Should weapons be free?

[Deathwish-uk-]

I've grown really accustomed to the Kreig Commando 5000, rifle sort of thing for the CTs, but when the team loses, you lose money and can't buy it. It's damn annoying when you have to settle for a pistol or SMG. Do you think the weapons shouldn't have prices? Some people on a server I was playing on were moaning bout this, I dont think they should be free, but I think the prices should be toned down. For example instead of $3500 for an M4, I think say $2700 would be more suitable.

 

[Neutrino]

Ack no! Then every single person in the game will always have the best rifles. The whole point is that if you don't do well you don't get the best guns. You can still easily afford the M4 when your team loses as long as you kill a few people during the round.

 

[MoJo|Night]

Counter strike became the most popular online game in the world based on two things.

It's team work and the money system for weapons.

Taking the money system out of the game would be a massive blow to the gameplay and would kill the game inside a week.

Money management in cs is a skill, just like movement and aim are skills along with positionin, feeling the flow of the game and everything else.

 

[niLeGreatFun]

nahh wouldnt be as miuch fun and less competition to ge tthe bes rifles well thats y opinion

 

[Exclamatio]

lmao how stupid is that

thats the whole point, u do well u save up for the big guns

its part of the tactics, ifu dont wanna lose ur gun then dont get killed
but u also dont wanna be a bitch and hide 4 the whole round because your team may die leaving u against like 4 or more guys

OOOOOOO THE DRAMA

 

[Zeus]

No!! everyone would buy an AWP and the AWP situation would be even worse.

 

[buttshak3r]

if everyone could have aks and carbines, then we all might as well play quake.

it'd be more or less the same, then.

 

[WacK]

No!! everyone would buy an AWP and the AWP situation would be even worse.

YE

 

[MoJo|Night]

You could always go and play an aim map if anyone has ported any over to source yet.

 

[Exclamatio]

theres plenty night

 

[SimonomiS]

Or one of the Deathmatch CS Servers, dont know if theres any Source ones yet, but try one on 1.6 and see if you like it. I personally dont, but its a matter of preferance.

 

[disruptioN_]

Just buy nothing for a round or two to save up.

 

[xLostx]

all hail the para

 

[TrippyG]

in some servers u can get more money than in others but I personally think this sucks... nothing should come to u 2 easy

 

[FãMøÜš™]

you dont need the most costly weapon to do well.

 

[bizzy420]

thats why im always a "T", its cheaper.

 

[Cole]

a pistol or smg can be just as good as any other gun.
Infact I often do better with an Mp5 than a M4A1.

ANY weapon can be good, in the hands of an expert.

 

[bizzy420]

ANY weapon can be good, in the hands of an expert.

then why buy a gun? just stay with pistols than

 

[ailevation]

:| IF you want to add free weapons. You must make all weapons more balanced. So, every other weapon has it's good's and bad's. In my opinion i'd keep the money system, change of weapons will lead to even more BITCHING! Just leave it all alone.

 

[Phisionary]

:| IF you want to add free weapons. You must make all weapons more balanced.

exactly what I was gonna say. The money system is a way to have guns that do not all exist at the same level.

Besides, I used to suck (back in the CSriginal days. Not that I don't still). I'd die first every other round. So I had no money. After a while, I could pwn with a p90 or mp5 (or the glorious tmp circa b5). Every weapon in the game can be fatal in the right hands. If your hands are the right hands, then you can afford whatever you want.

..And then theirs always aim_ or fy_ maps. oMg I used to love those. So intense!

 

[Winbacker]

I'm staunchly opposed to making weapons free. The money system definitely makes the game more interesting by varying the weapons present in the match. CS would be pretty dry if AWPS, Auto snipers, aks, and colts were the only guns being used 95% of the time/

 

[goss]

No also people always complain about weapons such as the AWP. I can understand why people don't like the weapon being used but when the person who bought it had to spend $4500 on it, they have every right to use it. Also if there was no cash people would have an AWP EVERY ROUND. I'm sure alot of you would hate that.

goss

 

[Dipso]

dont think it would work with the way cs is "balanced"

but i personaly prefer the sof2 way of doing it. you choose what weapons and gear you spawn with, all guns have pros and cons, so its realy down to choosing the right gun for that map and that playing style.

The way it is in CS the money aspect causes the balance of a game to shift pretty hard from time to time. because the team thats already a bit better than the other get better weapons and in turn become even harder to beat. This some times causes thiese rounds where a team can win 20 to 0... It just makes it that much harder to turn things around for the other team.

But like i said, and someone mentioned this earlyer too, with the way the guns are ballanced in cs, and the current dynamics of things, taking it out would mean a to fundamental change in gameplay and dynamics i think.

to have a loadout based system, you have to plan for that from the beginning and be realy carefull about weaponballance, in a whole other way.

 

[Newbie's Journey]

the money is their to balance out the different strengh of the guns, see how these people winning about awp and auto sniper, some servers even go as far as banning those weapons, see most these people just suck, do they even realise how expensive those guns are ?? The guns deserve their prices and their strengh deserves what u pay for.


I used to play sof2, in that games, since every gun has their pro and con, ak = m4 = autoshotties = sniper = ......that's the reason why i don't play that anymore. Obviously games shouldn't use guns' pro and con to balance out their strengh. Cuz people try to make guns to perfection, certainly, some guns are better than the other, that's what cs or css try to bring to us.

 

[goss]

dont think it would work with the way cs is "balanced"

but i personaly prefer the sof2 way of doing it. you choose what weapons and gear you spawn with, all guns have pros and cons, so its realy down to choosing the right gun for that map and that playing style.

The way it is in CS the money aspect causes the balance of a game to shift pretty hard from time to time. because the team thats already a bit better than the other get better weapons and in turn become even harder to beat. This some times causes thiese rounds where a team can win 20 to 0... It just makes it that much harder to turn things around for the other team.

But like i said, and someone mentioned this earlyer too, with the way the guns are ballanced in cs, and the current dynamics of things, taking it out would mean a to fundamental change in gameplay and dynamics i think.

to have a loadout based system, you have to plan for that from the beginning and be realy carefull about weaponballance, in a whole other way.

Yeah well said. I like the SOF2 loadout based system. Since most people use AK74 on that game i think that it's just generally down to skill and not who has the better weapon.

 

[Exclamatio]

man whoever posted this thread must be feeling pretty stupid right now!


and hell guys ifu dont like cs and u prefer others games systems... go play those other games

take games as they are, stop talking about how u would change it because ur not gonna change it ur just another bitch bitching

just play guys

 

[Newbie's Journey]

Yeah well said. I like the SOF2 loadout based system. Since most people use AK74 on that game i think that it's just generally down to skill and not who has the better weapon.

i end up using ak74 a lot in that games, cuz everybody are winning about how i pump them full with the autoshotty, then i switch to m4, and people there blame again cuz i easily kill couple of them with the grenade launcher. so u guys really think the system in sof2 is balanced ?!!! if so , people will move to that game instead of playing cs. and I don't think so.

 

[Fat Tony!]

its good, i mean for example opposing force: people bitch about the saw because its way too good. But if you have to pay a price for a better weapon its fairer

 

[goss]

i end up using ak74 a lot in that games, cuz everybody are winning about how i pump them full with the autoshotty, then i switch to m4, and people there blame again cuz i easily kill couple of them with the grenade launcher. so u guys really think the system in sof2 is balanced ?!!! if so , people will move to that game instead of playing cs. and I don't think so.

No, what i meant was ... the game is balanced because if you have played it enough you will know that on most servers the AK74 is all people use. I totally know what you mean about the whining of using the autoshotty and stuff and i agree like you said that it isnt balanced cus evry1 whines about any other weapon apart from the AK.

Anyways i like the CS buying system, I never said i didn't so read it right before you get cocky.

 

[Dipso]

i end up using ak74 a lot in that games, cuz everybody are winning about how i pump them full with the autoshotty, then i switch to m4, and people there blame again cuz i easily kill couple of them with the grenade launcher. so u guys really think the system in sof2 is balanced ?!!! if so , people will move to that game instead of playing cs. and I don't think so.

Well its not that easy, one of the reasons sof2 mp never go REALY big was because the SP sucked, and people didn't even bother to try the mp.

Also a lot of the whining is due to missconceptions and lameness. Ofcourse the autoshotty and the m4 grenades can be annoying, because its not what is generalt percieved as "skill" but the autoshotty is useless at any range above "barrel in face" so its not that big of an issue, the m4 nades are killers, but you only get two, and then you are left with a weapon thats pretty much a worse weapon then the ak.

the autoshotty is the weapon i dont like of all of them realy, cause its just useless spamming.

But the other weapons i think are balanced pretty good. The reason the ak is the most used, is as much that it covers the middle ground than anything else. The mp5 for instance usualy kills faster on short ranges than an ak due to the high rate of fire, the ak and m4 are middle range weapons, while the sig covers mid to long. and last you have the sniper for those realy long ranges.

in cs there are so many weapons overlapping and so close to each other that money and preferance come into play as an important part in the whole weapon ballance issue, and this is also why a load out system wouln't work in CS.

One thing thats important to remember; you cant messure ballance with either how much a weapon is actually used, or how much people complain about a certain weapon. Imo good weapon ballance comes down to each weapon being usefull for spesific situations or maptypes, and no weapon being far superior to another overall. With CS type games, you can get of having a more powerfull weapon simply because the price allows you to controll and ballance its use.

there i think that makes my points here pretty clear.

I have already stated why i prefer a load out system rather than a money system, but for cs, the money system has to stay.

and to the guy that was stating that this thread was meaningless and though the starter of the thread was silly and got owned; This is a forum for debate and discussion, and even if you think that something should not be changed, there is no harm in debating it. Its discussion on gameplay dynamics that bring things forward. If everyone though, "things are fine" we'd all still be playing pong

 

[RANDOM_HERO]

I say they just make the snipers (accept Scouts) very expencive like 8000 for an awp 7000 for both the auto snipers.....

 

[Exclamatio]

I say they just make the snipers (accept Scouts) very expencive like 8000 for an awp 7000 for both the auto snipers.....

i think your stupid and should be put down but it wont happen