mmm i think lbl is fair well not far from it anyway
Allied/Sovs Maps to be Added to QM
Started by XXxPrePxX, Feb 23 2009 03:41 AM
38 replies to this topic
#28
Posted 03 March 2009 - 04:33 PM
How can ppl say lbl is not unfair bottom has got closer money and its more easy to stretch / attack / camp ( dont forget the perfect camp position between the little hill and the water ) and tech
Edited by Mikoz, 03 March 2009 - 04:34 PM.
#33
Posted 10 March 2009 - 09:26 PM
Twin Peaks - my favorite map
Head for the Hills - great map here
Sinkhole - i wouldnt mind playing this avs
Valley of Gems - another very fun and interesting map
Malibu - we need big maps
Path Beyond - we still need big maps
IMO the rest of these are not fun (mostly middle rush) or not really worth being put in. The maps I listed I would love to see playing soviet or allied, they add a lot to the game in variety and tactical opportunities.
Head for the Hills - great map here
Sinkhole - i wouldnt mind playing this avs
Valley of Gems - another very fun and interesting map
Malibu - we need big maps
Path Beyond - we still need big maps
IMO the rest of these are not fun (mostly middle rush) or not really worth being put in. The maps I listed I would love to see playing soviet or allied, they add a lot to the game in variety and tactical opportunities.
Edited by Phailure, 10 March 2009 - 09:27 PM.
#34
Posted 10 March 2009 - 10:43 PM
Sinkhole - i wouldnt mind playing this avs
IMO the rest of these are not fun (mostly middle rush) or not really worth being put in. The maps I listed I would love to see playing soviet or allied, they add a lot to the game in variety and tactical opportunities.
sinkhole is a soviet map i hate to say it,
especially if they move to mid :S
Edited by iAmaLeGeNd, 10 March 2009 - 10:44 PM.
#35
Posted 11 March 2009 - 07:28 PM
Twin Peaks - my favorite map
Head for the Hills - great map here
Sinkhole - i wouldnt mind playing this avs
Valley of Gems - another very fun and interesting map
Malibu - we need big maps
Path Beyond - we still need big maps
IMO the rest of these are not fun (mostly middle rush) or not really worth being put in. The maps I listed I would love to see playing soviet or allied, they add a lot to the game in variety and tactical opportunities.
you only liked it cause i showed you twin peaks!
#37
Posted 13 March 2009 - 07:45 PM
er it was xpoonmanx .. learn ur @#$%! 
and i remember when i first played that map it was against a -VG- member and i loved it 
back like in 06? 05? something like that.. but i won oddly enough he tried some bs rush on me and i had it pwnt
and i remember when i first played that map it was against a -VG- member and i loved it back like in 06? 05? something like that.. but i won oddly enough he tried some bs rush on me and i had it pwnt
#38
Posted 13 March 2009 - 10:11 PM
er it was xpoonmanx .. learn ur @#$%!
-vg- was around in 05 - 06 =S
#39
Posted 22 March 2009 - 12:11 PM
happy trails - position 2 starts closer to gems/crates and makes it unbalanced
el dorado - position 2 can control the cliffs/take south island before position 1 it is cheap.
ground zero - starting with a ton of power isn't very skillful and should be left for ffg
shrapnel mountain - if you get the north starting point you can reign all the oil on the hill. its unfair
el dorado - position 2 can control the cliffs/take south island before position 1 it is cheap.
ground zero - starting with a ton of power isn't very skillful and should be left for ffg
shrapnel mountain - if you get the north starting point you can reign all the oil on the hill. its unfair
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
