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

There seems to be the same group of players always complaining about things that are "op" because they are just bad at the game, no matter how many changes that were made they would still complain as they are not top players, at this point we should probably just ignore what they have to say.

 

33 minutes ago, FlyingMustache said:

Also, Andy is hardly a good example for your case. He's been getting beat out of the top 10 this month.


Not sure me losing a few games to CsOh only and taking a break for a week to focus on more important things would be called "getting beat out of top 10" :D I'll be back to take rank 1 at the end of the month.

Edited by Andy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours 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.

Here is a big problem, i can ask about engi thing, but if opponent is bad ass he won't reply, plus now he knows who is he playing, and to know who are you playing is a advantage to me at least . ;)

Share this post


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

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.


Brilliant example, but a very weak arguement.
I explain why...

 

You compare a 1v1 dog battle where the random factor is pretty close to 100%. But i can also argue that a 1v1 tank battle, or a 1v1 rekrut battle is close to 100% randomness.

So the question is, (for example at off tourny B) how can i reduce the factor of randomness and replace it with skill? If the oils are so important, why i should only send 1 dog to capture the oil? To be honest, if you increase the amount of dogs the random factor decreases, because the control factor is increasing with the amount of dogs and you know that. So you have to fight more for oils. You have to invest more than 700 to get a oil (1 engi + 1 dog). You have to balance which amount of money you have to spend in such a early oil, or you wait and attack it earlier (its only option).

Noone will ever reach a 100% win rate. Also in football or other sports strong teams will lose, because of "unlucky" situations. But the point is, that you have to reduce this variable close to zero (which depends on skill), so that you not frequently dependent on such unlikely situations.

Also Banks, investors, industrial companies etc. reduce their risk to a minimum, but a residiual risk is always there... So Skill is defined by reducing the risky (random) factors to a minimum and increase the percentage of control.

The off tourny B example would not depend on luck, if you abolish this agreements, but people have to adjust their early game style to decrease the risk factor. If you go further on blind with 1 dog and 1 engi to the oil you will lose on a 50% probability. So you have to adjust your gameplay to decrease this random factor.

 

 

Edited by reflexion
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Mustache....I believe latof was at the top of the ladder with yuri. And considering he played ra2 exclusively for years prior to coming to cncnet for a bit and toying with yuri, that's not a very good example. And I don't want to hear about how he may have played some yuri 10 years ago bla bla bla. Once again, poor reasoning on your part. Try again =]

Edited by VWWWWWWWWWWW

Share this post


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


Brilliant example, but a very weak arguement.
I explain why...

 

You compare a 1v1 dog battle where the random factor is pretty close to 100%. But i can also argue that a 1v1 tank battle, or a 1v1 rekrut battle is close to 100% randomness.

So the question is, (for example at off tourny B) how can i reduce the factor of randomness and replace it with skill? If the oils are so important, why i should only send 1 dog to capture the oil? To be honest, if you increase the amount of dogs the random factor decreases, because the control factor is increasing with the amount of dogs and you know that. So you have to fight more for oils. You have to invest more than 700 to get a oil (1 engi + 1 dog). You have to balance which amount of money you have to spend in such a early oil, or you wait and attack it earlier (its only option).

Noone will ever reach a 100% win rate. Also in football or other sports strong teams will lose, because of "unlucky" situations. But the point is, that you have to reduce this variable close to zero (which depends on skill), so that you not frequently dependent on such unlikely situations.

Also Banks, investors, industrial companies etc. reduce their risk to a minimum, but a residiual risk is always there... So Skill is defined by reducing the risky (random) factors to a minimum and increase the percentage of control.

The off tourny B example would not depend on luck, if you abolish this agreements, but people have to adjust their early game style to decrease the risk factor. If you go further on blind with 1 dog and 1 engi to the oil you will lose on a 50% probability. So you have to adjust your gameplay to decrease this random factor.

 

 

In my example, I mentioned how 1 dog defeated 3 dogs. You are right that this has a lower chance of happening, but it does happen and it's a pretty shitty way to lose a game when the alternative is to just balance the techs to each and not fight over them.

The reason why it's such shit is because it ends the game in the first 30-60 seconds without any other units/fight. I brought up Offic map B due to how quickly it occurs in the game. There's no real way to stop it 100% of the time unless you are buying 5++ dogs and even this has the rare (but all too familiar) occurrence of failing. 

If there was a way to build sentries there or have tanks determine the oil distribution, then I'd agree it's a game of risk analysis and thus, skill. 
But it's a video game... and it's being determined by 1 dog going crazy and eating 3+1 engi of the opponents.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other player who got lucky with the dog can also make mistakes during the game and you can get your advantage back, reducing risk is the way to go and @reflexion explained it better than I ever could. I've always frowned at the idea of no eat on XWIS QM as after months of consistent playing my dogs were winning more fights than others.

The positioning and angle of attack all had an effect at least on RA2, I haven't played YR competitive consistently enough to 'prove it' to everyone who blindly insists that it's 100% luck based. Due to the fact that the game code / programming that underlies the dog mechanic is logic based there are patterns to these lucky circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, XXxPrePxX said:

In my example, I mentioned how 1 dog defeated 3 dogs. You are right that this has a lower chance of happening, but it does happen and it's a pretty shitty way to lose a game when the alternative is to just balance the techs to each and not fight over them.

The reason why it's such shit is because it ends the game in the first 30-60 seconds without any other units/fight. I brought up Offic map B due to how quickly it occurs in the game. There's no real way to stop it 100% of the time unless you are buying 5++ dogs and even this has the rare (but all too familiar) occurrence of failing. 

If there was a way to build sentries there or have tanks determine the oil distribution, then I'd agree it's a game of risk analysis and thus, skill. 
But it's a video game... and it's being determined by 1 dog going crazy and eating 3+1 engi of the opponents.

 

Yeab, but in my opinion your mistake is that you only see the dog battle... The goal is, to kill the engi and not the opponents dog. I can adjust my movement etc. and try to avoid the dog battle etc. There are a lot of variants to kill the engi or save the oil. If you are able to defend the oil long enough it is watet time and money for your opponent.

The argument of "the game is over in 30 seconds" is stupid in my oppinion. I can build no engi and instead of that i try to defend the oils. I can recapture oils after the first war... etc. etc. The problem is that people are used to the standard gameplay. The game also could be over if i rush with mbf, inf rush, 3 tanks rush, destroy a miner in early game etc. Is this a problem? I guess not and its part of the game and competitive... Otherwise we can also say, 10 min no rush because the games end to fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, eating engies is just as lame as soviets rushing against other soviets with 1 drone and 1 rhino and killing that one miner a lot of the time it's so easy to pull off that at one point I just started doing it to my opponent while they did it to me. Then we can both rebuild from 1, 0 miner, which just turns the games boring.

Share this post


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

I agree, eating engies is just as lame as soviets rushing against other soviets with 1 drone and 1 rhino and killing that one miner a lot of the time it's so easy to pull off that at one point I just started doing it to my opponent while they did it to me. Then we can both rebuild from 1, 0 miner, which just turns the games boring.

highly disagree with that comparison. 

Engi eat is dog-based while the rhino+drone attack I can micro my way out of it rather easily by just clicking the miner and clicking the drone. Perhaps it's not 'easy' per se, but it has a high success rate for the top level players permitting they scouted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, XXxPrePxX said:

highly disagree with that comparison. 

Engi eat is dog-based while the rhino+drone attack I can micro my way out of it rather easily by just clicking the miner and clicking the drone. Perhaps it's not 'easy' per se, but it has a high success rate for the top level players permitting they scouted. 


huh? Engi eat is not solely dog-based... Well, if you send out 1 dog and 1 engi and your dog dies, also the engi will die.
But is this a dog-based fact or a misplay from the player...? The Engi cant do anything, so protect him or wait a little bit. All players instantly build an engi because the believe the get the oil without any work. Well stop building engis instantly, defend the oil against enemy engis and dogs or at least try to outmove the enemy engi or dogs as long as you can build a drone (and this is no long time). Or, save yur engi in the beginning and recapture the oil after a while. There are severa opportunities, it only depends on you gaming style and habits. Thats not called laming, its called competitive gameplay.

Share this post


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


huh? Engi eat is not solely dog-based... Well, if you send out 1 dog and 1 engi and your dog dies, also the engi will die.
But is this a dog-based fact or a misplay from the player...? The Engi cant do anything, so protect him or wait a little bit. All players instantly build an engi because the believe the get the oil without any work. Well stop building engis instantly, defend the oil against enemy engis and dogs or at least try to outmove the enemy engi or dogs as long as you can build a drone (and this is no long time). Or, save yur engi in the beginning and recapture the oil after a while. There are severa opportunities, it only depends on you gaming style and habits. Thats not called laming, its called competitive gameplay.

I understand where you are going with that, but if you hold off on capturing the oil derrick, the other play will grab the derrick and then have no problem defending it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ZAIN said:

Here is a big problem, i can ask about engi thing, but if opponent is bad ass he won't reply, plus now he knows who is he playing, and to know who are you playing is a advantage to me at least . ;)

If giving them your name is a problem, then don't say anything and just assume engies are coming your way. That's how the game plays. 

Share this post


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

If giving them your name is a problem, then don't say anything and just assume engies are coming your way. That's how the game plays. 

I did that sir, and i am getting responses "Lamer" beat lud0wig other day and he says you are a lamer. 

I don't wanna beat someone with a lame , when i can beat them without lame lol.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, ZAIN said:

I don't wanna beat someone with a lame , when i can beat them without lame lol.

This is just childish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ZAIN said:

I did that sir, and i am getting responses "Lamer" beat lud0wig other day and he says you are a lamer. 

I don't wanna beat someone with a lame , when i can beat them without lame lol.

 

It's the game though. That's nobody's fault except the designers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is alting taken now with are changes to it? Is it still used just as much or less?

How opposed would people be to have MultiEngineer on for a month to trial it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Grant said:

How is alting taken now with are changes to it? Is it still used just as much or less?

How opposed would people be to have MultiEngineer on for a month to trial it?

to get an idea about this you should add a poll about multi engi, engi eat and bailing yuri.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, heldro said:

to get an idea about this you should add a poll about multi engi, engi eat and bailing yuri.

Good idea

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Good idea

a poll about displaying nicknames in diplomacy screen as well please, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just addressing OP.  I think engi eating is fine, but I played in a different era I suppose. All you have to do is build walls to stop engiing, and as much as multi- Engi would be great.. engiing  is a strong tactic against the yuri faction. But back to my reasoning to why “engi eating” should be kept.

1)If I don’t know the map, I auto lose because they get an oil derrick and I don’t. 

Edit: and on large maps if I don’t know who gets what Derrick and I grab the wrong ones I’m still called a lamer

2)leads to unique gameplay on maps. Sure a small amount of maps are auto lose if you don’t get the Derrick, but most of them are not. This forces you to think outside the box of your normal build orders and learn to adapt to the situation. This was proven many moons ago when EDD challenged Marko to a series with engi eat on.

Alting is a tough one, as much as alting needs to just go, you gotta love rushing yuri and alting their bunker with your flak while u crush them. Every hear a yuri player cry lamer?

edit: I think not showing nicknames was a great decision. 

Edited by a1nthony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2018 at 8:05 AM, VWWWWWWWWWWW said:

Mr. Mustache....I believe latof was at the top of the ladder with yuri. And considering he played ra2 exclusively for years prior to coming to cncnet for a bit and toying with yuri, that's not a very good example. And I don't want to hear about how he may have played some yuri 10 years ago bla bla bla. Once again, poor reasoning on your part. Try again =]

Why would his YR experience be void? Just because it doesn't fit your narrative? Because logically, that 100% would corroborate his good gameplay. Matt, if you want to debate me, at least put some thinking into your words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 6:52 PM, FlyingMustache said:

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.

I don't qm much, but i have 3-4 times a month at most.  From what I've seen, there are a LOT of inexperienced players playing as yuri because they see how op it is and are smart enough to realize that (takes about 10 iq).  The reason you see so many iraq players winning and playing is because it's one of the best counters to yuri. And most players who dont stoop to using yuri use iraq for that reason.

As a reply to the above, I want to point out that using cncnet ladder statistics is literally idiotic for ANY faction...it is such a small pool from which to derive statistics that it's not a good idea to use win percentages as a measure for a faction's power.  Not to mention all the ra2 pros joining up to cncnet who almost all use iraq.  Like i mentioned above, inexperienced players use yuri because it's so blatantly obvious how overpowered the faction is.  This drives down the yuri win percentage heavily. 

Most importantly to Yuri sympathizers, it's not nearly as much about knowing how to play vs the faction as it is how overpowered it is.  Your OWN CREATION mx is proof that you yourself agree with this fact.  Also watch any stream by any yuri player....3 apm.  The sov playing vs them?  yeah....

But as for the main point of this thread...multi engi would be a good step toward stopping laming.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gun_Man said:

I don't qm much, but i have 3-4 times a month at most.  From what I've seen, there are a LOT of inexperienced players playing as yuri because they see how op it is and are smart enough to realize that (takes about 10 iq).  The reason you see so many iraq players winning and playing is because it's one of the best counters to yuri. And most players who dont stoop to using yuri use iraq for that reason.

As a reply to the above, I want to point out that using cncnet ladder statistics is literally idiotic for ANY faction...it is such a small pool from which to derive statistics that it's not a good idea to use win percentages as a measure for a faction's power.  Not to mention all the ra2 pros joining up to cncnet who almost all use iraq.  Like i mentioned above, inexperienced players use yuri because it's so blatantly obvious how overpowered the faction is.  This drives down the yuri win percentage heavily. 

Most importantly to Yuri sympathizers, it's not nearly as much about knowing how to play vs the faction as it is how overpowered it is.  Your OWN CREATION mx is proof that you yourself agree with this fact.  Also watch any stream by any yuri player....3 apm.  The sov playing vs them?  yeah....

But as for the main point of this thread...multi engi would be a good step toward stopping laming.  

Using statistics is always better than resorting to opinions. Opinions always lead to bias. Your very post here has bias. My mod was created with the non-sw meta in mind. (Hence why many things were changed.) The SW meta is already quite well off. So, to emphasize again,  use statistics to discover if Yuri is too powerful or not. Some of the top players don't have issues. Marko and CsOH don't complain about Yuri in qm.

I have my own bias, that's why I emphasize statistics. I could just complain that Iraq requires 10iq to dominate. (Which seems that way anecdotally) but anecdotes don't help us. Best bet is to keep playing qm and add more stats to go off of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gun_Man said:

  Also watch any stream by any yuri player....3 apm.  The sov playing vs them?  yeah....

Sorry to talk about something else,  but here are you meaning than APM bigger --> Harder to play / Better player ?

 

To talk about complaining engi eat and all stuff. I don't like it, but - i think - the less worst is to let as it's now.

If we display the name (to know lamers), there will be bail/push.

If we add multi-engi, we change the game, an engi at 10mns game it's smarter and well played (for me, similar as seal/ivan/tanya), so i don't like this idea to delete it.

If we add no engi eat, lot of games, some players will engi walk through the map to catch mvc or another building. For Yuri players it changes nothing as there is no dog lol; but i guess for SvS/SvA/AvA could be horrible :(

If we do as WOL QM did, 3 mns rules, at this time that was great, ppl was respectful and there was no engi eat, or rush ifv/engi before 3mns, else you just leave, but today there will be too many bails (maps/factions) or push.

 

Now, we have to assume these players who lames, and maybe some luck/bad luck with dogs, but no bail/push, and we keep the possibility to engi in long game.

 

IF it's possible, the best way would to make engineer "invicible" for 2 mns but he can't steal building (just tech building). Then after these 2 mns passed, engi will be normal.

Share this post


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

If we do as WOL QM did, 3 mns rules

This pretty much shows perfectly that they realised they fucked up the game design in terms of competitive and tried to fix it through the ladder...

🤣😂😆

  • Like 1

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...