Jump to content

CnCNet Forums

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
XXxPrePxX

How to lower the laming in QM?

Recommended Posts

One common complaint we see about the current framework is that there is A LOT of lamers in Quick match.

 

For a quick definition of laming this means: Engi eating, Engi rushing, Engi+Drone rushing, perhaps alting.

For example, I played my second QM of the month today and, while it was an easy win for me, the guy tried to engi eat me 3 times on Stormy Weather, he walked an engi around the map on me, and used a flak trak + 2 engi + drone on me.

Now, I personally don't mind laming. I prepare every game I play to be lamed. One thing I like to do in almost every QM is build 2 terror drones to stop laming. However, an allied player is much, much more prone to being lamed and costing them the game and other soviet players tend to even stop QMing due to this.

 

What can be done? We have a small debate going around on whether or not names should be visible in loading screens which would allow us to know a head of time if we are vsing a lamer or not.

We have multi-engi option that we could turn on or other options to look into.

 

Also, is laming bad for you in QM right now? Is it a problem?

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either multi-engi or allow balance changes that move the engi to be available after service depot for example, which was a popular change in the custom 1.007 patch of RA2.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omg here we go again, Engi eating, etc part of the game wow. I get engi eaten all the time. Adapt. A lot of these are or appear to be Chinese who constantly spam engi, ifv, drones. Next they’ll be a ‘special’ patch to slow drones down... 

the idea of showing names is good but needs to ensure that if someone bails on seeing the name it counts as a loss so that’s ok. So if possible can name be shown only when game started?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For engie-eating: simply reduce the number of maps with tech buildings on them. Or edit them out of certain maps. Look at Arena 33 Forever. After the mid oils were removed, that edited version became more popular than the original due to better and less luck dependent gameplay.

Alting is legal according to xme, though it's not that effective considering the map pool.

Engineering: that's simply the most cost effective strat in the game. Revealing names and reintroducing bailing (which is hard to determine as admin and just adds another layer of work) just because people aren't adapting isn't correct imo. You should ALWAYS expect engies. Not just reveal the names so you can find your friends that share the old xwis code of honor of "no engie" or "no eat."

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

One common complaint we see about the current framework is that there is A LOT of lamers in Quick match.

 

For a quick definition of laming this means: Engi eating, Engi rushing, Engi+Drone rushing, perhaps alting.

For example, I played my second QM of the month today and, while it was an easy win for me, the guy tried to engi eat me 3 times on Stormy Weather, he walked an engi around the map on me, and used a flak trak + 2 engi + drone on me.

Now, I personally don't mind laming. I prepare every game I play to be lamed. One thing I like to do in almost every QM is build 2 terror drones to stop laming. However, an allied player is much, much more prone to being lamed and costing them the game and other soviet players tend to even stop QMing due to this.

 

What can be done? We have a small debate going around on whether or not names should be visible in loading screens which would allow us to know a head of time if we are vsing a lamer or not.

We have multi-engi option that we could turn on or other options to look into.

 

Also, is laming bad for you in QM right now? Is it a problem?

 

 

it's not a problem if lame is on, but i should know at least, that i am playing a lamer, when i try to eat / lame i get response such as "Lamer" . So basically just display the nicknames in diplomacy screen that will help much.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why we should prevent laming? Come on Ron...? We know both the good old days. I liked your style back in 2006 where you engi a lot in ladder (for a month in a extrem manner)... You was very successful there 🙂

Competitive means, that you can win in different styles, with all possible and legal (ALTing is for example a bug and therefore a illegal mechanic) mechanis...
Why we have an agreement on oils and engis? Everyone build a engi and capture the oil... No fights->instant capture. Remember 2001-2006/2007 etc. You played most time vs random players, where you never know if they agree to this "no-engi-rule". So you have build more dogs, to play more aggressive on oils at the beginning etc. Yeah true, there is a component of luck with the fucking dogs, but the luck you need also by some tanke battles, fodder, etc. etc.
Oils are an additional income, where you have to fight for and not taken as given or present without doing anything.

Why should we limit this component in COMPETITIVE gaming? We clearly decrease the variability of the game, because only a hand of pro gamers (especially XWIS) from 2007-2016 established this strange agreement? Remember the XWIS-CHINA Tournament-> They didn't limit themselves in the mechanis (even though the also allow ALTing, which is bugusing) and in the XWIS-Forums people complaim about laming? So, what is laming? To gain an FAIR advantage? Why is it lame? Should we go competitive or we are in an old peoples home where we complain about everything?

They pro games nowaydays are used to get a free oil, no engi eat etc. and if someone eat or fight for the oils they called them lame? So people don't want to fight for oils, reduce dog luck as good as they can and the same people call this COMPETITIVE?

Look on Official Map B in a iraq mirror game. Everyone gets unchallenged and without pressure instant 2 oils and the build orders and gaming style is very limited. Now play this fucking map without agreements and see what happens.

 

If you call someone a lamer, you are not able to handle this component in this game... Deal with it, deal with additional opportunities.

 

Otherwise we can abolish oils (or Engis), because we dont need them... What is the next step... stop miner droning because it also depends partly on luck and therefore is a lame?

 

Let COMPETITIVE gameplay be COMPETITIVE and this mean you can use all kind of mechanis to win, except bugs and cheats. Thats not only valid for RA2 and YR.

For agreements and some strange rules you can play non-ranked games. A hilarious fact is, that some pro gamer complain about the strange TOE-Gamers with crates and no rush rules, but in the same manner they have agreements on oils and engis and engi-rushes and whatever... :D

Edited by reflexion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, reflexion said:

Competitive means, that you can win in different styles, with all possible and legal (ALTing is for example a bug and therefore a illegal mechanic) mechanis...

correction: in cncnet there's a patch where alting won't prevent the tank coming out from the wf therefore alting is allowed at qm and totally fine toxic behaviour not sure about alting the ref tho!

they forgot that alting wasn't just to block tanks but also to kill the wf faster since u do self damage to urself by ur own tanks/pill box etc..

idk about the old days but in general the qm here is about lame2win i'm fine with that but it doesn't mean i enjoy playin it.
now looking to the newer players goin to qm what do they learn from all of this ? is how to be a toxic player again that's fine i guess but ik alot of players that's not into that and if they are looking for 1v1 they would just go custom and ask some1 they know

Edited by DoDger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, reflexion said:

Why we should prevent laming? Come on Ron...?

I'm not worried about it... but I've read many posts on these forums from players saying that they don't QM because QM is a lame-fest. 

I decided to play some QM last night, and from my very limited sample set, it seems that they are correct. 

On XWIS, there was a 'who's a lamer' topic, and people knew all the lamers in QM by mid-month... on CNCNet we don't have that community bond and we don't see QM players names so I think that aspect turns off a lot of players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you not have a clan which encouraged "creative tactics", i.e. engi related crap? I also recall back in the XWIS days you being voted the biggest lamer!

 

 

Therein lies the problem with obscuring a player's name. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Stoneman said:

Did you not have a clan which encouraged "creative tactics", i.e. engi related crap? I also recall back in the XWIS days you being voted the biggest lamer!

Once again, this has nothing to do with my personal opinions -- I have no problem with playing against lames. This thread has to do with the players that refuse to partake in CNCNet QM due to what they view as an extreme-lamer environment due to not being able to see who their playing. My only bias is to get as many players enjoying QM as possible. 

 

3 hours ago, DoDger said:

idk about the old days but in general the qm here is about lame2win i'm fine with that but it doesn't mean i enjoy playin it.

This sentiment presented by DoDger is what I've seen posted around these forums many times. I know @ShowtimeRa2 has talked about this in his posts. I think players like Marko and TJ have also spoken about this. Marko, TJ, and Showtime are the types of players we need to see in QM for QM to succeed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prep: The game is essentially lame friendly which makes it boring for most decent players, hence why on XWIS there developed a type of honour code (On Red Alert the engineer only took away about half of a buildings HP). If an honour code is not implemented here then the QM will always be a lame fest with only hardcore lamer's partaking (and the occasional Pro that is addicted to the game and will tolerate the lames regardless). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you all could simply ask at the start, "Engie?" If it's your peers that share the code of honor, then they'll agree. If not, always assume engies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FlyingMustache said:

Or you all could simply ask at the start, "Engie?" If it's your peers that share the code of honor, then they'll agree. If not, always assume engies.

That'd be smart, but the problem there is that you'd be giving away your identity for free. Maybe not the biggest deal if you are some machine like Marko, but for a lot of players who are good but not great and go with a 60% or so win rate that could put them at a disadvantage due to others knowing their play style now. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

implement multi engi, no engi eat and ability to veto playing against yuri and you should see a big increase in players.  im fine with it, the majority of people will prolly be fine with it but its up the the people that manage qm if they really want to implement it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, heldro said:

implement multi engi, no engi eat and ability to veto playing against yuri and you should see a big increase in players.  im fine with it, the majority of people will prolly be fine with it but its up the the people that manage qm if they really want to implement it.

Don't think vetoing Yuri is justified. The statistics didn't even show Yuri at the top. Iraq was at the top at 69% win ratio. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate, hate, hate Engi rushing, drone rushing, etc. as much as anyone. But I just don't understand how engi eat can get thrown in the same category. There’s some luck involved, yes, but typically it all follows the same rules. If you don’t want your engineers eaten, protect them with dogs or don't stretch to those oils until you can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, asilentecho said:

I hate, hate, hate Engi rushing, drone rushing, etc. as much as anyone. But I just don't understand how engi eat can get thrown in the same category. There’s some luck involved, yes, but typically it all follows the same rules. If you don’t want your engineers eaten, protect them with dogs or don't stretch to those oils until you can. 

It's pretty simple:

Dogs are pretty much 100% luck on this game. Many times we have seen games decided because 1 dog killed 3 opponents dogs in a row and ate 2 engis. That's pretty lame if you ask me considering no skill whatsoever went into that situation and the opponent did everything in his power to stop it.

Think of a game like Official tournament map B where the oil(s) are very important. This is a map known for engi-eat laming going to the extreme. 1 of your dogs could realistically eat 3-4 of my dogs and thus have easy access to up to 3 of my engis. If that happens thats $200 for you and an early loss of $2100 for me and the loss of my oils, my game is done if you are any good.

That's why, historically, players tend to balance the map by saying 'no eat' and allowing others to get half of the tech buildings on the map so that the game can really get going and be down to the skill. There is just no skill in engi eating, at least, most of the time. In fact, I'd argue there's more skill in engi rushing than there is an engi-eating.

Edited by XXxPrePxX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, asilentecho said:

don't stretch to those oils until you can

This, everyone wants to get there first and when their opponent does, it's suddenly unfair.

 

1 hour ago, FlyingMustache said:

Iraq was at the top at 69% win ratio. 

Again with your flawed stats which are affected by the # of players of each faction.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, RaVaGe said:

This, everyone wants to get there first and when their opponent does, it's suddenly unfair.

 

Again with your flawed stats which are affected by the # of players of each faction.

How does the number of players make it flawed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FlyingMustache said:

How does the number of players make it flawed? 

Because if there is, say, 5% of the population playing as Yuri, there is less of a chance to see a higher percentage of yuri players at the top.

We know that there is a very limited player base that plays (abuses) the yuri faction due to a number of variables:

1) The yuri faction is considered lame by many players
2) The yuri faction is inherently a different gameplay style compared to the more traditional ra2 allies and soviets which most of the population is accustomed to.
3) Over the past 10 years, RA2 XWIS has dominated the population so there hasn't been much of a chance for yuri players to grow.

 

But, it's also a flawed statistic because with such a small sample set (CNCNet QM has something like 50-100 active QM users) there's high volatility.

All it takes is one abuser (Andy) for it to make a large impact. We have Reano, Andy, Leo, ico as yuri players in the ladder if I recall correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've pointed out Mustache's flawed statistics and poor reasoning many times to no avail lols

I also can't think of one Yuri player who is better with allies/sov than they are with Yuri. Wonder why...

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, XXxPrePxX said:

Because if there is, say, 5% of the population playing as Yuri, there is less of a chance to see a higher percentage of yuri players at the top.

We know that there is a very limited player base that plays (abuses) the yuri faction due to a number of variables:

1) The yuri faction is considered lame by many players
2) The yuri faction is inherently a different gameplay style compared to the more traditional ra2 allies and soviets which most of the population is accustomed to.
3) Over the past 10 years, RA2 XWIS has dominated the population so there hasn't been much of a chance for yuri players to grow.

 

But, it's also a flawed statistic because with such a small sample set (CNCNet QM has something like 50-100 active QM users) there's high volatility.

All it takes is one abuser (Andy) for it to make a large impact. We have Reano, Andy, Leo, ico as yuri players in the ladder if I recall correctly.

I don't see how this would refute the win rate statistics. 1) The opinions of players over good gameplay doesn't matter when discussing balance. 2) Yes, and this is what leads to the Yuri bias. 3) With how old the game is, that claim is debatable.

Also, Andy is hardly a good example for your case. He's been getting beat out of the top 10 this month. Yes, the small sample of CNCNET QM is inconclusive for Yuri, but not for Iraq. Which has had the highest representation and win rate since the CNCNET ladder was released. Not to mention, the logic that a handful of Yuris abusing the faction to beat out the competition also doesn't help refute my point. Yuri was at 55% win ratio by these "abusers," but Iraq's win ratio remains high with even the lower skilled players representing the total. @dkeeton Would you be able to show us some of the more current stats?

24 minutes ago, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

I've pointed out Mustache's flawed statistics and poor reasoning many times to no avail lols

I also can't think of one Yuri player who is better with allies/sov than they are with Yuri. Wonder why...

 

 

This is a typical Matt post, nothing but bullshit l0l. Please link any post of you doing such a thing. You won't find any. Also, Latof would be an example of that player you're trying to concoct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...