Question: YR Quick Match Map Pool

[dkeeton]

What maps and settings should be in a 1v1 Yuri's Revenge Quick Match map pool?

Even better than a "Map" pool, we can have a "Scenario" pool... half of the "Scenarios" could be veto-able.

A "Scenario" is a map + the rules and spawn locations of the map. (aka game-room check boxes + spawn locations).

For example.

Scenario 1: Map = Blood Feud, SuperWeapons = Yes, Short Game = Yes,  MCV Redeploy = Yes,  Build Off Ally (BOA) = Yes, Units = 0, all else = No

Scenario 2: Map = Blood Feud, SuperWeapons = No,   Short Game = Yes, MCV Redeploy = Yes, BOA = Yes, Units = 10

Scenario 3: Map = East Vs Best, SuperWeapons = Yes, Short Game = Yes, MCV Redeploy = Yes, BOA = Yes, Spawn Locations = 1,5

 

If we had 12 Scenarios, up to 5 could be veto-able.

Community made and modded maps are allowed in Scenarios.

I want to hear from YR players...

 

P.S. I know nobody wants to have starting units on Blood Feud, these are examples of what things are possible. I'm not asking for your opinion on my 3 totally contrived examples, I'm asking for you to come up with 12 examples of your own Scenarios that you would not veto.

[Ezer_2000]

Sw should be auto-adjustable depends of player fractions, similar to XWIS logic.

1. Sov vs Yuri - SW always on.
2. Sov vs Allied - Random SW, don't know about huge maps and naval maps tho, needs an opinion of more experienced players (like Prep, fireworks or ZigZag).
3. Yuri vs Allied - ???

[XXxPrePxX]

I think there's two things that are important:
1) Is this a randomly generated QM map pool, similar to how it's been classically, where the competitors do not know the map prior to playing/starting/getting matched the player? Or is this a system where you know the map and wait for the player? If it's the latter then that will create bailing based on map preference. 

2) In terms of settings: Short game should always be on, unit count should really always be 0, and crates should always be off. Messing with these settings leads to a very wonky ladder and is easy for the experts to take control over or make a living hell for other players. 

 

Now, In regards to superweapons, this is a very delicate issue as it greatly changes the balance. 

In sov vs. Yuri games, superweapons need to always be on. Soviets stand no chance against yuri long game without their supers.
Allied vs. Yuri is less dramatic, but it still sets up better games with supers on in allied vs yuri warfare. 

Sov vs. Allied is map dependent. Supers give soviets an advantage over allied's, but this is needed on some maps. One key map for example is Death Valley girl. This could end up being a 4 hour game without superweapons if allieds just camp the two entrances. Another map would be Hammer and Sickle. 
SvS, AvA is obviously balanced, but still needs supers on maps where those situations occur. 

I tried to implement a lot of maps in the QM system before, but it seemed to back fire as there was simply too many maps. The YR crowd is not interested in learning a lot of maps with different situations. So I'd try to stick to a smaller size this time around. The nice thing is we have the highly competitive maps created from Ra2 XWIS involved. So these maps should be included.

I think the very best thing to do would be to have a map pool of a set amount (15? 20? 25?) maps that you can rotate every ladder month. 

The challenge has always been how to deal with yuri... Yuri can easily manipulate over 75% of the maps to their advantage. Historically, this has been done by putting limits on the map pool for yuri players. This gives them something like 8-10 maps compared to the sov/allied players who had 30-50.

Some of the maps for yuri in the past: 
Country Swing, Blood Feud, Dune Patrol, Golden State Fwy, Hidden Valley (ew), Dry Heat, offense defense (can't think of tooo many more)

As one can see, the maps for yuri gameplay is very limited and will be the key problem. With the addition of the new maps, there is likely to be a much better map pool this time around tho.

I would stress that unlike Red Alert 2, Yuri's revenge is incredibly map dependent, so it should be taking with great care. If one ignores the yuri advantages on maps, then the ladder will be dominated by yuri players with less skill. If one adds too many of the crazy yuris revenge maps or the crazy large maps, then the ladder begins to feel like a joke. Ra2 has always had the simple 1on1, 2on2 classic style gameplay, so they never needed to worry about maps as much. YR has chaotic maps and incredible imbalances in situations, so it must be made with care. 

 

Edited September 9, 2017 by XXxPrePxX

[fir3w0rx]

7 hours ago, dkeeton said:

Even better than a "Map" pool, we can have a "Scenario" pool...

Reading between the lines (so correct me if I'm wrong), the goal is to create an XWIS style QM ladder (which is randomized by the game, otherwise there's no point to this discussion), but with more variety? Hmmm...

• XWIS' QM ladder has worked for so many years, but the mod map players and players that like to play with different rules like $500 starting funds or maxed out starting units will feel alienated and won't be able to participate.
• Crates=ON (like on 'Extra Small Map') used to be a big no no, but with the anti-hack coders here this setting might actually be ok now.
• SW=ON avoids super long matches, but some people actually enjoy long matches

There's a lot to think about, but so far I like the idea (unless I misunderstood). I'll think of some 'scenarios'.

[dkeeton]

10 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

1) Is this a randomly generated QM map pool, similar to how it's been classically, where the competitors do not know the map prior to playing/starting/getting matched the player? Or is this a system where you know the map and wait for the player? If it's the latter then that will create bailing based on map preference. 

Yes the scenario is randomly chosen just the before the game is started and the players will only find out the map and spawn locations just before the Loading screen starts.

10 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

2) In terms of settings: Short game should always be on, unit count should really always be 0, and crates should always be off. Messing with these settings leads to a very wonky ladder and is easy for the experts to take control over or make a living hell for other players. 

You can veto scenarios you don't like, so as long as there are few enough of the weirder scenarios, they shouldn't have a big impact.

For the veto system: All the maps are selected by default,  you unselect all the scenarios you want to veto. After that step you will be allowed to enter the quick match system.

10 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

 

Now, In regards to superweapons, this is a very delicate issue as it greatly changes the balance. 

In sov vs. Yuri games, superweapons need to always be on. Soviets stand no chance against yuri long game without their supers.
Allied vs. Yuri is less dramatic, but it still sets up better games with supers on in allied vs yuri warfare. 

Sov vs. Allied is map dependent. Supers give soviets an advantage over allied's, but this is needed on some maps. One key map for example is Death Valley girl. This could end up being a 4 hour game without superweapons if allieds just camp the two entrances. Another map would be Hammer and Sickle. 
SvS, AvA is obviously balanced, but still needs supers on maps where those situations occur. 

This type of logic won't be possible initially.

10 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

As one can see, the maps for yuri gameplay is very limited and will be the key problem. With the addition of the new maps, there is likely to be a much better map pool this time around tho.

We can include 3 player maps and 4 player maps in the 1v1 pool too, if needed.

 

10 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

I would stress that unlike Red Alert 2, Yuri's revenge is incredibly map dependent, so it should be taking with great care. If one ignores the yuri advantages on maps, then the ladder will be dominated by yuri players with less skill. If one adds too many of the crazy yuris revenge maps or the crazy large maps, then the ladder begins to feel like a joke. Ra2 has always had the simple 1on1, 2on2 classic style gameplay, so they never needed to worry about maps as much. YR has chaotic maps and incredible imbalances in situations, so it must be made with care. 

It seems to me that Yuri is generally not allowed to be chosen in most game rooms, but you can choose random and get it. Shouldn't we follow the same logic in the quick match system?

 

[SodswSov]

I believe giving starting units and crates in a true quick match scenario takes away any credibility for the ladder system. But to compensate for those who do enjoy that style of play would be to have a custom ranked game version like ra2 has which the host picks map and settings and when someone joins they can accept and play, or can leave and go to the true quick match game. 

As for balancing the game out, if it's getting too complicated then just leave supers on always. But if possible, just make any game with a yuri faction involved be "supers on", then after that decide which maps need supers and which don't, that way it takes the whole AvS SvS AvA random generation stuff out and more generalized based on the map being generated. If you want kind of a mock drafted map pool I'll give you one here in a bit....

[XXxPrePxX]

Quote

Yes the scenario is randomly chosen just the before the game is started and the players will only find out the map and spawn locations just before the Loading screen starts.

Excellent! That is very good news.

 

In regards to veto:

While it's good to veto certain scenarios, the idea of having crates on and/or starting units just spells disaster to me. In Ra2, they have the option to host a ranked game and the host can create any map, any settings (short game must always be on tho, for good reasons), and use any team they want. This is kinda neat as it means both the host and the opponent have to accept the settings to play the game. The small issue is that it can be abused by the more knowledgeable players and one-mappers. In any event, I think having the option to host a game is better than getting randomly matched on a scenario with crates/units even if I have the option of some vetoes.

Any ladder where there would be a chance that I'd have to defend a top rank vs an opponent with crates on has little to no credibility. Now, I'm not 100% sure how the veto system would work, maybe I could always veto crates/unit starting options to ensure that I don't lose based off some random luck, which in that case it could be palatable, but that would essentially separate the ladder into newbs and pros and newb-bashers. When one includes crates and starting units as a scenario option, it's just asking to be corrupted. 

Edited September 10, 2017 by XXxPrePxX

[XXxPrePxX]

It seems to me that Yuri is generally not allowed to be chosen in most game rooms, but you can choose random and get it. Shouldn't we follow the same logic in the quick match system?

 

A lot of players would have a problem saying that yuri would not be allowed in QM. From my viewpoint, yuri should be allowed as it is an important part of the Yuri's Revenge game, but it needs to be nerfed through a selective map process. Otherwise, you end up taking on Yuri on a water map and have no chance even if you are a super pro and the yuri player is mediocre.

A lot of people enjoy QMing and have more fun in it than they do in FFGs and I know there is a lot of people that genuinely enjoy playing as yuri in 1on1 games. I think taking that part away would be disappointing, and this is coming from the biggest anti-yuri proponent you will find :).

Picking random just to get Yuri in a rank game seems really bogus, especially if you are suggesting that we shouldn't limit the maps. It then takes a lot of the skill out of it, and becomes a game of chance/roulette. If I'm vsing a better player and he is soviets, I go random in hopes that I get Yuri on a water map that is easily to manipulate and own him, for instance. The better player loses x amount of points and I run away into the lobby. Bogus scenario.

 

Anyway, I'm interested to hear more about what *can* actually be done. It seems like this is a QM system that arranges two players randomly (or does it do it via player skill level somehow, like how many points you have etc.). Does this system have the ability to separate maps based on which teams are playing? Does this system have the ability to alter if supers are on/off based on which teams are playing the map? Does this system allow for an unlimited amount of scenarios? Does it allow for users to host games and create their own settings to be ranked on?

 

Thanks for your time/help.

Edited September 10, 2017 by XXxPrePxX

[SodswSov]

This is what was on the most updated/balanced map pool for yuri qm. Biggest thing was anytime a yuri faction was played, there would never be a water map do to the boomer being a huge disadvantage. But there has since been maps added that are worthy of qm which that list and anymore maps made that can be added and tested for balance with factions by 2 players of a similar skill set.... And I see hammer and sickle for all which yuri would be a pretty hard one to beat with sovs especially if they got the island. 

Edited September 10, 2017 by SodswSov

[XXxPrePxX]

Sodsw, the problem I have with using the latest YR XWIS QM map listings is the following:

a) There's too many
b) It doesn't take into account the plentiful new map additions from Ra2 XWIS like Reconcile, etc.

On a personal level, I love loading up quick match with maps, but from my experience, the players want a more limited map pool, which would be especially helpful for the vast majority of CNCNet players who are not pro's (i.e. it'd be easier for them to learn 15-25 maps instead of the 60+ maps presented there.

If they do decide to go a limited map pool with 15-20 maps, the best idea would be to alternate some maps in and out every ladder month to keep it fresh, whilst keeping in some reliable classic maps.

 

[SodswSov]

I completely agree with the map pool being too big for he newer players, but the list at least gives us a starting point to expand and work off of. I love the newer maps, so a combination of both with rotating the maps would be nice like you said. But that being said, the people who choose yuri will have limited maps to pick from on a small map pool and will actually get better at those maps since they will play a small list more often, which in turn might be a game changer for a same skilled guy who is playing way more maps.

[dkeeton]

1 hour ago, XXxPrePxX said:

Any ladder where there would be a chance that I'd have to defend a top rank vs an opponent with crates on has little to no credibility. Now, I'm not 100% sure how the veto system would work, maybe I could always veto crates/unit starting options to ensure that I don't lose based off some random luck, which in that case it could be palatable, but that would essentially separate the ladder into newbs and pros and newb-bashers. When one includes crates and starting units as a scenario option, it's just asking to be corrupted. 

 

1 hour ago, SodswSov said:

I believe giving starting units and crates in a true quick match scenario takes away any credibility for the ladder system

I'm asking what Scenarios would you like to have included. If people don't want crates, there will be no scenarios with crates.

I'm going to enter the Scenarios in the Quick Match database soon so I'm looking for a list like this:

 

Scenario 1: Map = Blood Feud, SuperWeapons = Yes, Short Game = Yes,  MCV Redeploy = Yes,  Build Off Ally (BOA) = Yes, Units = 0, all else = No

Scenario 2: Map = Blood Feud, SuperWeapons = No,   Short Game = Yes, MCV Redeploy = Yes, BOA = Yes, Units = 10

Scenario 3: Map = East Vs Best, SuperWeapons = Yes, Short Game = Yes, MCV Redeploy = Yes, BOA = Yes, Spawn Locations = 1,5

Scenario 4:...

...

Scenario 31:...

 

We can have up to 31 Scenarios in the pool. But  I think it should be around 15  just to make it approachable for new players. To keep things fresh we can alter the pool each month or ladder-season.

1 hour ago, XXxPrePxX said:

Picking random just to get Yuri in a rank game seems really bogus, especially if you are suggesting that we shouldn't limit the maps. It then takes a lot of the skill out of it, and becomes a game of chance/roulette. If I'm vsing a better player and he is soviets, I go random in hopes that I get Yuri on a water map that is easily to manipulate and own him, for instance. The better player loses x amount of points and I run away into the lobby. Bogus scenario.

You don't get to choose your faction like that. This is how it works:

On the client:

1. Sign in to QM and choose your side aka faction or random

2. Choose your scenario vetoes

3. Click Quick Match! and wait for a matchup. From here on you cannot change your side or vetoes until you cancel the matchup request.

 

On the server:

1. Player is entered in to the Quick Match player pool. You are compared to all players in the Quick Match pool and if there is another player waiting with the same skill level as you then you get matched up. The scenario that neither of you have vetoed gets randomly chosen. Any players whose side is random, a faction will be chosen. Info is sent back to the client to spawn the game.

2. If you don't get matched then you wait, the longer you wait the more likely you'll get matched up with someone who is outside your skill level.

Hope this helps.

 

[dkeeton]

1 hour ago, SodswSov said:

This is what was on the most updated/balanced map pool for yuri qm.

Thanks, this is useful. If no one submits any Scenarios, I'll make up my own using this list.

[SodswSov]

Ok I see what your saying, but the more options you give might complicate matters and give less players to play. Idk maybe I'm biased because I've been crate rushed or early unit vet rushed 1 too many times in a regular game to think it should even be an option in qm where people play and gain knowledge and skill by qming the people in or around their points. Plus it might be easier to just give the option of custom games that are ranked where they can pick what they want and someone joins the gas and accepts the game settings, then play qm to get the standard 0 units, no crates, short game on, and supers as a possibility based off of map balance and faction balance. 

[fir3w0rx]

After giving it more thought, I think using XWIS' QM rules would be the best way. While not perfect, it has worked for so many years; why re-invent the wheel?

But if the CnCNet staff have their hearts set on using 'scenarios', instead of relying on a few vocal people here on the forums, can't you guys make a stats page like XWIS has, but with added information such as game options used (crates, mutli-engi, starting units...)? It'll be much more accurate in terms of knowing what the community dis/likes and you should be able to gather enough information over just one weekend's worth of stats.

Imo, in short:

• XWIS style QM ladder = For serious, competitive players, not noob-friendly, caters to the smaller portion of the community (but could potentially get larger over time), but a much more professional approach where skill is the focus and luck is minimized.
• Scenario style QM ladder = For casual players, likely to be hated by high level players, but very noob-friendly and caters to a larger portion of the community, wacky (for a lack of a better description). Could be fun.

@SodswSov @XXxPrePxX I understand the added balance issues that crates will give, but I don't get why having starting units would be a problem? I'm all for zero starting units, so don't get me wrong, but I just want to understand why it would be an issue.

 

1 hour ago, dkeeton said:

[...]If no one submits any Scenarios, I'll make up my own using this list.

I'm sure you guys (staff) have a good reason, but why can't there be one set of rules for QM'ers, and just allow others to make their own custom matches? As long as there are limits set for the amount of times you can play against the same person or the same map, I don't see the problem. It's worked for so many years.

[SodswSov]

Well if you get starting units, let's say I'm allies and your sov for starters.... I don't have quite the TC you have and you just run all your units in and kill my tanks (due to weaker tanks and less range or a nicely placed fodder) games over before I can even get a pill box or dog out. Not to mention yuri infintry being a lot better than others would allow the same thing. And last but not least, on certain maps it would make scouting your opponent not even plausible which is a very serious part of the competitive gaming aspect. 

Edited September 10, 2017 by SodswSov

[dkeeton]

13 minutes ago, SodswSov said:

Well if you get starting units, let's say I'm allies and your sov for starters.... I don't have quite the TC you have and you just run all your units in and kill my tanks (due to weaker tanks and less range or a nicely placed fodder) games over before I can even get a pill box or dog out.

Why would you not veto all the scenarios that have starting units if you are playing allies?

I don't think anyone understands the concept of Scenarios and vetoes. That's my fault, I have failed.

Edited September 10, 2017 by dkeeton
frustration

[SodswSov]

No I understand what your saying, but it just seems like more work for y'all to create, and more complex for players. When someone creating a custom rank game is the exact same thing as picking a scenario for those who want to do that, if you want the excitement of random maps then have a random map generator or something for the custom game. I just don't want things to be complicated and turn off a lot of players who are extremely and anxiously awaiting the arrival of the qm and rank function.

[fir3w0rx]

I'm sure it'll all become clearer when it's launched. Here are my scenarios:

(the following settings are for all my preferred scenarios, unless otherwise specified)

-----------

Short Game = ON
MCV Repacks = ON
Destroyable Bridges = ON
Superweapons = ON (but preferably RANDOM if possible)
No Spawn Previews = ON
Game Speed = MAX
Credits = 10,000
Starting Units = 0

----------

Scenario 01: Reconcile, Superweapons=ON
Scenario 02: Official Tournament Map B, Superweapons=OFF (for a bit of variety in scenarios, but preferably random if possible)
Scenario 03: Pirate Bay, Superweapons=OFF
Scenario 04: Cold War, Spawn 2 & 1, Superweapons = OFF (but random if possible)
Scenario 05: Caverns of Siberia, Superweapons=OFF
Scenario 06: Depth Charge, Spawns 1 & 3, Superweapons = ON
Scenario 07: Dry Heat, Spawn Locations 2 & 4, Superweapons=OFF
Scenario 08: Yin Yang, Spawns 1 & 3, Superweapons=OFF
Scenario 09: The Path More Travelled By, Superweapons=ON
Scenario 10: Tour of Egypt - Spawns 1 & 6, Superweapons=ON
Scenario 11: Heck Freezes Over - Spawns 2 & 3, Supers = OFF (but random if possible)
Scenario 12: A Path Beyond II - Spawns 7 & 8 , Superweapons=ON

I initially wanted multi-engi=ON, but then a lot of people might not want to play, particularly the Chinese

Edited September 12, 2017 by fir3w0rx

[Ezer_2000]

I

18 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

Now, In regards to superweapons, this is a very delicate issue as it greatly changes the balance. 

In sov vs. Yuri games, superweapons need to always be on. Soviets stand no chance against yuri long game without their supers.
Allied vs. Yuri is less dramatic, but it still sets up better games with supers on in allied vs yuri warfare. 

Sov vs. Allied is map dependent. Supers give soviets an advantage over allied's, but this is needed on some maps. One key map for example is Death Valley girl. This could end up being a 4 hour game without superweapons if allieds just camp the two entrances. Another map would be Hammer and Sickle. 
SvS, AvA is obviously balanced, but still needs supers on maps where those situations occur. 

 

7 hours ago, dkeeton said:

This type of logic won't be possible initially.

Why not?

If you are going to create some scenarios with constant parameters, you just have to create some copies of ones with different SW parameter value{yes and no), this way you can emulate random SW option, because scenario will be picked and launched randomly.

[dkeeton]

49 minutes ago, Ezer_2000 said:

If you are going to create some scenarios with constant parameters, you just have to create some copies of ones with different SW parameter value{yes and no), this way you can emulate random SW option, because scenario will be picked and launched randomly.

Yay!, I thought nobody understood my concept but you clearly do! (I'm not insane)

 

1 hour ago, fir3w0rx said:

I'm sure it'll all become clearer when it's launched. Here are my scenarios:

(the following settings are for all my preferred scenarios, unless otherwise specified)

 

Thanks! This is very useful. You've almost got the idea.... best so far. Looking at your list maybe we need more than 12 entries. But also don't forget we can duplicate maps when creating scenarios. See and understand what @Ezer_2000 said in the quoted text above.

 

Edited September 10, 2017 by dkeeton

[SodswSov]

@dkeetonMe and prep fully understood what you meant, which is why we were trying to explain to you that no scenario in qm should have units or crates. Maps and SW scenario is how you should write it up, but we shouldn't be allowed to pick what map we want or if we want supers or not. It should be based on what faction the players have choosen and what map was generated for the game. 

[fir3w0rx]

16 minutes ago, dkeeton said:

Thanks! This is very useful. You've almost got the idea.... best so far. Looking at your list maybe we need more than 12 entries. But also don't forget we can duplicate maps when creating scenarios. See and understand what @Ezer_2000 said in the quoted text above.

Well in that case, just duplicate all of my scenarios and reverse the Superweapons (or put a NOT next to them ) to emulate randomness. The rest of the settings should be the same. Do we have to 'randomize' the different positions as well (please say no), because that's a lot of different combinations. For example:

• Scenario 01: Heck Freezes over, Spawn Locations 2 and 3, SW=ON
• Scenario 02: Heck Freezes over, Spawn Locations 2 and 3, SW=OFF
• Scenario 03: Heck Freezes over, Spawn Locations 1 and 3, SW=ON
• Scenario 04: Heck Freezes over, Spawn Locations 1 and 3, SW=OFF
• Scenario 05: Heck Freezes over, Spawn Locations 2 and 4, SW=ON
• Scenario 06: Heck Freezes over, Spawn Locations 2 and 4, SW=OFF
• and so on...

And if we add the different combinations of countries as well... that will take forever!!! But I'll do some if that's the only way.

[XXxPrePxX]

The other problem is the veto. How many vetoes does one person get? Is it unlimited?

If it's unlimited, then the system will be broke. If its limited then you have to be very careful with your scenarios. 

I think it's more work then good, and any scenario leading to crates and starting units loses credibility:

With crates it's random luck and many people despise this.  With starting units, it's the ability to rush an opponent with less tank control or a disadvantage. It could also end up in luck as well. Also, both are great assets for cheaters to take advantage of (not sure if CNCNet is completely anti-cheat or if there are still cheaters possible, mainly what I mean is it lends to map-hackers who see all from the get go and can get all the crates or just move their starting units to take advantage of opponents).

If possible, the easiest way to do things would be to have a standard QM setting with the 15-25 maps, and then allow people to host their own games. This way, 'casuals' can still play with their settings and get ranked games against people who are willing to play their maps and settings, and the player matching system keeps its credibility. 

[Ezer_2000]

On 10.09.2017 at 1:45 PM, dkeeton said:

Yay!, I thought nobody understood my concept but you clearly do! (I'm not insane)

Ok. Another question, why don't make 3rd value for possibility to set random sw?

Let's assume (just for prediction fudge, i'm not pro player) Heck Freezes Over(8p) will have 6 different recordings by spots: LvL, RvR, TvT, BvB, and 2 diagonal.

(x4) possible combinations of game sides:

(3) SvA, AvY, YvS - different sides match-type, (+1)XvX - mirror matches.

or 6 combinations of game sides if database(DB) does not support non-constant values (XvX turns into +3)

Number of recordings with spots and sides for 8-player map: Min: 6x4=24, Max 6x6=36

With SW: x2: for random SW option. For mirror matches sw should be usually random, so take the part of multiplier from (+2) to (+6)

for SvA - usually random (+2),

for AvY - off (+1),

for YvS - on (+1),  Total multiplier: from (x6) to (x10)

Number of recordings with spots, sides and SW for 8-player map: Min: 6x6=36, Max 6x10=60

And if DB does not support "S" "Y" "A" values, but only actual country names, the second multiplier will be 10^2=100  10+9+8+...+2+1=55

600 330 recordings for only Heck Freez map? No, i'm not going to do that even using ms excel.

Also isn't that pretty hard to manage such DB in future?

You better to split your DB into 2 or 3:

1. Map names and starting positions - define spots for game
2. Country names and game types - define game type(SvA, SvY, AvY) after countries are defined
3. Map names, game types, and SW option. - define sw option for game corresponded to map name and game type.

If DB support direct defintion of side (Soviet,Allied,Yuri) №2 is unnecessary.

Attach Map pool to map names.

gg?

And Crates OFF, Short game ON. ALWAYS!

Edited September 11, 2017 by Ezer_2000