XXxPrePxX

Showtime, you no longer need to be added to play. You can sign in to CNCNet, go to "Ranked Games" and then register using a valid email address. Then go to your account and create a nickname, then re-sign in on cncnet ranked matches screen. Then you are in to play :D.

Who is Cruzer? Seems like a good player. Who is Rainbow? Good guy and fun time playing him, but he made an outlandish claim that allied players have always been at the top of the ladder. Which is quite surreal since we can just look at players like Marko/Tomi/Me/Sash/Latof/Mikoz/Kane ... list goes on as soviet players on top of the ladder rankings. But who can be considered top allied players in the rankings? Wonna/Marsh/Justin/Veg. Im sure there's more, but the point is that it's quite hard for an allied player to top the rankings. Also was telling me that soviets had no chance on HnS, but i beat him second game as soviets. I understand, small statistics and I get his point -- but HnS while being an allied map, is definitely beatable for a soviet player. It would have been far easier, of course, if I was spot 1 :p.

I think this comes full circle to my point... On YR, in general, if you can tech up as allies successfully and use their teched units combined together (1-2 BF's + 5-10 Mirages + 2 PRisms + rockies + GRizz + Para/GI) then you will be unbeatable late game. However, that is incredibly risky and borderline impossible to achieve on some maps. Risk plays an important role in being the champion after a long month of 1on1's. The less risky and more efficient way to work with allies is to use mass war for Grizz/para/rockies onslaught attacks. Either way, the point here is that CeKaJ should realize that while allieds are underpowered compared to soviets, he needs to learn how to harass properly as allieds so that superweapons don't become such a big deal for him, especially on the maps he listed as questionable.

Nahhh man! Look at Justin/me/probably Marsh style of harass attack as allieds. It's the way to win in QM 1on1 most of the time against tough soviets. The way to go is the combo attacks and base trading end of game. Rockies + grizz + para + seal ifv if need be. That's not only effective, but a shit load of fun :D.

Ahh, that makes much more sense. Thank you for clarifying. So you are stating that due to the obtuse amount of maps the pros had an insane advantage and the new players just couldn't learn fast enough especially since activity did not permit it. That makes perfect sense. The good news is that CNCNet plans to have a much more limited map pool, so this issue should be solved. However, it will continue to be fresh as we rotate certain maps monthly. As far as the game settings go, I agree with random superweapons -- that's a beautiful thing. I disagree with destroyable bridges, not really sure why you want that random. It would be quite annoying to try to destroy a bridge only for it not to destroy. I guess I can understand it on a map like Hammer and Sickle where someone is trying to camp spot 1, but I feel that having destroyable bridges as random would really punish a player unfairly. I think it would be better to have them ON/OFF and make it known. As far as No Dog Engi Eat and the Multi-Engi, both options are highly interesting but would be a drastic change to the community. I don't have a strong opinion on it either way, other than I don't think it should be random. Once again -- it would be really frustrating trying to guess whether it was on/off and whether I needed to protect my engis or not, etc. I think it's a good discussion to have once things get more up and running whether the community wants to see these ON/OFF, however, my gut feeling is that the community does not want these on as it would drift too far away from traditional gameplay and limit users.

I think this is great advice. I had just mentioned that in generally as allieds have two very distinct ways to go whereas the soviets really have just one style -- rhinos+wars+IC.

So look CeKaJ, you've made many posts (and virtually all of them in some way or the other about allied team being imbalanced) and you have shown interest in getting better and have developed a high amount of skill in just the 6-7 months that you've been playing. It appears that you are a strict allied player. I want to help you. Let me start by stating this game is 15+ years old now. That means there's been 15 years of rankings on this game with tons of change. These classic maps have lasted a long time, that alone should tell you that they are playable, but let's not just pit it against the test of time and instead analyze a few things: 1) You have called for a banning of super weapons as it strongly benefits the already overpowered soviets. At face value, this seems highly logical, I can understand why you are stating this. We have an already overpowered soviet team and they get even stronger with supers on, yes! However, you fail to understand a few things regarding this: The classical notion of superweapons in Ra2/YR and other CnC games. Ok, an argument from tradition is a fallacy, but the reason is not. Generally, players enjoy games that actually end in a short period of time. Superweapons instill this time of game play. It forces the players to make moves and not be complacent. Without superweapons we get involved in campy games, that's just the way it goes. Superweapons are the ultimate equalizer to a campy situation. Also, superweapons are absolutely necessary on certain maps (think Death Valley Girl as the prime example, but also Hammer and Sickle, Isle of War, etc.)/ Thus, while superweapons help an already overpowered soviet squad, it is a critical equalizer in the late game aspect. You've mentioned multiple times that there should be a 'reward' for reaching the late game as an allied player, but this is just not the mentality of the players. Do you think it's fair that a soviet side has absolutely no chance in a campy situation just because they didn't kill the allied opponent in the first few minutes? I don't. I think a fair game is when both players have chances early and late games. Without superweapons, there becomes very real scenarios where the allied player can simply camp with mirages/bfs/prisms and the soviet can not do anything. The best system for 1on1 combat regarding superweapons is likely to have superweapons be completely random on most maps and always on on the certain few maps that absolutely require them. This is a best of both worlds approach and keeps games short while benefiting both squads and good strategy. Ultimately, while SW's help the soviets, this forces the allied player to actually use his/her tanks and army and not sit in their base. As an allied player, you will need to learn to attack relentlessly. I'm sure Marsh can tell you all about this as he has reached multiple high ranks on both Ra2 and YR by playing the best players around as a pure allied player. His style of relentless attacks on the opponent is exactly what you should emulate if you wish to be a top allied player and not worry about maps/SW's so much. A big difference here between Yuri being OP and soviet being OP (relative to allies) is that when you face Yuri on a certain map, there is almost no chance of victory. When you are the allies and face the OP soviets, you can ALWAYS pull out a victory somehow by some crazy rush or using skill. 2) You are calling these classic maps 'soviet maps' as if to claim they are so imbalanced, and also claiming that people don't want to play the allied maps. I think it has less to do with these being 'soviet maps' and more to do with the fact established in the other thread -- the soviet side is simply easier to use / less risky and thus better than the allied side. Like I said before, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. You, as the user, have the choice here to be the overpowered soviet or the badass ultra skilled allied player that beat the soviet. That's a pretty cool dynamic about this game. This is NOT the same as the imbalances inherent in Yuri faction warfare. The yuri faction is broke. On Water maps it can rush a boomer in less then 2 minutes. On cliffy maps it can use a magnetron to own your miners and thus eco in the first 3 minutes. On campy maps it can camp the hell out of you while suiciding ufos to your critical buildings and grinding initiates/slaves for unlimited money. I mean, THIS is the imbalance we as a community have always had to deal with. NOT the imbalances in any Allied vs. Soviet warfare. Sure, there are a few situations that are a bit bonkers in AvS warfare, but they are few and far a part. The underlying point here once again is that the allied faction simply just takes more skill to use. It requires a lot more skill to use, in my opinion. Looking at maps like Dune Patrol and Blood feud, you might say, how the hell do I beat a soviet there who has rhinos while as an allied I'd be lucky to just tech? Well, historically, a good set up is to rush with power + rax + ore ref + war fac (0-1 miners, then grizz or add in 2 ggi ifvs) + ore ref + afc then sell mcv and build a couple rockies + para + harrier(S) over time. This set up allows you to use your skill as allies and the constant harrassing to take advantage. Weak foes will immediately die to this strategy if you harass hard enough. I mean, that's just one strat, there has been countless strategies on Dune/BF as allied players. Try korea there as well against soviets, they are an absolute head ache to play against. I know a while back someone had a base order on dune patrol where they only had 2-4 GGI ifvs, and went to tech to get 2 BF's there and beat soviets. I think it was ir0nclad, perhaps Tony can tell you more about that one. Same situation with Dry Heat / Toe / CS, these are all maps where you need to harass the soviet player constantly and it can and has been done. Ultimately, what I get from you is that you are getting pretty good, but you are just not there yet. You need to constantly harass the soviets as an allied player. If it gets to the Iron Curtain, then you are not doing your job. As an allied player there is two roads you can go down: One is the grizz + para + rockie + harrier + ____ constant bombardment style, which I prefer, and the other is the more slick and skilled version of teching up and having the perfect, but slow army of mirages + bfs + prisms + some grizz. IMO, the master of allies generally uses the second strategy as if you can learn to control that strategy on most maps it is almost unbeatable, however, it takes incredible skill to perform and countless hours learning base orders for it to work. It is a thing of beauty when it works tho. I just want to stress, that out of all the conversations I've had with people, you are the only person I've seen/talked to who was so worried about these classic maps. I think the point here is that you need to realize in choosing the allied faction you are at a disadvantage. It is harder to use and while maps have inherent imbalances, they won't change that fact. Learn the maps 1 by 1 and learn to attack relentlessly and catch your opponents off guard as the allied (throw in a crazy rush every now and then). You can become a top soviet player in a few months, but you cannot easily master the allied faction. It takes countless hours learning the base orders as they are vastly different on each map/spot/situation, whereas the soviet side can have basic BO's that fit almost any map. It's hard to talk about this in a coherent, logical approach -- if you have any questions on anything I said, of course feel free to reply and i'll try to explain.

@PrezSpammer Did you feel XWIS QM got boring for you due to the same map listings over and over? There were a few renovations on XWIS QM. One that saw us add a TON of maps into QM, another that trimmed it down closer to 30. Do you like the way CNCNet has it planned where the map pool will be something like 12-25 maps, but some/many of them will rotate on a month by month basis? The cool thing about CNCNet is that we have so many abilities with the addition of user-created maps and the amazing array of maps created in the past 6 or so years from Ra2.

Bro -- you have a very strong opinion on this matter. Sovs are overpowered, yes -- but they are not THAT overpowered where it makes such a big difference. If you choose to play as allieds you choose to be the underdog and have to use more skill to win, there's nothing wrong with that -- that's actually pretty bad ass if you ask me. Allieds can win on any of these maps, these are fair enough to play AvS (in general). And if you think there is too much of a balance difference here, then you have not met some of the better allied players on the game or in the past.

Also, it's silly to say that V3's suck when they have a direct purpose. They are a side unit used to serve very select situations, which they do well. Extremely long range, decent damage situations. No one ever makes them in 1on1 unless their in these very rare situations, so it's not like they hurt the soviets in any way.

Good post, however, I will say there has been some very good discussion in this thread! I enjoyed it. I love getting the chance to discuss how the soviets are actually the overpowered team in YR as it is a very common misconception (Due to FFG's / Mod maps) that allies are the overpowered squad.

That's an incredibly poor debating tactic, considering that it would result in extremely bad statistics leading to a result either way. A small sample size, varying parameters (I have not played as yuri competitively in over 10+ years). You also continued your disingenuous ways, so I do not wish to proceed having a conversation with you.

You have been very disingenuous in this discussion by not acknowledging your false assumptions. You've claimed that i'm a 'ra2 tank spammer', incapable of playing different styles, that one of my favorite maps is country swing, that I'm part of a pro group conspiracy to select certain maps, and that I am trying to select certain maps that benefit tank spam. All of these points are either (obviously) false or I have shown to be false in my comments, yet you do not acknowledge this in your replies -- you simply move on to the next attack. Discussing these matters with you is like discussing climate science with the climate change deniers as they present new bogus information one after another after their initial information gets refuted. Please have some respect and acknowledge your false assumptions or wrong information when further replying. You have not responded to my points on Hammer and sickle, LPOD, and New Heights, as well. Now, in response to your latest post about Loaded Barrell, your argument is far to simplified. Sure, Sovs/allies can garrison some buildings around their base as well, but that doesn't change the fact that the initiate garrisoned yuri base is still protected from any early attacks. Sure, prisms and siege choppers exist, but by the time they are actually useful, Yuri already has UFOS/Supers and an army, so you aren't simply going to be walking around the map killing those buildings. I don't know who has time to be plopping siege choppers down to kill garrisoned buildings when the yuri player has the genetic mutator grinding cloning vat initiates for unlimited money and a timer on the psychic dominator waiting to own your base. You've also mentioned to 'engi-kill' the yuri player, but that's also not plausible as there is enough early game money for any yuri player to escort his engi(s) to the derrick/airport. Also, with brutes available, it would be far easier for the yuri player to actually engi kill you sending a brute to each airport+2 oil corner. And then last, but not least, you make another failed assumption that "I have issues playing vs. yuri," and "there's an answer to every unit in the game." Sure, there's an answer, but if the answer is not plausible given the map scenarios, then you are out of luck. I have no issue playing vs. yuri unless it's on a map that is overly imbalanced. Loaded Barrel is a very bad map to play vs. Yuri on, same with New Heights. Just merely attacking a yuri base structure on Loaded Barrel means you've been successful as a soviet player there. I have played Loaded Barrel many times on YR WOL QM and it is a yuri haven map, the prototypical cloning vat-iniaties-mutator map where yuri ends up with unlimited money quite readily and the soviet/allied player ends up with nowhere to go.

Edit: On the topic of Loaded Barrel I forgot to mention the late game dynamics. One of the reason why initiates in garrisions is so important here is that it leads to late game scenarios. On this map there is NO regenerating ore in your home spot. What this means is that yuri can defend in his turtled base, pick off your miners with garrisionable structures, magnetrons on bridges/cliff, ufos, as your miners HAVE to venture out into the map somehow. Meanwhile, yuri can be using the genetic mutator to mutate slaves into brutes, or alternatively, what I used to do on WOL QM on Loaded barrell --> Use para + cloning vats to turn initiates into brutes and have unlimited money. So, Yuri gets unlimited money by just sitting in his turtled base. You have to reach out into the middle of the map likely through a land mine of garrisioned structures to get any income. Of course, any smart yuri player will use the dominator on your home oils or just kill them with a series of UFOS. The dominator can't be blocked by a force field, so well, you are screwed on this map.

lol, don't feed the troll. You'll be blacklisted as a commie.

That's a good suggestion. I'm looking at it now and I find no immediate problems with that map vs. Yuri. I don't see Yuri navy coming into play at all. Worth considering for a QM rotation of maps for Yuri play in the future.

You are making a lot of false assumptions. Let me start out by analyzing the claim that Loaded Barrel and New Heights are extremely bad maps to play vs. yuri. Both of these have great garrisionable structures near important parts of the map for Yuri to load up with iniatiates. This gurantees early game protection and late game land protection. Anytime you deal with the massively overpowered initiates in garrision structures = bad. Which is why the most balanced Yuri warfare maps almost never have any crucial buildings to garrision. Moving on, New Heights also has water, another crucial mistake in yuri warfare. Not only this, but this water is critical to the gameplay -- a quick early boomer rush (helped out with the initiates defending yuris base and the early gems + oil for eco) means the opponent will lose all of his/her critical oil derricks/garrision buildings / base in the first 3 minutes of any game there. The fact that you think this is a balanced map leads me to think you are incapable of understanding balances on other maps. That is how bad New Heights is here. On loaded barrel, yuri gets 4 oil derricks early, will have the initiates in buildings to protect, and will be able to use magnetrons to defend base due to cliff advtanges. Yuri can use brutes to ensure access to the airport+2 oil derricks in the corner, which means -- you guessed it -- more initiates for the 100's of garrisionable structures on the map. A yuri quickly teching to superweapons results in an easy win. I used to beat top players on WOL QM with yuri on this map (note: I was a shit newb during these first few months of the game). These maps are just obviously bad. Im not sure at all how you see these as balanced. Don't get me wrong tho -- I love both maps AvS. You continue to assume that I like tank-spammy maps, which is just wrong. Previously, I vouched for 10's of exotic and obscure maps to be put into QM on YR XWIS. I was the leader behind this movement. This QM renovation failed pretty hard (I think it was due to low activity and NOT the addition of maps) as it faced heavy criticism due to the increased map pool. By the way, Country Swing is one of my absolute worst maps. I *hate* getting matched on it, but I respect the map in that it is a decent map to play 1on1. You have some comprehension issues, try to stick to cohesive arguments. I'm not blocking out any opinion here -- it's just you chose 2 incredibly bad maps there (to face yuri on) to defend.

Well, I can't now -- I'm away for a conference. However, I know a thing or two about hammer and abusing bridges... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsN9VOx3CeE I've been using this strategy for 16 years+ :p. With that being said, with some skill it can be stopped. It's perhaps annoying for soviets to face this type of style, but isn't it in the best interest that we have a slight allied map once in a while in QM? Anyway, I'm not too interested in further debates on hammer and sickle as if it's too controversial, we have 50+ other maps to simply replace it with. As far as the maps I named from your collection: Loaded Barrel and New Heights are the absolute worst. No further conversation needed on those. South Pacific is very bad as well. The navy maps are more debatable when you consider AvY, but SvY it would be an absolute nightmare. AvY, still I lean towards yuri pretty hard due to early boomer rush, but more debatable.

Also with respects to Hammer and Sickle, I disagree. I agree that Spot 1 has a slight advantage early game, but it becomes disadvantageous late game permitting supers are on. If supers are off -- then yes -- HnS is bogus. IF supers are on, all it takes it a timely placed nuclear missle on the seal by bridge, an engi, and your tanks are in winning the game. Iron curtain them for extra care. If done right, the left side on HnS can be highly advantageous to late game scenarios. Marko has really made a name for himself on maps like Hammer and Sickle and Lake Blitzen, proving that soviets with supers can match up with allied's there. With that being said -- it is better to make the spots top left vs. bottom right on hammer. There is an advantage to top right, I'm just arguing that it is not an automatic win scenario (like say, getting the airport on LPOD).

@KinKys3x I do not have a map list posted yet, just a proposal of what a potential map listing could include. The current maps in QM that I listed in this thread are NOT my or anyone's suggest map list, but instead are maps picked out to balance the Yuri faction as the QM setting works through different functionality problems allowing us to better optimize the maps towards respective factions. On the topic of PRO vs. Community, the people who are working on the map list have suggested that the best idea for this is to keep the map list in QM down to minimal maps. If it was my way, we'd see something around 20-30 maps per faction in a given month. However, there is talk about this number going closer to 10-20. I assure you, on my part, I want to keep the QM map list fresh, not just filled with tank-spammy maps, and easy to dive into for newer players. What is the most likely scenario is that we will surveys in the form of topics on this forum. We will likely see a handful of stable maps (5-10 maps) where these maps are in QM year-round. Then, we will see a series of rotation maps which will be more obscure/creative based maps. These maps will be discussed on the forums here. I highly disagree with your assessment of XWIS. In fact, it was quite the opposite. XWIS QM had at some point nearly 50-60 maps involved. The only thing stale about this QM environment was the fact that it wasn't updated as often as it should have been. There was nothing limited in variety about XWIS QM which was the problem as new players constantly played new maps every game. You talk about faction mismatches, but I struggle to think of too many on XWIS QM, care to enlighten me? Still, the main point of your quote is that the community will of course be open to discussion -- more than likely on these forums rather than an in game survey. Now to discuss more of your points. I'm not disqualifying LPOD because it favors some strategy over the other, I'm disqualifying it because it's literally --> Get the airport --> Win the game. That's the epitome of shit map that people do not like to play competitively on. Also, the idea that it works for 'all factions' is absolutely insane. Yuri on LPOD will eat you alive. Likely a top 10 best map for yuri faction, which is saying a lot. It's also not too good for allies vs. sov, and almost impossible for allies if soviet gets the airport. I like Tsunami/Depth and think they are an important piece in a QM map list. It's important to have diversity, which is why I make these topics in light of our current lackluster QM settings (all maps for Yuri faction warfare, meaning very little creativity). In terms of yuri warfare and your selected maps: Alaskan Oil Spill, Loaded Barrell, New Heights, Depth Charge, South Pacific are all very bad to face yuri on. Very very bad. Some of the other newer ones for yuri warfare I can't comment on right now.

As a Soviet, I'm almost never worried about allied maps. Do you have a list of 5 pure allied maps that are somewhat used competitively (i.e. not like No Rest For the Wicked or some obscure map). Just curious on what you/community thinks are really hard maps for a soviet to play against an allied on -- to the point where the maps shouldn't be considered for competitive 1on1 games. A map that comes to my mind is Isle of War, but even this I've had a lot of success on against allieds either due to rushes or just mid game kirovs/v3s/boris/tanks/dreds/siege chops / base walk / desos.

xe3 with post of the year material here. That hate for the commies is REAL. But hey, I can do it too... 1 DESO >>> 50 MIRAGES 1 DESO >> 50 NAVY SEALS 1 DESO >> 100 Prism tanks 1 RHINO >> 69069 Chrono miners 1 FLAK TRAK > 10 ROCKIES It's about the way you use the units, tho. Also, on the topic of robot tanks -- robot tanks suck guys. Let's not get carried away. They require power to be on, they require a separate building just to build them. Their cool as hell, but no one uses them in 1on1 games. Also xe3, any talk of balance begins with playing YR the normal way -- without insane modded maps, where, yes -- allieds reign supreme.

Cool, I like your reasoning on 2 and 3, I'd put Pirate Bay up there with Reconcile for my best map awards. As far as random spots, we can select which spots for each particular map in the ladder. I believe if we leave the spot empty it selects the spots on it's own. I'm not sure if that means the spots are random per se, or if they just default to a certain 2 spots (thus, not really random, just generating the 2 spots on it's own). I agree that it's better when there are more than 1 spawns, hopefully it will be a function that can be worked on in the future.

Yeah -- the list of maps is great. I have some few notes: 1) Little Piece of Dune is generally not considered a good map simply because the person that controls the airport in the first 1 minute of the game, usually controls all the gems and the pathway to the other opponent. I personally love the map, but I can see how that map is beyond frustrating for some players. 2) With your map listing, @Lucifer's map listing, and @PrezSpammer's map listings they all have the following in common: They are somewhat long. Kinky's has something around 30, Prez has a ton, Lucifer a ton. The general consensus from the team looking at a map listing for QM is that they want to have a smaller map list per month basis. My proposal has around 20 maps per a given faction (that includes Yuri maps, which none of the 3 listings above includes). None of the three listings include the discussion on Yuri maps. These are the more trickier cases. Finding good maps for AvA / SvS / SvA is not the difficult part, in fact, the difficult part is selecting only a few of them, which the community can discuss more prevalently now or in a future time when we are at that stage. No one is talking about what this thread was for -- any new integrated maps being good for Yuri war fare :p. Perhaps I set this thread off on the wrong foot by posting a reply regarding my proposal, lol. I guess I also should have been more clear in my topic title. 'Yuri Maps' means Yuri faction maps, not YR maps. 3) To @PrezSpammer, you have some highly questionable maps in your listing: LBL, Official Tourny Map 4, Canyon Fodder, DC Uprising, Four Corners, Little Piece of Dune, Shrapnel Mountain, and somewhat Tanya's Training Grounds are all maps that the community generally wouldn't want in QM due to possible imbalances, amount of tech buildings, importance of certain tech buildings, etc. :p.

Some notes: 1) As of now, CNCNet QM can not properly have random spots. We have to choose 2 spots for each map otherwise we get situations of players right next to each other. 2) What makes you like Pirate Bay so much more then the rest? I like Pirate Bay, too, but why #1? 3) Alamo? Is Alamo fair for allies vs sovs? I know in Ra2 it was one of the easiest soviet maps to take on allies (allies almost had no chance there). I guess on YR it's a bit easier to be allied there. Other than those small notes -- it's a great list. There's just so many good maps to be played!