Ardeness Assault MP maps into automatch

Jump back to quoted post22 Jun 2018, 01:02 AMWhiteFlash

They should all be reviewed by ladder mappers before being considered

Jump back to quoted post22 Jun 2018, 01:48 AMWhiteFlash

Thanks

The data needs to drive operations as far as ladder maps go such as this and this. There is no reasonable case to be made to do it any other way. I made this case in my COH3 article as well in the maps section.

New maps need to be thoroughly tested before implementation with a mapper assigned to a map (perhaps multiple) and his job is to go out and get groups of people to play on the map, he spectates or watches replays and solicits feedback and makes decisions where to make changes, if he is skilled in ladder mapmaking quality should be distilled from this process. This method is by far the best way to go.

Care has to be taken before moving forward as far as ladder goes. Not following these guidelines is why the map pool is what it is. I mean...if i change from 1v1 to 2v2 COH2 still doesnt remember which maps i vetoed and i have to select them over every time i switch game types, its been over 4 years and this still hasnt been fixed...this basic functionality shows the things falling through the cracks with the ladder in general.

1. Use data to remove existing maps
2. Thoroughly focus group test maps that desire to join ladder (or possibly map tournaments)

Jump back to quoted post22 Jun 2018, 02:12 AMGiaA

Good points, but a lot of the maps are fundamentally flawed. Things like overcrowded areas, weird structures that look good but lead to terrible gameplay (eg. the castle on eindhoven which is actually a decent map overall), weird ressource layouts and the terrible use of houses make some of them unsalvageable. Those maps shouldn't be bothered with let alone put into automatch. (Lost Glider, Westwall, Ettelbrück, Trois Ponts, Poltawa, Charkov etc.)

The process you're describing needs to be applied to well thought out maps that need fine tuning but offer a good basis. (Kholodny, Langres, the 2v2 map with the 3 houses around the southern fuel that are sort of ruining it atm etc.)

Jump back to quoted post22 Jun 2018, 11:05 AMwuff

None of them look suited for 1v1, too large.

Jump back to quoted post22 Jun 2018, 10:19 AMMajorBloodnok

Just a FYI: Eindhoven was revised 3 years ago by Spanky with input from others like Cruzz, Carpiqua and WhiteFlash. However, probably owing to team changes at Relic base, the map never progressed further.

Jump back to quoted post22 Jun 2018, 17:02 PMRosbone

Just a quick observation from the posts so far:
1. Most of the maps shown have WAY too many buildings.
2. Can a 1v1 map be too large? These maps remind me of LaGleize which to me had too many buildings and was too large. And was removed from automatch.

Thoughts on large maps:
- Make for boring ESL type games since they will be longer and have less action.
- Be troublesome for newer players who do not have the micro to deal with having units all over the map.
- May induce more RNG losses since you could run into more MANY vs ONE situations. Like I always say: go left win the game, go right lose the game. This is multiplied as the map gets larger.

But I am digging Nigos excitement

Jump back to quoted post21 Jun 2018, 22:59 PMjas

What I'd like to see in a future Relic game would be a separation between "Normal" automatch and "Ranked" automatch, like in some MOBA games. The normal mode could have a large variety of maps that aren't necessarily the most balanced, while the ranked mode could have something like only the top 4 least vetoed maps. That way the competitive people can play only the most balanced maps, while people who just want to have casual fun can enjoy a greater variety of maps.

Jump back to quoted post22 Jun 2018, 11:05 AMwuff

None of them look suited for 1v1, too large. I worry about shoehorning in maps for the sake of having more.

We still have a bunch of maps that need to seriously reworked or removed.