Map Difficulty And Gameplay Feedback.
Pinchy: 1. Get worked up by peoples maps earlier in the set
2. Rush mine by running into the deepest and most defended part of the map
3. Die, skip
Ing-ing: 0. Play on higher difficulties even though clearly doesn't like challenge
Mclogenog: eh it's shambler
This apparently is directed at me, regarding my playthrough of this pack, and thus needs to be dealt with:
1. If anyone has a problem with someone giving criticism of a map, it's best to discuss it with them and talk about it. Something useful might actually come out of that. You know that I'm online on discord (and on here), feel free to do so.
2. Pinchy, if you watched my playthrough, you'd see that you are wrong on all counts:
A. I played through the entire set and did not get worked up by ANY maps, especially not gameplaywise, apart from UKKO's. So being well warmed up by mostly enjoying 10 or so maps actually put me in a positive mood for playing Quake.
B. Firstly I clearly did NOT rush into yours, I tried different tactics, explored carefully to avoid vores, hunted for secrets etc etc.
Secondly "the deepest and most defended part of map", where that is is NOT obvious to the player. You know it as the mapper, the first time player will not know it (although dropping down to the Shambler/water area looked the worst so I carefully avoided that).
C. I died repeatedly due to the excessive difficulty, lack of supplies, and lack of clarity about best options for the first time player, but I reloaded several times to try to progress with the map. That was NOT, despite the temptation, an insta-skip, I put the effort into persisting.
3. Ing-ing: I play on skill 2 BECAUSE I CLEARLY LIKE THE CHALLENGE, and because 95% of the time with non-speedmaps, that is the right level of challenge for my optimum enjoyment. As you will notice I played the entire pack on skill 2 and enjoyed almost all the maps - whether they were long or short, snipey or arenay, or whatever, in fact I mentioned that at least one was too easy for me. The only 2 I didn't manage were ones with weird gameplay mechanisms or ones that were highly unbalanced. If 95% of maps average out at spot on on skill 2, and 5% don't, then it's the 5% that are a problem, not the skill 2.
4. Mclonelong: Yes, it's Shambler. I play Quake for enjoyment, fun, challenge, appreciation of cool environments and atmospheres, exploring architecture etc etc. If those are good in a map, I'm going to praise it - like I do repeatedly. If some those aren't to my personal taste (like your toybox), I'm going to hold my hands up and say "It might be good but it ain't my taste". If some of those are just really badly done or dsyfunctional, I'm not going to avoid criticism, pretend it's all fine, and deceive mappers into thinking their map doesn't have flaws, I'm going to say as much. And if a map is too unpleasant to play in whatever way (whether it's a beautiful map with bad gameplay or the best Quake action in a fullbright box), I'm not going to keep going with it. That's it.
TL,DR: If someone is criticising your map, discuss it, consider it, refute it, instead of slagging off their gameplay.