Profile of Siphon X.

Updated to also include the final round.

Are people seriously thinking winrate stats from a tournament in which every series went 2-0 apart from one are meaningful regarding balance of the game? The sample size of these stats are literally 3 games. Because in all the other games one team was so dominant that they won regardless of faction played.

Good point. Indeed in 15 of the 16 rounds in QT2 ended 2:0. However, only the spoilers contain the results for the individual tournaments, the numbers in the main post are from all three tournaments combined.

Previous rounds where 8 (2:0) to 7 (2:1) for QT1 and 16 (2:0) to 11 (2:1) for the wildcard tournament. So, ratio of 2:0 to 2:1 rounds in total is 39 to 19.

Now, not saying that that makes the numbers any more meaningful or anything, just stating a fact...

Yeah, agree on the game length. I don't think long games are generally viewed as undesirable. Sure, certain players don't like them, neither do tournament organizers, but a lot of other players would call the game that you mention above "Epic!!11" and are happy that the late game units - which often enter the field when the game is almost over - are actually used a lot.

The stats for maps that you show above were captured when Langreskaya still had the two VPs tucked away and was generally considered to force long matches. Furthermore, it was thought to favor axis and had the funny hedgerow south of the center. Still, it was the most played map at the time...

I just love how this map was the 5th most played map, now its even better, and everyone is complaining. Classic COH2 community. From all of your arguments, it would be inferred to just remove 1v1 automatch from the game

4v4 foreva

It is too early to say anything definite (I found that it takes a while after any map rotation before numbers stablized), but as a teaser: It currently ranks no. 8 out of the 12 maps in automatch in terms of games played. Out of all maps it features the worst win-rates for both UKF and USF.

Regarding the symmetry: I think there are two options

1. Each base has a side (their fuel, muni, etc.). In that case it should be for both bases equally possible to defend their stuff and as well equally possible to attack the other side (technically a point symmetry around the center). Most maps are done this way (although one weakness of the approach is that that has to be true for every matchup, which is tricky. But I digress...).

2. There are two completely different sides (ideally with equal "value" however you determine that). The layout of these, then should be roughly mirrored across the central line so that both bases have the equal opportunity to compete for either of the sides.

Now, Angoville clearly was of the second type with the houses and the 2 Vps on the right and the open fields on the left. The new sector layout, however, seems to be more of the first type (with the exception of the extra territory as Tric laid out):

For example, North has it easier to connect to the right because there is basically no cut-off there as there are two paths to connect to the right fuel while South has the notorious cut-off there. For the left side, the situation is reversed: South has two options to connect to the fuel, North has one cut-off.

I don't think this approach to sector symmetry goes well with having two very different sides. Given that very different character of the sides are the main feature of the map, the sector layout should be more or less mirrored across the front line.