Imo I can decide for myself. I never get anyone of the maps I veto. But I cant play anyone of the maps relic has vetoed for me.
Poll: Should Relic decide which maps we can play?
5 Mar 2014, 12:25 PM
#1
Posts: 680
5 Mar 2014, 14:09 PM
#2
Posts: 879
What an extreme example of framing bias in your poll question. This should be deleted. The way you've phrased the responses is ridiculous, who is going to respond "I can't decide for myself."
According to a Relic dev response, the balance team decided to remove them. Many of us noted that the maps removed were heavily vetoed.
If you phrased your question as "Should Relic take map vetos into account when removing maps from automatch?" or "Should Relic remove maps from automatch if the balance team later decides they are not balanced?" then you will get entirely different results.
http://community.companyofheroes.com/forum/company-of-heroes-2/company-of-heroes-2-general-discussion/26253-aftermath-patch-maps-are-unplayable
According to a Relic dev response, the balance team decided to remove them. Many of us noted that the maps removed were heavily vetoed.
If you phrased your question as "Should Relic take map vetos into account when removing maps from automatch?" or "Should Relic remove maps from automatch if the balance team later decides they are not balanced?" then you will get entirely different results.
http://community.companyofheroes.com/forum/company-of-heroes-2/company-of-heroes-2-general-discussion/26253-aftermath-patch-maps-are-unplayable
5 Mar 2014, 14:22 PM
#3
Posts: 680
What an extreme example of framing bias in your poll question. This should be deleted. The way you've phrased the responses is ridiculous, who is going to respond "I can't decide for myself."
According to a Relic dev response, the balance team decided to remove them. Many of us noted that the maps removed were heavily vetoed.
If you phrased your question as "Should Relic take map vetos into account when removing maps from automatch?" or "Should Relic remove maps from automatch if the balance team later decides they are not balanced?" then you will get entirely different results.
http://community.companyofheroes.com/forum/company-of-heroes-2/company-of-heroes-2-general-discussion/26253-aftermath-patch-maps-are-unplayable
It should be deleted?
Taking this a bit to serious are we?Its great though that you tried to rephrase my initial question. But no need for the hostility. Your rephrase though is another question than the initial one. It implies that relic knows when a map is unbalanced. And it implies that if many players dont like map it should be removed from automatch.
5 Mar 2014, 14:31 PM
#4
Posts: 3293
... i tend to agree with sluz in that this pole is a very biased (or a bad) pole.
a pole i refuse to participate in. a little article about response bias
a pole i refuse to participate in. a little article about response bias
Failure is always an option. 
It's a happy massacre?! (yes, yes it is!)
Caffeine illegal for WiFi's to ingest in 48 states, 2 colonies, and 1 providences. 
To make most awesome thing in universe combine Bears and Nicholas Cage! 
and remember kids, we didn't start the flame-war!
5 Mar 2014, 14:38 PM
#5
Posts: 680
... i tend to agree with sluz in that this pole is a very biased (or a bad) pole.
a pole i refuse to participate in.
Unfortunately I cant put a third answer in the poll. "I refuse to participate in this biased poll". But if a moderator could insert that, then its good.
5 Mar 2014, 15:32 PM
#6
Posts: 1637
We dont have enough Vetos. Relic should remove the most vetod maps in automatch weighted on faction. Example if there are 15% more German players and German players veto Map X because its easy for the Soviets to use SU85s that too should be taken into account. Not just most COH2 players dont like this map.
The PTRS's are fine as they are. Whenever i'm up against Guard Infantry, I always have to be careful with my vehicles or the Guards will completely destroy them. Good range, good damage and fairly cheap; if anything, the PTRS should nerfed since it's ridiculously good for the price. Even in the hands of Conscripts, the PTRS's are extremely potent.
5 Mar 2014, 15:45 PM
#7
Posts: 1701
Why people is mad? LOL...
I want to play Pripyat but I cant simply because Relic doesnt allow me to. This is ridiculous.
Seriously, dont decide for yourself Relic, let the users veto the goddamn map they dont want to play ffs.
I want to play Pripyat but I cant simply because Relic doesnt allow me to. This is ridiculous.
Seriously, dont decide for yourself Relic, let the users veto the goddamn map they dont want to play ffs.
Blaue Division - The best corp
BPX - Black Phoenix, Clan leader.
BPX - Black Phoenix, Clan leader.
5 Mar 2014, 15:54 PM
#8
17 Posts: 2838 | Subs: 3
Removing maps from automatch rotation has always seemed weird to me, considering that they could presumably just give more vetoes.
5 Mar 2014, 15:56 PM
#9
15 
Posts: 786
I can decide for myself, I have countless cases when I have been disappointed from Relic removing some maps I like from the rotation.
5 Mar 2014, 16:02 PM
#10
5 Posts: 16697 | Subs: 12
I have mixed feelings about this. Do we know that we never get maps that we veto? If this is 100% true, maybe some more of the other maps could be added if extra vetoes are added as well. This isn't the way I would go about it, though.
Most games are constantly changing and evolving their multiplayer map pools. You can never expect for all maps to be in there, as some just aren't appropriate for multiplayer. I'd rather see people campaign for certain specific maps to be added back to the pool than see them campaign for "all maps", which is IMO impractical in the long run.
Most games are constantly changing and evolving their multiplayer map pools. You can never expect for all maps to be in there, as some just aren't appropriate for multiplayer. I'd rather see people campaign for certain specific maps to be added back to the pool than see them campaign for "all maps", which is IMO impractical in the long run.
5 Mar 2014, 16:20 PM
#11
17 Posts: 2838 | Subs: 3
Do we know that we never get maps that we veto?
I have never gotten a map that I vetoed in COH2, when it probably happened 5% of the time in COH1.
I can decide for myself, I have countless cases when I have been disappointed from Relic removing some maps I like from the rotation.
Yeah, not sure why rather-decent Ruins of Rouen was in and out of 1v1 rotation for COH1 while godawful Beaux Lowlands was always present.
5 Mar 2014, 16:24 PM
#12
5 Posts: 16697 | Subs: 12
"rather-decent Ruins of Rouen"
not sure if serious
not sure if serious
5 Mar 2014, 16:29 PM
#13
Posts: 2779
I have never gotten a map that I vetoed in COH2, when it probably happened 5% of the time in COH1.
Yeah, not sure why rather-decent Ruins of Rouen was in and out of 1v1 rotation for COH1 while godawful Beaux Lowlands was always present.
Vetoed Semois as Ostheer, get Semois 3 games in a row
5 Mar 2014, 17:54 PM
#14
Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2
It should be some compromise. Relic should just listen to the consensus from the competitive players on which maps are total garbage, and remove those from the pool entirely. Then allow 1-3 vetoes on the maps that are in the rotation. If someone had the option to only play on their best maps then what is the purpose in even having a ladder? Just imagine if in CoH1 PE players only selected Angoville, mixed Allies only playing on Wolfheze, or WM only playing on Langres and WT? So no I think you should only have some say in which maps you are going to play, and just learn to improve on your weak maps instead of taking the easy way out.
9 Mar 2014, 07:43 AM
#15
Posts: 138
It should be some compromise. Relic should just listen to the consensus from the competitive players on which maps are total garbage, and remove those from the pool entirely. Then allow 1-3 vetoes on the maps that are in the rotation. If someone had the option to only play on their best maps then what is the purpose in even having a ladder? Just imagine if in CoH1 PE players only selected Angoville, mixed Allies only playing on Wolfheze, or WM only playing on Langres and WT? So no I think you should only have some say in which maps you are going to play, and just learn to improve on your weak maps instead of taking the easy way out.
+1. I think it should be part community response/veto's for maps combined with the balance of maps. If you really want to play a map that's out that badly, grab a couple of friends and create a custom game/challenge someone on coh2.org to a game.
14 Mar 2014, 23:48 PM
#16
Posts: 680
Would be nice if we could have Kholodny and Langreskaya as 2v2 maps.
15 Mar 2014, 12:53 PM
#17
5 Posts: 16697 | Subs: 12
Would be nice if we could have Kholodny and Langreskaya as 2v2 maps.
I disagree completely. It would be nice if we did not have small 1v1 maps (like Crossing in the Woods) in the 2v2 rotation.
What would be nice is if we had more true 2v2 maps like Moscow Summer and Rails and Metal.
15 Mar 2014, 13:35 PM
#18
Posts: 1701
I disagree completely. It would be nice if we did not have small 1v1 maps (like Crossing in the Woods) in the 2v2 rotation.
^THIS
Blaue Division - The best corp
BPX - Black Phoenix, Clan leader.
BPX - Black Phoenix, Clan leader.
15 Mar 2014, 14:00 PM
#19
Posts: 680
I disagree completely. It would be nice if we did not have small 1v1 maps (like Crossing in the Woods) in the 2v2 rotation.
What would be nice is if we had more true 2v2 maps like Moscow Summer and Rails and Metal.
I think Crossing has fitted good in to the 2v2. Mortars maybe are a bit to strong on the map, but its nice that the howitzers often are used on that map. If both the smaller and bigger maps are in the automatch-rotation it opens up for different playstyles. What is it that makes the bigger maps "true 2v2 maps"?
15 Mar 2014, 14:24 PM
#20
Posts: 59
I disagree completely. It would be nice if we did not have small 1v1 maps (like Crossing in the Woods) in the 2v2 rotation.
What would be nice is if we had more true 2v2 maps like Moscow Summer and Rails and Metal.
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.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
68 | ||
 |
|
|
45 | ||
 |
|
|
18 | ||
 |
|
|
5 | ||
 |
|
|
200 | ||
|
|
|
|
10 | ||
 |
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.600215.736+15
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1107614.643+8
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.261137.656+2
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1235