Profile of Gbpirate

A question and then notes based on the assumption:

Are you designing a competitive 1v1 map? If not, a lot of these things might not apply, but some will.

Here are suggestions from A_E's map making competition from ~1 year ago:
MAP CRITERIA

1) No rural maps: the map cannot be a rural map like Cossroads, Faymonville, Amily etc. – use a different setting and be creative.

2) Same flow as rural maps: the same spacing ratio, LOS distribution, and flow as tournament level rural maps.

3) VP spacing: All three should lie across the halfway line of the map or near to it. There shouldn't be a 'safe' VP.

4) Resources. 10 standard resource points per map. 2 High fuels, 2 high munis. 2 aggressively placed cut-offs per side.

5) Elevation: As little elevation as possible.

6) Garrisons: they should exist but not be dominant over VPs, cutoffs, or fuel points.

7) Red cover: should be used sparingly and logically or not at all.

8) Even point spacing. Evenly placed in clear logical capping order chains (see Amily Fields).

9) Green cover should be evenly distributed and equally accessible for both sides.

10) Lighting/Weather the map should have good brightness and contrast levels without weather affects such as snow/ rain/ or fog - to maximise visibility.

This is pretty strict as the maps were designed for super competitive play but these guiding principles are good for any map you're making with an eye for the competitive or even automatch scene:

Some notes from myself:
1) improper fuel and munition points used. The standard is +11 muni and +7 fuel; those both have the _mp at the end to indicate they're for multiplayer maps with the right values

2) Cutoffs are too close to base, munitions points too close to base. If you want munition points to be "safe" that's fine, but ideally the cutoff for them would be closer to the middle.

3) garrisonable buildings in or near base sectors are bad. This means an opponent could put a unit in there and kill units in your base which is supposed to be your safe space. It's possible to block the doors for the buildings on the outside but accessible from the inside but I'm not sure if that's worth the hassle.

4) The top section having three access points is fine as they're evenly spaced, but you might want to consider making that space somewhat safe from the rest of the map. Reason being, you can operate somewhat independently there with units you're taking away from the rest of the map while your opponent can't stop a push with a unit that has easy access to the rest of the map.

5) one too many standard territory point; the competitive standard is 10 but you've got 11. The middle point could be a great single munition point (as opposed to one from each side) or otherwise you've got to figure out how to divide the space up.

6) two big buildings on the bottom VP; could work as it's fair and balanced in layout but in practice, due to faction design, building play just isn't fun or balanced for all factions.

7) Middle VP being inside a building is a bit of a meme tbh. Depending on how much you want to change, the middle train station could be maneuverable ruins with the point inside of it! But that would upset the scale of the map quite a bit.

I do have to disagree with the premise that the balance patches were designed with arranged teams in mind. I think that perception is just a consequence of the inherent advantage that arranged teams have, axis or allies.

Then you misunderstood what I said. The modding team has Arranged team matches in mind while balancing the game, not trying to balance arranged team vs random. AT vs random is a necessary evil that can't be balanced.

I'm not really sure what you're on about, mate. What I'm saying is that arranged teams have an inherent advantage over randoms because of voice chat, familiarity, etc. I hear that you're saying that you think the balance changes were made for arranged teams but I'm telling you that that is not the case, that the balance changes were mostly changed according to 1v1 strategies.

people seem to forget very fast how bad the balance used to be

Yeah it was rough for a long time.



A few notes to consider:
1) Balancing the game at a 1v1 level is easier because there are less variables present. A specific unit can be considered in isolation, not necessarily working in tandem with another faction's unit

2) Relic would set the "scope" of the incoming patch. That is, what units could be changed, or what the focus of changes would be.

3) Community feedback was solicited. Oftentimes a community patch would have 4-6 iterations in the Steam workshop for players to test and give feedback. This is one reason why the vanilla game would remain the same for months after changes were first announced

4) Arranged teams have an inherent advantage over non-arranged teams. This is true in any game IMO. The availability of voice chat makes talking with your mates so much easier than having to take the time to text in game. There is only so much that any studio can do to make things easier for randomly assigned teams.

4a) Having separate arranged and random cues is a bad idea unless there is a huge surge in active players in team games. Even with these relatively healthy numbers (I remember the dark days when the peak players was at around 2,000) a separate cue would make wait times extremely long.

5) Balancing the game around the arguably poor faction design of the USF/OKW/UKF was difficult. The factions had unique mechanics but often lacked non-doctrinal tools to deal with all situations one would find in automatch. One effect of the balance patches, community-run or not, was to eliminate some of the unique features of each faction. For example, USF howitzer and M8 Scott no longer fire directly, instead always fire in an arc; OKW mechanized truck no longer makes you prioritize between munition and fuel gain; OKW veterancy levels are toned down so it takes them longer to unlock all abilities and bonuses than before.



There are still some things I'd like to change, such as the general bias of German infantry to be most effective at long range, meaning that they are less micro-intensive because a player can simply attack-move them and trust that they will remain at peak efficiency for a few moments, allowing them to put their attention at another unit somewhere else on the map.

Overall, I think the community patches have kept the game alive. Even just two patches/year keeps the game fresh along with changes to the map pool in all modes. The changes haven't all been good but there were definitely some that improved balance and made some units or abilities less difficult to handle.

I'm going to lock this thread and point anyone interested in the topic over to the other thread: https://www.coh2.org/topic/109989/why-stuart-is-sh-t-compared-to-t70

Nice!

I think there is something about grogginess when waking up, too.

I recall, with great fondness, a situation where Herr Sturmpanther and I were to battle the next day. He was up late in the night and I offered some great advice.

In order to beat that morning grogginess, I suggested that he have a few beers throughout the night (to take the edge off as he was nervous before the game) and to practice throughout the night and morning. I think I suggested some coffee, too, but I don't exactly recall.

Fortunately, he took my advice and was able to beat me quite soundly!