If you see a commentary that you think is unreasoned or too negative, can't you just ask for constructive comments without belittling your audience? I respect that you spend a lot of time on these maps and the map contest, but you come off as a massive jerk whenever people don't like your maps.
No I am a massive jerk to you, specifically. I get feed back every day, when I live stream, sometimes almost entirely negative. However, you seem to think that you know what you are talking about, on my maps, and on several other maps outside of my own where I first encountered your poor explanations (or complete lack thereof), if you are going to leave a comment. Do it so people can grow and gain something from it, all you do is discourage people from working on maps (or other content) if you don't give something to improve upon. The TLDR of your post is, your map sucks cause its like another map that I already didn't like and I don't like industrial style maps, so I don't like that either. Nothing to learn from there except make another soviet farmland map. Which if I reskinned this map, as a rural countryside, then you would have what to say? That it is to open I presume.
And for the other map, I had the updated version. Where as you did not.
And if you look at your comments before I laid into you, vauge and without any sort of constructed response outside of "well all the other maps are like this"
Perhaps I just take the way you structure sentences as nothing but negativity. Since I get a lot of it everyday (which is fine, gotta have something to improve on), and for that I am sorry. Perhaps if this was voice comms vs text I would understand it better, but that is kinda of my point in a "non salt" response.
Your responses are vague and offer nothing for the mapper to grow off of. You can do your post the same (with a negative view and dislike for the map), but have it be far more constructive.
EX:
Finally tried it. Not really fun to play on (why?). Long range infantry need not apply from my limited time on it. It's like Lierneux 1v1 and I automatically veto Lierneux so I guess I'm biased. But A for effort.
Here is something that would come across far better but still communicate what you want without being an essay:
Tried it, and found it not very fun for myself personally, it plays similary to another map Lierneux (or at least reminds me of it), so I don't really like it based off of that, I really don't like the industrial tile set either which ruins it for me. From my play on it as well it seems very favorable to CQC instead of traditional long range infantry.
You would get a much more factual, unemotional response from me then.
I would explain the reasoning for the buildings, clearly and concisely, why the pathing was the way it is, admit to some of my failings on the map (aka pathing for lights near the mid VP), and suggest playing it more, since CQC is only really effective when you can get a very long flank off, adding an element of play we typically on see around buildings in current automatch maps, I wanted to give it a bit more viability, but by no means make it OP.
Perhaps if you don't want to be attacked, you should take out condescending remarks like "A for effort" and shit like that, since it is just demeaning (again, you might be trying to be nice there, but from a text format it doesn't come out that way). Especially when you are one of the few comments on the map. I would also suggest getting the correct map reference down as well, since now you are saying you meant Dusseldorf, and you're reason there for the mess up, is to lazy to check, but not that lazy cause you went out of your way to put what you did.
but as finndeed also wrote, this map is far from perfect and there are definetly things that I could've done better, but at the end of the day your point stands the truest, AKA some people only like certain maps styles and nothing else (which I understand), just means you can't make everyone happy. 
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
