Even this article was appropriately mediocre. The whole thing is dead. Hopefully Valve have more in mind for CS2, otherwise it's over for the industry. What good esports are left? League is done, Dota is in a decline, Overwatch has never been good, and now CS is on the out.
Good article aside from the talk about the ingame economy - it’s what makes the game interesting to me and never a bad thing. Good teams can manage fine, bad decisions are punished it is what it is. It is good. It’s old and always worked. If you have a better idea you can write about it, but so far nobody had better ideas. If you give the teams too much economy in the game it gets stale and makes the economy meaningless. No, no it’s fine the way it is. I guess you’re just bored with the game in general, not just the economy.
The trophy is tacky, the trophy is odd, and that’s what I like about it. It’s something new and unique, it’s a matter of taste. It’s a funny trophy, it’s not a serious trophy. Maybe it fits a mediocre Major with average teams in the playoffs. For me it’s not important enough to dislike the trophy. But we can all dislike the playoffs and the RMR/major format. That’s the biggest issue and I hope they will change it.
The economy incentives saving and thefore by default causes less excitement in the rounds. That is just what we saw all the time. Do some teams use the economy better than others? Yes. Does that make it any less dreadful to watch? No.
I don't know how you can possibly watch Inferno in present-day CS:GO and come to the conclusion that the economy is fine. You say "bad decisions are punished", and you're absolutely right, but the problem is that in the current meta going for a retake is a bad decision 8/10 times. At its core Counter-Strike is a game about Ts attacking bombsite, CTs defending bombsites, and Ts protecting the bomb while CTs attempt to defuse it. The current state of the economy is the obstacle preventing that "ideal state" of CS:GO from existing by discouraging retakes.
Knowing when to call a save should be what separates teams with exceptional economy management from the rest. It shouldn't be the correct call every time you're somewhat out of position or down a man and the bomb is planted. This isn't a problem unique to Inferno either, it has affected every map in the game but is most apparent on that once great map. Likewise, the economy issue isn't purely related to saving, but the frequency of saving is an indicator that something is very wrong.
It’s smart to know when you have a good chance to make it and when not. When they have they usually try to retake it, it’s not as bad as you say it is. Maybe inferno is worse than other maps, but generally what I saw in the last major, I saw even “too many” retake attempts where I said to myself that they have low chances of making it and they still did try to do it.
You can’t change the economy too much or otherwise it will be a wash and make it irrelevant. I don’t see most people complaining about the economic situation in the game, this is brought up pretty rarely. If it’s such a huge problem surely more people would talk about it.
Btw, if you have low chance of retaking the bomb site, and you do it anyway because you got the money to do it, it will most likely result in a pathetic L anyway who wants to see that? I don’t know, it’s just not attractive. It’s more than just money why they’re not doing it. Players don’t want to look ridiculous attempting things that have a low chance of succeeding.
Understandable and often enough they do try to retake the site. Why do people related to esports always exaggerate so much? It’s as if the whole space is made up of people with imbalanced minds - honestly. If it was so bad they would’ve changed it a long time ago, it’s like this since a very long time
I'd say exaggerating and blowing things out of proportion is the default on the internet :)
-But no, Valve would not have changed it a long time ago if it was bad. It's the curse and blessing of having Valve as the developer of cs-go, they are absent for the most part and only do things at their leisure. It does allow the meta to evolve and progress to it's zenith over time, but if the meta is disliked for various reasons, then tough luck, because you are stuck with it for months if not years on end.
Yea maybe you got a point. I’d like to know the opinion of players on this. But of course they would care less as they’re not watching, they’re playing, that’s a bit different
The points the article makes about seeding, format, stickers, and trophies are all correct, but I don't agree with bashing blast for lacking innovation for the major. They've never hosted a tournament this big and focusing on reducing mistakes/errors is better than trying to do too much.
Also the article adopts a terribly pessimistic perspective on the future of the scene, which is sad really.
If the game deserves an 'appropriately mediocre send off', then maybe you shouldn't spend time covering the game. Even if things are bad, and the scene is getting worse, saying it deserves its mediocrity is the same as saying there is nothing good within the scene. The game itself is the most exciting esport to play or watch, and nothing any TO does will change that.
I recently read your article discussing the Paris CS:GO Major, and I wanted to share my thoughts on the cynical tone that permeates your writing. While I understand that everyone is entitled to their own perspective, I believe it's important to consider the positive aspects of the event and the potential for growth within the CS:GO community.
You express skepticism towards the enthusiasm surrounding the tournament, dismissing it as typical euphoria that dissipates quickly. However, I believe it's essential to celebrate and appreciate the excitement generated by such events. Major tournaments like the one in Paris bring together fans from around the world, showcasing the best of CS:GO and fostering a sense of unity and passion within the community.
You also mention that the idea of the event being a farewell to CS:GO is merely a marketing angle. While it's true that the competitive scene may face certain challenges, it's important to acknowledge the significance of these milestones. They provide an opportunity to reflect on the game's journey and the impact it has had on players and fans alike. By dismissing it as a marketing ploy, we overlook the achievements and progress made within the CS:GO community.
You express concerns about the stagnant nature of the competitive scene, highlighting issues such as the in-game economy and map pool. While these are valid points, it's crucial to recognize that game developers often take community feedback into account. The CS:GO community has been vocal about their desires for improvements, and it's possible that future updates and patches could address the issues you raise. Continued communication and collaboration between players and developers can pave the way for positive changes.
Rather than focusing solely on the negatives, I believe it would be beneficial to approach these topics with a balanced perspective. Acknowledging the challenges while also recognizing the potential for growth and improvement can foster a more constructive conversation. By engaging in meaningful dialogue, we can contribute to the development of the CS:GO community and work towards creating a better competitive environment.
Thank you for sharing your insights and perspective. I hope we can continue discussing these topics with an open mind, embracing both criticism and the potential for positive change.
It's been proven time, and time... and time again that Valve does whatever they want whenever they want, and they don't necessarily have anyone who's an expert at the game working there (not in a high enough role at least).
Richard could write multiple articles about all the times Valve has (and still does) let the community down. I mean ffs, Vertigo is already bad enough to watch but could they at least give enough of a shit to spend 5 mins in the editor to fix a pixel gap in a crucial part of the map... it's taking them way longer than it took them to fix the one way wallbang on Ancient, but I guess they probably don't even watch their own game to know those things. And that's just recent stuff off the top of my head... the incompetence/lack of care runs deep.
So while I can sympathise with the ideal of wanting to foster more positivity within the community, what you're asking is that we forget all the history of Valve and CSGO, and I'm sure you know the saying about those who forget history..
Valve has done wonders for CSGO when it comes to technical aspects of the game, so no doubt they have talented software developers, but when it comes to their decision making over the years, they have way more misses than hits in my opinion.
So I'll gladly take every positive decision they make with CS2 with the accompanying degree of positive surprise, rather than blindly hope they'll suddenly be better than they have been for the past 10 years.
In essence, I think you're appealing to blind positivity, and I don't see how that does anything beyond setting people up for disappointment.
This is the most jaded I have felt towards a major ever since I started watching CS. That's saying a lot because PGL Krakow was the first major I watched attentively. This major have made me question myself for the first time - why am I even watching CS esports?
IEM Gaules Major had its seeding problems as well, but at least the english broadcast hiring was good, and I secretly enjoyed the upset championship run of 'Voldemort Pro' - The team that must not be named
To hate Blast, this major had so many reasons to chose from - pick your poison.
A well-written article overall - this didn't really "feel" like a special major despite all of the hype surrounding it, and it is especially dimmed by how it just feels like another tournament in the endless slog of big CSGO events like the upcoming IEM Dallas or the preceding IEM Rio; however, I do have one point of contention with the writing, especially pertaining to team ranks.
In one paragraph you mention that teams that constantly grind Tier 2 tournaments (like BNE) are limited by how far they can rise in rankings such as HLTV's, while richer partner teams can pay to basically keep their ranking (especially EG), despite their overwhelming mediocrity. This is a true statement, but in the very next paragraph you then leverage these same rankings to dismiss the runs of Apeks and Vitality, as they didn't play enough teams that were "ranked highly" - it feels slightly contradictory to criticize the rankings for their inaccurate rigidity and then use them to dismiss teams that had runs of success in the major.
Even this article was appropriately mediocre. The whole thing is dead. Hopefully Valve have more in mind for CS2, otherwise it's over for the industry. What good esports are left? League is done, Dota is in a decline, Overwatch has never been good, and now CS is on the out.
Good article aside from the talk about the ingame economy - it’s what makes the game interesting to me and never a bad thing. Good teams can manage fine, bad decisions are punished it is what it is. It is good. It’s old and always worked. If you have a better idea you can write about it, but so far nobody had better ideas. If you give the teams too much economy in the game it gets stale and makes the economy meaningless. No, no it’s fine the way it is. I guess you’re just bored with the game in general, not just the economy.
The trophy is tacky, the trophy is odd, and that’s what I like about it. It’s something new and unique, it’s a matter of taste. It’s a funny trophy, it’s not a serious trophy. Maybe it fits a mediocre Major with average teams in the playoffs. For me it’s not important enough to dislike the trophy. But we can all dislike the playoffs and the RMR/major format. That’s the biggest issue and I hope they will change it.
The economy incentives saving and thefore by default causes less excitement in the rounds. That is just what we saw all the time. Do some teams use the economy better than others? Yes. Does that make it any less dreadful to watch? No.
It’s not dreadful to watch, it’s interesting because most of the time they improvise and do specific things, you’re generalising a bit too much
I don't know how you can possibly watch Inferno in present-day CS:GO and come to the conclusion that the economy is fine. You say "bad decisions are punished", and you're absolutely right, but the problem is that in the current meta going for a retake is a bad decision 8/10 times. At its core Counter-Strike is a game about Ts attacking bombsite, CTs defending bombsites, and Ts protecting the bomb while CTs attempt to defuse it. The current state of the economy is the obstacle preventing that "ideal state" of CS:GO from existing by discouraging retakes.
Knowing when to call a save should be what separates teams with exceptional economy management from the rest. It shouldn't be the correct call every time you're somewhat out of position or down a man and the bomb is planted. This isn't a problem unique to Inferno either, it has affected every map in the game but is most apparent on that once great map. Likewise, the economy issue isn't purely related to saving, but the frequency of saving is an indicator that something is very wrong.
It’s smart to know when you have a good chance to make it and when not. When they have they usually try to retake it, it’s not as bad as you say it is. Maybe inferno is worse than other maps, but generally what I saw in the last major, I saw even “too many” retake attempts where I said to myself that they have low chances of making it and they still did try to do it.
You can’t change the economy too much or otherwise it will be a wash and make it irrelevant. I don’t see most people complaining about the economic situation in the game, this is brought up pretty rarely. If it’s such a huge problem surely more people would talk about it.
Btw, if you have low chance of retaking the bomb site, and you do it anyway because you got the money to do it, it will most likely result in a pathetic L anyway who wants to see that? I don’t know, it’s just not attractive. It’s more than just money why they’re not doing it. Players don’t want to look ridiculous attempting things that have a low chance of succeeding.
I'd rather see teams attempt a retake than watch 30-40 seconds of nothing happening due to the CT saving.
Understandable and often enough they do try to retake the site. Why do people related to esports always exaggerate so much? It’s as if the whole space is made up of people with imbalanced minds - honestly. If it was so bad they would’ve changed it a long time ago, it’s like this since a very long time
I'd say exaggerating and blowing things out of proportion is the default on the internet :)
-But no, Valve would not have changed it a long time ago if it was bad. It's the curse and blessing of having Valve as the developer of cs-go, they are absent for the most part and only do things at their leisure. It does allow the meta to evolve and progress to it's zenith over time, but if the meta is disliked for various reasons, then tough luck, because you are stuck with it for months if not years on end.
Yea maybe you got a point. I’d like to know the opinion of players on this. But of course they would care less as they’re not watching, they’re playing, that’s a bit different
"If it was so bad they would’ve changed it a long time ago, it’s like this since a very long time". lol
I would agree that the trophy lies somewhere between dragon and artillery shell on the ring piece rumbling scale.
Now imagine if one of those vitality players retire and the pictures regarding the “high point of their careers” is holding that trophy....
The points the article makes about seeding, format, stickers, and trophies are all correct, but I don't agree with bashing blast for lacking innovation for the major. They've never hosted a tournament this big and focusing on reducing mistakes/errors is better than trying to do too much.
Also the article adopts a terribly pessimistic perspective on the future of the scene, which is sad really.
If the game deserves an 'appropriately mediocre send off', then maybe you shouldn't spend time covering the game. Even if things are bad, and the scene is getting worse, saying it deserves its mediocrity is the same as saying there is nothing good within the scene. The game itself is the most exciting esport to play or watch, and nothing any TO does will change that.
I recently read your article discussing the Paris CS:GO Major, and I wanted to share my thoughts on the cynical tone that permeates your writing. While I understand that everyone is entitled to their own perspective, I believe it's important to consider the positive aspects of the event and the potential for growth within the CS:GO community.
You express skepticism towards the enthusiasm surrounding the tournament, dismissing it as typical euphoria that dissipates quickly. However, I believe it's essential to celebrate and appreciate the excitement generated by such events. Major tournaments like the one in Paris bring together fans from around the world, showcasing the best of CS:GO and fostering a sense of unity and passion within the community.
You also mention that the idea of the event being a farewell to CS:GO is merely a marketing angle. While it's true that the competitive scene may face certain challenges, it's important to acknowledge the significance of these milestones. They provide an opportunity to reflect on the game's journey and the impact it has had on players and fans alike. By dismissing it as a marketing ploy, we overlook the achievements and progress made within the CS:GO community.
You express concerns about the stagnant nature of the competitive scene, highlighting issues such as the in-game economy and map pool. While these are valid points, it's crucial to recognize that game developers often take community feedback into account. The CS:GO community has been vocal about their desires for improvements, and it's possible that future updates and patches could address the issues you raise. Continued communication and collaboration between players and developers can pave the way for positive changes.
Rather than focusing solely on the negatives, I believe it would be beneficial to approach these topics with a balanced perspective. Acknowledging the challenges while also recognizing the potential for growth and improvement can foster a more constructive conversation. By engaging in meaningful dialogue, we can contribute to the development of the CS:GO community and work towards creating a better competitive environment.
Thank you for sharing your insights and perspective. I hope we can continue discussing these topics with an open mind, embracing both criticism and the potential for positive change.
In reply to your fourth paragraph:
It's been proven time, and time... and time again that Valve does whatever they want whenever they want, and they don't necessarily have anyone who's an expert at the game working there (not in a high enough role at least).
Richard could write multiple articles about all the times Valve has (and still does) let the community down. I mean ffs, Vertigo is already bad enough to watch but could they at least give enough of a shit to spend 5 mins in the editor to fix a pixel gap in a crucial part of the map... it's taking them way longer than it took them to fix the one way wallbang on Ancient, but I guess they probably don't even watch their own game to know those things. And that's just recent stuff off the top of my head... the incompetence/lack of care runs deep.
So while I can sympathise with the ideal of wanting to foster more positivity within the community, what you're asking is that we forget all the history of Valve and CSGO, and I'm sure you know the saying about those who forget history..
Valve has done wonders for CSGO when it comes to technical aspects of the game, so no doubt they have talented software developers, but when it comes to their decision making over the years, they have way more misses than hits in my opinion.
So I'll gladly take every positive decision they make with CS2 with the accompanying degree of positive surprise, rather than blindly hope they'll suddenly be better than they have been for the past 10 years.
In essence, I think you're appealing to blind positivity, and I don't see how that does anything beyond setting people up for disappointment.
This is the most jaded I have felt towards a major ever since I started watching CS. That's saying a lot because PGL Krakow was the first major I watched attentively. This major have made me question myself for the first time - why am I even watching CS esports?
IEM Gaules Major had its seeding problems as well, but at least the english broadcast hiring was good, and I secretly enjoyed the upset championship run of 'Voldemort Pro' - The team that must not be named
To hate Blast, this major had so many reasons to chose from - pick your poison.
> I’ve ranted into the void about this and the void has simply whispered back “just win your games lol”
what a hilarious fuckin line to sneak in there
A well-written article overall - this didn't really "feel" like a special major despite all of the hype surrounding it, and it is especially dimmed by how it just feels like another tournament in the endless slog of big CSGO events like the upcoming IEM Dallas or the preceding IEM Rio; however, I do have one point of contention with the writing, especially pertaining to team ranks.
In one paragraph you mention that teams that constantly grind Tier 2 tournaments (like BNE) are limited by how far they can rise in rankings such as HLTV's, while richer partner teams can pay to basically keep their ranking (especially EG), despite their overwhelming mediocrity. This is a true statement, but in the very next paragraph you then leverage these same rankings to dismiss the runs of Apeks and Vitality, as they didn't play enough teams that were "ranked highly" - it feels slightly contradictory to criticize the rankings for their inaccurate rigidity and then use them to dismiss teams that had runs of success in the major.