Login

russian armor

Poll: Should Relic decide which maps we can play?

15 Mar 2014, 14:49 PM
#21
avatar of Unshavenbackman

Posts: 680

Will be interesting to see how the maps work out: http://mtw_coh2.challonge.com/mTwOpen2vs2Tourney1
15 Mar 2014, 15:00 PM
#22
avatar of blitz1337

Posts: 184

I personally would like 5 vetos available in 1v1, there are that many maps i dnt enjoy playing.
15 Mar 2014, 15:09 PM
#23
avatar of AmiPolizeiFunk
Admin Black Badge
Patrion 15

Posts: 16697 | Subs: 12

I find that 2v2s on small maps designed for 1v1 (Crossing, Langreskaya, etc) devolve quickly into static frontline campfests, where players sit their tanks back, shell each other with arty, and rinse and repeat sacrificing inf to die in the capping circle of the center VP. Those games are very dull imo.
15 Mar 2014, 16:47 PM
#24
avatar of Kronosaur0s

Posts: 1701

120mm on Crossing is just yisus kraist... lol
21 Mar 2014, 16:29 PM
#25
avatar of akula

Posts: 589

the people have spoken, unban the maps Relic!
21 Mar 2014, 16:32 PM
#26
avatar of akula

Posts: 589



To be honest i enjoy the small maps a lot more than the big maps like moscow in 2v2. Rails and metal is the perfect size though for a 2v2 in my opinion, but that also depends on the map layout of course.



this. I hate the beginning of large maps. so much ground to cover makes me sigh.
Only Relic postRelic 21 Mar 2014, 18:09 PM
#27
avatar of Noun

Posts: 454 | Subs: 9

We've always curated the automatch map pool, going back to vCoH. Many of the maps while excellent fun are not suited to competitive play.

It was a design mistake to show you which maps that we curated out of the pool in CoH2, as while there was rarely complaints about maps not being included in automatch in CoH there has been a lot of them in CoH2.

The idea of just giving people more vetos is great, but at the end of the day the number of maps that are suitable for competitive play in the game is always changing, and so are the number of unsuitable maps. We'd have to constantly be changing the number of vetos that people had.

Matchmaking would get slower as a result of having more maps vetoed and fewer overlap between what you and others are not vetoing.

Not only that but people would start eliminating themselves from automatch without realizing it. If the community consensus was that these X maps were great for competitive play and most people vetoed these Y maps, and then someone only selects Y maps they'll have a harder time matching with others.

Players have the right to play any map they want in other modes.

If there was a strong consensus in the community that we should just enable all maps for automatch, then we could. However my guess is that the majority of people of competitive players who care about ladder rankings and win/loss ratios would not like that in practice.



21 Mar 2014, 22:12 PM
#28
avatar of JHeartless

Posts: 1637

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Mar 2014, 18:09 PMNoun


If there was a strong consensus in the community that we should just enable all maps for automatch, then we could. However my guess is that the majority of people of competitive players who care about ladder rankings and win/loss ratios would not like that in practice.





This
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

986 users are online: 986 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49101
Welcome our newest member, Dorca477
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM