On a recent broadcast of NAL Stoax went on a tangent, since Mirage was getting bulldozed by Oxygen, about both Oregon and Clubhouse being played out. This isn’t the hottest take, and it was made more to fill time than serve as the impetus of actual discussion. However, I am quite good at overthinking so… Here we are. Should maps be removed from professional play because they’re strategically played out and see little innovation or is there value in keeping such maps?
On the surface this sounds cut and dry. The map gets boring, viewers see the same strategies because the map is played so frequently, and optimized so much that innovation is near nonexistent. Why not get rid of that map and add in a new one? Spice the map pool up by forcing new tactics and offering a new aesthetic.
This is a decent case for keeping a constant map rotation in pro play, if you apply the logic of video game business to competition. But business and competition are different fields. The discussion at large comes at a bad time as well, with the 9 map pool’s introduction. Maps deserving of professional play have just been added. What maps could realistically replace Clubhouse and Oregon that aren’t already in the rotation? Most, if not all, of the ‘good’ (read: balanced) ones are already in the professional pool. Those left out have good reasons for their exclusion. The last time Favela was in Pro League it lasted a single season and was played once, why bother repeating history to relearn a lesson like that? Beyond the limitations surrounding this kind of change in the moment, Clubhouse and Oregon have redeeming qualities that are currently undervalued.
In esports where the game can take place on different maps, the map that teams compete on is important. Obviously. With many maps to play, teams must prioritize a few to excel at. Even for professional teams, there simply isn’t enough time in the day to master every single map. Teams need to focus on maps that either fit their playstyle or are commonly played. Becoming the master of Villa and Skyscraper is great, but that alone accomplishes nothing if those are the only maps you can play. Oregon and Clubhouse serve as the two most common maps in competitive play. Oregon is more linear while Clubhouse is the looser map of the two, but they are the most default of default maps. Save the addition of new operators and gadgets, there is nearly nothing new to innovate on the maps.
That’s a good thing for teams. With maps this common and played out, there isn’t an incentive to try and further develop the map. Fundamentals become paramount rather than being at the cutting edge of the meta. When innovation becomes shaving a second or two off opening Kitchen Hatch on an Armory take, the time invested isn’t worth the reward. This serves to give teams more time to develop other maps and also lets teams show off different skills on different maps. I know DarkZero is going to have some spicy strats for Skyscraper, but if I want to understand the basic structure, protocols, and teamplay there are no better maps to watch than Clubhouse and Oregon.
Having different kinds of maps that highlight different aspects of teams is important for an esport to have. While many may think that a pool of only tactical maps would be the best version of professional Siege to watch, sometimes you just want to see Beaulo pop heads. Variety is important, and if uber tactical Siege is the only thing that matters, VODs of the 20 second meta are still on Youtube.
Another aspect to consider when discussing removing stale maps is wholly unrelated to the map itself. When a popular map is replaced, a new one will take up its position as the new ‘popular’ map. There will always be default maps that every team can play. Before Clubhouse’s rework, Border was the de facto most popular map right next to Oregon. When it got removed, Clubhouse took its place. When a map spikes in popularity, the amount of time and effort teams put into developing the map increases, inherently speeding up the rate at which it gets ‘solved’. Once the maps get ‘solved’, teams will be more willing to play them over maps that they are less comfortable on. This isn’t a matter of Clubhouse and Oregon being inherently problematic, it is a byproduct of a phenomenon found in every game that uses maps. Inferno in CSGO, Final Destination in Smash Bros., and Lost Temple in StarCraft BroodWar, the list goes on.
But that’s only from a team’s perspective. Why do stale maps benefit others, like the casters and viewers? The answer is the same: these maps offer stability and nothing new. For first time viewers, watching default maps frequently is going to make learning the game easier than seeing a new or specialist map every match. Being able to say “I’ve seen this one before” gives people the opportunity to start focusing on the differences of Match A on Clubhouse to Match B. If you’re too concerned about what a Chalet is and why the Library is so important compared to the Clubhouse’s Kitchen, then you aren’t learning more about Kaid’s role on Defense.
This stability also gives casters more room to better explain the game. Siege is already hell in a cell when it comes to casting, especially when teams throw something new into the mix. Plenty of small, but important details can get missed because there isn’t enough time to mention them within a real time match. What maps like Clubhouse and Oregon provide is a standard, well defined round flow that gives casters the ability to take more time explaining concepts and highlighting small details. This ties into what default maps provide for new viewers as well. It’s understandable that the default nature of the maps can get boring, especially for someone who has to make it sound interesting for both new and experienced viewers, but the value of the stability in these maps cannot be understated.
Given the format of all non-Major pro R6, the chance of having a single map be played the most of the playday is relatively high. NA Challenger League notoriously had an entire playday of only Clubhouse, but that’s more a problem with the use of Bo1’s than the map. In Bo3s the frequency of Clubhouse and Border wouldn’t be as noticeable because every match would feature at least one other map.
Up until the online era of Counter Strike you never noticed how often Inferno was played, partly because all the other maps in the map pool of that game are used in Bo3s, which provides enough innate variety that no one really cared that Inferno was the decider map every. single. game. It was only through external circumstances that people noticed the frequency of Inferno.
The final reason why I think Clubhouse and Oregon should remain is this, my ace in the hole: Dust 2 is an iconic map from Counter Strike, one that has been in the map pool since CS 1.6. It is quite literally a solved map, yet remains in the professional map pool. Much like Clubhouse and Oregon, its value comes from being a solved map. The mind games and fundamentals of teams become the priority while also providing a simple starting point for new viewers to understand the game at a higher level beyond the pew-pew. ddk, top esports caster, Quake pro, and now 100Thieves general manager, explains it better than I could.
So no, Clubhouse and Oregon shouldn’t be removed. The current format of Bo1s makes them dangerous to viewership because of their popularity within teams, but removing maps because of the format is cutting off the nose to spite the face. They fill an essential role in the map pool and given that Siege has 9 maps now, having 2 default heavy maps isn’t a problem. But what do I know? Stoax is the one getting paid to talk about Siege