Update on map pick statistics

I think the problem is that there is no feedback for maps.
We cant make the maps better because everything we get is "the map is shit". That wont make anything better.
On one side people want new content (and to be honest the last content was done by the community alone [maps, skins, commander]) and on the other side they are complaining about the content without help to make content better.
E.g. i would edit Westwall but without help i cant make it better...

But jeah. That is an old story and we will see the next chapter soon :-/

I think the problem is that there is no feedback for maps.
We cant make the maps better because everything we get is "the map is shit". That wont make anything better.
On one side people want new content (and to be honest the last content was done by the community alone [maps, skins, commander]) and on the other side they are complaining about the content without help to make content better.
E.g. i would edit Westwall but without help i cant make it better...

But jeah. That is an old story and we will see the next chapter soon :-/

What do you mean? Just don't make your map shit next time. What is so hard? Kappa.

Also fun to note that the community maps that are so "hated" were voted in by top players. Hans, Von, Barton (actually gave the best feedback)... so I will never get the whole "WE NEED BETTER MAPS EVERYTHINGS SHIT" when players 100x better than the person thought the maps were good outside small things that WERE adjusted.

I veto all community maps basically due to soviets and their bs.

If the map is too big then it becomes difficult to apply enough pressure. It is actually easier to flank on maps like westwall. Demos are also a real pain in the arse on larger maps largely due to the amount of travel time to actually get and engineer to where he needs to be as a scout.

If the map is too small or claustrophobic (like halbe) then units often become tangled up all the time and mechanics like satchels have greater opportunity.

All four maps have pathing issues to some extent.

Halbe and bryansk have tall trees in really annoying spots. As a player I want to see what is going on, not constantly be turning the camera to look for demos or units hiding etc ect.

The centre vp on bryansk is just a clustef***.

The brick houses on westwall are just . The pathing from base to centre is retarded. Why have a maze outside your base. Why have brick houses overlooking cutoff and vp. The dragon spine is just plain annoying. Yes it offers challenges and some find that interesting, but its like the deep snow effect. Get caught on one of these terrain "challenges" and the whole game can change. Adding this kind of feature to the game is not up to a map maker.

I veto all community maps basically due to soviets and their bs.

If the map is too big then it becomes difficult to apply enough pressure. It is actually easier to flank on maps like westwall. Demos are also a real pain in the arse on larger maps largely due to the amount of travel time to actually get and engineer to where he needs to be as a scout.

If the map is too small or claustrophobic (like halbe) then units often become tangled up all the time and mechanics like satchels have greater opportunity.

All four maps have pathing issues to some extent.

Halbe and bryansk have tall trees in really annoying spots. As a player I want to see what is going on, not constantly be turning the camera to look for demos or units hiding etc ect.

The centre vp on bryansk is just a clustef***.

The brick houses on westwall are just . The pathing from base to centre is retarded. Why have a maze outside your base. Why have brick houses overlooking cutoff and vp. The dragon spine is just plain annoying. Yes it offers challenges and some find that interesting, but its like the deep snow effect. Get caught on one of these terrain "challenges" and the whole game can change. Adding this kind of feature to the game is not up to a map maker.

How would you like people to balance around demos in the worldbuilder. Your logic is laughable, mainly cause how does a mapper deal with that. If we didn't have brick buildings on the cutoffs, then there would be crying that there were no strong buildings. Cause someone who likes to camp in them would be upset their playstyle wasn't accommodated, just like you are right now.

If the worldbuilder offers things to be done (and is done in OFFICIAL relic maps) then it is fair game for the community. It is also not OUR fault that projectiles hit everything but what they shoot at. This is why you see it constantly being changed in the patches (t70, stug, ect; ). This is not a mapper problem, this is a game balance problem. Why in the world do we have to make completely flat maps cause they fucked up their projectiles? Is it annoying yes. Has it happened to me yes (I have a vid for one such bullshit occasion on WestWall). The problem here is people doing things THEY KNOW aren't going to work or have a chance of fucking up and hurting them during an engagement and they do it anyways out of stubbornness.

The pathing from the base to the center is fine. Sorry it isn't a straight line, next time I'm sure Rommel will make it less "retarded". You see how your feedback just dissuades anyone from actually doing anything? This is why the experienced mappers don't want to even bother to deal with the community feedback for the 2v2 map contest, simply cause you guys have no understanding of about 90% of what you are talking about, and when you do, you can't form a cognitive thought outside "its retarded", "its shit", ect; Despite very possibly having a valid point(s) that could help everyone. Instead you just make everyone pissed off/discouraged and that results in nothing getting done for multiple reasons. So when I said "people like you" earlier. Maybe you see it a bit clearer now.

What is wrong with Caencer ?

The issue with Caen is largely to do with the cutoffs. All maps should realistically allow each player to compete for either fuel. This map is also really good for penal/dshka meta as well as demos.

In regard to Westwall:

Houses on cutoffs are a well known issue in the game. Not every faction has the correct tools to get an opponent out of a house in a timely fashion. That is why it is considered by many people to be bad design ( including top players who lament this fact on their streams all the time ).

The whole design of the exits to each base, the position of the cutoffs, the houses on the cutoff and the roads which are red cover are just really really bad and really detract from the map. If you loose your cutoff then it is very likely gg. Good cutoff design is a key feature in this game and this map fails on that point.

The maze/bottleneck outside each base causes pathing issues that are not necessary. It may not be an issue for one unit or even two at the same time but trying to manage a soft retreat with multiple vehicles and support weapons, then it all goes to shit. In short it serves no real purpose and detracts from the gameplay because it causes frustration.

The layout of the fuels. As i said previously, most good maps or imo interesting maps allow for either fuel to be contested. It allows for maps to be played multiple ways. This map really doesn't encourage that.

The size of the map or rather the layout of the map makes this game feel like there's too much time spent capping.

In regard to Demos :

The bigger the map or the longer it takes for an engineer to travel the more effective demos will be. Also maps that obscure vision with objects like tall trees or points that hide behind buildings/trees are also more effective for demos. Some maps make demos easy to spot, and some don't..

Like I said earlier, it is mainly soviet bs and to a lesser degree brits that dictate which maps I veto.

In regard to Westwall:
Houses on cutoffs are a well known issue in the game. Not every faction has the correct tools to get an opponent out of a house in a timely fashion. That is why it is considered by many people to be bad design ( including top players who lament this fact on their streams all the time ).

Well. Jeah. First of all; Not every faction has a tool against buildings... well. That is a design error and not a map error. But i see that full health houses turned into a problem during the last patches. I had already released a new version of Westwall with strength reduced houses (see Steam Workshop Westwall v2). But when the map was released (in 2016) i have watched a lot of streams and no streamer complained about the houses...?

The whole design of the exits to each base, the position of the cutoffs, the houses on the cutoff and the roads which are red cover are just really really bad and really detract from the map. If you loose your cutoff then it is very likely gg. Good cutoff design is a key feature in this game and this map fails on that point.

I had added 2 more cutoffs with the last version. Unfortunately Relic took an old version with the 2 "central" cutoffs. The Workshop version has more cutoffs. And the buildings are down to 51% health. So you have to destroy 1% to neutralise the building at all (or wire the front doors).

The maze/bottleneck outside each base causes pathing issues that are not necessary. It may not be an issue for one unit or even two at the same time but trying to manage a soft retreat with multiple vehicles and support weapons, then it all goes to shit. In short it serves no real purpose and detracts from the gameplay because it causes frustration.

Well. I have adjusted the vehicles paths. It should be better now to work with vehicles.

The size of the map or rather the layout of the map makes this game feel like there's too much time spent capping.

Well. Westwall has the size of a standard Relic 1on1 map. I have forgotten which 1on1 map size i have used but it as big as Arnhem or other 1on1 maps (in term of playable area). I'm using Relic map sizes often for my maps.

In regard to Westwall:
...

And as you can see, like i stated, the map was updated by the mapper, and then it was never properly updated in automatch.

The "no answers to garrisons" was fixed, and everything else improved with proper feedback, but since patches come twice a year. It was never added.

Well. Jeah. First of all; Not every faction has a tool against buildings... well. That is a design error and not a map error. But i see that full health houses turned into a problem during the last patches. I had already released a new version of Westwall with strength reduced houses

I think most people would agree that when designing maps, especially competitive maps, there needs to be a willingness to work within the framework of the game. Designing a map according to some artistic vision and ignoring the effect on gameplay is really short sighted and not in the best interest of the game. Placing multiple full health brick houses with numerous windows and surrounded by red cover outside a base is incredibly poor design, largely because if your opponent gets into them then it is enormously difficult to remove them.

That said, the changes to westwall last patch were an improvement and the changes in westwall v2 improve the situation even more so. However given the current meta I cannot see myself wanting to play on this map as Ost.

Well. Westwall has the size of a standard Relic 1on1 map. I have forgotten which 1on1 map size i have used but it as big as Arnhem or other 1on1 maps (in term of playable area). I'm using Relic map sizes often for my maps.

Westwall is the second largest map in 1v1 behind caen according to map details, although that figure could be more of a guide than hard fact.

And fun fact, halbe, bryansk, westwall would all be 100% balanced if the game was (with slight deviations of abuse due to once again, the game). As they are symmetrical (mirror matches would come down to scouting and skill, not cheese). So before you try and blame the map, maybe you should look at game balance first?

So you're saying they would be better if they were for a different game, one that allows mirror matches, and relies on mechanical skill rather than 'cheese' (aka strategy)?

Or, make maps that work for this game, fun idea!

Analyse why the great maps of this game like Faymonville Approach, Crossroads, or Kholodony Ferma have such low vetoes and such high ratings amongst top players.

Or Seomis, Angoville, and, Langres for CoH1.

These maps have distinct cut offs, varied designs, and great character. But they play excellently for Company of Heroes battles.

The three you mentioned do not play well for Company of Heroes battles in their current form, and blaming the game is ridiculous in my opinion.

Bryansk is awful, too channelled and segmented, which means support weapons are mitigated and true sight nullifies a lot of palystyles.

Westwall has huge two storey garrisons in prominent places which ruins the flow of battle and creates a distorted early game.

Halbe becomes MG wars, and suffers the most out of the three mentioned for not being the most up to date version.

I think a lot of map makers should be more conservative in their approach to map making in this game, we don't want your grand artistic visions or creativity, we want nice rural maps that work and have distinct character without being overbearing.

The limits for what works in CoH maps is quite narrow, remove ego and creativity and people become better CoH map makers, in my opinion.

edit: I also think that same advice applies to me and goes towards casting and other pursuits, I'm not being mapist.

That is your point of view oO I'm shocked. Sorry but this point of view is a nightmare... I'm very disappointed... Map makers should just copy-past 3~4 maps. Sorry. I wont invest hundreds of hours into a map to get such an answer.

That is your point of view oO I'm shocked. Sorry but this point of view is a nightmare... I'm very disappointed... Map makers should just copy-past 3~4 maps. Sorry. I wont invest hundreds of hours into a map to get such an answer.

Actually his advice was "analyse" not copy. I think everyone would like 10 great maps, not just 3.

Analyse why the great maps of this game like Faymonville Approach, Crossroads, or Kholodony Ferma have such low vetoes and such high ratings amongst top players.

[...]

Westwall is the second largest map in 1v1 behind caen according to map details, although that figure could be more of a guide than hard fact.

Relic is working with a 32m per side "no control" map area. I'm working with 64m (and sometimes with 96m) per side "no control" area. The ingame map size information is always using the "playable area" parameter and not the real "gaming area". That is the reason why Westwall is "so large" by looking only into the ingame info screen.

And what A_E did is an allegation. It is simple.

Garrisons being dominant is 10% a map error and 90% game design error.

All factions actually get access to tools to clear buildings (flamers, flame vehicles, lava nades, grenades, snipers, mortars, indirect fire, 25-pounder barrages).

Unfortunately, many patches ago, it was deemed a good choice to allow infantry units to instantly hop-in hop-out out of garrisons. Thus, we're stuck with garrison hoping abuse which completely nullifies most of these counters.

Old system: you could surround the garrison with 2 infantry squads, throw a grenade at one of the doors and force the squad out. If the enemy wanted back in again, one of the following could happen:
- You could steal the garrison while the enemy squad is unresponsive (while unloading)
- The enemy could get back in. However they would be forced to spend at least 4 seconds outdoors, with no cover, getting shredded with the flanking squad
- You could follow up with an additional grenade

New system: Just click fast enough and you will be able to keep the garrisons for 30 seconds longer than you would normally deserve, allowing you to reinforce the garrison.

In short, the old system created some interesting counterplay to besiege garrisons. Most crucially, it allowed garrisons to change hands, and all factions had the tools necessary to do it.

Allowing garrisons to change hands easily makes the early-game building rush a bit less cancerous to deal with; especially for the factions that don't start with Tommies/Sturmpioneers.

Before somebody plays the "micro" card, should you be guaranteed an 100% chance to dodge incoming projectiles every time you give a rotation order to the tank? Cause that's exactly what's going on with garrisons and grenades/mortars at the moment.

Garrisons being dominant is 10% a map error and 90% game design error.

All factions actually get access to tools to clear buildings (flamers, flame vehicles, lava nades, grenades, snipers, mortars, indirect fire, 25-pounder barrages).

Unfortunately, many patches ago, it was deemed a good choice to allow infantry units to instantly hop-in hop-out out of garrisons. Thus, we're stuck with garrison hoping abuse which completely nullifies most of these counters.

With the old system, you could surround the garrison with 2 infantry squads, throw a grenade at one of the doors and force the squad out. If the enemy wanted back in again, one of the following could happen:
- You could steal the garrison while the enemy squad is unresponsive (while unloading)
- The enemy could get back in. However they would be forced to spend at least 4 seconds outdoors, with no cover, getting shredded with the flanking squad
- You could follow up with an additional grenade

In short, the old system created some interesting counterplay to besiege garrisons. Most crucially, it allowed garrisons to change hands, and all factions had the tools necessary to do it.

Before somebody plays the "micro" card, should you be guaranteed an 100% chance to dodge incoming projectiles every time you give a rotation order to the tank? Cause that's exactly what's going on with garrisons and grenades/mortars at the moment.

I think garrison problem can be fixed by 3 simple steps

1.) All houses are as vunurable as wooden one in soviet maps (so no more inpenetrable housings, that need 100 million shells to actually die - eg. Angoville), but there can´t be any nades that destroy full health garrison in 1 go (I´m looking at you bundle nade)

2.) All squads take some time to ungarrison (similar timing as rakketen/maxim) - by this change you´ll still be able to dodge grenade but only if you´re paying attention - similar to grenades thrown in the open.

3.) Garrison cannot be occupied for 3 seconds after a grenade hit it (so you cannot do the hop-in-hop out tactic to completly nulify grenades). By this change, you will have an option to eat a grenade and stay in garrison or go out and being incapable to get back in 3 next seconds.

I think garrison problem can be fixed by 3 simple steps

1.) All houses are as vunurable as wooden one in soviet maps (so no more inpenetrable housings, that need 100 million shells to actually die - eg. Angoville), but there can´t be any nades that destroy full health garrison in 1 go (I´m looking at you bundle nade)

2.) All squads take some time to ungarrison (similar timing as rakketen/maxim) - by this change you´ll still be able to dodge grenade but only if you´re paying attention - similar to grenades thrown in the open.

3.) Garrison cannot be occupied for 3 seconds after a grenade hit it (so you cannot do the hop-in-hop out tactic to completly nulify grenades). By this change, you will have an option to eat a grenade and stay in garrison or go out and being incapable to get back in 3 next seconds.

1) Wooden garrisons crumbling down like leafs to grenades is the logical conclusion for having designed garrisons that are so difficult to contest. Nevertheless, garrisons getting insta-gibbed looks stupid, from every possible perspective.

If garrisons could trade hands easily, you could easily increase the durability of wooden garrisons to that of double-story stone buildings, and it still wouldn't matter.

2) Grenades take longer to aim and throw than it takes to leave a garrison. Therefore, if you ended up with a grenade under your squad, it's your fault for not paying attention to your garrison early enough.

Garrisons are not supposed to be safe havens. They are supposed to be durable cover that can trade hands.

(Of course, Bundle nades/gammon bombs would have to be nerfed to a balanced state for this to work)

3) Doing this means that you are making it even more difficult for the attacker to steal the garrison.

If you know you have 3 seconds to spare before anybody can contest your garrison, you spread out, dodge the grenade, then head back and regain your garrison.

With the old (CoH1) system, the attacker wants to force you out of the building, while having a squad of their own nearby to occupy the garrison. While executing the de-garrison command, you lose control of your units:
- If you order your units to go too far, the enemy can steal your garrison
- If you order your units not to go far enough, you can get wiped by the door nade

To clarify I think amazing artistic maps have their place, but for competitive Company of Heroes there is a narrow band within what works and a vast swathe of what doesn't work. This isn't mapmakers' fault it's just that this game has very specific limitations.

But to make a map that actually fits the game as a competitive RTS one must be quite reserved and logical in their approach in my opinion.

There's also nothing wrong with a bunch of strong brick buildings and red cover. Just don't put them on the VPs, fuels or the cutoffs. The original CoH1 maps offer a pretty good example of proper garrison usage: easily flanked and never locking down access to portions of the map. (Semois pin aside, though I do personally feel that is perfectly valid.)

TBH it's really hard to design a competitive CoH2 map, for the game design issues previously mentioned. It's even harder to create a visually appealing CoH2 ma: there's not a whole lot of non-rural non-snow options in CoH2 unfortunately. It's also a challenge to create a CoH2 map that isn't a copy of another map, as there is a crushingly limited number of territory resource points with no variation.

Accomplishing all three isn't exactly easy.

There's also nothing wrong with a bunch of strong brick buildings and red cover. Just don't put them on the VPs, fuels or the cutoffs. The original CoH1 maps offer a pretty good example of proper garrison usage: easily flanked and never locking down access to portions of the map. (Semois pin aside, though I do personally feel that is perfectly valid.)

TBH it's really hard to design a competitive CoH2 map, for the game design issues previously mentioned. It's even harder to create a visually appealing CoH2 ma: there's not a whole lot of non-rural non-snow options in CoH2 unfortunately. It's also a challenge to create a CoH2 map that isn't a copy of another map, as there is a crushingly limited number of territory resource points with no variation.

Accomplishing all three isn't exactly easy.

I think it's possible with imagination but it's very risky, Caen for example is so close to being an urban map that fits the forumla and works, it's only let down by the cutoffs which I've heard were fixed it's just that the correct version is not in the game.

Westwall is the second largest map in 1v1 behind caen according to map details, although that figure could be more of a guide than hard fact.

That is incorrect, the game reports the wrong sizes. It reports what you place as playable area, not what the interactivity stage actually allows. Once again, a Relic falsehood. If this map was actually the square shown, then yes, but since the corners are cutoff it is actually much smaller than what is shown, on top of 32-64m of interactivity stage.

Edit: I see rommel already explained this, sorry for the double info.