Jump to content

CnCNet Forums

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


Ladder Tester
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

434 Excellent


About XXxPrePxX

  • Rank
  • Birthday 08/06/1989

Recent Profile Visitors

3,171 profile views
  1. I think 3 is OK, I'd also be fine with 1 or 2. 3 allows flexibility, unfortunately @Black there are other arguments for more than 1 nickname other than manipulation and abuse. Some people play with a certain side/faction with one nickname and different with other names. Others like a try-hard nickname and a play-easy nickname, etc. It's not all about rank busting and manipulation.
  2. This is one of those maps that I'd come back, play all night on a Friday and have a shit load of fun playing with random people. So much to explore and exploit on here. Really nice job with the details.
  3. I come here to see what's going on from time to time and today I come here to see this post, 😂. I would call this a sarcastic joke, but knowing you - you likely believe this, haha. Poor Ravage gets no real help from the community :(. Ah well, - your accomplishments are impressive tho Andy! Followed the ladder the last few months and you've seem to been dominating, so props!
  4. XXxPrePxX

    Change ladder?

    Everyone would agree with this, but you are mot considering the vast technical problems associated with such a plan. Come up with an idea tgat solves those and youll be on to something... its not like the devs went through hell creating the ladder environment for no reason...
  5. Zain is right. Trying to force people to only have one nickname is almost impossible. The only outcome of this would be the players that want to abuse it would be able to much more effectively since others who are not abusing it would be on one nickname.
  6. Yup -- this is a hell of a map and I could definitely see this being a favorite. Suggestions by Ravage are very nice as well.
  7. Definitely a lot better with the multiple entrances now. Still not sure if I'm sold on the map yet and I don't think it would work well in the competitive scene, but I'd definitely play it and have fun on it.
  8. @Tkragon Few comments: 1) The entrance on border patrol - This is a bad idea and will ruin the map. I know you were trying to go for a certain feel with it, but it ruins the map from my experience. It's a very tiny entrance way and it's the ONLY way to enter through land. This destroys the flow of gameplay and also heavily favors allieds over soviets. It makes scouting useless (as teams will have the garrisons early halting any early scout, especially from a soviet player). It stops the flow of any land units. It's very easy to build towards and set up shop and once a person owns the middle/cliffs, the game is essentially over. Essentially, it gives the map a 'gimmick' feel which is what aWarZilla was saying when it becomes another 'rekool' or gimmick based map. The map is SO camp-heavy due to the entrance, that the game becomes who can suicide kill their opponents oil derrick first wins. A potential solution might to just widen out the gap. That way, at least, if the soviets can somehow kill the garrisons, then they can maneuver past it. However this is still dubious. Maps with one small guarded entrance just aren't very successful. 2) You guys are saying CS is mirrored? Maybe my understanding is off, but the reason why CS is unfair is directly because it's NOT mirrored in terms of ore per side. People love the mirrored parts of CS but hate the fact that the ore is not mirrored. 3) I think creating a balanced non-mirrored map is a work of art and ultimately the most aesthetic and 'cool' maps are non-mirrored. However, mirrored maps are efficient and great for their purpose, so I'm a fan of both. 4) Your Woodland plains map has A LOT of potential. I think that could be a huge hit.
  9. Can completely attest to this. I started my competitive Ra2 YouTube some (idk) 8 ? years ago? Before they were a more popular thing.. The competitive videos struggled to get a few views. I noticed a few people on YouTube got tons of views from just facing the computer... put a few matches of me taking on 7 brutal enemies and like clock work got thousands of views. To this day, I still have random comments on THOSE videos and almost none on any competitive video.
  10. First off, the detail in the maps is second to none. Everything flows so smoothly. I'd absolutely love to play these maps in FFG settings. I hope to play the 4on4 one soon. I am skeptical about the flak cannons, I don't *Hate* them in ffgs, but I think they are unneeded. I'm not worried about the helicopter advantage, that's why we can have teammates... a team of all soviets here is fucked anyway. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of ore/gems near the home base (and no oils). I worry about the economy, but that might not be a bad thing. A lot of FFG maps that are created end up having wayyyy too much money. So I'm excited to see how this plays out.
  11. Very interesting map. I'm not sure that it needs the gems in the middle tho. I think that's a bit of an overkill on money and it stops some strategy of base-stretching in the early game. I also don't think it needs gems near the base as it kinda takes away from what Blood feud was about. I'm also uneasy on the oil derricks.
  12. Awesome, nice clear commentary with good speed (no lag) and crisp viewing! Great start to the channel.
  13. Thanks! As far as most important -- The rank-lobby interface and potential for hosting ones own tournament games -- Is this a more simple operation? Or would this require a ton of work and not likely to get done within the next year time frame? From my (limited) understanding, I would assume all one needs to do is set up the *ability* to log into the CNCNet Client with one's ranked account (connected via email sign up) and then one would have access at hosting tournament games and having rank displayed in lobby. That, at least to me, doesn't seem like too much work to accomplish?
  14. It would be an 8 player map. 4 seperate 1on1's start the game off. As soon as one person wins his/her match up, he can then enter the next match up or patiently waits until they are done and then he goes on to 'fight the winner' so to speak. This process continues until we have 1 champion out of the 8.
  15. I'm going to throw this idea out there: A map that is 8 players. This map is to be played as Free for all, or perhaps 4on4: It's where the map sets up 4 seperate one on ones, perhaps shielded by barriers that only go down once one of the persons die. So, you start out against one person (4 seperate one on ones on the map). As soon as you kill that person, your first barrier opens up and you can venture into the next persons one on one, perhaps these guys are still fighting you can choose to join in or wait it out and then fight. Etc. Or maybe you don't even need the barriers, just set it up such that it promotes fighting between the 4 seperate one on ones.
  • Create New...