That's good feedback.
The purpose of the document was an overview. This was about 2 months after the release of the application. I tried really hard to condense it so all of your feedback is correct but was intentional to some degree. I do disagree with a couple points.
I don't think I agree with the CQB doctrine being a non-factor. I do find it a bit interesting that you immediately jumped to the most important part. CQB is usually always in teams. Solo-CQB is more or less a death wish. I think the problem is that a lot of VCT teams have some degree of this but I don't think it is intentional. And it not being intentional exposes gaps that other teams can exploit.
From what I have learned through research is that there are many forms of CQB taught at all levels. From local police, to SWAT, to military and then to elite military. Even at the elite military level, there is debate around best methods. So nailing it down and saying "it's a non-factor" is tough for me to swallow.
The idea that "Valorant is a game where you can catch people off guard easily with abilities and risky positioning that anyone who had a sense of self preservation in real life would never use." I don't know if you've been followed or are following what's going on in a certain country that is inside or near another country but for this fact alone they no longer do entry. They level the building with tanks or ordinance. CQB is insanely risky to the point where even entry with drones has lost it's value to the tanks just knocking the building over.
I wish you would have developed this idea a little bit more so I could have more of a discussion about it. But I'm not going to let this chance disappear because there are a lot of people at all levels who don't know this stuff.
For example, room entry. Valorant is nothing but a bunch of open rooms that connect with hallways. CQB is a strategic way to manage the threats and danger, in clearing rooms and hallways (limiting for discussion). I think a big part of what is missing from teams implementing CQB is the biggest part of all, teamwork, which you rightfully identified.
The issue is that a lot of people get hung up on dynamic entry, which is the cool part, and covering angles, which is the boring part. Once you get into the room, you still need to cover entry points and connecting spaces that you may not have cleared. Or there may be spaces that you have cleared but can still present an area of danger if a threat re-enters a space. The idea that you have a job on a team to hold specific places as your team moves throughout the map, is missing. I think a lot of people who play at a high level are jocking for position to be the number 1 guy in the stack. This lack of rigidness in their movements leaves space for people getting picked off. Or even worse, after a space has been cleared as a team, someone decides to be a cowboy and leave the team in post-plant. For me, CQB is a disciplined skill that allows you to traverse danger space with some level of certainty that you've done your best to cover your bases and protect your guys.
The next piece is communication. I think we too often think that comms on VCT teams is perfect or even close to it. A lot of communication in CQB is practiced and drilled. The extra bits are trimmed over time. Most teams will have non-verbal cues that allow each person to know a series of steps that are coming in the future. While you cannot get to that level since you're looking at the screen, you have to find a way to minimize the discussion and compact it to the point where each person knows their role and the communication adds situation awareness and not noise.
I think maybe since "the challenged" was cut into one page pieces, or mini-summaries, you may have missed that the CQB stuff is the foundation. What I try to convey (I think, it's been a minute since I wrote this) is that you cannot approach map theory or agent theory until you have a solid grasp of the obstacles you are going to face. The only way to understand how to deal with the obstacles is through angle clearing, which CQB gives you a solid foundation in.
Once I understand the obstacles, I can then apply map theory or agent theory to those obstacles. This sort of approach eliminates your teams need to "follow the meta" because you know the obstacles you are facing and how map theory and agent theory apply. I've been on semi-pro teams that have got offers from organizations and the leaders of those teams relied on the idea that they will simply out skill the other teams. So fully adopting the meta is just another quick step in that equation. Who cares what agents or maps we pick, we will just out aim them. I believe this is why we see so many teams playing down a player or two when they dry-peek.
The problem with the idea " If anything there should be less of a focus on CQB doctrine and moreso on map theory and creative util usage which is the true frontier where the game can be pushed." is that there are no magical moments. We see these sorts of things in highlights but there are no gotchas or ideas that work every time. That is part of the fog of war discussion and why CQB is the essential answer to the problem. If your team has an understanding of how to traverse the space, safely and what the work assignments in post-plant or re-take, you are minimizing the variables. If I take the approach you are suggesting, I would need certain players on the enemy team to be in places where utility could be used. But what if they are not there? What if the enemy team stacks a site and we've used all this special utility for nothing? Gun-play dictates a lot of VCT wins and losses. There's a lot of efficiency to be gained by apply CQB.
Even if I'm wrong, I've got an entire backlog of "map theory and creative util usage" right here: https://imgur.com/a/hGd5Kqw
Anyways, I appreciate the comment and I hope you don't take my push back as a rejection. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. I just view Valorant as a game of probability and that the more you do to increase your probability of winning, the higher likely you're going to win engagements, rounds and ultimately the match. Cheers!
Discord