Market ruins

Why is the pak the only answer for OST anyways? We saw hans use nothing but pgrens in the tourney on these maps exclusively. Maybe try that? If the t70 and stuart werent wipe machines maybe it wouldnt be such a problem, but yah.

Responded while streaming, will give a proper response later on.

You want to kill T70 or Stuart.

Pak is best way to do it with pzfaust.

PzGrens will keep it at bay only but keeping PzGrens in frony of crippled T70 is suicide.

Plus, PzGrens will always be in range of infantry, machine guns, mortart etc which means that one bad step and you are force to retreat which means T70 can run freely.

You want to kill T70 or Stuart.

Pak is best way to do it with pzfaust.

PzGrens will keep it at bay only but keeping PzGrens in frony of crippled T70 is suicide.

Plus, PzGrens will always be in range of infantry, machine guns, mortart etc which means that one bad step and you are force to retreat which means T70 can run freely.

This is a balance issue.

You don't worry about standing in front of a 222 with RE's and zooks, that cost astronomically less in comparison than PGrens

You don't worry about standing in front of a 222 with cons trying to AT nade you, or if they are running dank hunter... same with guards, once again, all cost less.

The same goes for luchs.

On top of this the squad sizes are an issue as well. Ive seen hans take out t70/stuart with pgren shrecks plenty of times, and he enjoys this map.

Also if your pgrens connect follow up after a faust they will kill the t70/Stuart anyways, tbh the only "balance" issue with the map is indirect fire is heavily nerfed due to the faux z axis in the game that causes it to connect with over hanging objects.

The threat of the PAK is what keeps the t70 and Stuart from being able to run amok with only specialized munitions heavy infantry to counter them. Interestingly enough, in almost every case where PAKs are not viable, teller mines are much more effective. It's a bit of an inverse relationship those two.

It's also worth keeping in mind that many maps become much more ATG friendly once medium and heavy crushers hit the field and open things up. Getting there is another story though.

But anyway, I disagree that tellers can be considered a reliable counter to t70s/stuarts from a map design standpoint. The reason for this is that their munitions cost precludes heavy usage of panzerfausts or a quick set of panzerschrecks. If the only viable counters require munitions, then the map should/could attempt to reflect that, such as making the munitions points harder to cut off/closer to bases. (FFS if only there were more than three resource points to use...)

And for the record, while I'm sure that HelpingHans can consistently utilize panzergrenadiers to counter t70s/stuarts, I'm willing to bet he's just as able to utilize t70s and stuarts against panzergrenadiers.

Just sayin'.

This is a balance issue.

You don't worry about standing in front of a 222 with RE's and zooks, that cost astronomically less in comparison than PGrens

You don't worry about standing in front of a 222 with cons trying to AT nade you, or if they are running dank hunter... same with guards, once again, all cost less.

The same goes for luchs.

On top of this the squad sizes are an issue as well. Ive seen hans take out t70/stuart with pgren shrecks plenty of times, and he enjoys this map.

Also if your pgrens connect follow up after a faust they will kill the t70/Stuart anyways, tbh the only "balance" issue with the map is indirect fire is heavily nerfed due to the faux z axis in the game that causes it to connect with over hanging objects.

Only balance issue is indirect fire?

How Grens are supposed to fight vs Shocks, BARs Rifles or Penals? Every single piece of those maps favours mobile units with close-mid range.

And map when you simply can't use Pak40 is not well designed map.

Imagine map where, for example, there are obstacles which need heavy crush only, so you can't move your light/medium tanks where you want, becasue you can't crush obstacles.

If map is limiting options, it's not well designed.

Only balance issue is indirect fire?

How Grens are supposed to fight vs Shocks, BARs Rifles or Penals? Every single piece of those maps favours mobile units with close-mid range.

And map when you simply can't use Pak40 is not well designed map.

Imagine map where, for example, there are obstacles which need heavy crush only, so you can't move your light/medium tanks where you want, becasue you can't crush obstacles.

If map is limiting options, it's not well designed.

Why do grens have to be the answer to every single unit that the allied make? And then lose all of those engagements if they are not on the grens terms? #balance

I have cast multiple games were AT are used and effectively so, on all of these maps. Saying you simply can't use a unit and generalizing the entire populace is not a well designed argument. I think it would be a little more fair if you said, YOU cannot use a pak effectively on these maps. How about you submit some replays? All we are going to do is disagree until I have to stop imagining things, because I have seen the exact opposite of what you describe in each case.

Also if you think that you can do better with maps, since "if a map is limiting options, its not well designed" well by all means, go make one. I do think its really funny though, by making cqc more viable instead of almost non existant, that we are "limiting options" I would love to see the value of shocks on a map such as crossing in the woods from a top player, and why they choose them over guards. But you're right, by making you have to adjust your play in the current balance, OST is shown to be even WEAKER then people originally thought.

I have cast multiple games were AT are used and effectively so, on all of these maps. Saying you simply can't use a unit and generalizing the entire populace is not a well designed argument. I think it would be a little more fair if you said, YOU cannot use a pak effectively on these maps.

I think it rather is the case of: it is even harder to use pak40 on this map. The T70 or Stuart can pop up from everywhere and destroy your pak40, mg42 and grens in the blink of an eye. You basically need to keep one grenadier close at all times, which further diminishes your field presence, which isn't great to begin with as Ostheer. These maps are greatly designed, they look stunning, they simply don't go too well with the current balance.

Again this is not your fault nor any other map maker's fault, it is Relic's fault. Some people just think you made these maps to further hamper Ostheer

I think it rather is the case of: it is even harder to use pak40 on this map. The T70 or Stuart can pop up from everywhere and destroy your pak40, mg42 and grens in the blink of an eye. You basically need to keep one grenadier close at all times, which further diminishes your field presence, which isn't great to begin with as Ostheer. These maps are greatly designed, they look stunning, they simply don't go too well with the current balance.

Again this is not your fault nor any other map maker's fault, it is Relic's fault. Some people just think you made these maps to further hamper Ostheer

Maybe I did.

Why do grens have to be the answer to every single unit that the allied make? And then lose all of those engagements if they are not on the grens terms? #balance

I have cast multiple games were AT are used and effectively so, on all of these maps. Saying you simply can't use a unit and generalizing the entire populace is not a well designed argument. I think it would be a little more fair if you said, YOU cannot use a pak effectively on these maps. How about you submit some replays? All we are going to do is disagree until I have to stop imagining things, because I have seen the exact opposite of what you describe in each case.

Also if you think that you can do better with maps, since "if a map is limiting options, its not well designed" well by all means, go make one. I do think its really funny though, by making cqc more viable instead of almost non existant, that we are "limiting options" I would love to see the value of shocks on a map such as crossing in the woods from a top player, and why they choose them over guards. But you're right, by making you have to adjust your play in the current balance, OST is shown to be even WEAKER then people originally thought.

Tell me, which units I should use vs BAR Rifles on CC map? 3x PzGrens strat?

You can use Pak40, but map is working agasint you. If T70 rolls into left factory you have to push AT Gun inside, dance with it, move out through one or two ways in/out. It's like using Pak40 in the middle of Stalingrad. Possible but map is working agaisnt you.

I love the last part: "if a map is limiting options, its not well designed" well by all means, go make one.

I don't need to have knowledge do build houses to see that this house has crooked wall.
I don't need have medieval calligraphy to say that someone's writing is ugly

etc...
etc..
etc.

Stalingrad was removed for a reason.


Shock don't need to be viable on Crossing becasue SU has access to long-range units also.
You don't pick Shocks on Crossing, just like you didn't pick Guards on Stalingrad.

But Ostheer doesn't have option to fight in such conditions.

But Ostheer doesn't have option to fight in such conditions.

So its a balance issue, I'm glad we agree.

Maybe I did.

So its a balance issue, I'm glad we agree.

And that's the point.

If someone knows what problems Ostheer has and knowing that it won't change, why introduce such maps?

I would like to know why a small group of people, felt justified in introducing maps that would not only change the way the game is played ( on new maps ) but also significantly disadvantage certain factions.

Some of these mapmakers don't play automach at all, preferring to play custom games and custom maps. So are they really qualified to make decisions on how Ostheer should be played at a competitive level.

Packs, Mg42s and to a lesser degree snipers, form the backbone of the ostheer faction and anyone who is experienced with this faction knows all too well how quickly things can go south if these units are not utilised effectively.

Cq maps, overly large or long maps and maps that are basically a maze all favour units that excel at fighting on the move and at close quarters. The simple fact is it is much harder to continually position Ostheer units as opposed to flanking sov and usf units due to the fact that sooner or latter the axis player's luck runs out, due to the map aiding allies, then mgs are stolen, packs are stolen and the game is lost.

Any suggestion that schrecks and tellers are a suitable substitute are laughable and rely heavily on rng.

The maps are not universally bad, and i am not trying to be abusive, however the notion that no criticism is allowed because i should be grateful for any "free new content" is simply arrogant and absurd. Furthermore the continued blaming the balance and not the map design is a little self indulgent and petulant.

If Ostheer had more commander choices ( eg 5 ), or if more vetoes were available, then the situation may not be as problematic.

The maps are not universally bad, and i am not trying to be abusive, however the notion that no criticism is allowed because i should be grateful for any "free new content" is simply arrogant and absurd. Furthermore the continued blaming the balance and not the map design is a little self indulgent and petulant.

And that is the result of 3 pages and endless twitch, steam and chat discussion?
Mapmakers wont use the "free content" argument to defend themselves against any criticism.
We need constructive criticism to work on our maps but till today there is no constructive criticism at all. Look at this thread. 3 pages of one-liners and useless arguments (the fog, i dont like cqc maps, urban/industrial maps are crap, ectpp).
I was attacked for Essen so often (someone seen the Dane stream?) but i got only a small number of useful feedback.

We arent ignorant isolationist. When you would be really interested in the map balance of the new maps you would/could try to discus the maps. You would have noticed that i had already reworked my maps basing on feedback i got. Tric is often streaming so there was a lot of chances to get in contact with him and discus with him online about balancing issues on his maps. I made a thread for my reworked maps (and it is ignored). The steam workshop comment function isnt used for any feedback at all.
Instate of discus about the maps we are attacking each other day by day. I'm sick of this useless discussions because there is not a simple solide base to use for any constructive discussion.

To be honest i was happy when one streamer get in contact with me. We discussed my maps. He explained me the map balancing problems from his point of view and i tried to explain my design decisions. THIS was a helpful feedback. E.g. he addressed issues i already noticed when i watched streams and livegames. But he had arguments/point to discus i wasnt aware of like my negative cover problem on Westwall or the concrete VP walls on Essen. That was useful for me and i'm happy that there was someone who was interested in the maps and was able to give constructive feedback. For those people i would like to make maps. For rest here i have lost any motivation to work on maps.
Because the CoH community is toxic and this event was one of the best proofs.
When the contest was running no one was interested. When the maps were added no one tried to inform himself about the new maps (e.g. most players think all maps were done by Tric. That is so stupide...). Instate of discus about the maps we got one-liners, hate and useless comments.
So here is your chance. U will find the threads at the forum. You are welcome to discus the maps. Explain us why they are bad maps. Post suggestions to improve the maps. Analyse the maps. Work with the maps. A lot of maps can be downloaded as sgbs. Open the maps at the WB and look at them at the WB (thats a personal tip for all of u who complain about pathfinding issues - e.g. on Westwall with the dragon teeths).
Help us.
Thats all we are asking for.

And a small note:
We are all complaining that Relic isnt able to balance CoH2.
To be honest: We, the community, we arent able to make it better. That is the best proof. We arent better compared to Relic. And that is a real shame for a community; Hate Relic but unable to do it better...
Perhaps we should think about this problem first...

And that is the result of 3 pages and endless twitch, steam and chat discussion?
Mapmakers wont use the "free content" argument to defend themselves against any criticism.
We need constructive criticism to work on our maps but till today there is no constructive criticism at all. Look at this thread. 3 pages of one-liners and useless arguments (the fog, i dont like cqc maps, urban/industrial maps are crap, ectpp).
I was attacked for Essen so often (someone seen the Dane stream?) but i got only a small number of useful feedback.

How can you say that there was not constructive critisim if I literally pointed out why Essen isn't balanced map.

I pointed out that using Pak40 is very hard, factories are too closed, sniper is kinda impossible to use or infantry doesn't stand a chance vs SU or USF.

If that's not constructive critisim then I don't know what is

But when Tric says that: go and make your own map,
it does not help and it's excalty what skemshead said.

I pointed out that using Pak40 is very hard, factories are too closed, sniper is kinda impossible to use or infantry doesn't stand a chance vs SU or USF.

Okay. Lets see.

using Pak40 is very hard

It is difficult, okay. For all sides. So one unit has problems.
But i'm not sure that the AT gun is the only answer on Essen against vehicles. Mines at the factory doors and PzSchrecks are working good. I have already seen a number of games where mines killed or cast out the T-70 and/or Stuart. And Hans showed the PzSchreck power on the map. So perhaps it is no ideal for AT guns but there are other weapons - and that is the point where we have to change from map design discussion into gameplay balance.
And by the way: I think maps like crossing in the woods and crossroads have the same problem with AT guns.
By the way: U ever tried a Puma on Essen?

factories are too closed

Thats a problem i already reworked a bit. I want to keep the collapsed factory design with all the debris and objects but i have reworked both factories to enforce light vehicle gameplay and make at guns more efficient.

sniper is kinda impossible to use

I think it is the first time someone is complaining about the sniper on Essen? Why is sniper "not working"/"impossible to use". Because of the cqc parts? Well. Perhaps Ostheer can work without sniper?

infantry doesn't stand a chance vs SU or USF.

But that is a gameplay balance issue and not a map issue. And i cant understand why everyone is obsessed by the idea that all maps have to be done around the current balance. With the next balance patch everything could change. So we have to rework all maps for the new balance patch or is it in indicator for a current balance issue. I think it is an balance issue because factions like Ostheer will always need tactics to defend against close combat tactics.

Map issues are - basing on my point of view - pathing issues, unbalanced cover, sector layout and all this stuff. But it cant be a mapping issues when close combat units arent able to defend themselves against other close combat units (aka PzGrens vs BAR Rifles, ectpp). It cant be an map issue when the AT gun is the only counter against T-70 or Stuart (why is Schreck not working? Is T-70/Stuart too strong/too early on the field? What would happen when u play without both tanks on Essen?).

I can see that is sometimes your personal point of view to decided what is gameplay balance and what is map balance. Thats something i can accept and understand. But i cant accept when u ignore the questions you imply with your questions.

Ya'll know that most of the maps people actually made for the contest were not city maps?

The city maps won because they were the only submissions in their categories, and they got a free pass.

Whatever feedback you got and get is great, but people are also frustrated that the other maps didn't even get to compete with the city maps.

(And for the record, yes I had my own submission, but no I'm not mad about that. I didn't get the time off to finish the map in time for the hard cutoff time for submissions.)

That's kind of the other factor here that I think people are missing when complaining and defending these maps.

Okay. Lets see.

It is difficult, okay. For all sides. So one unit has problems.
But i'm not sure that the AT gun is the only answer on Essen against vehicles. Mines at the factory doors and PzSchrecks are working good. I have already seen a number of games where mines killed or cast out the T-70 and/or Stuart. And Hans showed the PzSchreck power on the map. So perhaps it is no ideal for AT guns but there are other weapons - and that is the point where we have to change from map design discussion into gameplay balance.
And by the way: I think maps like crossing in the woods and crossroads have the same problem with AT guns.
By the way: U ever tried a Puma on Essen?

Thats a problem i already reworked a bit. I want to keep the collapsed factory design with all the debris and objects but i have reworked both factories to enforce light vehicle gameplay and make at guns more efficient.

I think it is the first time someone is complaining about the sniper on Essen? Why is sniper "not working"/"impossible to use". Because of the cqc parts? Well. Perhaps Ostheer can work without sniper?

But that is a gameplay balance issue and not a map issue. And i cant understand why everyone is obsessed by the idea that all maps have to be done around the current balance. With the next balance patch everything could change. So we have to rework all maps for the new balance patch or is it in indicator for a current balance issue. I think it is an balance issue because factions like Ostheer will always need tactics to defend against close combat tactics.

Map issues are - basing on my point of view - pathing issues, unbalanced cover, sector layout and all this stuff. But it cant be a mapping issues when close combat units arent able to defend themselves against other close combat units (aka PzGrens vs BAR Rifles, ectpp). It cant be an map issue when the AT gun is the only counter against T-70 or Stuart (why is Schreck not working? Is T-70/Stuart too strong/too early on the field? What would happen when u play without both tanks on Essen?).

I can see that is sometimes your personal point of view to decided what is gameplay balance and what is map balance. Thats something i can accept and understand. But i cant accept when u ignore the questions you imply with your questions.

Yes, using AT Gun is hard for all sides but opposite to Ostheer, SU or USF don't have to rely on it.
Sure, there are other weapons but both should be viable. Sometimes my army composition needs mobile AT, sometimes more powerful stationary but it's up to player what he needs, not up for map.
No, I don't use mobile defense.

Good to hear that.

Sniper is hard to use because if plenty vision blockers, corners, not clear line of sight, obstacles while sniper is key for Ostheer in current state*. Ostheer can work with sniper but in current state efficient sniper is kinda the only way for Ostheer to stay in game. But when it's hard to make sniper efficient, just like main-line infantry, well it's gonna be really bad for Ost which leads to insta veto such maps.

*You gonna say that it is balance issue just like Ostheer infantry vs SU or USF.

But here is a thing. We know what problems Ostheer has, we know it's not going to change so why introduce map which makes those problems even bigger? Balance won't change by 180 and we all know this so it's partly balance issue, partly map issue.

___
Also Stalingrad was removed for a reason. It was becasue Stalingrad favoured certain factions (SU) leaving OST without any chances vs Shocks, KV8 into IS2. And now we have closed city maps all over again

I would like to know why a small group of people, felt justified in introducing maps that would not only change the way the game is played ( on new maps ) but also significantly disadvantage certain factions.

Some of these mapmakers don't play automach at all, preferring to play custom games and custom maps. So are they really qualified to make decisions on how Ostheer should be played at a competitive level.

Packs, Mg42s and to a lesser degree snipers, form the backbone of the ostheer faction and anyone who is experienced with this faction knows all too well how quickly things can go south if these units are not utilised effectively.

Cq maps, overly large or long maps and maps that are basically a maze all favour units that excel at fighting on the move and at close quarters. The simple fact is it is much harder to continually position Ostheer units as opposed to flanking sov and usf units due to the fact that sooner or latter the axis player's luck runs out, due to the map aiding allies, then mgs are stolen, packs are stolen and the game is lost.

Any suggestion that schrecks and tellers are a suitable substitute are laughable and rely heavily on rng.

The maps are not universally bad, and i am not trying to be abusive, however the notion that no criticism is allowed because i should be grateful for any "free new content" is simply arrogant and absurd. Furthermore the continued blaming the balance and not the map design is a little self indulgent and petulant.

If Ostheer had more commander choices ( eg 5 ), or if more vetoes were available, then the situation may not be as problematic.

See if you sir, had half a brain. Your argument would infact not have been submitted. We all get constructive feedback, myself included. From players, far above and beyond your skill level, and one of the best mappers in the scene (monolithic) doesn't play automatch, or this game, next to at all. So that kinda defuncts your entire argument straight away.

Second, plenty of top players, far better than you or I, helped test these maps for about 6 months, but when the player pool is so small, and the skill difference is so large (in some cases) it is next to impossible to find all the issues that could potentially be in a map. Myself, rommel, and mono, all noticed HUGE flaws in our maps within the first few days. Some much sooner than that. The problem is, retards, erm people, like you, don't even hit the nail on the head with the map design issues, you never once notice the ACTUAL issues with a map. Why is that do you wonder? Let me break it down for you.

• You have no clue how the map maker works, or outside of units engaging, any actual knowledge of the game mechanics.
  
• You lose on a map and are incapable of looking inward and seeing how you could improve your play
  
• The game is imbalanced, and "people" "think" that because we want new maps, that they should all be clones of other maps until the game is fixed.. here is some insider news. Its is not going to be fixed by Relic.
  
• You assume that none of us actually know the game, despite (at least for myself) being very capable players, I have beaten top 50 players and higher on stream, so saying I don't know the game... well, I guess the top players don't either?
  
  • b. and if that is the case how are the maps ever going to be good if the top players don't know the game?
    
  
  
• This is an arduous process, and instead of being active community members that help test (via stream or privately), give constructive feedback, post replays, you all just whine and bitch about your skill cap.
  
• You think that pointing to map balance and not addressing the real issue, game balance are somehow the same thing. If both worked together in tangent, we wouldn't have any issues. AKA once relic owns up and hands balance over to the community, things will be much clearer.
  
  • b. God forbid they add a new faction that completely relies on light vehicles (something akin to PE from vcoh but without adaptable mainline infantry), all the maps in rotation outside 2-3 would need complete overhauls.
    
    
  
  
  

I could go on for days, but honestly, at this point. It's all a little tiring. People that are barely play the game, let alone have respectable rank... telling someone who has been with this franchise for over a decade (multiple people, infact). And for the record, I'm not normally about shaming people over their ranks, all input is extremely valuable, especially since anyone can find a pathing issue or what have you, but you saying that we don't play the game... well I can post some maps from the workshop from people that don't play the game and submitted maps. You can see what you could have gotten, but hey, keep bitching, it really helps us figure out who to ignore when other maps get introduced.

___
Also Stalingrad was removed for a reason. It was becasue Stalingrad favoured certain factions (SU) leaving OST without any chances vs Shocks, KV8 into IS2. And now we have closed city maps all over again

Yes, back when the game was still fresh, believe it was removed before new factions were even introduced.

Shows you how far balance has come.

How can you say that there was not constructive critisim if I literally pointed out why Essen isn't balanced map.

I pointed out that using Pak40 is very hard, factories are too closed, sniper is kinda impossible to use or infantry doesn't stand a chance vs SU or USF.

If that's not constructive critisim then I don't know what is

But when Tric says that: go and make your own map,
it does not help and it's excalty what skemshead said.

Your logic doesn't add up.

Here is why. The pak40 is hard to use... that means all other AT is hard to use. So why is it so detrimental to just OST? Ah, I know why! Cause the balance is shit! Showed in tourneys and in game WELL BEFORE the new maps were added. Whoever gets allied the most out of of bo# wins, the majority of the time. Why is that? Is everyone just better at allied? or is it because axis as a whole is not on the same level and is significantly weaker than their counterpart? But yes, that is the mappers responsibility to make a map balanced around that, thats why we should just make crossing in the woods clones... oh wait, that favors axis... ok well I'll just make a langreskya clone... oh wait... I could make a clone of this map... oh wait...

See the problem with asymmetrical design is not everyone will be happy (and we as mappers get that), it will never be the best for everyone, or every faction, it is especially so when certain factions are extremely weak in comparison to what they have to go against.

Also my "go make your own map" statement holds true. If you think you can do better, than by all means, go do it. Go make the clone of a map, I'll be sure to give "feedback" about how OST is awful on it because of the map, not because it is a weak faction.

I just love how this was initially about someone liking a map, that's the best part. How dare they!