I've played both 1.6 and source competitively, but at least you have some source background.

That is pretty much a matter of opinion. It would be very hard to scientifically prove that 1.6 is more responsive and accurate than source. It might have to do with playing 1.6 much more than source and developing your game around that while not adjusting to the new source engine.

Modern shooters are developed around completely different game mechanics whereas source and 1.6 are pretty close. There are big differences, but your average gamer won't notice them. The difference between CSS/1.6 and CoD/BF is huge though and will explain why a lot of CoD/BF players cannot pick up CSS/1.6 right away and do well. If source was so easy, then all 1.6 players would be able to pick up the game and dominate CSSers in their own game, but clearly that will never happen.
What you argue against source maps I turn that exact argument around and say that is the reason why source is better. For example, simple maps don't allow for dynamic double and triple fakes. But that statement would actually be wrong. Most of the maps are pretty much the same. Source has a few more props in each map though. How does that make a game "worse"? Adding a few extra props to a already simple map does not make it less competitive. One could argue that the addition of props allows for more competitive play, but that would be hard to prove as well.
Is there any scientific proof that shows being able to shoot through 30 feet of concrete vs 5 feet of concrete make a game better? There are quite a few spam spots in source that you need to learn as well. So either way, you'll need to spend significant time playing either game to learn the intricacies. I could just say that because you cannot shoot through 30 feet of concrete, source players are rewarded more for being patient, holding a strong angle/position and having faster reactions. Whereas in 1.6 you could just spam the wall.

Again, like every thing I've quoted above. It's a matter of opinion. You have used the phrase "I feel" in every single one of your statements. In this case it is probably a matter of being more used to 1.6 than source. I would argue that source is actually significantly less random and more accurate than 1.6. The reason why GO is so difficult for a lot of players right now is because the recoil is much harder to control than both 1.6 and source. Does that make it a better game than source or 1.6? Nope, it just means it's a completely different set of rules you need to follow.

HLTV/minor bugs are no big deal. I play almost every game I play competitively so I am willing to stick it through longer than a few months, just like most CS players do. This is the exact reason why I have played CSGO for close to 10 months now. HLTV is still not available and the 2nd season of ESEA is almost over. However that won't determine whether I continue to play the game or not.

During CAL days, both 1.6 and source had a huge following. At a highly competitive level, population of the game really shouldn't matter at all. This is in the US, so it might be different. During the CGS days nearly all professional 1.6 players switched over to source to play for the large prize pool. Source had a strong population from 2004-2008. Since then both games have dwindled.

Noticing a pattern? Having an opinion is great, but in no way makes it scientific evidence as to why one game is superior to another.

Swag, a 15 year old kid (maybe he turned 16) is currently dominating the 1.6 scene. Age has nothing to do with skill. Just like poker, the amount of time and dedication you put into practice and studying the game is a large factor.

I just wanted to address everything you said.

It took quite a while before source was a refined game, which is why even though I have my own opinions about how GO "should" be, I am willing to stick it out and learn the new game. However, I probably will never say that source or 1.6 is a better game than GO based on my opinions of how the game should play. My 10+ years of playing 1.6 and source does have an affect on how I play GO (as it should), but I will not attribute my perceived lack of skill to the game being a "worse" version of what is already out there.

trazz23 on steam for anyone who wants to play. CSGO is now my primary game.

I'm pretty meh atm but I'll be sinking tons of hours into it, hopefully start playing competitively soon. Never really played CS but was very competitive in COD and RTCW wayyy back in the day. Hopefully I can pick things up quickly.

Sc00by on steam, added you, others feel free to add me.

Of course most of the things I mentioned are just a matter of opinion, but not all of them have anything to do with being more used to 1.6. For example that lack of wallbanging completely changes the dynamic of the game and makes some maps like nuke play completely differently. Of course argument could be made for either one to be better, but for me it's 1.6 and it's not even close. I think it's fair to say I've given source enough of a try for it to be more than "you're just more used to 1.6", as I've literally played CSS for hundreds of hours.

It's obviously not something that made me choose a one game over other, but recording each game yourself is kinda annoying when you're used to HLTV demos. Just like many other small bugs CSS had, like the built-in wallhack that actually took Valve weeks to fix.

It definitely seems different. Source died pretty quickly here, and just like 2 years after release the clan scene activity was probably less than fifth of what 1.6 had.

I wasn't talking about the skill, idk how you interpreted it that way?

The biggest problem in CS was always very immature community and all the problem that brings. A big part of that has to do with age, there was tons of 12-18 year olds playing CS in it's golden years. By the time source was introduced the average 1.6 player had already gotten much older, and seemed like most of the youngest players new to CS series went to CSS, which makes sense, if you want to try out some game, you'll buy the newest one in series.

If you prefer CSS over 1.6, what makes it better for you? I just don't see any improvement except than graphics, which is completely irrelevant for competitive play.

And fwiw, even if major part of pro scene moved to CSS, it doesn't really mean anything except sponsored tournaments aiming to market CSS rather than 1.6. But I don't think that was even the case, at least in northern europe there was always more 1.6 clans traveling around the world in LAN events than in CSS, I think. Also most smaller lans either had only 1.6 event, or if they had both 1.6 had significantly bigger price pool. I don't really know the situation after 2007 though, as I went to army in Jan 2007 and didn't really follow CS scene after that.

Just like in MOBAs, I doubt LoL would have such a dominance of high level competitive play if it was just for the competitive players to decide. They are playing LoL mostly because it has the biggest price pools (RIOT has really made a big effort to make LoL the #1 competitive game atm) and most followers (stream viewers = money, ldo), not necessarilybecause they think it's the best MOBA. I imagine many of the highly competitive players would actually prefer to play some of the more difficult and complicated MOBAs with higher skillcap. Even if LoL was the most popular regardless, it certainly wouldn't have as big dominance if money wasn't such a big factor.
(And fwiw, I consider LoL the best of big 3 MOBAs myself)

What makes me prefer CSS over 1.6? Well first off, I don't really have a true preference between the two games...I play whatever my team/friends are playing. It's the natural progression of games that made my team choose to switch to source, just like we are switching to GO. We thought source would be huge (and it was in America), so we made the natural move to switch games...how the game actually plays didn't make a difference to us because we knew that everyone would have to relearn the game. It's the same thing with GO. The team I am playing for now is switching to GO because its the natural move. The gameplay has really nothing to do with it. Those who say one game is worse than another, in general do not adapt or are not willing to put the time and effort to learn the new game.

The same could be said about any games that have sequels. Why choose SC2 over SC? Well ****, it's a new game, people tend to like new things regardless of the gameplay. If it's truly horrible, then people will revert back to SC and SC2 will die. Source hasn't died, so clearly it has some things going for it.

Idk about the US, but source has died at least here. Sure public servers still exist, but clan scene doesn't. 104 CB matches played in last 30 days in all 4 ladders, compared to ~1650 of 1.6. And even 1.6 numbers have dropped like crazy past few years, it's nothing like it used to be, yet >15x the source activity.

I don't think source was bad/failure by any means, but for me it simply wasn't enough different from 1.6 to be new/fresh, and on the other hand there wasn't really many clear improvements either. And I really hated that reduced wallbanging damage.

As it takes a lot of time to learn a new game (even if it's in many ways similar to 1.6), I simply didn't see the transition worth it, especially as clan scene never really shifted to source at least here. If majority of clans would've switched, I would've too and wouldn't really have felt too bitter about it. They're both still good games and way ahead any other competition in tactical fps.

I wouldn't say I'm in that camp as I also played reasonable amount of source, but I still totally understand that reasoning, especially if you miss the first few weeks/months of release and are at a significant skill disadvantage because of that. You could either have fun playing a game you're good at, or play a game you're not really enjoying or able to play competitively, hoping in few months you'll catch up with everybody else and can have fun.

It might not be a big deal for you, or the most hardcore competitive gamers in general, but for the more casual masses (who still were involved in 1.6 clan scene) it is a big deal.

fwiw, MOBA was a genre Riot created to describe LoL. Dota and HoN players hate that term. Dota 2 is doing pretty well for a beta game and will eventually pass LoL by.

On topic, is CS:GO worth getting a key atm?

it is definitely worth the $15, if you mean beta key then no that won't do you much good now?

patch day

Release Notes for 9/14/2012

[ GAME ]
- Added third-person gunshot flinch reaction animations for all players
- Molotovs and incendiary grenades now explode in mid air if they haven't touched the ground after a small amount of time has passed
- Molotovs and incendiary grenades now no longer throw shorter than the other grenade types
- Fixed grenades bouncing really high if you threw them straight at the ground
- Fixed grenades that don't have a timer (like the smoke) not detonating if they found a spot to continually bounce and not touch what was considered "the ground"
- Fixed a bug in bullet penetration where a bullet would penetrate walls much thicker than intended when the first brush the bullet hit was a detail brush.
- Fixed a rare case when server reservation would not load correct map on official servers
- Flipped MP7 viewmodel fire selector from safety to full-auto

[ UI ]
- Fixed spectator glows not updating state often enough which could allow glows to show at the wrong time
- Fixed player target ID names not showing properly in some cases when observing/spectating
- Fixed the spectator UI showing in Arms Race
- Fixed player not auto observing their killer after the death camera if no bot was available to take over
- Fixed round in spectator screen not updating if you connected mid round
- If all players on a team share the same team tag, the scoreboard and spectator team names will display the players' team name (steam group name)
- Improved rendering performance of text UI elements

[ COMMUNITY ]
- Added default loading screen for direct connects and custom maps that shows loading progress
- Fixed server console say command to deliver text to all connected clients
- sv_password can now be set on community dedicated servers when they have no players connected and will be enforced.
- Matchmaking: blocking relationships do not prevent direct server joins, they only filter during matchmaking
- sv_pure: VPK files contain the necessary hashes so the dedicated servers do not need to compute them at startup but can be checked with the command “sv_pure_checkvpk”

I'm really enjoying the game so far, I don't have any desire to continue playing Source at the moment.

Steam is pubstars if anyone wants to add.

Im definately improving, played a very long session yesterday and mid way through I started getting sloppy, kept rushing through thinking I could own all, spent a lot of time then watching others play(dead, lol). Then just slowed it down, hung back a lot, ended up pulling it back to a decent session.

Do assists add onto your ratio at all? I was thinking that 2 assists would = 1 kill? If this is correct then my ratio is above 1:1, if not then Im still around 0.7:1

I only play dust and pretty much always in the same French server.

Oh and why is it that almost anyone thats any good in public servers is using a sniper? IDK what the name for the gun is sorry. But its really f annoying. Spoils the game IMO.

AWP

That's a strange way to spell Scout.

Why do the T's get the AK for 2700 but the CT's have to pay more for the m4?

In 1.6 that was also the case and it made for an interesting dynamic where T side could often buy a round earlier than CTs (so Ts were hurt less from losing the pistol round than CTs were). The colt was slightly better in 1.6 though the AK had one specific advantage in that it could kill in 1 shot to the head whereas the colt took two. I'd say, though, that Ts were more likely to take a colt from a dead CT than the opposite (CT picking up AK from a T).

In GO, though, I find the AK way better than the colt. Not sure how the damage compares - perhaps it's the same as in 1.6 - but the colt just handles way, way worse and I find it very hard to control. On CT side I literally prefer to just deagle than to colt, and to pick up an AK off dead Ts.

Also, in pubs where you get 16k or if my team has won a few rounds in a row in a pug/scrim, I find that the Negev is ridiculously powerful. I have gone on some insane rampages with it whereas its 1.6 equivalent, the Para, wasn't that good.

agree m4 sucks and negev good imo

btw who in this thread is Premium on ESEA? I just signed up a couple weeks ago and it's worth the $7/month imo. My stats suck right now (something like 130 kills and 220 deaths in 1.6 pugs and 28-40 in GO pugs) because I am just getting back into the game after about 7 years away from it and almost everyone on ESEA is hardcore, but for a different reference I usually have a 2:1 ratio in Kills: Deaths in pubs and I am slowly remembering the intricacies of the maps and strats.

Would be cool to get a team together to scrim every now and then who are semi-serious but not hardcore

I only signed up on ESEA today, Premium won't go in effect for a few days. After that I'll be good to go, trazz23 on steam. I'm still pretty noob with the maps and shiz but it shouldn't take me too long.

I'll add you when I get home, my steam name is Luke so look for a friend request from that name

once you have played a couple PUGs (stands for "pick up games", it's where 10 players are sorted into teams by the ESEA client, versus a "scrim" which is where a set team of 5 plays another organized team) to get a basic understanding of how it works lemme know... I see in your posting history you're into MMA too. Those are def. three of my main interests; MMA, poker, CS (in that order)

kk cool. I may have added you already, not sure.

I played RTCW and COD competitively at the highest levels so I'm not a total noob. I'm just a relative CS noob

Can I get more info on this... I would like to get involved in more teamwork style gameplay as oppose to public free for alls.

Sc00by on steam.

I got an invite off NenOoX-Ss1, is that anyone ITT?