TRAFALGAR [12.4.2012] QUENCHED (V65)

[cairnswk]

... after making the image - I in fact thought the coloured cannons looked better - although - I suspect given the right skills - the grey cannons could also look good -

My main problem was that you decided that arbitrarily without giving anyone input - and when the input was enquired about - it was flatly refused...

C.

C. I simply didn't think it would work, and gave you the same feedback that i get from other mapmaker's in this place when i suggest things for their maps.

[oaktown]

While I do not want to come down on one side or the others regarding Mibi comments, the responsibility for the state of this map - however you feel about it - needs to be shared by the entire Foundry.

Here's the map from way back in December:

Click image to enlarge.

As you can see the basic layout and mechanics of this map hasn't changed considerably in the past six months, in large part because the foundry hasn't really been calling for any. The ease of playability has not been called into question as early and often as perhaps it should have been, so cairnswk really hasn't been pushed to change it. In fact, I'd say the playing area was actually cleaner and easier to follow six months ago than it is today - perhaps because the same few who keep coming back to comment have wrapped their heads around it.

Visually I've never been a fan of the ice-cream-cone warships, but again when I posted that concern months ago it didn't get much feedback so cairnswk moved on.

Cairnswk, the Foundry has allowed you to get this map to where it is today, so it's in your hands to decide out where to go next. If it were quenched today it would by no means be the worst map at CC, and it will have its dedicated fans. It may also, as Mibi points out, be a newb farmer and avoided by CC's more casual players - anybody like me who doesn't want to spend five minutes each round trying to figure out who can hit whom.

As for where mibi's comments have been in this process, here's his post from January.

Ok Cairns, let me throw some crit your way. I will spare you the thesaurus and snarky attitude btw, I don't use thesauruses.

Now I know you have your own style and some of your maps are very complex. Waterloo is hailed as a masterpiece of strategy and complexity. I gave it few go's, not my thing, but I can see the appeal. Almost 200 active games going on that one. Some of your other maps seemed to lack any real raison d'être. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but there should always be the goal of making the best map possible, not every map possible. Being the most prolific map maker on this site Cairns, there is bound to be hits and misses. It should stand to reason though, that with that much experience, you should know what works and what doesn't. Not that active games is the only indication of what works, but it's a factor, as are other qualitations such as fun, enjoyment, replay, etc.

So, here we are with the Battle of Trafalgar. The subject matter is weak. Its a battle no one has heard of in a war no one can name. Further that, for those who know of the battle and may have a historical interest in playing, the battle itself was a proverbial blowout. 22 to 0 if you taking a tally of ships. Is that fun? To get a drop with mostly French, the big losers. Of course you can even the playing field with bonuses and connections and handicaps, but after all that is done, you have evened out what SHOULD be lopsided. It really doesn't make sense. Like if you made a map of the US Army vs New Zealand, and to make it even you had to give NZ all kinds of bonuses and such. So I think the subject is a poor choice.

The graphics, while certainly well done, suffer from some serious type blunders. You have all this text over a patterned or image background. Like the bonus legend, and that red text over the flags in the title area. Basically both of these are competing for the eye and since there is no stroke or highlight around the text, visibility and legibility suffer. It's an easy fix though. Throw a glow in there, or a stroke at 50%, or lighten the BG. Secondly, the map looks like a mess, a giant knot. Or one of those things in Highlights magazine where you have to following the curled and tangled line to help a bear get some honey. At some point, this map loses it's naval combat vibe and takes on one of confusion and disorganization. The one ways, two ways, bombardments and everything else that is explained in the legend is a mistake. While it may hold historical accuracy that Prince and Achille boarded each other or that Scipion bombarded Neptuno and not vice versa, all of this really doesn't matter to someone who isn't intimate with the subject matter. All you have done is create a series of rules that must be followed for no other reason than they exist. That is not fun.

I think the bottom line is, that you have adapted the game to the subject, when you should have adapted the subject to the game. I think there is a good demand for some raucous naval combat. But thats not what this is. This is not naval combat. Nothing about the gameplay or rules is really forcing a naval combat mindset. You could take out the boats, put it spaceships, or tanks, and have the same thing. Take supermax for example, its a prison subject adapted to the game, there are no specifics to one particular prison or rules about where a particular actor is 'supposed' to go. It is open ended with a few rules that are specific to any prison. This map here is a closed loop. Swiftsure can never attack Pluton even though they may have them dead in their sights. This map will never play out as it is historically suppose to, and why should it? Who wants to get a flawless ass whooping. Another example is Battle for Iraq, like this map, it is about a particular situation and location. But it's open ended; players can choose their own destiny, the rules are just their to nudge the gameplay, not force it. The shia hate the suni, but there is no attack route only between them, they can do what they like.

There is probably more I could say, but I am a bit tired. You have great skills cairns and relentless ambition. It's just unfortunate that there hasn't been notable progression in your ability to turn out a truly successful map.

[cairnswk]

While I do not want to come down on one side or the others regarding Mibi comments, the responsibility for the state of this map - however you feel about it - needs to be shared by the entire Foundry.
....
As you can see the basic layout and mechanics of this map hasn't changed considerably in the past six months, in large part because the foundry hasn't really been calling for any. The ease of playability has not been called into question as early and often as perhaps it should have been, so cairnswk really hasn't been pushed to change it. In fact, I'd say the playing area was actually cleaner and easier to follow six months ago than it is today - perhaps because the same few who keep coming back to comment have wrapped their heads around it.

Visually I've never been a fan of the ice-cream-cone warships, but again when I posted that concern months ago it didn't get much feedback so cairnswk moved on.

Cairnswk, the Foundry has allowed you to get this map to where it is today, so it's in your hands to decide out where to go next. If it were quenched today it would by no means be the worst map at CC, and it will have its dedicated fans. It may also, as Mibi points out, be a newb farmer and avoided by CC's more casual players - anybody like me who doesn't want to spend five minutes each round trying to figure out who can hit whom.

As for where mibi's comments have been in this process, here's his post from January.

Ok Cairns, let me throw some crit your way. I will spare you the thesaurus and snarky attitude btw, I don't use thesauruses.

Now I know you have your own style and some of your maps are very complex. Waterloo is hailed as a masterpiece of strategy and complexity. I gave it few go's, not my thing, but I can see the appeal. Almost 200 active games going on that one. Some of your other maps seemed to lack any real raison d'être. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but there should always be the goal of making the best map possible, not every map possible. Being the most prolific map maker on this site Cairns, there is bound to be hits and misses. It should stand to reason though, that with that much experience, you should know what works and what doesn't. Not that active games is the only indication of what works, but it's a factor, as are other qualitations such as fun, enjoyment, replay, etc.

So, here we are with the Battle of Trafalgar. The subject matter is weak. Its a battle no one has heard of in a war no one can name. Further that, for those who know of the battle and may have a historical interest in playing, the battle itself was a proverbial blowout. 22 to 0 if you taking a tally of ships. Is that fun? To get a drop with mostly French, the big losers. Of course you can even the playing field with bonuses and connections and handicaps, but after all that is done, you have evened out what SHOULD be lopsided. It really doesn't make sense. Like if you made a map of the US Army vs New Zealand, and to make it even you had to give NZ all kinds of bonuses and such. So I think the subject is a poor choice.

The graphics, while certainly well done, suffer from some serious type blunders. You have all this text over a patterned or image background. Like the bonus legend, and that red text over the flags in the title area. Basically both of these are competing for the eye and since there is no stroke or highlight around the text, visibility and legibility suffer. It's an easy fix though. Throw a glow in there, or a stroke at 50%, or lighten the BG. Secondly, the map looks like a mess, a giant knot. Or one of those things in Highlights magazine where you have to following the curled and tangled line to help a bear get some honey. At some point, this map loses it's naval combat vibe and takes on one of confusion and disorganization. The one ways, two ways, bombardments and everything else that is explained in the legend is a mistake. While it may hold historical accuracy that Prince and Achille boarded each other or that Scipion bombarded Neptuno and not vice versa, all of this really doesn't matter to someone who isn't intimate with the subject matter. All you have done is create a series of rules that must be followed for no other reason than they exist. That is not fun.

I think the bottom line is, that you have adapted the game to the subject, when you should have adapted the subject to the game. I think there is a good demand for some raucous naval combat. But thats not what this is. This is not naval combat. Nothing about the gameplay or rules is really forcing a naval combat mindset. You could take out the boats, put it spaceships, or tanks, and have the same thing. Take supermax for example, its a prison subject adapted to the game, there are no specifics to one particular prison or rules about where a particular actor is 'supposed' to go. It is open ended with a few rules that are specific to any prison. This map here is a closed loop. Swiftsure can never attack Pluton even though they may have them dead in their sights. This map will never play out as it is historically suppose to, and why should it? Who wants to get a flawless ass whooping. Another example is Battle for Iraq, like this map, it is about a particular situation and location. But it's open ended; players can choose their own destiny, the rules are just their to nudge the gameplay, not force it. The shia hate the suni, but there is no attack route only between them, they can do what they like.

There is probably more I could say, but I am a bit tired. You have great skills cairns and relentless ambition. It's just unfortunate that there hasn't been notable progression in your ability to turn out a truly successful map.

Ah yes, I had not back-tracked to see mibi's input from January, so my error in that. Thanks for the reminder oaktown, about someone who comes in and posts lengthy critic once every so often instead of actively participating in positive feedback like those who have managed to get their head around this map, which from my understanding is supposed to be required by the Foundry. Not any stage do i see positive comments from mibi about how to perhaps work things better. Both his posts are a critic and that is all, w hich is what he is good at. Fair enough.
I can understand your concern about the ice-cream cones, however, this subject matter was chosen to be represented by such and those who have been regularly posting seem to be happy with this. If the foundry is not happy with this then perhaps they should get in here and do some posting. But i haven't seen anything yet except concern coming from "the top".
You probably all know that i am not in the habit of making land type risk maps and indeed your classic version doesn't go anything near where the original risk map came from.
I think this map represents the battle at an intensive stage where lots of vessels were involved and provides lot of opportunity for players to have some fun on bombarding and assaulting their way across the waves.

[MrBenn]

Ah yes, I had not back-tracked to see mibi's input from January, so my error in that. Thanks for the reminder oaktown, about someone who comes in and posts lengthy critic once every so often instead of actively participating in positive feedback like those who have managed to get their head around this map, which from my understanding is supposed to be required by the Foundry. Not any stage do i see positive comments from mibi about how to perhaps work things better. Both his posts are a critic and that is all, w hich is what he is good at. Fair enough.

To give him credit, at least he comments on other people's maps.

[WidowMakers]

I have a question.

How are people supposed to give constructive criticism if they think a map is not good at all? Just because people say a map is really bad, does not mean they are mean or wrong. They might actually be right. Especially if they explain why there are problems.

mibi explained in great detail all of the problems associated with it and he justified them all.

What sort of constructive criticism do you want cairns?
Just because you have an idea and a couple people like it, does not mean it is a good idea.

WM

[cairnswk]

I have a question.

How are people supposed to give constructive criticism if they think a map is not good at all? Just because people say a map is really bad, does not mean they are mean or wrong. They might actually be right. Especially if they explain why there are problems.

mibi explained in great detail all of the problems associated with it and he justified them all.

What sort of constructive criticism do you want cairns?
Just because you have an idea and a couple people like it, does not mean it is a good idea.

WM

WM.... ah another bloke in to support his colleagues.

The sort of criticism i want WM, is that if you have ideas about how something can be done better, then show it to me graphically so that i understand what it is you're wanting. You all have the skills.
But to date, no-one has bothered to do that. You've all come in and simply trashed my artwork or ideas (apart from C with the canon), and offer nothing graphically to improve the situation. And this debate has been going on for ages and every now and then you all come out of hidding and go Pow! "time to pounce", but you spend very little time in here posting to improve ideas graphically. Once again it is left to those who have participated (and asked for this map in the first place - a good idea to them i'll have you know.)

I am beginning the think that from all of you, there is a great deal of elitism in this foundry and that some people who have made those accusation might just be right - an argument that i have to this stage kept out of.

mibi did not explain in great detail what was wrong, all he stated was what he saw was wrong or couldn't understand, and that i'm afraid is a very subjective matter, as you well know. At only one stage did he offer alternatives to improve the map which was applied.

The graphics, while certainly well done, suffer from some serious type blunders. You have all this text over a patterned or image background. Like the bonus legend, and that red text over the flags in the title area. Basically both of these are competing for the eye and since there is no stroke or highlight around the text, visibility and legibility suffer. It's an easy fix though. Throw a glow in there, or a stroke at 50%, or lighten the BG.

This was done. If it is not done enough, then perhaps someone had better state that. But i haven't heard anything from mibi about it, certainly not in the last post.

Mibi gives this:

So, here we are with the Battle of Trafalgar. The subject matter is weak. Its a battle no one has heard of in a war no one can name. Further that, for those who know of the battle and may have a historical interest in playing, the battle itself was a proverbial blowout. 22 to 0 if you taking a tally of ships. Is that fun? To get a drop with mostly French, the big losers. Of course you can even the playing field with bonuses and connections and handicaps, but after all that is done, you have evened out what SHOULD be lopsided. It really doesn't make sense. Like if you made a map of the US Army vs New Zealand, and to make it even you had to give NZ all kinds of bonuses and such. So I think the subject is a poor choice.

But he is wrong about no-one ever hearing of it. Most people have some knowledge of the existence of this battle if they undertake history at school, or did mibi not go to school, perhaps not, either that or his teachers or the syllabus were sadly lacking.

Furthermore, to create an argument based around an historical "blowout" where one side won, might be applied to mibi's D-Day map, we all know who won that one. But his map leaves the entire map open so that anyone who starts off as a German can win the map and thus not be true to history. Is this what D-Day was really about? In such a game as this, it is quite possible that the NZers might well kick the arse of the USA if the player who wins the map sees themselves as a NZer, and the map has balanced gameplay, and that is what most of the discussion on this map has been about.

Secondly, the map looks like a mess, a giant knot. Or one of those things in Highlights magazine where you have to following the curled and tangled line to help a bear get some honey. At some point, this map loses it's naval combat vibe and takes on one of confusion and disorganization. The one ways, two ways, bombardments and everything else that is explained in the legend is a mistake. While it may hold historical accuracy that Prince and Achille boarded each other or that Scipion bombarded Neptuno and not vice versa, all of this really doesn't matter to someone who isn't intimate with the subject matter. All you have done is create a series of rules that must be followed for no other reason than they exist. That is not fun.

As for this, well i guess a naval battle where nearly every ship is involved, the sight would be a real mess, as can be seen from any of the paintings of the masters who tried adequately or otherwise to interpret the scene.

And that is exactly what i have done here, is try to interpret the scene and apply the xml rules that we have to this battle. Is that wrong to do that, no. It is simply seen by some as being not good enough or in the style that they would like applied or in what they think CC maps should be all about.

Might i remind you WM, that if i have an idea and a couple of people like it, then to those people it is a good idea otherwise they would not support it.

The same applies to oaktowns ice-cream cones. I trolled through the map when oak gave his recent posts and noticed that he hadn't posted for 20 pages. Why, well i guess he doesn't like the map, or simply couldn't be bothered to input anything worthwhile during development to improve it, or he was offended that i didn't improve on his ice-cream cones.

In short, once again, we have the same people coming in and trouncing mapmakers ideas when these ideas are supported by some people in the community. Is that fair? No. It degrades and tramps out any opportunity for people to express themselves in whatever manner.

I for one WM, am open to most ideas and feedback from the community, but what you and your mob are doing here is simply bullying again. I thought that left the foundry when Dim decided to concentrate on RL, and Dim and I had great respect for each other.

MrBenn offers me "To give him credit, at least he comments on other people's maps".
That might be true, but from what i have seen and experienced, and 99% of the time i read what mibi posts, is that his comments are in the same style as the above and usually offer very little to offer improve or support mapmakers ideas, but rather offer some airy-fairy critic of what his skills and interpretation style are.

That is not the sort of feedback that i though CC was about.

[oaktown]

Anyway, getting back to specific discussion about this map...

Now that I've looked back at an old version one thing that strikes me as off about the new version is how blurry the attack lines are. My eyes go out of focus when I look at this map for too long. You've got crisp lines for the army circles, so maybe the attack lines could be sharpened up a notch?

[cairnswk]

Anyway, getting back to specific discussion about this map...

Now that I've looked back at an old version one thing that strikes me as off about the new version is how blurry the attack lines are. My eyes go out of focus when I look at this map for too long. You've got crisp lines for the army circles, so maybe the attack lines could be sharpened up a notch?

oaktown, this discussion has also been around the bush...
the sharp attack lines were indeed in place before and i required them to be softer, so took them to dots, which some people were less than happy with, so they were treated with drop shadow to make them blurry and identifiable, but not to stand out above the main characters on the map.

Edit: If you have something to offer graphically that would improve these lines, and explain that to me, then i would be happy to try it out.

[cairnswk]

For the record, my interpretation of these two items. I see no similarity.

[mibi]

I don't know what to tell ya. I call it like I see 'em. You are more than welcome to ignore my posts.

Anyways, I think Oaktown was referring to softserve ice cream, which look similar to those boats.

[cairnswk]

I don't know what to tell ya. I call it like I see 'em. You are more than welcome to ignore my posts.

Anyways, I think Oaktown was referring to softserve ice cream, which look similar to those boats.

I am not going to ignore you mibi, but have you something to offer to replace my boats.

[Echospree]

Personally, I just think the boats should be smaller. It leaves more open water on the map, plus it's easier to tell when boats are locked together or just close.

[oaktown]

If you have something to offer graphically that would improve these lines, and explain that to me, then i would be happy to try it out.

I have few suggestions, which you may do with what you will.

First, remove some attack paths. (I won't suggest removing ships because I get that you are trying to maintain historical accuracy.) Just because you can draw a line between two boats doesn't mean you should. I'm looking in particular at the area around Swiftsure and Colossus - it's a mess. And any three digit or two digit count with army codes if going to cover up important information, such as the line between Mars and Tonant - which to my eyes is barely visible at all since it is so light. There are places in which the benefits in terms of readability might out-way the effects on gameplay, such as:
Santa Ana - Bahama (such a long connection makes no sense anyway)
Swiftsure - Colossus (Swiftsure has other attack options since it touches the neighboring ships, so the connection in the middle isn't necessary)
Mars-Tonnant-Colossus (three ships in a triangle, so losing one route still leaves them all within two attacks of each other)
Revenge-Defiance-Belerophon (again, a triangle)

Second, shorten up the cannons; rather than making them longer, I'd work on the angles that they take from the ships and the points from which they protrude. The only cannons that were really problems were the ones that popped out of the right side of an army circle, so a solution that fixes them without screwing up the rest is preferable.

Third, the opacity on the ships in the bottom right legend is so light I can't see them to make out what is bow and stern.

Fourth, I know that the attack lines have been discussed but that doesn't mean they are right yet. They really are faint to my eyes - so much so that I can't distinguish between the blue and red dotted lines.

Swiftsure is touching Bahama but I bet they can't board each other since they are of the same team... that's going to throw people. Wait, so is the fact that there are two boats named Swiftsure!

I'm looking back at the last few versions with different size cannons, and in some it looks like the lower cannon on Principe de Asturias is hitting Prince, while on others it is pointing at Thunderer. In general I'd say that if there is any room for uncertainty as to which boat a cannon hits - like Tonnant firing through one boat to hit another - it would be better to take that cannon off the map entirely.

While Mibi is calling for a redo, I would say that what this map really needs is some serious editing. If you're willing to live without some of the bombardment and attack routes it would make the entire playing area cleaner, thus allowing you to give due attention to elements that are getting muddled. Do more with less.

[cairnswk]

....While Mibi is calling for a redo, I would say that what this map really needs is some serious editing. If you're willing to live without some of the bombardment and attack routes it would make the entire playing area cleaner, thus allowing you to give due attention to elements that are getting muddled. Do more with less.

Oaktown, you hadn't posted in the map for some 20 pages, and now i have to redo the map just to satisfy you.

Well, as far as I am concerned. take the f*****g map and throw it in the garbage, or re-do it yourself.
I've had enough of the shit that comes from you guys who come in at the last moment and expect re-works on your behalfs.
You expect everyone else to live up to the standards that you preech in the foundry, but you have no compunction about not living up to them yourselves and and giving some of is a fair and decent go in a timely manner.
Stuff you all!

[mibi]

....While Mibi is calling for a redo, I would say that what this map really needs is some serious editing. If you're willing to live without some of the bombardment and attack routes it would make the entire playing area cleaner, thus allowing you to give due attention to elements that are getting muddled. Do more with less.

Oaktown, you hadn't posted in the map for some 20 pages, and now i have to redo the map just to satisfy you.

Well, as far as I am concerned. take the f*****g map and throw it in the garbage, or re-do it yourself.
I've had enough of the shit that comes from you guys who come in at the last moment and expect re-works on your behalfs.
You expect everyone else to live up to the standards that you preech in the foundry, but you have no compunction about not living up to them yourselves and and giving some of is a fair and decent go in a timely manner.
Stuff you all!

You know I came in the first 10 pages and posted a lengthy critique. You responded by removing the attack lines and trying a different method. I checked back in a few days later and the map was less complicated and was on the right track. I come back in today and saw that somewhere along the line there was a reversal and the map grew to the complicated beast it is now. My apologies for not keeping up with this map every few days or weeks but I really don't have the time or ambition to do that. It may seem like I am a johnny come lately but many of the current issues were mentioned months ago. Even oaktown mentioned the boats looked like ice cream cones and even posted a picture, not that anything was done about it though.

You should chill, take a break and work on your other maps for a while. Eat a banana or some shit. lol.

[oaktown]

Message received, cairnswk.

[cairnswk]

Message received, cairnswk.

If you guys mamage to do this to me for this map, what the f*** are going to say about Stalingrad.

[chipv]

Wouldn't it be simpler to just make the map bigger?

That would avoid the map looking cluttered and make it more readable.

I would keep the attack paths , otherwise the only way of determining them is by looking at
the colours of the shipname texts which isn't great especially for people with not so good vision.

It is somewhat difficult to quickly pick attack lines with the map being this compressed
and there might be less of an issue with the icons.

[yeti_c]

Wouldn't it be simpler to just make the map bigger?

That would avoid the map looking cluttered and make it more readable.

I would keep the attack paths , otherwise the only way of determining them is by looking at
the colours of the shipname texts which isn't great especially for people with not so good vision.

It is somewhat difficult to quickly pick attack lines with the map being this compressed
and there might be less of an issue with the icons.

Small is already as big as it can be...

Big could be widened a bit - but I assume that might knock out the aspect.

Personally, I just think the boats should be smaller. It leaves more open water on the map, plus it's easier to tell when boats are locked together or just close.

This is a very interesting comment - and might well be worth looking into...

C.

[cairnswk]

Message received, cairnswk.

oaktown, please throw this map in the rubbish bin.
I am tired of trying to accommodate everyone's different concerns, none of which offer me anything really concrete to work with.
I doubt that those of you who are calling for these latest changes (except for Inca and yeti_c, and possibly one or two others) have taken into consideration the amount of time that i & others have spent on getting this map to somewhere that we are comfortable with.
I am sorry guys, but oak, mibi, WM and others i respect (to a large degree) are not happy with this because they don't understand it and will probably never play it.
I have no desire to spend any more time on it. Please trash it.
If someone else wants to take it up, please feel free.

[MrBenn]

oaktown, please throw this map in the rubbish bin....I have no desire to spend any more time on it. Please trash it.

oaktown has retired from moderating duties, so one of the boys in blue (me) will have to move it for you.

I think there are some valid concerns about legibility/clarity, but it's a shame to have to send this to the bin...

[moved]

[oaktown]

for starters, I can't move anything... I gave up my badge and the powers that came with it months ago. I can't say I miss it.

Since your last post addresses concerns larger than just this map, I guess I can go there. I completely get where you're coming from in terms of the hours - perhaps hundreds of hours at this point - that you have put into this map, and how frustrating it can be to hear calls for a major rethinking. I've been there. So has WM, and mibi. That doesn't mean we always consider the invested time and work history when we post, and sometimes our posts can be less thoughtful than they probably should be, and for this I want to extend an apology.

When I post, all I have to go on is my own opinion. We can say that there are subjective criteria for a map receiving the next stamp, but in the end individuals have to make those calls. My personal opinion of this map is that it is flawed. I also believe that people said it was flawed months ago, and that concerns that were brought up months ago were never really addressed. Did I say it should be thrown out? No. I said it needs to be edited. My opinion of the map right now is that games will be won not by the player who employs the most sound strategy, but by the player who spends the most time each round trying to make out what can hit what - and anybody who isn't playing with BOB's map-inspect feature won't stand a chance. This is in part a result of the tight layout of the ships and attack routes, and in part due to some hard to follow graphic elements. In my post above I outlined specifically what I would address were I the mapmaker. But I'm not the mapmaker, you are - you should do what you want to do, and if you disagree with my opinions state why and move on. Mibi and I aren't stamping any maps, so if we're wrong it won't matter in the end.

You've got several other maps in production right now, cairnswk, and I know that you're looking for feedback on them. Now is the time I should be in those threads telling you what I think, but honestly I'm a little gun-shy about offering you any critical feedback right now. On more than one occasion now in this thread you've told me where I can stick my opinions.

bah, fastposted by Benn!

[cairnswk]

...
You've got several other maps in production right now, cairnswk, and I know that you're looking for feedback on them. Now is the time I should be in those threads telling you what I think, but honestly I'm a little gun-shy about offering you any critical feedback right now. On more than one occasion now in this thread you've told me where I can stick my opinions.
bah, fastposted by Benn!

firstly, apology accepted. I have no wish to fight or argue with any of you to have winning situations over anything.

oaktown, i am not looking for critical opinion in any of my maps.
I am looking for positive contributions toward moving a map forward rather than the negative overly-opinionized attacks that this map has been subject to, and indeed Poison Rome was subject to.
We once had a happy place here where I enjoyed executing my skills on these maps, but this has changed dramatically in the past months, and this map's demise is because I no longer am enjoying the process.
i'd be pleased if you think also about how you comment and your choice of words before you offer me something in the future and i look forward to your input in a positive manner

[captainwalrus]

*Sigh*
This makes me sad.

[Incandenza]

*Sigh*
This makes me sad.

Just think how you'd feel if you'd been putting a lot of time and brainpower into contributing to this map's development for the last seven months.