this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)
Counter Strike
307 readers
1 users here now
# Counter Strike - Counter Strike Official Blog m/cs is the home for the Counter-Strike community on Kbin and the Fediverse and a hub for the discussion and sharing of content relevant to Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO), and the upcoming Counter-Strike 2 (CS2). Counter-Strike enjoys a thriving esports scene and dedicated competitive playerbase, as well as a robust creative community. This is the largest and most active CS sub on Reddit.
Socials - Discord
- Twitter ---
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have to assume the economy will be reworked or adjusted in some way. It seems sometimes like it takes forever to build up your econ, losing three rounds in a half would significantly impact the ability to come back into a game.
The other side of it is that it might make Bo5 more manageable for everyone involved. I'm sure ence would play slightly differently if they knew at 12-6 they were facing map loss, teams make different plays at 15 because it's about to end and that will transfer over. As long as the economy obeys
Having watched Launders comments I am kind of curious about the effect of having more pistol rounds - in the sense that as he says the maps are designed around full utility usage and guns with certain characteristics, and pistols just aren't suited to execute on that properly so the rounds behave completely differently.
Would we want our economy to become compressed so that there is one pistol round at the beginning of each side to determine a kind of advantage then, from there, there is no significant "breaking" of the economy? Or would we want the opposite, where one break can basically decide the outcome of a side of a map?
The thing about MR15 is that we don't really have to make those decisions because there is always time to recover, especially with the way the loss bonus works. Just the change to MR12 means a team lagging behind might not have enough rounds left to build up max loss bonus for a full buy, and further enhancing the loss bonus compresses the economy as I described above leading to full buys almost every round.
And let's not get into situations like when Valve decides to add a few hundred dollars to the price of an M4 or something like that. MR12 will magnify the impact of every game balancing decision.
It's such a complex topic. If the economy becomes more punishing again, that will compound the MR12 effect of making the games shorter, with bigger score gaps. Matches would probably feel trivially short.
But there's something about the ebbs and flows of CS economy that seem fundamental to the character of the game. Having no breaks, no resets, could become more boring to watch.
I think that is where I am heading in my thoughts. In principle I love the idea that "everybody plays the same game" so I am in favour of the single queue, fixed timeouts approach and I see how that naturally leads to MR12 because much of the player base just does not have the spare time for MR15. BUT ... the economy is the beating heart of CS and losing that ebb and flow - as you describe it - either to steamrollering or to irrelevance will be terrible.
I don't know what the solution is. I would personally fix it by removing pistols (except as default secondarys to avoid reloads), increasing the available cash for round one and rebalancing the rifles for greater variation in cost and performance, then adjust the loser bonus to be bumpy enough to return some ebb and flow to each round. But that is just out there theorycrafting 😁