Jump to content


Photo

Changes to RA2 Map List- November 2013


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

Poll: RA2 Map List Changes

This is a public poll. Other members will be able to see which options you chose

Which of these options would you prefer:

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#51 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 06 November 2013 - 08:27 PM

IMO.....if ur looking for actual balance, then, realistically, the map selection should be drastically reduced. There are probably 25 maps that should be played seriously, half of which should be mirrored only. We dont need 96million maps for ggs. How about quality over quantity?

 

Here is an example. Take a look at montana DMZ. This is a classic map that is played seriously by all levels of players (including myself) and is well liked. Many ggs on DMZ.    However, in no way is this map balanecd at all-- right side has a freakin airpot and left does not. The location of the bridges in relation to where the players' buildiings will be placed greatly favors the right side as well, making it easier to defend right side and easier to set up an attack on the left side of the map. Ofc, having a FREE para for no reason amplifies all of this......hello ??? This is obviously not fair at all. I understrand that any faction can win on any map at any time, but if ur looking for balanced matches over fun matches, then most maps  should be removed because most maps are like DMZ in one way or another.  

Here are some more obviously imbalanced or simply just bad/"non-pro" maps:

 

1. Malibu cliffs-- Bottom right and bottom middle right has huge economic and postional advantage vs other spots.

2. May day--bottom is so much better. Not only is it easier to defend from paras (paras come from top) but u can fix bridge to hit miners as well as kill4 oil derricks for one.

3. Isle of war--im a camper and all, but you can camp on this map with ur eyes closed. Its just bad.

4. Pinch point--can it get any more boring, less technical and less pro than this?

5. Urban rush--Like pinch point, limits players to actually doing things. its so small and simple.

The list goes on and on and on. I dont care if a restaurant has 12,000 meals to choose from, if there are only 800 meals that are actually high quality, you're most likely gonna select a bad meal.

 

If i was in charge of making qm as balanced as possible , Ive narrowed it down to 25 maps (11 of which are mirror only)

 

-Amazons delta (mirror only)

-Artic circle (mirror only)

-Bull Run

-Caverns of Siberia

-City under siege (mirror only w/ superweapons always on)

-Coldest peak

-Divide and Conquer

-Dry heat TvB (mirror only)

-Eventide (mirror only)

-Glowing waters

-Golden state valley

-Heartland BL vs TR 

-Jungle of Vietnam

-Morningtide

-Tourny B

-Tourny A (mirror only)

-Poltergiest

-Roundhouse kick (mirror only)

-Heck RvR

-Heck BvB (mirror only)

-Snow valley TL vs BR

-South pacific TL vs BR

-Tour of egypt (mirror only)

-yin yang (mirror only)-

Lakeside plat (mirror only)

 

after some rigourous play, maybe even some of these should be removed as well.  Why waste ur time playing defcon 6 when u can be playing snow valley? If ur answer is "i like alot of maps" or something, then thats fine, but u dont care about balance.

 

*Edit: and each player should be allowed 1-3 vetos so they dont have to play their least fav map/s. I like this.

 

I completely support this. 

 

Considering I'm a regular FFG player and a old QM addict, I'm finding it hard to return to QM with the current amount of maps. 

What frank said is 100% correct and what the the reality of it is. If a option to the poll would be added for it, I'd vote for it.



#52 rumblesom

rumblesom

    Captain

  • Strike Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4992 posts

Posted 06 November 2013 - 11:35 PM

The quick match is also about having fun. Actually thats a large component of it. We're not looking to sterilize things in some attempt to satisfy some people's impression of balance at the highest levels.

 

Removing DMZ from the standard quick match? I hardly think that would be popular. And as I mentioned this is not about just top pros. 

 

Additionally some ideas are either not possible or simply won't be done. I can confirm a veto mechanism is out. 

 

That being said some tinkering to traditional quick match map settings is possible. As an example, super weapons always on for hammer is on the table. I'd like to establish whether a strong enough majority supports destandardization of new maps before we move on to customizing the settings of traditional maps. 

 

Ps: Removing (making nonstandard) a minimal number of traditional maps is also possible (read as 3 to maybe 5). 

 

 

@jason sorry I didn't comment on your list- I did read it and remember agreeing with all or most of it, but I wanted to keep this topic focused on the poll options. At the conclusion of this poll, (sunday Nov 10 tentatively) I'll create a new topic examining individual maps and I'll import your list there for everyone's consideration.



#53 Seke

Seke

    C&C Tournament Organizer

  • Help Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6692 posts

Posted 06 November 2013 - 11:41 PM

The quick match is also about having fun. Actually thats a large component of it. We're not looking to sterilize things in some attempt to satisfy some people's impression of balance at the highest levels.

 

Removing DMZ from the standard quick match? I hardly think that would be popular. And as I mentioned this is not about just top pros. 

 

Additionally some ideas are either not possible or simply won't be done. I can confirm a veto mechanism is out. 

 

That being said some tinkering to traditional quick match map settings is possible. As an example, super weapons always on for hammer is on the table. I'd like to establish whether a strong enough majority supports destandardization of new maps before we move on to customizing the settings of traditional maps. 

 

Ps: Removing (making nonstandard) a minimal number of traditional maps is also possible (read as 3 to maybe 5). 

 

 

@jason sorry I didn't comment on your list- I did read it and remember agreeing with all or most of it, but I wanted to keep this topic focused on the poll options. At the conclusion of this poll, (sunday Nov 10 tentatively) I'll create a new topic examining individual maps and I'll import your list there for everyone's consideration.

 

id like a fixed version of hammer (bottom bridge fixable) put into the auto ss maps with maybe a concrete near starting spots for recognition.



#54 rumblesom

rumblesom

    Captain

  • Strike Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4992 posts

Posted 06 November 2013 - 11:46 PM

Ok I know there's been a good amount of support for that and it should be possible. Something that can definitely be looked at in the follow up topic.



#55 ExpaNd

ExpaNd

    RanDoMiZer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3828 posts
  • Location:Merrillville, IN
  • XWIS Name: ExpaNd

Posted 07 November 2013 - 12:19 AM

I don't understand the problem with having a lot of maps in Qm. Why because players only know standard maps? What did they do when standard maps were new....

It only takes 2-3 games to develop a solid b.o for a map imo. The main problem as I see it, is random maps just being added without notice, like thin ice. Honestly when I was picking it I thought it was dead ice, because there was a topic about it!

#56 PiNeRs

PiNeRs

    2v2er

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 770 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA
  • XWIS Name: djaningar

Posted 07 November 2013 - 01:21 AM

I don't understand the problem with having a lot of maps in Qm. Why because players only know standard maps? What did they do when standard maps were new....

It only takes 2-3 games to develop a solid b.o for a map imo. The main problem as I see it, is random maps just being added without notice, like thin ice. Honestly when I was picking it I thought it was dead ice, because there was a topic about it!

But ur a player who plays random.... u don't play seriously. Which is cool. I agree there is no fundamental "problem" with having alot of maps-- that was not my point. I was just saying if you ACTUALLY wanna play seriously and make the game more "pro" then....you gotta take out all the less skill based/imbalanced maps.   Im not retarded. I can make a solid bo the first time I play a map. That doesn't make the map legit bro.



#57 Seke

Seke

    C&C Tournament Organizer

  • Help Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6692 posts

Posted 07 November 2013 - 02:53 AM

But ur a player who plays random.... u don't play seriously. Which is cool. I agree there is no fundamental "problem" with having alot of maps-- that was not my point. I was just saying if you ACTUALLY wanna play seriously and make the game more "pro" then....you gotta take out all the less skill based/imbalanced maps.   Im not retarded. I can make a solid bo the first time I play a map. That doesn't make the map legit bro.

 

the question in this topic is:

 

 which of these options would you prefer?

 

this isnt a topic discussing fairness



#58 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 07 November 2013 - 12:06 PM

The quick match is also about having fun. Actually thats a large component of it. We're not looking to sterilize things in some attempt to satisfy some people's impression of balance at the highest levels.

 

 

Fun is what FFG's are for, as are tournaments. Ra2 has no 'sterile' component for it's competitive crowd.

 

Competing for the top ranks is what makes it fun, the challenge of it and having fierce battles with a lot of action.

Having the highest attainable balance only increases the fun in those parts, by reducing the frustration of losing games due to unfair circumstances.

 

Sometimes I really fail to see your logic behind your management of this.

 

QM for competitive people that has a good, well organized format and balance for the matches.

 

Tourny for less competitive people and personal challenges that relies on the fairness of each participant to set up fun matches.

 

Clan matches for competitive people to play challenging team games on maps of their choice with settings of their choice, which usually result in brutal, hard games.

 

FFG's/unranked for casual players and the ability to relax and enjoy the games on any map with any settings, be it crates for fun or some awkward game settings.

 

At least one of these should support a clean well managed environment for competition.

As all the modes used in custom match are up to the player's preference QM is the only mode that requires staff management to supply the players with the right environment, that's fair, challenging and makes sense is quick match.

 

This is one of the reasons why I said that the QM settings and organization should be left up to the staff and not based on some democratic vote, the players have plenty of modes to use for personal preference. As there are realistic rights and wrongs, the beliefs of players on balance settings can be used as a reference to make sure that the options put to work by the staff reflect realistic real world values and not something that's the figment of some people's imagination. 

 

As for you Josh, it's evident that you're trying to please everyone, we already established that this is not possible, during the last renovation we did.

It's a very bad approach for a competitive environment that the QM mode requires and just ends up leaving the whole idea of it dysfunctional.


Edited by FReQuEnZy, 07 November 2013 - 12:11 PM.


#59 ZiGZaG

ZiGZaG

    Commander

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5085 posts
  • Location:Scotland, Glasgow
  • XWIS Name: Freedom

Posted 08 November 2013 - 02:25 PM

Fun is what FFG's are for, as are tournaments. Ra2 has no 'sterile' component for it's competitive crowd.

 

Competing for the top ranks is what makes it fun, the challenge of it and having fierce battles with a lot of action.

Having the highest attainable balance only increases the fun in those parts, by reducing the frustration of losing games due to unfair circumstances.

 

Sometimes I really fail to see your logic behind your management of this.

 

QM for competitive people that has a good, well organized format and balance for the matches.

 

Tourny for less competitive people and personal challenges that relies on the fairness of each participant to set up fun matches.

 

Clan matches for competitive people to play challenging team games on maps of their choice with settings of their choice, which usually result in brutal, hard games.

 

FFG's/unranked for casual players and the ability to relax and enjoy the games on any map with any settings, be it crates for fun or some awkward game settings.

 

At least one of these should support a clean well managed environment for competition.

As all the modes used in custom match are up to the player's preference QM is the only mode that requires staff management to supply the players with the right environment, that's fair, challenging and makes sense is quick match.

 

This is one of the reasons why I said that the QM settings and organization should be left up to the staff and not based on some democratic vote, the players have plenty of modes to use for personal preference. As there are realistic rights and wrongs, the beliefs of players on balance settings can be used as a reference to make sure that the options put to work by the staff reflect realistic real world values and not something that's the figment of some people's imagination. 

 

As for you Josh, it's evident that you're trying to please everyone, we already established that this is not possible, during the last renovation we did.

It's a very bad approach for a competitive environment that the QM mode requires and just ends up leaving the whole idea of it dysfunctional.

 

That's actually a pretty decent assessment.



#60 rumblesom

rumblesom

    Captain

  • Strike Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4992 posts

Posted 08 November 2013 - 06:28 PM

disagree- if two elite level players want strictly the most equal opportunity (in type and difficulty) maps they can play tournament matches. The qm is also widely used by lower tier players to find matches and to enjoy competition at their level. Its hard to find matches at certain times of the day and waiting in a custom game is tedious for everyone.

 

The quick match is certainly not the place to isolate absolute competitive balance. Tournament matches can be used for this purpose. 

 

Adam made a somewhat crude post to this effect early in the topic, and to an extent, I agree. 



#61 PiNeRs

PiNeRs

    2v2er

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 770 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA
  • XWIS Name: djaningar

Posted 08 November 2013 - 08:41 PM

well said both martin and josh. Cant disagree with either of you, even tho you have opposite positions :/. But I would prob come at u first josh :D



#62 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 12:23 AM

Josh, so basically you're saying that a large portion of the QM's competitive crowd should suffer disappointment due to your opinion of letting nubs have fun? 

The nubs can have fun with balanced settings too, they don't know heads or tails from it.

If QM was balanced then they would be able to learn a lot more easier and have more fun.

If a nub gets a poor map/spot that is already unfavourable for him he/she is not going to be able to adapt and try get out of it like the pros can.

So for the both crowds it makes sense to have a good balance. IMO at this point you're just avoiding the job with illogical arguments.



#63 PiNeRs

PiNeRs

    2v2er

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 770 posts
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA
  • XWIS Name: djaningar

Posted 09 November 2013 - 12:32 AM

Josh, so basically you're saying that a large portion of the QM's competitive crowd should suffer disappointment due to your opinion of letting nubs have fun? 

The nubs can have fun with balanced settings too, they don't know heads or tails from it.

If QM was balanced then they would be able to learn a lot more easier and have more fun.

If a nub gets a poor map/spot that is already unfavourable for him he/she is not going to be able to adapt and try get out of it like the pros can.

So for the both crowds it makes sense to have a good balance. IMO at this point you're just avoiding the job with illogical arguments.

good point.



#64 rumblesom

rumblesom

    Captain

  • Strike Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4992 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 01:15 AM

An example of your way over zealous, fun reducing model of balance: remove DMZ from the qm. Ridiculous.

Sorry, if you must so greatly misinterpret my message, I can't help you.

But certainly the qm is about having fun, if you want to misconstrue that as meaning disregarding balance it won't discourage me.

Consensus on balance doesn't exist and the poll results are so far inconclusive over a far milder proposal than your radical suggestion, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Edited by rumblesom, 09 November 2013 - 01:16 AM.


#65 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 02:18 AM

I never said to remove DMZ from the QM? Maps need their mirror settings applied, some set to non standard and supers should always be on. 

That's my final take on it, you unreasonable misinterpreting little Canadian Disney world attituded munchkin. Some of us live in reality and not Narnia.


Edited by FReQuEnZy, 09 November 2013 - 02:18 AM.


#66 rumblesom

rumblesom

    Captain

  • Strike Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4992 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 03:07 AM

Even as blindly righteous as you are you must surely jest when you refer to yourself as living in the real world.

But I'm glad it's your final take.

And ps you did say you would vote for removing DMZ from the qm ;)

I guess you agreed 100% but didn't read what frank proposed :D

#67 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 03:44 AM

Even as blindly righteous as you are you must surely jest when you refer to yourself as living in the real world.


Why do you need to make this personal every single time?

Blindly righteous? I'm just being realistic.
You never seem to learn from your experience at all, even when working on this for years.
You can't please everyone is the bottom line on this, QM is meant for competitive play and should be geared towards skill based balance and not globalized on 'fun'. That's a logical fact and a standard throughout many other games that support the same quick matching mode.

You have a serious lack of using your experience or developing any insight along with using references from the gaming industry and developing your methods and ideas around what's been proven to work, by people who are professionals and work on improving these methods/solutions their whole life, instead you choose to neglect the whole idea of it and childishly push forward your own ideals.

 

And ps you did say you would vote for removing DMZ from the qm

I guess you agreed 100% but didn't read what frank proposed


I was more or less referring to his idea and stance on balance, not his actual granular decisions.
Personally I like Montana DMZ, but I'd rather it was mirrored with SW always on, to prevent good allied players abusing the faction and to put a stop to 3 hour long bridge camping games, I can be sure to say that most QM players don't find any of those circumstances enjoyable, besides the few allied players at the top.


As for blindly righteous. That my outlook on your personality as well, as you never listen to and learn from the people who actually care about this. For example dsector, piners, me..

Those people have who posted realistic arguments in this topic have actually dished out money as prizes to encourage more competition, when they want the competition to be fair, you spit in their face and pretty much throw all your ideals in their face not listening and absorbing a single argument to actually do something useful, besides glory lusting over your own maps that you so impulsively jest into the ladder.

Edited by FReQuEnZy, 09 November 2013 - 03:54 AM.


#68 rumblesom

rumblesom

    Captain

  • Strike Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4992 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 04:14 AM

You've attacked me several times. I didn't 'make it personal' until you refered to me as a munchkin.

And you've said we shouldn't vote on things, just take certain people's word for it. You've said to do otherwise is stubbornly illogical. Sounds pretty righteous to me.

I don't offer things which I know will not happen, if you read what I have said then you'd know there will be a follow up topic regarding issues like super weapon settings, mirror matches and possible destandardization of particular traditional maps.

Isn't that what you've always been on about when you weren't berating me or hopping on franks bandwagon?

Edited by rumblesom, 09 November 2013 - 04:15 AM.


#69 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 04:28 AM

And you've said we shouldn't vote on things, just take certain people's word for it.


Indeed, there's too many trolls to get a good vote.


I don't offer things which I know will not happen, if you read what I have said then you'd know there will be a follow up topic regarding issues like super weapon settings, mirror matches and possible destandardization of particular traditional maps.


Heh? Which things will not happen?
Well if I would have known that there would be a follow up topic on those things then I would have saved all my ranting till later, yet you've been hopping around the place with your regular mumbling of unreasonable arguments like 'fun'.


Isn't that what you've always been on about when you weren't berating me or hopping on franks bandwagon?


Beating you? This is not a competition, so far it's been a slightly too personal of a debate to finally get the QM experience quality up to a pleasant and acceptable level. I've also hopped on anyone's bandwagon who has actually cared about this in a realistic manner.

#70 ZiGZaG

ZiGZaG

    Commander

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5085 posts
  • Location:Scotland, Glasgow
  • XWIS Name: Freedom

Posted 09 November 2013 - 03:33 PM

An example of your way over zealous, fun reducing model of balance: remove DMZ from the qm. Ridiculous.

Sorry, if you must so greatly misinterpret my message, I can't help you.

But certainly the qm is about having fun, if you want to misconstrue that as meaning disregarding balance it won't discourage me.

Consensus on balance doesn't exist and the poll results are so far inconclusive over a far milder proposal than your radical suggestion, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

You both have a valid point here, try to keep it as a discussion rather than an arguement guy's, i qouted you here josh to state that yes i agree qm is about having fun, but its also more competition orientated which is what i think martin is trying to say, Qm will never be perfectly 100% balanced making map's like DMZ mirror is a bad idea, this map can go either way, in favour of allies or sovs, yes it probably has a slight advantage for allies long game due to the briidge's but its not terribly imbalanced, i think we should be aiming to have it more or less balanced to the best of our ability, there arent many terribly imbalanced situations in qm, off the only situation's off the top of my head i can think of that really should be removed/fixed is DH LvR and mabye pinch point, apart from that the balance of qm isnt that bad just some situations would be better mirror in the case of faction weakness's strength's, but this should only be the extreme cases.



#71 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 09 November 2013 - 04:46 PM

its also more competition orientated which is what i think martin is trying to say, Qm will never be perfectly 100% balanced. i think we should be aiming to have it more or less balanced to the best of our ability.

 

This is my whole point basically.



#72 ZiGZaG

ZiGZaG

    Commander

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5085 posts
  • Location:Scotland, Glasgow
  • XWIS Name: Freedom

Posted 09 November 2013 - 06:41 PM

This is my whole point basically.

 

I think you are going too far along this line though, a small imbalance is fine, like dmz, a large imbalance on the other hand for instance left of dry heat, is something that makes a huge difference in the gameplay.



#73 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:27 AM

I guess you're right, also Urban rush and alamo should be mirrored as those are quite unrealistic for AvS.

Sovs always get their barracks faster and get the dogs to the right spots and connies as well for garrisons, so due to the game design you're already fighting against odds as an Allied player.



#74 Olaf

Olaf

    Commander

  • XWIS Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13496 posts
  • XWIS Name: XTF

Posted 11 November 2013 - 11:56 AM

I'd like to strongly remind everyone to keep this topic (and all others) respectful. 'Attack' ideas, do NOT attack people.

And don't forget to stay on topic.

#75 DryFeet

DryFeet

    joe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1106 posts

Posted 27 November 2013 - 02:06 PM

Get rid of alaskan outback - that shit sucks so bad. Other than that i like the new maps and think they add a bit of much needed variety. You have to agree theyre actually fairer than most of the offical maps. I actually came back after not playing for a while, so i had to learn the maps and had a big disadvantage for the first few months. I actually enjoyed the challenge of coming up with new builds and strategies - it keeps qm interesting.
As far as urban rush goes, its actually very feasible to get wins with korea vs a sov player of equal standard. Sure its 99% unwinnable when tim builds into the middle and deso camps, but no-one really beats tim avs on any map.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users