Explore GameReplays...

Company of Heroes

Schermerhorn (1v1)

Reply to this topic Start new topic
# 1MacBryce Dec 20 2006, 15:03 PM
Attached Image

Schermerhorn, a small rural village inhabited by farmers, will provide the epic battlefield for your next campaign.

About this map:
Author: MacBryce
Victory Points: 3
Munitions: 2 high, 4 medium and 2 low
Fuel: 2 medium and 2 low
Strategic Points: 4

Download links:
The .sgb/-dev version. (7,57mb) =>C:\Program Files\THQ\Company of Heroes\WW2\Data\Scenarios\mp; Add -dev to your shortcut
The .sga version. (5,33mb) =>C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\Company of Heroes\WW2\Scenarios

Mirrors
The .sgb/-dev version. (7,57mb) @ AOWMAPS.net (Thanks to Henry666)

Thanks to:
Henry666 for a file mirror.
Lawrence "Sabot" Jameson for reviewing the final v1.0 release.
Blahman for the screenshots and suggestions.
Fryloc (aka Supaunknown) for reviewing the beta release.
VicMG for inspiration.
Everyone involved in the public beta test.

Review score
Schermerhorn received 8/10 by reviewer Lawrence "Sabot" Jameson.
Click here to scroll to the review on page 2.

Comments:
Don't trust the AI to use the best route when playing as the allies. Micro your troops through the water for better efficiency.
To balance things up, the forest paths have negative cover at the ends too. Be careful when using them.
Playing with fixed positions (Axis right, Allies left) is recommended.
This map has had a public beta and received 7/10 in a review by Fryloc. This version is the final release and contains a lot of adjustments to that version.

This post has been edited by Supaunknown: Jan 1 2007, 22:34 PM


Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image

Attached image(s)
Attached Image Attached Image Attached Image Attached Image Attached Image

Posts: 33


+
# 2MacBryce Dec 20 2006, 15:13 PM
The forest routes have gained some negative cover while the lake has lost some. I've added more and wider routes to speed up the gameplay and I've taken care of the remarks in the previous threads.

Hopefully, I'm able to get an even better review out of this one. smile.gif She's all yours, Fryloc.

Posts: 33


+
# 3Aciesethon Dec 20 2006, 15:27 PM
I'm going to remove the [-] tag as I don't see any post from a map reviewer here. DO NOT include [-],[P] or [R] tags into a topic, these are for the map reviewers. If any other MRs tagged it, don't forget to post aswell!

Posts: 950

Game: StarCraft 2


+
# 4MacBryce Dec 20 2006, 16:16 PM
My mistake. Could you add (2) or (1vs1) to the title too?

Posts: 33


+
# 5Supaunknown Dec 20 2006, 19:53 PM
Title edited, I will probably get to this once I'm done with my 4v4 review of Foo Fighters which I really need to get to.

Posts: 517

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 6MacBryce Dec 22 2006, 07:34 AM
Thanks, man.

Posts: 33


+
# 7Lawrence Jameson Dec 22 2006, 12:19 PM
****How about getting it reviewed by a different map reviewer than the reviewed it the first time? (are there any?) That might give more credibility to the "score"...which I think is a bunch of BS, BTW.

Posts: 18

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 8Supaunknown Dec 22 2006, 13:59 PM
Ok, I'll let someone else review this map then.

Posts: 517

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 9MacBryce Dec 22 2006, 20:29 PM
If grading a map is such BS, then why bother with its credibility, Lawrence?

I'd like to see you review it, Fryloc. After all, I redesigned some stuff with your preview in mind.

Posts: 33


+
# 10Lawrence Jameson Dec 22 2006, 22:00 PM
****Sorry, I was running late and didnt have time to explain properly.

*****I think Supaunknown's reviews are top-notch, and I wish the other reviewers could be more active. They seem to have lost their drive.

****The ratings are not BS...the system is. IMO, there should be two "ratings". Completed map reviews should be in a separate thread, and include the score given to that map by specific rater. The Original Post should have a "user rating"...like a poll...that can constantly change. This way a map wont be completely trashed by a hater or elevated too much by a fanboi.

****I think you, of all people, realize the importance of a "score". When a person comes here to find new maps, they look at the scores. A low score means the thread might not even be looked at.

****Its very subjective...whether you think a map is "good" or not...The map contest should have shown you that!

****Also, only reviewing 1v1 maps is not good. Not being able to find enough players is a lame excuse.

LJ

Posts: 18

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 11MobiuZ Dec 22 2006, 22:34 PM
i agree 100 % with you !

my map got rated a 6 but i did won the map contest for 4 players so i think its mostly a matter of taste of the reviewer to what the score is in the end , im not saying you didnt review it right spaun but somethings you mentioned is just a matter of taste more than actuall facts so i think its a really good idea to give polls to every map where the users can rate them

Posts: 10


+
# 12Supaunknown Dec 23 2006, 01:29 AM
Well, Mobiuz the reason your map did so bad in the ratings was the fact that there was many a bugs with balance and technical. I could not even cross your small bridges with my tanks which kind of baffles me how you won. Also, an idea of your comments about users voting. We could require that every map put up here is a poll with scores from 1-10 to vote on. I'll post something in the staff forum about it.

This post has been edited by Supaunknown: Dec 23 2006, 01:31 AM

Posts: 517

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 13MacBryce Dec 23 2006, 11:31 AM
It would be nice to make polls instead of threads. I agree that the scoring system should be a public thing. For example, St. Marcouf has plenty of issues but I guess that the general public of CoH would rate it a little higher than 6/10. The only thing is... Nobody with limited time will ever dl it now that it's a 6. It would be great if reviews could be done by more than one person. That's not as easy as it sounds. I'd review some maps in my spare time but I'd never achieve a 2 maps per week ratio.

Here's my take on this discussion:

Basically, the point of reviewing and grading maps is to seperate the good from the bad. I think the "Map Of The Week" system does that better than the scoring system. I don't know what the requirements for a MotW are. I'd say that those are maps with quality on par to the official ones, meaning no major imbalance issues, good visual quality and correct resources distribution.

Reviewing should focus on what's good, what's bad, how can it be improved and maybe drop the score all together. "MotW quality", "MotW quality if the following adjustments are made", "Too early to be considered for MotW" would be better than points IMHO.

It should also be possible to allow multiple maps to split the MotW title for a certain week. Other weeks there shouldn't be a MotW if no new maps can pass the quality check. Right now, there are a couple of maps which should be MotW's but aren't. I'm talking about maps like Rundheim, St Mere Dumont, St. Lo, Wrecked Train, etc. (I'd say Schermerhorn too, but I'll let the reviewers decide on that.) I don't really see the point in waiting so long to grant them MotW status because they all have similar quality.

This post has been edited by MacBryce: Dec 23 2006, 11:51 AM

Posts: 33


+
# 14MobiuZ Dec 23 2006, 14:42 PM
QUOTE(Supaunknown @ Dec 23 2006, 02:29 AM) *

Well, Mobiuz the reason your map did so bad in the ratings was the fact that there was many a bugs with balance and technical. I could not even cross your small bridges with my tanks which kind of baffles me how you won. Also, an idea of your comments about users voting. We could require that every map put up here is a poll with scores from 1-10 to vote on. I'll post something in the staff forum about it.


well my map is really focused on using tactics , and no your tanks couldnt cross the small bridges and those are intentioned to be small bridges .. i wanted to create something different from all other maps , its not like you cant use any tanks at all , its just that u need a good balance between infantry and tanks instead of a spamfest of tanks or infantry , and what do you mean with bugs ? i removed almost every single bug there is , and btw you shouldnt review the maps with ai ! my map for example is totally unbalanced when you play against the ai because when you wire them off they will not try to break through and etc etc , i suggest you play this map against real players , then you will see how balanced it is actually , i think the reason why i won the contest is because its really different from any other maps that were competing with me , and probably because they were not tested with ai in it ! and yes against ai its really not that hard to win

This post has been edited by MobiuZ: Dec 23 2006, 14:44 PM

Posts: 10


+
# 15Supaunknown Dec 23 2006, 14:46 PM
No, the reason the bridges are inbalanced is because they promote camping, and camping is not a good thing, but we need to keep this thread on topic. Please.

Posts: 517

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 16MobiuZ Dec 23 2006, 14:52 PM
theres nothing unbalanced about the bridges , camping ? its great for defensive and defensive is camping too ... so you say defensive is bad + lyon = bad too ^^ ? .. well anyway your right lets keep it on topic this is the last ill say about it

This post has been edited by MobiuZ: Dec 23 2006, 14:53 PM

Posts: 10


+
# 17MacBryce Dec 23 2006, 15:22 PM
I don't mind anybody discussing the reviewing process in this thread. I've been looking around a bit more and there certainly is a serious lack of consistency among reviewers.

I've just played Spesserstratsthingie which is a MotW. It's a fun map to play but the detail is poorly implemented. In some places there's way too much stuff packed together while the bases are terrible visually. The map got a 9/10 for that, regardless of those issues. Presentation-wise, the loading screen looks out of place for CoH, the preview tactical map looks distorted and the description is in German. It doesn't follow any standards and it doesn't measure up to other custom maps that do (e.g. Rundheim, Wrecked Train, etc.) but aren't MotW status.

You guys really need some consensus and some kind of reviewing methodology because right now it's very confusing. Furthermore, it's a bit discouraging if you've spent many hours on making a detailed base to see a map like Spessar get a 9/10 for design.

This post has been edited by MacBryce: Dec 23 2006, 16:26 PM

Posts: 33


+
# 18Supaunknown Dec 23 2006, 19:20 PM
I think the reason why some of the older MoTW's got that is because the map reviewers really hadn't seen better, and didn't know of what could be done that is better. BTW, Rundheim was supposedly Shizzle's MR app. but I don't think he has got to doing that yet.

Posts: 517

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 19Lawrence Jameson Dec 25 2006, 16:00 PM
****Mac- Now you sound hung-up on the MotW. Which is an even worse concept than points scoring. Share MotW? Thats when I knew you were off the deep end on this. Seriously, though, you need to join the reviewers ranks. You could be like a Simon on American Idol wink.gif....no, you'ld be a better Randy Jackson, with your pompous, Mapsnob attitude.

****So...who's gonna select the map(s) of the week? Just any old map reveiwer who has his fancy struck? A consensus vote amoung all of the of the map reviewers? Do you see how this is going further into fantasy-land?

****I agree with MobiuZ...Its a shame that these scores are being touted as "official", when the reviewer(s) is/are only playing against the AI.

****Dont get me wrong, I appreciate Supaunknown's efforts. IMO, most of his assessments are more than fair, and his explainations are clear and helpful to not only the artist, but to other map makers as well. He pulls no punches, is very critical, and has a superb eye for details. (Simon!) His ideas about symmetry/balance are where we part ways. To me, it's no so important that one VP or munitions point is slightly further away from one faction or the other...if there is a gaudy imbalance in munitions and/or fuel, sure...but since everyone has their own ideas about how to play, balance discussions can sometimes be as subjective as eyecandy discussions.

****So, that brings us back to the scoring issue. Im just going to throw out ideas...blast them, expand on them, whatever...

*Get more map Reviewers...enough so that maybe...just maybe two of them could get together and play at least 2 games (one as each faction) against each other on the map. The map could then be reviewed (and scored) by one or both of them together.

*Review (preview) some maps besides 1v1 soon. Even if you must play with AI.

*Have two separate scores...one for AI play and one for H2H.

*Let the score be a public poll...as we have be discussing.

*Have each map tested separately by at least 3 official Reviewers, who each submit an overall score to be averaged.

*Create a sub-division of reviewer called "Map Tester", who plays the map and submits comments to the Reviewer to aid him in scoring and reviewing.

*Make a forum exclusively dedicated to Scored Maps with official reviews, posted to only by Reviewers. WIP and maps deemed "not yet ready to be scored" by at least one official Reviewer would remain here on this forum...Map could be discussed by all as normal, pre-reviews could be given by official Reviewers...

****So that brings up map evolution. What if my map got a score, but since then, Ive improved it (or made it worse!) and re-released a newer version? Re-score it?

****I dont know the answer, I just want to try to help the scores gain more credibility...my vote would be for public poll only, or the Map Testers thing...but thats just me.

LJ

This post has been edited by Lawrence Jameson: Dec 25 2006, 16:01 PM

Posts: 18

Game: Company of Heroes


+
# 20Supaunknown Dec 25 2006, 16:43 PM
I posted something in the staff forums about change the way maps are rated, and some people have thought it is a good idea and some thought a bad idea. I proposed that the reviewer would give the score, and it would show on the forums like it normally does, and then the person that posts their map would be required to added a poll with 3 different options to vote for. 1-3, 4-7, and 8-10. Really, the reason I became a map reviewer was because of the shortage of them, so I encourage you and all of your friends to sign up and join the ranks, it would be a big help to everyone. The reason imo why people get hung up about MoTW is because they just want to be known; I mean if your featured on the portal website for your work on your map that is an accomplishment and should be a goal imo for most mappers as I know that is one of mine. As far as testing goes, I've tried to talk to some people, but most of the people on these forums that I have on xfire are either in the UK, Australia or some other place in Europe, and the reason I get so hung up on balance is because of the fact that a map could be totally beautiful, and screw up someone that has a bad computer, or be balanced and make it even for both sides.

Just some thoughts.
Fryloc

Posts: 517

Game: Company of Heroes


+

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)