Deutz - Spring Automatch Discussion
Posts: 1467 | Subs: 4
Posts: 21
Was it made on purpose or?
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Posts: 503 | Subs: 1
This is basically reverse Kharkov, isn't it? Instead of miles of negative cover on the path to defending your cutoff, in Deutz you can't even attack the enemy units decapping/holding your cutoff unless you're close enough to knife them.
Posts: 2439 | Subs: 6
In my first game on it I had some truly infuriating pathing errors with tanks refusing to go down the north western ramp, and instead taking themselves down the central path. I also found the central area to be mg city with very slow play. Then the rest of the map to be annoying to traverse north/south due to the ramps.
It feels like a concept piece that would work very well in a game with a more modern and adaptable engine.
I daren't think how many hours went into creating something so aesthetically pleasing, but will ultimately get vetoed into oblivion.
Posts: 22
Look at this two pictures, can you tell that there are ostheer mine fields? Better yet, two of them!
My opponent spent 30 munitions to exploit this design, and got two of my infantry sections because I can't even see the signs even when zoomed in.
PLEASE, someone needs to review this kind of crap before they make maps live for ranked.
EDIT: replay uploaded for anyone to test in his graphic settings.
Posts: 1467 | Subs: 4
Just wanted to ask, on the left side of the map there are 2 very low HP buildings, meanwhile on the right side there are 2 very durable full HP buildings (and other 2 durable with bit less HP)
Was it made on purpose or?
Buildings balance is based off of garrison strength. So the buildings that seemingly have more hp are close the same values in the other buildings (or they should be, I'll check just in case), also take into consideration the amount of windows for each building and overall usefulness.
Gorgeous but impractical.
In my first game on it I had some truly infuriating pathing errors with tanks refusing to go down the north western ramp, and instead taking themselves down the central path. I also found the central area to be mg city with very slow play. Then the rest of the map to be annoying to traverse north/south due to the ramps.
It feels like a concept piece that would work very well in a game with a more modern and adaptable engine.
I daren't think how many hours went into creating something so aesthetically pleasing, but will ultimately get vetoed into oblivion.
I think generally the cover needs redone in the middle and an additional pathway from the base needs opened up (especially in the western base), which some people have cried about in the shoutbox, but as usual can't actually take the time to post feedback, so thank you for taking the time. Either way will be making changes to the map to try and adjust the flow. This was something that we discussed originally, as I felt the green cover was a little too "heavy" but the map was made to compliment daves play style, which is heavy smoke usage, so this map really rewards players that use smoke for aggressive all ins across the map simultaneously, good for tournament play, bad for automatch. From the games I've seen there are a few very obvious changes that should make the map flow better overall, while alleviating the wonkyness of path finding. This was the dark horse of the maps coming into automatch before it was even implemented, the problems are all ones I agree with for the most part (outside the mines issue that someone else posted)
The cutoffs on this map are really problematic in design, imho. The narrow entrance already makes it incredibly easy to MG-pin someone's cut off, but the shotblocking train carriage really takes the cake. It allows CQB squads to hide behind a green cover sightblocker while taking the enemy cutoff. It's impossible to force enemy squads off since you need to be ON the cutoff itself in order to even engage/fire at the decapping squad. Most games on this map are won/lost based on abusing the sightblocker on the cutoff strat pt.
This is basically reverse Kharkov, isn't it? Instead of miles of negative cover on the path to defending your cutoff, in Deutz you can't even attack the enemy units decapping/holding your cutoff unless you're close enough to knife them.
I assume you are talking the north cutoff? This is an easy fix, just remove the los blocker and introduce the way over the train I originally wanted. Will be fixed in the next patch, thanks for posting, and I agree.
Is it possible to mark the spots in the middle where the paths to the top section are? From the default camera angle it is impossible to discern where the paths north from the central lane are. Would be a nice qol for default camera users. Nothing important gameplay wise, just make them more visible.
The ramps will be wider in the coming patch, but I never really noticed an issue personally or had one reported in the testing, will play with a few things to make it a bit more obvious going forward to try and improve the visual clarity.
Look at this two pictures, can you tell that there are ostheer mine fields? Better yet, two of them!
My opponent spent 30 munitions to exploit this design, and got two of my infantry sections because I can't even see the signs even when zoomed in.
PLEASE, someone needs to review this kind of crap before they make maps live for ranked.
EDIT: replay uploaded for anyone to test in his graphic settings.
I can see them no problem, as others have stated in your other thread. It seems like good usage of LoS blocking from your opponent.
Sorry to say but that is a l2p issue. If someone walks into a demo from LoS which is on trending like once a month. Is that the maps fault? Cause LoS exists and has always been exploitable? I can clearly see the mines from both of your screens without even loading them full screen.
Posts: 22
I have been very sick so I haven't been around to see much of anything.
I can see them no problem, as others have stated in your other thread. It seems like good usage of LoS blocking from your opponent.
Sorry to say but that is a l2p issue. If someone walks into a demo from LoS which is on trending like once a month. Is that the maps fault? Cause LoS exists and has always been exploitable? I can clearly see the mines from both of your screens without even loading them full screen.
I hope you feel better soon, Tric.
Unfortunately, I disagree with your LoS point. If you mean the vision system of coh2. I’m a top player myself and I’m auite familiar with what that system is and what the playaround could be.
This problem I brought up is that the decoration/aesthetics, being messy, could let minefleld signs easily blend in (barely invisible). It caught me off guard when I automoved my troops at first but even realizing there are minefields I can’t see clearly where they are. It creates frustration in competitive. I hope you look into the issue and understand what I’m expressing. My suggestion would be to reduce some railway textures and poles so that a by-design warned minefield should be warned actually.
Posts: 1467 | Subs: 4
I hope you feel better soon, Tric.
Unfortunately, I disagree with your LoS point. If you mean the vision system of coh2. I’m a top player myself and I’m auite familiar with what that system is and what the playaround could be.
This problem I brought up is that the decoration/aesthetics, being messy, could let minefleld signs easily blend in (barely invisible). It caught me off guard when I automoved my troops at first but even realizing there are minefields I can’t see clearly where they are. It creates frustration in competitive. I hope you look into the issue and understand what I’m expressing. My suggestion would be to reduce some railway textures and poles so that a by-design warned minefield should be warned actually.
Then we will have to agree to disagree (and I gathered that you higher up since you are playing fortune. Few issues I forsee with adjusting LoS in this instance.
- You don't have control literally 28m from your base, and he had time to plant s-mines
- I can clearly see them, and so could a few others
- Removing the LoS there entirely will result in getting base pinned by one mg42, it will also allow an attacker to have free green cover there as well.
- Adjusting it so it is more perpendicular to the base exit, and therefore player movement, will result in CQC units sitting right outside your base.
- LoS has always done this, on all maps, just because you were seemingly punished by this does not necessarily incline me to wholeheartedly agree with it being an issue of the map, since this can (and does) happen on a multitude of other maps.
Now with that being said, I am reworking this to keep from the "slow mg" play" and AT walls in the center area, without making it feel like a maze. However in order to do this, it needs (atleast) 3 perpendicular lanes from the base to make it easier for the defender to assault out of their base, while not providing huge cover bonuses to the opponent, the easiest solution is the removal of the green cover nearest to the VP and just leaving another LOS blocker. This will keep CQC units from standing in cover/behind LoS, while also providing an easy way out.
But I honestly do not agree with this being an issue of the map, and instead a well executed punishment from fortune when they realized they had the time to plant mines directly outside your base. This also makes me believe that because this rarely happens, that it was also surprising and you were not necessarily looking out for it, making it a bit more frustrating then it normally would be.
So in order to mitigate LoS abuse overall, I can swap those points (as that point is basically worthless when it comes to the overall flow of the map, more so just a minor annoyance (since it isn't a cutoff). Along with the removal of some green cover, and overally larger path ways going north to south, and the removal of a LoS blocker in the north at the cutoff.
Posts: 1467 | Subs: 4
This should make the western base flow properly. And also keep away from stagnant play in the middle, while the new LoS will allow flanking from different routes in the north/south.
The cutoff in the north also had its LoS blocker removed to properly mimic the south.
All pathways opened up by at least 8m, this will improve heavy tank movement and mitigate slow down of all vehicles in these areas. I tested the new pathways with the jagd, and the slowdown was not noticeable in the new areas.
I did not take before pictures, so you will have to compare in game, or just test from the version currently on steam.
If there are any more changes to be made, please be specific and provide screens. Thx.
Posts: 22
Then we will have to agree to disagree (and I gathered that you higher up since you are playing fortune. Few issues I forsee with adjusting LoS in this instance.
1. You don't have control literally 28m from your base, and he had time to plant s-mines
2. I can clearly see them, and so could a few others
3. Removing the LoS there entirely will result in getting base pinned by one mg42, it will also allow an attacker to have free green cover there as well.
4. Adjusting it so it is more perpendicular to the base exit, and therefore player movement, will result in CQC units sitting right outside your base.
5. LoS has always done this, on all maps, just because you were seemingly punished by this does not necessarily incline me to wholeheartedly agree with it being an issue of the map, since this can (and does) happen on a multitude of other maps.
Now with that being said, I am reworking this to keep from the "slow mg" play" and AT walls in the center area, without making it feel like a maze. However in order to do this, it needs (atleast) 3 perpendicular lanes from the base to make it easier for the defender to assault out of their base, while not providing huge cover bonuses to the opponent, the easiest solution is the removal of the green cover nearest to the VP and just leaving another LOS blocker. This will keep CQC units from standing in cover/behind LoS, while also providing an easy way out.
But I honestly do not agree with this being an issue of the map, and instead a well executed punishment from fortune when they realized they had the time to plant mines directly outside your base. This also makes me believe that because this rarely happens, that it was also surprising and you were not necessarily looking out for it, making it a bit more frustrating then it normally would be.
So in order to mitigate LoS abuse overall, I can swap those points (as that point is basically worthless when it comes to the overall flow of the map, more so just a minor annoyance (since it isn't a cutoff). Along with the removal of some green cover, and overally larger path ways going north to south, and the removal of a LoS blocker in the north at the cutoff.
I wholeheartly thank you for taking time to write this.
I believe there is some kind of misunderstanding. I am fond of most of your design, especially the gameplay and flow. I appreciated it!
The reason I'm specifically not using words like "LoS" to describe my confusion is that I don't think the gameplay is what I'm complaining about. But rather than the aesthetic part (THE LOOKS) of the design getting in the way. You see, I think that one is easy to mistake the minefield signs as part of the railway signs and the subtle mine icons hidden under railway, which good Ostheer players like fortune can exploit. Especially in a cutoff point circle I think it's better to keep the looks clean inside.
It's the looks, not the gameplay!!!
Posts: 1467 | Subs: 4
I wholeheartly thank you for taking time to write this.
I believe there is some kind of misunderstanding. I am fond of most of your design, especially the gameplay and flow. I appreciated it!
The reason I'm specifically not using words like "LoS" to describe my confusion is that I don't think the gameplay is what I'm complaining about. But rather than the aesthetic part (THE LOOKS) of the design getting in the way. You see, I think that one is easy to mistake the minefield signs as part of the map looks sign which good Ostheer players like fortune can exploit. Especially in a cutoff point circle I think it's better to keep the looks clean inside.
It's the looks, not the gameplay!!!
Yes, I just simply disagree sadly. As I spotted them instantly. And I am not trying to be harsh or overly combative, just explain my point of view on why I don't agree and the reasons for it. However take a look at the changes in the post after the one you quoted and hopefully you will see some improvement.
Posts: 22
Yes, I just simply disagree sadly. As I spotted them instantly. And I am not trying to be harsh or overly combative, just explain my point of view on why I don't agree and the reasons for it. However take a look at the changes in the post after the one you quoted and hopefully you will see some improvement.
Fine, it's your map after all. Moral of the story is that I need to start fixing my eyes.
Posts: 1467 | Subs: 4
Fine, it's your map after all. Moral of the story is that I need to start fixing my eyes.
Well it is in automatch and your feedback is valid, as it is your experience on it. I do think it won't be as bad going forward, due to the changes I posted. Hopefully that is the case.
Posts: 22
Well it is in automatch and your feedback is valid, as it is your experience on it. I do think it won't be as bad going forward, due to the changes I posted. Hopefully that is the case.
Yep, Looks like I'm the first and only one to escalate this onto forums
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Posts: 1467 | Subs: 4
So is this map ever gonna be updated or is it dead forever?
No idea, it was killed during an upload bug, the same one that effects vilshanka, and affected potok.
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1099614.642-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
6 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, starkindustries
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM