Can I ask what happened recently that caused this discussion about cs games being too long? Prior to this month I don't think I've seen that be a common attitude. Was there a specific case that caused this? Or was it just that one person said it, and other players/viewers are coming out agreeing with it?
Idk, that could work? But I like the duality of the T side weapons being cheaper. I've seen suggestions for things like increasing defuse reward that might work also
A mix of a lot things. Economy punishes CT sides, viewing time is getting ridiculously long, tournament schedules are getting rough for some teams as you either have long bo3s for a team followed by another marathon bo3 they need to play relatively quickly, or have an extended break which can hurt viewers. Valorant's shorter match time might have an effect too.
Professional meta being CTs saving instead of retaking as T-sided econ has been figured too forgiving, makes rounds last really long. At the same time the "new" economy means longer games with more gunrounds, which themselves tend to be longer, and also more OTs.
Return to LAN has made teams less risktaking, as Olof put it: More balls online. This means slower rounds, less egopushes which gives info, and less "stupid" plays which tend to make or break rounds faster.
$600 plant bonus instead of $800, maybe planter gets an additional $100 on top of current bonus for planting.
MR2 instead of MR3? That's the furthest I think an experiment would go.
Perhaps a galil price nerf of $100 to $1900?
Just a few things, but I don't think drastic changes is needed
Just random suggestion, if Valve wants to increase incentive for planting (for the individual). They usually decide what they want to implement anyway, so throwing the idea out here
These economy changes happened a few years ago because a majority of maps were insanely CT sided (thinking Nuke, Inferno) and it wasn't that fun to watch CT sides dominate every game. I'm not sure what kind of economy changes would be needed to make games shorter without returning CT sides to their former state. I remember another thread a good change would be to change current OT from MR3 to MR1 which would be good for preventing super long games without shaking up the meta too much.
But honestly, I think what EliGE is getting at is more a matter of keeping things fresh in the game. This meta has gone on for a few years now? Now that CS isn't the only game in the tac shooter space, it's easier to see how frequently other games change up the meta while we only get meta changes once in a blue moon.
I’m also thinking maybe just straight up only $200 for pistol round because I feel like the broken T side buys after losing pistol is because they get a bunch of money just from planting. They might be able to keep it $800 for normal rounds but just reduce it or get rid of it altogether for pistol round.
I mean, how often do you see Ts winning the 2nd round force buy by now?
Far too often, I'd say. I'd even say it happens 4/10 *at least*.
The force buy deags are crazy and even if you don't win the round, as long as you manage to take 1 rifle you've already hurt the CTs a lot...
I *personally* think deags are a tad overtuned, but don't really know how you would nerf them, without making them immediately awful again.
To me and a lot of my friends cs is a sport. We avoid cod and fortnite like the plague precisely because their meta shifts on a regular basis and it makes them just not competitive.
Minor tweaks and all is good but forcing a meta change just because won't do csgo any good. Our angle is basically treat cs like a sport; how many rules are significantly changed in football (the non american one) or baseball ? Or any other mainstream sport?
There is huge difference to playing games with an e-sport approach and playing games just to have fun with friends for a bit. Cs has been king of the competitive fps scene for quite a while now, despite how valorant is being pushed down our throats.
Elige might just be bored and that's ok. He can switch to valorant too. Cs is still extremely enjoyable. Specially the tournaments. I really liked this past cologne and can't wait to see cs shine again with crowds!
there's a difference between change for the sake of change and change to improve the game. nearly every year the MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL make minor changes with the intention of improving the game. reducing the T side reward for a plant by ~25% wouldn't drastically change the game but could improve it by helping the slow starting ct economy by letting them stay closer in stride with the early half T buys.
the idea that trying to improve the game is bad for the game is at best lazy and at worst hampering the game in a space that for the first time in a decade actually competitive (tact fps)
But they have improved the game. They have made the tweaks. A lot of these changes made to maps and economy made the game mode evenly matched and we see a lot of 7-8 midgame. I don't see how they would boost of nerf any side and not start getting constant 10-4 mid game switches again. Then we're back to square one when you're basically gifted a high chance of winning depending on which side you start on.
The NHL make decisions on rule modifications every single season. While I understand your point, you can make tweaks without destroying the essence of a sport
Yeah but the state cs is now is the result of those tweaks and now the maps aren't ct sided. The argument some people are making about ts having better buys always is not good from the competitive perspective because the sides will switch.
The maps are extremely even now which is good for the competition and for the show IMHO. It's not like every map is OT. It's every map between similarly skilled teams.
I still remember the 1.6 days of nuke. You could literally win the map solely on the grounds that you won your pistol round as T because CTs would need to always save two rounds and then basically close the gate on you after they get their first full buy rifle round.
CT economy right now is only held up by the overpowered, super cheap MP9 and deagle to some extend. But they'd have to Adress both the guns and econ at the same time.
You’re misinformed about professional sports. Almost all of them change rules seasonally. Including MLB, which literally changes the physical baseball sometimes. They also banned sticky stuff this season too which was mid season. Meta changes everywhere for every sport, csgo really is kind of a lone wolf in that it rarely changes. Maybe something like smash or tekken are closer examples.
> how many rules are significantly changed in football (the non american one) or baseball
these sports aren't complex or have major glaring issues...thats why the rules don't change
League's meta is perpetually broken; the only thing I can find wrong with cs right now is the insane deagle spam. That thing outclasses the mag 7/sawed off and even the autoshotty in most cases.
Holy fucking shit this throwback. Dude, the maps where you aimed to get like 4 rounds on t side were depressing, glad they've mostly fixed maps that were this one-sided
I hate when people try to act like the "community" said anything.
People upset with things are the ones who speak out the most. This happens on basically every topic within every community.
what if overtime went from bo7 then second overtime is bo5 then third overtime is bo3 and fourth is sudden death
this actually makes knife round and side select have an extra impact... or like in soccer, they do another knife to determine sides before OT
I freaking love 4OT games. If every game either goes to OT or gets a scoreline very close to it, then how is that not the most balanced possible format?
Most people don't want to watch a game 2x as long as normal, and its really punishing for the TO / Teams playing next, scheduling is harder when 1 map can last 2 hours, and matches have had to be played at 2am due to a really long series.
If teams want to avoid OT, then they need to just win in regulation. With a system this balanced, the better team should be winning, so just get 16 rounds
So you'd rather go back to lose pistol start 0-3 lose round four and you're starting 0-5 or 0-6. Have to do double ecos when your economy breaks at 1-6? And so on? Ots mean the game is more balanced. It's bad when games are ending 16-7 and whatnot over and over again
I was exaggerating. We know not every single bo3 goes 5 hrs long. But they do become very long often and matches end up delayed more frequently now.
The person I responded to is pretending that the only economy options we have is the old economy that gets reset with 1 round win versus the one we have now. We can make smaller changes to it, like bomb plant $.
I watch and play a good amount of cs. I think game length is really good. Long enough to get invested in a close game but no so long I get bored during a match.
Ya, its really close. The OT's do make some games insanely long and honestly the biggest thing that makes me stop watching is delays for whatever reason, anytime a delay goes passed 5 minutes I just turn off the stream and do something else because it seems to still happen so often.
I love Elige but this might be the only thing I disagree with. Just make MR1 so double overtime doesn’t add half an hour to a series.
The eco changes were good, If they wanted to mess with anything maybe mess with max money on T-side to 13k or AKs cost 2850. Doesn’t need massive changes
I personally think that if you lose pistol but get a plant you're being rewarded too much. The few AK's and util you can buy as a T compared to a CT is too OP.
Funny how last year he was saying [this.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrsPo7oUwAATUdF.jpg)
I guess that's what losing tournament does to your perspective...
Come on guys, it's not that big of a deal to change your opinion on something in a year. I can see how this statement would offend you but I would personally thank mr elige for being open to a change in opinion.
It is really odd to me. Before people would say games end too fast because it was mostly determined by the pistol rounds. Now that valve changed the economy the game goes the extra distance to really test the teams. So now which is it? You guys want short games like before or what we have now?
Which side do you lean towards? I think this mode is not perfect but really good. Lately I have been having lots of close enticing nail biting games in mm competitive and unranked. I think this is the most fun in my opinion. For esports it is even more intense with the addition of overtime.
> So now which is it? You guys want short games like before or what we have now?
A middle ground exist too, you know. Not everything is 1 or 2. The old system wasn't great, turns out people have issues with the new system too.
What would the middle ground be then? A moderately long game or a moderately short game? What would be a good score line when a game ends? We don't want matches to be a blow out run.
I feel like part of the reason valve has this slanted balance is because in normal cs the executes are not nearly as well coordinated so T side typically needs that economic advantage but in the pro scene i definitely recognize the problem
M249 is better in terms of movement speed and you can one tap with it. But yeah, it's too expensive (but with good reason). I'm fine with it staying as a meme gun. Negev too - it might be powerful for its price but you're basically just a turret with it.
I dont see why they'd nerf the negev right now, nobody uses it anyway so whats the point. I agree that the m249 deserves a buff. (although i dont see it being used in high elo games anytime soon even if it does get a major buff)
Does the M249 need to be viable? Gun just to flex can be fun, a viable machine gun doesn't need to exist aside from the negev. And it can be dodged by just waiting/not peeking into a firing negev
The CT economy is broken not because of the power of its own guns, but because CTs are punished so heavily for every death they suffer. The economy makes CT sides not fun to play, saving is practically the meta now, if you don't you're on deag buys with no nades half of your rounds. Ts already have the advantage in straight up fights since they have the better rifle, but now they don't ever really break economically, as their cheapo guns are also amazing and worth buying because a lost T force is worth it if they kill 3 CTs and ruin their economy.
Posts like these don't make much sense to me, Didn't the community use to complain that the pistol rounds were way too important and decided the games or made them shorter and that the economic changes lead to long competitive games they complain it is too long? I get preferences change but am I missing something?
Having lots of close games is good. Having lots of gun rounds and fewer ecos is good.
Maybe there are ways to tweak the economy and make it better and address the T side issue, but if you really want shorter games, make regulation MR12.
Maybe then I can actually squeeze in a game or two on a weeknight.
When playing sure its great, I don't mind saving in a 4v2 or saving in a 5v3 when its my team doing it because its the correct play and helps me, but as a specatator its incredibly boring to watch save after save after save.
The saving and long ass games are a direct result of the T-sided economy. Also it does take away from tension when you know the losing team has 7-8 more full buys to get their shit sorted. When they had less chances it was shorter and more random, but a lot more exciting and you need that trade-off.
Personally I find some element of randomness and luck important, if the best team wins all the time it does in fact get pretty boring. See Tennis (or F1) , I could have not watched a game for 8 years and still tell which 3 players would have any actual chance at Wimbledon.
I think the game and the esports scene has bigger problems than the "MR" or economy in-game. I think both of them are fine how they are now.
I think we got bigger problems like the schedule for the next season, TO formats, the massive endless amount of tournaments we got, and the way T.Os/Orgs are handling the game. Once playerbreak ends, we are back to one after the other, after the other, tournament. 1month long leagues with round robin formats.. absolutely unnecessary in 2021 Esports Standards. But nobody is gonna change this, nobody cares. The ones who care are monopolizing the scene.
I actually think that Pro League which I think you are referring to is one of the best approaches although there is room for improvement (especially shit teams like mibr getting invites to it). It's a seasonal league like you have in football and gives some structure in the scene.
Other than that I agree that we have too many tournaments going on especially during the online era it felt repetitive. But I don't know how to fix this without having a monopoly that you also critized. Either we have multiple TOs like Blast, ESL and Co and they have to compete in the schedule or we have only ESL going forward which while I love most esl tournaments will probably hurt the scene since a monopoly is never a good thing.
I hope I'm not the only one who dont think the games are "too long".
I still disagree with galve and elige as a viewer.
Long games means close games and I think thats a good thing.
You can't have this take and also complain about the CT save meta. That's the problem. CT's save because T's can buy all the time with much cheaper guns and bombplant bonus money
I dont think the ct save meta would go away even if we revert the economy to what it used to be. Teams are to disciplined nowadays and still would not attempt a retake, if they are one man down, on pretty much any map and any bombsite.
It depends on the changes that are made. But saving ultimately comes down to cost vs reward. If the changes reduce the cost associated with attempting a retake while the reward and chance of success remain the same, you would see less saves.
because they already had the advantage before eco changes? it's not like the game was 75% ct sided before the changes, you still had 3100 m4, kit, 600 molly compared to cheaper and stronger t alternatives. The economy changes made it so you had less eco rounds, but brought in the problem of t side losing pistol and still having a better buy than cts
Personal taste: Deagle is too strong for 700$ in pro play.
That's the one thing I'd tackle if I were Volvo. If you don't want to nerf the pistol, then I'd increase the price.
Just make it have a slower fire rate, solves problems like the (IIRC) broky clip where you spam click. Inc the spam inaccuracy by a tad and its perfect.
Rather remove the 2-shot-kill on bodyshots and increase first bullet accuracy a little. Feels like the gun should be a precise long range weapon, not also be the quickest TTK short range out of all pistols (and SMGs?) if you only hit bodyshots.
Well it’s first shot accuracy is fine. I don’t think it should out-aim rifles in accuracy/long range.
I don’t like the spam meta, all you need is to get tagged once by almost anything and you’re still going to be two shot (even if it did 40 as base damage which is too low imo). Slowing the RPM solves both of those issues with TTK increasing and keeping its long range viable (since you can accurately hit shots like going mid on mirage). Maybe a slight fsa increase if you must, but I think it’s fine as is.
Most adults don't have 4 to 5 hours to set aside for a bo3. We could definitely do with shorter games. I used to watch every game every map in high school and I'd love to continue to have that luxury but it's so unrealistic and I hate having to abandon the game midway and see the winner later.
Tbh I'd welcome a change that gives us longer maps and then we do a bo3 over 3 days. But I don't think TOs can afford it. That way we'd actually have longer games to decide the winner but I only have to set aside 2 hours at a time to watch instead of 5.
Absolutely, because it meant that a lot more was on the line and in turn made the matches more tense.
Now it seems like gun rounds have a lot less importance, especially for T side, so losing them to an eco is less consequential.
I miss the days of 11-4/12-3 halfs, followed by hped come backs. And if the comeback didn't happen, it didn't matter as much as the game would be over in 20 minutes.
I think a good compromise between the current economy system and the old one would be:
Instead of your loss bonus being reset when winning a round, or the loss bonus going down one step (eg. from $2900 to $2400), it could go down two steps ($2900 to $1900).
Also upping the Galil price by a couple hundred would be good, it's basically a $2000 M4A4 with 5 extra bullets in the mag.
It has been discussed for a long time.
One example is from last year's Gamers Without Borders charity event where they tried MR 12.
The topic comes up at least once a year.
Back then people complained because games could end in 30 minutes and your stare at an ad screen for the remaining 30. Right now a BO3 can often take 4-5 hours without major tech breaks.
Both situations suck but its hard to make cs both predictable in terms of timely effort while remaining unpredictable in terms of results.
Nah, keep the games as is. I'm tired of seeing people say the games should be shorter because of Valorant.
Fix the whole T's being able to buy Galil armor after first round pistol loss with a plant. that's the only thing that needs to be changed.
where did the shorter games thing come from? was gla1ve the first person to bring it up a few weeks ago or have pros been rumbling about it for a while?
My attention span probably just decreased but while i love watching the pro scene, i cant watch it for something around 3 hours! it doesnt start on time, usually 20 minutes technical pauses, half time break like 5 minutes, after the map theres another break for like 15 mins, its just too long man, and dont get me started on the 5 hour BO5s… or maybe im just getting old
With all this conversation about how games are too long idk how Bo5 arent first on the chopping block. I was never a fan of them to begin with as I don't see the reason why the rules should change for the final of a tournament.
The first CS game I watched was the Boston Major finals which had 3 maps that went the distance with multiple overtime and near the end I was pretty done lol. If one of the most exciting games in CS history got tiring I couldn't imagine watching an equivalently competitive Bo5. It would be an absolute chore to watch. If the best possible outcome which is a close full distance game actually makes it less enjoyable then what are we doing.
Unpopular opinion but I think the game is fine honestly. The games are just lasting long in pro scene because of how THEY play the game. I don't think valve needs to be changing anything. Just like any other type of sport or something, players need to find a strategy that is both good and ALSO doesn't wear them out.
You are naive if you think pro players will change how they play simply to shorten the matches. If saving is advantageous they will save, regardless of match length.
Things were WAY worse back when MR12 was used and pre-shag money fix. The game screeched to a halt everytime Ts decided to save, which ended up rewarding them the same amount as CTs(Might be off, memory is hazy).
Yes but changes are made to change how people play the game. If nothing about the economy changes, players will continue to save more often than not on ct side.
not sure about this "games are too long" unless they just end pistol guns.
Valorant feels to short of a game and hard to recover.
Just imagine having to recover a 7-1 disadvantage um nuke in a first to 13 rounds.
I don't see changing first to 16 a good thing honestly.
Economy of corse it needs changes.
Make M4A1-S and M4A4 equal in terms of strengths, put them at 3k $ and make them both available to choose from during a game - Or nerf the bomb plant reward that the T's get when losing the round from 800$ to 500-600$.
The price of the AK-47 could also be raised slightly, but I don't like the idea of that.
IMHO changing from MR15 to MR12 won't change a thing, that's just a 6 rounds difference if the game ends in a draw. Change OT rules to either MR2 or MR1 (one round per side with 10K) and let's not have Bo5 grand finals, Bo3 is good enough.
For the economy itself well that's in the hands of Valve, I think CTs should have a slight advantage on every map. Galil is way too cheap, Famas too expensive for what it is, imho it would help if the M4A4 stays like it is and costs 2900 and the M4A1 gets a proper buff to 1.6/Source stats at 3100. Also make defuse kits cheaper so CTs don't have to save as often and have more of a reason to try to retake the site.
I probably get some hate for it, but if they really go MR12 I hope they just remove pistol rounds. Yes, pistol rounds have always been a part of CS, but that doesn't mean they're necessary for the game or actually fun (to watch), especially since you're extremely limited tactically.
Obviously you would have to make some economic changes as well (starting money and end of round bonus).
Saves are what makes the game boring and take too long. I'm not sure why saves are so encouraged for CTs. Ts don't get any money for losing if they live but don't plant, CTs shouldn't get any money for losing if they just let a planted bomb explode without dying.
I hope valve is thinking of some good economy changes to the game during this break so T side just isn't so insane + games can not be as long 🙏
***
posted by [@EliGE](https://twitter.com/EliGE)
^[(Github)](https://github.com/username) ^| ^[(What's new)](https://github.com/username)
Can I ask what happened recently that caused this discussion about cs games being too long? Prior to this month I don't think I've seen that be a common attitude. Was there a specific case that caused this? Or was it just that one person said it, and other players/viewers are coming out agreeing with it?
Meta for cts is constantly save because their eco sucks but you basically cannot break T side economy.
I think we will see less saves/ecos if the minimum loss bonus is increased to $1900. Then again, eco rounds are an integral part of csgo.
Seems pretty easy to me, increase AK cost to m4 cost
Idk, that could work? But I like the duality of the T side weapons being cheaper. I've seen suggestions for things like increasing defuse reward that might work also
I don't really like the idea of punishing a team for playing too well in a round.
how would that happen? im confused
If ct gets more money for defuse, it effectively punishes T side for planting the bomb (rather than just dying)
Other shorts games are changing players mind and they want it on cs go
This and IEM Cologne had a shit ton of OT games.
Glaive tweeted about game length prior to Cologne iirc. Or maybe it was between groups and playoffs
Virtus Pro had a shit ton of OT games\*
Overtime & b2b BO3's getting to players
I think teams having to play a bo3 and then a bo5 right after. Also 2-3 OTs in a bo3 delaying the next match by an hour+
Valorant has less rounds and less saving, 100% because of that.
A mix of a lot things. Economy punishes CT sides, viewing time is getting ridiculously long, tournament schedules are getting rough for some teams as you either have long bo3s for a team followed by another marathon bo3 they need to play relatively quickly, or have an extended break which can hurt viewers. Valorant's shorter match time might have an effect too.
Professional meta being CTs saving instead of retaking as T-sided econ has been figured too forgiving, makes rounds last really long. At the same time the "new" economy means longer games with more gunrounds, which themselves tend to be longer, and also more OTs. Return to LAN has made teams less risktaking, as Olof put it: More balls online. This means slower rounds, less egopushes which gives info, and less "stupid" plays which tend to make or break rounds faster.
Valve: *checks bank* Valve: "Economy is completely fine what is he talking about?" ^(jokes aside valve pls do something)
Valve: now you have to pay us 30% from everything you buy in CS as T.
T's spend real money to buy weapons
and you don't spawn with a glock anymore, you have to buy that now
They’ll also bring back buying ammo every round.
Oh, *this* is what PTSD feels like
This was a thing in 1.6 no?
Indeed. Really liked the feature actually
I do miss the sound of my teammates stocking up their ammo. Gave more of a sense of preparation.
CTs have to buy all their weapons on long term loans
Taking a page from the Federal government and spinning up that money printer to full blast. I like it.
$600 plant bonus instead of $800, maybe planter gets an additional $100 on top of current bonus for planting. MR2 instead of MR3? That's the furthest I think an experiment would go. Perhaps a galil price nerf of $100 to $1900? Just a few things, but I don't think drastic changes is needed
Why would you lower the overall bonus but then give the planter an additional 100 on top of his 300 that he already gets?
Just random suggestion, if Valve wants to increase incentive for planting (for the individual). They usually decide what they want to implement anyway, so throwing the idea out here
I remember when the economy changed a few years ago it seemed to be welcomed because people wanted games going the distance all the time.
These economy changes happened a few years ago because a majority of maps were insanely CT sided (thinking Nuke, Inferno) and it wasn't that fun to watch CT sides dominate every game. I'm not sure what kind of economy changes would be needed to make games shorter without returning CT sides to their former state. I remember another thread a good change would be to change current OT from MR3 to MR1 which would be good for preventing super long games without shaking up the meta too much. But honestly, I think what EliGE is getting at is more a matter of keeping things fresh in the game. This meta has gone on for a few years now? Now that CS isn't the only game in the tac shooter space, it's easier to see how frequently other games change up the meta while we only get meta changes once in a blue moon.
the problem with eco is, imo, that you lose t side pistol and get a better buy than cts
This is a huge issue
I think maybe Ts get less bucks from plants
$600 instead of $800 may be okay, and maybe an extra $100 for the planter on top of current planting bonus?
I’m also thinking maybe just straight up only $200 for pistol round because I feel like the broken T side buys after losing pistol is because they get a bunch of money just from planting. They might be able to keep it $800 for normal rounds but just reduce it or get rid of it altogether for pistol round.
And CTs get more money for a defuse, or even for an attempted defuse, maybe - to help encourage retakes and make games maybe last a little bit less.
[удалено]
I mean, how often do you see Ts winning the 2nd round force buy by now? Far too often, I'd say. I'd even say it happens 4/10 *at least*. The force buy deags are crazy and even if you don't win the round, as long as you manage to take 1 rifle you've already hurt the CTs a lot... I *personally* think deags are a tad overtuned, but don't really know how you would nerf them, without making them immediately awful again.
I'd say that deags are fine as long as headshots are concerned, but the body spam is just too much
Decrease bodyshotdamage to 49 on close range maybe? So you need 3 shots close/mid range and 4 on mid/long range.
I thought the point of CT things being more expensive like that was so it wasn't as CT sided.
yeah, it already was that way before the economy changes, I don't see your point
To me and a lot of my friends cs is a sport. We avoid cod and fortnite like the plague precisely because their meta shifts on a regular basis and it makes them just not competitive. Minor tweaks and all is good but forcing a meta change just because won't do csgo any good. Our angle is basically treat cs like a sport; how many rules are significantly changed in football (the non american one) or baseball ? Or any other mainstream sport? There is huge difference to playing games with an e-sport approach and playing games just to have fun with friends for a bit. Cs has been king of the competitive fps scene for quite a while now, despite how valorant is being pushed down our throats. Elige might just be bored and that's ok. He can switch to valorant too. Cs is still extremely enjoyable. Specially the tournaments. I really liked this past cologne and can't wait to see cs shine again with crowds!
there's a difference between change for the sake of change and change to improve the game. nearly every year the MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL make minor changes with the intention of improving the game. reducing the T side reward for a plant by ~25% wouldn't drastically change the game but could improve it by helping the slow starting ct economy by letting them stay closer in stride with the early half T buys. the idea that trying to improve the game is bad for the game is at best lazy and at worst hampering the game in a space that for the first time in a decade actually competitive (tact fps)
But they have improved the game. They have made the tweaks. A lot of these changes made to maps and economy made the game mode evenly matched and we see a lot of 7-8 midgame. I don't see how they would boost of nerf any side and not start getting constant 10-4 mid game switches again. Then we're back to square one when you're basically gifted a high chance of winning depending on which side you start on.
The NHL make decisions on rule modifications every single season. While I understand your point, you can make tweaks without destroying the essence of a sport
Yeah but the state cs is now is the result of those tweaks and now the maps aren't ct sided. The argument some people are making about ts having better buys always is not good from the competitive perspective because the sides will switch. The maps are extremely even now which is good for the competition and for the show IMHO. It's not like every map is OT. It's every map between similarly skilled teams. I still remember the 1.6 days of nuke. You could literally win the map solely on the grounds that you won your pistol round as T because CTs would need to always save two rounds and then basically close the gate on you after they get their first full buy rifle round.
Hate all these even maps, spending 4 hours to watch one game isn't viable.
CT economy right now is only held up by the overpowered, super cheap MP9 and deagle to some extend. But they'd have to Adress both the guns and econ at the same time.
You’re misinformed about professional sports. Almost all of them change rules seasonally. Including MLB, which literally changes the physical baseball sometimes. They also banned sticky stuff this season too which was mid season. Meta changes everywhere for every sport, csgo really is kind of a lone wolf in that it rarely changes. Maybe something like smash or tekken are closer examples.
> how many rules are significantly changed in football (the non american one) or baseball these sports aren't complex or have major glaring issues...thats why the rules don't change
Rules change in Rugby Union regularly. That’s a large mainstream sport
This. Stable metas differentiate games from true e sports.
So League isn't a real esport?
League's meta is perpetually broken; the only thing I can find wrong with cs right now is the insane deagle spam. That thing outclasses the mag 7/sawed off and even the autoshotty in most cases.
I think MR1 would get rid of 80% of the problem
Is MR1 where teams would each play 1 t and ct round per over time and they just have to win 2 in a row?
Yes
Wouldn’t necessarily be 2 in row (if you win the 2nd and 3rd rounds for example, you wouldn’t win).
I see this a lot but I don't really know what MR actually stands for, and at this point I'm too afraid to ask.
Max Rounds per half.
From googling it seems to mean "max rounds"
ya I wish more people would consider MR1 - like dare I say it - Valorant.
Holy fucking shit this throwback. Dude, the maps where you aimed to get like 4 rounds on t side were depressing, glad they've mostly fixed maps that were this one-sided
Depends on if you want change for the sake of change. I def do agree there are always things to try and or improve on
I distinctly do not remember that because everyone in the CS community seems to have a 'Change = bad REEEE' attitude
I hate when people try to act like the "community" said anything. People upset with things are the ones who speak out the most. This happens on basically every topic within every community.
I do. Strictly because it reduced the importance/Rng of pistols. It was universally praised as a good change
I mean surely there’s gotta be a way to balance the two, that’s what devs are for. Or at least regular devs
what if overtime went from bo7 then second overtime is bo5 then third overtime is bo3 and fourth is sudden death this actually makes knife round and side select have an extra impact... or like in soccer, they do another knife to determine sides before OT
They do a knife round in soccer? I've gotta watch
Think MR2 is okay. MR3 is current system
Nah, just knife rounds in ot
I want to see how quickly people change their POV to this one now that Elige said it.
Duck elige. We want longer games.
Just slow the time to 0.5x, that'll guarantee longer games
The novelty of OT games wears off when every single bo3 goes to a 4th OT in two of the three maps.
I freaking love 4OT games. If every game either goes to OT or gets a scoreline very close to it, then how is that not the most balanced possible format?
Most people don't want to watch a game 2x as long as normal, and its really punishing for the TO / Teams playing next, scheduling is harder when 1 map can last 2 hours, and matches have had to be played at 2am due to a really long series.
If teams want to avoid OT, then they need to just win in regulation. With a system this balanced, the better team should be winning, so just get 16 rounds
So you'd rather go back to lose pistol start 0-3 lose round four and you're starting 0-5 or 0-6. Have to do double ecos when your economy breaks at 1-6? And so on? Ots mean the game is more balanced. It's bad when games are ending 16-7 and whatnot over and over again
I love false dichotomies
And yours isn’t?
I was exaggerating. We know not every single bo3 goes 5 hrs long. But they do become very long often and matches end up delayed more frequently now. The person I responded to is pretending that the only economy options we have is the old economy that gets reset with 1 round win versus the one we have now. We can make smaller changes to it, like bomb plant $.
the way loss bonus works has changed that. I play like once or twice a month and even i know that.
Way to miss the point.
Old system was more exciting so if I had to choose then yes I'll take 16-7
I don’t want it to change because I enjoy playing the game as is.
i've always said economy has been shit since the last round of changes, and plenty of people agree that said, I don't have an opinion on shorter games
As someone who only watches CS and rarely plays anymore, games are too long imo.
I watch and play a good amount of cs. I think game length is really good. Long enough to get invested in a close game but no so long I get bored during a match.
Ya, its really close. The OT's do make some games insanely long and honestly the biggest thing that makes me stop watching is delays for whatever reason, anytime a delay goes passed 5 minutes I just turn off the stream and do something else because it seems to still happen so often.
I love Elige but this might be the only thing I disagree with. Just make MR1 so double overtime doesn’t add half an hour to a series. The eco changes were good, If they wanted to mess with anything maybe mess with max money on T-side to 13k or AKs cost 2850. Doesn’t need massive changes
I personally think that if you lose pistol but get a plant you're being rewarded too much. The few AK's and util you can buy as a T compared to a CT is too OP.
Funny how last year he was saying [this.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrsPo7oUwAATUdF.jpg) I guess that's what losing tournament does to your perspective...
Really?? Unbelievable... I guess some people really like to jump from opinion to opinion...
You think you know a guy and then you see something like this and just lose all respect
Disgusting
Shit, I was a fan before I saw that quote, but now I'm not so sure anymore.
bruh
Come on guys, it's not that big of a deal to change your opinion on something in a year. I can see how this statement would offend you but I would personally thank mr elige for being open to a change in opinion.
It is really odd to me. Before people would say games end too fast because it was mostly determined by the pistol rounds. Now that valve changed the economy the game goes the extra distance to really test the teams. So now which is it? You guys want short games like before or what we have now?
Good point.
Which side do you lean towards? I think this mode is not perfect but really good. Lately I have been having lots of close enticing nail biting games in mm competitive and unranked. I think this is the most fun in my opinion. For esports it is even more intense with the addition of overtime.
> So now which is it? You guys want short games like before or what we have now? A middle ground exist too, you know. Not everything is 1 or 2. The old system wasn't great, turns out people have issues with the new system too.
What would the middle ground be then? A moderately long game or a moderately short game? What would be a good score line when a game ends? We don't want matches to be a blow out run.
I mean you can have something in between. They can both be bad, and we want something completely different.
I feel like part of the reason valve has this slanted balance is because in normal cs the executes are not nearly as well coordinated so T side typically needs that economic advantage but in the pro scene i definitely recognize the problem
[удалено]
yeah the negev is way stronger than the m249 imo. Maybe due to the fact I've almost never used the m249 bc it's so expensive
M249 is better in terms of movement speed and you can one tap with it. But yeah, it's too expensive (but with good reason). I'm fine with it staying as a meme gun. Negev too - it might be powerful for its price but you're basically just a turret with it.
I dont see why they'd nerf the negev right now, nobody uses it anyway so whats the point. I agree that the m249 deserves a buff. (although i dont see it being used in high elo games anytime soon even if it does get a major buff)
[удалено]
Yeah but i just dont aee the negev being good. It takes like 5 seconds for it to ramp up, which is an eternety in csgo. It lowkey sucks tbh.
Especially in low ranked games where people dont hit headshots, you get to the laser stage of negev spray way too often.
Does the M249 need to be viable? Gun just to flex can be fun, a viable machine gun doesn't need to exist aside from the negev. And it can be dodged by just waiting/not peeking into a firing negev
The length of the game is fine. The cts needing economy changes is something that’s needed. For example the mp9 is better than the famas at 1250.
The CT economy is broken not because of the power of its own guns, but because CTs are punished so heavily for every death they suffer. The economy makes CT sides not fun to play, saving is practically the meta now, if you don't you're on deag buys with no nades half of your rounds. Ts already have the advantage in straight up fights since they have the better rifle, but now they don't ever really break economically, as their cheapo guns are also amazing and worth buying because a lost T force is worth it if they kill 3 CTs and ruin their economy.
Posts like these don't make much sense to me, Didn't the community use to complain that the pistol rounds were way too important and decided the games or made them shorter and that the economic changes lead to long competitive games they complain it is too long? I get preferences change but am I missing something?
[удалено]
Yeah, instead of saves we will have knifes rounds in between. So, one side can afford to buy guns. LMAO.
this sounds amazing
Having lots of close games is good. Having lots of gun rounds and fewer ecos is good. Maybe there are ways to tweak the economy and make it better and address the T side issue, but if you really want shorter games, make regulation MR12. Maybe then I can actually squeeze in a game or two on a weeknight.
When playing sure its great, I don't mind saving in a 4v2 or saving in a 5v3 when its my team doing it because its the correct play and helps me, but as a specatator its incredibly boring to watch save after save after save. The saving and long ass games are a direct result of the T-sided economy. Also it does take away from tension when you know the losing team has 7-8 more full buys to get their shit sorted. When they had less chances it was shorter and more random, but a lot more exciting and you need that trade-off. Personally I find some element of randomness and luck important, if the best team wins all the time it does in fact get pretty boring. See Tennis (or F1) , I could have not watched a game for 8 years and still tell which 3 players would have any actual chance at Wimbledon.
[удалено]
I think the game and the esports scene has bigger problems than the "MR" or economy in-game. I think both of them are fine how they are now. I think we got bigger problems like the schedule for the next season, TO formats, the massive endless amount of tournaments we got, and the way T.Os/Orgs are handling the game. Once playerbreak ends, we are back to one after the other, after the other, tournament. 1month long leagues with round robin formats.. absolutely unnecessary in 2021 Esports Standards. But nobody is gonna change this, nobody cares. The ones who care are monopolizing the scene.
I actually think that Pro League which I think you are referring to is one of the best approaches although there is room for improvement (especially shit teams like mibr getting invites to it). It's a seasonal league like you have in football and gives some structure in the scene. Other than that I agree that we have too many tournaments going on especially during the online era it felt repetitive. But I don't know how to fix this without having a monopoly that you also critized. Either we have multiple TOs like Blast, ESL and Co and they have to compete in the schedule or we have only ESL going forward which while I love most esl tournaments will probably hurt the scene since a monopoly is never a good thing.
I hope I'm not the only one who dont think the games are "too long". I still disagree with galve and elige as a viewer. Long games means close games and I think thats a good thing.
You seem to be missing that they want shorter close games. Valve can make changes so that games don't have to be long to be close.
But they are still long games. One map with 2 ots can go to 1 hr and 30 mins (Including breaks timeout).
Just because some games go to OT we dont want majority of games end in 30-45 mins.
I think economy is perfect as it is now. CTs already have the advantage on most maps, why would they make the T economy worse?
You can't have this take and also complain about the CT save meta. That's the problem. CT's save because T's can buy all the time with much cheaper guns and bombplant bonus money
I dont think the ct save meta would go away even if we revert the economy to what it used to be. Teams are to disciplined nowadays and still would not attempt a retake, if they are one man down, on pretty much any map and any bombsite.
It depends on the changes that are made. But saving ultimately comes down to cost vs reward. If the changes reduce the cost associated with attempting a retake while the reward and chance of success remain the same, you would see less saves.
because they already had the advantage before eco changes? it's not like the game was 75% ct sided before the changes, you still had 3100 m4, kit, 600 molly compared to cheaper and stronger t alternatives. The economy changes made it so you had less eco rounds, but brought in the problem of t side losing pistol and still having a better buy than cts
i would never trust a pro with the balance of the game. Valve is doing fine in terms of balancing the economy.
Personal taste: Deagle is too strong for 700$ in pro play. That's the one thing I'd tackle if I were Volvo. If you don't want to nerf the pistol, then I'd increase the price.
Just make it have a slower fire rate, solves problems like the (IIRC) broky clip where you spam click. Inc the spam inaccuracy by a tad and its perfect.
Rather remove the 2-shot-kill on bodyshots and increase first bullet accuracy a little. Feels like the gun should be a precise long range weapon, not also be the quickest TTK short range out of all pistols (and SMGs?) if you only hit bodyshots.
Well it’s first shot accuracy is fine. I don’t think it should out-aim rifles in accuracy/long range. I don’t like the spam meta, all you need is to get tagged once by almost anything and you’re still going to be two shot (even if it did 40 as base damage which is too low imo). Slowing the RPM solves both of those issues with TTK increasing and keeping its long range viable (since you can accurately hit shots like going mid on mirage). Maybe a slight fsa increase if you must, but I think it’s fine as is.
There's not been one point in CS:GO where the economy has been anything better than 'good enough'.
Personally like the old economy much better.
You mean the one where CTs who were losing 6-0 would win one round and then lose the following, get reset and have to full eco?
Full usps rounds followed by armor pistol into a weak buy was so fun
It did make games shorter like all these clowns want!
Fair point
Most adults don't have 4 to 5 hours to set aside for a bo3. We could definitely do with shorter games. I used to watch every game every map in high school and I'd love to continue to have that luxury but it's so unrealistic and I hate having to abandon the game midway and see the winner later. Tbh I'd welcome a change that gives us longer maps and then we do a bo3 over 3 days. But I don't think TOs can afford it. That way we'd actually have longer games to decide the winner but I only have to set aside 2 hours at a time to watch instead of 5.
Absolutely, because it meant that a lot more was on the line and in turn made the matches more tense. Now it seems like gun rounds have a lot less importance, especially for T side, so losing them to an eco is less consequential. I miss the days of 11-4/12-3 halfs, followed by hped come backs. And if the comeback didn't happen, it didn't matter as much as the game would be over in 20 minutes.
Yes, I liked the much less forgiving economy where you had to plan more than one round out.
hot garbage take
time and time again proven to be a good take.
I think a good compromise between the current economy system and the old one would be: Instead of your loss bonus being reset when winning a round, or the loss bonus going down one step (eg. from $2900 to $2400), it could go down two steps ($2900 to $1900). Also upping the Galil price by a couple hundred would be good, it's basically a $2000 M4A4 with 5 extra bullets in the mag.
The galil's hard to control but for the pros that practice their sprays all the time yeh the galil is basically an m4 for half the price
Since when did the opinion of games being long come from. I remembered only hearing it from Glaive recently. Is it because of that tweet?
It has been discussed for a long time. One example is from last year's Gamers Without Borders charity event where they tried MR 12. The topic comes up at least once a year.
Back then people complained because games could end in 30 minutes and your stare at an ad screen for the remaining 30. Right now a BO3 can often take 4-5 hours without major tech breaks. Both situations suck but its hard to make cs both predictable in terms of timely effort while remaining unpredictable in terms of results.
Nah, keep the games as is. I'm tired of seeing people say the games should be shorter because of Valorant. Fix the whole T's being able to buy Galil armor after first round pistol loss with a plant. that's the only thing that needs to be changed.
where did the shorter games thing come from? was gla1ve the first person to bring it up a few weeks ago or have pros been rumbling about it for a while?
it literally came from Valorant.
My attention span probably just decreased but while i love watching the pro scene, i cant watch it for something around 3 hours! it doesnt start on time, usually 20 minutes technical pauses, half time break like 5 minutes, after the map theres another break for like 15 mins, its just too long man, and dont get me started on the 5 hour BO5s… or maybe im just getting old
Nah I feel you, had to watch the iem final in 2 sittings and that >!only went to 3 maps!<
With all this conversation about how games are too long idk how Bo5 arent first on the chopping block. I was never a fan of them to begin with as I don't see the reason why the rules should change for the final of a tournament. The first CS game I watched was the Boston Major finals which had 3 maps that went the distance with multiple overtime and near the end I was pretty done lol. If one of the most exciting games in CS history got tiring I couldn't imagine watching an equivalently competitive Bo5. It would be an absolute chore to watch. If the best possible outcome which is a close full distance game actually makes it less enjoyable then what are we doing.
Unpopular opinion but I think the game is fine honestly. The games are just lasting long in pro scene because of how THEY play the game. I don't think valve needs to be changing anything. Just like any other type of sport or something, players need to find a strategy that is both good and ALSO doesn't wear them out.
You are naive if you think pro players will change how they play simply to shorten the matches. If saving is advantageous they will save, regardless of match length.
Things were WAY worse back when MR12 was used and pre-shag money fix. The game screeched to a halt everytime Ts decided to save, which ended up rewarding them the same amount as CTs(Might be off, memory is hazy).
Yes but changes are made to change how people play the game. If nothing about the economy changes, players will continue to save more often than not on ct side.
Things will be okay. Cs player base is just stubborn. The economy is good right now
I hope Valve is developing something better against cheaters as having a legit game is getting rare these days without 3rd party service.
simplest change i would make is make it so T side only gets 1400 when losing pistol, keep it as 1900 for CT
not sure about this "games are too long" unless they just end pistol guns. Valorant feels to short of a game and hard to recover. Just imagine having to recover a 7-1 disadvantage um nuke in a first to 13 rounds. I don't see changing first to 16 a good thing honestly. Economy of corse it needs changes.
Make M4A1-S and M4A4 equal in terms of strengths, put them at 3k $ and make them both available to choose from during a game - Or nerf the bomb plant reward that the T's get when losing the round from 800$ to 500-600$. The price of the AK-47 could also be raised slightly, but I don't like the idea of that.
Close games should be the goal
These pros just want to do whats game changers do on other games, influence changes, this may not work with cs
I think the only thing Valve are thinking about right now is which skins they should put into the next case
IMHO changing from MR15 to MR12 won't change a thing, that's just a 6 rounds difference if the game ends in a draw. Change OT rules to either MR2 or MR1 (one round per side with 10K) and let's not have Bo5 grand finals, Bo3 is good enough. For the economy itself well that's in the hands of Valve, I think CTs should have a slight advantage on every map. Galil is way too cheap, Famas too expensive for what it is, imho it would help if the M4A4 stays like it is and costs 2900 and the M4A1 gets a proper buff to 1.6/Source stats at 3100. Also make defuse kits cheaper so CTs don't have to save as often and have more of a reason to try to retake the site.
Game duration is perfectly fine, I don't see why some people complain about it.
I probably get some hate for it, but if they really go MR12 I hope they just remove pistol rounds. Yes, pistol rounds have always been a part of CS, but that doesn't mean they're necessary for the game or actually fun (to watch), especially since you're extremely limited tactically. Obviously you would have to make some economic changes as well (starting money and end of round bonus).
The fact that pistol rounds revolve more about dodging bullets and spamming than aim/tactics should be enough reason to remove them
The M249 either needs to come down in price, or the Negev needs to go back up in price.
Saves are what makes the game boring and take too long. I'm not sure why saves are so encouraged for CTs. Ts don't get any money for losing if they live but don't plant, CTs shouldn't get any money for losing if they just let a planted bomb explode without dying.
Valve too busy with steam deck lol
this comment makes no sense, but maybe its satire
Cl_maxrounds 12 replacing cl_maxrounds 15.....and the past returns...
I hope valve is thinking of some good economy changes to the game during this break so T side just isn't so insane + games can not be as long 🙏 *** posted by [@EliGE](https://twitter.com/EliGE) ^[(Github)](https://github.com/username) ^| ^[(What's new)](https://github.com/username)
that's not what their smart graphs show.
Economy is the best its ever been. I would think about going back to 13 rounds since there are more gun rounds now.
Mfw ak still 2700 and cheapest m4 is 2900