Opinions Of The New Level Maker
Likes:
Being able to make maps in Portal without really knowing anything about Hammer. Seriously, this is a godsend.
Dislikes:
-Glass can be kinda buggy and create errors when trying to build. Pretty frustrating that they let you put that glass in, but wait until you try to build to tell you there's a problem.
-Map size too small. Worse than that, doesn't give any indication as to what map size is until you hit the limit. Pretty annoying.
-Only two options for lighting. I know the main game had more, what the hell.
-Restricted to 2x2 panels.
Likes: For me, I simply like the fact that I can make a map - I'm a Mac user, so Hammer is off limits to me. I have quickly come to appreciate what it takes to make a great puzzle. Unlike many in the workshop, I've spent the last several days going through many different changes to my puzzle and really don't want to just throw something out there for the sake of publishing a map. I would love the ability to have the TWP community review and help test a map before release but don't think that is possible.
Dislikes: Like many, the indicator lights are crazy out of control. There needs to be a way to add an autosave. For a longer, more difficult map, the tester may become to frustrated and just give up. I'd also like to be able to create a smaller block but am learning to deal with it.
Like: It's a way to make decent maps without mapping experience.
Dislike: It's a way to make decent maps without mapping experience. I mean it has created damaging inflation on the figurative mapping economy and now the good things will be hard to find and even harder to create and have people like them. At least there will still always be a market for things like underground maps and cutscenes and other things that the editor can't do.
I wish every 128x128x128 increment won't be a seperate brush. When I exported it to use in Hammer I was horrified at its messiness.
What I want the most:
- Ruduce the brush count when compiling and exporting (by combining adjacent ones with the same faces) to improve performance and efficiency.
- Trigger volumes as a tool in the editor. They could be linked to puzzle elements like other elements can, and I don't think it would confuse the noobs that much.
- Allow more doors in the level other than the entrance and exit.
- Wheatley's famous bottomless pit as an alternative to water. Water just doesn't seem to fit the clean style so much.
- Allow some way to remove the large bservation room for expert people (like a console command) if they want to better control lighting on their own.
- Fling simulation. If the player dropped from a certain height, what would their path be out of this sloped panel? It took me a long time to get mine right with trial and error.
- Smaller brush size. I know that the grid shuoldn't be changed. But what if they have 64 and 32 unit brushes as puzzle elements? That would solve some issues.
- Allow destroyed/reconstructing styles even if it's simply different textures for portalable/non-portable surfaces and a change of lighting and music. This is not as important as the others. Obviously underground stlye wouldn't happen because the whole geodome thing would be hard to add to their system without rewriting the editor (Also, if any of this happens, what about rubble placement? That's probably too much to ask.)
Overall I have very much enjoyed the new editor so far. I think it's a great addition to the game and is a good way to get the community involved in content creation, as well as simplifying the basic process for existing mappers who, like me, might lose their ideas and/or motivation quickly in Hammer because it can take hours to get something that can even be compiled and played in-game, let alone a finished puzzle.
Like:
It's very easy to lay out a puzzle quickly, and I can get an idea from my head into a working chamber in minutes rather than hours. I also find that the simpler editor makes emergent design a lot easier, which is good because I don't have a lot of existing ideas and kind of need to make it up as I go. 
I still really, really like the fact that a faith plate's trajectory is drawn on-screen and can be adjusted with a click of the mouse.
Dislike:
As has been said before, it's hard to judge exactly where a fling will send a player. I spent about 30 minutes yesterday tweaking a propulsion-gel-aided vertical fling in the hopes of getting it to send me to a certain height so I could land on a platform, and I ended up having to make a different solution because it simply wasn't possible with the rest of my layout.
My other concerns/complaints have already been mentioned: no regular doors between sub-tests, 128x128 is sometimes overly restrictive, etc.
What needs to be fixed:
Honestly I don't think there's a whole lot I would say needs to be "fixed" - my gripes with the editor are more from its design than anything that seems outright broken. The two things that I would say ought to be fixed, however, are that I occasionally get stuck in a position where I can't adjust my view with the mouse for some reason, and clicking and dragging things from the test-elements window doesn't always work on the first try. Objects will sometimes get "stuck" to my cursor as well when I try to place them in the level.
Anything about the editor that annoys you:
See above.
How do you feel about other's maps:
I like the maps I've played from others, and I like that I've seen people I'm familiar with in other online communities designing their own levels. Granted Sturgeon's Law definitely applies to the workshop as a whole, but with 32,000+ maps, if 10% of those maps really are worthwhile, that's 3,200 worthwhile test chambers!
Will you continue to use Hammer, PeTI, or both:
For now I'm content exploring the possibilities of the in-game editor, but I will definitely get back to Hammer eventually, especially once the in-game editor gains co-op support. For now I just want to design working puzzles; for now my only intentions for Hammer once I go back to it are adding visual appeal and possibly optimization.
I must say that I really like the way the map maker works, from a UI perspective. Valve have put a lot of thought in how to make it as simple and easy to control as possible. This is very important for beginners especially, even if it's more restrictive as a result. (128-size cells, limitations on item placement etc.)
I also like how they made it to look exactly like those cartoon-like infographics in the various videos. And little visual details like the subtle shadows in corners and under the map, and the explode animations of the puzzle items when you select them.
What I don't like, besides what's already mentioned by others, is that you always view the map from the outside. It would be very nice if there were some hover-anywhere-you-want camera, like Hammer's 3D view. I sometimes find it difficult to select things in the centre of a map because they tend to get obscured by walls or other items.
Other Portal 2 maps: Medusa Glare
Portal 1 maps: Try Anything Twice | Manic Mechanic
Like:
Makes it simple for novice mappers like myself to make half decent maps with ease
Refuses to compile if there are errors.
Makes positioning items really easy
Dislike
Can't alter the size of the brush, which makes some more intricate stuff impossible to do
Limited range of items (Would be cool to be able to use the 60s style of buttons and cubes).
Limited range of textures
Placing death goo sometimes causes level bugs, like you'll walk to a random point in the map with no death goo and just die
Item limit prevents me creating chambers with the complexity I'd really like
My Opinions
What needs to be fixed?
So far every time it autosaves, Portal2 crashes. I think it's an issue with my stupid slow PC, I haven't come across any threads yet describing this problem elsewhere.
Anything about the editor that annoys you?
The background music really gets on at me, not sure why. I keep pushing "z" to go flying around! Viewing/selecting some things can be tricky once you have walls/rooms in place. It needs a free fly mode.
How do you feel about other's maps?
To be honest I'm loving the 30k+ new puzzles/maps.... but.. everything is starting to look a bit boring. The clean style is starting to look old. At least there are some non-editor maps in the workshop (and thus my queue) to spice things up.
Will you continue to use Hammer, PeTI, or both?
I've spent a good part of this year learning to use Hammer! (still learning it too!) So far I'm still eager to finish at least one Hammer map (the one I'm working on). Then I think it will be a case of using both. Puzzle testing/design in PeTi, export/rebuild and polish in Hammer. For me its a case of "learning to drive". No point in learning to drive, then taking the bus everywhere. Unless you are driving the bus.[/spoiler]
Just saving space ^
Like:
- How you can map out ideas simply and easily
- Faith plate visual trajectory! ZOMG
- Members in mod team can now create their puzzle ideas when they couldn't use hammer
- They added new instances... like the robo ramp stairs!
Dislike:
- You can upload a broken unsolvable map to the workshop
- Members in mod team can now create their puzzle ideas when they couldn't use hammer
- No coop maps allowed in the workshop. ( I R pissed)
- When trying to open in hammer: 128x128x128 blocks annoying as hell to work with!
- Lack of options for element linkage
- Indicator lights. seriously Wth.
- No customising the numbers appearing on lightboards!
So what I'm getting at here:
Like: Hammer
Dislike: New Editor
Is there any way we can get Valve to see this thread? I don't know if they have a suggestions form.
You could just start a thread on their forums with your list of criticisms. If it's people like it, they should respond enough to get Valve's attention.