Ok, so the following would be added to this list:-
Playmobill wrote:Please report all issues you find in the MapPack 2, so we can address em in the next patch.
Known Issues: - General : Some antivirus can corrupt files during the download. (yes, that is lame) Avast does it for example, but its not the only one to do it. To prevent that in Avast, you must deactivate the 'shield' while you download, you can reactivate it after and scan the file if you want, but its not really a mapack bug, its more a antivirus issue, and it can also happen with Mod files, not only mappack.
Bloody Gulch (2v2 version only, 3v3 version is not affected by this bug) : - ! wrong map entry point (special unit spawn) for slot 3.
Hill 112 : - minor object misplaced in village.
4p_Bizory - Weather to be changed from cycle heavy snowing, to static overcast with better midday lighting.
6p_Road_To_Cherbourge_Revised - Old mini-map to return.
4p_Road_To_Caen / 4p_Bocage - Units get stuck behind HQs.
Also in Road to Cherbourg there is a pinch of grass just before the axis base that is always being shot by the AA. It's not such a big bug, but I guess it's not intended to have a hostile grass there either .
JimQwilleran wrote:Also in Road to Cherbourg there is a pinch of grass just before the axis base that is always being shot by the AA. It's not such a big bug, but I guess it's not intended to have a hostile grass there either .
A note on the Berlin map and the crashes: Just to put it out there, if you play a map that size with HD textures you MAY run into problems with graphics memory running out on some video cards and depending on how that gets handled by the driver the issue may be hidden there. Remember, the game is now over 10 years old and has some really crappy code in it (DX10 API was crap from the start and never got fixed, game doesn't support DX11 or DX12 and uses 9.0c if you set it to not try DX10 - that's why using maxed out shader settings don't work and get buggy as hell btw....).
Try replaying it without HD textures or use some tool to monitor VRAM use, also keep the crash logs from the game and give ALL of that data to playmobill so he can compare properly.
"Normal people belive... if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Engineers believe... if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet." - Scott Adams
Hi. Is anyone else experiencing decreased game difficulty on these (and other) maps ? Might just be me. Maybe my BK skills massively improved somehow (well, you never know). I'm used to, especially on hard with the AI, having legions of German tanks turning up very early but this just does not seem to be happening anymore. The enemy AI sends a smattering of troops and then some tanks. At first I thought it was because for a while I'd been playing against 2 AI enemy teams and now I only play against 1 because it's a much better frame rate. 1 team, half the tanks right ? Yet on D-day +8 or whatever it's called enemy AI has half the resource points and occasional tank appears, even a Tiger but they are absurdly easy to kill.
I notice difficulty is heavily dependent on the random doc the AI chose and the map. AI was designed more for the base relic maps, not for custom so you'll find a harder challenge on the relic maps.
Tarakancheg: I want volkssturmm to upgrade to knights cross holders at vet 5 so that I can just show players how bad they are.
As we are getting closer to next BK update, which will be only Full version and not available as Patch only, we have an opportunity to include mapfixes and / or remove some maps from mappacks.
Are there any fixes already? Should some maps be completely removed? Removing can include mappack 1 too.
So far there are no maps which deserve to be completely removed, except the 6p map called "Saint Laurent" as I can remember I've talked about it with Playmobill and Endro before.. and we came to the conclusion that a revision of this particular map is not really worth it at any possible point. Since it has narrow build space that barely allow anyone to have Barracks even! Also so many objects as well as overall low fps ratio. Not to mention that the ammo and fuel points are badly organized. Therefore a removal of this map is more than deserved, but only this map I guess!
Regarding the MapPack.II fix, yes.. they are all ready as far as I am concerned. However; I am honestly not sure if Playmobill has already shared everything with MarKr and Panzerblitz1 or yet not! I'll have to double-check with him as soon as possible... It might be that he missed something or so.
Surely keep the non-revised ones! However, the 6 fixed revised maps which we have recently sent are definitely meant to replace the currently existing revised versions of those same 6 maps.. so, there should be no longer a snow copy of Bizory for example. And 1 new map (which I have earlier told you about) is still planned to be included in the future...
pvp wise revised maps seem to be better under many aspects. Maybe non revised could be left there for comp stompers or newcomers (for higher resources and few map design issues that might make maps little more unbalanced).
Revised versions are surely better, nonetheless.. the non-revised maps are still perfectly working... As I can see absolutely no reason to completely remove them! For example, in case of Autry; the revised version only has base AA turrets and different positioning of ammo and fuel sectors. But some people still like to play the non-revised version from time to another, where they could have more fuel and no base defense. So, my opinion is to keep the non-revised versions just as they are!
Jagdpanther wrote:I dont know about the others but for example autry revised has no weather choice unlike the non revised one.
Thats my bad then, i'll have to check if i can recall those weather settings if they don't work anymore in the revised version
However original Autry was one of the most buggy map regarding AI behavior. Ressources placement were so wrong, that AI could not navigate and attack properly.
kwok wrote:I actually pref a some of the non-revised. Especially goodwood.
I would be very interrested (really!) to know why (sectors placement maybe ?)
To quickly sum up the goodwood changes
Revised goodwood is more optimized (map wasn't planned as 8P map but relic made it 1Player map, so framerate was a real problem with 8P). In consequence all terrain have been smoothed = more fps
Base's building placements are fixed. in the old one, a significant part of the bases were unusable: you couldnt place buildings in it.
Sector layout's painting was non-existent, it was still using Voronoi's diagram algorithm(<- worth a clic, very interresting reading), which is the default option in Worldbuilder (Voronoi's layout was never meant to stay in maps, it's just to auto-attribute a sector color to each point).
No tactical map either, i had to remake it if i recall correctly.
Also tons of mini placement fixes, to improve AI pathfinding and navigation especialy through the city part.
However it is true that i was less experienced in sector placement and that maybe the positionning of this or that ressource could have been improved. Regarding this possible issue, both versions of the map lacked some serious ressources balance testing by skilled players (which i'm not :p)
" No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country. "
George S. Patton
Playmobil, your performance improvements are great and make it all the worth playing the maps outright. When it comes to the other map adjustments, my opinion still stands (that I've probably paraded around annoyingly too much) it was never a problem of the map strategic points but of scale. If players continue to play tiny maps for a mod where ranges are extended then they will ALWAYS run into terrible games no matter how much tinkering. But players right now are SO stubborn in their formulaic playstyles and look to "balance" to solve their problems instead of adapting...
When it comes to goodwood specifically I like the old map because of the balance of resources across the map. FIRST OF ALL, i like goodwood for 1v1s, 2v2s, and 3v3s, NEVER for 4v4s. The best way I can describe my small frustration with the revised goodwood is to take the TYPICAL games people are SOOooo stubborn saying is the "correct way" to play.
Typical games are on small maps with standard resources. What this creates is a sort of "rock paper scissors" early game dynamic. Standard resources only allows players to make 1 to 2 units max in the early game. For example, the most popular openings now (because of the recent at gun changes) are jeep/schwimm openings. Let's say at guns WERENT changed, the dynamic was jeep openings counter basic inf openings. AT gun openings counter jeep openings. basic inf openings counter AT gun openings. (the dynamic now is different because of the AT gun changes but that will likely be changed soon says markr). Because standard resources only allows for very few units in the early game, if a player is outright countered on the opening they get locked out pretty fast on a small map because of how quickly a player gains map control. This is why I HATE standard res games... people call it "strategy and skill", I call it fuckin rock paper scissors. This effect is amplified by maps where high resource points are at the center which snowballs the early opening advantage to tech bullying. A player who holds the high fuel in the center within the first 5 minutes will have such a fuel lead they can use it to bully the opponent the rest of the game. It's almost annoying how SO MUCH of the game is decided within the first 5 minutes. I'm not saying it's impossible for players to comeback from a bad early game, but the skill curve and often luck needed to overcome that bad start is frustrating. It doesn't feel like "strategy" anymore, there is no back and forth dynamic of equal power. Very very good players KNOW how to abuse and mitigate mistakes with such a high advantage.
I understand the idea behind changing goodwood so high resource points are in the center: if the benefits of taking ground is too little for the costs it encourages campy games... so by adding more value into the center of the map it forces players to need to push out and be dynamic more. But I don't see that being the root issue of camp games. In fact, I think games get MORE campy with center high resources because whoever wins the early game will be focused on just plopping defenses on that center instead of trying to TAKE ground. The old goodwood had high resources in the back at a distance you can get a solid flow of power to stay in the game, the first 5 minutes don't affect the probabilities of winning too greatly. Or even losing a bit of ground won't end the game for you. What solved the "camping problem" for me was just making it harder to defend... play fucking bigger maps. It's unbelievably harder to camp when an enemy can feasibly come at you from multiple angles instead of a single lane.
So that's my reason. I still play the revised goodwood, it's not a bad map. I just prefer the old one. But the "camping issue" is definitely not solved by either maps. I already made my opinions and extreme suggestions of FORCING players to play on big maps by deleting some players off the standard maps in the map packs, even made a few of those maps myself. But whenever I try to get a game and lock slots so that I can control the scale of game size to map size... I am hit with the BIGGEST bitch fest about what is the "correct way" to play the game... followed by a second bitch fest later in game about how i'm "hypocritical for arty camping" because they missed my point entirely after I've given in and let them choose the map.
My favorite moments is after I've played a big map and been bitched at because "big maps are balanced for axis/allies (whichever i'm playing)" and i offer to switch sides for a rematch... do I get a rematch? maybe 30% of the time they say yes. Guess who wins that second match too (most the time. I've lost my fair share but those players who end up beating me are typically ones who see the skill required in big maps and don't bitch about balance).
EDIT: sorry that was more ranting than explaining. I'm just tired of BK lately.
Tarakancheg: I want volkssturmm to upgrade to knights cross holders at vet 5 so that I can just show players how bad they are.
Wolf wrote:As we are getting closer to next BK update, which will be only Full version and not available as Patch only, we have an opportunity to include mapfixes and / or remove some maps from mappacks.
Are there any fixes already? Should some maps be completely removed? Removing can include mappack 1 too.
Plz take the maps i revised and edited at put them in the new update.
@Kwok : thanks for the explanation ^^ Something i didnt mentionned on my side is i made Goodwood's revision just after debugging Autry (4), and Autry AI was completly bugged by the sector layout (really, they were bugged on their base because of the way high ressources points were all at edges of the map, next to bases). So when an AI is that much bugged just because of a layout, we can honestly deduc that this was really not a game mechanic intended by CoH devs when they coded their AI decision making and pathfinding. This is also why when i saw a similar layout on goodwood, i made thoses changes. But i understand your point aswell in term of PvP.
mofetagalactica wrote:Plz take the maps i revised and edited at put them in the new update.
It's beeing discussed right now, so i can't promiss, but so far chances are descent.
" No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country. "
George S. Patton
.
