What things make the ladder/ranked unappealing?

[[nra]Buffalo]

Supers should not be random for SvA, there are many maps on the list that a sov late game has 0 chance if both players are on the same level.

unless you had someone competent and unbiased to figure out which maps super weapons can be off. but i would not even try and open that Pandora's box.

[XXxPrePxX]

Yeah -- I'm totally on boat with the fact that soviets need IC in a very late game vs. allieds, especially when considering certain maps...

 

But I've just been steam rolled so many times as allieds vs. a sov that just goes straight IC and it feels like by the time the IC is ready I haven't even started with my forces.

That's because I'm kinda fucking around and also bad with allies, but I imagine others feel the same way.

Basically, the M.E.T.A of going fast IC to kill allies is basically dominating QM right now when it comes to SvA games, and to me -- that makes it a bit repetitive and boring after a while ( from an allies perspective). Tho, with the large map list that helps a bit!

ps. where the hell is Marsh! We need his allies on the ladder.

[RaVaGe]

1 hour ago, XXxPrePxX said:

 it kinda sucks to see a sov go fast IC and me have to do shit to stop it constantly. 

 

That's the way it's played, if you'd ever seen some top Allied players on RA2, like Adam with his Korea and Alex? (W0nn4play) with us America.
They reached the top and usually kept the Sov too busy with their eco to allow IC. 

You should try more active playstyles, harass more and force the sov to protect miners and make em spend more money on AA.

 

24 minutes ago, [nra]Buffalo said:

Supers should not be random for SvA, there are many maps on the list that a sov late game has 0 chance if both players are on the same level.

unless you had someone competent and unbiased to figure out which maps super weapons can be off. but i would not even try and open that Pandora's box.

I agree with this, a competitive scene needs strict rules and consistent settings.
I also play both Sov & Allied on a fairly equal level, so I understand that if a Sov is able to just go fast IC and chill while it charges then I'm clearly doing something wrong.

[LeOwNzAll]

5 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

 

Since XWIS and WOL it was always like this, sov went for fast IC because it was the best (the only) option. 

Once allied tech and get BF and good TC it’s Unplayable.

if sov can fast tech you can also do. And make a fast BF.

What you have to try to do is exchange 1 BF against 1 IC. 

While he is hunting and killing your BF you keep your mirage/griz in live by going back home, and you have to remake a new BF. Like this when Ic is over a new BF is already ready. And go back to pressure him. Miners or some rhino with the very large attack of BF. And making this way again and again. You don’t even need to make chrono. If you have it it’s a bonus !

dont play as Ra2 making 2 wars or w/e before making lab. On regular map (without gem) you can Tech on 4 miners as allied. And with oils + gem, only 2.

Im not  a pro allied, but I can remember the old good BO of best allied players (Bapor, dean, six etc.) which I used also to compete as allied vs others top. It worked! 

 

 

[[nra]Buffalo]

53 minutes ago, LeOwNzAll said:

What you have to try to do is exchange 1 BF against 1 IC. 

This is pretty much 101 allied vs sovs, takes good micro but when i play allied this is pretty much what i do. 

or only make mirage, because they out run rhinos

[Kireeek]

Random supers didn't seem to be an issue in XWIS Yuri's when it was Soviets vs Allies, Soviets still made it to the top of the ladder almost every month.

The battle between Allies and Soviets is not entirely one sided, since (fortunately) Soviet's have Siege Choppers for late game against Allies. They can make for some decent defense, excellent harassing capabilities, or as air fodder against Battle Fortresses when chasing them with groups of Rhino Tanks. Heck, even a map like Hidden Valley, with many people considering it to be an Allied map with Supers off, Soviets have a good chance of defeating Allies if Siege Choppers are used. The issue I see here is, most Soviet players reliance on Rhino Tanks and ONLY Rhino Tanks as an army, all the while expecting it to work every game, whereas the idea for an RTS game is to utilize your arsenal to its full potential. Super's aren't always necessary, as it undermines a lot of strategies and units while rewarding "faceroll" style game play over meaningful strategical interactions between players. I will concede however, that Supers are needed against Yuri. I find the constant rush to Supers (map dependent of course) to be rather stale and boring, there needs to be more variety in game play. I say random supers should be on, except against Yuri.

16 hours ago, LeOwNzAll said:

What you have to try to do is exchange 1 BF against 1 IC. 

Honestly, what Soviet player will waste 1 Iron Curtain activation against 1 Battle Fortress? The Soviet player is playing it wrong, if this happens to be the case. 9 Rhinos is more than enough to kill 1 or 2 Battle Fortresses (without the Iron Curtain), heck you can even add a 3rd Fortress if you have a few Siege Choppers as air fodder.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Kireeek

[Legolas]

10 minutes ago, Kireeek said:

Random supers didn't seem to be an issue in XWIS Yuri's when it was Soviets vs Allies, Soviets still made it to the top of the ladder almost every month.

The battle between Allies and Soviets is not entirely one sided, since (fortunately) Soviet's have Siege Choppers for late game against Allies. They can make for some decent defense, excellent harassing capabilities, or as air fodder against Battle Fortresses when chasing them with groups of Rhino Tanks. Heck, even a map like Hidden Valley, with many people considering it to be an Allied map with Supers off, Soviets have a good chance of defeating Allies if Siege Choppers are used. The issue I see here is, most Soviet players reliance on Rhino Tanks and ONLY Rhino Tanks as an army, all the while expecting it to work every game, whereas the idea for an RTS game is to utilize your arsenal to its full potential. Super's aren't always necessary, as it undermines a lot of strategies and units while rewarding "faceroll" style game play over meaningful strategical interactions between players. I will concede however, that Supers are needed against Yuri. I find the constant rush to Supers (map dependent of course) to be rather stale and boring, there needs to be more variety in game play. I say random supers should be on, except against Yuri.

Honestly, what Soviet player will waste 1 Iron Curtain activation against 1 Battle Fortress? The Soviet player is playing it wrong, if this happens to be the case. 9 Rhinos is more than enough to kill 1 or 2 Battle Fortresses (without the Iron Curtain), heck you can even add a 3rd Fortress if you have a few Siege Choppers as air fodder.

well said noob gayreeek

[XXxPrePxX]

Yeah... it is somewhat insulting to suggest I do not know the dynamic between soviets and allieds in this thread and to suggest that one merely needs to harass (but at the same time tech up on 4 miners as allieds).

It's clear the META is pretty simple in SvA combat. Soviets go fast IC on most generalized maps, while allieds try to tech up if they are permitted.

I've never seen a game where I can casually tech up as allieds, get my forces, and then fight. That's too be expected... but it's incredibly frustrating trying to do this every game when the sov IC is up in 3 minutes.

As Kireek has pointed out, there are ways the soviets can combat late game allieds.

Really, it's like a time bar in general... Soviets have the 100% advantage starting out and as every minute goes by the bar creeps to allieds advantage... Or at least it should in theory. With the IC in play, it basically makes it sov advantage entirely.

 

Now, with that being said... I think Frequenzy makes a good point that in a ranked atmosphere it is important to have standards... So... do with that as you may.

If I am the only one that is getting wrecked and a touch bored of the constant rush to IC, then so be it -- do not mind me and I will continue to enjoy QM in different ways (Rushing/ playing as sovs etc).

But I have to imagine other (allied) players are bit peeved at constant IC battles.

 

[VWWWWWWWWWWW]

22 minutes ago, Kireeek said:

I find the constant rush to Supers (map dependent of course) to be rather stale and boring, there needs to be more variety in game play.

Except you want to do SW off on very campy maps to accommodate your low skill level lols. Do supers off on maps like heck etc and it's fine. 

[Kireeek]

2 minutes ago, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

Except you want to do SW off on very campy maps to accommodate your low skill level lols. Do supers off on maps like heck etc and it's fine. 

Typical, resort to ad hominem attacks, instead of engaging in a meaningful debate, not entirely unexpected from you.

Not to mention, camping is part of warfare.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Kireeek

[XXxPrePxX]

3 minutes ago, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

Except you want to do SW off on very campy maps to accommodate your low skill level lols. Do supers off on maps like heck etc and it's fine. 

Yeah - SW's would have to always be on on maps like Hammer, Isle of war, and Death Valley. That's the way it was on XWIS YR. Those maps are awful SvA with SW off.

[Kireeek]

13 minutes ago, XXxPrePxX said:

Really, it's like a time bar in general... Soviets have the 100% advantage starting out and as every minute goes by the bar creeps to allieds advantage... Or at least it should in theory. With the IC in play, it basically makes it sov advantage entirely.

 

Now, with that being said... I think Frequenzy makes a good point that in a ranked atmosphere it is important to have standards... So... do with that as you may.

If I am the only one that is getting wrecked and a touch bored of the constant rush to IC, then so be it -- do not mind me and I will continue to enjoy QM in different ways (Rushing/ playing as sovs etc).

But I have to imagine other (allied) players are bit peeved at constant IC battles.

 

I agree with this, Soviet's have a tremendous advantage in the early game, I think if Allies make it to late game, they should be rewarded for reaching that point in the game, after being harassed and bullied by the best basic tank in the game (Rhinos).

[VWWWWWWWWWWW]

9 minutes ago, XXxPrePxX said:

Yeah - SW's would have to always be on on maps like Hammer, Isle of war, and Death Valley. That's the way it was on XWIS YR. Those maps are awful SvA with SW off.

Funny. You're talking about ladder activity when your still an engi rushing noob lols. Hope I match you a lot in the future so I can make you realize what a scrub you are

[Kireeek]

13 minutes ago, XXxPrePxX said:

Yeah - SW's would have to always be on on maps like Hammer, Isle of war, and Death Valley. That's the way it was on XWIS YR. Those maps are awful SvA with SW off.

I've never had a problem with Allies in late game in Death Valley Girl, just to put it simply, mass Siege Choppers are incredibly good in that map. There's very little Allies can do against THAT many Siege Choppers camped up on the only two entrances with air fodder. Yes, it can get incredibly campy, too campy in fact however, Soviet's can Siege Walk towards the Allies, as they have no unit capable of reaching deployed Siege Choppers without losing Battle Fortresses or Prism Tanks.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Kireeek

[XXxPrePxX]

Just now, Kireeek said:

I've never had a problem with Allies in late game in Death Valley Girl, just to put it simply, mass Siege Choppers are incredibly good in that map. There's very little Allies can do against THAT many Siege Chopper's camped up on the only two entrances. Yes, it can get incredibly campy, too campy in fact however, Soviet's can Siege Walk towards the Allies, as they have no unit capable of reaching deployed Siege Choppers without losing Battle Fortresses or Siege Choppers.

To be fair, I didn't mention any advantage... other than the map has a potential to become an endless battle and no one wants that in QM. DVG has a very high potential of both teams camping their respective side of the bridges and without supers it easily becomes a 'first person to attack loses' game. I particularly remember a game against ZigZag like this on XWIS YR QM when SW's were random (and off in this situation).

[ZiGZaG]

14 minutes ago, Kireeek said:

I agree with this, Soviet's have a tremendous advantage in the early game, I think if Allies make it to late game, they should be rewarded for reaching that point in the game, after being harassed and bullied by the best basic tank in the game (Rhinos).

Its nowhere near as much of an advantage as on RA2, also the best basic tank in the game isn't always rhino's, there are map's where grizzly are much more effective. They are rewarded, with a variety of strong unit's with much more versatility than soviets.

 

Overall the IC is pretty powerful, but almost all map's with bridges the chronosphere is better. If you take the IC away from Sov's late game it becomes almost impossible to deal with the clusterfuck of mirage/bf/prizim, only mass Siege deployed have a chance and on most map's allies can just go around them.

 

That being said i have no issue with super's being random for most map's and set on for map's that end up in 2 hour games without them.

Edited March 11, 2018 by ZiGZaG

[ZiGZaG]

5 minutes ago, XXxPrePxX said:

To be fair, I didn't mention any advantage... other than the map has a potential to become an endless battle and no one wants that in QM. DVG has a very high potential of both teams camping their respective side of the bridges and without supers it easily becomes a 'first person to attack loses' game. I particularly remember a game against ZigZag like this on XWIS YR QM when SW's were random (and off in this situation).

I remember this it Lasted like 3? 4? Hours lol

[XXxPrePxX]

 

 

"Overall the IC is pretty powerful, but almost all map's with bridges the chronosphere is better. If you take the IC away from Sov's late game it becomes almost impossible to deal with the clusterfuck of mirage/bf/prizim, only mass Siege deployed have a chance and on most map's allies can just go around them."

 

In no world is the chronosphere ever better than the IC. Even on a map like Tsunami, IC is still preferable IMO. That's the only situation where it comes close to 50/50. 

Chronospheres 7-minute timer and the allied power plant absolutely kill it's usefulness. While by the time your first IC is ready you have an actual army to use.

Edited March 11, 2018 by XXxPrePxX

[FlyingMustache]

Let's get this moron out of here. There's a civil discussion going on, and Matt (VWWWWWWWW) comes in to inject his stupidity. @Ferret @Grant @FunkyFr3sh  Get this fool out of here please.

[XXxPrePxX]

1 minute ago, FlyingMustache said:

Let's get this moron out of here. There's a civil discussion going on, and Matt (VWWWWWWWW) comes in to inject his stupidity. @Ferret @Grant @FunkyFr3sh  Get this fool out of here please.

I did just successfully engi rush him on GSF.

I'm sorry Matt -- when I saw GSF my eyes lit up with old time strategy. The engi walk on GSF is absolutely deadly and I created that strategy over 10 years ago... don't feel bad tho, that strategy is what got me many times clan rank 1 on Ra2 XWIS against players like Tommi/Steffen/Joku/Edd/Sash/w0nna and the like :p. No one expects it on GSF because people don't scout the outskirts of the map and focus entirely on the middle.

I look forward to you kicking my ass in QM.

[FlyingMustache]

5 minutes ago, XXxPrePxX said:

I did just successfully engi rush him on GSF.

I'm sorry Matt -- when I saw GSF my eyes lit up with old time strategy. The engi walk on GSF is absolutely deadly and I created that strategy over 10 years ago... don't feel bad tho, that strategy is what got me many times clan rank 1 on Ra2 XWIS against players like Tommi/Steffen/Joku/Edd/Sash/w0nna and the like :p. No one expects it on GSF because people don't scout the outskirts of the map and focus entirely on the middle.

I look forward to you kicking my ass in QM.

Getting engied is no reason to always be flaming. Plus it's not like that's what would trigger it. This guy flames regardless of what one does. I'm just tired of him hijacking posts with his nonsense.

[ZiGZaG]

1 minute ago, XXxPrePxX said:

 

 

"Overall the IC is pretty powerful, but almost all map's with bridges the chronosphere is better. If you take the IC away from Sov's late game it becomes almost impossible to deal with the clusterfuck of mirage/bf/prizim, only mass Siege deployed have a chance and on most map's allies can just go around them."

 

In no world is the chronosphere ever better than the IC. Even on a map like Tsunami, IC is still preferable IMO. That's the only situation where it comes close to 50/50. 

Chronospheres 7-minute timer and the allied power plant absolutely kill it's usefulness. While by the time your first IC is ready you have an actual army to use.

I disagree completely, the seal makes use of the chronosphere much more effective, blow bridges sit 2 seal ifv's and a bf at every bridge and wait. Cant lose.

artic circle, bull run, dmz, tsunami, depth, alaskan, hammer. Regardless of timer's, if a sov cant get near you an ic is useless. allies on the other hand can just chrono in and do damage. I would take a chronosphere on any of these maps over an IC.

I remember playing Latof once on bulllrun ra2 allies vs sovs (and i suck with allies) i simply put multiple tanyas (in ifv's so he cant ic them) at every bridge took over the water, there was nothing he could do at all, i would just chrono prizims in and wipe out his supers time and time again, this is even easier on yr because of seal's (cheaper + available earlier) and chrono gi bf rather than prizim (cant stop with deso's).

The IC is better on the majority of map's, no arguement there. But i maintain that there are some map's where in comparison with the Chronosphere, it sucks.

Id be more than happy to play you AvS on some of these map's and demonstrate my point.

[VWWWWWWWWWWW]

3 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

I look forward to you kicking my ass in QM.

How about you do a 1v1 series vs me while someone streams? Easy 5-0. And all the noobs crying about activity and then right when there is a QM they are laming every single game lols. Fkin idiots

[XXxPrePxX]

2 hours ago, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

How about you do a 1v1 series vs me while someone streams? Easy 5-0. And all the noobs crying about activity and then right when there is a QM they are laming every single game lols. Fkin idiots

Why? I'm 26-25 this month and haven't played in 4 months (sans this QM period). What do you seek to prove? If you are losing (0-2) to me in QM, then you are not polished enough to be the champion of this ladder with the current set of players. You should have not lost to me based on our skills right now, but your lack of experience cost you twice.

 

There's no debate that you are more skilled than me in our current states. I fail to see what a 1on1 series would prove.

[VWWWWWWWWWWW]

Current states? You have never been good at either game lol. You were known for laming people. You apparently still lame people. You have always and will always be a scrub. But you're the one that said you look forward to kicking my ass? So why not make it a series?