blank My CNCSeries
Username:
Password:
blank
(Register)
Content Overview Files Database Tiberium Wars Section Red Alert 3 Section Zero Hour Section Generals Section Yuris Revenge Section Red Alert 2 Section Renegade Section About CNCSeries
» FAQ · History
» Staff · Contact Us

Header
blank
» Forum » Comments » Article: Quick Match Maps


Quick Match MapsQuick Match Maps (11.12.2005)
Rob discusses the maps used in Red Alert 2 Quick Match. What change is needed, if any, to ensure that players remain interested? What maps should be removed, and what should be added? What factors are involved? Read on.
Previous Thread In Forum Previous Thread ¦ Next Thread Next thread in forum
ChrisIconArticle: Quick Match Maps13:27 11.12.05 

CNCS Site Champion


 Reps: 601

#53, 312 Posts


blank
I disagree with quite a lot of things in your article.


The selection is indeed rich and varied - but it is also old and tired.



Ofcourse the selection is old, the game is 5 years old. It being tired is totally your opinion and I don't agree with it at all.


On the other side of the coin, some people will become sick of playing the same maps, which invariably result in the same tactics being used.



Again, that is your opinion. Some people will indeed get bored with some maps, but hey go play Custom Games then. Also, what nonsense that there's always the same tactic, each game has different players, different play styles, different experience. The 2 years that I have been QM'ing I've never had the feeling of endless repetition. All games were unique.


Luck should remain a part of the game, to a degree.



Luck and skill, arch enemies. I hate being beaten by a player I know is below my skill level just by having an overpowered position on a map, a lucky dog war and / or engineer eat. There's nothing more annoying then having to donate your points to a half-decent Sov player passing by when you are Allies and are given Urban Rush. Same goes for Allies vs Soviets on Depth Charge, which is horrible. Luckily on XWIS crates were taken out of QM a long time ago, otherwise you would have the occasional scenario where a noob gets a crate when he's just trained a dog and is awarded an Apocalypse tank, with which he decimates your base right away. Now that was frustrating.


Top players often don't approve of maps that involve a lot of derricks - claiming that it reduces the skill involved and that luck becomes the prevalent factor.



Damn right so. When players have equal skill, dog wars are bases on luck. If his dogs win and he gets all the derricks on a map like Mount Olympus, you lose. He'll go straight tanks and will outproduce you like a madman. Where's the skill in that? The point is, if luck is too much of a decisive factor, you're taking away the skill. That's why I do not play tournament games with crates or on Little Big Lake, by definition.


But, with time, things will change - that is why I think action is needed sooner than later, to help keep quick match refreshing, inventive and enjoyable.



It's been like this for 5 years, with some adjustments here and there. Haven't heard complaints about it being boring or not refreshing.

Summarized, I think you've written the article from a newbie's perspective.
 
RobIcon...13:42 11.12.05 

Founder


Reps: 1598

#1, 928 Posts


blank

Ofcourse the selection is old, the game is 5 years old. It being tired is totally your opinion and I don't agree with it at all.

Given that you only started playing the game more recently than many other players, your opinion is likely to be as such.


Again, that is your opinion. Some people will indeed get bored with some maps, but hey go play Custom Games then. Also, what nonsense that there's always the same tactic, each game has different players, different play styles, different experience. The 2 years that I have been QM'ing I've never had the feeling of endless repetition. All games were unique.

Games never have the 'same tactic' per se - you misquote me. I implied that using the same maps often results in seeing the same tactics: which it does. How many times have you seen someone put a battle lab on their derrick island on Official B, going for a quick dreadnought? I've even seen you saying this exact same thing on Strike Team!


Luck and skill, arch enemies. I hate being beaten by a player I know is below my skill level just by having an overpowered position on a map, a lucky dog war and / or engineer eat.

Agreed, crates are stupid. There should still remain a small element of luck though - it is prevalent in real military situations, why should it not be in Red Alert 2? It adds another dimension to the game, love it or hate it.


Damn right so. When players have equal skill, dog wars are bases on luck.

Dog wars are not totally dependent on luck like you claim. There are a few tactics that can be used to increase your chances. Derricks are an important part of the game, if used correctly. They allow for expansion, higher income and can serve as another battle point. You have to keep the game varied.


It's been like this for 5 years, with some adjustments here and there. Haven't heard complaints about it being boring or not refreshing.

That's probably because people don't think there is the ability to change it. Like in many cases in life, people fail to see what is right in front of them - they fail to realise that changes could be made. Trust me, most people will get bored if the same maps are used indefinitely - it is simple, human nature. You cannot make an argument against that.


Summarized, I think you've written the article from a newbie's perspective.

Summarized, I think you've read the article from a biased top-50 player perspective. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Something all your arguments seem to have failed to appreciate.
 
ChrisIcon...19:37 11.12.05 

CNCS Site Champion


 Reps: 601

#53, 312 Posts


blank

Given that you only started playing the game more recently than many other players, your opinion is likely to be as such.



I played offline ever since it came out, played online since May 2003. Therefore, you can't say I started more recently.


Games never have the 'same tactic' per se - you misquote me. I implied that using the same maps often results in seeing the same tactics: which it does. How many times have you seen someone put a battle lab on their derrick island on Official B, going for a quick dreadnought? I've even seen you saying this exact same thing on Strike Team!



Ok, misquote by me, but I've never said that on Strike-Team.


Agreed, crates are stupid. There should still remain a small element of luck though - it is prevalent in real military situations, why should it not be in Red Alert 2? It adds another dimension to the game, love it or hate it.



Why should it be in Red Alert 2? In your opinion it adds another dimension, but I don't quite see how. Red Alert 2 isn't supposed to reflect reality in the first place, I mean have you ever seen jetpack soldiers? No. Strategy games are supposed to be played with clever thinking and quick response, luck takes the clever thinking away. Is RA2 a strategy game? Yes. So where's the fun in being beaten based on luck?


Dog wars are not totally dependent on luck like you claim. There are a few tactics that can be used to increase your chances. Derricks are an important part of the game, if used correctly. They allow for expansion, higher income and can serve as another battle point. You have to keep the game varied.



That's why I said players of equal skill, who both know these tactics. In that case, dog wars are totally luck-based. Also, I'm not saying I dislike derrick maps. There are some that spoil it for the rest.


That's probably because people don't think there is the ability to change it. Like in many cases in life, people fail to see what is right in front of them - they fail to realise that changes could be made. Trust me, most people will get bored if the same maps are used indefinitely - it is simple, human nature. You cannot make an argument against that.



Even if changes were implemented it won't have much impact. The reason of players leaving isn't usually boredom, it is more likely presence of better or more enjoyable games. Games that have a more lively community. Keep in mind this game is 5 years old.


Summarized, I think you've read the article from a biased top-50 player perspective. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Something all your arguments seem to have failed to appreciate.



I don't see how I am biased, but anyway, isn't the article about players that, besides fun, look for a competetive element? The vast majority of players (the newbies as they're commonly called) that solely seek fun play FFG's with custom settings or unoffical maps. Therefore the 'needs of the many' are already satisfied. Unless I completely misinterpreted it is the competetive part of players that you wrote this article for. That's what it's all about. When luck is a factor, you take away skill and thus the competition.
 
RobIcon...19:55 11.12.05 

Founder


Reps: 1598

#1, 928 Posts


blank

I played offline ever since it came out, played online since May 2003. Therefore, you can't say I started more recently.

Sorry, I didn't realise you could play quick match offline.


Why should it be in Red Alert 2? In your opinion it adds another dimension, but I don't quite see how. Red Alert 2 isn't supposed to reflect reality in the first place, I mean have you ever seen jetpack soldiers? No.

I made sure not to say that Red Alert 2 was realistic - so please don't try and misinterpret my statement. I'm not saying that luck should decide a battle (again, more misinterpretation on your behalf) - I am saying it should remain, in very small doses. Beating an opponent against the odds is very satisfying.


That's why I said players of equal skill, who both know these tactics. In that case, dog wars are totally luck-based.

Utter rubbish. Just because two players are good doesn't mean they are both equally able to use dogs. He who acts first will often win. It is the same when using any units.


Even if changes were implemented it won't have much impact.

Please tell me where you got your crystal ball from?


Keep in mind this game is 5 years old.

Which is exactly why discussion is needed to prevent it going stale. It has a remarkable player base considering its age.


I don't see how I am biased, but anyway, isn't the article about players that, besides fun, look for a competetive element?

No, it's about the maps in quickmatch - not a select group of players. I made conscious effort to think laterally, something I don't see you doing.

Players in the top 50 often fail to appreciate how many people play quick match but are ranked at the very bottom of the ladder - you don't see these players records, but they still keep playing. There is never a shortage of opponents when you start a new nickname, after all.
 
ChaotixsIcon...02:17 12.12.05 

 Reps: 76

#137, 64 Posts


02:23 12.12.05 - Edited

Personally I would love to see all maps become qm maps (including yr and westwood map pack ones) it would be so much fun and no doubt aid in any future map filtering debate. Map balance could then be discussed based on experience.

Even random teams could be cool too, itd be interesting to see what the ladder would look like then. Sure there would be a lot of luck but over the course of the month, id still think the skilled players would emerge.

A lot more strategies, build orders and variations would be seen. It would be interesting to see who could cope with these variations the best. This would take even more skill than the game requires at the moment
 
erikmcfarIcon...04:59 12.12.05 

All-time Rep: 7000+


 Reps: 387

#5, 318 Posts


blank
I don't mind most QM maps. I just hate derrick rushes, espeically, as chris mentioned, mount olympus or off. tourney b
 
ChrisIcon...16:15 13.12.05 

CNCS Site Champion


 Reps: 601

#53, 312 Posts


blank

Sorry, I didn't realise you could play quick match offline.



Then still in 2.5 offline years I've played tons of maps dozens of times.


I made sure not to say that Red Alert 2 was realistic - so please don't try and misinterpret my statement. I'm not saying that luck should decide a battle (again, more misinterpretation on your behalf) - I am saying it should remain, in very small doses. Beating an opponent against the odds is very satisfying.



In very small doses then, but you're right about that last statement Happy


Utter rubbish. Just because two players are good doesn't mean they are both equally able to use dogs. He who acts first will often win. It is the same when using any units.



What if they do it at the same time? On derrick maps, you can't get around it, dog wars are often luck.


Please tell me where you got your crystal ball from?



I found it in some bargain bin in my local sourcery shop.


Which is exactly why discussion is needed to prevent it going stale. It has a remarkable player base considering its age.



I don't see it going stale anytime soon.


No, it's about the maps in quickmatch - not a select group of players. I made conscious effort to think laterally, something I don't see you doing.



That is probably because I never see the generic newbie complaining about anything. Meh.


Players in the top 50 often fail to appreciate how many people play quick match but are ranked at the very bottom of the ladder - you don't see these players records, but they still keep playing. There is never a shortage of opponents when you start a new nickname, after all.



I got owned -_-
 
JimIcon...19:48 22.01.06 

KT, OBE, MBE etc,


 Reps: 235

#10, 186 Posts


blank

Again, that is your opinion



And that's exactly the point Chris! Articles are all about opinions, and stimulating debate. I'm always glad to see new topics.

And opinions are like arseholes...
 
PaulIcon...01:52 23.01.06 

( . Y . )


 Reps: 465

#2, 317 Posts


blank
The more use they get the less subtle they become?
 
saber07Icon...19:11 23.01.06 

 Reps: 202

#35, 103 Posts


blank
They taste better with syrup?
 


Post A Reply

Navigation:

CNCSeries.Com