Is Allied vs Soviet Balanced?

[VWWWWWWWWWWW]

 

On 10/20/2017 at 5:50 AM, Lucifer said:

VWWWWW, one of the true GOATs (that stands for greatest of all time) is telling you why superweapons are on.   If there is anyone on the planet to listen to--this is the guy.

Appreciate the love from this allied OG

[ore_truck]

On 10/20/2017 at 3:34 PM, CekaJ (Jake) said:

Oh because i haven't played the game for 20 years like you it must be that I am incorrect with my opinions. But yeah, there really is no point in debating this actually because nothing said here can be proven without any evidence.

Your opinions a.k.a. personal preference about a competitive games are only limiting the capabilities of players. Even a game on a symmetrical map is played with all settings the opposite of your stated "competitive rules", it can still be competitive if the players want it. I don't think I need evidence to prove that Both parties have the same opportunities to use/threats from France, superweapons and engineers and still play competitively.

[XXxPrePxX]

I think people might be missing the point of CekaJ's list.

Perhaps, CekaJ simply is trying to make a one rule fits all to keep the analysis out of it and immediately balance the game. I don't really see a big problem with that in a small tournament setting. He is simply stating, there's too much debate, there's some obvious holes, let's fix the hole by covering it up and covering up any surrounding area.

The problem, of course, is what we have discussed in this thread. It's not always that simple when taking into consideration different aspects.

Is France overpowered? I'd argue hell no! On over 50% of the maps the France grand cannon has literally no use, it's worse then Germany! Of course, there's a select 10% of maps where France is indeed incredibly overpowered and broken (First one that comes to mind quickly is Offense Defense).

So the competitive ban list (CBL) is simply saying, fuck all the considerations, just ban it since it breaks the game on certain maps.

The CBL does what it intends to do... it makes the game very balanced/simple across the board. We can then analyze it and say that without superweapons being on, maybe soviets are at a disadvantage late game vs. allied players. Or we could say, what is Yuri's Revenge without yuri? Or what happens on Death Valley Girl allied vs. Sov, when superweapons are off and the allied player decides to camp the 2 bridges with mirages and battle fortresses? Ha...

But in terms of percentages, across the board, the CBL does a pretty good job. It's just that we are not interested in doing a 'pretty good' job, we are more interested in perfecting the match ups on every given situation and not banning factions from playing (any notion that tries to ban factions is met with strict opposition).

Edited October 21, 2017 by XXxPrePxX

[Lucifer]

2 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

 

Is France overpowered? 

France is not overpowered, but overgayed. 

2 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

 

Death Valley Girl allied vs. Sov, when superweapons are off and the allied player decides to camp the 2 bridges with mirages and battle fortresses? 

This situation isnt overpowered, its overgayed. 

 

Pros want ggs, not dick in the ass. Alas, the point of a CBL is to add skill while simultaneously removing homosexuality. Is the most important thing removing yuri , france, and adding superweapons? No.

 

The most important thing by far, especially considering the gibbous relationship between allied and soviets, is the map selection. That is to say, competitive maps should include the maps with the least amount of homsexuality--if you will-- and the most amount of skill. Im going to replace the word gay with the word cheese. 

A  quintessential example of a non-pro, so to speak, map is little big lake: bottom is clearly in a winning position off spawn. Now, there are more subtle examples that some may struggle to recognize, but if there is anything to be picky about, its the maps. They need to be fair, dynamic, diverse, and cheeseless. Everything else is secondary. 

 

[XXxPrePxX]

Yeah -- I mean -- you hit the nail on the head again in this thread.

Everything truly is secondary to map selection.

[CekaJ (Jake)]

Gun man you're a soviet player. Are there any biases?

Forget 3v3 for the moment and talk only about competitive 1vs1. Listen to what PreP has to say. He has played for many years. in competitive yr 1v1s he's painting a picture that Allieds have it incredibly hard (on most maps not the size of Africa) much harder against an equal skilled soviet. Basically everyone's argument is that allied doesn't suck there are just no good allied players. Does that makes much sense?

If you have two pro players of the same skill; BUT ALLIED REQUIRES EVEN MORE SKILL, then the soviet will win most the time. Does that not kind of suggest soviet is more consistent and more powerful than allied in general? Why does the allied player HAVE TO HAVE MORE SKILL THAN THE SOVIET PLAYER TO BE ABLE TO WIN? Tell me that? Is that balanced?

 

With 2 players of equal skill both factions win percentage should be as close to 50% as possible in a 1v1, with the only thing swaying the odds being the specific map you're playing on. Most of the popular maps favor soviet with super weapons on. ALSO maps like hammer and sickle are unbalanced and shouldnt be allowed in competitive 1v1s anyway due to top right having no entrance and MORE gems.

Therefore, ban unbalanced maps, ban unbalanced settings, ban unbalanced factions.  

 

The only thing we can do to buff allied in 1v1 is: 

• Remove super weapons to reward the allied player late game for surviving the soviet superior early game pressure.
• OR force people to play maps the size of Africa, is an ocean, or maps that have only like 2 narrow paths to the opponent's base. NO ONE PLAYS THESE MAPS. 

Even on maps like tsunami it benefits soviet to have supers off. perfect example of how supers off benefits the faction which is already behind based on map selection.

 

Final note. If you don't see what I see then i invite you to join me in playing nothing but allied on cncnet. Join peoples supers games and try to win.

------------------------------------------------------

ps: i wrote this message a few days ago when everyone replied but didn't post it. Since then i have warmed up to supers some but still think banning everything that is unbalanced equals a balanaced game. Albeit the games could go longer and allied would be better on choke point maps but soviet would still be better on open maps. That's balance and could require even more skill depending on the map. Competitive ban-list works in term of balance whether you like it or not. Supers games/ no rules still work and are competitive but generally yuri is the best - then iraq - then an allied faction.

PS PS: if you're going to play allied with supers on against soviet on a map which isn't the size of Africa or in an ocean than you should probably be Korea.

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by CekaJ (Jake)

[DoDger]

19 minutes ago, CekaJ (Jake) said:

Allieds have it incredibly hard (on most maps not the size of Africa) much harder against an equal skilled soviet. Basically everyone's argument is that allied doesn't suck there are just no good allied players. Does that makes much sense?

If you have two pro players of the same skill; BUT ALLIED REQUIRES EVEN MORE SKILL, then the soviet will win most the time. Does that not kind of suggest soviet is more consistent and more powerful than allied in general? Why does the allied player HAVE TO HAVE MORE SKILL THAN THE SOVIET PLAYER TO BE ABLE TO WIN? Tell me that? Is that balanced?

allies needs more skills not bcuz it's blanaced bcuz simply soviet goes Rhinos Dogs desos while building his base and keeping the pressure early game while allies know that grizz r not as strong as Rhinos so u need grizz dogs GGi roockters planes and when to tech to get mirages bfs and what to get bf's or mirages prisms and  how many u need them while soviet will just keep making Rhinos and at some maps kirovs choppers boris etc which is not the same it's simply 1 unit make 1 kirov and go or some choppers unlike allies need better tc ofc there's more into that but that's what i think so far in general soviet is easier to use than allies that's why it takes more skills
P.S Gun-man is a good soviet player but he's better allies

Edited October 22, 2017 by DoDger

[CekaJ (Jake)]

1 hour ago, DoDger said:

allies needs more skills not bcuz it's blanaced bcuz simply soviet goes Rhinos Dogs desos while building his base and keeping the pressure early game while allies know that grizz r not as strong as Rhinos so u need grizz dogs GGi roockters planes and when to tech to get mirages bfs and what to get bf's or mirages prisms and  how many u need them while soviet will just keep making Rhinos and at some maps kirovs choppers boris etc which is not the same it's simply 1 unit make 1 kirov and go or some choppers unlike allies need better tc ofc there's more into that but that's what i think so far in general soviet is easier to use than allies that's why it takes more skills
P.S Gun-man is a good soviet player but he's better allies

Yes allied does need more skill. Therefore if you have 2 players of equal skill allied should lose most of the time. Therefore soviet better generally. Therefore turn off supers to buff allied. especially considering maps like tour of egypt, dune patrol, blood feud, etc are the most popular maps played and all are soviet maps. That's the logic. It would make it closer to even in terms of balance.

 

Even on maps the size of Africa the soviet can pressure allied and move his mcv closer to the allied base. (assuming supers are off) Also sov can siege chopper camp. 

 

I still think the CBL (comp ban list) is the most balanced version of the game especially if you ban maps that are unbalanced in addition to the setting bans. I.e. Hammer and sickle, Montana Dmz

[XXxPrePxX]

So, let's sum up this topic:

1) Generally, Soviets are overpowered compared to allies.
2) Superweapons gives the soviet side much more than they help the Allied side. However, they may be necessary to give the Soviet side a chance late game vs. an allied force.
3) There are situations in the game that make each side more overpowered than the other, but there are more situations where the soviets are the less risky play.
4) Maps are the most important indicator of whether or not a game is balanced.
 

/Thread.

[DoDger]

no need to use bigger font we can read dude u have an idea and u believe in that many said no ur CBL is wrong u just aren't convinced then it's up to u but don't try to force it into others
for me multi engi on or off doesn't matter if u can't stop a single engi then it's ur fault
it's pointless talking anymore in this topic imo

Edited October 22, 2017 by DoDger

[ore_truck]

The allies do require more skill but that doesn't mean they are the same strength as Soviets if played by inputting the highest skill if equally-skilled players do Allies vs Soviet on some maps because some maps give allied an advantage if you maximize their capabilities (requires more skill). Faction alone won't determine who is better, the map played is an important factor. On some maps, Iron Curtain is needed.

Soviet is easier to play, more lax, less risky and more luxury as you don't need to input higher skills to get the most out of them, contrary to what the op stated. Is the op getting any of this?

[LeOwNzAll]

On 20/10/2017 at 12:50 PM, Lucifer said:

 

--Leozownall, a random noob, is telling you that you aint qualified to make the rules.

 

Ok thank you lol !

[Lucifer]

18 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

So, let's sum up this topic:

1) Generally, Soviets are overpowered compared to allies.
2) Superweapons gives the soviet side much more than they help the Allied side. However, they may be necessary to give the Soviet side a chance late game vs. an allied force.
3) There are situations in the game that make each side more overpowered than the other, but there are more situations where the soviets are the less risky play.
4) Maps are the most important indicator of whether or not a game is balanced.
 

/Thread.

 

Modern day games are constantly being updated for balance changes. Yuris revenge was not updated much in its past, and when it was, it was not updated by someone who actually understood the nuances of the game. 

That being said, its worth noting that mustachex could fix a chunk of (1) simply by making the allied power plant have less build time. Also, he could drastically reduce the problems of (2) simply by reducing the cooldown of the chronosphere; childsplay for mr mustache. However, (3)can not be fixed; its too ingrained, but by reducing (1) + (2), (3) is reduced indirectly.  It does not logically follow that the difficulty of allies (3) by itself makes them weaker than soviets, but being more difficult does make them weaker when they are already weaker. If that makes any sense. Bottom line: those 2 minor changes would drastically balance the game. 

 

Secondly, and more importantly i think, we can conclude that, apart from these two potential game-balancing modifications, it comes down to one central question : What maps(4)  are best suited to balance the  iron curtain - chronosphere problem (2), the APP (1), and make the overpowered situations less overpowered (3) while keeping both positional and tactical options numerous for both sides (2/3), a solid early game for sov, but not too solid (1), some narrow passageways, some open space, etc. In other words  

Which maps fall into the "goldilocks zone" between allied and soviets ? 

 

 

[LeOwNzAll]

5 hours ago, Lucifer said:

 

Modern day games are constantly being updated for balance changes. Yuris revenge was not updated much in its past, and when it was, it was not updated by someone who actually understood the nuances of the game. 

 

L-O-L.

 

I think you don't know the "story of the game". 

 

 

Edited October 23, 2017 by LeOwNzAll

[XXxPrePxX]

5 hours ago, Lucifer said:

 

Modern day games are constantly being updated for balance changes. Yuris revenge was not updated much in its past, and when it was, it was not updated by someone who actually understood the nuances of the game. 

That being said, its worth noting that mustachex could fix a chunk of (1) simply by making the allied power plant have less build time. Also, he could drastically reduce the problems of (2) simply by reducing the cooldown of the chronosphere; childsplay for mr mustache. However, (3)can not be fixed; its too ingrained, but by reducing (1) + (2), (3) is reduced indirectly.  It does not logically follow that the difficulty of allies (3) by itself makes them weaker than soviets, but being more difficult does make them weaker when they are already weaker. If that makes any sense. Bottom line: those 2 minor changes would drastically balance the game. 

 

Secondly, and more importantly i think, we can conclude that, apart from these two potential game-balancing modifications, it comes down to one central question : What maps(4)  are best suited to balance the  iron curtain - chronosphere problem (2), the APP (1), and make the overpowered situations less overpowered (3) while keeping both positional and tactical options numerous for both sides (2/3), a solid early game for sov, but not too solid (1), some narrow passageways, some open space, etc. In other words  

Which maps fall into the "goldilocks zone" between allied and soviets ? 

 

 

This post is God-level status on this topic. :bow:

The goldilocks zone of maps is a great word choice here. I don't want to analyze map-by-map right now in this topic (saving that for the map list for QM later), but I always thought that Country Swing is a perfect candidate. As a soviet player, I always hated getting this map as I felt I didn't have my normal soviet advantages, but still always ended up having a game that resulted in skill winning out. Allieds have a good ability here to tech while soviets have a good ability to go mass war and you get the true SvA games of deso vs. allied tech and curtain becomes very important.

[Lucifer]

5 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

This post is God-level status on this topic. :bow:

Rise my young apprentice, rise. 

 

5 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

 

 I don't want to analyze map-by-map right now in this topic (saving that for the map list for QM later), but I always thought that Country Swing is a perfect candidate.  you get the true SvA games 

 The QM maps can have maps anywhere in the habitable zone. But there are maps that are in the dead center -- these would be the maps played if players were actually trying to play professionally. Not a concern here ofc, but  worth the hypothetical.  Indeed, the discussion would begin with what could be considered a 'perfect candidate' , and i must disagree on country swing being it. But again, another topic my friend ; )

 

Ill leave you with this though: 

 

Why do desolaters regenerate health while rocketeers and chrono legionaries do not ?    *scratches beard* 

 

[a1nthony]

1 hour ago, Lucifer said:

Rise my young apprentice, rise. 

 

 The QM maps can have maps anywhere in the habitable zone. But there are maps that are in the dead center -- these would be the maps played if players were actually trying to play professionally. Not a concern here ofc, but  worth the hypothetical.  Indeed, the discussion would begin with what could be considered a 'perfect candidate' , and i must disagree on country swing being it. But again, another topic my friend ; )

 

Ill leave you with this though: 

 

Why do desolaters regenerate health while rocketeers and chrono legionaries do not ?    *scratches beard* 

 

Chrono legionnaires should regenerate health, but healing rocketeers I think are pretty OP. Try it with a hospital lol. If we are talking about fixing things to balance the game, I think minimal changes are best but here is what I would consider

-legionaries regen health(love it)

-chronosphere timer drop by 30 seconds

-ggis to 300 instead of 400

-harriers to 1000 instead of 1200

-apocs can shoot without stopping

-Tesla men to 400 instead of 500

-desos to 800 instead of 700

-should need grinder radar and naval to build boomer

-mags can’t ctrl shift(need to click to use weapon)

-chaos drone range increased

-power plant should only hold 3 initiates instead of 5

thats a quick list off the top of my head but I think these changes would help balance the game while not changing the feel of it too much

 

 

 

 

 

[Lud0wig]

I'll be a peasant and tell y'all to enjoy the game as it is.

[a1nthony]

3 minutes ago, Lud0wig said:

I'll be a peasant and tell y'all to enjoy the game as it is.

I love it! But competitively the yuri faction is just too powerful :(. In fact as sov I engi eat/engi and use drones+Ivan’s etc.. it’s a whole other game if you choose the truth faction and that’s really what balances the factions.. but nobody would ever want to play that way, still. That’s the only way to beat top yuri players honestly and if I ever get competitive again u better believe if you are yuri you’re getting eaten,engid and any other lame tactic that the map provides me with!

[[nra]Buffalo]

1 hour ago, a1nthony said:

-desos to 800 instead of 700

lols this is what happens when you 2 miner rush alot :).

[CekaJ (Jake)]

either we change everything or ban things that are too good. or we do nothing and whoever is the best yuri is the best player. but yuri is "lame" in 1v1 so whoever is the best allied player is the best player. Cuz u all think that if u play allied to a pro level then allied is slightly better than sov. but no time in history of the game has that ever been shown so in reality since yuri is "lame" the game becomes who is the best iraq; like always.

[[NRA]Rocketeer]

2 hours ago, [nra]Buffalo said:

lols this is what happens when you 2 miner rush alot :).

2 miner rush = lose

[fir3w0rx]

Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un will become best friends before this topic is ever resolved . But one thing that I think everyone will agree on is the fact that nobody has ever dominated the xwis ladder month after month, or any organised tournaments using the following units:

• Tank Destroyers
• Demolition Truck
• Terrorists
• Tesla Tanks

People do use Germany, Libya, Cuba and Russia, but I don't think they actually use those mentioned units much, if at all. So if the CnCNet staff ever decide to add the option to play using a balance mode, which was suggested years ago by Iran if I'm not mistaken (the unofficial version 1.007), I don't think anyone will mind if those units get buffed up.

[FlyingMustache]

44 minutes ago, fir3w0rx said:

Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un will become best friends before this topic is ever resolved . But one thing that I think everyone will agree on is the fact that nobody has ever dominated the xwis ladder month after month, or any organised tournaments using the following units:

• Tank Destroyers
• Demolition Truck
• Terrorists
• Tesla Tanks

People do use Germany, Libya, Cuba and Russia, but I don't think they actually use those mentioned units much, if at all. So if the CnCNet staff ever decide to add the option to play using a balance mode, which was suggested years ago by Iran if I'm not mistaken (the unofficial version 1.007), I don't think anyone will mind if those units get buffed up.

I have never seen that mode played. I think testing it would be needed first.

[fir3w0rx]

41 minutes ago, FlyingMustache said:

I have never seen that mode played. I think testing it would be needed first.

I wasn't actually suggesting for the staff to include that specific mod in the YR client, I only mentioned it because that was the mod that Iran suggested a while back when the YR Client was still in beta stages. All I personally want is for the four units that I mentioned above to be buffed, if ever a "Balance Mode" (or whatever it may be called) was to be available one day, alongside RA2 Mode.