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

[SodswSov]

Yeah supers always on kind of makes games less strategic, but the random supers adds a bit of an unknown to it all. If a soviet goes quick tech to IC against an allied player and finds out there is no supers, it gives the advantage to the allied player because he's not heavily outtanked by the time he techs instead of 2-3 warfactories to his 1. Therefore you will have to tech based off of map and vantage points in game. It also adds an element to sov vs sov. So instead of racing and deso camping to ic so your 8 tanks can defeat his 14, you will actually have to expand your base and build up your tanks so he can't split you into pieces.

[LeOwNzAll]

17 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

Leo,

YR WOL times were greatly different, there is no question about that. 3 minute bail time, a ton of random maps in QM led to a Yuri's and allied dominance over the ladder. That just makes sense.

Check this ladder out from December 24, 2002, you are rank 3. There are 9 Yuri faction players out of 11 in the top 11.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021224210720/http://games2.westwood.com:80/yuriX_ladder/ranking.html

June 14, 2002: http://web.archive.org/web/20020614182537/http://games2.westwood.com:80/yuriX_ladder/ranking.html

Nov 14, 2001: http://web.archive.org/web/20011114085956/http://games2.westwood.com:80/yuriX_ladder/ranking.html

1 Soviet player in top 10
 

I mean, I'm not trying to prove anything by posting wayback machine snapshots of the ladder from 2002 era other than it was a completely different style of play and it was incredibly imbalanced. We have honed the game since then.

 

Ok ok anyway each one we have a different point of view, we could discuss in private. 

The most important is the future of this old fun game ! 

How did you get this link? I would love to see more! It reminds me some good nicks. 

[VWWWWWWWWWWW]

5 hours ago, ZiGZaG said:

You normally play ra2 so not sure why your debating how to play on YR

 

Now I'm not claiming to be a strong allied player, but I've played long enough to know enough.. like you said earlier I'm just saying what works in my experience. From a sov perspective on YR if an allied enemy's techs they have much more chance of winning against me. I do agree there is a 4-5 minute window where they are vulnerable once they tech. 

 

I agree it depends on the situation but I find it difficult to think of a map where an allied player could multi war without a lab and be successful on YR. Grizzly just don't hold up like in ra2.

I think you are underestimating the difference between RA2/YR. Grizzly don't build faster here so you have even less plastic tanks than usual.

 

Ask Marsh or tej they are probably at ur level if not better than you with allies? like I said we did loads of games on YR QM for a long time and mass war without lab as allies doesn't work vs a good Soviet on YR.

It's been a common mistake by Ra2 players on YR for years.

Yes I came from ra2, but I'm still better than most on YR, especially with allies. In 2v2, I don't think anyone is better than me with allies on either game.

Me and max did 2v2s with Tej and Chandler a week or two ago, and some other people like Quix/Sm-Pro/Ic0, and I think we won 7-1 or something when I did not tech quickly one game. I think in those games I didn't tech at all except for 1 game after 3 wars. As long as your m8 is good and can take advantage of the help you give them, there is a lot that allies can do in 2v2 without a lab. 

WIth 1v1s, there are less situations where you should mass war, but there are still some. You telling me you think allies should tech quickly on heck when SW is on? Fk no. You think allies can't be good with mass wars on jungle or caverns, especially vs a sov player you think will try to tech quickly? Of course it can. Like I said it's all situational and guessing what the other person will do, but I'll leave it at that. We can always do 1v1s/2v2s to see real life examples. 

[XXxPrePxX]

2 hours ago, LeOwNzAll said:

Ok ok anyway each one we have a different point of view, we could discuss in private. 

The most important is the future of this old fun game ! 

How did you get this link? I would love to see more! It reminds me some good nicks. 

This is a wayback machine which logs screenshots of various websites over the years. Unfortunately, it is shotty in that it has very limited results. It can be further found in this thread on XWIS: http://xwis.net/forums/index.php/topic/40036-all-links-to-old-ladders/

I went to one of the direct links to the ladder as the first post links are dead. 

[Lucifer]

1 hour ago, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

 In 2v2, I don't think anyone is better than me with allies on either game.

 

^^

[CekaJ (Jake)]

On 11/4/2017 at 9:17 AM, XXxPrePxX said:

but that's why we are here :D. As an Iraq player, I would love to see Yuri banned from rank games, but that's just not going to fly in the community. Best to just find maps that at least give a player the chance to consistently beat yuri. 

I like your idea but i feel it's still too debatable and controversial which maps Yuri should be allowed on; too arguable. It's less arguable tho if you either allow him in competitive play or not based on him being generally overpowered. Most good players now don't even play with Yuri in non ranked games so I'm pretty confident the people who really are concerned with the ladder would not mind if Yuri wasn't allowed; apart from a few exceptions. We have to remember we're talking about a balanced competitive mode here. We aren't banning Yuri from cncnet. We would be banning him from competitive play only. No startcraft 2 faction is banned from only "some" maps. We will never be able to balance Yuri and agree. Is it possible we just leave the competitive ladder to Allied and Soviet factions only? Would there be a great majority of people happy with a Non-Yuri ladder?

On 11/4/2017 at 9:17 AM, XXxPrePxX said:

Problem here in the train of thought is that without SW, we can't play maps like Depth Charge, DVG, Hammer, Alasakan Oil .... pretty much any map that is dominated by water/campy points, which then it reverts back to our main agreeance/dispute.

I agree that maps that don't require SW's often have a more balanced matchup AvS without super weapons. However, then you need to eliminate a lot of these fun maps which have "creative" outputs in gameplay. 

Thank you for seeing my point about AVS more balanced without supers on balanced maps.

My concern still is 

1. Supers are on and the sov iron curtains every 4 minutes, the allied chronos prisms or gi forts every 7

2. Supers are off and the soviet actually needs to win the navy war. and or siege chopper walk on campy maps.

All of these maps you named are already considered to be allied maps. That being said soviet can still win but allied is favored. There are also maps where soviet is favored. If we leave the map veto system in place but also turn super weapons off a pure soviet player can simply veto the strongest allied maps and the allied player can simply veto the strongest soviet maps leaving us back to "OUR" side of the arguement: I agree that maps that don't require SW's often have a more balanced matchup AvS without super weapons. However, then you need to eliminate a lot of these fun maps which have "creative" outputs in gameplay.  We would be left with balanced maps.

btw A map like hidden valley with super weapons off can easily be a soviet map late game if the sov pressured the allied early and develops into a siege chopper walk. 

With map vetoes and supers off can we have a balanced ladder? I say yes.

 

On 11/4/2017 at 9:17 AM, XXxPrePxX said:

I think what could be possible is non SW AvS games on a certain amount of maps, then mirror matchups on some of the more “creative” style maps with SW on so we get the best of both worlds. That seems to keep the best of both worlds happy where can still utilize all map scenarios yet have a more balanced AvS game where super weapons do not have to be on for both teams to have a chance long and short term. 

Again i feel it's too debatable as to which maps should be super weapons on and which they should be off. Would it be simpler to have supers on in mirror matches and  them off when it comes to allied vs soviet? (Yuri banned.) Then having map vetoes so sov players can veto camp/ water maps and allied players can veto open and small maps? 

That seems pretty balanced and fair.