[MAP CONTEST] Lorient Feedback Thread

1 month ago
Kyle_REKyle_RE Posts: 393 admin

This thread is for all feedback related to the map "Lorient" as part of Relic's 2v2 Map Making Contest. This map has made by a member of the community and they would LOVE of your feedback to help them iterate on and improve their map before the next submission deadline of the contest.

To subscribe to this and all contest maps, check out the 2v2 Map Making Contest Collection on the Steam Workshop.


  • #2
    1 month ago

    1. Interesting Cutoffs. May be too far back to be contested, but it is nice that they leave two points free (can use caches to regain lost resources).
    2. The buildings overlooking the fuel have no rear windows so they benefit the closer base. Map seems to be balanced very well. Except the West building has a large fuel tank blocking the west windows, this should be removed.

    1. Bases need rotated so USF weapon racks are towards play area. Always test your map as USF initially.
    2. The interactivity stage has abrupt corners which makes the camera movement a little jerky and will block camera movement at some points. Could smooth it so you can move freely all around the perimeter.
    3. The long lanes with no cover may make this an axis friendly map. However, there are some flanking options. Could maybe place some of the cover objects on the road side of walls to allow for closer combat options for allied forces.

    1. The left middle isolated point is covered from mortar fire by the structures above it. The right side is open.
    2. The base areas are a little small. USF bases takes up most of the area which means tanks will not be able to get around in the base areas. Maybe thats a good thing :p
    3. There are several long walls that could benefit from an opening. But they can be vaulted by infantry so its not a major problem. Since vaulting is a game mechanic that adds additional micro skill, maybe this is a good thing. As long as retreat paths do not get too long or force infantry into enemy territory.
    4. I would be tempted to remove the large log piles in the very center to allow for larger engagements. This is a team map so room for all four armies to fight the middle may make for cool late game battles.
    5. The seagull sounds need to be MUCH louder :p

    8/10 - This is a very cool map but needs a couple touches for the next round.

  • #3
    1 week ago
    Andy_REAndy_RE Posts: 48 admin

    Congratulations! This map has passed Round 3 and is approved for the final iteration in Round 4.

    The updated map has been added to the 2v2 Map Making Contest Collection

    We encourage the community to give as much feedback as possible heading into this crucial final iteration period.

  • #4
    1 week ago
    Andy_REAndy_RE Posts: 48 admin

    RELIC FEEDBACK - Please seek additional feedback/ validation from the community.

    A good map with a few issues.

    Occlusion of the South Western VP from a massive bunker isn't ideal. This bunker means selecting units, cover and generally playing around this point can be a little tedious.

    Weapon racks from US faction face the wrong direction.

    There is also a long band of heavy cover near the South Western VP provided by the rail the crane runs on. This feels a little bit odd, and will also make this VP easier to hold that the area around this VP when compared to the NE VP.

    The pillars around the NE VP are crushable and provide medium cover, whereas they are heavy cover and uncrushable at the opposite VP. This will mean it is harder to defend the NE VP come the mid game when medium armor arrives.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.