Tanya's Training Ground (2-4)
#26
Posted 30 December 2011 - 12:40 PM
#27
Posted 30 December 2011 - 12:56 PM
what is your point?
#28
Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:00 PM
this isn't for yuri's, it's for ra2, of course it's going to be played completely different
what is your point?
if you dont understand the point already then im not going to waste anymore time trying to explain it, you are obviously to short sighted to understand.
#29
Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:01 PM
#30
Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:12 PM
have you played the map yet?
I dont need to play it to point out its going to be played differently i can tell that much by looking at it, im not saying it isnt a good map, im saying its simply a remake of a classic which would ruin it for me, the same way deadmans ridge was done.
#31
Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:22 PM
#32
Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:33 PM
of course it's different, the original was tested and deemed **** on ra2
ok that proves my point im not even going to bother posting anymore you are so short sighted its unbelievable.
#33
Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:47 PM
This map however does, still provide quite a unique playing experience. Many different play styles are possible on it, it's also balanced and that's what makes a good QM map.
Instead of wasting time on useless posts contribute with a fully detailed post of your view. You'll achieve nothing with your vague attempts at arguments and trying to debase the poor troll.
#34
Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:12 PM
thank you!Stop arguing over meaningless bull... The map was indeed tested a long while ago and deemed abysmal for RA2.
This map however does, still provide quite a unique playing experience. Many different play styles are possible on it, it's also balanced and that's what makes a good QM map.
Instead of wasting time on useless posts contribute with a fully detailed post of your view. You'll achieve nothing with your vague attempts at arguments and trying to debase the poor troll.
no, i dont like playing on that map1.ur happy to play may day.
ra2 is not yuri's2.well it didnt quite work like that on yr...
The map's centre was far too important, gems, high ground and an AFC, whoever holds it gets a much too great advantage3. the map was based around a central object of which u try to gain control over thats the whole point of it and when its 2 decent players its never campy there's plenty splitting options and with the original derricks plenty options to build off and press, youve completely changed the complexity of the map same thing that happened with deadmans ridge on ra2.
tried it? who are you to say i've never "tryed" YR?You shuda at least tryed the yr version on ra2 first personally my opninion is youve taken a classic and destroyed it, thats just me though.
you dont need 8 derricks + gems to keep a steady incomeAlso think without the derricks and given the size of the map your going to run out of ore and be scraping to get cash if it goes long game..
yeah, your main argument that it's different, i know that woohoo
#35
Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:22 PM
Stop arguing over meaningless bull... The map was indeed tested a long while ago and deemed abysmal for RA2.
This map however does, still provide quite a unique playing experience. Many different play styles are possible on it, it's also balanced and that's what makes a good QM map.
Instead of wasting time on useless posts contribute with a fully detailed post of your view. You'll achieve nothing with your vague attempts at arguments and trying to debase the poor troll.
I posted with my views this idiot just doesnt understand the meaning of constructive criticism
#36
Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:27 PM
oops sorry! it seems your ignorance got the better of melol i didnt say you didnt try yr can you read?
of course we tested the original, this is version like 15 now
what do you want me to add to the map? to make it to your standards
#37
Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:32 PM
oops sorry! it seems your ignorance got the better of me
of course we tested the original, this is version like 15 now
what do you want me to add to the map? to make it to your standards
my ignorance? from you? lol i dont want you to add or remove anything, youve changed a classic map and in my opinion ruined it all i stated was my opinion
#38
Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:36 PM
do you want me to change the name?my ignorance? from you? lol i dont want you to add or remove anything, youve changed a classic map and in my opinion ruined it all i stated was my opinion
#39
Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:32 PM
Should be able to upload your map to ST if you want (As opposed to mediafire)do you want me to change the name?
#40
Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:58 PM
coolShould be able to upload your map to ST if you want (As opposed to mediafire)
#41
Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:20 PM
#42
Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:28 PM
Boris's Training Ground :odo you want me to change the name?
#43
Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:59 PM
16 derricks is far too many. gems on the hill with a neutral afc give sovs and advantage and also promote camping.
this version is far better suited for ra2 qm- looks nice dylan
Edited by rumblesom, 30 December 2011 - 07:59 PM.
#44
Posted 30 December 2011 - 11:21 PM
eh, people were saying there wasn't a point to the map, i guess they were talking about early oni dont think I like the two center\middle derricks. what you think?
edd was also saying that he didnt like the idea of having to move your mcv to continue building forward, so i made it so you can build off to more cash
the map plays perfectly SvS but AvS allied grizz tanks are highly disadvantaged by cliffs and the closeness of the middle
but see how it goes
was thinking maybe "Tanya's Playground", created by DubSidiaBoris's Training Ground :o
#45
Posted 31 December 2011 - 04:56 AM
#46
Posted 31 December 2011 - 05:01 AM
(tested version with oils @ 2nd ring)
#47
Posted 31 December 2011 - 05:15 AM
#48
Posted 31 December 2011 - 05:19 AM
fun for you maybeyh i played some with dylan (korea vs iraq) was fun
haha nah was really good, good games!
#49
Posted 31 December 2011 - 05:41 AM
also the forward oil means forward flak cannon which makes eagles pretty much useless, and main base can be covered by 1 flak cannon too.
cud be pretty fun svs tho.
Edited by DrVanNostrand, 31 December 2011 - 06:10 AM.
#50
Posted 31 December 2011 - 06:32 AM
hmm havent played it , but seems like very hard map for allieds to beat sovs, sov can get 3ward pretty quickly without selling mcv and he will have the high ground advantage to allieds mid oil, plus it doesnt seem like very easy spot to defend.
also the forward oil means forward flak cannon which makes eagles pretty much useless, and main base can be covered by 1 flak cannon too.
cud be pretty fun svs tho.
want to s v a on it if i see ya on?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users