Congratulations on putting together this epic-scale map with some interesting and frustratingly, fun missions. I can tell a lot of work went into it from many different people.
I enjoyed the main storyline, the idea of the player being more than just a simple thief. And how you can choose the method of exacting revenge on the villain makes it more than just a Mario World level —collect coins, free the princess... Oops! She's in another castle.
And as much as I enjoyed the missions, I do feel the need to share my critic of the map.
Humans build cities based on a geometry for planned growth or asymmetrically for natural growth. This map uses neither and is difficult to navigate. All the buildings have near identical exteriors in the dim light, there are no landmarks to reference. And the street signs are dark placards sitting in the dark, of limited use on the ground, but definitely not helpful if you've gone vertical.
Another issue with the mapping is that, because of the hodgepodge of structures, there are many areas where you can literally walk on air (Hill Street is a good example), or get pushed sideways during a jump by an invisible wall. The latter is a feature found throughout the map. I have no suggestions on how to fix this other than through a walkthrough in Dark Radiant.
But about the layout of the city, I do have a suggestion. It's based on my past work within government public works. And I give it as advice, to be regarded or disregarded —not for me to be a know-it-all or an attacker. I know a ton of work went into this project.
Any building that was constructed by the government, a church, or wealthier faction should be part of a geometry. It can be part of a grid —polar or Cartesian— a militant triangle, star, diamond, etc. (as long as it's pointy), or your choice of polygon. Poorer areas, or places where the sprawl has grown with the city's population, are normally going to be like tree branches or rivers. The passageways flow around larger buildings (connecting to but not overpowering geometric ones) and natural formations.
So for this map, the area around the church, the clock tower, and all major buildings housing the wealthy or government services (electrical and water centers) should be on a geometric pattern. This includes the verticals. The pipes and lines should radiate out in the same pattern as the ground-level roads.
The "sprawl" is not random. There is a pattern to how sprawls develop, and often it grows like a tree. main branch of traffic forms, and the smaller branches bud out after that. If the sprawl is growing out of decay, the original large structures will look more like rocks in a river if you take a bird's-eye view.
In areas where geometrical growth meets asymmetrical growth, in a newer city (only a couple hundred years old) you often find its a no-man's zone. There's not really any established business or housing from either side that seems to be permanent. It's in flux. Older cities will still maintain the line, but there is a mix of well and poorly funded architecture.
Two of the biggies for navigation are the facades and the roads. In an area around a well-funded, high-profile project such as a church, the church will decide the look of the area. If its design is sedate and dark, many of the major structures in the neighborhood will to reflect that. And the road, which is normally funded by the builder, will be uniform in that area and wider than those found elsewhere.
So around our theoretical church, that's in an older city, the buildings should show signs of having started out from the same designer. The roads should all be the same material and wide enough for high traffic or parades.
A more recently built clock tower nearby our church will have it's own sycophantic buildings, but in better condition, and its own unique, wide pavements. If the structures' properties meet, then there is a distinct border. More often than not though, there is an intermediate section of sprawl that connects the two areas. Where sprawl sits closely between two properties, it leans more towards one design or the other.
This is not really important for smaller maps. Smaller maps are tiny sections of larger geometry or asymmetric growth and can be treated independently. There are fewer high-level patterns to consider, and the above topics won't affect a player's run. But on a large map such as this one, consideration to city planning and growth can drastically increase a player's ability to navigate.
One last note. This advice is given based the growth of a city considering material wealth only. Vying political factions and wars will change the footprint of various parts of a city in different ways than I described above. Asymmetric and geometric patterns will still arise, but density and direction will be different.