With the current down-turn to CS:GO’s popularity, people are speculating about why that is,
and what could be done about it. And an interesting suggestion was brought up the other day:
Would CS:GO benefit from shorter matches? Instead of 15 rounds per side, what if it
was shortened to, say, 12? There would be less variation to the length of matches, each
round would become more meaningful, and we’d be able to watch more games before burnout
kicked in. Possibly. Shortening matches sounds like a simple suggestion, but it would have
far-reaching consequences to every aspect of the game.
For instance, the game’s balance and economy is geared towards a 15-round side. The game
has received countless updates and adjustments to get to where it is! The impact the pistol
round at the start of each half should have has been long debated and tweaked. You want
for the winner to get an advantage, but not enough to dictate that entire half of the
game. This balance has been finely tuned, and altering the length of the half would
plunge it into chaos! With fewer rounds before the half-time reset, would it alter when teams
would save, and when they’d force? It would shake things like that up, and would force
teams to devise new strategies- and that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
All this time, we’ve assumed updates to the game’s balance have helped to improve
it, as though we’re zeroing in on perfection, one step at a time. But maybe it’s made
the game too safe. Too predictable. Too… boring. And if not for the players, then maybe
for the viewers.
Dropping the number of rounds from 15 to 12 is just one way of changing things. We could
also try shortening the rounds, which among other things, would guarantee that Navi leaves
it too late before rushing B every time. C4 takes 40 seconds to explode. What if it was
cut down to 35 seconds? But we’ve got to be careful with this. Gla1ve
made the important point that some bits shouldn’t be cut, like the freeze-time for players.
Or at least, I think that’s what Gla1ve was getting at. Some of that article’s translations
were a bit questionable. From my perspective, I don’t want those
15 or 20 seconds of freeze time every round. It doesn’t take 15 seconds for me to buy
a weapon in matchmaking, and it’s not like my teammates are using that time to discuss
anything important. And when viewing pro games, it’s the least exciting bit to watch. But
obviously, for the pros it’s very important that they have that time to recover, and to
plan their next move. So he doesn’t want that cut back on. But
Gla1ve still thinks that games are too long, and that something has to be done about it.
I understand why he’s hesitant to propose actual changes- when you’re at the top of
your game, the last thing you want is for the rules to change. But it can’t be easy
on players either, especially when they’re expected to play 2 best of 3’s the same
day, and when both end up going into overtime. Sure, reducing the length of a ‘best of
3’ would help with this. But you know what would be even better? It’s if we knew how
long a match would take, with some degree of certainty.
Because that’s another problem I see with how matches are currently played- they can
vary in length so greatly! There are some sports where the length of a match is more
fixed. Football, for instance. You have a 90 minute match, if it’s still a draw at
that point then you move to a shorter overtime period, then if, after that, a winner still
isn’t decided, people take in turns to kick balls at the goalies until only one is left
standing. At least, I think that’s how it works.
But compare that with CS:GO. It’s first to 16 rounds. So already, the length of a
game can vary immensely, ranging between 16 and 30 rounds- and then possible overtime
on top of that! And this variance is compounded in a best
of 3, or- God forbid- a best of 5. Even supposedly exciting grand finals can drag on when it
reaches the 4th map and shows no sign of ending. You obviously want both teams to have a chance
to prove themselves. But you don’t want them to have 100.
It’s funny, because I used to prefer the way that one team in CS:GO is guaranteed to
win a round every few minutes. I thought it was better than football’s potential to
go on for 90 minutes without a single goal being scored. And if anything, could lead
to SHORTER matches if the balance of power was continually changing with every round.
But now I’m seeing the flipside. When games are so variable in length, it adds
uncertainty. Tournaments need to allocate times for every game that’s to be played.
But when the length of games is so variable, it could mean that one ends early and people
are sat around waiting for ages before the next one begins. Or it could carry on into
the 4th overtime, delaying the next match or resulting in everybody being kicked out
of the arena because it’s reached closing time, or because they’ve got to catch the
last train. You can’t plan for stuff when a match can vary between 2 and 5 hours in
length. And will sponsors be satisfied with fewer ad breaks if one team continually steamrolls
the other, cutting the game short? When it comes to making these videos, I sit
in front of a word document, typing random stuff for 3-4 hours, which eventually gets
condensed down into a coherent script, then I check through reddit to make sure I haven’t
missed anything that the community has suggested. Turns out everything I’ve suggested so far
had already been proposed by people there, right down to my joke about navi and football.
But at least I know I’m in sync with how the community sees the current state of the
game. But props to jonsson95, who proposed something I hadn’t thought of, which was
a best of 2 + overtime. In other words, instead of a full 3 maps being played, if after 2
it’s still a draw, it goes into short frantic overtimes on a third map, which normally sees
3 rounds being played before a team swap. Repeat until we have a winner. This would
be shorter than a full best of 3, and it ups the stakes by concluding the game with in
a frantic, fast-paced manner compared with the rest of it. Well worth sticking around
to see!
But here’s another crazy thought: what if, instead of being the first team to reach a
certain score, a CS:GO match was a fixed length, with the teams changing over at the half time
mark? Would it lead to unwanted behaviours, like the winning team camping in the corner
or wasting time? Or could that be countered by shortening the round-length and by adding
a time bonus for simply reaching the objectives? Perhaps more importantly: would this be more,
or less exciting, than what we have now?
You can shoot down new ideas, but now is not the time for caution. The game’s tried that,
and it isn’t working any more. There doesn’t have to be anything ‘wrong’ with the game,
for change to be desirable. It’s just got a bit stale in its current state. So perhaps
it’s time to shake things up for the sake of it. Let’s start by dropping halves down
from 15 to 12. And have the winner decided on fy_iceworld. Or in penalty shoot-outs,
last goalie standing.