Kireeek

The patch is only going to target very specific under utilized units, as well as sub par factions with Quality of Life changes meant to improve the gameplay. The optional patch will stay as close and as true to the vanilla gameplay as possible. This will not become another Mental Omega or some super different special mod, so please stop bringing up that nonsense. Keep to the actual discussion regarding the changes, or mention things that can be improved upon.

By the way, that's the reason why the Allied Power Plant in this patch was reduced to $600. Although the Allied Power Plant gives the most base power between the 3 basic power plants, Allies have nothing else to generate electric power the way Yuri and Soviets do. Also, another great benefit of the cheaper Allied Power Plant: Grants Allies the ability to reach their Barracks and War Factory, at the same EXACT time as both Yuri and Soviets.

MustacheX is referring to the Nuclear Power Plant, a structure with 1000 health and concrete armor with +2000 Power. For a measly cost of 400 bucks (after selling your first 2 Tesla Reactors - gain 600 back total), a Soviet player has Electric Power for the rest of the game. All the while an Allied player has to constantly build Power Plants.

Read my above statement, such an utterly ridiculous thing to say when considering all the other new options and updates added by CnCnet since the XWIS days.

Well address this as time goes on, so far there hasn't been any issues with auto shoot Prism Tanks. This I believe only becomes an issue when you bring spied Prism Tanks to the mix. But the Iron Curtain still ensures that even spied Prism Tanks are as good as dead, even with their ability auto shoot. And yes we have tested auto shoot Prisms, typically just spamming them, you still lose to Rhinos. You need to specify why and how these changes are harmful, especially as an optional patch. Also, hardly any negative comments was levelled at CnCnet for adding new options like "Multi Engineer", "No Dog Kill Engineer", "Destroyable Bridges", "Up to 100k" in credits". These are new options added by CnCnet to add more flavor to the game. These functions were not present in the original release of the game. Please also specify why and how a patch like this, which is not for RA2 (but can be used for it) specifically tailored for Yuri's Revenge, which is to add quality of life gameplay improvements and buffing useless units / factions, making them more viable is considered to be harmful to gameplay? If anything, these changes add more to the game by diversifying the gameplay. We haven't touched the "normal" game. That's why its merely an option, the normal game will stay as is. Perhaps you can explain what exactly was good with Apocalypse Tanks having no ability to auto shoot, and yet their equivalent opposing faction level tier 3 units, such as Battle Fortresses and Masterminds have the ability to auto shoot? Hell, even MINERS could auto shoot. Such a ridiculous oversight, especially with regards to the already useless regular Tesla Tanks. You can whine and complain all day about "not touching the game". But CnCnet has already applied a multitude of changes to the base game such as up to 8-player online capability. The original server for RA2 could only accommodate up to 4 players per online game and 6 player per game in Yuri's Revenge". They've even added a built-in anti cheat firewall, a "Graphics Patch" allowing for bigger resolutions and fixing FPS lag. FPS lag was very apparent with a fairly large group of units or when you hovered your screen over a group of cloaked Mirage Tanks or travelling Kirovs, this even applied to a group of Prism tanks shooting at a single target, all of which caused the entire game to slow down. Are you gonna sit there and accept the lag from the original game, as released by the developers? At this point, I don't even think you can fathom the sheer amount of lag RA2 and Yuri's Revenge had back in the day. As ridiculous as it sounds, lag was very much an omnipresent feature and near integral part of the original gameplay. Back then, we just accepted that as fact. People could even cheat like map hacking left and right and you would never know. If there are ways to improve the game, and even the gameplay, better to do something rather nothing. As it stands however, this patch, as well as all the other feature options added by CnCnet will remain optional. If you don't want to play with this patch on, it is defaulted to off, you have the ability to keep it off, play the game as you see fit. You are not forced to use it. Your statement comes off as bit hypocritical given that you yourself release maps that have changes to the "normal gameplay", such as modded units, like faster Kirovs and even removing Grand Cannons.

Yep, I still play here and there, join us whenever you get the chance! "KrazySenpai" is "KrazyMarc" if you remember him, he was part of the games we played years ago.

Onion97... Onion97... Welcome back!

I've never had a problem with Allies in late game in Death Valley Girl, just to put it simply, mass Siege Choppers are incredibly good in that map. There's very little Allies can do against THAT many Siege Choppers camped up on the only two entrances with air fodder. Yes, it can get incredibly campy, too campy in fact however, Soviet's can Siege Walk towards the Allies, as they have no unit capable of reaching deployed Siege Choppers without losing Battle Fortresses or Prism Tanks.

I agree with this, Soviet's have a tremendous advantage in the early game, I think if Allies make it to late game, they should be rewarded for reaching that point in the game, after being harassed and bullied by the best basic tank in the game (Rhinos).

Typical, resort to ad hominem attacks, instead of engaging in a meaningful debate, not entirely unexpected from you. Not to mention, camping is part of warfare.

Random supers didn't seem to be an issue in XWIS Yuri's when it was Soviets vs Allies, Soviets still made it to the top of the ladder almost every month. The battle between Allies and Soviets is not entirely one sided, since (fortunately) Soviet's have Siege Choppers for late game against Allies. They can make for some decent defense, excellent harassing capabilities, or as air fodder against Battle Fortresses when chasing them with groups of Rhino Tanks. Heck, even a map like Hidden Valley, with many people considering it to be an Allied map with Supers off, Soviets have a good chance of defeating Allies if Siege Choppers are used. The issue I see here is, most Soviet players reliance on Rhino Tanks and ONLY Rhino Tanks as an army, all the while expecting it to work every game, whereas the idea for an RTS game is to utilize your arsenal to its full potential. Super's aren't always necessary, as it undermines a lot of strategies and units while rewarding "faceroll" style game play over meaningful strategical interactions between players. I will concede however, that Supers are needed against Yuri. I find the constant rush to Supers (map dependent of course) to be rather stale and boring, there needs to be more variety in game play. I say random supers should be on, except against Yuri. Honestly, what Soviet player will waste 1 Iron Curtain activation against 1 Battle Fortress? The Soviet player is playing it wrong, if this happens to be the case. 9 Rhinos is more than enough to kill 1 or 2 Battle Fortresses (without the Iron Curtain), heck you can even add a 3rd Fortress if you have a few Siege Choppers as air fodder.

This isn't for me, this is for the game. Also, you need to cease with your ad hominem attacks, we're simply having a discussion with regards to these units, keep it civil. Apocalypse Tanks may be decent against Mirage Tanks however, add Battle Fortresses into the mix and those Apocs are as good as dead. Why is it that when Allies and Yuri go to the Battle Lab, all of their Battle Lab level units are used? In pretty much every game for Soviets, it will always be Rhino Tanks, while Apocalypse Tanks are relegated to mostly Soviet on Soviet battles. At this point, it is clear that Apocalypse Tanks are lacking, I'm fairly certain that Apocalypse Tanks were intended by the developer to be used every game, otherwise why add a unit with a very limited application? Apocalypse Tanks are meant to be used, its like you said this is "the ultimate Soviet Tank" however, there's nothing "ultimate" about these units if most people never build them. They just don't offer enough benefits to warrant building an army of these tanks. Rhino Tanks, in most scenarios will always be the better tank. Once again, CTRL+SHIFT is not the same as "shoot move", it is much simpler to control your armies if they auto fire, as there is no need for an additional command to get them to fire. This is again, the reason Rhinos are superior. By having one less command to initiate, the player is free to micromanage their armies during a battle. For example, whenever I send my Rhino Tanks to battle an opposing army, the first Rhino in the line of fire is immediately directed towards the back of the line, I repeat this step of rotating my units, in order to minimize my losses, attempting this with units while using CTRL+SHIFT is difficult, even more so if you are chasing an army.

There's barely been any player that uses Apocs aside from myself. Soviet players will not be making Apocs, especially Soviets vs Allies in tier 3 late game. By making Apocs, the Soviet player is deliberately handicapping themselves against late game Allies. For the price of one Apoc, you can make two Rhinos that can catch Battle Fortresses and overrun an Allied army along with Desolators. Apocalypse Tanks are DEFINITELY better than Rhinos in terms of utility, power and health however, because of their inability to "shoot move" for such an expensive unit, it isn't worth building these tanks in Yuri's Revenge. They are too easily harassed and require too much micromanagement to make them of any use. This weakness is not on the Battle Fortress or Mastermind.

These units are in dire need of an upgrade, they are almost never used, even with "CTRL + SHIFT". Apocalypse Tanks and especially Tesla Tanks have a very, very limited application in Yuri's Revenge, their usability is hindered by the fact that they are unable to shoot units while running away, nor chase units effectively, CTRL + SHIFT does not grant the same benefits as "Shoot Move". Under CTRL + SHIFT, the tanks have to shoot, then stop, then move. "Shoot Move" is the reason Rhino Tanks outclass the more expensive and higher tier Tesla Tanks and Apocalypse Tanks. Rhino Tanks have the ability to attack units that are chasing them or vice versa, this gives Rhino Tanks a tremendous advantage over those units. If Apocalypse Tanks and Tesla Tanks HAD this ability, this would help them greatly in their mobility, while also granting them the ability to kite if on the retreat. Apocalypse Tanks are the tier 3 equivalent of Battle Fortresses and Masterminds. They are supposed to be improved version's of Rhino Tanks, this is reflected on their status as a Battle Lab unit, with a cost almost double that of Rhino Tanks. They NEED to be better than Rhino Tanks, and should be a unit that Soviet players can see as a unit, worthy of inclusion into their armies. In the MX maps, the Apocalypse Tanks were granted the ability to "Shoot Move", this made them much more usable. Soviet players in Supers or Non-Supers games would make these tanks because their limitation was removed. They are much, MUCH better because of "Shoot Move".

To simplify this thread, would people agree with these minor changes to these underused tanks and units: Apocalypse Tank: Shoot on the move (Like Rhinos) Tesla Tank: Shoot on the move (Like Rhinos) Tank Destroyer: Range increase (Same range as Rhinos) Tesla Trooper: Range increase (Forget Yuri for now, these are changes so simple, I think most people would agree with these.)

Hey @XXxPrePxX, I am glad you remember the epic EvB games we had on XWIS from my clan (Dustco) years ago. I figured I would chime in, I have had that same exact issue happen on multiple occasions on EvB, being a map that my clan / group has definitely enjoyed over the years. I am aware of this "code of honor" for that map. One way to deal with players who attempt to move far into the opposing team's Oil Derrick, which they then expect help from an ally to build Sentries / Pills, is to turn off "Build Off Ally", the player that attempts to move too far into enemy territory, is more than likely to lose (they lose precious build time), this almost always works for me and prevents these "player(s)" from attempting these shenanigans a second time. This works if you are obviously hosting the game however, I have had many instances of persuading the host of another game to turn off "Build of Ally", by calling them out and challenging them.

Conspiracy: GI's back flip and have happy sounding death screams when they die. Is this a ploy to get people to join the army?

Return back to the topic and take this nonsense elsewhere, where are the moderators?

First off, the pricing is wrong: Apocalypse Tank = 1750 x 5 = 8750 Grizzly Tank = 700 x 15 = 10500 I left the pricing for the Apocalypse Tanks as normal, due to the fact that the Allies have an Ore Purifier, which gives 25% extra income from ANY source (Miners, Oils and Crates). While the Soviet Industrial Plant reduces the price of tanks by 25%. Also, you are talking about a Tier 1 unit (Grizzly Tank) vs a Tier 3 unit (Apocalypse Tank), even in normal Yuri's Revenge, Apocalypse Tanks (using Ctrl + Shift of course) WILL more than likely win vs Grizzly Tanks, especially in a head on battle (good tank control can give the edge to the Grizzly Tank player). Oh and by the way, I believe the Grizzly Tanks in the MX version have a better chance of winning, due to the fact they have a boost in range (from 5 to 6) and build much faster. The point you are tying to make about a head on battle, between Apocalypse Tanks and Grizzly Tanks, with the Apocalypse Tanks winning (therefore they are overpowered) is questionable.

I still do not understand how people cannot see that Apocalypse Tanks, still have the same weaknesses (they are far from being overpowered). Guardian GI Battle Fortresses, mass Mirage Tanks, Masterminds, Terror Drones, Chaos Drones just to name a few, are extremely effective against Apocalypse Tanks. Also, Apocalypse Tanks have a weakness to fodderized air units / projectiles, just like Guardian GI Battle Fortresses have the same weakness, if you have a group of Grizzly Tanks, by making just a few Rocketeers, the Apocalypse Tanks will re-direct their fire to the Rocketeers OR Siege Choppers (if you are using Rhino Tanks), those Apocalypse Tanks are as good as dead. The reason the MX mod has Apocalypse Tanks (shoot on the move and slow startup removed) was because they were too underwhelming for a Tier 3 unit, while other Tier 3 units like the Masterminds and Battle Fortresses have no such limitations. In normal Yuri's Revenge, you may as well use Tier 1 Rhino Tanks which also, do not have these limitations. These are the main reasons as to why people avoided building Apocalypse Tanks. As MustacheX pointed out, the purpose of the MX mod is to make unviable units more viable. If certain units truly become a problem or are lacking, MustacheX will address those concerns accordingly, this has happened time and time again, especially with regards to Tesla Tank tuning over the past two years.

You need be specific for the developers so they can look into it. What is not working properly about it? I've already downloaded new maps under the new client. I clearly stated in the heading "Custom Maps". For most players, custom maps are not working. Very sure this is fixed already, it is for me. Again, most people still have this as an issue. AFAIK you can play the same maps in different modes and the reason they probably locked it is because YR did so I believe. However, this limit the people that play random teams I guess (random spawns and allying in-game based on left vs right) They had this feature enabled for the previous client, it was a step forward with regards to map playability in the case of random teams. No comment on this one. Its very mixed based on host if on or off's are hosted. QM was off, so I guess default should be off. The message should be changed in general. The message now also happens on different versions, while on the old client it would state 'Person x is on incompatible version *older version*. He may have compatibility issues" while now the person is being 'threaten' as a cheater right away. I am not sure if it isn't working however, or if people that get it are indeed playing on an older version (or the host is). Regardless, the message STRING need to be changed IMO. Suggested it to Rampastring already and pretty sure he will implement it at the top nav bar!

As the name of the topic suggests, these are the issues I and many others have identified with regards to the new CnCnet Yuri's client when compared to the previous client: Custom Maps: - Map transfers are not working properly - Map previews are also non-functional Game Lobby: - Team Alliance maps no longer allow "In-game Allying", please re-enable this feature - Posting links in the game lobby is no longer possible, please re-enable this feature - Crates are on default, this should be off as it was in the previous client - This message is active for everyplayer that joins regardless of the host: "Modified files detected! They could be cheating" (turn this message off until it actually functions as intended) CnCnet Lobby: - Highlighting a player's name in the previous CnCnet client will reveal which game they are currently in, please re-enable this feature - Options should be available in the CnCnet lobby just like the previous client

Depending on your timezone, the match was to take place simultaneously on Tuesday AND Wednesday. Below are the posts from which confirmed the match was to take place at the specified time, please take note of the time stamps of each post. Andy posting the time of the upcoming match scheduled for Tuesday, November 22nd at 4 PM Pacific Time. This midnight tonight for me i think? Should be do-able. ZiGZaG's response to Andy, which for his timezone is scheduled for Wednesday, November 23rd at 12 AM Greenwich Mean Time. I think in order to avoid possible future conflict and confusion, specify the actual time of the match using the timezones of greatest difference with the day mentioned (in this case Pacific (PST) and Greenwich (GMT)) to all players and even the tournament organizers to avoid the confusion.

I find this whole scenario strange. A match is started where it seems all parties were expected to be available at a certain time. Confirmations were made in this forum within the past few days that this match is to take place. The match then abruptly put on hold with a lead of 3-1 in favour of Korc and naWb. From what I gather, there is now a possible disqualification being put in place, because of the potential bombshell of a discussion coming from SiRaLeX's Skype conversation with Andy. The topic in the conversation about "substituting" a player in place of ZiGZaG, with the result of the apparent impersonation of said player, which effectively mislead everyone involved and watching. There are parts of this that do not seem to add up, teammates are almost always in CONSTANT communication with one another, especially in a tournament setting using live chat services such as Skype and or Discord. Not only was this foolish, but it is straight up deceit to acknowledge said player is online, when clearly he is not (according to the evidence from the admin FunkyFr3sh). I'll put it this way, for whatever the reason, it seems like a certain player purposely deceived the people involved with the tournament. If all parties CANNOT be made available due to some unforeseen circumstances, make it known to the tournament organizers and the opposing team to postpone the match, to a time, which takes into consideration the timezones of all parties in the match is ACTUALLY made available. When I took part in the 1v1 Tournament hosted by Kinkys3x a few months back, all parties met in skype to confirm identities and that no impersonation was involved. THIS should be done with any upcoming series to avoid any chance of their being a 3rd party involved, with cases of impersonation rampant on CnCnet due to the lack of nickname registration which would solve this issue outright. This perhaps may be the best course of action to avoid impersonation at all costs.