Update on map pick statistics

...

I'm saying is that we will never get anything but the same tired shit. Because the game is imbalanced and currently we have nothing to do besides "rural soviet farmland #1, rural soviet farmland #2".

This is due to many things, but mainly due to patches. Imagine if all the sudden shocks were OP (buffed beyond logical reason) and then everyone wanted CQC maps. Imagine if indirect fire ranges were adjusted further augmenting that certain maps (crossroads would be absolute cancer and langreskya would be in the same boat), as both are already cheesed to begin with.

What is also funny is when the maps were first introduced, plenty of top players didn't veto maps and actually ENJOYED playing on the new playstyles instead of the same tired bullshit that you suggest all through this thread.

You also say the "three i mentioned" don't play well. You do realize that westwall was 5th overall in most play until the patch for penals come out, correct? Its almost like, when the patches change maps become easy to blame and the balance takes a back seat. As smith said 90% game design, 10% map design.

Oh and bryansk was a favorite for a time as well. And Halbe was voted in as the BEST MAP by top players from the 1v1 tourney, so once again, its almost like the patch completed changed on the dynamic of how the maps worked.

Then all of these were changed (outside bryansk) and NEVER updated. It is almost like we do make maps, like you suggest, but then get the shaft by having them never be updated in the endless cycle of bullshit that is the current state of balance.

Also you referencing any vCoH maps is completely irrelevant. They have tons of games mechanics that completely change how the game is played from 1 game to the next. Making a vcoh map was EASY in comparison to all the stupid shit you have to account for in coh 2, and then it all changes in a patch and you have to wait 6 months before the next one.

Also I whole-heartedly agree with Rommel with this hysterical comment "we want nice rural maps that work and have distinct character without being overbearing.", that completely counterpoints itself. Nice rural maps, BUT WITH CHARACTER. I am not going to spend hours upon hours making and then testing the maps, just to make a variation of "Not another soviet farmland" map. Sorry but it just becomes more and more obvious you don't understand the limitations of the builder in any respect. There is only so many ways you can make a fucking field or a grove of trees.

The other reasons that the "great maps" have low vetoes is they are also a comfort zone, they have been around the longest and are the easiest for people to adapt on, since they have been played on with no changes for years, and even then most top 50 players have varying opinions on what maps they actually prefer as their top 3.

You want 10 great maps? I can easily rotate the top 5 most played and make them all urban/industrial. The first thing everyone would do is cry. "Not another urban map", "its so claustrophobic", "CQC units rape everything here", ect; But when you look and replace all the cover with trees instead of building rows, all the sudden its fine. Are all the maps perfect? No. Will they ever be? No. Why? Cause of asymmetrical design that is still in flux.

This has nothing to do with art either. Yah my maps, rommels, monos, whiteflash, stahagels, onkelsams, invictus, nebaka, capiqua, ect... they all look nice. It happens when you know how to use the builder, me putting down a splat doesn't effect balance. Garrison cheese, indirect fire abuse, and 1 "acceptable" opening build order do.

Edit: Forgot the shining gem of "Remove creativity to become a better mapper". The entire process of making a map is creative. You are doing literally only that, creating, but hey lets limit it.

I agree with what you just said, most of it makes great sense, and I understand your frustations.

All I'm saying is the following criteria need to apply for a CoH2 map to be competitive in the formula that we have built up over time as a community.

Formula for a good CoH2 1v1 Map:

• Three evenly spaced VPs in accessible locations, without strong garrisons watching over them.
  
• Strong garrisons in general should not dominate the map in key locations. Due to lack of flamethrowers for three of the armies' base tech trees.
  
• Two cut offs per side in defend-able locations but accessible to the enemy.
  
• Base exits that are far enough apart to allow escape from a pin attempt, and base mgs that cover them.
  
• Red cover in clear and logical places in small amounts. Roads are a good platform for these as players are familiar with roads as being negative for infantry and positive for vehicles.
  
• Green cover in key locations outside of capping circles but of equal opportunity to both starting locations.
  
• Good width and depth to the map, a square is roughly the right shape, the more rectangular the playing area worse it is, as a rough rule of thumb. This due to if it's too wide it spreads the play too much, if it's too narrow it confines it too much.
  
• Enough sight blockers that there are some distinct channels, but not so many that open play is overly mitigated. Site dependent support weapons need areas in which to operate.
  

Stick to that and you can do whatever else you want, make it a windmill orientated map in a big corn field, put it on an island with a castle in the background, whatever, but in general add character but stick to the overall proven formula.