Unpopular Doom Opinions

[treulosetomate]

Missable secrets make sense in maps like Ancient Aliens' map 16, or also map 06 Sinkhole Showdown with the changing level geometry. But I remember Valiant being particularly dickish about this. Like in map 20 which has a missable secret right at the beginning before you fall down into the main area. The player is pressured to move fast because of the damaging floor, so it is easy to miss. And the reward is just a berserk which you don't need, iirc. There is no reason to make this a missable secret other than to troll completionists.

 

[Thelokk]

2 minutes ago, treulosetomate said:

to troll completionists

 

A valiant and honorable endeavour, at least in my wholly personal opinion. 

[Lucius Wooding]

I'm trying to see your points of view here but I still don't agree with gatekeeping the UV version of a wad. Maybe if I had thousands of people downloading anything I made (and deservedly so) I could be picky about how they choose to play. 

[Womp the Cat]

8 minutes ago, Nirvana said:

I guess additionally, though of less importance, is the fact that people seem to get really upset about secrets not simply being items or weapon pickups or something. Had some complaints about secrets in Fractured Worlds giving you more combat instead of a 'reward' which I find a little baffling, because aren't people playing Doom to well...play Doom? Isn't more gameplay a reward? I think this ties into the people who want to 100% these maps, who expel a deep sigh when they reach the end of a map and realise there are hidden monsters stopping them from attaining a number on a screen.
 

Yeah this always baffled me. Obviously, everybody plays doom differently, but my understanding of a completionist is that the goal is 100%kills AND 100%secrets. so kills in secrets shouldn't matter, you're gonna get them anyway. and if you're not a completionist (I most certainly am not) you don't care about the stats at the end only that you got the exit.  

[Kyka]

15 hours ago, Thelokk said:

Secret hunting is more fun than killing demons. Doom needs more NoMo maps and mappers.

 

I have serious ideas/plans for this. Once I finish TNT Forever, and another pet project of mine, (and then a possible collab with StupidBunny,) then I would like to make something of this. There would be a bunch of vanilla maps, using textures and things to do all sorts of tricks, and then a non vanilla set with serious scripting to make movies, talking heads, wonderful geometric patterns, etc etc. I have been making notes for years on it, and even some ideas made, but nothing close to a realeasable set.

 

It was originally @gggmork who inspired me off in this direction, he who made some extraordinary designs before he left.

 

Anyone seen or heard from gggmork in the last few years? He was cool.

 

I also like to use missable (ie non tagged) secrets, though I tend to make those ones either really easy, or really hard.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Kyka

[SCF]

9 minutes ago, Nirvana said:

I guess additionally, though of less importance, is the fact that people seem to get really upset about secrets not simply being items or weapon pickups or something. Had some complaints about secrets in Fractured Worlds giving you more combat instead of a 'reward' which I find a little baffling, because aren't people playing Doom to well...play Doom? Isn't more gameplay a reward? I think this ties into the people who want to 100% these maps, who expel a deep sigh when they reach the end of a map and realise there are hidden monsters stopping them from attaining a number on a screen.

 

Personally, I dislike well-hidden secret fights precisely because I play Doom to play Doom. I don't care about secret hunting, so I'll happily exit a level without finding all of them. But if I missed a secret area with actual gameplay (and not just two imps guarding a megasphere), I want to go back for it. And if it's too obscure, I will absolutely look it up in the editor instead of wandering around aimlessly.

 

I wouldn't say that this is borne out of a misguided sense of completionism or FOMO. If I'm enjoying a map set, it makes sense that I want to experience all it has to offer, particularly when the combat is the wad's focus. And when (in an extreme case) half a level is hidden behind a secret, then it's no longer just about a number on the end screen. There really is significant content to miss.

 

But if your view is that, by not solving the puzzle, I didn't earn the right to see that content, I can't really argue with that. My opinion has always been that people should play the game in whatever way they enjoy most, even if it's not how the map maker intended it.

[Budoka]

1 hour ago, skillsaw said:

Maybe (a la Magnolia) a separate version of the wad could be released to the demo archives that reverses the thing flags and applies the secret specials to sectors as needed.

...Which all the non-competing players will also flock to and download straight from DSDA as soon as they find out it exists, never to look back. I agree with 99% of your rant, but this idea of removing the counting flags smells of pure desperation more than anything. Players expecting to max a level they aren't even familiar with is certainly misguided, but honestly I don't think there's any effective way for mappers to just fix other people's behavior according to your will.

[skillsaw]

7 minutes ago, Budoka said:

...Which all the non-competing players will also flock to and download straight from DSDA as soon as they find out it exists, never to look back. I agree with 99% of your rant, but this idea of removing the counting flags smells of pure desperation more than anything. Players expecting to max a level they aren't even familiar with is certainly misguided, but honestly I don't think there's any effective way for mappers to just fix other people's behavior according to your will.

 

To be clear (and I maybe should have specified this, but I felt being controversial was appropriate for this thread) it's more thought experiment than something I intend to do.

[Maribo]

1 hour ago, Thelokk said:

It would of course make the map impossible to demo, but sacrifices need to be made.

Dunno if there's been a discussion about this in particular but I imagine the rule for a map like this (for maxing) would be to end the demo as soon as you reach 100% secrets and kills... I remember having a conversation with 4shock at one point about some Heretic or Hexen runs that do this, since there aren't traditional exits. So don't let this get in the way of making such a map. :)

[RonnieJamesDiner]

While I basically agree with skillsaw's post in every way (and I think I'd love to play a wad that eliminated kill/item/secret counts, just to see what kind of effect it had on the experience), I'd like to raise a point here (something I've been thinking about for a long time). To be clear, this is a general point aimed at anyone and everyone, and no one in particular.

 

When it comes to debates/criticisms over UV, or secrets, or monster counts, or difficulty, or progression, or really any aspect of a map(set) that tends to ruffle someone's feathers, one of the most important positions I've found to be in as a mapper is:

 

Know your WAD well enough, and be comfortable enough with it, to understand who your audience is.

 

• Did you set out to create a map that players should have no problem beating in a blind run on UV? No? Then take the "why is UV so hard" criticisms with a huge grain of salt, and move on.
• Did you set out to create a megawad specifically designed to be marathoned in a single sitting, or two? No? Then take the "omg this set is exhausting" criticisms with a huge grain of salt, and move on.
• Did you set out to create a map specifically designed for UV maxing? No? Then take the "UV max" criticisms with a huge grain of salt, and move on.
• Did you set out to emulate someone else's style, down to the layout, combat, and sense of progression? No? Then take the "this style is unfamiliar to me, and that makes me uncomfortable" criticisms with a huge grain of salt, and move on.

 

Criticism is invaluable, and it's absolutely made me a better mapper. It didn't make me an objectively better mapper, it simply made me better at creating the kinds of experiences I wanted to make. And, it had that effect because I paid closer attention to feedback coming from players who clearly enjoyed what I was going for, but happened to see a few flaws in the execution - versus feedback coming from players who were clearly looking for a different kind of experience (big or small), and came away from it feeling let down.

 

To give two examples,

 

- I've received plenty of criticism for using too many archviles and revenants. Well... those are my favorite monsters to fight, and those are the kinds of maps I want to make and play. If a player detests those monsters, or believes they ought to be used sparingly for better effect, there's nothing wrong with that. But unfortunately, the bulk of my work simply isn't for them. When I see that comment, I smile, nod, and move on.

 

- I've received plenty of criticism for my maps taking sudden (and inexplicable) jumps from 0 to 100, in terms of difficulty. It usually blindsides a player and leaves them with a bit of a sour taste in their mouth, which is something I didn't actually intend. It was an oversight, and probably the result of me struggling to distinguish the player experience versus my own knowledge of the map. It's something I've been actively working on, and a piece of criticism that I really appreciate.

 

The key difference between those two examples is, again, understanding my target audience. Of course, I can (and perhaps should) be taking a critical look at how I presented the map, as well - for instance, did I claim that the difficulty level was roughly on par with Doom II, and then shove a Sunder-esque arena into the finale? Did I submit a slaughter map to a community project being clearly marketed as non-slaughter?

 

Managing player expectations beforehand does a ton of leg work for a mapper, in as far as focusing criticism towards your intended experience. I know a few people take issue with the phrase "intended experience", but as a catch-all or a generalization, I think it works well enough. And, to be quite honest, I don't necessarily believe that the "intended experience" of a map needs to be understood by a player on an intellectual level. Most of the time, I know whether or not I was successful in that regard based on the emotional reaction the map gets (a blind run on stream, or recorded with voice commentary in some way, is incredible for this very reason). 

 

TL;DR   

 

My point is, part of taking criticism with a grain of salt is understanding your own project to begin with. If your instant reaction to a piece of criticism is, "but...that was the point...", just step back, relax, and think about what you set out to do. And, think about the kind of players you're interested in engaging with. It's okay if someone doesn't like a decision you made; it's okay if someone is uncomfortable because they expected one thing, but got another; it's okay if someone isn't your target audience, because there are plenty of people who will be (even if you never hear from them!). Someone is always bound to experience your map in a way you never intended, and that's the whole point - if a player seems upset because you did exactly what you intended to do, chances are, they're not your audience. Smile, nod, and move on.  

[Kyka]

@RonnieJamesDiner that is a wonderful distinction. Well said.

 

[erzboesewicht]

Just a short remark to skillsaw's post: I am actually one of those completionists who, after having found the exit, like to walk around in the map and find the remaining secrets and monsters. But it's not so much because of the secret count/percentage, but more that exploring and finding hidden stuff is one of my main enjoyments when I play Doom (that's why I also love puzzle maps where you've to do weird stuff just to progress). So in a map where all secrets are unmarked, I'd probably also try to find every optional area/secret, just because I find it fun.

 

For this reason, I generally appreciate the teleporter most modern mappers provide to go back from the exit to areas which may have been closed, just for secret hunting. But I would also tolerate the absence of it, if there's a narrative or technical reason, or if it's a map short enough to simply replay. I may however simply IDCLIP to the beginning and continue hunting :)

[evouga]

Having recently played a lot of RAMP maps constructed with a wide variance in care, I want to emphasize the excellent point that “managing player expectations beforehand does a ton of leg work for a mapper.” And this signposting can be done not just in the WAD README but also in first few minutes of gameplay.

 

I agree that one-way passages, permanently missable secrets, fights that are impossible without planning, etc. are not unfair *per se.* But there’s a big difference between a map that drops me immediately into a fierce scramble for weapons and resources (indicating that this is a map where I’ll need to learn the ins and outs and plan a route before hoping to clear it) and one where the first 45 minutes involve leisurely exploring a 1500-monster wide-open world. A sudden one-way teleporter, or instant-death trap, would feel like fair game in the former map but would leave me mighty peeved if it happened at the very end of the second map.

 

I will also say this: I play maps to MAX them. I understand that any% is also a totally valid game mode and there’s nothing wrong creating maps specifically for any%. But I won’t enjoy them and won’t spend much time learning them if they’re designed to be impossible to MAX (even with proper routing and planning). Just a personal preference :shrug:

[Naan]

Some map designs makes it irrelevant/impossible to be maxed out and that's perfectly fine.

 

However, I actually dislike it when games prevents players from backtracking.

[Budoka]

1 hour ago, Naan said:

However, I actually dislike it when games prevents players from backtracking.

I'm fine with it as long as there's an organic reason for the lock. Which is to say, don't be Metroid: Other M and arbitrarily shut all doors except the one leading to where the plot says to go. But in a level like Ancient Aliens MAP16, yeah, it would make sense, and in fact I'm surprised to hear backtracking is potentially doable in that one because I've never even thought to try it.

[Ozcar]

On 9/3/2022 at 2:13 PM, TheRevenant212 said:

I vastly prefer the overall art style of Doom 2016 over Eternal

.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Ozcar

[SleepyVelvet]

4 hours ago, Lucius Wooding said:

I'm trying to see your points of view here but I still don't agree with gatekeeping the UV version of a wad. Maybe if I had thousands of people downloading anything I made (and deservedly so) I could be picky about how they choose to play. 

I kinda respect where you're coming from emotionally and will not be too militant about it, but I always had the opposite take on Magnolia since its launch.  In making players play HMP first, Ribbiks created an additive experience, not a subtractive one.  It effectively created a "New Game Plus" version of the wad, and it added an extra layer of mystique to Magnolia.wad, I liked this a lot as a Ribbiks fan myself.  Ribbiks personally managed this via email, so it might've been a little clunky of a process and was unfortunately not a well-implemented automatic operation, but I liked it in principle.

 

^{...The personalized maps are another topic...}

 

Also, because of murmurs and complaints prior, if Ribbiks didn't release the UV version this year, I was actually gonna release a bastardized fake version of it on April 1st, 2023 - a much more filthy version than the legitimite UV, maybe with bat-shit fake secret maps too, just to see what happens.  Some people just want to watch the world burn.  Dang, maybe another timeline.

[Kyka]

1 hour ago, Ozcar said:

Thats popular opinion.

Also

Doom 3 atmosphere > Doom 2016 atmosphere.

 

Its a fine line. Doom 2016 was spookier, and had way more atmosphere and ambience. Doom 3 was very cartoony and colorful. Doom 3 was much better design-wise and stylistically, but definitely Doom 2016 had more atmosphere. Deeper, darker and scarier.

 

/unpopular opinion. :D

[Not Jabba]

Quote

Discussion about 100%ing a map

 

I mostly think that players need to grow up a bit rather than that they need to be nuked by the mapper, but these are all interesting points/ideas. I love the percentage counters but rarely try to max either kills or secrets unless doing so is actually fun for whatever reason. My philosophy is to seek out anything that looks particularly interesting in a map, not everything that exists, and to that end I'm pretty unabashed about using both automap cheats and the editor; I don't think either of those should be the mapper's problem (or that using them is wrong in the first place) -- although I also don't think that means players should necessarily refrain from suggesting changes when their feedback is being sought.

 

I think mappers should follow the threads that feel important and right in the creation of their maps; it's incredibly important to work toward your own goals, not someone else's goals that they're trying to impose on you. However, it's a complex relationship with a lot of give and take. Once you accept that it isn't your job to make maps the way people expect, you probably also need to accept the flip side, which is that it isn't people's job to enjoy your maps. You're evoking different emotions from different people, and those emotions are valid; it's the attitudes and responses that are often problematic.

 

I'm sensing anger in more than one of the posts above, and at the point where you're creating elaborate systems solely to wage war against your players, you're probably just going to reap what you sow and hurt your own enjoyment of your craft in the process. Isn't it easier to communicate what to expect and then, when people complain, just point at the sign? Or to simply acknowledge that the same principles don't apply to everything?

[Ozcar]

1 hour ago, Kyka said:

 

Its a fine line. Doom 2016 was spookier, and had way more atmosphere and ambience. Doom 3 was very cartoony and colorful. Doom 3 was much better design-wise and stylistically, but definitely Doom 2016 had more atmosphere. Deeper, darker and scarier.

 

/unpopular opinion. :D

I think doom 3 is more spooky, because unlike doom 2016, you are human marine who need survive all to this mess, And also in hell in doom 3 is more horrific and scary compared to doom 2016. Also doom 3 isnt colorful (?) His color is more gray than any color. Tbh I agree doom 3 is bit cartoony due shadow and lightning make it look like cgi from 90s, but i dont mind it, since cartoony graphics aged better than realistic graphics.

[tatsu91]

On 9/3/2022 at 11:37 AM, skillsaw said:

 

Secrets don't need to slow the game down if you don't want, since they are optional in most maps - personally, I also prefer to keep the pace of play up, and so I never really look for secrets and am content to find them by accident/luck.

 

---

 

Here's an opinion: Doom is just as fun to play using a gamepad. Sure, it's not as precise as playing with a mouse, but I often play through less demanding wads on the TV in the living room (and have a good time with it!).

I agree its just as fun using my Deck as it using my desktop. Build engine games are the same i will argue Id Tech 1/2 and build engine games play better with a controller than most modern shooters.

[Superjustinbros]

I don't find the Archviles in Doom II that horrifying, as long as the area they're placed in gives you space to dodge their fire spells. Pain Elementals tend to be much bigger pains for me.

[baja blast rd.]

A few setup points:

 

- Aesthetic design tends to be much broader in its combination of actual appeal and "I get why others like this" than gameplay design. With visuals, even if you don't like a particular style, it's probably not going to be difficult to immediately 'get' that people will enjoy "pretty, sophisticated-looking wad" or "simple, nostalgia-generating wad" or whatever else. 

 

- Gameplay effort tends to go under the radar easily. Visual work is there tangibly, like in all the linedefs and sectors drawn (although I'd argue that many forms of visual effort also are 'invisible' too), but gameplay effort in the form of remaking or tweaking something 10+ times, testing shit-tons, can easily be missed entirely in the final product if the player is not aware of that. There's no real gameplay equivalent of the visual-design phenomenon of "this isn't my preferred aesthetic style but I respect the effort."

 

- Aesthetic effort is systematically overestimated when things look nice. (E.g. all the people every year who think certain minimalist, economical-detail wads are "high-detail wads.")

 

- Gameplay appeal is harder to 'get' if you personally don't enjoy it personally, provided it doesn't fall into a couple clearly defined genres that are "not for me but I get why other people like this" (e.g. slaughter, but based on all the complaints, not even that all the time). When people don't like gameplay, it's way more common to just think it's badly designed and unfun rather than the comparable aesthetic-centered take of, "This isn't my preferred aesthetic but I get why other people like this." 

 

Main point: One super common type of general criticism I see often of projects is that "project cared way about aesthetics/design than gameplay" -- but in more cases than not I feel this is a bad, lazy take and just a mishmash of perceptual biases. In many ways the deck is stacked in favor of aesthetics feeling like it's more the priority even when that's not necessarily true (and the only way wads can systematically avoid that impression is by looking bare, ugly, etc.).

 

It's okay to not enjoy the gameplay of something -- but when people go as far as saying/implying that they felt a wad 'prioritized aesthetics to the detriment of it," that seems to be often wrong/silly/unsubstantiated/lazy.

 

*

 

Also, it feels like there's sort of an unspoken assumption among people that they should like aesthetics and gameplay at a similar rate, and that if that isn't true, then wads / the mapping scene as a whole are giving overly preferential treatment to aesthetics. 

 

But to me it's not really clear that that assumption is headed towards the right place at all.

 

It feels more intuitive that aesthetics is simply way broader in its appeal (there's no real equivalent to "inescapable pits" or "archvile spam" where person A loves those things and but person B will have an aggressively negative experience because of them ('complexity to the point of slowing down framerate' is not an 'aesthetic' lol)), and that people tend to be more fussy about gameplay, so that if the average project cares equally much about gameplay and aesthetics, people are still going to find gameplay the major sticking point (when they have a sticking point) more often than not. 

[Budoka]

34 minutes ago, baja blast rd. said:

- Gameplay effort tends to go under the radar easily. Visual work is there tangibly, like in all the linedefs and sectors drawn (although I'd argue that many forms of visual effort also are 'invisible' too), but gameplay effort in the form of remaking or tweaking something 10+ times, testing shit-tons, can easily be missed entirely in the final product if the player is not aware of that. There's no real gameplay equivalent of the visual-design phenomenon of "this isn't my preferred aesthetic style but I respect the effort."

 

- Aesthetic effort is systematically overestimated when things look nice. (E.g. all the people every year who think certain minimalist, economical-detail wads are "high-detail wads.")

I couldn't care less what the amount of effort behind a map is, only that the results show. Although I would bet it's a fair generalization that better results usually require more effort, while on the flipside more effort does not necessarily lead to better results. And of course good gameplay and good visuals aren't mutually exclusive, in fact the two should not be conceived of as discrete elements but rather feed into each other. I do think gameplay should be the priority in most cases, however. Again, that's "priority", not "sole focus".

[Kyka]

22 hours ago, Ozcar said:

I think doom 3 is more spooky, because unlike doom 2016, you are human marine who need survive all to this mess, And also in hell in doom 3 is more horrific and scary compared to doom 2016. Also doom 3 isnt colorful (?) His color is more gray than any color. Tbh I agree doom 3 is bit cartoony due shadow and lightning make it look like cgi from 90s, but i dont mind it, since cartoony graphics aged better than realistic graphics.

 

 

I'm so dumb. I read 'Doom3' and in my head I heard "Doom Eternal". Duh. So my post contrasted Doom 2016 to Doom Eternal not Doom 3. Reading it again, So allow me to amend my statement. Doom 3 had more ambience that Doom 2016, though Doom 2016 had a wonderful atmosphere. Doom 3 was darker and scarier, Doom 2016 was more of a 'game' a technical challenge, as wonderful as it was.

 

Next time I will read things properly. In short I agree with what you have said. :)

Edited September 5, 2022 by Kyka

[Not Jabba]

A few more assorted thoughts on percentage counters:

-Secrets: Hexen doesn't flag anything as a secret -- it has secret areas, and even secret maps, but none of them give you an alert or count toward a percentage. So if you want to know what a game feels like without a secret counter, that's a great example. One thing I think is worth noting is that Hexen has a pretty low number of secrets across the entire game, which (perhaps counterintuitively) helps them to feel more optional. If you're making something that has a lot of secrets, or where secret-hunting feels like a major part of the intended experience, it may be less useful (even counterproductive) to go to greater effort to hide them -- your players are looking for them as part of the fun. A reason it works in Hexen is that it feels like a natural extension of how it flows as a slow-paced, exploratory game (where you can revisit maps at your leisure), and a natural extension of what's interesting about its core gameplay. Hell, some of the mandatory progression points in Hexen are harder to find than some of its secrets, which in a way trains you to look for the things that the game treats as truly hidden.

 

-Items: I'm actually not used to thinking of item percentage counters as being readily available by default, because GZDoom may be the only advanced port that doesn't have them automatically. It's EE and PR+ that have item counters, which is interesting given that they're usually seen as more restrained ports. In GZ, item counters are something you can optionally add as a mapper in cases where it feels useful. Adventures of Square is a good case where it was added intentionally, and it works there because -- for a combination of reasons -- hunting for 100% of everything in that game feels natural and is really fun. I wonder if this is something that other ports still in active development should consider.

 

If Adventures of Square can add an item counter, then I would hope and assume that GZDoom lets you add/remove other counters as well. If you're targeting this port, then probably you can flexibly take the secret/kill counters off of the automap without having to mess with underlying mechanics such as COUNTKILL. This would give you the original id experience -- you'd get percentages upon completion of the map, and not before.

[Not Jabba]

On second thought, maybe it would be better if we all just stop having opinions.

[heliumlamb]

426x200 is good too

[StodgyAyatollah]

On 9/4/2022 at 9:19 AM, skillsaw said:

The "this is too hard on UV" complaint has always been my #1 trigger/pet peeve when getting comments back on a wad, because it's entirely within the player's power to fix by selecting a lower difficulty. I admire Ribbiks for having the stones to outright take UV away so he wouldn't have to deal with this (though I'm sure he's also gotten the difficulty complaint way more than I have, due to the hostile nature of his maps).

 

I think the biggest issue Ribbiks may have faced was just due to long standing player expectations. After a few decades standardised use of the difficulties has almost become as entrenched as something like conventions for texture use. UV represents something in a similar way as door and lift textures do at this point. Let's face it, most people don't even look at the readme so if 99% of what a person's played uses UV as a baseline that's just how they'll go into it. I think a deviation from that is best conveyed in game. Changing some M_ graphics to rename/reposition the skill levels seems to have worked for others who have experimented with skill implementation. Having said that I think player expectations will shift and we may even see a point where HMP is considered the baseline. Even if that does happen there would still be those that would bang there head against UV and complain. 

On 9/4/2022 at 9:51 AM, Nirvana said:

Fractured Worlds also has an unmarked secret at the end of the wad that exists for no other reason than to be a little Easter egg, and also as something pretty deeply personal to me. I would've been pretty content to have that secret never found, but day 1 it was cracked open in the editor and discovered, which made me wish I had hidden it better. 

Wish more mappers did this. A lot of people seem to only add secrets more out of obligation than anything. Unmarked ones, ones with fights, easter eggs, or even none at all should be more common imo. People should have more fun with them instead of just using them to hide away a weapon or powerup.

On 9/4/2022 at 12:16 PM, RonnieJamesDiner said:

 think I'd love to play a wad that eliminated kill/item/secret counts, just to see what kind of effect it had on the experience

Max possible for everything is 0%. I'd be surprised if no one has done this and if not it's a good idea.

[Ozcar]

On 9/5/2022 at 9:18 AM, Kyka said:

 

 

I'm so dumb. I read 'Doom3' and in my head I heard "Doom Eternal". Duh. So my post contrasted Doom 2016 to Doom Eternal not Doom 3. Reading it again, So allow me to amend my statement. Doom 3 had more ambience that Doom 2016, though Doom 2016 had a wonderful atmosphere. Doom 3 was darker and scarier, Doom 2016 was more of a 'game' a technical challenge, as wonderful as it was.

 

Next time I will read things properly. In short I agree with what you have said. :)

oh lmao its alright.