YR Quickmatch maps
#26
Posted 20 February 2009 - 06:06 PM
#27
Posted 20 February 2009 - 06:11 PM
still a stupid idea
don said we had to include the views of the whole community, i don't think let 3 gd players decide is what she ment.
3 good players take the views of the community as a whole, being decent players they should have a fair knowledge of the diff styles of maps people like to play. We cn't please everyone all of the time, but lets try and please as many as we can.
#28
Posted 20 February 2009 - 06:25 PM
#29
Posted 20 February 2009 - 06:41 PM
let them make a few proposals and let the community vote on those seems more fair imo.
I have a plan that would take that to a whole new level .
Basically the plan is as follows --->
1. Create a subforum here in xwis discussion entitled YR QM Renovation
2. Day 1 Consists of Elimination of maps felt unfair by the community. Discussions will arise on maps that need to be excluded from qm. These maps include, but are not limited to, antown amerika, and many of the yuri qm maps.
3. Day 2-7 Will be the discussions on maps being included. This will be in 2 parts, Yuri qm maps, and allied/sov qm maps. For the Yuri QM maps I'd like a topic on each potential map to be added into qm, and a discussion following it. I'd like to remove about 5 or so of the current yuri maps, and add about 10. This way it will give at least 5 more maps to the yuri qm side, which will give yuri players much more fun then the normal 8-10 maps. On the other side of the spectrum, the allied/soviet maps are much more broadened, since there's endless possibilities of maps to add. I plan on splitting maps into groups, Group A with around 4-5 maps will be the prenianal "MUST-ADDS" into quick match. These are maps that I am almost sure the community would have np adding into quick match. Group B would have the borderline must-adds into quick match, group C will get into the heavier discussion maps that I find might be great qm maps or poor qm maps, which will relay on the community to make their points across.
Fair enough?
#30
Posted 20 February 2009 - 07:54 PM
Edited by Pompi, 20 February 2009 - 07:54 PM.
#31
Posted 20 February 2009 - 08:09 PM
/sticky
#32
Posted 20 February 2009 - 09:24 PM
#33
Posted 20 February 2009 - 09:44 PM
#34
Posted 20 February 2009 - 11:16 PM
Prep ftw.
#35
Posted 21 February 2009 - 01:36 AM
we will publicise this process to the whole community - online as well as on the forum to give everyone a chance to have their say.still a stupid idea
don said we had to include the views of the whole community, i don't think let 3 gd players decide is what she ment.
It will be up to the respresentative(s) to address any issues that may arise and before submitting the final proposal.
#36
Posted 21 February 2009 - 01:49 AM
So you wont let the community discuss the 'must-adds' or group b maps, but only the group c maps, or did i read it wrong?
Slightly incorrect.
I feel I have a good knowledge on the few 4-5 maps that should 100% be into qm. You must understand that this knowledge came from past topics, discussions with the community. There still would be a Group A discussion thread, but it will be much more difficult to get those maps out of qm, rather then a Group C thread.
#37
Posted 21 February 2009 - 01:50 AM
#38
Posted 21 February 2009 - 06:35 AM
#39
Posted 21 February 2009 - 02:36 PM
ya but even then on those maps yuri can still win pretty easily because yuri just out ecos everyone and can make like 6 wars with a dominator on maps like cs and dmzI agree any small map where allies don't get much time to tech they are going to have a hard time on. But also allies give yuri a hard time on any map large enough to give time for mass mirages\prisms\bf.
Sovs on the other hand are much more dangerous to Yuri on small maps where they can rush or the travel time for ic is cut down.
All I am saying is if the very best players could agree which maps they had an equal chance of winning on then the rest of us should also be happy. I maybe wrong but I think Adam was winning the majority of his games vs sunny in the end but I am not sure if they played all maps or not?
#40
Posted 21 February 2009 - 05:06 PM
#41
Posted 21 February 2009 - 06:52 PM
This is exactly why prep is the wrong person for the job, he is completely biased against the Yuri faction. The fact is on many of the current maps allies do have an advantage over Yuri and only those players who have never vs a top allies with Yuri don't understand this.
We need a more balanced view of the maps and the only way to get it would be for the top players in each faction (Adam,Sunny,n44bj?) to have an equal vote on each of the maps then present an agreed list to the admins.
completely false. today i had a qm on off deff. a v y and everyone knows that yuri will essentially slap on that map
1. they need 1 power plant for a full out base and a sw.
2. gems. protected 1 win in 1 way out. no engi eating. plus you can camp hard like i experienced.
3. relatively small maneuvering room which means mms can be maximized to full effect. yuri maps essentially take up 50 to 75 percent of the map selection (even or overpowered of course) the small rush maps favor your faction. (bunkers = gg?) moving miners can defeat us on larger maps since you can just move them to the gems...
naval maps? your only sub shoots 2 missiles at a time and theyre just as powerful as soviet attack subs. for the price of 1 you get 2 subs? makes sense? i feel that if all maps were placed in qm (yes i mean sedona and all of that) it may be a bit more fun. sure there are maps way too big for 1v1 but that would present a greater challenge. isnt that what we play the game for? fun and challenges?
Fair enough prep I do think you will do a good job and yes some water maps would be good fun
Please consider the few Yuri players though. It will be hard going against fully teched allies every map. Some of the less ridiculus smaller maps (not hv or urban) would counter balance these.
few? almost everyone who qms these days has atleast TRIED yuri.. most of our top 10 has atleast tried it not to mention top 50. the only reason the skilled allieds and sovs win is because we either get a map that isnt fair but we can play on. or the fact that we engi yout o the point of no return or plain skill.
out of the yuris ive played ive engied 2 of them. been primed ona small map. been ufo spammed.. etc. i believe i am 2 wins 2 losses vs that. its so ridiculous dealing with yuri on these small maps. i think any map with proportionately small resources should be eliminated from Yuri qms. it simply isnt even footing dealing with a yuri whos miners move to the gems once deployed while you must move mcv..
#42
Posted 21 February 2009 - 07:38 PM
actually when i started playing sunny a lot when i played on cauchemar as allies i was actually winning on the small maps sometimes too, it's just really difficult:/completely false. today i had a qm on off deff. a v y and everyone knows that yuri will essentially slap on that map
1. they need 1 power plant for a full out base and a sw.
2. gems. protected 1 win in 1 way out. no engi eating. plus you can camp hard like i experienced.
3. relatively small maneuvering room which means mms can be maximized to full effect. yuri maps essentially take up 50 to 75 percent of the map selection (even or overpowered of course) the small rush maps favor your faction. (bunkers = gg?) moving miners can defeat us on larger maps since you can just move them to the gems...
naval maps? your only sub shoots 2 missiles at a time and theyre just as powerful as soviet attack subs. for the price of 1 you get 2 subs? makes sense? i feel that if all maps were placed in qm (yes i mean sedona and all of that) it may be a bit more fun. sure there are maps way too big for 1v1 but that would present a greater challenge. isnt that what we play the game for? fun and challenges?
few? almost everyone who qms these days has atleast TRIED yuri.. most of our top 10 has atleast tried it not to mention top 50. the only reason the skilled allieds and sovs win is because we either get a map that isnt fair but we can play on. or the fact that we engi yout o the point of no return or plain skill.
out of the yuris ive played ive engied 2 of them. been primed ona small map. been ufo spammed.. etc. i believe i am 2 wins 2 losses vs that. its so ridiculous dealing with yuri on these small maps. i think any map with proportionately small resources should be eliminated from Yuri qms. it simply isnt even footing dealing with a yuri whos miners move to the gems once deployed while you must move mcv..
#43
Posted 22 February 2009 - 08:20 PM
When I enter qm, I want to know the map I'm playing. Who has the time to get to know 70 maps? LMAO.
#44
Posted 22 February 2009 - 08:30 PM
#45
Posted 22 February 2009 - 08:31 PM
I think it's ridiculous that lots more maps are being added. Stick to the ones we have and weed out the imbalanced ones.
When I enter qm, I want to know the map I'm playing. Who has the time to get to know 70 maps? LMAO.
its not 'that' hard to know all the maps, its not like were going to be having sedona pass in there either.
just good maps are all we looking for, give it some color, some fun
#46
Posted 22 February 2009 - 08:42 PM
You're making no sense. Adding more maps doesn't get rid of engi nerds and maphackers. Adding more maps doesn't insure you'll get gg's.Nerdo. More maps make qm fun again, people who want to play for competition can do that but ppl who just want ggs can also get that. And playing vs 90% engi nerds and maphackers isnt fun.
Fun for me is having no more than 30 well balanced maps. Most of the new maps are very experimental, meaning they are going to have balance problems. QM for me is about raw competition, not having fun playing a map you've played 3 times before. That's ffg.its not 'that' hard to know all the maps, its not like were going to be having sedona pass in there either.
just good maps are all we looking for, give it some color, some fun
#47
Posted 22 February 2009 - 09:03 PM
I didn't say adding maps would get rid of them, but qm would at least be fun if u got a little difference in maps. And I know it doesn't mean I will get ggs, but at least I'll have more of a chance.You're making no sense. Adding more maps doesn't get rid of engi nerds and maphackers. Adding more maps doesn't insure you'll get gg's.
Fun for me is having no more than 30 well balanced maps. Most of the new maps are very experimental, meaning they are going to have balance problems. QM for me is about raw competition, not having fun playing a map you've played 3 times before. That's ffg.
BTW. Tho there are imbalanced maps, people on wol qm didn't have huge problems with them, we got used to em.
#48
Posted 22 February 2009 - 09:37 PM
Fun for me is having no more than 30 well balanced maps. Most of the new maps are very experimental, meaning they are going to have balance problems. QM for me is about raw competition, not having fun playing a map you've played 3 times before. That's ffg.
The fault with that is, most the maps that are added are not imbalanced. Valley of gems is perfect symetrical, tsunami is symetrical, heck is balanced, etc. They'd be all balanced maps, you just gotta learn them.
#49
Posted 22 February 2009 - 09:41 PM
#50
Posted 24 February 2009 - 02:00 AM
but i know the BAlance of every map vs every faction, unlike prep (no offense)
there are some VERY unbalanced maps and sides.
id liek to see more balanced maps, a couple more allied maps,
and ill throw some maps in that it will actually be fun to FAce yuri.
but its up to you guys i dont care,
i'll help anybody who does want to do this tho to,
and yeah i played almost every map over 30 times,
with the exception of alaskan oil spill and a FEW others.
i know every map, and am probably one of the last players on YR who can effectiviely counter YURI side (adam and prep noteable.)
and yeah, my list wasnt complete either, and i could put ALOT of time into this if i would know that i would get support.
but yeah prep said only have one person work on this, he is also wrong about that, you atleast need 2 people to MAKE SURE maps are balanced and you have to haev 2 EXPERIENCED players,
i.e. if a really good sov player plays a bad alliedp layer who thinks there good,
the allied player will say its a sov map, when it could be balanced,
but yeah Just let me know ill be glad to help =]
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users