XXxPrePxX

These are all FFG's not ranked games: Would you say the same thing for the following situations: 1. 3v3 on Heck, one player moves MCV to mid, other two teammates build ore refs off of him and they have all gems immediately, thus ruining the dynamic of a proper 3on3 there? 2. One player rushes the other play in a 3on3 on ToE with crates on. 3. In any 6 player FFA with 1 unit on and crates on, one player gets immediate elite tank and takes out 1-2 other players. 4. An immediate engi rush in any 3on3 FFG. 5. Borderline tactic/cheat: If a player loses MCV, unally and take friend's extra MCV. All these things are just tactics and have been around forever, but surely... in a FFG environment, we can consider these tactics to ruin the game for 5 of the other players, no? However, it seems most people agree with you -- that it isn't lame. If I was playing with people who did these types of tactics, I'd probably kick them from my game, if it was purely a FFG that we were meant to be enjoying together. In theory, any FFG should seek to maximize the fun output of all 6 players. To me, a tactic is more than forcing your buildings over the other players territory in the first 45 seconds of the game to take an unfair advantage. If that is done, I auto-quit. Then who really wins? None of us, because the game went nowhere and we all lost time. Now if it is announced a head of time that we are playing for cut throat, sure -- it's a tactic and I'd respond by trying to do the same, and trying to fuck them over any way possible.

I don't know... the way I look at it is like this: In a 3on3 on TOE with crates on, you wouldn't rush your opponents with 3 rhino tanks, right? That'd ruin the game for the other 5 players involved (including your teammates). Moving your mcv such that you can build a sentry near/at the opponents cliff oil derrick on EvB is basically the same thing IMO.

My idea of EvB is a 3on3 in which their is a camp in the middle and one team takes it over due to a variety of allied+soviet units and structures. Then, the other team pulls back and camps with bfs/mirages/rockies/para however possible and chips away at the other team, while the other team uses forces of rockies + prisms + bfs + rhinos + apocs + siege to take over. a GG! Many of these types of games with clan dustco and @FlyingMustache in 2010 ish.

I definitely understand your points Frequenzy. However, I've had many enjoyable games (usually with super weapons OFF) on EvB where both teams have equality over their derricks and begin a fight for the middle leading to a very CAMPY 3on3 team game, but a very good campy game at that. Sometimes, it being a FFG, I really enjoy the team work it takes in a 3on3 game with allieds getting BF's / mirages/ prisms, and the sov player going rhinos/apocs/siege/kirovs/boris on the map. It does diverge into a camp fest, but a somewhat teamwork based tactical camp fest at that :). Which is why I hate it so much when people ruin these games by taking over the middle derricks without even allowing a fight. (That almost automatically leads to the takeover team killing at least 1 more opponents derrick and then its maybe 1 derrick vs. 4 derricks and complete land control, all in the first 1 minute of the game without a fight).

There's a biggggggggg difference between QM/tournament style play and FFG play. BIG difference. I don't complain about engi eat/engi rush/any tactic in QM/tournament style play.

I just disagree. I say gentleman sport here to make it a legit GG and not over in 1 minute.... to me it's the equivalent of one team having the entire middle of heck in the first 90 seconds, that's worthy of auto-quitting a heck game. If you move mcv, move it to your Oil derrick area, NOT all the way to the middle of the pathway to build a sentry at other opponents oil derrick. I just don't understand why in a FFG a team would want to have such an unfair advantage in the first 60 seconds. If you told me I could have all the middle of heck in a 3on3 I wouldn't want to play....

Let me know what you think, but this is one of my biggest pet peeves. In FFG 3on3's on East vs. Best, we know the map diverges into a cliff showdown between the two teams based on the oils. Something that I've been seeing happening is that the player who moves MCV will often move mcv so far to the other side as to immediately take over the other oil derrick i.e. have their teammates build sentrys around it so the other players oil derrick gets taken or owned. THIS IS LAME AS FUCK AND YOU ARE RUINING THE GAME BY DOING THIS. I auto-quit when this happens usually. This is a FFG and by moving your mcv and having your opponents build off your MCV to fuck over the other teams oil derrick you are NOT giving the other team a chance to compete. Sure, you might respond with "well, they should move their mcv far enough too" but come on... just give both teams their derricks and compete instead of trying to over take the derrick by force via immediate sentry guns, have a good all out fight. Often times, when I am cliff, I don't even move my MCV, so when this happens my engi gets immediately owned by the sentry gun that somehow appears next to my oil. Congrats guys, you moved your MCV to my oil derrick and had your teammates build a sentry, now you own the derrick and can easily kill another teammates derrick and have all gems. Really worth playing, huh???? To me, this type of strategy is as bad or worse then the engi-killers in FFGs. It's worse then the engi rushers or seal rushers in FFGs. At least those moves can by stopped. In a clan game or ranked game -- sure -- by all means necessary, but a FFG? This ruins the game in the first 1 minute and makes it not worth playing. Give me your opinion on this? I just fucking can't stand it.

Great commentary. Zhus is an interesting player. Not sure what I think of him. He has a good aggressive rush tactic that works well against allies. I don't really see why Frequenzy complained about the settings... most games lost were due to early game harassment that he couldn't control (I think from my quick observations). Was he expecting to engi kill or immediately engi rush these games? I didn't love the pick of El Dorado, that's kind of weird -- I do like the map tho. But yeh -- your commentary was excellent. Nice show.

Ah, so that's how he does it @FlyingMustache. That's how he gets unlimited money and fast build. It's not built in like a cheat code, just those buildings on the margins of the map, lmfao. Crazy.

I just played a game 'hammer 2v2' in player heyyou's game. He had the non-standard map of hammer and sickle. Now, he selected spot 1 and I tested it out in skrimish afterwards and online. Spot 1 gives the player unlimited money, fast build, and starting spies in everybody's base dressed up as secret service members. It's hilarious, but man, that is so wrong -- cheating using non-standard map. Ever had this happen before? Or is this somewhat new?

Care to explain? I don't deal with the maps currently other than offer my opinions on some of them, but I think the analysis from Luci (while having great points) is far too harsh. We have to keep in mind that Yuri is in QM and can only be played on certain maps. Offense Defense / Dry Heat/ Offici Map B while being simplistic in their nature are all highly enjoyable and competitive maps. They've been in QM since WOL times, and I think would be supported by the large majority of the community. Same with Dune. If you want to get technical, I don't particularly like having Dune + Blood + Urban all in QM, but that is subject to change as we go. On all of the other maps he comments on, I think he is being too harsh still. GSF/DMZ are in QM for Yuri games. Stormy Weather is a fun map and I disagree that it is all about getting the middle. ToE is one of the better AvS maps. I have np with other choices as well. So, to sum up, unless he can suggest better maps for YvS/YvA warfare, we are left with things like DMZ/GSF in QM. From what I know, this QM map list was not meant to please just the competitive players as well, it was meant to please the whole -- so maps like Offic map B / Dry Heat / Offense Defense are likely not going anywhere. Quite frankly, I would be sick of QM if all it consisted of was copies of Reconcile / Jungle of Vietnam / Snow Valley / Unrepentant styles where it's based on a super competitive long game BO. I like the mixture of maps styles. note: I'm not suggesting that Dry Heat/ Offense Def / Dune / Offic Map B are uncompetitive. However, I do agree with Luci in that these are more simple maps... but they are competitive (just not AS super competitive as the latter). I wanted to take this note to distinguish when I talk about creating a competitive and balanced QM field (my previous post) and having maps that offer a wide variety of scenarios.

It all seems completely pointless. What are gaining by having certain options on "25%" of the time? It largely negatively affects competitive play. I just don't understand what you'd want out of this other than a chaotic QM environment. How are you sure others would agree? I'd think a LARGE majority consensus would not want these options on random. You've also stated in other topics that you want several (absurd) maps in QM. I get your stance -- you want a more chaotic and random environment, but it's just so far away from having a balanced and competitive environment.

We (or at least I) never said they were even, but that they are the best we have. Imagine taking Yuri on on other maps.... Can't really make Yuri even based on maps alone.

I was thinking about this last night. However, while there is inherent advantage against lamers if they are both on together, then I imagine scenarios that Anthony pointed out. What If I just send my engis to capture every derrick? The opponent can't kill my engis with dogs. That's a problem central to no dog eng and would really be annoying, I think. I don't think the benefits outweigh the negatives for these settings.

Personally, I'd like to find stronger reasons then to just try it out :p. I mean no dog engi eat makes engi-rushing very strong, having random multi-engineer and random destroyable bridges seems totally counterproductive to a fun and competitive environment. Superweapons are, of course, the more important option here. But all in all, PrezSpammer is the only one I've seen promoting these ideas as all random. It takes more than one here (and for these drastic changes, a large force). So, kind of moot points there and we should probably get back on to topic of QM ranked matches. He did, however, mention some fun maps... although many of his maps are a bit broken (Lake Blitzen for instance).

I'm with Frequency here. Having things tinkered to random does not do well in a competitive environment. Destroyable bridges being random is kind of silly and borderline useless. And when it is useful it is absolutely critical to the game usually (and I don't want my game determined by whether or not a silly setting was on or off). No dog Engi eat is much more interesting of an option, but lends to problems with lamers (i.e. if dog can't eat engi, then my engi is super engi and I can engi walk 10x better, and engi rush 100x better). Having it set to random is borderline suicide. It's already bad enough as it is, there's just no reason to have this setting as random. Multi-engineer is most likely the only option worth trying as it would be very harmful to lamers. I'm interested in this, but either have it ON or OFF. Not random. Supers being random is debatable, has worked before, and I can see it working as random. I have no real problem personally with it -- I think the current set up of ALWAYS supers ON is bad for gameplay as CekaJ has discussed -- it puts allies in a very bad spot on most situations. I think some work here could be done. So TLDR: Multi-engi? Maybe ON worth experimenting. SW OFF on all or certain situations is really worth exploring. Others? Bad idea.

That was NOT one of marko's best games :p. I thought he had a significant amount of chances to end it early, and also with various superweapons timed. MustacheX played well tho, and Marko showed some excellent tactics, but when you make just a few mistakes against Yuri, you will pay dearly as this game shows. Great game, thanks.

Damn, doesn't seem like there's enough on this subject. I haven't even been able to get Ra2/YR installed on my Ubuntu Linux, let a lone CNCNet.

Nah, Get @CekaJ (Jake) to organize this shit and stream it for us all with Kinkys3x on the commentary or whatever :D.

Hopefully not. That seemed to be a quick trial run prior to the map functionality update. Still a work in progress -- but hopeful that we will only need 1 selection per map.

By the way -- Blood feud should be removed now.

Marko, I'm with you in the opinion that players should clearly not avoid playing Yuri, but don't you think you are being a bit harsh here? We know Yuri is overpowered, heldro likely has very minimal amounts of experience vs. Yuri and doesn't enjoy the match up yet. Of course, I'd suggest to heldro to play the games and learn the tactics against it and have fun that way, but there is a problem that the yuri players playing right now really know how to take advantage of the faction, so he has a steep learning curve. All I'm trying to say is -- your posts are looking more reminiscent of Tomi here. On that note -- I did bring this subject up to the QM staff in the testers forum some 10 days ago. I'll make it known in there again.

Yes, we are working on tools that will allow us to have Yuri faction war on a base of maps and other maps will still be available to us for AvS warfare. The addition of blood feud was (apparently) premature, I believe they meant it to be a mirror match only. The good news is that the functionality is starting to get better and we should have more control over the QM map listing very soon.

Also @Omituinen there are rumors of a 'reputation' system being implemented. This will take into account things like DC's, bailing too much, and what not. Not sure on how it will work precisely, but I imagine an act like this would be negative to one's reputation measure.

The bail time for QM system is supposed to be at 0:00 seconds. However, as we see -- bailing results in a +0/+0 currently. Something is a miss and it is recognized in the ladder tester forum. @Grant Maybe we can get @Omituinen into the ladder tester forum? Anyway, this is a work in progress regarding bailing and also what to do if people don't want to face the Yuri faction. Heldro is kind of notorious for bailing yuri right now.