I strongly dislike chateau de luvnest

I'm sorry for the mapmaker but I assume my words. We are speaking of maps to which purpose is to be enjoyable when played, not canvas to be printed in your bedroom wall.
Making a map beautiful with a lot of details isn't making of you a good mapmaker. Ensuring the map is balanced and provides an acceptable level of gameplay does....
I also agree on the fact it is probably not 100% his fault, he didn't ask to have the map in the automatch and Relic, as always has a part of responsibility in it.

But you are laying blame on the wrong person. Personally I don't think the map is as bad as you say it is, but I can understand why it's problematic to be in automatch. Just because I think it's great doesn't mean it should, and certainly not because I happen to like particular types of maps more often than others.
Certain design considerations inherently make certain (types of) maps unsuitable for automatch. This I think is the real problem behind maps like Sittard; it's not a bad map per se, it's just not the kind of map that anyone would want to find consistently playing; at least in custom matches the host chose it at will, or you entered a lobby because you wanted to play Sittard. In Automatch, you play Sittard because the game decided you should...even after you played like eight times in a row and since become sick of it. Maps like Sittard are simply not the kind of maps that fit the automatch bill. Yes yes I know veto, but then you end up playing another map you probably hate more since there are only so many maps you can veto.

The REAL problem is: Relic has no real criteria for automatch besides its apparent popularity or the reputation of the map maker. They'll put in a map that looks good and they may have actually played it a few times, but that's hardly a gauge to whether the community would want to play it.

As much as I love Sittard, it's certainly not one of the maps that should be in automatch, not until Relic adds a subsection of "Defense/ Bridge battle" category to veto.

When you write in this fashion, I struggle to understand how you exist in an academic environment, TBH.

Interesting and irony, meanwhile when I scrolled down reading this, one of my friend (who is a physician) swearing on Skype.

I want blizzards back

If relic not gonna fix this game - today - i gonna use bug On Me in Ranked Games --->>>

If relic not gonna fix this game - today - i gonna use bug On Me in Ranked Games --->>>

it's sunday

One more of those posts, Captain QQ, and you will will feel the hurt.

Back to topic

But you are laying blame on the wrong person. Personally I don't think the map is as bad as you say it is, but I can understand why it's problematic to be in automatch. Just because I think it's great doesn't mean it should, and certainly not because I happen to like particular types of maps more often than others.
Certain design considerations inherently make certain (types of) maps unsuitable for automatch. This I think is the real problem behind maps like Sittard; it's not a bad map per se, it's just not the kind of map that anyone would want to find consistently playing; at least in custom matches the host chose it at will, or you entered a lobby because you wanted to play Sittard. In Automatch, you play Sittard because the game decided you should...even after you played like eight times in a row and since become sick of it. Maps like Sittard are simply not the kind of maps that fit the automatch bill. Yes yes I know veto, but then you end up playing another map you probably hate more since there are only so many maps you can veto.

The REAL problem is: Relic has no real criteria for automatch besides its apparent popularity or the reputation of the map maker. They'll put in a map that looks good and they may have actually played it a few times, but that's hardly a gauge to whether the community would want to play it.

As much as I love Sittard, it's certainly not one of the maps that should be in automatch, not until Relic adds a subsection of "Defense/ Bridge battle" category to veto.

The map is unsuitable for anything than campfest. We are not in Sittard's map configuration 4vs4 long map which can somewhat be fun with 7 others friends. We are talking about a map where your arty can hit the enemy base from your own side of the map with your kat/calli/pzwerfer/stuka. The map is made to punish any form of other play style thanks to mud and big houses covering tight choke points.
The guy who design that map wants to make sure you can't do anything else.

I love the criticisms of a mapmaker by people who have never even attempted to make one.

Think you can do better?

Put up or shut up. Or at the very least show some damn manners.

Entitled whiny babies. Good lord.

Its hard to make maps. Very true.

Its no excuse for Relic to put shitty maps into ladder rotation.

EDIT: Im not saying the map is good or bad, and im not defending "whiny babies" but the map pool list looks like crap and Relic has never polished the ladder map pool like they should. There is still plenty of crap in 1v1 2v2 ladder. Its been YEARS. No excuse.

I love the criticisms of a mapmaker by people who have never even attempted to make one.

Think you can do better?

Put up or shut up. Or at the very least show some damn manners.

Entitled whiny babies. Good lord.

I take it you have never herd of constructive criticism, granted calling it a shitty map was unnecessary but your reply is greatly uncalled for, if games never had beta testers or anyone reporting errors/ improvements then games would be pretty terrible if developers followed your methodology.

If people better community made maps in the rotation then the community need to be better at providing the creators of said map with constructive feedback, many of us is a one man dev-team.