One of the most controversial maps in the CS2 map pool is Vertigo. After recent updates that introduced significant landscape changes, both pro players and casual gamers are increasingly voicing complaints about this map. Vertigo is often called the worst map, and many are requesting its removal from the official pool. But what exactly is the issue?

The History and Changes of Vertigo

Vertigo first entered the competitive pool in CS:GO in 2019 and has since undergone numerous changes. Although the 2019 version and the current 2024 version differ, many issues with the map remain. To understand why Vertigo causes so much dissatisfaction, let’s look at its latest changes.

In a recent update, significant adjustments were made to the A site: an additional mid-path was introduced, and a metal structure was added behind the site. These changes were supposed to enhance the map’s dynamics, but in reality, players haven’t shown more interest in picking it for matches.

READ MORE: History of Vertigo Updates in Counter-Strike

Vertigo’s Popularity Statistics in Tournaments

We examined professional tournament statistics after these changes. At the IEM Cologne 2024 tournament, Vertigo was played only five times and banned 19 times. At IEM Chengdu 2024, it was played only three times with 24 bans. These figures clearly indicate that, even after updates, Vertigo remains unpopular among professional players.

For comparison, at IEM Rio 2024, Vertigo was played twice, while at the BLAST Premier: Fall Final 2024, it didn’t appear in any match. All teams simply ignored it, which clearly shows that Vertigo’s problems haven’t been resolved.

Vertigo’s Popularity Among Casual Players

Interestingly, on FACEIT, where statistics for players of various skill levels are available, Vertigo ranks among the top three most popular maps. This may indicate that casual players find it appealing for reasons different from those of professionals.

Why Don’t Professional Players Like Vertigo?

Now let’s dive into the specific reasons why this map causes so much dissatisfaction among pro players.

Problem 1: Vertical and Multi-Level Design

Vertigo is unique for its multi-layered, vertical design. It’s not just a map with two levels, like Nuke, where the bomb sites are stacked. Instead, the entire map is structured with varying heights. This design leads to numerous sound issues, as defenders can easily hear attackers from higher levels.

For instance, if a defender stands in the connector near their spawn, they can hear the attackers moving below them. This factor simplifies defense, making attacks predictable and limiting maneuverability.

Problem 2: Monotonous Gameplay

Another issue with Vertigo is its repetitive gameplay. In most rounds, both teams focus on controlling the A ramp. This results in extensive grenade usage and smoke battles, which often define the round’s strategy.

On other maps, like Anubis, gameplay is more varied, with players across all map areas frequently engaging in action. On Vertigo, however, players on the B site often feel redundant after a few rounds, as A-ramp battles dominate the game.

Problem 3: Radar Confusion

While not as critical in the pro scene, Vertigo’s layout can be confusing for casual players. The radar often doesn’t accurately reflect opponents’ positions since players can be on different map levels in the same radar location. This creates problems for players without voice communication, complicating information sharing.

Solutions for Vertigo’s Issues

How can Valve address Vertigo’s issues? One option is to diversify the map pool by adding maps like Train, Cache, or Cobblestone, which have long been popular and well-loved by players. These maps offer more tactical depth, making them engaging for both pro players and casual gamers.

Despite all updates, Vertigo remains a controversial map that sparks much debate. Pro players criticize it for being repetitive and simple, while casual players still find something attractive about it. Perhaps the future of Vertigo depends on whether the developers can find a compromise that satisfies both groups.