
It replaced AirMars, by the way... so, do you think applying those criteria helped improving the map roster or not?
Umm, pretty sure you've never issued any reminders before, let alone explicitly to me, but... thanks? Hadn't realized a context-related question amounted to overthinking either, but even if so, I guess I'll just have to live with erring on that side of "correct thought amount" :/.RottenToTheCore wrote:[...]Hey Peg, again a personalized reminder for you: [...] Don't overthink things[...]
Plural of criterion is criteria, brahRottenToTheCore wrote:You mean the criterias that brought up the high quality (and really thrilling and interesting!!11eins) Caelum?
True. Being able to pass our more or less objective quality checks doesn't necessarily mean a map has to stay on our roster till the end of time. It's just a method to sort out clearly inadequate maps prior to checking them out on the server. In order to spare us too much irritating trial and error. However, online playability is the next step to tell decent maps from not so good ones. Therefore, we need feedback, both ingame and over here on the forums. No feedback -> no improvementPegasus wrote:[...]Also, we've repeatedly encouraged players to offer constructive feedback on CEONSS' hosted content. If you have arguments against the inclusion of Caelum on the roster (and, tbh, I'm sorta on that same boat myself), why haven't you come forth and spoken up about it? Calm beats snark.
It's xmas. And it's a request. Xmas request. See what I did there?Pegasus wrote:, what's the context of "Xmas request" here?