A look at changing the map pool

Valve has been criticized by plenty of top players via their Twitter accounts and on reddit. We also put out a short article with opinions of various top players about the change.

The supporters of Valve's decision seem to agree this is the only way to introduce new maps, and it is the players' fault for not accepting them. In general, it's been a very controversial issue.

It's also worth pointing out that all these changes - first to de_mirage and non _se maps, and then adding de_cobblestone and de_overpass while changing the veto system - have been forced by Valve, not by ESL or other organizers.

Considering our take on the integrity of tournaments being the number one priority, we disagree with Valve's approach. Therefore, we have decided to suggest alternatives.

Fifflaren had a rare positive outlook on the new maps 

Do we even need new maps?

Before we delve into our suggestions for introducing new maps, one has to wonder, is there even a problem in the first place? Is this something that needs fixing? Is there another way around it? Are people making a mountain out of a molehill?

It is safe to say the standard five map pool that Valve has previously enforced at their events isn't working, as we've pointed out in articles after EMS One Katowice and ESEA Invite Season 16 Global Finals. The map balance simply isn't there. However, it hasn't always been that way, and it still isn't when seven maps are used in the pool.

We saw seven maps played at ESEA Invite Season 16 Global Finals at the end of June, and the split among all maps was fairly good. Obviously with such a large map pool some maps, namely de_train and de_nuke, will gain less traction than others, but overall we were definitely headed in the right direction with de_cache and de_season played more than any map aside from de_inferno.

Interestingly enough, this issue is partly Valve's fault in the first place. Many events including SLTV StarSeries, ESWC and RC EMS One were using the seven map pool a year ago - after agreeing to it as a group - when de_inferno wasn't dominating every tournament. Old version de_mirage_go was also much more popular than Valve's edition; in fact it used to be the most popular map among top teams.

Once Valve forced everyone to switch to the non _se versions of the standard maps, the split among all maps played got worse, and forcing de_mirage on us also hurt. I think there is an argument for this entire problem being caused by Valve in the first place, which is why it is all the more important they at least fix it in the right manner instead of forcing more change on the scene.

It also makes sense that nearly all event organizers instantly followed suit as Valve told DreamHack and ESL what maps to use, as everyone is obviously doing what's possible to try to gain a piece of the $250,000 events. So far only those two have been awarded the funds, but nearly everyone, except for ESEA, have done exactly what Valve has wanted.

Seeing as Valve won't let us go back to the _se maps, best we can hope for is they make changes to de_mirage - some ideas were posted online last weekend - and improve de_train, which is rumoured to be happening as we speak. They should also do their best to include the new version of de_season, which Shawn "FMPONE" Snelling is working on, in the next Operation update.

You can argue adding more maps is catering to the wrong audience. The fans of Counter-Strike who have been around for a long time certainly aren't bored of the standard maps, and I think a main factor in newer players being bored is their lack of understanding of the meta-game. If it all looks the same to you, it's probably because you haven't been taught to notice the subtle differences that make CS exciting. How do we improve that? Better casting.

If events started using more expert commentators instead of pairing play-by-play casters together so often, the fan base would learn more about the strategic aspect of Counter-Strike, and start embracing the current maps more. Asking for new maps means you're bored of the game and want change, period. I don't think most people need to be bored of the game; they simply don't realize all the things that are changing constantly.

Still, that is not realistic for now. The community who are pro-new maps still want the new maps, regardless of the reason, and it is clear Valve intend to keep them happy. So here is where this article kicks in. Let's take a look and what they should have done differently, and what they can still do better in the future. Here are our suggestions.

Map balance was ruined once Valve enforced their map rotation last fall 

How to introduce the new maps?

The ideal way to introduce new maps depends on your goals with them. If you want them to be tested, which means you want teams to practice them and then actually play matches on them, you might want to look into places where you can force those maps to be played. That includes leagues with weekly matches, such as ESEA League, and small tournaments, such as Caseking of The Hill, where you could pre-determine the map for each round of play.

Ideally you would give promising maps - which could be determined by pros, via matchmaking popularity, a fan vote, or any other kind of measure - a chance in those, and the ones that players like, fans enjoy watching and seem to work well in a competitive environment would then get picked on for tournaments. The cycle would continue, and ultimately you could replace some of the current maps in the pool by the newcomers.

Considering Caseking of The Hill tournaments currently have a thousand euros each in prizes, it is not inconceivable to think they would add a pre-determined round featuring de_overpass and de_cobblestone in exchange to Valve donating another grand into their prize purse. That is a mere rounding error for a plus $3,000,000,000 company, and generally keeping your customers happy should be worth spending a little money here and there.

ESEA League would be an optimal suitor because they have pre-determined maps played on a weekly basis on all levels of competition. If Valve put in some money to convince ESEA to use a new map in one week of play, they would have hundreds of matches of data to look through from games that are much more competitive than what matchmaking produces. Let's not forget about all the practices games those teams would play, either.

The league approach makes sense because it means every team will be playing those maps, and considering those wins can make or break a team's hopes of traveling to the global finals in Dallas, it would make little sense for teams to not practice them. Another great target would be SLTV StarSeries, but it would require them to change their format by eliminating the map veto process and installing a pre-determined rotation.

This would be a great way to figure out which maps are good, and which maps aren't, while also giving teams enough time to practice them. In fact, Valve could likely finance these map runs by actually running some similar weapon skin projects that FACEIT lucked into, that allowed them to finance their Spring League. If there is will, there is a way. We just need Valve to summon that will.

ESEA could ease new maps into tournament play 

 

How can Valve decide which maps to add?

First of all whoever actually gets to talk to Valve needs to tell them their matchmaking statistics must be shredded the second they start thinking about map pools at the $250,000 majors that have become the backbone of CS:GO's competitive community. Those statistics are surely great for a lot of other things, and for improving matchmaking games - but for the professional scene's adjustment they do not work.

Seeing how surprised just about everyone in the professional community was regarding the decision to add de_cobblestone an de_overpass, it is clear Valve did not consult them whatsoever when it came to this decision. That is a mistake. I don't suggest the pro players themselves should decide it completely either - seeing as that would ignore all the fans - but consulting no one is the worst possible course of action. 

As usual, there is a middle ground to be found, and it ties in with our previous point on how to introduce new maps. If we do that in a smart manner, it really won't make that big of a difference whether Valve chooses poorly or doesn't consult the right people on the new maps. Their quality will be determined by players, and the best ones will get the nod for bigger tournaments, where it truly matters which maps are played, and which are not.

If a map turns out not to be suited for competition or disliked by a majority of players, we can simply let it be forgotten and move on to the next one. There are plenty of mapmakers out there, and if they knew their maps had a legitimate chance of getting picked up through the system outlined above, they should be even more motivated to try to make the best maps possible. The key here is eliminating randomness at the biggest stages.

It makes no sense to gamble on untested maps like Valve are doing at ESL One Cologne, when they could so easily avoid all of it. Their image isn't exactly shiny from all the unpopular decision they've had to make, and someday someone at the company will stop being stubborn and realize how little effort and planning it would take to be loved by the community. Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later.

Many suggest de_crown as a potential new map for tournaments 

 

What part does the veto system play?

The veto system may be the most underrated part of this equation. Often overlooked, a weak veto system alone can take away everything gained from introducing new maps. ESL's new system where teams remove one map each before picking theirs, followed by one more removal by each before a random draw will determine the decider, is a step in the right direction, but it goes too far. It compromises the tournament's integrity.

With a seven map pool and only one removal before teams pick their maps, it is important teams can also affect what map is going to be the decider in the series. When only one map is removed per team, it means they will have to practice six maps - more than you can realistically be strong on at any given time - and most of the time there will be clear favorites in each of the first two maps. Even among top teams there are always maps you're very strong on, and the other team is weaker on.

If the first two maps are likely to be split, the decider of the series will, naturally, be the most important map of the series. Wouldn't it then make sense to give the players, who sacrifice months of their life to prepare for these tournaments, some control over the outcome? Valve seemingly doesn't think so. With three maps left, there is a good chance each team has a map they would rather not play, and drawing that can be a death sentence.

Virtus.pro's Wiktor "TaZ" Wojtas tweeted saying he expects the same maps to be played, only the random third map draw will make the outcome more random. Joona "natu" Leppänen pointed out via Twitter no team has been seen practicing the two new maps - de_cobblestone and de_overpass  - though Anders Blume claimed differently on RoomOnFire. It remains to be seen if these maps will be played at all in Cologne, and who will gain the most from their additions.

The best-of-three system isn't actually half bad in comparison to the group stage format. In the best-of-one matches each team removes two maps, and the sole map played will then be randomly drawn from the three remaining ones. That can make results very random - much more so than in the playoffs - and seeing as it could knock teams out very early, it is even more important. For teams on the verge of advancing, their tournament life can now be decided by a coin toss.

I stand by the two map selection processes I outlined in my article last month, and based on conversations with a number of players who actually compete in these tournaments they seem like solid choices. It remains to be seen whether Valve will listen in the future and potentially make a change, or if seeing de_inferno played a few times less at this cost is worth it to them. To me, integrity of the tournament is, and always should be, priority number one.

TaZ thinks the new changes will randomize results 

 

These are just a few quick ideas on how Valve could improve the process of adding maps in the future in order to keep the casual and hardcore fans and players happy.

Certainly there are more ways to go about it and we could discuss these in more depth as well. Hopefully in the future Valve will do that, instead of coming out with these changes out of the blue.

Follow HLTV.org's @lurppis_ on Twitter.