1vs1 Removing map from automatch

That's a lot of my maps - but none of these are suitable for automatch. They would all need considerable work before they could be considered competitive.

I know.

But we have some community mappers doing map rework. Maybe they can help with that if they stop rework old cluster maps for 10th time.

Tartu Winter by Spanky:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=463700635


(2) Wintertide by Whiteflash

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=515075221


(2) Rolling Thunder by Whiteflash

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=238036492





(2 – 4) Razing Mozhaisk
- Cast into the smoke and fog of a winter's night, players are left to defend Mozhaisk, for all of its worth. With the centre focused around a claustrophobic, burning village, and outskirts of muddy fields, this map will test the mettle of even the most diverse armies.

(2 – 4) Karelia Winter
- After returning to the wilderness of Karelia, players will recognise the dense overgrowth and woodland, now blanketed in snow. With a central reservation of water dividing the map, Karelia now brings to it an element of defence never before experienced on the Northern Fronts.

(2 – 4) Jülich Winter
- The ruined city of Jülich makes a return, now with its fires extinguished and its rivers frozen. This intimate and close-quarter battlefield favours the most tenacious of commanders, but comes at a high risk: blizzards could strike at any moment in this wasteland.

(2 – 4) Derailing the DR-K320
- By now a year old, this revitalised version of Derailing the DR-K320 retuns players to the partisans' struggle, in the dense depths of the forest. Now, deep snow and occassional blizzards add further risk to those who wish to venture away from the main roads.

(4 – 6) Razor's Column
- A new addition, Razor's Column features a desperate rush through a bare and exposed outcropping, uphill into the industrial centre, where buildings, shelter and cover will solidify victory. Whoever holds the high ground will survive the winter.

(4 – 6) Foy
- Created, tested and released during the Alpha of the Western Front Armies, Foy relives the battle of Foy, in which units of the 101st Airborne left their positions within the Bois Jacques and faced an entrenched foe. With its unique shape and urban/rural combat, players will find Foy a new challenge each time they play.

(6 – 8) Bois Jacques
- Masterminded by Mirage, Bois Jacques is an entirely woodland-based map, balanced and designed for the perfect 3vs3 skirmish. This scarred, yet beautiful landscape has already hosted many an epic battle, and is destined to host many more.

(6 - 8) Schmidt
- Fresh off the press, Schmidt takes the concept of rural warfare and rivives it. With buildings dominating large, exposed roadways and hedgerows dividing the many fields and forests, each turn within the countryside of Schmidt can bring new challanges. Commanders must decide whether to hunker down and defend, or push the advantage, one field at a time.

(6 - 8) Sittard Winter
- Now listed as one of the Top 10 subscribed maps in Company of Heroes 2, Sittard has been reborn during the winter of 1944. With its bridges in ruins, the main crossings through the city feature thin ice, turning the focus of defence away from the main roads, and onto the water's edge.


https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=318603951

Im with Mono on this one, Rolling Thunder was my very first attempt (an unfinished and subpar one) at winter maps.

Wintertide was a more agressive but still unfinished and subpar attempt at 1v1. This map might actually be able to flesh into a competitive map but i give it a 40% chance at best.

Winter theme is tricky indeed, i dont think impossible, but its more challenging than normal for reasons I havent pinned down yet. Ive avoided the winter them since Wintertide, but a special 4v4 map is being developed in winter theme which should be interesting, the 4v4/3v3 pool desperately needs help.

From ToW Stalingrad:


Winter Storm (2-4)

https://www.coh2.org/topic/81246/unused-tow-relic-maps-into-automatch


From AA:

(2-4) Road to Lingeuville
(6) Bulligen Spearhead

https://www.coh2.org/topic/81060/ardeness-assault-mp-maps-into-automatch

but a special 4v4 map is being developed in winter theme which should be interesting, the 4v4/3v3 pool desperately needs help.

Thanks WF.

Nigo, the reason so many maps are not ready for automatch is they have not been tested. There are hundreds of maps that MAY be good. But unless they are played we will never know for sure. And putting the maps in the game is a long process so you want to be sure.

Here is a winter 1v1 map I just posted not too long ago (2) Novgorod Outskirts Only one person tried it and commented. One. And no replays have been uploaded to my knowledge. Steam says it has been downloaded 8 times by 7 people. Generically it has not been tested.

The best way to get new maps is a map contest so the maps can be peer reviewed and then played on by top players.

Currently, Trics SMC is the best format for getting testing accomplished. Whiteflash also sees the necessity in this with his Nexus tournament. The community will not put time into a map unless they are sure something will come of their effort. However, these maps are not peer reviewed so little bugs and things may still slip thru.

The 2v2 map contest was the best shot at getting decent maps. But there were some glitches that kept it from being perfect. Hopefully someday we get another type of contest for 1v1 or even better 4v4 maps

ROSBONES MANIFESTO
As a freshly minted MAPMAKER on COH2.org I felt we needed a test. I posted Novgorod Outskirts to test the communities willingness to try maps not by a known map maker since Whiteflash had just released Nexus. Novgorod 8 downloads. Nexus 592 downloads. The community believes that a Whiteflash map will get into the game or since he has maps in game already, it is a quality map. So they put in the effort to check it out.

NOTE: Novgorod was not on the steam list so the 8 downloads are from COH2.Org only. Not the clearest results. COH2.Org views Novgorod 118, Nexus 2061. Nexus has been posted about many more times and each time garners views so that metric is also skewed. So the jury is still out. Maybe another test is required

Ofc without deep snow and blizzard. But i like to see snow and snow trees as well. Not only sommer maps

Thx for the post, but as mono and whiteflash said, most of them are not automatch ready yet.
And for this patch its too late.
But for the future this post with the links is good to know. Relic will have this links then as well.
Tho i think this will be probably my last mappatch in the next 2 years because of RL.

Tho i think this will be probably my last mappatch in the next 2 years because of RL.

But...but...the children. Think of the children.

"Tartu winter"- nice find nigo! I've only tested it against AI

"Tartu winter"- nice find nigo! I've only tested it against AI

For what it's worth, here are my two cents:

Whiteflash, I agree that the process as laid out in your post would be great to have implemented. Problem is that this would require a serious commitment from Relic in terms of money and personnel (i.e. money again) and frequent patch cycles (i.e. money). None of that is going to happen given where the game currently is in his life cycle.

Secondly, regarding the numbers (btw, newer numbers are here, I could get even newer numbers, but I don't think Vilshanka has settled yet): You know I like numbers, but I think it is actually a bit more complex than this.

I thought I could lay this out in a stringent argument, but there are a lot of points that are sort of interconnected to each other, so a list has to do:

• The term "competitive" is thrown around a lot, but I don't think it is clear what it means. I guess you want to say that the map would be fit to be used in a competitive environment. Still, not clear what that entails, really. Given that most tournaments are played as BO3 or up, any map would do, really, if you set up the faction/map pick rules properly.
  
  I guess tournament organizers pick maps based on what they hope gives them the most versatile matches, with most factions being able to compete with varied strategies so that matches are potentially more interesting to watch. and which have reasonable balanced starting points. Fair enough.
  
  Still, I'm not sure if I like A_Es approach of limiting the map-pool drastically is really my preferred option. If I look at older tournaments, that e.g. had Semoisky Winter in the pool: Sure, the map got picked only a few times, but each match was special because it was played on this rarely used map.
  
  
• Ok, assuming that "competitive" has something to do with "what you would use in a tournament environment", I don't think that this is what the majority of players actually want from a map. They want a map that they can have fun matches on. Now, that's obviously very subjective. For a lot of folks (particular the players that visit .org) this will mean that the map is "competitive" although views will differ on what that means. For others cosmetics, or certain layouts that are generally not considered competitive (Sittard Summer?) might be more attractive.
  
  The automatch map pool has to cater to different types of players. It might be that top 100 players veto different maps than people with rank 2000 and up. The latter might not play as often, but still probably spend about as much on the game as the others. If there is a map the top 100 player doesn't like, he might open a "what a crap map" thread on the forums. If the rank 2000 player doesn't find a map he enjoys he might simply leave the game completely (yeah, generalizations, I know, but I guess you get my point).
  
  So relic has to cater to different types of players. And that's not captured by simple statistics on vetoes.
  
  
• Regarding winter maps: As MB mentioned there is the whole skin issue. But even more than that: The game was marketed with the whole snow thing. A lot of work went into developing this (sidenote: Deep snow reads great: Snow fields that would slow down infantry, can be flattened by vehicles and are refreshed by blizzards! Too bad this doesn't go well with other aspects of the game (what if retreats wouldn't be slowed down?)). So, getting rid of cold tech in automatch could be viewed as bad for marketing, having basically no snow maps is worse. So I totally can understand why relic wants to keep at least a token number of snow maps in the automatch pool.
  
  
• Regarding using new maps: Well, the problem here is that I think everybody basically has to operate under this assumption that this is the last patch that this game will ever see. I'm not saying that it is, just that chances are it might be (actually, I had this impression already before DBP so I was surprised that we got the number of patches we got this year, including the announcements of more substantial patches later).
  
  This means a couple of things: We can't use a process that requires multiple iterations. And any change bears the risk that we might end up in a situation that is worse than what we have now. Now, where is the chance of screwing up higher:
  
  • Using maps that have been in the rotation for a while with known flaws and trying to improve them.
    
  • Using maps that have never been in the rotation.
    
  
  Whiteflash goes through great lengths when it comes to refining his maps and props for that. But you would have to do the same effort basically to every new map that is added.
  
  Again, not saying that no totally new maps should be added. But you have to be aware that the risk of doing that is (I think) is greater than reworking an old map. Sure, given enough iterations, in the long run you might be better of taking the risk with a map that has potential. But if you have basically just one shot to get it right?
  
  
• Regarding the process is being not transparent: Well, it was never explained really, but reading the post on these forums, it is pretty self explanatory how things are going down so far:
  
  • Sturmpanther made the thread about the summer map patch. It was clear that he would coordinate stuff. He specifically asked for feedback in the newly created subforum.
    
  • People created threads in these subforums with feedback. Eventually, a mapper (well, mostly Rosbone) picked up the task and started to implement the changes in several iterations while getting more feedback.
    
  • The three maps asked about in this vote are maps that are low in the statistics and did not get a rework. Two points on this:
    
    • You might question the sturmpanther's approach here to only include maps that are not worked on and not maps that rank lower but are worked on. Thing is, the idea is that the reworked versions hopefully end up being slightly better than the somewhat higher ranking ones that are not reworked. Problem is there would never be enough people that would objectively look at the reworked version before voting here. So, what do you do then?
      
    • Secondly, it is stated that this will not be the sole criterion to exclude maps. So why do this in the first place? Well, asking for feedback and community involvement is nice (again, one of these politics things) and it totally helps justifying your decisions later on.
      
    
    
  
  
  So, in essence: I'm not saying that the current process is perfect. But maybe you try to rethink your suggestions with these constraints:
  
  
  • Rework the map pool so that the game yields a higher player retention across most player profiles.
    
  • You have only one patch to do so.
    
  • Resources are sturmpanther and Rosbone (additionally the mappers whose maps are in the current pools for a rework of their maps; not that anybodies contribution would have been turned down, but seems like that is the yield this time around; also sorry if I forgot anybody working on this behind closed doors).
    
  • You have 2 months (which btw, have passed now).
    
  
  
  Go!
  
  

For what it's worth, here are my two cents:





Whiteflash, I agree that the process as laid out in your post would be great to have implemented. Problem is that this would require a serious commitment from Relic in terms of money and personnel (i.e. money again) and frequent patch cycles (i.e. money). None of that is going to happen given where the game currently is in his life cycle.

Secondly, regarding the numbers (btw, newer numbers are here, I could get even newer numbers, but I don't think Vilshanka has settled yet): You know I like numbers, but I think it is actually a bit more complex than this.

I thought I could lay this out in a stringent argument, but there are a lot of points that are sort of interconnected to each other, so a list has to do:

• The term "competitive" is thrown around a lot, but I don't think it is clear what it means. I guess you want to say that the map would be fit to be used in a competitive environment. Still, not clear what that entails, really. Given that most tournaments are played as BO3 or up, any map would do, really, if you set up the faction/map pick rules properly.
  
  I guess tournament organizers pick maps based on what they hope gives them the most versatile matches, with most factions being able to compete with varied strategies so that matches are potentially more interesting to watch. and which have reasonable balanced starting points. Fair enough.
  
  Still, I'm not sure if I like A_Es approach of limiting the map-pool drastically is really my preferred option. If I look at older tournaments, that e.g. had Semoisky Winter in the pool: Sure, the map got picked only a few times, but each match was special because it was played on this rarely used map.
  
  
• Ok, assuming that "competitive" has something to do with "what you would use in a tournament environment", I don't think that this is what the majority of players actually want from a map. They want a map that they can have fun matches on. Now, that's obviously very subjective. For a lot of folks (particular the players that visit .org) this will mean that the map is "competitive" although views will differ on what that means. For others cosmetics, or certain layouts that are generally not considered competitive (Sittard Summer?) might be more attractive.
  
  The automatch map pool has to cater to different types of players. It might be that top 100 players veto different maps than people with rank 2000 and up. The latter might not play as often, but still probably spend about as much on the game as the others. If there is a map the top 100 player doesn't like, he might open a "what a crap map" thread on the forums. If the rank 2000 player doesn't find a map he enjoys he might simply leave the game completely (yeah, generalizations, I know, but I guess you get my point).
  
  So relic has to cater to different types of players. And that's not captured by simple statistics on vetoes.
  
  
• Regarding winter maps: As MB mentioned there is the whole skin issue. But even more than that: The game was marketed with the whole snow thing. A lot of work went into developing this (sidenote: Deep snow reads great: Snow fields that would slow down infantry, can be flattened by vehicles and are refreshed by blizzards! Too bad this doesn't go well with other aspects of the game (what if retreats wouldn't be slowed down?)). So, getting rid of cold tech in automatch could be viewed as bad for marketing, having basically no snow maps is worse. So I totally can understand why relic wants to keep at least a token number of snow maps in the automatch pool.
  
  
• Regarding using new maps: Well, the problem here is that I think everybody basically has to operate under this assumption that this is the last patch that this game will ever see. I'm not saying that it is, just that chances are it might be (actually, I had this impression already before DBP so I was surprised that we got the number of patches we got this year, including the announcements of more substantial patches later).
  
  This means a couple of things: We can't use a process that requires multiple iterations. And any change bears the risk that we might end up in a situation that is worse than what we have now. Now, where is the chance of screwing up higher:
  
  • Using maps that have been in the rotation for a while with known flaws and trying to improve them.
    
  • Using maps that have never been in the rotation.
    
  
  Whiteflash goes through great lengths when it comes to refining his maps and props for that. But you would have to do the same effort basically to every new map that is added.
  
  Again, not saying that no totally new maps should be added. But you have to be aware that the risk of doing that is (I think) is greater than reworking an old map. Sure, given enough iterations, in the long run you might be better of taking the risk with a map that has potential. But if you have basically just one shot to get it right?
  
  
• Regarding the process is being not transparent: Well, it was never explained really, but reading the post on these forums, it is pretty self explanatory how things are going down so far:
  
  • Sturmpanther made the thread about the summer map patch. It was clear that he would coordinate stuff. He specifically asked for feedback in the newly created subforum.
    
  • People created threads in these subforums with feedback. Eventually, a mapper (well, mostly Rosbone) picked up the task and started to implement the changes in several iterations while getting more feedback.
    
  • The three maps asked about in this vote are maps that are low in the statistics and did not get a rework. Two points on this:
    
    • You might question the sturmpanther's approach here to only include maps that are not worked on and not maps that rank lower but are worked on. Thing is, the idea is that the reworked versions hopefully end up being slightly better than the somewhat higher ranking ones that are not reworked. Problem is there would never be enough people that would objectively look at the reworked version before voting here. So, what do you do then?
      
    • Secondly, it is stated that this will not be the sole criterion to exclude maps. So why do this in the first place? Well, asking for feedback and community involvement is nice (again, one of these politics things) and it totally helps justifying your decisions later on.
      
    
    
  
  
  So, in essence: I'm not saying that the current process is perfect. But maybe you try to rethink your suggestions with these constraints:
  
  
  • Rework the map pool so that the game yields a higher player retention across most player profiles.
    
  • You have only one patch to do so.
    
  • Resources are sturmpanther and Rosbone (additionally the mappers whose maps are in the current pools for a rework of their maps; not that anybodies contribution would have been turned down, but seems like that is the yield this time around; also sorry if I forgot anybody working on this behind closed doors).
    
  • You have 2 months (which btw, have passed now).
    
  
  
  Go!
  
  

Well done written!

• Rework the map pool so that the game yields a higher player retention across most player profiles.
  
• You have only one patch to do so.
  
• Resources are sturmpanther and Rosbone (additionally the mappers whose maps are in the current pools for a rework of their maps; not that anybodies contribution would have been turned down, but seems like that is the yield this time around; also sorry if I forgot anybody working on this behind closed doors).
  
• You have 2 months (which btw, have passed now).
  

Go!

You are right. This is a lost cause.

I dont know why I'm losing my time with that subject. Thanks for alerting me.

GG RELIC.

Whiteflash, I agree that the process as laid out in your post would be great to have implemented.

So, in essence: I'm not saying that the current process is perfect. But maybe you try to rethink your suggestions with these constraints:

• Rework the map pool so that the game yields a higher player retention across most player profiles.
  
• You have only one patch to do so.
  
• Resources are sturmpanther and Rosbone (additionally the mappers whose maps are in the current pools for a rework of their maps; not that anybodies contribution would have been turned down, but seems like that is the yield this time around; also sorry if I forgot anybody wo/rking on this behind closed doors).
  
• You have 2 months (which btw, have passed now).
  

Go!

Thanks for writing this SiphonX this is a well reasoned case. There are basically three things here to respond to.

1. A "competitive" map clearly has to be defined. This article does that, except we now know that snow/ice has its problems and my writing and map understanding has gotten better as that article was written 5 years ago. If you haven't read that article please do to define the term "competitive" (apologies the pictures are gone i need to update that). I would be curious what you think of that article SiphonX as your analytical and reasonable approach to this topic would be useful.

2. The majority of players do want competitive maps. By a competitive map I mean...let me quote the article I cited in secion 1. "Everything I've talked about is a means...to what end? Fun!!! For competitive maps, fun comes in the form of consistently epic games, as much faction balance as possible, and people enjoy the map!" That line summarizes the end product anyone should aim for in any map in any mode (1v1-4v4), and tournament organizers pick the maps that most closely follow that ethos. Maps that are vetoed more, the community as a whole enjoy less, maps that are imbalanced are by definition less fun.

If a trend shows imbalance and high vetoes that is a strong indicator of subpar quality and grounds for removal, and is likely not worth the time to try to improve (improvement attempts are case by case and can be subjective) this opinion on improvement is largely based on my 11 years of experience fixing my own and Relic maps that arent very good and the time to benefit ratio generally being low on improving broken maps because the fundamental design of the map must be strong in order to make improving the map to an acceptable level possible. I've literally never seen a subpar fundamental design flesh into a great map through incremental improvements.

It is pretty clear, a good map is enjoyed by the majority of people for getting right all the elements laid out in that article. And removing subpar maps to replace them with new vetted maps that also get all those elements right is the clear solution. And remember, the maps arent being removed from COH, they are just removed from the ladder where it should, by definition, have the most competitive maps possible (as defined in the article in section 1). Improving the map pool is, as shown in other games, a clear way to yield the highest player retention, leaving it half broken, as it has been across all game modes, does the opposite. Never settle for subpar maps when its not necessary, which brings me to the third thing. It sounds like we don't have a choice...

3. At the end of the day it sounds like from Spanther and SiphonX that Relic just cant support the better initiative that was laid out earlier because they are busy on other projects and its possible we only have a few patchs left to do anything. If that is the case then that is totally fair and I know the COH community and Relic will do its best.

I would only plead with Relic to remember my first and second point in this post for their future games.

Cheers

EDIT: edited this post for clarity

EDIT: edited again for clarity

EDIT: edited section 2 again for clarity

edited the previous post significantly for clarity

So right now there will be follow Wintermaps:
1vs1: Westwall and Semoskiy Winter

This is completely unacceptable. I just looked at Semoskiy in automatch and just GG'd. 55 seconds in I typed GG and dipped out. No way I am playing that map ever. Worst sector layouts of all time! PLEASE REMOVE THIS MAP! PLEASE! PRETTY PLEASE!

Or at least fix the distances...HOLY SHEEEEEIT! North is insta-lose.


WHY IS THERE NO RIOT ON HERE TO GET THIS REMOVED OR FIXED?

I will make a good version. But I would rather it just get removed.

EDIT: New version made. It was easier than expected to balance. 2 hours work.

This is completely unacceptable. I just looked at Semoskiy in automatch and just GG'd. 55 seconds in I typed GG and dipped out. No way I am playing that map ever. Worst sector layouts of all time! PLEASE REMOVE THIS MAP! PLEASE! PRETTY PLEASE!

Or at least fix the distances...HOLY SHEEEEEIT! North is insta-lose.


WHY IS THERE NO RIOT ON HERE TO GET THIS REMOVED OR FIXED?

I will make a good version. But I would rather it just get removed.

Agree. Talismans map wasn't bad from the first SMC. I should ask him/the community if they want that in instead. It was one of the most played maps...

This is completely unacceptable. I just looked at Semoskiy in automatch and just GG'd. 55 seconds in I typed GG and dipped out. No way I am playing that map ever. Worst sector layouts of all time! PLEASE REMOVE THIS MAP! PLEASE! PRETTY PLEASE!

Or at least fix the distances...HOLY SHEEEEEIT! North is insta-lose.


WHY IS THERE NO RIOT ON HERE TO GET THIS REMOVED OR FIXED?

I will make a good version. But I would rather it just get removed.

There was for few years since it was added to the map pool. It map is horrible and many good players were consta saying that.

Few patches ago it was "fix" and "reworked" but effect wasn't good enough. This map needs even more changes.

Relic says it won't get removed so we must deal with it.

Wasn't the winter version 1v1 and 2v2?

I thought the 'other' start location in the south/west is/was equidistant to the north. I wonder if it got changed if the wrong start locations were removed.

^^ ^^

Jep- there was both a 1v1 and 2v2 version of Semois.

There was for few years since it was added to the map pool. It map is horrible and many good players were consta saying that.

Few patches ago it was "fix" and "reworked" but effect wasn't good enough. This map needs even more changes.

Relic says it won't get removed so we must deal with it.

-->
https://www.coh2.org/topic/81721/2-semoskiy-winter/post/693968