Obviously you should always try to optimize your map as best as you can but there often comes a point where the next thing you can do to improve the fps in your map is to make drastic changes on the core level that would take an insane amount of time, therefore altering the design of your map heavily.
If you get 200fps on a map and then on every other map you easily get 1000fps then there's obviously a huge problem with the map that should be fixed. These kind of problems are very rare and don't usually happen when the most basic types of optimization are applied. (I have never seen a map with problems like this apart from a few spots in 2-3 maps. And even fixing the fps in those spots would be hard or atleast very time-consuming to fix without changing the look of the map).
What I was talking about was how people complain getting *only* 500fps when on every other map they get 600fps. It feels like such a stretch in terms of "criticism". And there's basically nothing you can do to make the fps better apart from doing a complete rework assuming all other types of optimization are already in place.
Also if you are getting 200fps on every map with fullbright, you just need to accept that you have a shit pc. Like you guys seriously want empty plat maps that look boring as fuck? Well atleast you get your 1k fps...
The fact is, you simply can't have an "insane looking map with a ton of detail" (f.e. mp_stalker) AND have flawless fps.
What I'm saying though is that in my opinion, it's much better to have an insane looking map where you get 700fps instead of a boring looking floating plat map with 1000fps.
Sorry for the rant, I just get kinda triggered when people assume you can just flip a switch to fix everything on your map without compromises.
Overall I think people are just oversimplifying a very complicated issue that is not that big of an issue in the first place.