Snxper

@username9001221 giving too much credit to Mouz, they dont beat noob farmer s1zzi

Objective my ass, Vitality hasn't had to face challenges like ThunderDownUnder before

@VetriXCS @JesperLarsen222 imo the APAC region needs a sensible yet big account to make sure the region's voice is heard and that Valve can consider the APAC region when setting the VRS rules. otherwise just gonna be an EU echo chamber. Especially important considering Valve wants to grow the APAC region.

@_Snxper @JesperLarsen222 I just really hate the idea of banning either. If anything we just need harsher punishments for forfeiting imo Ideally TO's should just communicate if it happens, Mongolians showed that it CAN be done with like 5 different teams playing both MESA and ESN Championship.

More context on what's going on in the Asian major qualification -> We were maybe about to see a team win an entire event without playing a single match in the playoffs, but since Lynn Vision is now safe for the major after some valuable Forfeit wins we have to assume the Grand final is actually going to be played?? 🤯 Part of me thinks it is fine that Chineese teams makes no effort trying to hide that a "half-baked" VRS and TOR can obviously be gamed hard. It's also not just in Asia that VRS are being bent (abused?) to the max.. It's all over the world by now. This really calls for "a little less conversation and a LOT more action" from Valve.

@VetriXCS @JesperLarsen222 also very unforunate that Yuqilin is petty asf, otherwise them and XSE would have comm'd about the arrangements and there would have been way fewer problems.

@VetriXCS @JesperLarsen222 100% true, these big accounts are pushing the wrong message cuz they dont follow the Asian scene closely, ofc it works in EU cuz the tourneys are in different coutnries/cities, but when the tourneys are in Asia and are close, more thought needs to be put into it.

@VetriXCS @JesperLarsen222 yea true, I am more on the side of not banning either but I think its slightly more determential having long LAN delays compared to long online delays. Like if he is really fixated on wanting to bann one or the another, I would say LANs.

@_Snxper @JesperLarsen222 Additionally, I don't think banning teams from playing multiple events is the right move, online or LAN. My point is just that if you're going to ban one, you should be consistent and do it for the other, since these situations vary so much case-by-case.

@VetriXCS @JesperLarsen222 yea for sure, that is partially (maybe more?) on them as well. To a certain extent they should be punished for that as well (e.g. by being docked more points, GOAT @Auxzap's idea), but imo cutting off the serpant's head is more important long-term in these types of policy-making

@_Snxper @JesperLarsen222 But since these teams are aware that CCT don't allow rescheduling and play these events anyway. The only difference between this and TYLOO's case is that they're not physically there.

@VetriXCS @JesperLarsen222 for instance, the ACL qualifier will be held very soon, some ECL teams still need to play in them to qualify for ACL. By definition they count as "simultaneous" in the most literal scene. Shall the ECL team barred from playing in that OQ then?

@_Snxper @JesperLarsen222 A lot of TOs (like CCT, ESL) don't allow rescheduling even online under any circumstances and then we see shitshows like TDU vs Mindfreak&Legion pretty frequently. There's really no difference between this and cases like TYLOO, where the venues are 20 minutes apart.

@VetriXCS @JesperLarsen222 imo TOs should communicate about potential clashes and try to prevent them in the first place. It is harmful to set down an absolute rule of "no simultaneous tournaments" like that. With how fast paced the CS scene is, it is almost impossible for tier 2 teams not to have clashes.

@VetriXCS @JesperLarsen222 imo rescheduling for online is much more convenient than LANs, especially when it comes to smaller TOs, there is so much more logistics factors in consideration, especially when small LANs have little budget

@_Snxper @JesperLarsen222 We see scheduling conflicts online all the time. Why is it only a catastrophic problem when it happens on LAN?

@JesperLarsen222 that should maximum only apply for LANs, before VRS many teams simultaneously played online tournaments and had no issues (e.g. ECL + CCT/LAN + online/qualifier), it will kill scenes if we are reckless and just plainly say teams cant sign up for 2 tourneys at the same time.

Can we stop pretending that teams signing up for 2 simultaneous events is ok? That's a place to start. You can not play simultaneous LAN events where you have "scheduling conflicts"? How about that? Why are you in two simultaneous LAN events if you can't play both and know you likely need to forfeit some matches in one of them? Answer: Because you know that even if you have to forfeit it won't affect your own chance of going to the major (statistically). This is the reason for whats going on in Asia and it is the reason for what FaZe is doing in EU. Therein lies the gaming of the qualification and that is what should be addressed. How about something like if a team forfeits mid event due to "scheduling conflicts", all past wins and future matches in the event will be turned into forfeit defeats as well? That should do the trick. TYLOO only plan like this because they gamed the system and came to the conclusion that it was net-positive in the current model to act like this. FaZe behaved even worse in my opinion. They straight up knew when entering HLC Belgrade that they couldn't play PGL Bucharest opening matches then and still opted for HLC because the punishment they looked into was not hard enough, we have to assume. Why are they not just given 3 forfeit defeats and the -75 pts or so it would cost them? Why are they allowed by PGL to potentially go net-positive in PGL Bucharest, making it worth for them to take the piss on the other teams behaving ethically correct (in my opinion). I hope changes will come 🙏

@JesperLarsen222 but prolly a good thing to think down the line when the esports economy stablises and settles down, cuz I know certain country TOs have been prioritising tourneys for teams from their own countries to get VRS points in Asia. (nationalism culture in Asia prolly)

@JesperLarsen222 tbf i know some of the big TOs are trying to get the asian market, but its tough cuz its either expensive af (e.g. HK/Singapore) or little infrastructure. I remember blast announced a JV in india and planned to have a studio there, but no news from them since, so idk their plans.

Idea: Can't we somehow combine the best of two worlds.. Smaller LANs and Closed qualifiers for tier 1 LANs? What VRS really lacks are more high value LANs in between the smaller Open LANs and tier 1 events. (High value = High VRS Prize pool of events) This season we are finally getting qualifiers for most tier 1 events as it was originally intended by Valve. We are getting rid of tier 1 events that just invite the top 16 teams directly. Everybody probably agrees that's good for the scene. What is not so good is that these important qualifiers are online. But their VRS Prize pools are big because they are linked to the main event, so in the case of a CQ to a $1 mill+ event, the VRS Prize pool is 500k for the CQ, which makes the matches very valuable in VRS points from the 2 VRS components that are not related to LAN factor. At the same time we have Open LANs that have very low Prize pools, which makes them irrelevant in the 2 non-LAN related VRS components, but still mega important for the LAN win component which is about as powerfull as the other 2 combined (roughly speaking). Lets be clear, so far teams are ONLY playing the small Open LANs for the LAN win points in VRS because they are about a third of a teams potential points. For gaining points in the other 2-3 components in VRS the teams still have to play Online events such as your CCT and Nodwin events. It would be an absolute no-brainer for every single team with ambition to prioritise these qualifiers if they were on LAN. Then you would have a LAN with a 500k VRS Prize pool, which would make them on par in VRS impact with an IEM Krakow and Cologne Play-in event. It will probably surprise many, but these online qualifiers are already now on par with IEM Krakow in VRS impact, except for the LAN win part missing. It's probably too much of a task for ESL, PGL, Blast to arrange these Closed Qualifiers as LANs. But what if they partnered up with some of these new players in the Open LAN space? What if they arranged their Closed qualifier events as LANs in some kind of co-operation? It would be really awesome if it could somehow be arranged, so that for each tier 1 event that now has 4 spots out of 16 coming from qualifiers, the Closed Qualifier would be a local LAN arranged by your DraculaN, Roman, Parken, etc. The problem would maybe be the regions where you don't have as many small LAN TO's yet. Maybe it is also too naive in terms of scheduling, but there are already a huge amount of local LANs jammed into the calendar, so couldn't it be arranged? What if ESL, PGL, Blast in good time in advance opened up for smaller LANs applying for being the partner in arranging their Closed Qualifier as a LAN? Probably all sorts of reasons why it isn't possible though 😊 But this would absolutely be worth traveling for and also paying themselves for, for the teams in terms of potential VRS gain. You could gain many points just from getting deep in such a qualifier without even qualifying for the main event. Such CQ LANs would be the stepping stones in VRS, for the top tier 2 teams, that is so very needed in my opinion. The downside for some parties would be that Online events would become rather irrelevant to play for VRS purposes. You would only want to pursue your VRS points on LAN then and online play would probably only be relevant to teams further down for VRS gain. In VRS it would technically be the linking of the qualifier event to the main event that would elevate such a small LAN that also functions as a CQ to a tier 1 event, to a whole new level. Probably just a dream, but it would really make such LANs the priority of teams as it is the lack of significant VRS prize pools that hinders the smaller LANs from truly becoming the tier 2 LANs that seems to be lacking. --------------------------- In the meantime, could Valve at least please stop delaying the VRS impact of Qualifier events until the main event has completed? It would be a big help for the teams, in trying to juggle whether to participate in qualifier events or not. If only the full VRS impact of the qualifier event was given as the qualifier plays out, it would make it much more transparent that any team with ambition should just play these CQ events to tier 1 events, no questions asked (almost.. if its online there is always that question to ask I guess 😉). The way VRS works now, it's a far too complicated calculation whether it is too risky or not for the teams to play the qualifiers... Too risky?? It shouldn't be "too risky" to try to qualify for a tier 1 event. It should rather be risk free!! Surely ESL, PGL and Blast would also prefer that the second best teams actually sign up for the qualifiers? They really should put pressure on Valve to stop delaying the VRS impact of qualifiers until the main event completes. So that we can have all the second best teams prioritising these qualifiers.

@Professeur_CS Just curious about the extremesland vrs status, is it a ranked or unranked event? hltv states its unranked while rulebook states its "organized in accordance with Valve's tournament operation requirements for Tier 2 events". so did the TO not get Valve's license?

@Elfishguy @OfficialBleh AE, MITH, ravens and rooster in these SEA/Asia tourneys during the major👀 faceit.com/en/championshi… liquipedia.net/counterstrike/…

Lingard making me sweat tonight. 36 down, 2 to go. @JesseLingard

Clunky old boomer tries to replicate amazing play from IEM Katowice.

This game will be bigger than CSGO, bigger than any fps in the world, and i'll be playing it in the highest level. With all i've learn making mistakes, making good friends, and having good people around me. I will give my best in @PlayVALORANT 💪

New @CSGO Meta? 🤜🤛