I remember CK mentioning in the thread for DoomBox that a thing he'd noticed with your maps was that it didn't seem like there was anything that really set them apart, IIRC it was something to the effect of "it doesn't feel like there's a Sanek style". I kinda agreed with that, but after playing through this, DoomBox and Lorch 3, I think I've pinpointed a "Sanek style". Each map has a larger than average board size that generally involves a lot of trekking to progress through, with a mostly linear and straightforward progression format
(key-cards/button hunts) but a less conventional progression means
(sustained jetpack use, long winded sector transports, etc.) I feel like that's a style you can mostly call your own and while I wouldn't say it's worked against
you, the finished product tends to lack the TLC and detail needed it for it to work for
Whether it's good for you or not, I think if you keep hacking at it, you'll eventually get the level of recognition and praise that you want. Every new map you make is arguably better than the last and seems to be accomplished in shorter and shorter time tables. Though the same faults are always present, they diminish with each release, so you're obviously taking the constructive criticism you've gotten up to this point to heart. Just keep messing around and experimenting. Maybe once you're done designing a map (or a part of it) devote some extra time to sprucing it up (a decorative sprite here
and an extra sector at a blending shade value there
can make all the difference). Don't have too much more to say, but I hope you got something out of this.