felgro

@40oz

I actually fixed the WAD but it has a host of problems such as very low FPS for some reason and Doomsday does not support Boom features such as Transfer Sky, which breaks the atmosphere I tried to create in the first map.

Doomsday is a rather inferior port imo, prboom+ or gzdoom are the way to go. If the player uses a port that your map isnt designed for, @DooM_RO then thats not your fault, but the fault of the players.

Coming in somewhat late, but I will -- as usual -- agree with everything @rdwpa said. While I also agree with @40oz that noting a map doesn't work in Doomsday is important info for Doomsday users, I strongly disagree with removing stars from a review just because the reviewer hasn't figured out that Doomsday is the bat-guano of sourceports. Funny thing is that when I came back into Doom, Doomsday was my port of choice for a couple years, but when I got a game-killing error in one of my maps that was not present in any other port, the bloom came off the rose. As time went on, Doomsday's weird, confusing launcher and the way it chugged like crazy caused me to drop it completely. That saddened me, because for awhile it seemed the most attractive of the GL ports.

If someone wants to remain loyal to Doomsday, that's fine, but if they write a review in a world where all sourceports are free, easily obtained and installed, and compared, I think it's at least worthwhile to let them know they should try the map on other ports. I generally test my maps on GZDoom and PrBoom, sometimes Risen3D. I don't test on Doomsday, nor has anyone who ever beta-tested my maps. I'm glad I stumbled upon this thread, because maybe I should include, "Doomsday not recommended" in my write-ups.