Update on map pick statistics

So, a while ago I did a post on the automatch map statistics (link).

Now, in the meantime some maps have been removed from the mappool and some of its quirks seem to have been fixed. Also, when checking out the data the last time I saw a few indications that the newer maps initially got some novelty bonus, but that they were somewhat less used as time passed.

So, I did the map pick statistics again to see where things settled now.









I didn't do a rigorous analysis of the uncertainties, but they should be somewhere around 0.1%.

To give this post more of an interactive component, I would be interested to hear if there are maps that you veto for non-balance reasons and what those are.

I'll start:

In 1v1, regardless of the faction I tend to veto Caen (due to the harsh cut-offs, seems I have problems to deal with that) and Minsk Pocket (I feel has too long ways to walk).

In 4v4, I typically veto Hill 331 (for the - erm - complex pathing in the center and frankly I dislike the pinkish soil) and Montargis Region (a) because again pathing is tricky, and with all the pipes, fences, underpasses it is not visually clear how hard it is for a certain unit to get somewhere; and b) the two fuels at the same spot makes for not that interesting games I think, as games seems to be often decided by which team is more successful in digging in around that point).

Edit: The diagrams reflect the data that I collected including games from the 1st of May to the 10th of July 2017.

what was the duration/date of the period you got this stat?

what was the duration/date of the period you got this stat?

Ah, right, should have mentioned that. This was from the 1st of May to the 10th of July.

in 4v4 we veto:

- Lanzerath
- Hamburg
- Essen

due to highly assymetric map layout (and bottlenecks)

- Montargis

because it's a shithole

- Hill331

because it's MG spam and camp Paradise for axis.

I love Montargis because it is so bad.

I never veto Montargis or Hill 331.

That's because I want to use veto's for the artifest kind of maps that RedT3rror mentioned, and I can always rely on the 99% of the playerbase having veto'ed those maps (which means you are unlikely to find 7 other people that haven't vetoed them)

I never veto Montargis or Hill 331.

That's because I want to use veto's for the artifest kind of maps that RedT3rror mentioned, and I can always rely on the 99% of the playerbase having veto'ed those maps (which means you are unlikely to find 7 other people that haven't vetoed them)

Hats off, thats clever

BTW I veto wintery Semoisky and Moscow outskirts and Langreskaya as they have the most obvious (un)mirroring issues

I never veto Montargis or Hill 331.

That's because I want to use veto's for the artifest kind of maps that RedT3rror mentioned, and I can always rely on the 99% of the playerbase having veto'ed those maps (which means you are unlikely to find 7 other people that haven't vetoed them)

I thought that was a great idea, unvetoed Montargis, then got it


I thought I was gonna cry

I thought that was a great idea, unvetoed Montargis, then got it


I thought I was gonna cry

Guess that plenty of people from here actually took his advice

I am always astonished how a map that is already to small for 3v3 can also be played in 4v4s. Yes, I am looking at you, Hamburg.

Depends on which faction I play and is it randoms or AT but Montargis, Vielsalm and Hamburg are what I always try to veto.

Garrett, then you never saw 4v4 Ettelbruck

When I found out that it doesn't really matter if I veto a map or not, I simply unchecked all and find games way faster.

I veto most 90% 1v1. Using vetos of 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4. Cause in team games you have a teammate to help with the unbalanced map. I prefer narrow maps and few ways for constantly fights and coh2 have few of that hehehe.

When I found out that it doesn't really matter if I veto a map or not, I simply unchecked all and find games way faster.

I don't think the "not matter" part is entirely true. I haven't gotten a map I vetoed just about ever, other than the week or two the system stopped working. I know its not as simple as you veto it and it goes away, but it does lower the likelihood a lot.

When I found out that it doesn't really matter if I veto a map or not, I simply unchecked all and find games way faster.

I don't think the "not matter" part is entirely true.

...and I also doubt that the second part is true. As the quote from Cuddletronic in the linked post indicates, matches are made irrespective of the map veto.


Besides, the two parts of the sentence kind of contradict each other, no?

Seriously, can we remove all recent community maps and start again.

They are either too big, too small, are CQ favoured, have sightblockers in front of points or have pathing issues due to an over abundance of clutter.

I am of course referring to Halbe, bryansk, westwall and caen..

Seriously, can we remove all recent community maps and start again.

They are either too big, too small, are CQ favoured, have sightblockers in front of points or have pathing issues due to an over abundance of clutter.

I am of course referring to Halbe, bryansk, westwall and caen..

What is wrong with Caencer ?

Seriously, can we remove all recent community maps and start again.

They are either too big, too small, are CQ favoured, have sightblockers in front of points or have pathing issues due to an over abundance of clutter.

I am of course referring to Halbe, bryansk, westwall and caen..

Halbe, was never updated with the correct version. For months.

Bryansk was never meant to be added AND never updated (courtesy of people like you)

Westwall has the WRONG version updated

Caen was updated to the cancerous cutoffs that the community wanted, despite feedback from top players during the 1v1 contest to do the opposite.

And fun fact, halbe, bryansk, westwall would all be 100% balanced if the game was (with slight deviations of abuse due to once again, the game). As they are symmetrical (mirror matches would come down to scouting and skill, not cheese). So before you try and blame the map, maybe you should look at game balance first?

Halbe, was never updated with the correct version. For months.

Bryansk was never meant to be added AND never updated (courtesy of people like you)

Westwall has the WRONG version updated

Caen was updated to the cancerous cutoffs that the community wanted, despite feedback from top players during the 1v1 contest to do the opposite.

And fun fact, halbe, bryansk, westwall would all be 100% balanced if the game was (with slight deviations of abuse due to once again, the game). As they are symmetrical (mirror matches would come down to scouting and skill, not cheese). So before you try and blame the map, maybe you should look at game balance first?

"courtesy of people like you"

This is my fault?



The stats clearly show all community maps are disliked by community. And yes the balance is shit but maps should have been made to suit the game not designed according to some grand vision with the expectation the game should change to suit the map...

"courtesy of people like you"

This is my fault?



The stats clearly show all community maps are disliked by community. And yes the balance is shit but maps should have been made to suit the game not designed according to some grand vision with the expectation the game should change to suit the map...

You and many others yes.

And the maps are designed within the limitations of the worldbuilder. The community doesn't like anything that inst a rural farmland or forest, as nobody should have to change their commander loadout ever, let alone change the openings. This is further exaggerated with the "scope" and lack of viable options for factions. No matter what we do, until the game is actually in a acceptable form, the maps and the preference of those maps will change (and anything that isn't a cookie cutter of a previous map will be disliked). When caen & westwall was first introduced it was in the top 10. Then it was changed and a patch hit. Now its in the bottom. Also looking at these you also have to consider the amount of players that simply do not want to learn a new map and change their playstyle after 1k+ hours of playing. This is especially true in team players and the 2v2 contest will be even more of a shit show because of that.

Edit:

And yes the balance is shit but maps should have been made to suit the game not designed according to some grand vision with the expectation the game should change to suit the map...

This is where you are, and forever will be wrong. The maps should be made around BALANCE and right now the only balance we have is mirror matches. If we were to make maps around the current issues, we would NEVER have new maps. Cause every patch would catastrophically change the gameplay of a map designed around a previous balance iteration.

The only part of that sentence I can agree with is "Yes the balance is shit"

What if I designed a map around not being able to abuse the mortar pits range? Then it was buffed so it was even larger and didn't matter, and the orignal non build areas were placed in a way that, with the new buff made them un reachable? From one patch it would be fine but the next the map would be auto veto.

Obviously most mappers take into consideration some bullshit like the mortar pit, but when an entire faction is a handicapped joke, what are you supposed to do? Make the entire map to the one factions strengths so it is playable? Or have it play better with the larger portion of the general player base? No matter what, this isn't on the mappers. As much as you guys like to point the finger. The maps are just the easiest thing to blame, but it is the game and the balance, that is on RELIC and the "SCOPE".