Map veto stats

Too bad that is what everyone wants in automatch. Same strats, same thought process, same setting... anything that changes that = horrible. That has been proven time and time again since forever now.

This is becouse players either have either barely enough or almost enough vetoes to remove all the interesting maps. At least in 1v1. If there were more such maps, or less vetoes, players would have to get used to changing their build depending on a map.

I'm sure you, as a professional in statistics, will agree that there is a logical error in your statement. Everybody here seems to assume that there exists a strong correlation between the number of players vetoing a map and the quality of that map. In fact I would say there is high probability that such correlation doesn't exist.

First of all, it is pretty hard to define a good map. But it is not the main problem here. The main problem is that, as far as I can tell, most players veto the maps they expect to lose on. I'm not saying there are no other reasons to veto a map, but this one appears to be so common that ignoring it will induce high error.

Lets think about the reasons why player expects to lose on some map:
1. Individual problems - a player might not understand the idea behind maps layout, or might not know how to play against some feature of a map, like garrisons or hedges. In some edge cases, this might mean a map is somewhat hard to grasp, but usually the problem will be on the player site and should not affect the rating of a map.
2. Faction favoured - some maps are considered better suited for some factions than others. While this is a solid argument for map rework or removal, it is important to note that some factions offer underused units to deal with such problem (e.g. pgrens) and that it might change with future ballance changes.
3. Outlier maps - many maps of current map pool play in very similar fashion. The same strategies seem to work on all of maps in such group well, and as long as you don't get a stray map you don't need to look for new strategies. This creates a "comfort zone" many players lie in. These players will veto all the maps that try to force them to alter their build or commander choice. In effect, the maps that could work against boring metas and that are interesting to play on, often get high veto counts. These are often maps or high quality in every possible scale. Their only fault is being outlier from the rest of map pool in the playstyle space. I belive these are the most valuable maps in a map pool. And these maps are also among the high vetoed ones.

As shown above high veto count might be coused by reasons connected to the quality of a map in both positive and negative ways. Caution should be used when trying to use this, or some other data to decide fate of some map.

You make good points. When I look at the 4v4 map pool, as an example, general mud has shown itself to be a good 4v4 map but it has low play count. So play count alone cant be the decider, agreed, I forgot to add the other data.

However, forum voting cant be a system to remove maps either for all the reasons you point out, and the sample size for your vote is far smaller here.

This kind of data set or something very close to it should be the driver. I apologize I didn't include that earlier. This aggregate of data + expert ladder mapper input + expert player input should be the driver of maps quality.

In this case we are talking about removing maps and I agree that maps which are being played enough and are reasonably balanced should be left in. The question is, define enough and reasonably. Very few people in the COH community are qualified to do this and Relic should be setting standards for map quality, balance, things that can be measured.

There should be a lead ladder mapper in the community and at least at Relic that regularly analyzes this sort of information to come to conclusions about ladder map quality.

The bottom line is there are better ways to figure solutions for ladder maps, voting in forums isn't one of them.

Also thanks very much to SiphonX for posting these statistics they are invaluable.

This is becouse players either have either barely enough or almost enough vetoes to remove all the interesting maps. At least in 1v1. If there were more such maps, or less vetoes, players would have to get used to changing their build depending on a map.

Well there are about... I dunno probably 20 odd ready to go maps for 1v1 that have already been in rotation or have been in SMC and are decent. So it easily could be done, just doubt it happening.

Well there are about... I dunno probably 20 odd ready to go maps for 1v1 that have already been in rotation or have been in SMC and are decent. So it easily could be done, just doubt it happening.

I thought you were against putting SMC maps in the pool. At least till relic decides to work more closely with mappers. Or is that issue already solved?

I thought you were against putting SMC maps in the pool. At least till relic decides to work more closely with mappers. Or is that issue already solved?

I am against putting them in with the players not wanting them. However quite a few asked for vilshanka to be put in, so as far as I know, it is going to be. But my point is that there are plenty of maps that can be fixed and added for more pool variety.

Just off the top of my head (mind some/all would still need adjustments to be balanced or fix issues from before)

-sturzdorf***
-caen***
-halbe***
-bryansk forest***
-market ruins***
-bombarded refinery***
-la gleize***
-schilberg outskirts***
-normandy*
-oostereek*
-best**
-karelia summer***
-duetz*
-verman river*
-potok peresecheniya*
-vilshanka*
-ladoga karelia*
-southern alblasswerwaard*
-port nazaire*
-st. omer airfield*
-Rattay Ruins (OMEGALUL)*

* = Is/was in a tourney
** = old vcoh map
*** = already in automatch but was removed

I'm sure I am missing some, but here you go.

Obviously some of these maps need very simple fixes, others, might not be savable, but worth a try if people were actually interested (they are not as they have proven for the last 2 years).

Siphon can you link me the thread with stats before the dbp came, pls?

I would love to have a few of them back. Halbe, Caen, Market Ruins, Schilberg just to name a few.
I think its always sad, that the maps once in automatch get removed forever with almost no chance of comming back. Also, the ones crying loudest about the community maps might not be the majority.
I for example enjoy new maps a lot more than seeing or playing Crossroads, Crossing or Kholodny for the 1000 time (this also kinda spoils GSC for me because it's so repetitive, just as a sidenote) but I am not creating threads detailing that.
I think a solution to this problem would be to find a middle ground. I would like to see an actual map rotation (after all its called Community Map Rotation), there we have a list (like yours) of maps that are ready to go in automatch and there is a monthly rotation of maybe two new maps.
So we start from the top of the list and go towards the end and repeat. Mappers would have the opportunity to rework/remove the map in the downtime if complaints occur. And players would have something new.
The fixed schedule is important because it gives incentive to come back to the game every rotation cycle, also all of the hardcore competitive map fans wouldn't get mad because there are only 1-2 new maps in automatch at a time and vetoing would be no problem. It adds also another way of testing a map.
If a map proves to be so good, that it is constantly played in tourneys (like crossroads turned out) it could be removed from the rotation and added permanently to the map pool, on the other hand,
maps that don´t work can get kicked from the list. The outcry and hate would presumably also be smaller because there is a set time limit to the map and you now afterwards it will be gone.
Right now there is no clarity. A map might stay or not, nothing is official and you have to dig threw sturmpanthers posts to get some hints on what relic might be up to. Relic should start maintaining their community relations after all they want to sell COH3. But hey this has been said a thousand times so I´ll stop here.

TLDR: Give us an actual map rotation based on a community list

I would love to have a few of them back. Halbe, Caen, Market Ruins, Schilberg just to name a few.
I think its always sad, that the maps once in automatch get removed forever with almost no chance of comming back. Also, the ones crying loudest about the community maps might not be the majority.
I for example enjoy new maps a lot more than seeing or playing Crossroads, Crossing or Kholodny for the 1000 time (this also kinda spoils GSC for me because it's so repetitive, just as a sidenote) but I am not creating threads detailing that.
I think a solution to this problem would be to find a middle ground. I would like to see an actual map rotation (after all its called Community Map Rotation), there we have a list (like yours) of maps that are ready to go in automatch and there is a monthly rotation of maybe two new maps.
So we start from the top of the list and go towards the end and repeat. Mappers would have the opportunity to rework/remove the map in the downtime if complaints occur. And players would have something new.
The fixed schedule is important because it gives incentive to come back to the game every rotation cycle, also all of the hardcore competitive map fans wouldn't get mad because there are only 1-2 new maps in automatch at a time and vetoing would be no problem. It adds also another way of testing a map.
If a map proves to be so good, that it is constantly played in tourneys (like crossroads turned out) it could be removed from the rotation and added permanently to the map pool, on the other hand,
maps that don´t work can get kicked from the list. The outcry and hate would presumably also be smaller because there is a set time limit to the map and you now afterwards it will be gone.
Right now there is no clarity. A map might stay or not, nothing is official and you have to dig threw sturmpanthers posts to get some hints on what relic might be up to. Relic should start maintaining their community relations after all they want to sell COH3. But hey this has been said a thousand times so I´ll stop here.

TLDR: Give us an actual map rotation based on a community list

They had this. Called "Community Spotlight", problem is it is 100% arbitrary. AKA no set rotation. I for one have been saying exactly this forever. If we had a pool of maps to rotate through, at least it would keep things fresh and we would get some fun games. Cause I 100% share your sentiment with seeing the same maps over and over. It is boring as hell.

I have a big question, why people that doesnt play x game mode or doesnt play the game at all want to make decisions on those topics?

Also thanks very much to SiphonX for posting these statistics they are invaluable.

100% agree! SiphonX is the mother lovin man

I just dont understand why I can't veto all the maps I dont want to play, if I want to sit ina lobby for an hour before a game, let that be my choice.

Because the ladder system would be a joke then. Always play the one map that you know how to play and win more often. You could be terrible at the game in general (like me), but have a high ranking. Or worse there is some bat shit OP thing that works on a certain map so you aboose the hell out of it and rise up the ranks .

The data shows that even if there is statistical clustering, which there isnt, the data is very solid. I work in aerospace engineering and if I saw statistical data like this and I was looking for a signal outside of the noise none of this would qualify. In other words its consistent and SiphonX is correct that there is no signal suggesting that maps are preferred in any way.

Which makes perfect sense, there is no reason to be selecting any map more than another, except when people veto a map more, which means statistically its played less.

Given that reality this kind of data should be used to remove maps as players vote with their vetos. It could also be used other ways, but first it should be used to remove maps from ladder to make room for newcomers that could improve the pool.

This...all day long.

Vielsam is a really weird map that is 2 separate 2v2's, and not that enjoyable. Mud is too big, and gives to much advantage to teams with FRP's. Most people veto those. On the different 4v4 teams that I play with, one of the middle group of maps gets the other veto, depending on who speaks up the loudest. The top group rarely gets vetoes.

It is good to have a mix of maps. If you could veto down to one type of map, the game would get stale fast.

As far as the claims about clusters, I think that teams can get into a rhythm where the server gives them the same map several times in a row because the server is pseudo-random and they just ended up that way in the rotation. Also, if you flip a coin 100 times, chances are that you'll have at least one streak of 8 heads or tails in those tosses. Granted, there are more than two maps, but most people have also played a lot more than 100 games.

Because the ladder system would be a joke then. Always play the one map that you know how to play and win more often. You could be terrible at the game in general (like me), but have a high ranking. Or worse there is some bat shit OP thing that works on a certain map so you aboose the hell out of it and rise up the ranks .

I agree with Latch in this one, Counter Strike GO, one of the most competitive games on Earth, lets you play on the maps you want. I think this system is kinda agressive to the playerbase, it obligates you to do something that you dont want. This is automatch tho. Sadly we cant do nothing because vetoes are attached to coding

for kind of 1 year ago?

Ah, ok, I thought you meant like this is a regular occurrence. Yes, there was this issue right after a patch. And the single "The Don" game and the "Rzhev" games show that occasionally servers seem to do something unintended. But outside of these rare occurrences I haven't found a sign of certain maps being preferred by the system at certain days.

So it seems unlikely that the statistics are skewed by the algorithm that picks the map.

I still find it so funny: second place in 2vs2 is road to Kharkov. And in 3vs3 and 4vs4 port of Hamburg, the old port of Hamburg.
I guess the reason is, that you have a 50%chance to get the op side

Well, as ferwiner said, I think people typically tend to first and foremost veto maps where they think their faction has a disadvantage. I guess the next round goes to maps they dislike for other reasons (pathing issues, visuals, or general gameplay stuff).

For example, in 4v4 I typically tended to veto Hill 331 (because I disliked the pink soil) and Montargis (playing that with randoms comes down to who dugs in on the fuel hill first) and Redball Express (because I felt that to be too narrow with 4 players and I disliked the distinct lanes).

So, if the sides are unbalanced, sure might lead for some people to veto a map, but I don't think that that is something very high on the list of most players (although it might lead to players dropping quickly from a game when they find that they have to start from the side they consider at a disadvantage).

Secondly: I think most people will complain loudest about maps they actually play (rather then ones they never play because they consider those auto-vetoes). Maps they feel they are forced to play because they have to spend their vetoes on maps that are "clearly unplayable".

1. Do we know how the selection process works on the client side? Server side?

2. Say there are 10 maps. Most people would veto 2 of the same maps. Then their would be some variation of their other vetos. This would show graphically similar to your charts.

Re 1: We don't know, really, but judging from when stuff went wrong it seems to be server side.

Re 2: Still not sure what you mean exactly, but the fluctuations are expected. In the graph I plotted % to make it easier to see (obviously there will be different numbers of games from day to day), but the number of games isn't that big. The top maps achieve about 250 games per day, so a single team disliking one map and playing only one of those days easily can produce a noticeable dent for that map in the graph.

It is true tho, that the players with the current system veto certain maps (for all I know the server then randomly picks the map from those maps that received the least amount of vetoes from all players in the match).

Instead, you could think of a system where you pick a map/maps that you would like to play on and the server would randomly pick one of the maps from those that got the most votes. I figure in this case the maps at the bottom would still be at the bottom, but the first couple of maps might be different ones....

Siphon can you link me the thread with stats before the dbp came, pls?

You mean this one?

You mean this one?

thank you.

I agree with Latch in this one, Counter Strike GO, one of the most competitive games on Earth, lets you play on the maps you want. I think this system is kinda agressive to the playerbase, it obligates you to do something that you dont want. This is automatch tho. Sadly we cant do nothing because vetoes are attached to coding

I disagree here.
And i agree with Rosbone.
Its always funny when some global elite player from "only office" played on dust 2 or Mirage. They were just useless noobs

You want to be one of the best coh2 players? That means you have skills --> Skill is mirco AND Mapknowledge!
And that you as person can adapt to new patch and new maps.

You want to play only on 1 single map --> Go and create customgame and hope that you find other same people.
This remembers me of coh1 lobby system: Always schelde or hochwaldbresche... But being lv 20 oO

I disagree here.
And i agree with Rosbone.
Its always funny when some global elite player from "only office" played on dust 2 or Mirage. They were just useless noobs

You want to be one of the best coh2 players? That means you have skills --> Skill is mirco AND Mapknowledge!
And that you as person can adapt to new patch and new maps.

You want to play only on 1 single map --> Go and create customgame and hope that you find other same people.
This remembers me of coh1 lobby system: Always schelde or hochwaldbresche... But being lv 20 oO

The thing is, do I need to play the maps that are not in the tournament map poll? Lots of maps that cant be vetoed are not in the map poll. Still I think is agressive, you are obligating me to do something that I dont want to do.