Nine Inch Heels

There is a very pronounced difference between escaping an area where the fight was meant to take place, only to kill the enemies within from a place of absolute safety, and "using the terrain features of the respective 'arena' to one's advantage". One requires situational and spatial awareness, the other does not. And TOD is right on the money when he says that, if the goal is to improve one's skills, then it is usually best to be able to face any one particular monster as head on as possible, because the harder the PWADs you play become, the less likely you are going to be able to use cover-tactics all the time, because there just might not even be any cover at all - even if there was, winning without needing to use said cover is still a very valid expression of skill... The OP clearly played with a certain goal in mind, and despite the supposedly poor wording: If you don't want to be told how you should feel about playing the way you play the maps you enjoy, then you are in no position whatsoever to tell somebody else how they should feel about the way they made it past a fight when the way they won didn't feel right to them. Yes, we get it alright. You have to deal with complaints about the way you play on stream all the damn time. You don't play hard stuff on UV, you use revive cheats, you do whatever you think serves your goals the best, and people scrutinize that. It sucks. Regardless, I would suggest you try not to insert yourself and your very own, personal grievances with an audience you cultivated into situations that somebody else feels a certain way about for their very own reasons. There are very few cases where an argument can be made that the way someone "feels" about something is "objectively wrong" (ie laborious and frustrating save-scumming vs punching in IDDQD) - this isn't one of those cases.

Not to derail too much, because the thread isn't really about "why you should think less of something you happen to enjoy for your very own reasons", after all, but I feel like saying "crush depth has crushers, and that's it" is a very reductionist view on a map-gimmick the player is made to actively engage with in various ways, be it the use of crushers against monsters, or avoiding them, or both at the same time. It feels like a more "involved" gimmick - to me anyway. Redshift isn't actually an episode ender, so I feel like that comparison is a bit shaky, on the other hand... Having said that, if the visual theme of the map itself does all the work that you feel it needs to do, then I say more power to you. I know that I had fun playing it, despite the fact that I'm not very drawn towards "visual gimmicks", for lack of a better expression...

This is incorrect... From a technical perspective, doom2 contains code (as well as codepointers) that didn't even exist in doom(1), which has opened up more options to modify the game in ways that would be impossible to make happen in doom(1). That alone means doom2 is more advanced, even if it isn't as readily apparent as a difference between generations of games would be. So, for someone who wants to talk about "how advanced" something is, you aren't taking a close enough look at what the things that were added to the game actually entail, and what the ramifications of those "extras" are... ...Not to mention that, just based on what's "in plain sight", doom2 would still be more advanced than doom(1) solely by virtue of the huge gaping holes doom(1) has in its roster, which doom2 managed to fill to a pretty significant degree. These "extra enemies" that you think make no difference whatsoever were a genuinely large step towards a more modern FPS experience prior to the era of polygon-based-murder (quake etc). Yes, doom(1) laid the foundation for doom2, but doom2 laid the foundation for pretty much every other FPS that would come after... So, you wanna talk about how advanced stuff is? I suggest you take a look at what's under the hood instead of limiting yourself and the threads you create to estimations based solely on how different something looks, because looks can be deceiving, and a cursory glance doesn't really teach anyone anything...

Since I played the map often enough to do an NM-speed, a pacifist run, and a UV-max on it, which should probably tell you that I happen to like the map as it were, I can still see what it is that people bemoan about va24... For one, every episode ender in the WAD thus far had some gimmick to it, mancubian candidate, crush depth, you name it... Meanwhile, va24 has no gimmick to speak of that would give it a sense of identity from a gameplay perspective - even if it was the most beautiful map in the entire WAD, I would still bemoan this lack of identity. It does what valiant has always done up until that point, and while the introduction of the cybruisers in and of itself might make for an interesting gimmick, they're thrown into the final fight in a manner that, in my opinion, doesn't really evoke a sense of awe, which is not the greatest first impression when you consider that they're also being used as "doors with health (and rockets)" in a fight that actually takes quite a bit of time to get to... So even if the final fight in the map were made to be a bit more interesting in some way, the "lingering shock value" would still be diminished by the length of the map overall, because it's a relatively short moment, all things considered... There is probably also an argument to be made that some of the teleport pads near the "cathedral", down in the lava rivers, may make the map feel a bit disjointed, because they don't really teleport you back to where you fell down sometimes, which is especially true for the pad right next to the exit out of the honeycomb area, which you can abuse to teleport yourself right to the entrance of the cathedral, skipping parts of the map in the process, including but not limited to power-ups and more importantly a door that is mandatory for the map's progression... To me, the map doesn't feel like an episode ender despite the cybruisers and the obvious death exit at the end. Remove the bruisers, and you could put the map in any slot of the episode it was meant to conclude to begin with, which is my very own, personal misgiving with regards to "none more merciless" that made me wish the map had something different going for it. The fact that previous maps, as well as the episode opener "popes of roam" itself, had a more pronounced sense of "gameplay-identity" doesn't do va24 any favours either... Is the map bad? I don't think it is, and even at its "worst" valiant is still worth playing, let's not forget that. I had fun with it, for sure, but I should also note that the map becomes a lot more enjoyable to play once you really know where everything is - which is true for any other map that exists, but in the context of valiant itself, I think this might be one of the more pronounced cases where not knowing where to go next can really get in the way of the map's enjoyability...

For the longest time, I thought I was one of the few people who liked "the chasm"... Over time I've come to understand that a lot more people enjoy that map for different reasons - and I can appreciate getting this "loner bubble" burst open when the "trade-off" is that I can enjoy something with somebody else, together...

The awards are nothing "official", they don't claim to be the authority with regards to what's quality content and what isn't. (The idea that the cacowards are the definitive authority on anything is a common misconception anyway) The awards are a product of people who are willing to set aside their spare time, for free, to do an annual batch of write ups... And that's all there's to it as far as the "consumer" should be concerned... If you want anything in terms of initiative, then I suggest you try this "initiative thing" for yourself - put together an award of your own, how you think it should be done... Then we can talk about who has any right to bemoan this supposed "lack of initiative" once more - until then you come across as the type of entitled prick who wants to micro-manage somebody else's pastime efforts...

You mean I can't savescum around in life.exe...? I am disappoint...

You are confusing possibility with probability...

I don't think there is much of a point, to be perfectly honest... I suppose I get the gist of it: You'd like to make accessible to yourself a genre which, thus far, did nothing for you. All of this is a matter of personal preference, though, and it's not like there's a shortage of, let's say for argument's sake, metal out there - which you could be enjoying right now... I mean, myself, I don't like most of what radiohead has ever produced, but I love electronic music - I'm not sure if it's a "genre" kind of "problem" you have, or if it is some "I don't like radiohead" kinda deal. Regardless, I'll put some electronic stuff in the spoiler below that I really like. It's gonna be all kinds of stuff you can check out at your leisure, and if there's something there you like, where you think there's "your personal rabbit hole" into the world of electronic music, or at least a small slice of it, then may the algorithm be ever in your favour...

There may not necessarily be a direct link between the energy drink and your chest pain... But you should avoid "energy drinks" all the same, because all they do is provide you with a sugar and caffeine kick, so you feel more "energized" for a short period of time, but once the "magic" wears off, you're actually less energetic than you would be had you not had an energy drink at all... Also they're prone to causing kidney stones, if I'm not entirely mistaken, and kidney stones... ask anyone who's ever had one... That's pain that makes you wanna kill yourself, and there's no way around a trip to a hospital nearby, where you're gonna lay on a bench, hoping the pain killers kick in before you lose what little may remain of your sanity... If you want energy, and in a much less unhealthy manner, go for bananas, if you like to eat them... have a coffee or an espresso here and there, and you'll fare way, way better than you ever could with any sugar-nuke you can buy at a grocery store...

Gonna cut in here real quick, because what I've seen a while ago right here looked deeply concerning to me... I'll preface this by pointing out that, while I do psychology for moneys, my specialization isn't "making sad people happy"; my academic orientation leans towards "making happy people happier" - might not sound like there's much of a difference, but you would be surprised... Obviously I also can't just "fix anything" for you, or really help you fix anything. Even though all of this sounds like the opening to the most perfectly useless post ever made, I do believe there is still something I am able to contribute that you may find valuable to some extent... When it comes to psychiatrists, depending on where you live and what your situation as a whole entails, psychiatrists can range from "useful source of advice and good outlet for problems" to "source of antidepressants only". If you expect more out of your psychiatrist than just the prescriptions, I would suggest you find one who is willing to put in a lil more effort, although, based on what I've been told by various clients of my own thus far, I wouldn't get my hopes up... ...The real meat, usually, is the therapy and counselling side of things, because that's where you get to work with people who specialize in hearing you out, and giving you the means to articulate what you think it is that makes the situation you are faced with as bad as it is to you. Unfortunately, not every counsellor you'll meet and greet on your path forward will be the right one for you... And both you and your therapist/counsellor should be honest with each other if either one of you gets the sense that, for your purposes, the professional arrangement you're in just won't bear fruit... That's not to say you should throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to counselling either... More often than not, you are looking at half a dozen appointments before the ice truly breaks, and your respective therapist has a good idea as to which way they should "guide" your attention in order to make sure that the appointments you have end up being productive. I know, I'm probably merely stating the obvious here, but please keep it in mind, because I've seen a few too many people mistake this vague feeling of stagnation for an indication of futility with respect to their personal goals and hopes... TL;DR: keep at it, even if it feels pointless for a time, if no change occurs in any way, maybe change things up and find yourself another therapist, if possible... Last but not least... The situation as you described it seems like there are a few too many things there that therapy of any sort just cannot fix. What I'm about to say here is speculative, I'll concede that, straight up. However, I suggest you consider it anyhow... You seem miserable for all sorts of reasons, that much seems clear as day, but what's up with your wife? Don't you think she should be the one to actually support you a lil instead of putting you down after finding a spec of dust where she didn't want to see any? What I am getting at is that I see reasons to suspect that the anguish you are going through is not at all just a result of your own wrongdoing and supposed inadequacy (depression likes to make you think you're no good at all, as I'm sure you've noticed), therefore, regardless of how hard you work on yourself, there are going to be externalities which need to be changed in some way, because these externalities are toxic in nature. And you just might wanna keep this in mind for when you want to evaluate the degree to which therapy is turning out as a success for you, because it's easy to lose track of things like this. Regardless, I think it's important not to trick yourself into thinking or expecting that all the things which drag you down are also yours to fix somehow, never mind that you're not the one to blame for everything... Also, don't be too hard on yourself. Fighting depression is one of the hardest things ever, because you need to do stuff while your condition does everything it can to make you do less and less. Don't expect to win on your first try, don't expect to win within half a year, either - you may be in it for a couple years in the end. It is worth it, though. Life can be very beautiful - which it will be once you've managed to fight back the devil that is telling you day in and day out that everything sucks for a loser such as yourself, no matter what you do... You're not a loser in my book, though, because you are already doing the difficult part, which is putting in effort and looking for help. You have the essentials that make your life very beautiful again in your grasp already, you need only hold on to them tightly. Fighting back aggressively is what depression is most afraid of, so keep seeing your therapist of choice, and eventually you will have available to you the means...

There are myriad ways to become more "likeable" to a degree, as in... Becoming a better conversationalist, for example. Having conversations with others is actually a skill that can be honed, but I'll also add that booksmarts alone will only get you so far... There are "schools of thought" that venture into this sort of stuff and share knowledge with the promise that it might make you more "charismatic"... When given a stern stare, it turns out that at lot of the claims these outlets make are rooted on pseudo-science or just straight up anecdotes of individuals for which no proof can, or will be provided... Personally, I'd avoid the "making friends by way of working for free" angle, because it sets you up for exploitation, and there's no guarantee that what you get in return for your efforts will have a lasting impact either, because even if you get the foot in the door somewhere, you'd still need to be able to keep it there, which, the way this reads to me on the surface, is what you seem to have some problems with. Most of the time, people are "liked" for very different reasons, and those reasons also somewhat dictate how "popular" one can become in any one social environment... Some food for thought: Sometimes, even the village idiot can be the most popular man in town, provided he knows how to capitalize on his own idiocy... If I were you, I'd take a look at what it is that you would consider your strengths, and see if there's a way you can bring in those - and yourself - during conversations... And then just keep at it. Give people some time to get used to you, and don't try to attention-whore the shit out of any given forum or server you're on until you feel as though you are "liked enough"... Social bonds take time to manifest, no way around it. The lack of popularity you think you are experiencing may as well be a result of a lack of patience on your end.... It could even be a very simple matter of perspective, where you think you're not appreciated as much as everybody else, because everybody else spends more time with everybody else than with you... But then consider that there may be dozens of "everybody elses" where you hang out, so you're always bound to walk in on some ongoing conversation or whatever, and then get the impression that others hang out with everybody but you... I don't know if this is the case, but I can assure you that sometimes people develop such a perspective for various reasons - some reasons benign in nature, others well worth taking a close look at, perhaps with some support...

I think savestates are the greatest thing since sliced bread, provided people use them in a way that doesn't end up being a lot more frustrating than things would need to be... There is this "guide" called "full extent of the jam" by a shmup legend called "prometheus"... It's actually a pretty good read for something that is meant to serve as guide for a very niche kind of game, but it goes into many things, such as productive practice-routines (which apply to all kinds of games), and... how savestates enable them... https://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34497

See...? This is what I mean when I subject doomkid's "statistical evidence" that was gathered on this very site here to the mockery it deserves... Look at Kaizo hacks like Invictus, Grand Poo World 2, or look for "akogare mario world", those hacks are all different in terms of how difficult they are, and none of them are built to be unfair to the degree that anyone with a genuine interest in Kaizo as a whole would deem them "unplayable"... There is enough material on the tube about all 3 of those hacks... Obviously, you'll run into the occasional invisible block that makes a seemingly trivial jump a bit more technical all of a sudden, which, yes, is part and parcel of the sadistic humour behind Kaizo hacks, but, believe it or not, Invictus has 1 Kaizo block total... Literally just one. Meanwhile, GPW 2 has no Kaizo blocks in the first level as far as I remember (I found the first one in the second level of the hack along with one more that was very predictable)... Anybody who unironically thinks that Kaizo hacks are supposed to be unplayable and frustrating torture devices at any given opportunity doesn't have their facts right... You are literally repeating the stigma Kaizo hacks and their respective creators seem to be wanting to actually get rid of. Clearly, there was a time when Kaizo hacks were meant to be nothing but nasty shit that was extremely frustrating and difficult to beat, but that's just not the case any more. The genre has come a long way, from "needlessly cruel" and not quite as difficult as most people think, to "slightly sadistic precision platforming". If anyone made a Kaizo hack these days that solely existed as a means to kill the player as often as possible, not matter how, when, and where, then it would be frowned upon, if not paraded around as an example for how to build a shitty ROM-hack... This is also a matter of, as much as I hate to say it, "common sense"... Ask yourself if you think it's possible to maintain and grow a community for years on end when the sole reason for the creation of anything within that same community is to just inflict misery on someone else. Ask yourself where all the terryWADs and their respective mappers have gone, and then ask yourself why Kaizo hacks are popular these days. Yes, we have an equivalent to this. It's called "challenge maps", which is kind of like "slaughter's cousin". If you want one, play "dimensions" map02, or italo 07... NUTS is primarily a joke-WAD... It's the same category of joke that you would come to see in WADs like holy hell, which is also just very low effort mapping that throws a bunch of stuff at the player for bunch-of-stuff's sake...

Not looking to question the display of skill, because, clearly, ZM put on a really good show with these, but where exactly does this supposed "notoriety" come from..? The way you wield that word in this context makes it seem as though there was some place on the internet where a bunch of people show each other on a doll where Sunder hurt them the most...

Appeal to authority? Yeah, and for one hell of a good reason. Your line about circle strafing goats made clear that you have no clue about modern, hard slaughter, so why would I - or anybody else, for that matter - think you're any more qualified when it comes to Kaizo hacks, when you also regurgitate the oft debunked "Kaizo hacks so tight on everything, OMG" mantra, which is a stigma these hacks and the Kaizo community at large aren't deserving of? Anyway, Don't roll out the red carpet that was your reductio ad absurdum and then cry foul when someone actually walks on it... Where doomguy has a margin for error that is expressed in HP and armour which grants him some legroom in terms of chip-damage he can sustain (also a necessity because RNG is a thing), Mario has a margin for error that manifests itself in other ways, like for example the legroom with the timing and the precision that you like to argue doesn't exist. Would also need to add that enemies in doom are way more aggressive than your SMW regulars, so it's a wash at the very least anyway... I'll just point to Scythe, for a "popular example" of a "timed map". Are there many maps like that? Nah. Doesn't mean jack, though, because in a tightly crafted fight, you're under time pressure too - it's just not a timer you see run out, you'll just see yourself getting swarmed by all sorts of shit eventually, because you've been working too slowly elsewhere - at least ROM hacks show you the timer instead of having the player "feel it out" like some slaughtermaps do in principle. Moot point, doubly so because many, many Kaizo levels give you more time than you would need at a bare minimum... Number of levels tight on time in GPW2 that I can remember: 3... And that's counting boss fights with tight timers, even if they're part of a level with an otherwise rather generous timer. So it's not like every Kaizo level is, at heart, a small speedrun in disguise... And you can't tell me that the supposedly slower pace of a hard setpiece fight makes it any more likely for you to one-shot it. You need to know what to do in Kaizo hacks just as much as you need to know what to do in big ass slaughtermaps - which is probably the most unifying quality these genres share despite their general differences. If you're talking base game, then the base game is literally built around the screen real estate that is being provided, and it also seems as though Kaizo levels with super-fast scrolling sections tend to be made less and less, because most people seem to think it's actually a problem to take into account, rather than something to weaponize against players. Kaizo hacks are surprisingly "pro-player" in general these days, for that matter, and it's not just QoL stuff I'm talking about... Okay, getting tired of quoting the whole thing... Comparing the killing power of 2 characters in genres which happen to be worlds apart as far as the "need" to kill things is considered is not a discussion worth entertaining at any length imaginable. What's also a matter of fact is that things like re-grabs for example are, or rather become muscle memory operations, just like "the mancubus dance" in classic doom is a muscle memory operation, just like 2-shotting cybs can be trained to become.... You get the idea. Right, but here's where you are setting your own goalposts again, along with terms of your own - lacking in definition for anybody but you yourself - and start talking about "average this, versus average that"... That's a talking point you brought into the discussion, again, without even doing so much specifying what the "average slaughterWAD" is that you speak of, never mind the "average Kaizo hack". This shit means nothing without context or substantiation, and it is grating to see you base an argument on something that is so lacking in anything tangible to work with or look at - it's baffling to me that you keep repeating it as if it meant anything at all... What's the average slaughtermap? Is it like, dimensions01, or is it sunder 14, or could it be newgothic2 map 10??? I don't know... nobody does, because you seem to be unwilling to put some meat on the very bone that you say was your primary point... And what is the average Kaizo hack? Is it akogare, is it any of the yumps, is it stuff made by morsel, is it super fart world (which actually exists and is hilarious as well as competently made)..? At least we've finally found common ground in that how much precision something may or may not require is not the only thing that may or may not make anything difficult to some degree. We're still comparing precision platforming across relatively short sections - often 20 - 30 seconds when played flawlessly (not as high of a calling as you'd like to argue) - with fights that require consistency across several minutes - just one fight out of several in any give map... It's "short term precision" versus "long term consistency and adaptivity"... People would have beaten okuplok already if it wasn't so damn large. This stuff matters too, and you're arguing one matters more than the other, while my position is that the comparison is invalid right out the gate...

To be fair, that is an extreme example of chess being played at a very, very high level... But I like to see stuff like this from time to time, so I'm not complaining, really...

Major expert on slaughtermaps right there, ladies and gentlemen... guys, if you can't beat a map in abandon or something... just circle-strafe the goats, it's easy to learn, and it always gets the job done..../S Back to the supposed argument that still sucks, by the way... Yeah, a poll made on doomworld, not SMWcentral, and also not some "neutral space", which should immediately tell you that the poll - which you think makes self-evident your claim - is worthless... at most, it might tell us one thing, and one thing only, which is that it would appear as though you and yours have no concept of modern Kaizo hacks or the difficulty thereof... Even you yourself had to correct someone else on how many Kaizo hacks actually exist and now you seriously think the majority of people who voted here have a fucking clue..? That's called confirmation bias... This "ad-hoc-hypothetical 50/50 player" you're holding on to doesn't exist either, and even you yourself probably don't hit the mark, maybe not even close... And by the way, the poll doesn't even say "on average", that's just you moving the goalpost. There are TAS-only Kaizo hacks just as there are TAS-only WADs like untitled2 aka okuplok, so what now..? It's really simple... Even people like Barbarousking, as in: People who have built quality Kaizo hacks of higher difficulties (relatively speaking), and played many more will tell you one thing straight: You are wrong about how much precision you think Kaizo hacks in general actually require, and before you think about being clever, this is not an appeal to popularity, it's an argument made by someone with very considerable amounts of hands-on experience when it comes to Kaizo hacks. In simple terms, I'll defer to an actual expert on the subject rather than someone who is so statistically illiterate they don't even realize the implicit bias of the thing which they think proves them right... And I'll argue against people whose cure-all to slaughter-malaise is a rapid-fire BFG mod with unlimited ammo as well as the advice to just circle the goats (good luck with that one on any map I made, by the way) any day of the week if that's what it takes...

No... Accuracy requirements, or the absence thereof, are not a (or the sole) predictor of difficulty... You need basically fuck all in terms of accuracy to play chess, is winning chess against an AI like Lc0 therefore easier than beating doom slaughtermaps??? Probably not... Your argument sucks... :P

Been a while since I had time to test anything, but based on how I have given feedback in the past as well as what kind of supposed feedback I've seen others give publicly, there are perhaps a couple things I can contribute... Generally, I would consider feedback that takes into account the intentions of the creator as "good". What I mean is that, in the vast majority of cases, your feedback will be more impactful and of greater value to someone who feels like you are willing to engage with their ideas. Which is to say that, if I made a map you were providing feedback for, I would be much more interested in hearing you out if you offered more than "good idea/bad idea", and told me that you feel like I wanted to accomplish X and then went on to elaborate how that worked out for you, ideally in terms of what you believe worked best and what you think was somehow disruptive in nature for some reason... Any mapper who releases maps on at least a semi-regular basis will find no shortage of people saying "good/bad/whatever", but people who are willing to engage open-mindedly with abstract concepts, perhaps even regardless of their personal preferences, and think critically about the execution thereof, are hard to come by. Be the latter type of person as best you can, and your "feedback game" will improve by an order of magnitudes. I don't think feedback needs to meet particularly professional standards in terms of structure. I tend to separate gameplay, visuals, and "mechanical integrity", say what I think about each of those points, maybe add a few screens for illustration's sake, and if the mapper happens to have any questions beyond what I provided, I'll answer those if I can, and if there is anything I feel particularly strongly about I'll highlight that specifically... The same way you give feedback on something you didn't like, quite literally. Point out what you think worked well, why it worked well, how you felt about playing it in that moment, stuff like that... By my estimation, that opens up enough in the way of legroom to talk about specific details that either you or the mapper may want to get into a little more... Keep in mind that feedback, while often somewhat one-directional in nature, is still a dialogue, so you don't necessarily have to shoulder the entire feedback-process entirely on your own... Again, think critically about what you experienced, regardless of how much you (dis)liked it, and articulate what stood out the most, and why. Most of the time, if you start there, coming up with more to say shouldn't be much of a problem. The first hurdle is usually getting past the very cursory stuff like "looks good, plays well". Whenever you feel like saying just that, stop right there, and ask yourself "why do I feel the way I do about this thing I feel a certain way about?", and then you put the answer to that question down in words and take it from there... The gateway to giving valuable feedback is the ability to think critically about something, regardless of whether or not you liked or hated something. When you got that figured out, it's all about articulating from there... One question you didn't ask, which I will answer regardless, is the importance of transparency. Knowing where the feedback is coming from, as in: Which kinds of preferences tint the lens of the observer goes a long way, and it avoids misunderstandings. If there is a platforming section in a map, and you happen to belong to the acrobatics-nay-sayers, then it's going to be very hard for you not to dislike platforming in all its forms at least to a degree. If a mapper knows about that, and you tell them that you didn't find the platforming section overly annoying despite not being fond of it, then they will know how to "read" you and the feedback you provided. Don't underestimate the value of transparency when it comes to feedback...

No matter which way you slice it, you're still saying "do this thing you do for recreational purposes, which you happen to share for free, the way I want you to do it"... Does not fly...

I mean, I agree with you on everything else, but maps are a product of someone's spare time efforts -which they engage in for recreational purposes. Maps are just not products we advertise and sell, meaning the self-styled-customer is not entitled to any manner of compensation in case the product does not appeal...

It is impossible to design difficulty settings such that everybody under the sun will find their goldilocks zone in every map of every WAD that exists, regardless of the mapper's intentions or the player's pleas for something easier... And that's everything that needs to be said here...

What I'm seeing there are two vastly different descriptions of something that you want to be perceived as one and the same. Whatever the case may be, classic doom also varies greatly in difficulty across the IWADs, even to the point where you could easily put plutonia and the lost levels on the same scale and you wouldn't see the needle move a great deal in either direction. Hence, I find the point you're making rather moot, despite the fact that I don't think comparing genres that happen to be so vastly different will yield meaningful results - aside of the "making lists is fun" side of things perhaps.

Any WAD that accomplishes what the mapper in question wanted to accomplish, when it is not malicious in nature, immediately registers as a decent WAD at the very least, and that's because anybody who has ever spent more than just a weekend on making a map with a certain goal in mind will tell you how difficult it can be to get the map and its inhabitants to behave how the mapper wants. If you think that having practice maps so people can do a convenient workout -- be it against monsters, for the purpose of exercising speedrunning-tech, or even just maps that serve as "tech demos" which show how to accomplish certain effects in any given map -- is a bad idea, then I'd argue that your perspective is one of ignorance towards the value of things you yourself deem unnecessary for entirely subjective reasons...