Crossroads by WhiteFlashReborn

That is an interesting perspective.

How is this explained then?
(source: https://www.coh2.org/news/59489/automatch-statistics-map-vetoes-and-win-percentages)
"The diagrams above display win percentages as a difference from each faction’s average."

Ive done some math.

6min is about the fastest you can get a P2 as OKW. Source: Devm

If you have 5 strat points per player and 1 fuel point you get 132 fuel in 6 min at a rate of 22 fuel/min

So 132 fuel is needed

5 strat points +1 fuel point gives you a rate of 22 fuel/min

with 6 strat points +1 fuel point your getting 25 fuel/min

That means if you take 132fuel/25fuel/min=5.28minutes to get your P2

But all other factions get the same fuel benifit, which in theory should simply make the mid/late game happen approximately 30 seconds faster.

Is that breaking the game or making it unbalanced for any faction? The aggregate of thousands of games (seen above in that chart) suggest no.

I welcome more discussion on this of course. If im missing something please let me know.

Interesting graph.

Who knows what gives your map such statistics, perhaps it's 12 strat points, or perhaps it's the lay-out of the vps making games last longer allowing good players a chance at a comeback, or it is the great way cover is designed around the eastern fuel.

Point I'm making here is that asking us to proof a statistic is useless, I might aswell claim that your 12 strat points are holding your map back from perfect balance since neither of us can connect any aspect to the map to any part of the statistical outcome with absolute proof (tho it should be noted that your map, as a whole, seems to be among the better maps).

What we can do is pointing out the drawbacks of 2 extra strat points and asking for a justification for deviating from the norm of 10.

There has to be a reason for you to choose 12 strat points over 10 when you made the map and it can't be those statistics since they didn't exist at the time.

And that reason should be good enough to cover the drawbacks I and others have listed (Like the example of devm spamming riflenades).

But all other factions get the same fuel benifit, which in theory should simply make the mid/late game happen approximately 30 seconds faster.

There's a lot of good reasons why simply pushing midgame earlier is not a good thing for all factions.

Soviets like lower resource income for example and so does Ostheer, since both can build very strong manpower-only armies with their starting tiers. See the prevalence and strength of penal / snipers and wehr T1 spamming in both GCS and automatch.

USF and OKW like high income since their starting tier sucks after a couple minutes. Try riflespamming vs wehr heavy T1 or going for volks against soviet T1 for example. They benefit from their impact vehicle very greatly, and to an extent rely on them for survival.

Obviously OKW benefits most from higher income since it just exaggerates the current strength of the faction. They can make very strong initial pushes, hit a massive power spike at ~60 fuel when you mass upgrade STGs and start spamming flamenades, then leapfrog into luchs after another 60 fuel to threaten game over if you don't have antitank and then subsequently dominate the map.

Furthermore once the luchs arrives it's no longer equal benefit of faster teching for both sides, because the potent light vehicle translates into map control. The additional strat points tilt over to OKW and it simply snowballs in their favour from there.

So it's not as simple as speeding up tech for all sides- the calculus of balance is very delicate and the additional strat points very clearly impacted it as we saw in GCS with the massive winrate of OKW on crossroads.

I think that if there is a difference by having more strat points is that it only affects games where there is some kind of stale mate ( map divided in two with no real big changes on map sectors) which does happen in your map a bit sometimes , in that case then yes it might affect more positively some factions than others but overall it shouldnt be a big deal imo, I think it mostly comes down to how harassable the fuel points in addition to having that extra point.

I'd say that the new changes to the map are most welcome and that the issue of a fast p2 can always be negated by some form of at the allies can get out. Have you compared how long it takes to get an M20 out for instance compared to the 222? That's another comparison I'd like to see.

I think the biggest problem with the map is how easy it is to lockdown and stalemate, pushing the game out for a long time. Same problem that Langres has. The vps and especially the muni points need to be moved into a more contested part of the map. It's practically impossible to hold both munis or all 3 vps, without completely baseraping the other player. Add in the schwerer HQ that can lock down a cutoff, vp, muni point, and nearly reach the fuel point at the same time and the match is guaranteed to last 40+ mins with evenly matched opponents. The way it is set up now there is pretty much always a 50/50 split of the resources, even if the losing player is barely able to escape his base.

Here is a new layout of the map I drew up for example.


I tried to keep most of the capping points at the same spots. The resources are now spread out more along the road, which is much harder to hold than being clustered up closer to the base. It is also more practical to hold 3 vps or double munis, and there is more possibility to being cutoff. There is also only 10 strat points now. If you wanted to open up the map more you could bring some of the points back away from the road toward the graveyard and the lumber yard. Players will now be more rewarded for aggressive play to take the high resources, rather than holding back in the base around a cluster of support weapons/ infantry blob.

The issue with your layout is that WhiteFlash would have to redesign all hedgerows in the center and sides of the map, as well as move muni points in areas that would be either open for mg positions or easy to defend behind hedges, similar to Langres if you compare both of them. This will only tempt more players to either go for a cutoff camp or lockdown their side, then push and stalemate around the center or one side of the map if the player is being camped.

Map Review

I think balance wise, it's okay to have the two extra strat points, and that it's not the resource points themselves causing the issue, but balance and faction design. Currently light vehicle rushes and the ability to counter them in time usually predict the outcome of a game unless it goes beyond the 30 minute mark. It's one of a few serious balance issues that I'm hoping will be resolved with work by Mr. Smith in the test patch.

I like the building and VP change to the south, while reinforcing the small building to the North, makes sense considering what both spawn positions have to offer. Decrease of green cover by the fuel associated with North spawn is a plus as well.

The changes improve the map, however the side with the house on the cutoff and the timbers stacks is still at a disadvantage. This is due to the wood stacks and the shack acting as shotblockers. The second issue is the house and hedge on the cutoff makes transitioning from left to right more restrictive compared to the other starting position.

1.) The shot blockers make it easier for squads to flank around mg positions covering the fuel or VPS, and restrict the ability for the enemy to move up and reinforce their position. The only advantage it has is for sturmpios and panzergrens, which aren't spammed, or used often there. Even if there are enemy units behind shot blockers, mortars and grenades are your best friend. It equals out with the green cover stone walls on the other fuel to the North where the cemetery is located.

2.) The hedge is there for a reason, so the house by the cutoff can't be able to cover both sides with an MG or enemy unit. It also allows for you to flank and hide behind another hedge next to the building in the center of the map, which is often used for inf and mg positions, making it easier to throw nades or flame from behind cover while engaging on a different side of the map quickly.

I think all the changes thus far are a significant improvement to the map itself. The only thing I would recommend is possibly changing the amount of green cover offered by the stone walls close to the VP and fuel.

Thanks for the comments everyone. It is appreciated and is taken into consideration when an analysis is done on what action to take.

The only change im going to add to what has been done thus far is here: https://imgur.com/a/cL4CA

Sub and test the map here: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=501836252

Please keep the conversation going as it is helpful if there is anything to add. Thanks again all.

Could we at least make the munitions points harass-able? Maybe put them in the center behind the hedge?

I've read some of the last posts and i agree with the boys, for the sake of the balance i think it should have the same amount of strategic points that the other automatch maps, im not saying that it should be a 12 point version but it shouldnt be on automatch, maybe if someone wants to play a non competitive game he could do it on a custom game. I saw 15 min kt, it kinda brakes the game a little

I think balance wise, it's okay to have the two extra strat points, and that it's not the resource points themselves causing the issue, but balance and faction design. Currently light vehicle rushes and the ability to counter them in time usually predict the outcome of a game unless it goes beyond the 30 minute mark. It's one of a few serious balance issues that I'm hoping will be resolved with work by Mr. Smith in the test patch.

Exactly.

A serious number of changes have been added to the map compared to the current ladder version. Considering this version of the map has had almost no serious testing and after thinking a lot about it im going to keep the sector count the way it is unless someone can come up with a seriously compelling case otherwise.

In the past competitive maps have been temporarily made worse by balance decisions from Relic, if there is a light vehicle issue then it will be resolved in time.

More feedback is appreciated, replays illustrating a point (any point) are the best resource. For example when 15 minute KTs are claimed, please keep in mind, matches between evenly skilled players are the only thing that matters when determining a maps balance.

Thanks again for the continued feedback everyone, it is appreciated

Exactly.

A serious number of changes have been added to the map compared to the current ladder version. Considering this version of the map has had almost no serious testing and after thinking a lot about it im going to keep the sector count the way it is unless someone can come up with a seriously compelling case otherwise.

In the past competitive maps have been temporarily made worse by balance decisions from Relic, if there is a light vehicle issue then it will be resolved in time.

More feedback is appreciated, replays illustrating a point (any point) are the best resource. For example when 15 minute KTs are claimed, please keep in mind, matches between evenly skilled players are the only thing that matters when determining a maps balance.

Thanks again for the continued feedback everyone, it is appreciated

I know that it isnt your fault that the factions design and balance is in an awful state at the moment but things like this doesnt help either, i think we should standarize everything in automatch like other competitive games do, this kind of maps where everything is balance is where we have to aim for, i know that is hard without official support but i think we can handle pretty well as a small community and try to maintain the game in good shape to keep it atractive to mantain players and new players. The kt was an example, it happened to me, the difference between us were pretty big, i dominated him the entire game and he still had his kt but it was just an example i think we should have balance standars just for the good balance for this competitive game

Exactly.

A serious number of changes have been added to the map compared to the current ladder version. Considering this version of the map has had almost no serious testing and after thinking a lot about it im going to keep the sector count the way it is unless someone can come up with a seriously compelling case otherwise.

In the past competitive maps have been temporarily made worse by balance decisions from Relic, if there is a light vehicle issue then it will be resolved in time.

More feedback is appreciated, replays illustrating a point (any point) are the best resource. For example when 15 minute KTs are claimed, please keep in mind, matches between evenly skilled players are the only thing that matters when determining a maps balance.

Thanks again for the continued feedback everyone, it is appreciated

Why?

Why do you need a reason to change away from 12 strat points?
Even the one's argueing in favor of 12 strats points admit it affects balance (eventho they all focus on lv's while there are numarous other things listed).

No mapdesign should affect balance, no faction should have an advantage or disadvantage based on mapdesign, especially if that design is different from the norm.

So I ask again: What is the reason for 12 strat points?
In what way does it improve this map?
How can it affect balance but still be allowed to persist?
And why do we need to come up with a "compelling reason" to move away from it, when so far there has been no reason to go for 12 strat points in the first place?

Has anyone measured how long it takes for the different factions to cap the points?

Point being that a OKW player using the Kubel will cap the map much faster than a brit player, or a Soviet player going T1. And so will gain more resources faster, and most likely gain over half the map?

Why?

Why do you need a reason to change away from 12 strat points?
Even the one's argueing in favor of 12 strats points admit it affects balance (eventho they all focus on lv's while there are numarous other things listed).

No mapdesign should affect balance, no faction should have an advantage or disadvantage based on mapdesign, especially if that design is different from the norm.

So I ask again: What is the reason for 12 strat points?
In what way does it improve this map?
How can it affect balance but still be allowed to persist?
And why do we need to come up with a "compelling reason" to move away from it, when so far there has been no reason to go for 12 strat points in the first place?

Has anyone measured how long it takes for the different factions to cap the points?

Point being that a OKW player using the Kubel will cap the map much faster than a brit player, or a Soviet player going T1. And so will gain more resources faster, and most likely gain over half the map?

I hope i read everything right, while i'm in vacation.
A )Delete 2 Strategy Points without asking Kyle/ Relic is a no-go! Thats a huge Change.
B) IS cap faster then OKW inf btw. Just the kübel is faster.
C) In FBP Kübel got changed. So no 2 Kübel into Luchs rush anymore!

So until WhiteFlash did not heared anything from Kyle it could / will be hard.

I hope i read everything right, while i'm in vacation.
A )Delete 2 Strategy Points without asking Kyle/ Relic is a no-go! Thats a huge Change.
B) IS cap faster then OKW inf btw. Just the kübel is faster.
C) In FBP Kübel got changed. So no 2 Kübel into Luchs rush anymore!

So until WhiteFlash did not heared anything from Kyle it could / will be hard.

They cap the same i think, but with Brit Squads being slower on the field than OKE capping power, the disparity may be more.

They cap the same i think, but with Brit Squads being slower on the field than OKE capping power, the disparity may be more.

IIRC kubel caps at 125% normal rate (not +125%, just for clarity). I'm pretty sure IS cap at normal rate.

Map design, will always effect balance in a way. Especially in CoH2, in a game like starcraft balancing around within the map is locked down to VERY specific things (layout, ramp size, resources, and base expansion) everything else is cosmetic.

That is not the case in coh 2, where you interact with the environment constantly. Cover, buildings, terrain that gives bonuses, LoS, tiered movement blocking. These are all things that will always effect balance.

A first engagement different types of cover, key building(s), or a resource point is not what happens in any other RTS. These change hugely with the map, is it yellow cover, green cover, what direction does it give cover, are the pieces being used close, medium or long range? It goes on and on and on.

HOWEVER

This is also what makes coh 2 great, the standard resource layout for territory points is 8-12 (usually being even). This will allow for different timings, styles of play, pressure, map movement, ect;

IMO there is nothing overtly negative to having 12 points is besides cluttering the map (which is negated here by LoS blocking), and providing (very slightly) more income. Its just as a slight adjustment of play. Nothing that needs to be looked at UNLESS cutoff play or map movement is being comprised, and here it isn't an issue.

This is also what makes coh 2 great, the standard resource layout for territory points is 8-12 (usually being even). This will allow for different timings, styles of play, pressure, map movement, ect;

IMO there is nothing overtly negative to having 12 points is besides cluttering the map (which is negated here by LoS blocking), and providing (very slightly) more income. Its just as a slight adjustment of play. Nothing that needs to be looked at UNLESS cutoff play or map movement is being comprised, and here it isn't an issue.

A.Standard strat points is 10. 8 and 12 points are not.

B. Increased resource income affects different factions differently leading to balance issue's, but besides that, It also leads to muni expendure being less of a choice (LMG"S and Riflenades everywhere), drawn out matches going wack and messes with teching to a point that i find going for a lv is even more of a no-brainer on this map (there is fuel coming out of my ears once the map is mine thanks to the lv).

And most importantly, I ask you aswell, what is it that makes 12 strat points a good choice over 10?
Because so far, I only see arguments not to change away from 12 strat points because (and this is crude) "it isn't that bad".

Let's look at some math.
2 strat points equals 5 fuel and 11 muni

Average game lasts about 15-20 minutes, but due to the lay-out of the vps, 20-25 minute matches are normal on crossoads.
For sake of simplicity, I go for a 20 minute match.

Leaving us with 100 fuel and 220 muni extra in a match on crossroads vs a match on a map with normal points.

This is basicly a free tier of tech for every faction and g43's on every gren besides the normal income.
And this is just 20 minutes, if the game drags out and we get a 40 minute match (quite likely due to the same vp lay-out) we get 200 fuel and 440 muni extra, a tier and a tank, g43's on every gren, a riflenade in every engagement besides the normal income.

And again, there is no reason for it, no justification as to why this extra income is warranted.

So again, i ask everyone now: Why does this map have 2 extra strat points?