[MAP CONTEST] Argonne Feedback Thread

#1
1 year ago
Kyle_REKyle_RE Posts: 484 admin

This thread is for all feedback related to the map "Argonne" 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 year ago

    ROUND #1 REVIEW
    GOOD:
    1. A lot of cool ideas and setups.
    2. Interesting Fuel cutoff points.

    BAD:
    1. Has mappers name on load screen.
    2. Red Cover road around East bases. If the enemy pushes with MGs you will not get out of this base for a long time. Having to cross RED cover will result in dead or pinned troops.
    3. A couple trees in West base block pathing from base. Small vehicles will stop and turn a lot trying to get thru here.
    4. The Fuel setup appears to be unbalanced. West Fuel has two buildings covering it, the east has one small building. West fuel is setup as a long lane leaving limited ways to reach it, East fuel is open most directions. Maybe this is intentional as asymmetrical balance.
    5. Need to check the spawn points for size. Large tanks may get trapped in the spawn area if it is not wide enough.
    6. The small rock piles on the north points cause pathing issues for vehicles. Maybe remove a couple of them or place them closer together in sets to keep lanes open where vehicles can get thru. They are evenly spaced now making it a maze for your tank to traverse.

    POSSIBLE CHANGES:
    1. Could use some more splats/splines for blending. But how many is enough really :p
    2. The roads on the left side have interesting cover. One road is RED cover for some portion then it is not. The muddy trail is RED cover where maybe it shouldnt be?
    3. The Left side bottom has a trench wall giving GREEN cover and the right bottom has mostly YELLOW cover.
    4. The middle is very tight. Large vehicles can not get thru this area easily. The map seems to want large engagements on north and south, leaving the middle section for infantry flanking only. This may turn into an MG battle.

    SCORE:
    7/10 - This map has a lot of possibilities. Some rework may be needed to move up to the next level of quality.

  • #3
    1 year ago
    Andy_REAndy_RE Posts: 257 admin
    edited September 2017

    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 year ago
    Andy_REAndy_RE Posts: 257 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.

  • #5
    1 year ago
    Andy_REAndy_RE Posts: 257 admin

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

    The creator has made some good adjustments from the previous rounds.

    The Northern and central VPs feel like they are easier to defend from the western team. In particular, the large garrison building in the North out balances the small building covering the southern VP.

    The central VP can feel a little claustrophobic in the late game. We feel the approaches and the central area should be opened up.

    The western team also has to cross negative cover in the form of the river, when taking/passing two of the VPs on this map.

  • #6
    1 year ago

    Argonne

    • Nice tight little map, love the terrain and the train in the middle - although are steam engines to period?
    • The flow and terrain ups and downs and trees feels really unique to me, but I'm pretty new to the game (few months)
    • Hay stacks seem random and out of place in this map, there's not really farmland here or grass to make hay, but hey I'm nit-picking on a map that I really enjoy playing. Similar is the random oil barrels in the west (I think) side of the map. Out of character objects affect my immersion factor.
    • There too many small obstacles to hide behind, makes it all a bit cursory and easy to find cover. I'd like to see this more sparse
    • My vehicles were constantly getting tied up on trees exiting the base wasting too much time when I was in the western base, please move them. Very frustrating
    • Similar to above - The central section of the map is very packed with objects making my big tanks get stuck or hard to path through easily to the other side - I found myself often wanting to just use the infantry which I don't like being restricted too. Frustrating. It is a too easy point to defend with a hmg or defensive structure.

    Overall I found this map enjoyable to play on and would recommend it.

  • #7
    1 year ago

    Another river map. It suffers from the same issues I found on maps of this type, victory points sitting on swamps or tiny islands instead of more "important looking" positions. It's a bit too cluttered and small in my opinion, with no breathing room between the corridors of trees.

    I have a defensive play style but couldn't build anything on the lower part of the river (the map didn't allow much meaning full defensive building anywhere anyway). Not sure why I couldn't build as there was no clutter on the way, but this could be seen as a nice way to push a different playstyle.

    Not a bad map, but it failed to deliver a natural look and a good battle flow. I'm sure it could be fixed with a few small changes though.

  • #8
    1 year ago

    Good looking map. I like the derailed train in the middle and the Wermacht heavy buildings in the south border. Very interesting cutoff areas.
    There are a few balance issues, listed in importance order here:

    • The two Standard Territory Points nearer to the West (players 1 and 2) spawning base, are both almost fully inside the base bunkers' range.
    • The North VP capture area is west of the river making it more accesible to players 1 nad 2 (west spawn).
    • The South VP, although seems to be in middle ground between the two bases, is significantly more quckly accesible from west base due to the road that leads there from that base.

    All the above point to players 1 and 2 having a significant advatage.

    There are a total of 6 garrisonable buildings in the map, 4 west of the river and 2 east. 2 of them surround the West Fuel Point (again west seems favored but this one is not so important imo).

    Finally, the entire map is full of all those paths and corners between the trees which would lead to endless flanking pssibilities and very few points being defendable. I would prefer some variety and somewhat less flanking routes (more open areas maybe?) or the main theme of the map will be just that: flank.

    thanks for all the effort!

  • #9
    1 year ago
    HardyStyledHardyStyl… MoscowPosts: 24

    Overall map balance
    Almost balanced map in my opinion. One thing is about left side middle CP are a bit closer to base sector, making capture a bit faster.

    Cover balance/design
    A lot of yellow cover, which is good. Almost every point have 1 green cover closer to base sector of map half there it stands so it makes defence of the point a bit easier on early stages. Negative cover asymmetric design was attempted to be compensated with garisons, needs some tweaks.

    Balance of garisonable buildings
    Left side have better/more garisons, right fuel garison can be killed with grenade from bushes that are blocking vision easily (commado No. 82 grenade etc). Comparing to left side fuel garisons which has 2 light garisons, only one (what can be used for garison spawn units aka partisans, still not much profit because can be isntant get pinned) can be destroyed with grenade, second building don't have mirrors on north, so it can be flanked if pathing blocking object is destroyed (means that to attack left fuel player needs to use smoke/mortar/medium vehicle(light vehicle cant destroy that kind of object aka m3) (destroying infantry/light vehicle blocking object will inform defending player about planing attack so he technically can react) comparing to right side fuel garison that can be killed with smoke/mortar/light vehicle/sneak grenade from left bush. VPs garisons are balanced in my opinion.

    VP and resource balance/design
    Resource points balance depends mostly on garisons in this map, but right fuel also has some kind of vision blocking tree that makes other defence units aka mg, bunkers a bit harder to defend comparing to left fuel, also no green cover. Middle VP is not well balanced in my opinion. Left side ground lifting with stone wall makes things like UKF emplacements very hard to reach with AT guns, tanks and even sturmtiger shot, that gets into this ground firing from below (AVRE does not have that kind of issue), howerer, it can be flanked from many positions, but its pretty much hard enough comparing to right side design.

    Visuals
    Looks great, a lot of details that are not breaking cover\garison balance that much.

    Readability/lighting
    Everything ok.

    Cutoff design
    Left fuel cutoff can be covered with mg in a bunker that can shoot in that direction even with bushes blocking vision from that side, but they are not blocking it when unit is in garison. Other cutoffs looks ok.

    Infantry and vehicle pathing

    • Left side point with destroyed plane are blocking light vehicle pathing,
      sometimes it says that it can go through between flag object and object, but it's not, vehicle begins to find other paths, puting vehicle in danger.

    • North left point near VP, place between a rock and trees without foliage, same thing, light vehicle can go between them on half, but after that stucks and can't get through so it begins to reverse back.

    • Middle VP, 2 bushes with lake between them, same thing.
    • Left point above left fuel, big and small stacks of hay with something between them that can be destroyed with light vehicle, same thing.
    • Bottom side between right fuel and left fuel cutoffs, place between bunker from wood and tree with bush, place between this bunker and lying wood paths great, but right side between same lying trees and tree and bushes have same thing I told above.

    Infantry pathing looks ok, medium vehicle looks ok too.

    Line of sight
    Looks ok, creates some space for movement of close combat units.

    Combat feel/flow
    Pretty much good, a lot of commader choices avaible on this map, flanking gameplay, a bit passive tank battles in narrow places because of mines possibility. Could be also played defensively with artillery and emplacements.

    General polish
    Fixing pathing blocking objects, and some more thinking around garisons on top/bot VP/fuel points, probably a redesign of left side of the middle VP and map will be ready.

    Overall map feel
    Liked it. Pretty much good map in balance side and very good in visuals side.

  • #10
    1 year ago

    I've always loved infantry focused forest maps(Argonne Forest in BF1 is my all time favourite). Derailed train scenery, huge gigantic nazi building, very atmospheric, all in all, I find this map to be very fun and enjoyable experience to play with especially when coupled with Infantry Assault Extended mod, where everybody spams massive amounts of foot soldiers against each other.

    However there are quite abit of places that could use some improvements, map balancing in particular, left side has multiple 2 squad sized, full health garrison-able buildings on important capture points that make defending easier, sure it can be dealt with by vehicles/grenades/flamethrowers etc etc, but that still doesn't mean player 1,2 should have such advantages to begin with, meanwhile player 3,4's points mostly suffer from vision problems that are prone to flanking, and with zero equally sized garrison-able buildings to the left side, makes player 3,4 at a map disadvantage. Even the middle point favors the left with a nice vantage point and lots of cover.

    All in all, I think this map is incredibly fun for casual gameplay, but I don't think this map is suitable for competitive pvp matches without some significant changes. I am in no way a serious competitive player though so take this with a grain of salt.

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.