Chaos Kreig

Whiteball express is a much better map than all of those combined. Hamburger is down right horrible map. Redball is also bad, low flanking potential, lots of arty spam/elefant/ISU/jagdtiger potential. Just horrible map. Steppes is also a great map. (Whiteball is probably the best designed map there is)

You completely missed my point. What is "good" about maps is mostly subjective. You think Port of Hamburg is a horrible map, and I would agree, but the majority of the playerbase obviously does not because it was (maybe still is I don't know because we don't have any more recent stats) the most popular map.

You completely missed my point. What is "good" about maps is mostly subjective. You think Port of Hamburg is a horrible map, and I would agree, but the majority of the playerbase obviously does not because it was (maybe still is I don't know because we don't have any more recent stats) the most popular map.

You're making an assumption base on a wrong correlation. That's not even subjectivity here. Map popularity have little to do with being considered by people as good map.
Once you understand the game mechanism (at least for 4vs4) and grinding your ranks you'll naturally be electing your commander pool and maps uppon what you believe is the peak mechanism for you and your factions. And on 4vs4 those are artillery and choke points where super heavy shine, which is the definition of Port of Hamburg.

In another way, are Ostheer Ostruppen commander or USF mechanize "good" (fun/balanced/interesting to play) commanders or are they simply the peak for Ostheer and USF to be played at high level on 1vs1, at the moment.

Whiteball is a nicely designed map. I much rather play on redball than Port of hamburge.

Even though this is completely off-topic and has nothing to do with Chaos Krieg I have do disagree with Whiteball Express being a very good map.

I feel like the map is certainly above average compared to the other 3v3 and 4v4 maps but at the same time I don't really enjoy playing it because it is too open and too easy for team weapons.

Most of all the huge stone church at the middle VP is HORRIBLE as it becomes almost completely undestructible for OKW facing Soviet Urban Defense. The houses north and south of the central VP also promote very safe forward HQ gameplay which is again annoying.

Apart from that Whiteball express just favours UKF and Ostheer too much because of how dominant MGs and long-range infantry is IMO. The map would be better if it had a few more sight and shot blockers on the left side of the map and if the church was set to only 50% HP or even better if it was completely destroyed. Anyway that is my personal opinion of it.

Most of all the huge stone church at the middle VP is HORRIBLE as it becomes almost completely undestructible for OKW facing Soviet Urban Defense. The houses north and south of the central VP also promote very safe forward HQ gameplay which is again annoying.

Apart from that Whiteball express just favours UKF and Ostheer too much because of how dominant MGs and long-range infantry is IMO. The map would be better if it had a few more sight and shot blockers on the left side of the map and if the church was set to only 50% HP or even better if it was completely destroyed. Anyway that is my personal opinion of it.

Yet to see urban but I can see how that would be a problem.

Prehaps a better thing to say its better designed than redball.

You completely missed my point. What is "good" about maps is mostly subjective. You think Port of Hamburg is a horrible map, and I would agree, but the majority of the playerbase obviously does not because it was (maybe still is I don't know because we don't have any more recent stats) the most popular map.

Sometimes i wonder if that has to do with having many subjectively bad maps and having to choose between them.

You're making an assumption base on a wrong correlation. That's not even subjectivity here. Map popularity have little to do with being considered by people as good map.
Once you understand the game mechanism (at least for 4vs4) and grinding your ranks you'll naturally be electing your commander pool and maps uppon what you believe is the peak mechanism for you and your factions. And on 4vs4 those are artillery and choke points where super heavy shine, which is the definition of Port of Hamburg.

In another way, are Ostheer Ostruppen commander or USF mechanize "good" (fun/balanced/interesting to play) commanders or are they simply the peak for Ostheer and USF to be played at high level on 1vs1, at the moment.

This does not make too much sense. Yes, artillery works very well on large modes. But it also works very well against you. If all factions are balanced, then there is no reason to chose an arty heavy map over another one since you will be hit by arty just as hard. In this case you veto the maps you personally do not like to play because of preference.
If factions are not balanced and one side has the arty advantage, the other side will veto arty heavy maps and they will be played less. In that case vetos are distributed according to the current meta as well as personal opinion. Still, the trend of each map is very consistent through all ladder ranks although the meta heavily changes. But since we are unlikely to see heavy reworks for CoH2 anymore, it actually does not matter: We can just choose based on what people like to play on the current meta.

This does not make too much sense. Yes, artillery works very well on large modes. But it also works very well against you. If all factions are balanced, then there is no reason to chose an arty heavy map over another one since you will be hit by arty just as hard. In this case you veto the maps you personally do not like to play because of preference.
If factions are not balanced and one side has the arty advantage, the other side will veto arty heavy maps and they will be played less. In that case vetos are distributed according to the current meta as well as personal opinion. Still, the trend of each map is very consistent through all ladder ranks although the meta heavily changes. But since we are unlikely to see heavy reworks for CoH2 anymore, it actually does not matter: We can just choose based on what people like to play on the current meta.

Not making sense to you isn't either an argument. Ranking objective isn't playing fun games or on good maps but winning games and ranking up and artillery+super heavy on lane map or chock point maps are the best way to do it today on 4vs4. Almost all player on ranking matches are ranking up beating lower "skilled" players, not better "skilled" players, which invalide the question of artillery being used by both side, you win because you're better at using those tools until you face better players using them, until you get better etc... the classic learn and re-try.

Open maps or funniest map are opening too much uncertainty for a strategic ranking play, firstly because they involve more skills than the Arty/super heavy combo. "New" mechanisms like flanking, poking left to hit right, different BOs, different commanders etc... You can't just rush and sit on chock point while you build you arty behind. Super-heavy are much less relevant because more easily overcomed by their counters.
Too much to learn while you can just ban some maps and ensure only Arty/SuperHeavy are the relevant tools and skill you need to win games and rank up.

Not making sense to you isn't either an argument.

Fully agree, no idea what your point with this is though.

Ranking objective isn't playing fun games or on good maps but winning games and ranking up and artillery+super heavy on lane map or chock point maps are the best way to do it today on 4vs4. Almost all player on ranking matches are ranking up beating lower "skilled" players, not better "skilled" players, which invalide the question of artillery being used by both side, you win because you're better at using those tools until you face better players using them, until you get better etc... the classic learn and re-try.

That ranking up argument is an assumption, at least I do not know of any data how the ranked matches actually turn out to be matched. If you have any, please provide it.

Open maps or funniest map are opening too much uncertainty for a strategic ranking play, firstly because they involve more skills than the Arty/super heavy combo. "New" mechanisms like flanking, poking left to hit right, different BOs, different commanders etc... You can't just rush and sit on chock point while you build you arty behind. Super-heavy are much less relevant because more easily overcomed by their counters.
Too much to learn while you can just ban some maps and ensure only Arty/SuperHeavy are the relevant tools and skill you need to win games and rank up.

In the first paragraph you state that rank is determined by skill. Second paragraph you contradict yourself by stating that you rank up by just rushing to the choke points and actually learning and knowing the game, having different strategies ready at hand actually were a bad thing? Good/skilled players should be even more interested in keeping things variable because they are the ones that can pull off and deal with surprises better than any other. Following your logic the top ranks are actually the least skilled, because they apparently like arty heavy maps? What?

It should be super easy then for any really skilled player to just veto Hamburg, force all the "rush choke point and build arty" noobs to play on different maps and get the top place themselves? How come this does not happen?

You completely missed my point. What is "good" about maps is mostly subjective. You think Port of Hamburg is a horrible map, and I would agree, but the majority of the playerbase obviously does not because it was (maybe still is I don't know because we don't have any more recent stats) the most popular map.

No, I didn't. I know what you're saying, I'm just saying people know sh**

Port of hamburger is an often played map in larger modes because people like to camp and spam arty. It's quite obvious that this map allows easy placement of mines, blockades and general BS to lock down parts of map. After 20 minute mark, if axis tries to push mid VP (assume top bridge is blocked off), they will run into katyusha or some other brit arty or calliope. If allies try to push, werfer, stuka and sturm will go pew pew. I know that maps I hate are generally played so my point is: People know s***!

You're making an assumption base on a wrong correlation. That's not even subjectivity here. Map popularity have little to do with being considered by people as good map.
Once you understand the game mechanism (at least for 4vs4) and grinding your ranks you'll naturally be electing your commander pool and maps uppon what you believe is the peak mechanism for you and your factions. And on 4vs4 those are artillery and choke points where super heavy shine, which is the definition of Port of Hamburg.

I highly doubt the majority of the playerbase solely plays for ranks. There's huge variety of strategies used in 3v3 and 4v4. There is no single meta like in 1v1 (tourneys). Most people play for fun or at least want some variety, even at high ranks. Most players at all skill/rank levels just seem to prefer easy grinding maps over more tactical maps, which does make these maps good if popularity is used as a measurement. My point remains that what makes a map good is subjective, based on a player's preference. And that with player preference varying wildly, popularity seems to be the only proper quantifiable measurement to define which maps are good and which ones aren't.

I'm an aggressive and tactically creative player so I personally think Port of Hamburg is a terrible map because there are 0 ways to outflank or surprise your opponent, but it is one of the most popular maps because most players apparently like to mostly camp and throw arty at each other, which does ultimately make it a good map for the game's sake.

Anyway we're blowing way off course here.

Fully agree, no idea what your point with this is though.


That ranking up argument is an assumption, at least I do not know of any data how the ranked matches actually turn out to be matched. If you have any, please provide it.


In the first paragraph you state that rank is determined by skill. Second paragraph you contradict yourself by stating that you rank up by just rushing to the choke points and actually learning and knowing the game, having different strategies ready at hand actually were a bad thing? Good/skilled players should be even more interested in keeping things variable because they are the ones that can pull off and deal with surprises better than any other. Following your logic the top ranks are actually the least skilled, because they apparently like arty heavy maps? What?

It should be super easy then for any really skilled player to just veto Hamburg, force all the "rush choke point and build arty" noobs to play on different maps and get the top place themselves? How come this does not happen?

Oh so you don't play ranking game to rank up? I can assume this may be the case while you're aroud the 2000 rank but is it relevant for the discussion? I'm sorry but you're the one to prove that people playing ranking games aren't interested in... ranking up.

Some people are skilled in english and only skilled in that language thus forbid the use of other languages in their place. Does it mean they aren't skilled in english, or not more skilled in english than a polyglote?
If you provid someone a way to rig the game by allowing banning maps as they wish, you'll just rig the skill's evaluation system. It is not anymore about who's the skilled player on the game, but who's the skilled player on the rigged game.

As for your last argument, 4vs4 ranking is base on single player, not team. It doesn't matter what you, as a single person, prefers. It matter what will be the best way for your random team to win, assuming you can be match with lower level players whos are not sharing your vast skillset.

I highly doubt the majority of the playerbase solely plays for ranks. There's huge variety of strategies used in 3v3 and 4v4. There is no single meta like in 1v1 (tourneys). Most people play for fun or at least want some variety, even at high ranks. Most players at all skill/rank levels just seem to prefer easy grinding maps over more tactical maps, which does make these maps good if popularity is used as a measurement. My point remains that what makes a map good is subjective, based on a player's preference. And that with player preference varying wildly, popularity seems to be the only proper quantifiable measurement to define which maps are good and which ones aren't.

I'm an aggressive and tactically creative player so I personally think Port of Hamburg is a terrible map because there are 0 ways to outflank or surprise your opponent, but it is one of the most popular maps because most players apparently like to mostly camp and throw arty at each other.

I agree and would like to add that certain map favor certain faction or certain tactics so the concept of "best map" without context is flawed.

No need to be so upset because someone disagreed with your point mate.

Oh so you don't play ranking game to rank up? I can assume this may be the case while you're aroud the 2000 rank but is it relevant for the discussion? I'm sorry but you're the one to prove that people playing ranking games aren't interested in... ranking up.

I was actually referring to your statement saying that you rank up by playing vs lower ranked players and not vs higher ranked players. Provide data or at least reasoning on that.
Regarding the rest: Ranking is one motivational factor and I never said otherwise even if you insinuate that. Still this is a game and people play games for fun. Dismissing that as nonexistant would be at least just as naive. Check some Twitch streams and you'll see that even high rank players often play just for fun.
You also hopefully do realize that there is no casual mode in CoH2, so your only "choice" is to play ranked even if you just play for having a nice evening.

Some people are skilled in english and only skilled in that language thus forbid the use of other languages in their place. Does it mean they aren't skilled in english, or not more skilled in english than a polyglote?
If you provid someone a way to rig the game by allowing banning maps as they wish, you'll just rig the skill's evaluation system. It is not anymore about who's the skilled player on the game, but who's the skilled player on the rigged game.

If you're only skilled in English and your competitor is skilled in English + 3 other languages, why should you competitor not just veto English in the competition and win?

As for your last argument, 4vs4 ranking is base on single player, not team. It doesn't matter what you, as a single person, prefers. It matter what will be the best way for your random team to win, assuming you can be match with lower level players whos are not sharing your vast skillset.

This data is from overall 1,2 million games and we see some maps played 4-6x as often. There seems to be a general consensus that some maps are "better" or at least liked more than others, and as I explained above I don't think this comes down to what you can grind the best. It comes down to that people apparently like that camp/arty fest through all skill levels, because this is why they enjoy 4v4.

No need to be so upset because someone disagreed with your point mate.


I was actually referring to your statement saying that you rank up by playing vs lower ranked players and not vs higher ranked players. Provide data or at least reasoning on that.
Regarding the rest: Ranking is one motivational factor and I never said otherwise even if you insinuate that. Still this is a game and people play games for fun. Dismissing that as nonexistant would be at least just as naive. Check some Twitch streams and you'll see that even high rank players often play just for fun.
You also hopefully do realize that there is no casual mode in CoH2, so your only "choice" is to play ranked even if you just play for having a nice evening.



If you're only skilled in English and your competitor is skilled in English + 3 other languages, why should you competitor not just veto English in the competition and win?



This data is from overall 1,2 million games and we see some maps played 4-6x as often. There seems to be a general consensus that some maps are "better" or at least liked more than others, and as I explained above I don't think this comes down to what you can grind the best. It comes down to that people apparently like that camp/arty fest through all skill levels, because this is why they enjoy 4v4.

Arranged game exist outside of ranked games you'll be surprise by the quantity of games you find there. Ranking isn't opposed to fun but I don't know many players having fun in losing repetively their games, I mean a simple check on Coh2 subreddit shows enough topics of players desesperate by their winrate and lack of fun being owned the majority of time. Then yes, you rank up by owning lower level players and that's not big news here, it doesn't mean you can't win vs better players but that not from where you earn most of your rank.

This data shows that lower tier players are more likely to play on every maps because they're still learning the game and have little understanding on what each map provides or allows you to do better. Coh2 learning curve is hard and requires many hours invested but there some few first steps well known here: blobbing and big guns management. Once players known that and how to use them, they will simply use it vs those who haven't yet learnt it, and yes that's fun because you win and yes that means vetoing maps where blobbing and big guns have lesser impact.
Then that's just a classic bottled vision, because you only know to do that and gave you good result so far you're less likely to reach the further steps. and on 4vs4 that's enough to hit the top50 for each faction.

The rules are rigged by the vetoing, you don't play ranking for having fun but for competition and having fun throught that and you use your vetos on map that doesn't suit your best way to win. Nobody likes being destroyed in game because their partner wanted to have fun over winning. You hardly see troll teams made from high level players doing stupid and fun things that have 0 chance of success but are fun to watch. Usually the fun come from the fact it works and lead to a success.

For many people (Myself included) Fun can only really be had when also winning. I do not find losing fun in the slightest, even if I'm "memeing".

This isn't universal, obviously.

For a game which lacks a non ranked automatch, you can't really bag all the people who play in "ranked" to be doing so for the specific goal of ranking up.

In regards to having fun, i think it's a matter of expectations. I'm sure there are plenty of people playing non meta that don't mind taking the loss instead of playing the same 3 strats on every game. Or when you know you are facing a way stronger opponent and your goal changes from winning to making it a competitive game for as long as you can.

I think there's a different mentality and effects as well between playing the smaller modes (1v1/2v2) and the bigger ones. It happens in every game (not talking about CoH specifically) which has more than 1 player per side. You have factors which are outside of your scope of influence and the more you add, the less you can influence in the result.

With maps the more, the merrier principle works best for my taste. I'd love to have the map pool as large as possible with all the older maps included. Random map in automatch, especially if I haven't seen it for a long time makes me have best gameplay exeperience.

...but to the thread topic: chaos crieg was a brilliant idea for some new gameplay format. I enjoyed it a lot. Great sb finally posted win/loss ratio to show that the game is quite balanced in this format and allies still dominated (contrary to some popular opinions claiming ostruppen stats are so OP). I guess the more tourneys and more varied the formats, the greater the possibility to really see the balance.

I'm responding to a bit of the posts from before discussions turned towards maps, but

I think it's right to say that balance and faction choice can't really be extrapolated from one tournament, let alone one with only half the VP count of standard tournament rules. I think it can be something to have in the back pocket, but not something you should be using as a primary case in an argument. Even in terms of early game dominance it's difficult to extrapolate because there is so much more time in a 500vp game.

If someone wants to go through each and every game (or at least the ones that were broadcast by a streamer) they could come up with commander-specific data, but I didn't have the time to do that on my own with real life getting in the way. Again, I don't think that would be too relevant on game balance either way. all replays are in the discord!

I can speak a bit about the future, though. A_E put out some ideas for ML4 and a popular idea is some variation of commander elimination. Commander Terminator was quite a successful event in terms of live viewers, I believe, and had a lot of hype around it! So hopefully we can come to expect more of that in the future.

*Edit* Looking at World Championship data so far, there have been 11 matches played to game 3 (ace game) out of 26 total matches (~30%). That matches up with ML1 and ML2 stats more or less. I think this may come down to several factors, the largest of which is player fatigue. More time means more mistakes even from dominant players. And coh2 is designed to allow comebacks, with fuel and muni from every point, more manpower income with less population cap, etc. The strategies and habits of lower-seeded players may throw off some of the higher-seeded players who are used to playing a certain way against those closest to them. I can go on about this phenomena idea but I'm tired. I think these factors together make it possible for seeding upsets (take Elpern vs Luvnest in ML2, for example).

Stormjäger said that first round doesn't count because of skill gap between seeded players, but I don't think that's the right attitude in general. Those closest to the middle will have the most equal matches. There's been plenty of coh2 tournaments where seed 16 vs 17 battle it out and hold the brackets back while they slug it out. If you wanted to exclude first round data, take away the games from the top and bottom quarters and look at the closer middling matches.

I like looking at expected seed outcomes (hence the # of upsets) and when they occur. in WC2020 as well as ML3 they only happened in the top 8 (excluding lower bracket here). I really think the top eight or top ten seeds with these players is a roll of the dice in terms of who will win. Their skill and the way the game is make it that way. Maybe by the middle of next year after ML6 and WC2020 and maybe another big 1v1 tourney will give us a clear winner but so far every ML tourney has had a different person at the top!

interesting post