Map veto stats

Here are updated stats on map selection for the automatch including all games that I collected from the 11th of April 2018 to the 23rd of June 2018. The numbers show how often a specific map was played.









Edit:Increased font size on the plots, you might have to refresh this page...

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.

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.

I remember someone saying that the number of Vetos is directly tied to the number of maps in rotation - so it's a programming limitation on Relic's end.

As far as I remember, a veto isn't even a certainty to not play a map. Especially in team games lol.

You don't know how the mappool matching is around. At some days you get way more often special maps, and next days you see this map never.

So, you are suggesting that the servers at times randomly prefer certain maps? I haven't found a trace of that, really.

Here is what my extraction script gave me for 10 consecutive days (I took 4v4 because I thought that might be what you are referring to mostly):



So, yes, there are fluctuations from day to day (obviously personal preference plays a role, so there is fluctuation), but there is nothing that would suggests that there is something like a "server's map of the day". Like, the top four are always Port, Redball, Essen and Lienne, the mid group are Steppes, Lazenrath, Lorch, Hill 400 and La Gleize and those are followed by General Mud and Vielsalm.

Given that you will often queue into similar teams during one evening, it is not too unlikely that you will end up with the same map for a couple of those games, but otherwise...

Let me know when you encounter this again, and I can check if on that day there was something funny going on...

So, you are suggesting that the servers at times randomly prefer certain maps? I haven't found a trace of that, really.

Here is what my extraction script gave me for 10 consecutive days (I took 4v4 because I thought that might be what you are referring to mostly):



So, yes, there are fluctuations from day to day (obviously personal preference plays a role, so there is fluctuation), but there is nothing that would suggests that there is something like a "server's map of the day". Like, the top four are always Port, Redball, Essen and Lienne, the mid group are Steppes, Lazenrath, Lorch, Hill 400 and La Gleize and those are followed by General Mud and Vielsalm.

Given that you will often queue into similar teams during one evening, it is not too unlikely that you will end up with the same map for a couple of those games, but otherwise...

Let me know when you encounter this again, and I can check if on that day there was something funny going on...

Me and soem mates had days where we had 9 games in a row steppe! And then another day not a single steppe game. Vetos always the same.
Or when resh summer went back in automatch, or stalingrad etc

Me and soem mates had days where we had 9 games in a row steppe!

Do you remember when that was (roughly, like, at least the month?)

for kind of 1 year ago?
It happend more often, but 1 time it was when resh sommer was in the mappool again, (which was an error) maybe you can find it out, when this happend. in maybe some patchnotes.

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.

Im a little confused, is the numbers in the OP maps played or maps vetoed?

After making your vetos and you begin searching, you can still select a map from the list. Is this then your vote to play this map? If you do not select a map, is that a vote for random?

My point is, most people do not click to select/vote for a map to play. So the 'random' votes would outweigh the selected votes? So seeing fluctuations seems normal to me.

NOTE: Most PC code does not produce perfect random numbers.

Im a little confused, is the numbers in the OP maps played or maps vetoed?

Sorry, this is maps played, so the ones with the lower numbers are vetoed more commonly

After making your vetos and you begin searching, you can still select a map from the list. Is this then your vote to play this map? If you do not select a map, is that a vote for random?

My point is, most people do not click to select/vote for a map to play. So the 'random' votes would outweigh the selected votes? So seeing fluctuations seems normal to me.

NOTE: Most PC code does not produce perfect random numbers.

Not sure what you are getting at...

Imo all 1v1 maps are fixable, some of their unique nature must be sacrified tho. There are cases where the same version of the map but worse is in the map poll, like kholodney ferma winter, its not necessary to have it twice. Minsk Pocket is a 2v2 map size that shouldnt be in 1v1 and arguably the same with Kharkov.

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.

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 of 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.

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

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.

Couldn't agree more. Fixing maps is for the benefit of all - removing maps entirely from the pool makes the game stale and repetitive. All we'll have left are maps that promote the same strategies over and over.

Consider too that we won't get map updates forever - COH2 is getting old. It's better to leave the final product with a little variety and longevity.

Not sure what you are getting at...

Most of my posts are questions that may be informative for someone else reading this thread.

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.

If the client can NOT VOTE FOR A MAP, it would be purely random server selection based on the available maps left(not vetoed).

If the client can VOTE FOR A MAP, but most people do not. The results would be more random. Some days a few more people may actually vote for the same map and the server would then select it. So I would expect to see days where Steppes is played 9 times in a row assuming the same people are playing it and voting.

I agree with your charts. And I agree with Ferwiners assessment that there are a lot of factors as to what maps get played the most. I am just adding more examples of how the numbers could be skewed because of the vetoing/voting process. If it even exists.

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.

If the client can NOT VOTE FOR A MAP, it would be purely random server selection based on the available maps left(not vetoed).

If the client can VOTE FOR A MAP, but most people do not. The results would be more random. Some days a few more people may actually vote for the same map and the server would then select it. So I would expect to see days where Steppes is played 9 times in a row assuming the same people are playing it and voting.

Can't agree with this point. The sample of the data is big enough to belive that these are really the least vetoed maps. As long as the final map is decided at random (using pseudorandom sequence) among the ones that have not been vetoed, using uniform distribution, this data is a good proof of that. Of course, we are not 100% sure that the distribution is truly uniform, but there is also no reason to think otherwise.

Couldn't agree more. Fixing maps is for the benefit of all - removing maps entirely from the pool makes the game stale and repetitive. All we'll have left are maps that promote the same strategies over and over.

Consider too that we won't get map updates forever - COH2 is getting old. It's better to leave the final product with a little variety and longevity.

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.