[MAP CONTEST] Stadtschutt Feedback Thread

#1
1 month ago
Kyle_REKyle_RE Posts: 393 admin

This thread is for all feedback related to the map "Stadtschutt" 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.

Comments

  • #2
    1 month ago

    ROUND #1 REVIEW
    GOOD:
    1. I like the resource layout. Forces a decision early game, go for both fuels or get the munitions and one fuel. You can decide to starve them of fuel or out tech them later. I think this gives each faction some early game choices.

    BAD:
    1. This map has too many wide open areas. This can be fixed by the next round. Add some more destroyed buildings or hedgerows to break up the many open areas.
    2. The cutoffs may be hard to contest since one of them is so close to the enemy base. This could be another map where more central located cutoffs could reward play in the middle. Which would create a more 2v2 feel as opposed to running to the corners for fuel which creates a 1v1 feel.
    3. Some of the roads are too deep. They look more like ditches. This will lead to units shooting the ground a lot. Level up the ground a little so units can effectively engage each other. In some cases this appears intentional, to create a firing lane. Maybe keep it between buildings etc.
    4. Base defenses could be better. Base buildings can be attacked without bunkers returning fire.

    POSSIBLE CHANGES:
    1. Could add some small buildings in the center so if you decide to go mid and get the munitions you can hold them longer. It will force teams to fight all three fronts early game. This will show which team has better micro.
    2. As stated above, this map could really use some more sight blocking. That is the major flaw of this map. It is way too open.
    3. I like the idea of two cutoff points. This map could benefit from only having one cutoff up the middle. However, "close the pocket" is always a possibility in team games. I would stay with two but move them to be easier to contest.

    SCORE:
    7/10 - I really like many of the choices of this map. The resource locations, the red cover around the outer VPs, etc. Choices that are play related. However, the map needs a little work yet to be high level. I would rate it a 6/10 but the intelligent play choices make it a 7, soon to be 9 I hope.

  • #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.

    This map has a high degree of polish and an interesting feel in that while it is urban, it plays in quite an open way.

    The eastern VP feels as though it is easier to contest due to less overall cover than the other VPs.

    The roads consistently provide negative cover around the central vp which is fine. However, there is a chunk of road which runs north from this VP which doesn't provide negative cover. This is a small issue in an otherwise well-balanced map, but it is worth addressing.

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.