There goes the little self confidence I had
(I think you have been a bit too harsh with some of the comments)
I think the most important thing you can have as a mapper is confidence in yourself, ultimately every mapper or map will receive criticism, most of it harsh - it is INCREDIBLY common for players to deflect to map design, aesthetics, or even map name (yes, people are that childish) when it comes to gameplay frustrations. I will say this, if you only listen to other people's feedback without confidence in your own personal vision or voice in your head telling you what makes the map YOURS, you'll make a generic dull map. On this front, I think you can be proud of Snowshore (and subsequently yourself).
When it comes to receiving feedback, I find it's generally helpful to try to understand the perspective: understand the relevance or degree of concern, for me I contest understanding.
A player states a concern, I see if that concern fits with my interpretation of the map, my experience with its layout and gameplay.
The point of this is that in all my conversations and research what I am attempting to develop is an UNDERSTANDING
of my map, or others (that I'm providing feedback for).
As a mapper you have a uniquely innate understanding of your map - but it doesn't end there, the DEVELOPMENT part of "map dev" means developing this understanding and (crucially) picking out the (fatal) FLAWS of your map, then iterating to mitigate these problems.
You have a 2CP arena map, one team rotates and deathballs on one point, other team deathballs on the other.
The only direct connector between the two is a chokey corridor, easily defended.
Neither team is thus incentivized to move to the others point as there is a huge defender advantage.
How do you resolve this seemingly fatal issue?
I see only two real assessments/responses to this "death by boredom" problem
- It IS a problem - In which case its you should address it (Feedback is valid)
- It ISN'T a problem - You have the confidence (self-confidence) to disregard nonsensical feedback (mine)
I think the reason why I passed on snowshore is because while I perceive this listed issue as obvious, if there was an attempt to resolve it I don't have the interpretive ability to see that - instead the "present" mechanic feels like a smokescreen, polish while missing a core issue.
Lastly - you chose to make an arena map, I am not an arena enjoyer, but I never like the idea of making "target audiences" - you love arena for some reason, and I think your map should express that.
So TL;DR, I have high expectations when you choose less popular gamemodes, you made an arena map, I'm assuming you like arena, so I want your map to make a STATEMENT, I WANT it to say to me
"I love arena AND this is why you should love it too"
and I don't get that out of Snowshore.
This should happen for every gamemode, not just arena
- Identify gamemode strengths and flaws
- Have an answer in the map for those fatal flaws
- Have mechanics/layout that complement strengths
So yeah, for snowshore it feels there is no statement or I can't understand it. Both of these could just be my lack of capability, in which case you should dismiss my opinions if you believe in yourself or your message, but if you do think that I have some level of understanding, maybe we should talk about it? My DMs are always open (FlipFTW#0777).