Posts: 5441 | Subs: 36
...
Posts: 1554 | Subs: 7
Posts: 462 | Subs: 4
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Posts: 1355
Posts: 823 | Subs: 3
Minsk, Minsk, Minsk!
14 
Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9
Minsk, Minsk, Minsk!
You mean, Minks Minks Minks
Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1
Posts: 10
Posts: 462 | Subs: 4
Posts: 2143 | Subs: 2
19 Posts: 1295 | Subs: 1
Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21
19 Posts: 1295 | Subs: 1
Posts: 5441 | Subs: 36
This vote is a waste of time and makes no sense, use data to eliminate the worst maps.
Yea...creating this thread doesnt make sense if the goal is to improve the map pool as much as possible, this kills me. These maps that are available to vote on arent even the statistically worst maps in the data compiled by SiphonX.
They seem to be pulled at random.
@sturmpanther, please end this antiquated approach to map pool improvement
19 Posts: 1295 | Subs: 1
Posts: 7 | Subs: 1
Before you read this I don't have anything against Sturmpanther or anyone in particular. The quality of the map pool is #1 here, the pace of innovation here is far below what is possible, there are better ways. Please keep that in mind as you read. Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________________
"I know the exact stats for all maps from 1vs1- 4vs4. Relic has his own datebase for that.
But we (Relic and me) saw no reason not to ask the communtiy how they feel."
You're not asking people "how they feel", you're taking a poll to pick maps to remove.
"We will look how the vote will end and there is a good chance, that 2 1vs1 maps will get removed!"
_________________________________________________________________________
The map pool has been worked on for over 5 years. The map pool has maybe 2 great 1v1 competitive maps out of 14. Lets call that number 4. That means COH2 has generated .8 good 1v1 maps per year. .8/year. This rate is so low we have to look critically at the format that Relic and the community has taken in regards to the map pool and maps in general.
This idea that if we take a small portion of the coh2 community who visits coh2.org and bothers to vote on a random poll from a random coh2.org admin (and relic assisting somehow? were not told how these maps were chosen?) with a random set of maps, this will improve the map pool quality. This without some explanation from Relic or Sturmpanther seems confusing at best.
If your goal is to improve the map pool this is not the way to do it. I've never understood why map designers in conjunction with Relics map designers don't work in conjunction to refine maps that are understood to be salvageable and dump the rest, then design new maps that can be injected into the pool. I understand this has been done at a painfully slow rate and yielded an even slower return of quality maps (~.8/year) so a more aggressive and well controlled solution should be put into action with a Relic mapper at the head of the effort that should stay in motion for the duration of COHs lifecycle. Get the best mappers together with the best Relic mappers or people of action, organize a focused group of testers who are willing to dedicate time to focused testing and reliably posting replays for mappers to analyze then make changes and repeat.
_________________________________________________________________________
For example:
Trics map recently got into automatch so he should be able to update the map as he observes games on it and updates his theories and understanding of his creation, there shouldn't be artificial limits on his, or Relics, or anyone's ability to implement improvements (within reason). Maps that have been in the pool for a long time but have shown sub-par quality should be removed without a second thought. If the map pool shrinks temporarily it doesn't hurt anyone, it removes the chaff from the wheat so to speak. Then new maps can be, after thorough design and testing, added to ladder to see how it does, while keeping a core of reasonably good maps to keep the pool strong.
This is a classic design/engineering problem that have clear solutions. One of those solutions is not to vote on designs with a small portion of the community. Data and experienced intuition drives development.
_________________________________________________________________________
And you Sturmpanther, to my knowledge, have never designed any COH maps let alone a high quality competitive map. With that in mind, have you or Relic involved high level mappers in the community in these 3 map choices that were put up? Or are you making decisions that you think are right, and if so based on what? It cant be the former because of this seemingly random 3 maps we have to vote on. You have to be more responsible than this if your goal is to improve the map pool as efficiently as possible. I'm mostly talking to Relic here as its their map pool not Sturmpanthers, he is just doing his best with the methods he is familiar with. I give him props for putting so much time and effort into COH as it is.
The potential here, as with most of COH is enormous and it isn't served with these exercises that have proven over and over not to yield results in a reasonable timeline. There are plenty of times to involve the community with voting, this isn't one of them. People already vote with their vetos in ladder, which translate to data that tells you how often maps are played, that coupled with balance data has to drive decisions here.
I'm not saying everything Relic has don't with the map pool has been bad, but this voting on maps to remove is confusing at best. We are very lucky that we have access to an enormous amount of data thanks to SiphonX.
"Tho we are not only argument about stats. Reason: second most picked / played map is Road to kharkov in 2vs2 LUL"
Elaborate
"Also some of lowest picked maps in 1vs1 got reworked again. You should know this...
Let's cross the fingers people will give the maps another chance."
True, but what is the time limit your giving the reworked maps to show weather or not they have achieved the quality that we all demand from the ladder map pool? Do we wait 3 months? 6? 12? Genuinely curious here. And how many times do you rework a map before you remove it? Limits should be set and metrics have to be established to generate a pipeline where quality can flow.
"And the maps are not random pulled!"
Elaborate.
"Thank you for your NOT confidence."
Confidence in a peer is not given, its earned.
_________________________________________________________________________
Please reconsider this voting course of action and focus on a solution like any designer would in any other design environment with constraints and a clear goal.
I urge people to show support for this post on this thread if they care about the ladder map pool.
Posts: 2143 | Subs: 2
19 Posts: 1295 | Subs: 1
Data is great. It tells you some very cool things.
DEVILS ADVOCATE
It does not tell you who is vetoing the maps. There is a large range of player skill involved in the data. And there are players, like myself, who tend to not veto any maps until they have played them enough to find something they don't like about them. And that something may have nothing to do with balance. Balanced or not, sometimes a map is just not fun to play on.
Only the top 200 players (level 16) can truly speak to balance as they have played and strategized enough against players of their own caliber to get valid results. But even these players may not know why the map works. They just know how to get around its flaws in a way that fits their play style.
I think the poll represents these things:
- What Relic thinks needs to be removed?
- What the "inner circle" wants removed?
- (The vote) What the community feels when they play these maps?
- No one has offered any reason/desire to improve these maps?
There is one good reason to keep KFW. If the mods made to the summer version are disliked, players can veto the summer version and continue playing on the unmodified winter version.
thanks Rosbone Posts: 2143 | Subs: 2
I agree this is the devils advocates position and approaching ideas as such, its just a very weak position
I dig the devils advocate approach
 |
|
|
56 | ||
|
|
|
|
28 | ||
|
|
|
|
22 | ||
|
|
|
|
22 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
135 | ||
|
|
|
|
14 | ||
|
|
|
|
11 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
