what's the ranked meta like now?

[Dash_Riprock]

Also, Eugen can't make good maps because having symmetry would be just the worst thing for competitive play, and people argue against symmetry because they have this Platonic Ideal of a good map(that Eugen could never make) that has nuance for both sides.

Except that in principle, it is extremely straightforward to make maps balanced without making them symmetrical. They have a parameter which can be continuously adjusted in order to change the relative advantage of each side, namely how far away reinforcements spawn from the center of the map. In addition, they can collect all the data they could possibly need about how frequently games are won by players on a given side.

All they would have to do is before each patch, look at the ratio of wins on each side of the map (assigning more weight to games with higher average number of games played per player, to avoid adjusting too much for rookie mistakes), and slightly push the reinforcement points closer or further back accordingly. After a few patches, the maps will be both balanced and asymmetrical.

Of course, in some cases you could only move the reinforcement points so far before they go off the map or have units spawning in goofy places, but you could go a long way like that.

[Mako]

Also, Eugen can't make good maps because having symmetry would be just the worst thing for competitive play, and people argue against symmetry because they have this Platonic Ideal of a good map(that Eugen could never make) that has nuance for both sides.

Except that in principle, it is extremely straightforward to make maps balanced without making them symmetrical. They have a parameter which can be continuously adjusted in order to change the relative advantage of each side, namely how far away reinforcements spawn from the center of the map. In addition, they can collect all the data they could possibly need about how frequently games are won by players on a given side.

All they would have to do is before each patch, look at the ratio of wins on each side of the map (assigning more weight to games with higher average number of games played per player, to avoid adjusting too much for rookie mistakes), and slightly push the reinforcement points closer or further back accordingly. After a few patches, the maps will be both balanced and asymmetrical.

Of course, in some cases you could only move the reinforcement points so far before they go off the map or have units spawning in goofy places, but you could go a long way like that.

Additionally you can modify zone locations and dimensions

[Panzeh]

Also, Eugen can't make good maps because having symmetry would be just the worst thing for competitive play, and people argue against symmetry because they have this Platonic Ideal of a good map(that Eugen could never make) that has nuance for both sides.

Except that in principle, it is extremely straightforward to make maps balanced without making them symmetrical. They have a parameter which can be continuously adjusted in order to change the relative advantage of each side, namely how far away reinforcements spawn from the center of the map. In addition, they can collect all the data they could possibly need about how frequently games are won by players on a given side.

All they would have to do is before each patch, look at the ratio of wins on each side of the map (assigning more weight to games with higher average number of games played per player, to avoid adjusting too much for rookie mistakes), and slightly push the reinforcement points closer or further back accordingly. After a few patches, the maps will be both balanced and asymmetrical.

Of course, in some cases you could only move the reinforcement points so far before they go off the map or have units spawning in goofy places, but you could go a long way like that.

If you think this is a straightforward task with straightforward results, I think I have a bridge to sell you, and that one bit of tuning is not really enough. Anyway, show me a competitive RTS that use asymmetrical maps, oh wait, they don't, because why? They actually accomodate them better, too, because all competitive RTS games have their decisions entirely in-game rather than having the deck-building stage.

[Dash_Riprock]

If you think this is a straightforward task with straightforward results, I think I have a bridge to sell you, and that one bit of tuning is not really enough. Anyway, show me a competitive RTS that use asymmetrical maps, oh wait, they don't, because why? They actually accomodate them better, too, because all competitive RTS games have their decisions entirely in-game rather than having the deck-building stage.

So long as one side can under all circumstances be given an advantage by moving their reinforcements closer or the other side's farther away, then it is unambiguously straightforward. Allow me to clarify with the power of MS paint.

Of course, this doesn't guarantee that a map can be made fun or interesting, but you can in principle make it balanced.

Also, a if you make a map balanced for e.g. 3v3, then it could still be slightly imbalanced for 1v1, so there's that. But you could just balance each map for the intended number of players, and for standard settings. To make a map balanced under all settings, then yes, it would have to be symmetrical.

[Additionally you can modify zone locations and dimensions

Of course, but the point is that if you have a continuously changeable variable which doesn't require someone to think about exactly how it will affect the balance, then the problem becomes straightforward. I'm sire you could come up with things in addition to the reinforcement time, but the argument still holds.

[TheDemolitionmech]

I was thinking of playing ranked again. How is the meta? Are enough people playing or...?

To answer your question about enough people playing. For me, it depends on the time of day I play (zimezones are a factor). Games do take a while to link people but eventually your bound to get someone. You just have to be patient and you wont have much issues in finding a game, really not a "make or break" factor to ranked.
As for meta, I'm not a really good expert on this stuff but ill try and explain what I see. Mech. decks are really strong in ranked games due to the amount on infantry and decent tanks. However you loose speed and good helos so sometimes that can hurt players based on their style. I see people use it and some people don't, not a "must have" but definitely worth considering. Eurocop. is a very strong deck right now i feel, due to the MG3s. the jagers and panzers. are so good and really cost efficient which is HUGE in 1v1s. There are ways to counter them its just regular infantry vs regular, they will most likely win most engagements. Overall I see tons of different types of decks and strategies. There are so many competitive options to work with now so you have a lot of freedom. NATO does have their advantages here and there but to say PACT is weak is far from the truth despite what anyone says.

It is one of those things where you just have to play it. You can try to review it and analyze but most of your learning and experience will be done in the field.

[Darkmil]

You will find a match if you will wait. I don't mind watching 10 minutes of some video and waiting meanwhile.

Or you can just create a lobby and... wait for 20 minutes... Oh wait