What are the 5 most popular/ played competitive 1v1 Yuri's Revenge maps?

[CekaJ (Jake)]

In your opinions what are the 5 most popular/ played competitive 1v1 Yuri's Revenge maps?

From what I've seen i'd say

1. Tour of Egypt
2. Heck Freezes Over
3. Country Swing
4. Dune Patrol 
5. Hidden Valley

[XXxPrePxX]

1. Dune Patrol -- easiest map in the game, constantly played 1on1

2. Country Swing -- Another traditional map that is incredibly easy to play (but tougher than Dune)

3. Hidden Valley -- newbs seem to love this map due to ease of camping and the regeneration buildings

4. Official Tournament map B -- Maybe not as much nowadays, but always a big hit as it's slightly more challenging then dune/CS but it is very simple in strategy. Either you go early dred or you go more rhinos. Most newbs like it because they get the early dred BO down.

5. Dry Heat? Could go with anything here, LBL / Heck / TOE other choices.

[scalpem]

JUNGLES

[Lucifer]

4 hours ago, CekaJ (Jake) said:

In your opinions what are the 5 most popular/ played competitive 1v1 Yuri's Revenge maps?

From what I've seen i'd say

1. Tour of Egypt
2. Heck Freezes Over
3. Country Swing
4. Dune Patrol 
5. Hidden Valley

 

u r a n00b

[CekaJ (Jake)]

On 10/25/2017 at 1:58 AM, Lucifer said:

 

u r a n00b

Wanna 1v1?

[Kikematamitos]

What about blood feud, Vietnam jungle, and that maps called "official tournament" 

[ZiGZaG]

On 25/10/2017 at 1:58 AM, CekaJ (Jake) said:

In your opinions what are the 5 most popular/ played competitive 1v1 Yuri's Revenge maps?

From what I've seen i'd say

1. Tour of Egypt
2. Heck Freezes Over
3. Country Swing
4. Dune Patrol 
5. Hidden Valley

Over the years in no particular order on YR id say

 

Toe

Dune

HV

Country Swing

Dry Heat.

 

 

[a1nthony]

Idk bout now, but these maps stand out the most as a first choice  to me when people used to challenge each other to 1v1s. 

1. Dune/BF

2.Country swing 

3.Dry heat

4.Heartland

5. Some form of heck pick spots (usually BvB or TvT)

Edited October 28, 2017 by a1nthony

[CekaJ (Jake)]

So generally speaking Soviet maps are the most popular maps?

Edited October 28, 2017 by CekaJ (Jake)

[XXxPrePxX]

23 minutes ago, CekaJ (Jake) said:

So generally speaking Soviet maps are the most popular maps?

Bro -- you have a very strong opinion on this matter. Sovs are overpowered, yes -- but they are not THAT overpowered where it makes such a big difference. If you choose to play as allieds you choose to be the underdog and have to use more skill to win, there's nothing wrong with that -- that's actually pretty bad ass if you ask me.

Allieds can win on any of these maps, these are fair enough to play AvS (in general). And if you think there is too much of a balance difference here, then you have not met some of the better allied players on the game or in the past.

[CekaJ (Jake)]

The maps are half the problem. No one wants to play water, bridge, huge, maps which are allied. the other half of the problem is supers. Since these maps are already sov maps the iron curtain is better than the chronosphere. (iron better on sov maps and chrono better on allied maps generally) SO to make it balanced either we turn off supers or force people to play maps they dont want to play

 

but no one wants balance so theyd rather play small maps with supers which is just "who is the best iraq" 

Edited October 29, 2017 by CekaJ (Jake)

[a1nthony]

31 minutes ago, CekaJ (Jake) said:

The maps are half the problem. No one wants to play water, bridge, huge, maps which are allied. the other half of the problem is supers. Since these maps are already sov maps the iron curtain is better than the chronosphere. (iron better on sov maps and chrono better on allied maps generally) SO to make it balanced either we turn off supers or force people to play maps they dont want to play

 

but no one wants balance so theyd rather play small maps with supers which is just "who is the best iraq" 

I don’t see how country swing is such a heavily favored Soviet map? Also I’d argue heck freezes over is big? Most people when given the choice would like a small to medium size map because they do not want one game to last 40 minutes.. allies have winning chances on Dry heat.. with supers off how is hidden valley a Soviet map? It’s not THAT bad man. Allies are not  like a little kid who needs his hand held  all the time. Please listen to prep he is very experienced at yuris revenge.

Edited October 29, 2017 by a1nthony

[XXxPrePxX]

So look CeKaJ, you've made many posts (and virtually all of them in some way or the other about allied team being imbalanced) and you have shown interest in getting better and have developed a high amount of skill in just the 6-7 months that you've been playing. It appears that you are a strict allied player. I want to help you.

Let me start by stating this game is 15+ years old now. That means there's been 15 years of rankings on this game with tons of change. These classic maps have lasted a long time, that alone should tell you that they are playable, but let's not just pit it against the test of time and instead analyze a few things:

1) You have called for a banning of super weapons as it strongly benefits the already overpowered soviets. At face value, this seems highly logical, I can understand why you are stating this. We have an already overpowered soviet team and they get even stronger with supers on, yes! However, you fail to understand a few things regarding this:

• The classical notion of superweapons in Ra2/YR and other CnC games. Ok, an argument from tradition is a fallacy, but the reason is not. Generally, players enjoy games that actually end in a short period of time. Superweapons instill this time of game play. It forces the players to make moves and not be complacent. Without superweapons we get involved in campy games, that's just the way it goes. Superweapons are the ultimate equalizer to a campy situation. Also, superweapons are absolutely necessary on certain maps (think Death Valley Girl as the prime example, but also Hammer and Sickle, Isle of War, etc.)/
• Thus, while superweapons help an already overpowered soviet squad, it is a critical equalizer in the late game aspect. You've mentioned multiple times that there should be a 'reward' for reaching the late game as an allied player, but this is just not the mentality of the players. Do you think it's fair that a soviet side has absolutely no chance in a campy situation just because they didn't kill the allied opponent in the first few minutes? I don't. I think a fair game is when both players have chances early and late games. Without superweapons, there becomes very real scenarios where the allied player can simply camp with mirages/bfs/prisms and the soviet can not do anything. 
• The best system for 1on1 combat regarding superweapons is likely to have superweapons be completely random on most maps and always on on the certain few maps that absolutely require them. This is a best of both worlds approach and keeps games short while benefiting both squads and good strategy.
• Ultimately, while SW's help the soviets, this forces the allied player to actually use his/her tanks and army and not sit in their base. As an allied player, you will need to learn to attack relentlessly. I'm sure Marsh can tell you all about this as he has reached multiple high ranks on both Ra2 and YR by playing the best players around as a pure allied player. His style of relentless attacks on the opponent is exactly what you should emulate if you wish to be a top allied player and not worry about maps/SW's so much.
• A big difference here between Yuri being OP and soviet being OP (relative to allies) is that when you face Yuri on a certain map, there is almost no chance of victory. When you are the allies and face the OP soviets, you can ALWAYS pull out a victory somehow by some crazy rush or using skill.

2) You are calling these classic maps 'soviet maps' as if to claim they are so imbalanced, and also claiming that people don't want to play the allied maps.

• I think it has less to do with these being 'soviet maps' and more to do with the fact established in the other thread -- the soviet side is simply easier to use / less risky and thus better than the allied side. Like I said before, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. You, as the user, have the choice here to be the overpowered soviet or the badass ultra skilled allied player that beat the soviet. That's a pretty cool dynamic about this game. This is NOT the same as the imbalances inherent in Yuri faction warfare.
• The yuri faction is broke. On Water maps it can rush a boomer in less then 2 minutes. On cliffy maps it can use a magnetron to own your miners and thus eco in the first 3 minutes. On campy maps it can camp the hell out of you while suiciding ufos to your critical buildings and grinding initiates/slaves for unlimited money. I mean, THIS is the imbalance we as a community have always had to deal with. NOT the imbalances in any Allied vs. Soviet warfare.
• Sure, there are a few situations that are a bit bonkers in AvS warfare, but they are few and far a part. The underlying point here once again is that the allied faction simply just takes more skill to use. It requires a lot more skill to use, in my opinion.
• Looking at maps like Dune Patrol and Blood feud, you might say, how the hell do I beat a soviet there who has rhinos while as an allied I'd be lucky to just tech? Well, historically, a good set up is to rush with power + rax + ore ref + war fac (0-1 miners, then grizz or add in 2 ggi ifvs) + ore ref + afc then sell mcv and build a couple rockies + para + harrier(S) over time. This set up allows you to use your skill as allies and the constant harrassing to take advantage. Weak foes will immediately die to this strategy if you harass hard enough. I mean, that's just one strat, there has been countless strategies on Dune/BF as allied players. Try korea there as well against soviets, they are an absolute head ache to play against. I know a while back someone had a base order on dune patrol where they only had 2-4 GGI ifvs, and went to tech to get 2 BF's there and beat soviets. I think it was ir0nclad, perhaps Tony can tell you more about that one.
• Same situation with Dry Heat / Toe / CS, these are all maps where you need to harass the soviet player constantly and it can and has been done.

Ultimately, what I get from you is that you are getting pretty good, but you are just not there yet. You need to constantly harass the soviets as an allied player. If it gets to the Iron Curtain, then you are not doing your job. As an allied player there is two roads you can go down: One is the grizz + para + rockie + harrier + ____ constant bombardment style, which I prefer, and the other is the more slick and skilled version of teching up and having the perfect, but slow army of mirages + bfs + prisms + some grizz. IMO, the master of allies generally uses the second strategy as if you can learn to control that strategy on most maps it is almost unbeatable, however, it takes incredible skill to perform and countless hours learning base orders for it to work. It is a thing of beauty when it works tho.

I just want to stress, that out of all the conversations I've had with people, you are the only person I've seen/talked to who was so worried about these classic maps. I think the point here is that you need to realize in choosing the allied faction you are at a disadvantage. It is harder to use and while maps have inherent imbalances, they won't change that fact. Learn the maps 1 by 1 and learn to attack relentlessly and catch your opponents off guard as the allied (throw in a crazy rush every now and then). You can become a top soviet player in a few months, but you cannot easily master the allied faction. It takes countless hours learning the base orders as they are vastly different on each map/spot/situation, whereas the soviet side can have basic BO's that fit almost any map.

It's hard to talk about this in a coherent, logical approach -- if you have any questions on anything I said, of course feel free to reply and i'll try to explain.

Edited October 29, 2017 by XXxPrePxX

[VWWWWWWWWWWW]

2 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

the other is the more slick and skilled version of teching up and having the perfect, but slow army of mirages + bfs + prisms + some grizz. IMO, the master of allies generally uses the second strategy as if you can learn to control that strategy on most maps it is almost unbeatable

I disagree. Teching should be situational. You should be controlling the game or predicting what the sov player will do. Depends on the map and whether it's 1v1/2v2...but for the most part, If they are going to mass war, then you should tech and go for SW. If they are going to tech for IC quickly, you should mass war and press very hard constantly/control the map/make them use IC for defense. Much of the time you will not win mass war vs mass war or tech vs tech when SW is on if skill level is similar. A teched allies is very easy to beat with a quick IC on most maps. So you need to somehow find an advantage and exploit it. 

Edited October 29, 2017 by VWWWWWWWWWWW

[XXxPrePxX]

5 hours ago, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

I disagree. Teching should be situational. You should be controlling the game or predicting what the sov player will do. Depends on the map and whether it's 1v1/2v2...but for the most part, If they are going to mass war, then you should tech and go for SW. If they are going to tech for IC quickly, you should mass war and press very hard constantly/control the map/make them use IC for defense. Much of the time you will not win mass war vs mass war or tech vs tech when SW is on if skill level is similar. A teched allies is very easy to beat with a quick IC on most maps. So you need to somehow find an advantage and exploit it. 

I think this is great advice. I had just mentioned that in generally as allieds have two very distinct ways to go whereas the soviets really have just one style -- rhinos+wars+IC. 

 

[ZiGZaG]

11 hours ago, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

I disagree. Teching should be situational. You should be controlling the game or predicting what the sov player will do. Depends on the map and whether it's 1v1/2v2...but for the most part, If they are going to mass war, then you should tech and go for SW. If they are going to tech for IC quickly, you should mass war and press very hard constantly/control the map/make them use IC for defense. Much of the time you will not win mass war vs mass war or tech vs tech when SW is on if skill level is similar. A teched allies is very easy to beat with a quick IC on most maps. So you need to somehow find an advantage and exploit it. 

I Think this is very good advice for ra2. But mass war as allies vs Soviet is a disaster on YR. Grizzly don't produce faster like ra2 and a sov will roll through you even if they teched for IC on 1 war. On YR you should always tech asap vs Sov imo. 

[XXxPrePxX]

Nahhh man! Look at Justin/me/probably Marsh style of harass attack as allieds. It's the way to win in QM 1on1 most of the time against tough soviets. The way to go is the combo attacks and base trading end of game. Rockies + grizz + para + seal ifv if need be. That's not only effective, but a shit load of fun :D.

[VWWWWWWWWWWW]

I'm not talking theory...I'm saying what consistently works for me. Mass griz/rockies/para on many maps is much better to do than tech up, especially if sov is going to go for quick IC. Most people just suck at multi tasking and don't know how to think ahead

[XXxPrePxX]

I think this comes full circle to my point...

On YR, in general, if you can tech up as allies successfully and use their teched units combined together (1-2 BF's + 5-10 Mirages + 2 PRisms + rockies + GRizz + Para/GI) then you will be unbeatable late game.

However, that is incredibly risky and borderline impossible to achieve on some maps. Risk plays an important role in being the champion after a long month of 1on1's. The less risky and more efficient way to work with allies is to use mass war for Grizz/para/rockies onslaught attacks.

Either way, the point here is that CeKaJ should realize that while allieds are underpowered compared to soviets, he needs to learn how to harass properly as allieds so that superweapons don't become such a big deal for him, especially on the maps he listed as questionable.

 

[Lucifer]

On 10/27/2017 at 12:45 PM, CekaJ (Jake) said:

Wanna 1v1?

   u are a 50-0 for luci brah 

[Lucifer]

On 10/27/2017 at 12:45 PM, CekaJ (Jake) said:

Wanna 1v1?

   u are a 50-0 for luci brah 

 

20 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

I think this comes full circle to my point...

On YR, in general, if you can tech up as allies successfully and use their teched units combined together (1-2 BF's + 5-10 Mirages + 2 PRisms + rockies + GRizz + Para/GI) then you will be unbeatable late game.

However, that is incredibly risky and borderline impossible to achieve on some maps. Risk plays an important role in being the champion after a long month of 1on1's. The less risky and more efficient way to work with allies is to use mass war for Grizz/para/rockies onslaught attacks.

Either way, the point here is that CeKaJ should realize that while allieds are underpowered compared to soviets, he needs to learn how to harass properly as allieds so that superweapons don't become such a big deal for him, especially on the maps he listed as questionable.

 

You dont just want to sacrifice control of the entire map just to tech up and be killed by the opponents... control over the entire map l0l. This goes for both factions. You want to activate ur positiion so u are less vulnerable to tactics and have future prospects. Soviet players for example, who have it in their mind at the start -- im rushing-- im tier 2 all-in, im fast-ic, are not going about it the right way. The ideas should change as the game-state changes; adaptation.

Is the map open ? More wars before tech

Is the map closed? Tech, quickly

Is the sov guy got going  really fast radar-- really fast tech?  Punish him with what matt and prep are talking about

Is the allied going really fast blab? Punish him with splits and desos

ad infinitum. Everything has a counter

 

its called situational awareness boys

 

[CekaJ (Jake)]

4 hours ago, Lucifer said:

   u are a 50-0 for luci brah 

Let's do it

[CekaJ (Jake)]

On 10/28/2017 at 11:34 PM, XXxPrePxX said:

• Thus, while superweapons help an already overpowered soviet squad, it is a critical equalizer in the late game aspect. You've mentioned multiple times that there should be a 'reward' for reaching the late game as an allied player, but this is just not the mentality of the players. Do you think it's fair that a soviet side has absolutely no chance in a campy situation just because they didn't kill the allied opponent in the first few minutes? I don't. I think a fair game is when both players have chances early and late games. Without superweapons, there becomes very real scenarios where the allied player can simply camp with mirages/bfs/prisms and the soviet can not do anything. 
• he classical notion of superweapons in Ra2/YR and other CnC games. Ok, an argument from tradition is a fallacy, but the reason is not. Generally, players enjoy games that actually end in a short period of time. Superweapons instill this time of game play. It forces the players to make moves and not be complacent. Without superweapons we get involved in campy games, that's just the way it goes. Superweapons are the ultimate equalizer to a campy situation. Also, superweapons are absolutely necessary on certain maps (think Death Valley Girl as the prime example, but also Hammer and Sickle, Isle of War, etc.)/

Ultimately, what I get from you is that you are getting pretty good, but you are just not there yet. 

• I think it has less to do with these being 'soviet maps' and more to do with the fact established in the other thread -- the soviet side is simply easier to use / less risky and thus better than the allied side. Like I said before, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. You, as the user, have the choice here to be the overpowered soviet or the badass ultra skilled allied player that beat the soviet. That's a pretty cool dynamic about this game. This is NOT the same as the imbalances inherent in Yuri faction warfare.

• So you're saying soviet has nothing to do late game if allied techs and supers are off? Do u even know what a siege chopper is? Soviet can camp incredibly well too. I guess you've never used siege choppers then. Oh well! Maybe someone can teach you. @Kireeek (ggi prefer fire air units so run in with siege choppers in the front of ur rhinos and all the ggi in the bfs shoot up not at ur rhino) lol
• As for maps where soviet necessarily needs the iron curtain to have a chance. Would you then dare to say that the map is unbalanced? Even then, are allieds allowed to have a map they're advantaged on? Im putting together some info and writing down things that should be banned and i literally wrote those exact 3 maps down that need to be banned if supers are off. Isle of war, hammer, and death valley girl. before you even mentioned it. if supers are banned then those maps should prolly be too. (unless u just wanna camp with siege choppers vs battle fortresses where the best strat is to not attack.) We're Going for balance here. Duh

Ultimately, what I get from you is that you are pretty good, but you are just inexperienced with supers off, authoritative and not concerned with balance. 

If anyone here is concerned with balance all they have to do is listen to the words of xxxPrePxxx, "You, as the user, have the choice here to be the overpowered soviet or the badass ultra skilled allied player that beat the soviet." 

We're going for a competitive 1v1 quick match format. Balance is when both factions are as close to a 50% win ratio as possible. Some people say supers should be on random but, since when has a random number generator ever added to the competitiveness of a game? Should we punish someone wanting to build a super weapon just to find out they can't? or vice versa? Randomness and roll of the dice mechanics never adds to the competitiveness of a game. On the other hand, if supers are left on 100% of the time then we are left with the "overpowered soviet." as PreP would say. But if you turn supers off it nerfs the overpowerd soviet and buffs the underpowered allied tightening the margin of power, bringing both closer to a win percentage of 50% depending then only on the map. If you see a problem with soviet late game vs allied then you simply haven't pressured the allied at all, don't know how to use siege choppers, or are already playing on an allied favored map which is fair due to Soviets having Soviet favored maps.

Then keep Yuri banned completely since having him only playable on some maps doesn't add to the competitiveness of those maps. Also because if supers are off soviet literally has no chance of winning apart from radar first deso rushes on tiny maps. If everyone is so concerned with Yuri being playable in quick match then make a separate ladder or mode with all of the same maps where there are no bans. Call it the "Legacy format" as opposed to the "Competitive Ban-list Format" Then we can see who is the king of Yuri dittos which is what it would devolve into assuming a Pro Yuri player actually tried and the map pool was balanced. If supers are off Yuri vs Soviet simply is not fair. If supers are on Soviet vs Allied is simply not balanced enough.

Ban france because with no supers the grand cannon walk can be too good in some situations warping the game around the cannons themselves. (Offense defense, Tour of egypt, France is even more of a problem in team games) 4 Black Eagles can't even destroy a cannon in 1 salvo.

Then to address the "Soviet needs iron curtain on this map to win" and "this map is a camp map and the games go on for an hour" problems you simply address and ban the offending maps. From what people have said the main ones are: Death valley Girl, Hammer and Sickle, and Isle of War. This part is more debatable but in regards to a competitive 1v1 format, the map pool can balance itself out if we add an equal amount of maps that favor Allieds and Soviet. 

But this is just some information. I'll go into more detail later in my next post.

Edited October 30, 2017 by CekaJ (Jake)

[Lucifer]

1 hour ago, CekaJ (Jake) said:

Let's do it

marsh may be n00b, but at least hes smart enough to NOT challenge the A.O.D......... Truth be told, u aint pro enough to reinstall and buttrape. 

if aufmindwar did the same thing...... id consider the re-installation and dishing out a 10-0, but hes not that dumb either. 

 

But lets not get off topic.  Just because a map is popular doesnt mean that the map is good. Donald trump is the president of the united states but is also a complete donkey-dick dufus. 

 

On 10/24/2017 at 8:09 PM, XXxPrePxX said:

1. Dune Patrol -- easiest map in the game, constantly played 1on1

2. Country Swing -- Another traditional map that is incredibly easy to play (but tougher than Dune)

3. Hidden Valley -- newbs seem to love this map due to ease of camping and the regeneration buildings

4. Official Tournament map B -- Maybe not as much nowadays, but always a big hit as it's slightly more challenging then dune/CS but it is very simple in strategy. Either you go early dred or you go more rhinos. Most newbs like it because they get the early dred BO down.

5. Dry Heat? Could go with anything here, LBL / Heck / TOE other choices.

^ this post

 

On 10/29/2017 at 1:00 PM, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

I'm not talking theory...I'm saying what consistently works for me. Mass griz/rockies/para on many maps is much better to do than tech up, especially if sov is going to go for quick IC. Most people just suck at multi tasking and don't know how to think ahead

u are a n00b !     Luci owns ur soul in a cage 

[XXxPrePxX]

Sorry for getting back to you late, @CekaJ (Jake), but I've had a lot on my plate in the past few days, let's digest:

First, please don't insult me -- I am a former 9 time rank 1 ladder champion with more hall of fames then just about anyone on the game. I know how to beat allied players late game and understand the importance of a siege chopper. You are the one who has only been here 6 months and has not accomplished anything (admittedly -- that's because there hasn't been a ladder for you to accomplish anything on). I don't know what kind of strategy you/Kireeek are on, but this is not a mod map FFG situation. The idea that you can amass Siege choppers and rhinos to take out BF's is silly. That'll never exist in 1on1's. Rocketeers work 100x better, but obviously that is allied. Although siege choppers are of great use.

I will say (and agree with you) that a random option of SW does not produce the optimal competitiveness for the logic you stated. I was wrong in my reply post stating that the best option is random SW. What I ought to say is that I think the most fun is random SW, but you are right -- random options (especially SW) is detrimental to a competitive QM atmosphere. Good points.

On Yuri -- there will NOT be a separate ladder or modes for Yuri faction. This is a serious activity issue -- we barely have 500 able yuri's revenge players, let alone 100 in a ladder month, splitting them across 2 modes would be a disaster. Also, yuri will never be banned from QM as most of the community respects it as part of the YR game. I believe this train of thought is more philosophical than logic based, but it is what it is -- so it is moot to consider 'banning it', whatever the logic may be. After many years of playing, the community has found maps that make yuri (at least somewhat) consistently beatable through skill. Just as a note: It has been possible in the past to set Superweapons on/off based on faction playing, so theoretically, we could have SvY have SW always on and at the same time have YvA superweapons always off, which is something I proposed a long while back to balance yuri games further. 
Also, I will say that the yuri faction did NOT dominate the ladder in YR XWIS play time. This could be because most pro players decided to use allied/soviet sides, but until we see Yuri faction dominating the ladders with consistent results, there's not an argument that the Yuri faction will easily dominate the ladder.

On France -- I do not understand why parts of the community are fearful of France. I have no problem against France -- ever. It's obvious what France is going to do on the very few maps that it makes a difference and on 90% of the other maps it is almost as bad as Germany. I can see how it warps the game and makes it a slightly different game, but I think this is fine. I see no reason to ban france unless it is a FFG and we want to promote a certain playstyle. In any 1on1 atmosphere, France is a pretty easy team to take down. 

You are also right that if we ban maps accordingly, we could have a very balanced AvS matchup without superweapons. That has been historically what we've done on Ra2 in 'tournament matchups' instead of QM. Players have played their select maps without supers on. However, this is another philosophical dilemma you bring up (and also one that will never get promoted by the community): Do you like one-dimension 'pro' playstyles or more creative games? The one dimensional pro games don't necessarily need SW as the maps don't rely on crazy situations as much, however, QM has always been about using your skills across a wide range of situations like Death Valley Girl, Hammer and Sickle, Isle, Tanya's Training Grounds, etc. etc. instead of just playing the straight up pro maps. For obvious reasons, these more creative situations require supers to be on. The community almost universally wants QM to feel fresh with a mix of pro maps and creative/obscure maps included. 

To sum up some main points:
1) AvS will never be balanced. They are two completely different teams with different styles. Trying to force a balance on them with superweapons off always, and banning many maps will not work and lead to a very one dimensional play style that the community will not get behind. Instead, it's better to adapt. It could be argued that this is the way the game is supposed to be -- allieds having to make it through the early game and using aggressive tactics to overcome the soviet onslaught.You have no argument from me that Soviets are the OP team, but as I said before -- it's not comparable to how OP yuri is. Yuri is OP and broken, Soviets are OP in a good playstyle difference way. 
2) Absolutely no reason to ban France in competitive 1on1s. There's some logic behind banning Yuri, but the community will never agree to it, so it is a very bad philosophical argument to get behind. 
3) SW off/on can be faction and map dependent, but once again -- in a QM style atmosphere it is often best to have them turned on.

As for your ultimately statement, I think I addressed it mostly reminding you that I am a 9 time rank 1 champion, I do care very much about balance, and I hope to not come off as authoritative (I don't even have an admin/mod position here -- I'm just a poster). I'm curious to know your skill level tho -- what have you accomplished in the 6 months you are here? I've never played you -- so it is an honest question -- how many of the 100 or so maps have you truly played on? I find it difficult to believe that you have acquired a top skill in allied play (or even soviets) in just 6 months, so it is an honest question.  

Edited November 1, 2017 by XXxPrePxX