Profile of Siphon X.

I talk about the mistake with the bunkers and the tactical map^^
when you scroll back.

Ah, nevermind then...

Thanks for the reply.

During SMC with the current layout we have seen the map play largely different every time based on the player matchups.

Well, but it did look like during SMC the FPs were moved up, no?

Also not including crossroads is a huge fault, as if its played in 1v1 it should be included in analyzing other maps.

I was talking about Crossing (in the Woods). Point that I wanted to make was that the map is not objectively smaller than others. Crossing in the Woods, however, is larger than the others (Base2base 264m, Frontline (FP2FP) 273m), so using this as an example to argue that Vilshanka was a small map would be misleading.

Ok, I'm trying to moderate here because I have the impression that you guys are talking slightly cross purposes.

I took some measurements in the worldbuilder and compared those to other maps in the GCS2 map-pool. Now, of course you are right that the map is about the same size as e.g. Crossroads, KF or FA (Crossing is quite a bit larger but also has to work as 2v2 map, so I'll drop that from the rest of the discussion).

The distance from base to base is about 220 meters on each. Likewise, the distance of the outermost capping points (i.e. length of the supposed frontline) is about 230 m and thus very similar (Crossroads FP to FP: 231 m, KF: VP to VP 235 m, FA: VP to VP 240 m, Vilshanka: STP to STP 229 m).

Now, I guess the reason why the map is perceived as small by some players is that the outermost points do not appear to be worthwhile to fight over (they would be mostly be relevant if you want to connect to the opponents fuel via the long route, but a) this is also possible through mid and b) is hard to achieve due to FPs being so close to the base).

Effectively, it may be perceived so that the area of interest (VP to VP) is only about 143 m wide. Within this strip you can secure all three VPs, connect to all FPs and threaten all relevant cut-offs.

Now, I can't say if that is really how the map plays out as I haven't played it yet and even if I would have, I'm too bad of a player to say anything qualified, but in case you get more feedback along these lines and feel it could be justified, my suggestion would be to make those outer points more valuable by e.g.:

• Move the FPs slightly outwards (blue arrows below); you'd probably need to put it something sight blocking towards the outer houses then...
  
  
• Make it so that the central VP does not connect to all 6 surrounding point but maybe only to four (extending the outmost areas like indicated with the ellipses below) or even only the two.
  

Edit: I checked out the SMC VODs, seems like the FP for the tournaments were actually moved up like suggested, only without sight blocker towards the houses...

2vs2 (and also have to be in 3vs3 then!)

So i checked your map and some things have to be done!

1. Cut one more fence. Brit pak can't move through
https://prnt.sc/k9vq1r

2. Cut here one more fence as well. Its buggy anyway i guess. Because atm the pak moves through a fence lul
https://prnt.sc/k9vqdb

3. Same issue as point 1.
https://prnt.sc/k9vqt3

4. The same.
https://prnt.sc/k9vr17


3vs3 map:

A) Basebunker north is wrong:
https://prnt.sc/k9vtjz

B) Basebunker south is wrong:
https://prnt.sc/k9vtps

C) Have a look again on the spawn buildings and positioning. Atleast for south side the left guy looks strange.

D) Don't forget to use all made changes from the 2vs2 version into the 3vs3 maps!

E) Fix Tacticial and Minimap then.

Ok, made the changes to the 2v2 version and updated in the steam workshop.

I also made the changes to the 3v3, but I still have to rearrange the starting area, hopefully I will have time to update that one tomorrow.

I saw from the map size, that acutally its a very big map, right?
I could think about making a rework 3vs3 from it tbh.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1442694612



In case we go for it, don't forget to make all changes on the 3vs3 version as well.

Well, the "map size" is deceiving as that includes everything, in particular the non-playable area. Due to the landscape being pretty open in the lower Rhineland I added more outside area to the map to achieve the typical long viewlines (if a player decides to tilt his camera, that is...).

The playable area itself is roughly the same as that of the larger maps in the 2v2 pool (similar to e.g. Moscow).

That said, the frontline could be somewhat longer as the bases are in corners rather than along the sides, which I think might make it suitable for 3v3.

Yes, of course I would update the map with the same updates the 2v2 received. However, in order to reduce the work on my end, it would be great if we can sort of somewhat settle for the changes there first. I made the 3v3 version mostly as a mock-up so you could try out how the battles work out with 6 players.