I always see a lot op people complaining when certain maps have been voted on and instantly wanting to change the map.
Regardless of the team balances or advantages. New players hardly get to even try the maps and in many cases where the gameplay is somewhat differant from the backdoor rushes, most of the times maps get voted away. A lot of maps go underratted because of this.
I like Walls, but i'm sometimes so sick of it.
I like Arctic, field(+x) and al the original classic maps. But I also like variation.
I like how Steppe has a huge tibfield only vehicles can acces. The downside of Steppe is the long traveltimes everywhere else, causing it to be voted off most of the times. But I still like it.
I espcially like toxicity because it usually breaks the regulair boring linear basecamp gameplay, but because of its differance and many passages, it gets voted off to change map most of the time.
The point is, variety doesn't hurt.
Is it possible to maybe optimise rotations according to server populations? Like Walls, Oasis, Under etc with low and fieldx, Outposts, Eyes with higher populations? This way the underplayed maps have a better change of beeing played I think.
When RenX hits mainstream, servers could be filtered by maps with base defences, powerplant etc to fit certain player preferances. But yeah thats long term thinking.
I think it is also important to analyse WHY the unpopulair maps are unpopulair.