Is Allied vs Soviet Balanced?

[MapDesigner]

22 hours ago, Plokite_Wolf said:

You call the most OP ship in the game bad?

Well, I am not sure about the numbers, but cnc wiki says it does less damage than dreadnought and have shorter range as well. that is what it feels like too.

21 hours ago, ore_truck said:

 

Spy plane is not useless at all, just because it is an inferior map reveal method doesn't mean it is useless. If you're having trouble with spy planes, then you're doing it wrong.

it is actually useless sometimes. e.g. try playing vs 7 brutal AI and tell me what you can get out of it. You send it to the camp in the left of the map, she comes from the right and dies to the other AI camps. lol.

 

 

21 hours ago, ore_truck said:

are you saying allies better vision is because of the spy satellite (since you mentioned late game)? because allies doesn't need that, people usually scout most of the map with rocketeers early in the game, the spy sat uplink is just a bonus "scout" for the late game, and unless you're playing freaking huge maps or ffa, people don't need spy satellite uplink if they scouted well with rocketeers, the spy satellite would only risk their shrouds getting reset and waste some energy.

I am actually playing a huge FFA map.

21 hours ago, ore_truck said:

You were saying about prisms can outrange most defenses without acknowledging anything about the V3s. The point is: at least soviet does have a long range base defense killer. We're not saying V3s are better than prism tanks, but just because it's worse doesn't mean it is entirely useless. Remember, soviet has tank advantage so they don't need a superior long range like the prism tank. The allies send their crappy grizzlies and tank destroyers while their prism tanks do a good long range support. Soviets have their crappy V3 launchers but their superior tanks does the main job.

well v3 might work vs allies cuz their crappy AA, but vs soviets it never ever worked for me(Except in masses of 15+ with no efficiency and lot of waste). the only reason I ever made v3 launchers before is becuz they are cool and they were cool at the starting scene. not becuz I particularly needed them nor becuz I couldnt win without them. In fact I always could win more easily without them but I create them for the sake of it.

21 hours ago, ore_truck said:

the allies are supposed to be better in vision techniques, the real question here is why is the allies have powerful units? I agree the battle fortress does give them a huge tank advantage . totally forgot about those since I played RA2 multiplayer more than YR because how I dislike battle fortress and guardian GIs, they made soviet's supposedly supremacy on the ground easily rivaled. the only thing that's holding them back is their price tag. I always preferred it's the soviets who should have the most powerful ground unit and is only held back by its cost (and maybe speed). I didn't completely disagree with you about Allies being too powerful compared to the Soviets. They are very powerful in late games and you are right about hit and runs being too powerful.

am I the only one who play Yuri? O_O

do people play tournaments in RA2 or Yuri? I thought people do not choose Yuri because they think slaves are bad for mining as they die easily (esp since all sovs choose iraq lol).

becuz I was only having yuri in mind lol

21 hours ago, ore_truck said:

I do have doubts when people say Allies and Soviet are balanced in RA2, it's just that the reasons why you said allies are better are not good examples, I mean if you talked about how allied late-units allow them to go toe-to-toe with soviet's tank and numerical superiority while still keeping their surveillance, air power, base-cloaking, instantaneous traveling, hit and run, etc advantage, I would say you give good arguments but you mostly complained about advantages the allies should have like how they shouldn't have chrono-mining, superior scout and gap generators and the soviets should have them instead(lol)... and then you talked about the factions are not balanced because dreadnaught missiles can't reveal shroud or how it sucks at defending itself and destroyer's ability to shoot land makes allies overpowered???

PS you might find some errors and contradictions just ignore them it's 6 AM and im tired...

well I think we are actually not too far apart. we both agree that allies having both better vision and tanks is the imbalance. You think they should lose their strong tanks, while I think they should lose a bit of their vision control xD

 

the ACC and destroyer are playing an important role in the vision control. they can clear a little bit of the shroud and then order the ACC to attack something. then the hornet from ACC clear a bit more so allies can attack even further. 

 

soviets just dont have this luxury. so it isnt just the spy+gap generator. its almost all around. if we could attack the balck shroud then dreadnought would certainly be better. the rockies too play part in that. it is just... superior

 

16 hours ago, Blazer said:

pro sovs are never going to let you kill their stuff with harriers.it's possible sometimes with blackeagles, but still very hard to do it against pro players.kirov succeed in doing damage more imo.(all is about your control in both cases)

what would you do if 8 eagles went from the allies base down to the centre of the ocean and then came from behind of your base. you would re act if you had spy satelite.

16 hours ago, Blazer said:

 

sovs have a big advantage in the early game due to many facts. in the late game also, there are a lot of maps that sovs are again favored with their op sw.there's nothing there that really says sovs have to win the early game and allieds should win the late game.(it's all about your  control!)

what maps are better for sovs and which are better for allies? also same question to you: do you pllay RA2 or Yuri?

 

hmmm, do you think it is balanced that allies have late game and sovs have early? O.o

I think they should both have mixture of both. if someone have early game he will always rush me and I will always try to delay until late game lol.

16 hours ago, Blazer said:

 

very useless thing to talk about because we already said the purpose for making ACCs/Dreadnoughts is not doing some **** anti navy attack.

it seems you didnt even read it

I wasnt even talking about defending themselves.

here we go again, let me quote it "I forgot to mention what probably is the ultimate reason why Air craft carrier is better than dread: that hornet airplane gives vision and can discover enemy base for you, but dreadnoughts missiles on the other hand do not give any vision. I was surprised to find this out. V3 rocket launcher missiles do give vision along their path. yes dreads are better damage dealers than ACC and can kill many infantry, but you cant attack the fog (as far as I know) so they need something else for vision. I always have to send some scout unit with them (seige chopper), which is quite expensive for scout. On the other hand, hornet is for free." end quote

 

 

16 hours ago, Blazer said:

 

yes we can't compare v3 with prism tanks since v3 is a tire 2 unit and prism is tier 3. so prisms should be better overall since they can be also used in tank fights. you don't need 10 v3s to do something people don't usually use more than 4-5 v3s to deal damage to the enemy base since it's enough90% of the time. a harrier kills a v3 in 1 shot? i thought it kills a prism in 1 shot also! again v3 vs dread is another useless thing to mention. v3s are tier 2 and dreads are the strongest anti land tier3 units.and about v3 and prism damaga: i haven't tried to see if their damage is the smae, but prism attack is no way 2x than v3 attack. the only adv for prism is that it's attack can't be countered while v3 missiles can be countered with AA. plus, they have a faster reload(tier3)

lol sorry I didnt know that. I only found out about harrier killing v3 from allied campaign. and I win allied campaigns very easily just with 6 radars strike conyard strike warfac strike barracks and he sell everything lol. I couldnt test harrier vs 1 prism tank. anyway sovs dont have harrier to repel prism tank XD

 

its like saying "flak cannons completely counter even lot of v3's". its true but allies do not have flak cannons. if v3 is bad, then allies AA is (maybe) equally bad and so v3 can be of some use.

 

 

16 hours ago, Blazer said:

 

idk why that link couldn't help you out, but sov - iraq = nothing. desos are more important than tanks for sovs against allied/yuri.it's true that it's a very tough unit, but it can be countered with many ways in YR(that article was about ra2)

that link couldnt help becuz its talking about iraq not about sovs. Deso is imba? fine, ban it. lets move discussion a bit further and discussion soviets stuff other than deso. yes deso is imba I agree. pretend I picked russia now. still imba?

 

he bassically mentioned soviets strengths and then said all alies strenths are countered by desolators so sovs are imba.

 

16 hours ago, Blazer said:

 

if you'd have enough knowledge of the game, you'd know that sov doesn't need anymore! in fact, some features should be even reduced like deso power and ic regen time.now that you claim that allieds are op, how many games can you win a pro sov with allied in a series?tbh with what i've read in your posts, i actually think 0 and the series is going to be over in less than 20 mins. it's true that allieds have  good hit and run and better tech units, but they require so much skill to use. sov isn't as hard to master.

a top sov can always win a top allied in series guaranteed(ra2). in YR, they're somehow same but sovs still have some adv again.

lol, im not pro player. I dont even know how to play online, YET!

 

I just posted what I felt like after finishing allied and soviet campaigns and that I lose with sovs even when I strike with 5 kirovs but I only need 6 radars and 1 strike to win almost any aliied mission (or some ACCs), and that with soviets I couldnt do anything like that becuz never had any vision and will never be able to utilize my dreadnoughts to full potential, unliss maybe I capture allied barracks and bring some scout rockies.

8 hours ago, FReQuEnZy said:

[CMIN] ; Chrono Miner
Strength=1000
Armor=medium
Harvester=yes
Storage=20

[HARV] ;War-Miner
Strength=1000
Armor=medium
Harvester=yes
Storage=40

Source: rulesmd.ini (game files). As you can see above the storage of the war miner is twice of the Chrono miner.

 

[V3Cluster] ;V3 Missile
Damage=80
ROF=80
Range=6
Speed=20

[Comet] ;Prism Beam Weapon (for the tank)
Damage=100
ROF=100
Range=10
Speed=40

Source: rulesmd.ini (game files). As you can see above the Prism tank deals 20 points of more damage per shot than a v3 missile.

 

[LCRF] ; Allied Landing Craft
Strength=300
Armor=light

[SAPC] ; Soviet Landing Craft
Strength=300
Armor=heavy

[YHVR] ; Yuri Landing Craft
Strength=300
Armor=heavy

Source: rulesmd.ini (game files). As you can see above the, all the naval transports have the same amount of hitpoints, however, the armour of both the Soviet & Yuri transports is set to heavy.

hmmm

 

I didnt know about these files. anyway, I couldnt find rulesmd.ini I only found rulesmd.dat it should be the same right? (I found same info you said is in there) but the .ini was ra2.ini and ra2md.ini is what I could find (and it has some settings and not units info)

[Plokite_Wolf]

52 minutes ago, MapDesigner said:

Well, I am not sure about the numbers, but cnc wiki says it does less damage than dreadnought and have shorter range as well. that is what it feels like too.

The missiles themselves do deal less damage than those of the Dreadnought, but you are still getting a combined Typhoon Attack Sub and a slightly nerfed Dreadnought for the price of the latter before you get a Battle Lab.

 

I didnt know about these files. anyway, I couldnt find rulesmd.ini I only found rulesmd.dat it should be the same right? (I found same info you said is in there) but the .ini was ra2.ini and ra2md.ini is what I could find (and it has some settings and not units info)

You must be new to RA2 file structure.

The core INI files that define the rules, units/buildings/weapons etc. are found within the MIX files, mostly ra2.mix and ra2md.mix. Accessible using XCC Utilities.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Plokite_Wolf

[ore_truck]

17 minutes ago, MapDesigner said:

it is actually useless sometimes. e.g. try playing vs 7 brutal AI and tell me what you can get out of it. You send it to the camp in the left of the map, she comes from the right and dies to the other AI camps. lol.

So, you're making judgements because it sucks in a 7 AI game?

And I quote: "Gameplay experience may differ online"

21 minutes ago, MapDesigner said:

am I the only one who play Yuri? O_O

Is this relevant?

21 minutes ago, MapDesigner said:

well v3 might work vs allies cuz their crappy AA, but vs soviets it never ever worked for me(Except in masses of 15+ with no efficiency and lot of waste). the only reason I ever made v3 launchers before is becuz they are cool and they were cool at the starting scene. not becuz I particularly needed them nor becuz I couldnt win without them. In fact I always could win more easily without them but I create them for the sake of it.

In a 7 brutal skirmish game again? That's because the brutal AI always cheats money and have flaks all over their base. Human players don't play like AI because building flaks all over the base consumes a lot of cash. They're better using those cash for more tanks.

31 minutes ago, MapDesigner said:

pretend I picked russia now. still imba?

You have every rights to say Allies is overpowered.

33 minutes ago, MapDesigner said:

I think they should both have mixture of both. if someone have early game he will always rush me and I will always try to delay until late game lol.

I played a lot of Tiberian Dawn online GDI vs Nod before, I know the horrors getting rushed when you have late advantage (it is kinda fun actually). But the Allies do have advantage early in the game, Guardian GIs counter rhinos (im talking YR) and Soviets isn't all bad late at game, they have Iron Curtain and the apocalypse tank which can still put up a fight against BFs and chrono legionaires. But I agree, it is less luxury for the sov as they need to put in more effort to keep up.

44 minutes ago, MapDesigner said:

lol, im not pro player. I dont even know how to play online, YET!

Explains a lot.

 

45 minutes ago, MapDesigner said:

I just posted what I felt like after finishing allied and soviet campaigns and that I lose with sovs even when I strike with 5 kirovs but I only need 6 radars and 1 strike to win almost any aliied mission (or some ACCs), and that with soviets I couldnt do anything like that becuz never had any vision and will never be able to utilize my dreadnoughts to full potential, unliss maybe I capture allied barracks and bring some scout rockies.

Doesn't mean Soviets are as bad as you think. They're just comparatively bad for new players.

And I think you should try using desolators more, they are extremely helpful against Allies. And play with real people not just computer because soviet's advantage isn't too effective against how the computers cheat play. The best way to learn soviet's full glory is lose against real soviet opponent as allies and see how they do it. You'll realize they aren't as bad as you think.

Tl,dr

I'm not gonna say your thoughts about Allies being more powerful is wrong, but you underestimated Soviet more than they deserve. Here's why, you said:

1. Soviet lack vision because spy plane is useless: Spy planes are not useless, maybe worse than psychic reveal and spy satt but they are still very useful.

2. Dreadnaught missiles can't reveal shrouds: doesn't matter in most games, you are playing soviets the wrong way if you need missiles to reveal their base.

3. Allies are pwerful in late stages of the game: I agree, especially with no superweapons but that doesn't mean soviets have no chance of winning.

4. V3s are bad: Only against brutal AI who has a million AA or when you're comparing them to prism tanks. Otherwise, they can still do harm.

5. Kirovs are bad air units compared to jets: because they are too slow to run away from AA, but that doesn't matter if kirovs reach the enemy base. But lets say the allied player is not dumb and will send AA to attack kirovs before they reach base and how are the kirovs gonna run away? soviets can escort kirovs and make those AA run away instead. Then you say allied air power is better because they are faster and doesn't need escort, but 8 black eagles (expensive!) can only destroy 1 or 2 buildings and maybe 0 if the base is filled wit AA (jets have low armor) but 3 kirovs ($6000) can at least destroy 3 buildings before dying in a base filled with AA if they all attack different buildings.

 

[fir3w0rx]

I think it's more realistic to look at the balance based on gameplay rather than mathematically (based on ini files). I mean, for example, it's true that

• Sov miners can carry 2x more than Allied miners = Allied miners only have to travel 1/2 as much as Sov miners

 

but in reality it goes a little bit further than that:

• Allied miners cannot shoot drones, but they can chrono-shift and leave the drone behind. On the other hand, Sov miners can shoot drones, but requires a service depot to remove the drone.
• Sov miners can defend themselves from (small) unseen tank splits, but it's Allied counter part can quickly chrono-shift away from it.
• Allied miners can chrono-shift to the next ore patch (including other islands), which makes harvesting more efficient in long games; Sov miners have to drive to their next patch (sometimes around cliffs, rivers or even transported to another island), but can be used to end matches.

Also relating to ore:

• Allies have the Ore Purifier, but by the time it's built (after Radar, Tech Center and more power), it's Sov opponent will already have at least 2 more warfactories.

 

My point is that once the basic .ini values have been written and are mathematically balanced, whether it's the vanilla version, a mod, or an entirely new rts game, the rest of the balancing/tweaking should be done ENTIRELY based on gameplay, and that .ini files should only be looked at when changing values, not when analysing the balance.

Edited September 9, 2017 by fir3w0rx

[FlyingMustache]

4 hours ago, fir3w0rx said:

I think it's more realistic to look at the balance based on gameplay rather than mathematically (based on ini files). I mean, for example, it's true that

• Sov miners can carry 2x more than Allied miners = Allied miners only have to travel 1/2 as much as Sov miners

 

but in reality it goes a little bit further than that:

• Allied miners cannot shoot drones, but they can chrono-shift and leave the drone behind. On the other hand, Sov miners can shoot drones, but requires a service depot to remove the drone.
• Sov miners can defend themselves from (small) unseen tank splits, but it's Allied counter part can quickly chrono-shift away from it.
• Allied miners can chrono-shift to the next ore patch (including other islands), which makes harvesting more efficient in long games; Sov miners have to drive to their next patch (sometimes around cliffs, rivers or even transported to another island), but can be used to end matches.

Also relating to ore:

• Allies have the Ore Purifier, but by the time it's built (after Radar, Tech Center and more power), it's Sov opponent will already have at least 2 more warfactories.

 

My point is that once the basic .ini values have been written and are mathematically balanced, whether it's the vanilla version, a mod, or an entirely new rts game, the rest of the balancing/tweaking should be done ENTIRELY based on gameplay, and that .ini files should only be looked at when changing values, not when analysing the balance.

That's how I mod. Based on gameplay and what each faction needs.

[ZiGZaG]

On 05/09/2017 at 2:27 PM, MapDesigner said:

Hello,

 

it seems to me that allies are much more powerful than the soviets are. Here are the reasons:

 

1. Air planes are much faster than soviet Kirov airship. Construction yard can be easily killed with couple of Allied radars.
2. They have superior vision and map control with both spy satellite and gap generator. Imo the gab generator should have been for the soviets to balance the spy satelite.
3. Their naval units can invade lands and clear the shores to help deploying troops from transports. 
4. Their airship carrier can defend itself much better than Dreadnought 
5. Prism tanks can outrange most defenses. Yes apocalypse is good but cannot attack from afar.
6. Chrono miner can teleport to any refinery. This make re-arrangment and retreat much easier.

that is basically the main reason. All of the above makes the allies capable of out maneuvering the soviets. yes soviets are strong but are quite static and cannot move fast (appocalypse + airship). rockies, harriers, and prism tanks can out maneuver the soviet units.

 

what do you think?

Short Game - Sovs > Allies

Long Game (w/o superweapons) - Allies > Sovs

Long Game with Super's - Depends on map.

 

All if this obviously depends on player  it's a mistake to compare the likes of harriers with kirovs. 

 

Also if you try kill an mcv early game with harriers rhinos will overpower u. If u try it late game the Soviet will have flak. 4 flak tracks with good control will shoot all them down before they get near. In the event they don't 1 well timed click to move the mcv dodges all the missiles. 

Allies do have better vision especially in large maps but a few dogs and even a flak track if necessary sorts that out.

 

3. - So can sovs

4. Not really

5. Siege choppers > prisims

 

Apocalypse and kirovs aren't used that much rhinos get around the map just fine.

 

 

[XXxPrePxX]

Zig is correct! One thing I'll add regarding the miner conversation is to stress the high importance that soviet miners have a gun on them (compared to allied miners). In 1on1, highly competitive games, that Sov miner will often win you close games, especially if you are rushing / enemy allied player rushes. That is easily accountable for a set of wins per month as a huge advantage. So often vs allied players I'd get into a pickle with a rush on a map like blood feud or even heck freezes over top vs top where I'd go kamikazee and send my miners with me to attack and completely pummel a seemingly-stronger allied opponent due to the miners.

In particular, on a situation like Heck Freezes Over where you are spot 1 and enemy is spot 2 (top vs top), and the allied player is trying to tech up and have his prism towers, the only hopes for the soviet are to tech up and try the boris/kirov, but if that fails, the next hope is to attack kamikazee style with 5-6 miners and infantry/rhinos. That usually works unless the opponent you are facing is an incredible player.

[[CC] RaVaGe]

Ohh don't forget the games where you only have a war miner left and the opponent naval stretched, but the war miner's gun can reach it! 
Winning an otherwise stalemate game.

[[CC] RaVaGe]

16 hours ago, MapDesigner said:

 didnt know about these files. anyway, I couldnt find rulesmd.ini I only found rulesmd.dat it should be the same right? (I found same info you said is in there) but the .ini was ra2.ini and ra2md.ini is what I could find (and it has some settings and not units info)

4

Get XCC Utilities, use XCC mixer to open Ra2MD.mix > Open localmd.mix > rulesmd.ini

[Lucifer]

On 9/9/2017 at 7:52 AM, XXxPrePxX said:

Zig is correct! One thing I'll add regarding the miner conversation is to stress the high importance that soviet miners have a gun on them (compared to allied miners). In 1on1, highly competitive games, that Sov miner will often win you close games, especially if you are rushing / enemy allied player rushes. That is easily accountable for a set of wins per month as a huge advantage. So often vs allied players I'd get into a pickle with a rush on a map like blood feud or even heck freezes over top vs top where I'd go kamikazee and send my miners with me to attack and completely pummel a seemingly-stronger allied opponent due to the miners.

In particular, on a situation like Heck Freezes Over where you are spot 1 and enemy is spot 2 (top vs top), and the allied player is trying to tech up and have his prism towers, the only hopes for the soviet are to tech up and try the boris/kirov, but if that fails, the next hope is to attack kamikazee style with 5-6 miners and infantry/rhinos. That usually works unless the opponent you are facing is an incredible player.

ive seen countless games decided by exactly what you describe with the soviet sentrygun-moving, warfactory-armored, miragetank-ranged, fodder-killing, mirage-prism killing, anti-scouting, anti-laming,  split-defense fodder/ basetrade fodder, navalstretch-killing, chronolegionaire-killing, quicktech-punishing, deso-immuned behemoth whos mere presence maintains winnable situations that would  otherwise be unwinable all while collecting fucking ore, boys. It can even metamorphize into an apocolypse tank if it somehow ever finds elite status. 

 

One of the very few things mentioned in this topic that has any relevance. 

 

 

if ya'll think allies are good... you are overlooking things. While the chronosphere is very good, it is far more possible to fuck up, has a longer cooldown, is harder to build first due to what we can refer to as the "allied power problem" --AOP--. Oh, and it doesnt make units INVULNERABLE     l0l

The AOP is the #1 reason why sov > allied  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[XXxPrePxX]

ive seen countless games decided by exactly what you describe with the soviet sentrygun-moving, warfactory-armored, miragetank-ranged, fodder-killing, mirage-prism killing, anti-scouting, anti-laming,  split-defense fodder/ basetrade fodder, navalstretch-killing, chronolegionaire-killing, quicktech-punishing, deso-immuned behemoth whos mere presence maintains winnable situations that would  otherwise be unwinable all while collecting fucking ore, boys. It can even metamorphize into an apocolypse tank if it somehow ever finds elite status. 

 

Post of the year material.

 

[VWWWWWWWWWWW]

There are still topics like this..?

At start of game, allies is very weak. Allies usually has to rely on hit/run and using distractions with para and air units to be effective. this shit costs money that you don't have at the beginning of the game. Rhinos can target pills while being out of range from griz. Allies basically has to cause sov to make mistakes to survive a good rush. On yr, allies have a free rush stopper called a guardian, tho. Ra2 = hard mode.  If you get to tech, which is allies main strength, you are very vulnerable for a short time, because sov will usually have 1 or 2 more wars than you prior to you getting mirage or prisms out. Very hard to cover splits or any kind of attack at that time. If you survive that, and are able to build up, now you have to worry about expanding your base for more ore because it still takes only 1 deso bomb to kill all your shit. It's much easier for sov to expand their base. If you survive that as well, now better hope SW is off cuz IC usually makes games vs allies a free win. Oh, and sov can make multiple mistakes and still recover, while allies can potentially lose from one mistake. 

That being said, if you're boss as allies, you will overcome all that (vs most people). 

But if you're playing on YR, many people play retarded campfest maps where you really only need to sit there while your opponent has 1-2 tiny entrances they can attack from, in which case. the skill level involved is so diminished none of what I said even matters really.

 

[scalpem]

2 hours ago, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

There are still topics like this..?

At start of game, allies is very weak. Allies usually has to rely on hit/run and using distractions with para and air units to be effective. this shit costs money that you don't have at the beginning of the game. Rhinos can target pills while being out of range from griz. Allies basically has to cause sov to make mistakes to survive a good rush. On yr, allies have a free rush stopper called a guardian, tho. Ra2 = hard mode.  If you get to tech, which is allies main strength, you are very vulnerable for a short time, because sov will usually have 1 or 2 more wars than you prior to you getting mirage or prisms out. Very hard to cover splits or any kind of attack at that time. If you survive that, and are able to build up, now you have to worry about expanding your base for more ore because it still takes only 1 deso bomb to kill all your shit. It's much easier for sov to expand their base. If you survive that as well, now better hope SW is off cuz IC usually makes games vs allies a free win. Oh, and sov can make multiple mistakes and still recover, while allies can potentially lose from one mistake. 

That being said, if you're boss as allies, you will overcome all that (vs most people). 

But if you're playing on YR, many people play retarded campfest maps where you really only need to sit there while your opponent has 1-2 tiny entrances they can attack from, in which case. the skill level involved is so diminished none of what I said even matters really.

 

can u give examples of the campfest maps 

[XXxPrePxX]

TOE, Sedona Pass, EvB to name a few. Of course, these maps don't always have to be campy, but I think it tells the story that 3 of the most popular maps (arguably the two most popular by far - toe/sedona) are made for camping with the play style. (how many times have you had to take on someone on sedona who camps on their cliff, etc. 

 

[Lucifer]

9 hours ago, scalpem said:

can u give examples of the campfest maps 

its not the maps as much as it is the game; camping is often the smartest thing to do

[Gun_Man]

well maps that ra2 players tend to play are not campy - like heck, caverns, etc.  maps that people tend to complain about on cnc

[VWWWWWWWWWWW]

10 hours ago, Lucifer said:

its not the maps as much as it is the game; camping is often the smartest thing to do

There's a huge difference camping on Heck/Jungle and some of the horrible maps people play. You can camp on any map. But if you need a map where you can ONLY camp, then you're just trash. 

I don't know the names of the YR maps. An ra2 map that is similar to some YR maps is MayDay. Maps like that are ok sometimes, since the gameplay is different. But it eliminates much of the multi tasking and early pressure etc. It's simplified. I mean you can play noobs on Mayday and have a good game because you don't have to be great to camp at a bridge and make navy.

[FlyingMustache]

13 hours ago, Lucifer said:

its not the maps as much as it is the game; camping is often the smartest thing to do

Yeah, what he said. ^ Don't let people fool you into swallowing only their playstyle. That's the most arrogant idea some players will spew. "My favorite gameplay is pro, everything else is trash."

[Gun_Man]

8 hours ago, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

There's a huge difference camping on Heck/Jungle and some of the horrible maps people play. You can camp on any map. But if you need a map where you can ONLY camp, then you're just trash. 

I don't know the names of the YR maps. An ra2 map that is similar to some YR maps is MayDay. Maps like that are ok sometimes, since the gameplay is different. But it eliminates much of the multi tasking and early pressure etc. It's simplified. I mean you can play noobs on Mayday and have a good game because you don't have to be great to camp at a bridge and make navy.

truth

[VWWWWWWWWWWW]

20 hours ago, FlyingMustache said:

Yeah, what he said. ^ Don't let people fool you into swallowing only their playstyle. That's the most arrogant idea some players will spew. "My favorite gameplay is pro, everything else is trash."

Oddly enough, while you hosted the other day, you put kireek and ic0 on a team vs me and quix....first game on Offense/Defense. A very campy map, and you put SW off. We won. Next map you put some map that's even campier (dunno the name). But basically we had to attack again, through some very small entrance where they just put mirage and BF on a cliff and sat there all game. We still won. But then the next game I asked if you can turn SW on, or preferably put a map like heck that's not campy, and you refused to do either one, and kireek and ic0 were crying about me asking to have those settings changed as well. I recall you telling me to leave if I was done doing your maps/settings lols. So who is being forced to swallow who's playstyle? =]

 

 

[FlyingMustache]

1 hour ago, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

Oddly enough, while you hosted the other day, you put kireek and ic0 on a team vs me and quix....first game on Offense/Defense. A very campy map, and you put SW off. We won. Next map you put some map that's even campier (dunno the name). But basically we had to attack again, through some very small entrance where they just put mirage and BF on a cliff and sat there all game. We still won. But then the next game I asked if you can turn SW on, or preferably put a map like heck that's not campy, and you refused to do either one, and kireek and ic0 were crying about me asking to have those settings changed as well. I recall you telling me to leave if I was done doing your maps/settings lols. So who is being forced to swallow who's playstyle? =]

 

 

Nobody in that scenario. You can always host your own game. Nothing was imposed on you. I even said that in that lobby.

Edited September 14, 2017 by FlyingMustache

[Lucifer]

On 9/11/2017 at 7:16 PM, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

There are still topics like this..?

At start of game, allies is very weak. Allies usually has to rely on hit/run and using distractions with para and air units to be effective. this shit costs money that you don't have at the beginning of the game. Rhinos can target pills while being out of range from griz. Allies basically has to cause sov to make mistakes to survive a good rush. On yr, allies have a free rush stopper called a guardian, tho. Ra2 = hard mode.  If you get to tech, which is allies main strength, you are very vulnerable for a short time, because sov will usually have 1 or 2 more wars than you prior to you getting mirage or prisms out. Very hard to cover splits or any kind of attack at that time. If you survive that, and are able to build up, now you have to worry about expanding your base for more ore because it still takes only 1 deso bomb to kill all your shit. It's much easier for sov to expand their base. If you survive that as well, now better hope SW is off cuz IC usually makes games vs allies a free win. Oh, and sov can make multiple mistakes and still recover, while allies can potentially lose from one mistake. 

That being said, if you're boss as allies, you will overcome all that (vs most people). 

But if you're playing on YR, many people play retarded campfest maps where you really only need to sit there while your opponent has 1-2 tiny entrances they can attack from, in which case. the skill level involved is so diminished none of what I said even matters really.

 

this post sums up the topic quite nicely, i think.  With the exception: I find allies are better in ra2 than in yuris (nobody agrees with this though).

 

In 1v1, allies need to win 1.5 times in order to win once, whereas sov can just push through with miners at any given moment. In team games, the allied weaknesses can be covered by their team mates and they quickly become super-dooper powerful. 

[XXxPrePxX]

1 hour ago, Lucifer said:

this post sums up the topic quite nicely, i think.  With the exception: I find allies are better in ra2 than in yuris (nobody agrees with this though).

 

In 1v1, allies need to win 1.5 times in order to win once, whereas sov can just push through with miners at any given moment. In team games, the allied weaknesses can be covered by their team mates and they quickly become super-dooper powerful. 

No -- I'm with you here in terms of Ra2 / YR allies.

I feel YR allies are weaker than in Ra2.

 The reason why YR players now think allieds are OP/or better than the Ra2 counterpart is because YR has nerfed into a glorified FFG 6-8 player game, where, indeed YR Allies are much stronger than Ra2 Allies. However, in 1on1 combat like quick match, YR allies suffer from getting easily owned by rushes. It's much harder for me to rush an allied player in general on Ra2 then it is on YR. The reason may have to do with the quickness, the focus on allied players getting para/rockies/grizz, etc. On YR the slowness allows for a more methodical push from the soviets in the early going. Perhaps there is more time for a soviet to rush on YR compared to Ra2 and this is a major problem for allieds on YR.

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by XXxPrePxX

[FlyingMustache]

5 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

No -- I'm with you here in terms of Ra2 / YR allies.

I feel YR allies are weaker than in Ra2.

 The reason why YR players now think allieds are OP/or better than the Ra2 counterpart is because YR has nerfed into a glorified FFG 6-8 player game, where, indeed YR Allies are much stronger than Ra2 Allies. However, in 1on1 combat like quick match, YR allies suffer from getting easily owned by rushes. It's much harder for me to rush an allied player in general on Ra2 then it is on YR. The reason may have to do with the quickness, the focus on allied players getting para/rockies/grizz, etc. On YR the slowness allows for a more methodical push from the soviets in the early going. Perhaps there is more time for a soviet to rush on YR compared to Ra2 and this is a major problem for allieds on YR.

 

I think the build timer is the primary reason for that. The transition to YR nerfed the rhino timer by 30%, but the grizz timer was nerfed 50%. The grizz builds proportionately slower than the rhino by a 20% margin. Which is a difference everyone noticed. 

[XXxPrePxX]

5 minutes ago, FlyingMustache said:

I think the build timer is the primary reason for that. The transition to YR nerfed the rhino timer by 30%, but the grizz timer was nerfed 50%. The grizz builds proportionately slower than the rhino by a 20% margin. Which is a difference everyone noticed. 

Wow, I didn't know about the stats there, so it really is that bad. Yeah, then the argument that allieds are much weaker on YR compared to Ra2 holds with even stronger conviction.