Jump to content


Photo

[POLL]: Reconcile - Remove from QM or Mirror Only?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

Poll: [POLL]: Reconcile - Remove from QM or Mirror Only?

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

What should happen with Reconcile (multiple choices possible)?

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

#1 Sustanon

Sustanon

    LeGeNd SiRaLeX gl hf no eat etc gg 100% FairPlay

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 999 posts

Posted 23 November 2015 - 03:24 PM

This is another map by DylHole that is IMHO horribly unbalanced in AvS and I honestly don't know why it was approved for QM at all.

 

Here's why:

 

 

By 2:15 the allied player already moved his MCV to the large gems spot and by the 3rd minute he could cronoshift all his miners to the refinery close to the gems.

 

This gives the allied player a huge economy boost where he can mine a large patch of gems whereas the soviet player is forced to mine ore. This difference already decides the outcome of the game. The soviet player was by no means a noob, yet, he stood absolutely no chance.

 

There's more problems with this map, however. In SvS mirror matches you will get a huge campfest at the narrow entrances over the river where no player will want to cross to the other side leading to long and "boring" games.

 

What's your opinion on this?


Edited by Sustanon, 23 November 2015 - 03:27 PM.


#2 zMarsHz

zMarsHz

    Colonel

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5788 posts
  • XWIS Name: voZ

Posted 23 November 2015 - 04:05 PM

sov players (including max) beat me also.

 

this wasn't qm anyways, I don't think it's in qm map line up at all, I wouldn't know whenever I try to get qms people have other excuses (you) :D



#3 hardman

hardman

    Commander

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10521 posts

Posted 23 November 2015 - 04:15 PM

If the sov player pressed the gem spot earlier from the cliffs it wouldn't be such a problem.

 

Does seem slightly unbalanced tho. But then, im not a fan of maps identical on both sides. Maybe add something to the left side to even it up a little.


Edited by hardman, 23 November 2015 - 04:15 PM.


#4 ZiGZaG

ZiGZaG

    Commander

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

Posted 23 November 2015 - 05:30 PM

This is another map by DylHole that is IMHO horribly unbalanced in AvS and I honestly don't know why it was approved for QM at all. Here's why: By 2:15 the allied player already moved his MCV to the large gems spot and by the 3rd minute he could cronoshift all his miners to the refinery close to the gems. This gives the allied player a huge economy boost where he can mine a large patch of gems whereas the soviet player is forced to mine ore. This difference already decides the outcome of the game. The soviet player was by no means a noob, yet, he stood absolutely no chance. There's more problems with this map, however. In SvS mirror matches you will get a huge campfest at the narrow entrances over the river where no player will want to cross to the other side leading to long and "boring" games. What's your opinion on this?

If the allied player moves early why can't the sov? I find this map pretty balanced, it gets kinda campy in svs though.

#5 Sustanon

Sustanon

    LeGeNd SiRaLeX gl hf no eat etc gg 100% FairPlay

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 999 posts

Posted 23 November 2015 - 05:44 PM

[...] I don't think it's in qm map line up at all, [...]

It has been made a standard QM map so you can't disable it, sadly.
 
 

Does seem slightly unbalanced tho. But then, im not a fan of maps identical on both sides. Maybe add something to the left side to even it up a little.

There's no need to add anything to the left side. The map is symmetrical already.

 

If the allied player moves early why can't the sov? I find this map pretty balanced, it gets kinda campy in svs though.

The soviet player can move, too. But he will just have 1 miner (from 1 refinery) on the gems whereas the allied player can just chronoshift all his miners to the gems and get a massive advantage.

Why the soviet player can't move all his miners to the gems as well? Well, he needs to mine ore with his first refinery and place war factory in his base or the soviet player is just completely lost... He can't move the miners he makes from his war factory to the gems because they would travel too long and he would be on just 1 miner. So much for "soviet is overpowered".

The map is terrible from a factual standpoint.

Edited by Sustanon, 23 November 2015 - 05:45 PM.


#6 ZiGZaG

ZiGZaG

    Commander

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

Posted 23 November 2015 - 06:59 PM

It has been made a standard QM map so you can't disable it, sadly.
 
 
There's no need to add anything to the left side. The map is symmetrical already.

 
The soviet player can move, too. But he will just have 1 miner (from 1 refinery) on the gems whereas the allied player can just chronoshift all his miners to the gems and get a massive advantage.

Why the soviet player can't move all his miners to the gems as well? Well, he needs to mine ore with his first refinery and place war factory in his base or the soviet player is just completely lost... He can't move the miners he makes from his war factory to the gems because they would travel too long and he would be on just 1 miner. So much for "soviet is overpowered".

The map is terrible from a factual standpoint.

i move mcv after first war and send 1st miner from war to gems. works pretty well for me..



#7 Sustanon

Sustanon

    LeGeNd SiRaLeX gl hf no eat etc gg 100% FairPlay

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 999 posts

Posted 23 November 2015 - 07:15 PM

i move mcv after first war and send 1st miner from war to gems. works pretty well for me..

Then you only have 1 miner mining ore while you're waiting to make that second refinery at the gems. How is that supposed to work? Do you start with 15000?

#8 zMarsHz

zMarsHz

    Colonel

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5788 posts
  • XWIS Name: voZ

Posted 23 November 2015 - 08:35 PM

urban, off b, off a, defcon 6

 

just a few maps that strongly favor sovs.....we forget this when we play sovs though, don't we :p



#9 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 23 November 2015 - 08:47 PM

Yes, we do! Absolutely, let's add more sovs maps, like Dry Heat!



#10 Sustanon

Sustanon

    LeGeNd SiRaLeX gl hf no eat etc gg 100% FairPlay

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 999 posts

Posted 23 November 2015 - 08:55 PM

off b, off a

These are not sovs maps. :rolleyes:

They're pretty well balanced.

#11 zMarsHz

zMarsHz

    Colonel

  • ST Retirees
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5788 posts
  • XWIS Name: voZ

Posted 23 November 2015 - 09:36 PM

These are not sovs maps. :rolleyes:

They're pretty well balanced.

says a soviet player, you point is not made....

 

@ martin - AND TOE LETS ADD TOE......both are qm standard



#12 ZiGZaG

ZiGZaG

    Commander

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

Posted 23 November 2015 - 09:54 PM

Then you only have 1 miner mining ore while you're waiting to make that second refinery at the gems. How is that supposed to work? Do you start with 15000?

by the time my mcv reaches the gems i have 2 miners on ore then by the time the ref is ready at gems ive got two at gems and 3 on ore. Works fine..



#13 Edd

Edd

    I LoVe LiZa

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4105 posts
  • Location:USA
  • XWIS Name: Edd

Posted 23 November 2015 - 10:44 PM

You can always make a drone and punish him for moving mcv early or atleast prevent him from moving so early. Regardless, it's still hard to win against allies there though  :surrender:

 

Not as hard as Depth Charge so i'm ok with Reconcile staying. 


Edited by Edd, 23 November 2015 - 10:44 PM.


#14 Sustanon

Sustanon

    LeGeNd SiRaLeX gl hf no eat etc gg 100% FairPlay

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 999 posts

Posted 23 November 2015 - 11:13 PM

says a soviet player, you point is not made....
 
@ martin - AND TOE LETS ADD TOE......both are qm standard

Are you serious? I have videos of AvS on Tourny A, Tourny B and AvS on TOE against Mikoz who cloned Desolators and complained about Prism+Mirage when he lost after 25 minutes.

Should I be listing all allied maps now?

Depth Charge, South Pacific, Malibu Cliffs, ... rings bells?

BTW, I'm not a soviet player. I play both factions.

#15 DylHole

DylHole

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4864 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 05:52 AM

The map is terrible from a factual standpoint.

:baby:



#16 PiNeRs

PiNeRs

    2v2er

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

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:21 AM

Not a fan of the map but the chrono miner to all the gems thing is a big deal, ur right. Playable map tho imo.  If any maps should be removed:

 

isle of war, urban rush, pinch point. Total crap



#17 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 02:17 PM

@ martin - AND TOE LETS ADD TOE......both are qm standard

 
True, I played that vs Mikoz recently, he had a deso/flak camp going and had the freedom to build up with me struggling to match his tank and deso count.
Most Soviets beat Allied with an early tank push on that map. Going 0 miners.
 

You can always make a drone and punish him for moving mcv early or atleast prevent him from moving so early. Regardless, it's still hard to win against allies there though  :surrender:
 
Not as hard as Depth Charge so i'm ok with Reconcile staying.


Maybe you should ask Latof for advice. It's all about the play style.

#18 Edd

Edd

    I LoVe LiZa

  • Bounty Hunters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4105 posts
  • Location:USA
  • XWIS Name: Edd

Posted 24 November 2015 - 07:46 PM

Maybe you should ask Latof for advice. It's all about the play style.


If you want to play that card then maybe you should ask Adam or w0nna for advice. These guys always beat sovs in any map. It's all about the playstyle.

#19 willy

willy

    Commander

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18212 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 09:48 PM

Alright, who thinks Tourny A is an Allied map???

 

Ridiculous



#20 oldcarp

oldcarp

    Bring back YR!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 10:54 PM

Tourney A is a sov map but it's not a map like BF, Dune where there is pretty much no winning for the allied player. I'd say Tourney B is an even map I always liked the match up vs Soviet there.



#21 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 11:50 PM

If you want to play that card then maybe you should ask Adam or w0nna for advice. These guys always beat sovs in any map. It's all about the playstyle.

 

I beat w0nna 2v1 (when we both had chrono commando) before he left for sc2 and Adam was a gg AvA.

Mayebe you should ask Piners for advice on how to play sovs?



#22 LetsBoogie

LetsBoogie

    Corporal

  • Duplicate account
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 11:53 PM

I think everyone should follow the example those guys from clan -1- set: Don't cry. Just PWN :)



#23 FReQuEnZy

FReQuEnZy

    Retired

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7986 posts

Posted 24 November 2015 - 11:57 PM

I think the admins should really tell Matt to stop making duplicate accounts.



#24 LetsBoogie

LetsBoogie

    Corporal

  • Duplicate account
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 25 November 2015 - 12:25 AM

Matt's a baddddddd man



#25 Seke

Seke

    C&C Tournament Organizer

  • Help Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6692 posts

Posted 25 November 2015 - 03:11 AM

Tourny B is close, but sov still a bit better.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users