Automatch Stats - Factions, Teams and Maps

BTW: Kharkov, Minsk, AOD and Rails being on top of most played 2v2 maps is shocking. Why do people do this to themselves?

Ugh, here are the numbers for team-comps (RT) if that helps:

Great. Thank you

BTW: Kharkov, Minsk, AOD and Rails being on top of most played 2v2 maps is shocking. Why do people do this to themselves?

They are fundamentally very solid maps, this data only confirms that. Not shocking in the least.

They are fundamentally very solid maps, this data only confirms that. Not shocking in the least.

AOD is debatable. I dont like the recent addition of shot and sight blockers and the garrison rush to the fuel points. But Rails Kharkov and Minsk are terrible maps that prohibit any flanking and promote static camping and support weapon spam. No thanks.

AOD is debatable. I dont like the recent addition of shot and sight blockers and the garrison rush to the fuel points. But Rails Kharkov and Minsk are terrible maps that prohibit any flanking and promote static camping and support weapon spam. No thanks.

Talking about the fundamentals, which are strong. The devil is in the details and any map can always be made better. Improvements in the works for AOD more feedback always welcome!

I'm surprised how even it is in the end overall. [...]
Good work of getting this game more balanced.

For as little praise as they've received, the balance team has done a great job in the last several patches.

Frankly, not sure how much about faction balance you can actually derive from this data. As I write in the beginning, strictly the matchmaker should compensate most of the faction balance issues. If the matchmaking is particularly bad (or limited by the number of players playing), all winrates should be around 50% except for at both ends of the ladder, which is an effect that we do observe.

Asymmetric winrates can be explained to some extend by more of the better players queueing more often for one of the sides as discussed in particular for the 3v3 or 4v4 case.

Not saying that balance has no impact on the curves whatsoever, but I would be careful drawing conclusions regarding balance from the data presented.

But my question is, can you tell us how the low SOV winrates come about? Is this because high rates of double OKW? Or are SOV also worse vs double OST and OST/OKW? That would be interesting.

You mean like matchup specific winrates? Yeah, probably can do that but it would be quite some work, not sure if I get around looking into this...

AOD is debatable. I dont like the recent addition of shot and sight blockers and the garrison rush to the fuel points. But Rails Kharkov and Minsk are terrible maps that prohibit any flanking and promote static camping and support weapon spam. No thanks.

I have the impression that there are a lot of players that feel this way (at least you can find a lot of similar complaints in the forums). But looking at the numbers for 2v2, seems like that there is a trend that maps that have rather wide frontlines which enable flanking (Moscow, Winnekendonk, Vaux Farmlands) are not as popular.

Obviously I'm speculating (could be other reasons) but it could very well be that the majority actually prefers maps that are somewhat more narrow (maybe because they make it easier to work together with your teammate?), so...

Edit: Obviously, I'm always interested in how Winnekendonk is doing. In 2v2 it is sitting below the average (actually, it was kind of interesting to see that it is comparatively more popular with players with lower ranks, I thought with the relatively exposed cut-offs it would more cater to higher ranked players. Tse...).

Now, somebody suggested that it would be big enough to be a 3v3 map, so I made a 3v3 version of it. I was kind of skeptical about the idea because initially I tried to create a layout where it is hard to lock down a significant portion of the map (at the time Brit Emplacement were generally considered cancer, so...). Players have to concentrate on the resources AND the cut-offs and also have reasonable chances to compete for both sides. So, you have to make decisions, really.

This to some extend goes out of the window with 3 players because suddenly you have enough units to lock down stuff reasonably well. So, I was wondering whether the map would work in 3v3s. Now, turns out, the 3v3 version became the second most played 3v3 map. What do you know...

I have the impression that there are a lot of players that feel this way (at least you can find a lot of similar complaints in the forums). But looking at the numbers for 2v2, I have the impression that there is a trend that maps that have rather wide frontlines which enable flanking (Moscow, Winnekendonk, Vaux Farmlands) are not as popular.

Obviously I'm speculating (could be other reasons) but it could very well be that the majority actually prefers maps that are somewhat more narrow (maybe because they make it easier to work together with your teammate?), so...

Agreed, when I talk about fundamentals its the elements that make a map work based on the preconditions that the game forces on the mapmaker. Its not always desirable to have a wide open map, some maps are too open and the desirable characteristics like flow of a map can break down. But of course a map can be too constricting in terms of size and tactics, a balance is ideal but there are so many details to consider its not always as strait forward as size alone dictating quality. And your right the team aspect cant be overlooked. Should write an updated article on this..

Its not always desirable to have a wide open map, some maps are too open and the desirable characteristics like flow of a map can break down. But of course a map can be too constricting in terms of size and tactics, a balance is ideal...

Well, my point was more that different players might prefer different playstyles (and of course everybody assumes that his opinion is objectively correct ). If everybody would feel the same way about what makes a good map, the stats would look quite different.

There are certainly issues related to maps that nobody likes (e.g. greatly imbalanced sides, features that cause problems with the game engine (pathing, etc.)), but a lot of stuff is pretty subjective, really.

Now, somebody suggested that it would be big enough to be a 3v3 map, so I made a 3v3 version of it. I was kind of skeptical about the idea because initially I tried to create a layout where it is hard to lock down a significant portion of the map (at the time Brit Emplacement were generally considered cancer, so...). Players have to concentrate on the resources AND the cut-offs and also have reasonable chances to compete for both sides. So, you have to make decisions, really.

I am a noob when it comes to 2v2 and 3v3 play. But when I play a wide map such as 2v2 FOW, it starts to feel like a 1v1, not a team game. When I played 2v2 FOW, it always felt like a great 3v3 map to me. I even pushed for 4v4 because I like maximum carnage and mayhem.

SPECULATION:
I would guess many lower rank players like a grinding narrow map where team weapons work great. It gives you a lot of play options. And that is how you learn to play against the AI.

When I play team games I do not like to get separated too much from my team mate. If your team mate is too static or you are spread out, you will get overrun by two players and annihilated.

Many wide map games start with fuel rush and end with your fuel, one VP, and fighting on the middle VP. So if a map is too wide, it benefits you to focus on your closest fuel. Which leads to static games as teams dig in on their respective sides.

Maps that are very wide also feel like it takes forever to play a match. Steppes and Redball are both about the same distance base to base. But Steppes feels huge, games feel like they take forever, and you are so cutoff/alone that one bad engagement and you need to retreat everything for a few minutes. Minutes where you are not really playing anymore as your stuff gets back to the front. Redball you retreat a squad or two and your team mate is right there so you can try to stay and fight. To me it feels faster paced and more tactical. Steppes and General Mud are so large that the blob/retreat tactic is your only option. You cant hang around and fight with weak squads or play cat/mouse games. You will just get REKT. So immersion in the match is lost while you are rebuilding your army.

But you have your outliers. Some feel Redball is too narrow. Some feel that General Mud is too wide. But the map plays tell a story as to what most players like.

Nice work man, brilliant work.

Incredible work. I really enjoyed reading over this. Thank you for the time and effort.

Maybe I should broaden my map bans just to get some faster games. I tend to ban some of the most popular maps.

Maybe I should broaden my map bans just to get some faster games. I tend to ban some of the most popular maps.

As far as we know, map vetoes have no influence on the matchmaking. Map vetoes are checked AFTER you have been matched with other players (which occasionally can lead to a situation that you have to play a map you vetoed, basically because the other players all vetoed the other maps in the pool...).

So, your personal choice of vetoes has no impact on how long you have to wait in queue.

Great stuff Siphon, and always interested in reading your thoughts on things.

Wow, this is great stuff and was an interesting read.
So it seems COH is actually in a pretty great balance state looking a t your numbers. And not only 1v1 also in teams.
Awesome.
This does not reflect what I read in the forums. And it does not reflect the experience in my small gaming group.
So it looks like I can learn a lot how personal experience is built up vs. how stats actually are.
Thank you very very much!

I have the impression that there are a lot of players that feel this way (at least you can find a lot of similar complaints in the forums). But looking at the numbers for 2v2, seems like that there is a trend that maps that have rather wide frontlines which enable flanking (Moscow, Winnekendonk, Vaux Farmlands) are not as popular.

Obviously I'm speculating (could be other reasons) but it could very well be that the majority actually prefers maps that are somewhat more narrow (maybe because they make it easier to work together with your teammate?), so...

Edit: Obviously, I'm always interested in how Winnekendonk is doing. In 2v2 it is sitting below the average (actually, it was kind of interesting to see that it is comparatively more popular with players with lower ranks, I thought with the relatively exposed cut-offs it would more cater to higher ranked players. Tse...).

Now, somebody suggested that it would be big enough to be a 3v3 map, so I made a 3v3 version of it. I was kind of skeptical about the idea because initially I tried to create a layout where it is hard to lock down a significant portion of the map (at the time Brit Emplacement were generally considered cancer, so...). Players have to concentrate on the resources AND the cut-offs and also have reasonable chances to compete for both sides. So, you have to make decisions, really.

This to some extend goes out of the window with 3 players because suddenly you have enough units to lock down stuff reasonably well. So, I was wondering whether the map would work in 3v3s. Now, turns out, the 3v3 version became the second most played 3v3 map. What do you know...

There is no green or yellow cover on either of the cutoffs that faces the fuel that they cut off, making it easy (for me) to rotate from the fuel to the cutoff and stop the attempt

I’m also suprised at Arnhem checkpoints pick rate, that western Cutoff was all red cover

So you saying that Werh actually losing more than Soviets or USF at 1v1 and in team games?

And yeah, all that amount of data gathered is just... unbeliviable. Superb work, man.

It is pretty obvious that Wehr is the worst faction... It sees almost no competitive play after they nerfed mobile defense into oblivion.

great read. good to see no too bi8g of chasms in team games.

Had some time to study this and for a low ranking player like myself this is Very Informative info.Good Job!!