XXxPrePxX

Pretty interesting ideas. I'm not a fan of #1 simply because then the game just becomes building buildings or instant death in the first 45 seconds of the game. #2 is more interesting, but I still feel could get really old really fast. I love the idea of #3, it's the best one IMO as it makes the game more like chess in a way. There's always that technician for the come-from-behind victories.

Because it cost money to get on (serial enforced), it has numerous problems with newer computers, and has outdated systems in place :p. All of those reasons trump the no clan ladder on CNCNet. But I'm with you -- a clan environment is the one major piece that CNCNet is missing right now. A clanning environment doesn't just help the ladder and competitive players, it helps foster in new players into groups to create unique strategies to beat better players. When I first started I got better by playing clan games 2on2 with my old Drake teammates on Hammer and Sickle. Within a few months online I had joined some 4-6 clans that took me in and was able to get better and addicted to the game. If CNCNet could ever harbor in that type of clanning environment, then it could really increase the amount of competitive players we see.... a 1on1 ladder does NOT do this as right now a newb on the 1on1 player ladder has no chance...

@RaVaGe and others: The reason I stated that we need to divide the lobbies here is because it would be a very simple solution to a complex problem. Of course I'd love for it all to be integrated into one lobby, but that would require a big work-around solution to the log in account problem and the free lobbies. So, having the lobby in the already pre-existing ranking system would be quite easy on the developing side. I mean, it's already there everytime someone goes to quick match (we just don't see the lobby obviously). Making a clan lobby based off this already existing code should be a pretty easy copy and paste sort of project compared to completely changing the framework of the cncnet lobbies.

Can someone in the know tell me why this wouldn't work: 1. Create a clan system attached to a persons created e-mail account/username. This way they are 'in' clans. 2) Much like the QM system we have in place, create a 'lobby' for clan games instead of quick match games. This way, players can sign in to the 'ranked games' and go to a specialized ranked lobby (This also keeps some of the trash talk out of the cncnet gaming lobby :p). 3) Now that we have a lobby for ranked games, players can create 'tournament' games for the ranked single player ladder and also 'clan games' for clan games ranging from 1on1, 2on2, 3on3, 4on4. I believe all this is easily feasible in the current frame, am I wrong? @dkeeton @RaVaGe @Grant anyone in the know. I mean, we have the ranked lobby (you'd just have to make it visible like the cncnet lobby), we have the ladder and points system (all you'd have to do is make a new one that corresponds to the new clan ladder), the only hard part would be creating the clan environment in the webpages and I guess creating a lobby that corresponds to tournament games and clan games. Just spit-ballin a solution here.

Fun idea, but others already stated the flaws... and in terms of me.. I haven't played in years outside of the handful of QM's I did earlier this month. :p.

A clan ladder would be fantastic, but we (as a community) have many hurdles to jump over before we can get it active. I think it might be settled with a situation like this: Currently we have a QM system that takes players in and matches them. Maybe we can have a system that we log into and we join some sort of lobby where we can set up our own games (clan games obviously). That might work, I'm not sure tho! It would take some coding to get players logins to gain clan functionality, but that shouldn't be impossible. Then take more coding to create the lobby environment I'd imagine.

Looks like a fantastic map. I'd love to play it.

Wow, that's awesome. Thanks for the story there.

It boils down to different styles of play. In ranked games, SW's have always been on or at the very least random as we all have recognized the need for SW's to be on for most situations (lengthy discussions on that all over the board). So, the good news is -- you are right in your logic here. However, in most 'fun for all games' SW's become an annoyance for players as it forces games to end quicker than many intend. Many players enjoy playing big team battles and don't want that ruined by a 5 minute iron curtain rush of 8 invincible tanks. Instead, they'd like to build an army of 30 elite battle fortresses and play a massive game. There's really nothing wrong with that, but your logic based balance thinking is correct -- most of the time the soviet players get the shaft in the long games. Most of the very best players I've seen on CNCNet still are playing their FFG's with SW's on as to avoid camping games, but to each their own. That's the beauty of being the Host.

Just finished watching the #1 game France vs. Iraq. Huge mistake by blue to be sitting on 20k all game :p.

Well done, impressive job! Congrats all.

It's an interesting map. I agree with RaVaGe's comments here. I think it would be more interesting for the gems to be closer to the cliff edge as he stated. It would indeed be a much more strategic point of contention that way. You don't need to move the much, just 'hugging' the cliff point there. I also think having the 2 oils there is somewhat of an overkill. Players get early gems, early oil and then have middle gems. That's ALOT of big time money early on, yet there's no real ore for long games/longevity. Maybe I'd do away with the gems inside each person's base and make the ore much larger instead.

Those statistics in the game hub do NOT work correctly for anyone. I think it's a work in progress. Your stats for the month in ranked games can be found here: https://ladder.cncnet.org/ladder/9-2018/yr/player/El-deeb

Can you give us more specifics of what you are talking about? Do you have a link to the problem (stats)?

NEVER play at FPS 45 or lower in multiplayer. ALWAYS play at FPS 60 (aka MAX). The lower FPS almost always means the game will lag and you will be learning the game at a much slower play level than what you will need for the majority games AND you'll be pissing off whomever is playing with you.

The only worthwhile soviet team is IRAQ. For the allies you can play as America, Korea, and Great Britan. France and Yuri are almost always OFF-Limits in games due to how they disrupt the gameplay. DO NOT play as any other soviet faction other than Iraq or as Germany.

New thread idea: If you were to give ONE tip to a player who just recently joined the Ra2/YR CNCNet server what would it be? RULES: TRY not to double post the same tip. If you post the same tip as someone else, you are the newb :|. Try to keep it short. ONLY ONE TIP PER POST! Mine: DO NOT join games that are hosted and say "PRO only" or "GOOD PLAYERS" or "Pro". This will result in you getting laughed at, beaten up extremely quickly, and you will ruin everyone elses game.

Kinda cool... Looks like an extremely fun 1v1v1v1 or 2on2, but not such a good 1on1. It's not really good competitive-wise as there is too much dependence on the middle of the map, but it does look like a FUN map to play. Nice.

My first game in month(s)... ok I average about 1-2 games per month... Anyway, double count game vs Korc. https://ladder.cncnet.org/ladder/9-2018/yr/player/XXxPrePxX This shit needs to get under control. Messing up the system big time and it's highly detrimental to ladder credibility.

Few comments - HOF and the ladder is working beautifully. The points are very well distributed with the top players on top (Marko / Tim both extremely talented players). Love it. - These league champion threads are not really visible on the forums. I had to search for it rather than see it. ?

Yeah -- for me, anything can happen in any one game, but if you play a series with someone it shows some true colors (although, statistically there is some variation even still). I'd be more interested in watching a series on YouTube with 2 highly skilled players compared to just one game. Series tell stories.

Problem with your setup is tgat spot 6 would be doible teamed more often tgan not just by tge setup. I think 12 v 65 v 34 are best as it sets ip some good natural one on ones between the three

Wow, very cool. The maps look great. If I could make one request tho it would be that we need more interesting and competitive 4on4 maps. We don't have a ton of 8 player maps that are worthy of playing FFG's on as it stands. I imagine they are the toughest maps to make, tho.

One Soviet tactic that may have not been mentioned in this thread yet is the idea of splitting against BF's. there are occassional games where it makes a lot of sense to split your rhino army up to take out the BF army. Think of it as the BF is running away from your main rhino tanks you hit him on the side where he is running towards with your other rhino force. This is a wipe out of his BFs and works amazingly well. Problem with this is it is a bit map dependent and situational. Also much more difficult to pull off than other advice.

Sure you can battle BF's with Yuri's mind control and other BF's but that does nothing for the soviet player. BF's are usually not such a problem for other allied players or even much of an issue for yuri players... BF's are a direct assault against the soviet players. Terror drones will do absolutely nothing against BFs as they get killed instantly and even if you manage to get them into the BF almost every allied player will carry a engi ifv to immediately repair the BF. Tanks are your only combat. Siege choppers work as well in very long games, but they are unrealistic in short games and most 1on1's to counter BF's.