Zasubskrybuj, aby pobrać
Excellent Partnership 4 - Assembly

I have no problem with forced deaths as long as that requirement is spelled out in the map description. Otherwise one could spend inordinate amounts of time trying to solve the map without dying as one would expect to normally be the case. Fortunately I read a few comments ahead of time and knew self-destruction was a requirement.

Played it gave it a thumbs down because to solve it you have to die a lot :(

I found you're map where we're supposed to die, and even though it was the solution many times, its still a better map than the rest. :p 8/10

Laser issues fixed.

Well, a part of me (under your influence) says that there has to be some good puzzle out there that requires death, but another part of me says that voluntary death is too unnerving (nothing to fear though). It can also be quite punishing under certain circumstances.

Anyway, judging by the ratings, it looks like most players actually like the concept, so congratulations.

Also remember that sacrificing a cube isn't required either in the official maps.

Trust is one of the themes in the official coop campaign. Committing robotic suicide is an extension of existing knowledge of how coop works, which is putting a lot of faith and trust in a lot of things, including your partner. Also remember that GLaDOS will kill the robots on command. Death should not be feared if you are a robot. That is what the campaign has taught me. Ever accidently killed your partner and laughed?

Ultimately, I realized that my map hasn't mixed well with some people but others find it fine so to make matters better, I never revisited the concept.

You have some valid points, but consider this: in any of Valve's maps, killing yourself is never a requirement. It seems even GLaDOS abhors it (and even threatens to disable to disassemblers; then there's the Art Therapy course...). If it's done automatically under certain circumstances in a Hammer map (e.g. the final maps in coop courses 1-4), I might say it's OK, but that's the only legitamite case I can think of.
So again: players should never have to voluntarily kill themselves. If a non-player is killing the robots it's fine, but otherwise, it's rather unnerving.

...and now that I think about it, I wonder how a coop map where you have to kill your partner (instead of yourself) would work out... >:D

Have you seen Aperture? They are wasteful! I think purposely breaking robots isn't that big of a deal since they are very willing to allow you as a human to get yourself killed.

How do you get trapped?

Think about what you are saying p0rtalmaster. GLaDOS doesn't understand humor nor sarcasm (as far as I can tell). Then again, "I was in it for the science." Not so much the story or dialog

Google "define consequence". It's not like single player where death means you forfeit your chance to solve because you are human. For robots, they aren't people. The way the game works, no progress is lost if any of you die. I'm just taking advantage of that. I played a few coop maps that were designed by camerson1313 that deal with this sort of thing and they are really interesting how he uses this mechanic. There is only one "you" and hundreds of robots.

It's OK to sacrifice cubes and kill turrets but not coop robots? Then again, this is just an idea to think about coop-ing with robots differently.

I'm pretty sure when GLaDOS said, "How is this even Science without the consequence of death?" she was being sarcastic. Penalty or not, coop or not, suicide shouldn't be a part of the solution. In fact there's an equivalent of the laserfield trapping incident in this test (both chambers).
The bottom line: players should never have to voluntarily kill themselves.