess is fair, which is pretty subjective.
#86 source isent even that good graphics, you would expect more from a computer game. for the people who claim that source is somewhat "realistic" should play americas army or The newest version of battlefield(they seem to come out every few months) .
you know what's funny like 3 days ago me and my friend where playin source cuz it looks smooth on his new vid card and we where talkin about how if this where 1.6 the ak wouldn't be so "easy" to use.
This thread just made my week. Thanks. Really, though, this topic has been debated for far too long. Everybody is making the same arguments again and again. Lets just leave it up to time to show us what's going to happen with Source and 1.6. Go play the game you like and be done with it. It's not like either of them are dissapearing any time soon.
moto > rector
No, I'm not using stats "that were created when the game first came out." I'm actually using stats that were re-researched just two days ago. It's simple math, and it's based on two very obvious methods of research: decompiling maps and models for 1.6 & Source. By decompiling maps and analyzing the different heights of "default" boxes (defined as the boxes that are just tall enough for a player to hide behind while standing - one unit greater than the player model). Using this simple method of research alone, you find that (surprise!) the ratio of Source model height to 1.6 model height is 1.18:1 (an 18% increase). This research is then confirmed by decompiling the models themselves, which furthermore gives you information about head dimensions and surface area.
You may indeed have "seen videos" where the recoil "looks" almost identical. But I assure you my facts are correct. I've been spending the last two months, in particular, spending about 100+ hours shooting at walls in 1.6 and Source, doing all kind of measurements, and taking all kinds of screenshots (yeah, I know, I need to get out more). So, the recoil to you may indeed "look almost identical," but I've done enough research at this point where what i've learned is beyond disputable.
To back up my point, I'll share one AK47 comparison screenshot with you, which is one of hundreds, but I think sums up the recoil difference pretty accurately:
http://www.myeg.ca/images/content_images/..
Exact same map dimensions. Exact same beginning fire-point. Exact same gun. 1.6 on the left, Source on the right.
...you tell me.
where's cogwheel to defend his crappy game?
It's the Counter-Strike franchise's only hope for continued life, and even Alex will agree with that.
And btw, I've likely been playing CS twice as long as you.
Because a game with zero pub player-base by [i]intentional design[/i] just has SO much hope for longevity.
[b]And because it seems you forgot, Counter-Strike Pro Mod IS SOURCE.[/b]
Your points of "source being easier" may be true. However, these points only apply to the individual skill aspect of the game. Since the skill gap between individual players is lessened, that would mean team play is more of a factor in order for a team to stand out from the rest.
With that said, you may argue that the majority of 1.6 teams have superior team work compared to source teams. There is certainly validity to that statement too - but also keep in mind that 1.6 has several times the player pool. With nearly four times as many players to choose from, of course you are going to be able to assemble better teams if you have so many more options - it's simple logic.
[b]#67[/b] So basically you're saying it's better to make players indispensable. Haha, nah, I see what you're trying to say, but it's not as logical as you think it is at first glance.
That's implying that the skill level at the highest level of 1.6 isn't close... From the looks of it, it is. It's still teamplay that separates teams. And you still can't be a top team without good teamplay. It's just the fact that it requires a more practice because of the way the game is designed.
A good game is a game that has a large skill cap/gap and teamplay. You want players to work together, yeah, but you also want the excitement of knowing that at any given time, a player can "turn it on" and take over a game for his team. Is that possible in source? Sure, I'm just saying... with a larger skill gap (which means a higher skill cap*), there's a nice individual element involved that keeps teams interested in players. Which is a good thing. It keeps the community watching each other.
[b]#70[/b] "easy" is relative... If Bob were to call Source easy, and Bob plays CAL-IM, that doesn't mean he can compete with CAL-I source teams. However, if bob is right, he can surely compete with Main teams in Source.
The other way around. If a Source player calls 1.6 hard, and he's CAL-I, that doesn't mean he'll be CAL-O in 1.6... It just means he wont be as good as he is in his original game.
So to make that argument I think is kinda unfair. To say that if someone calls a game easy, they should be "pro" at it isn't right. The reality is kinda the same thing as them calling a rookie in pro football "good," and a WR bad. It's all relative.
Buscaminas > 1.6
My argument is that there are several other factors that contribute to competitiveness other than just model size and recoil. GOOD players, SMART players will find new ways to distinguish themselves amongst others. Reaction times, angels, movement, nades - there's so many things that make a player stand out. GOOD teams will be forced to find even better ways to set themselves a part - better strategy, teamwork, etc. More emphasis is placed on things you may have not been used to in 1.6 and vice versa in source. Just because the things that determine the skill gap in 1.6 are not the same things that determine the skill gap in source does not necessarily make source a bad competitive game.
I'm not trying to argue that source players are better than 1.6 players - sheer numbers of players makes that a highly improbable gesture. However, I do believe source is a perfectly viable platform for competition and it's not the devil that so many people make it out to be.
And I'm not saying there aren't other factors that make a player good... But to say that because the skill gap is lower, more teams will focus on teamplay isn't exactly... correct. The focus is already on team play in 1.6. People play individually in CSDMs and with bots, but rarely ever do so when they have the opportunity to practice with their [i]team[/i]. What you're saying is implying that people in higher skill-gap games are deterred from team practice by the desire to practice individually, which, I'd say for 99% of the community just isn't so.
Now, speaking in-game... sure the lower skill-gap will make the outcome more team reliant, depending on how you think. But imagine if checkers was played 2 versus 2, with each player cycling moves. I mean you can think about it logically and say that because checkers is nerfed, the team will have to work together more... but the reality of it is that the chess game, while requiring more skill (and subsequently, smarts), requires just as much team work [i]because[/i] of the imbalance of skill between teams, and most importantly the [i]depth[/i] of the game. But that's implying that the jump between checkers and chess is fair, which is pretty subjective.
true story
graphically speaking, off course.
in competitive gaming, 1.6 is still better...
who knows? :P
i'd have to say this is the smartest 1.6 vs source debate i have seen.
bahaha i love you alex
get over it, 1.6 has 4 major tournies this year, source has one, get over yourselves, 1.6 isnt dying.
More Pages
Submit Comments
This Thread is Locked
Sorry, but this thread is locked and no additional comments can be posted.