My theory on why CS2 is objectively bad (on purpose)

[Searching for network]

Imagine you had a market, split. With half of your community playing a competitor's game, and the other half playing your game. How would you capture everyone's attention?

simple. Convince the bad players they are good (the people who play the other game will try your game and then you will tell them they are good at it, and now they are inclined to stay here) and the good players that they are bad (Long time veterans are so sure of their skill set that the will not accept being placed with poor skilled players on a scale if you make it known to them)

And here we have the dilemma. Long time CS players from all walks getting absolutely destroyed by players who objectively playing "bad" cs (no holding or utility usage, coordination or trades, etc, And just dry ferrari peeks.) And because of the scale of player base we are touching here, it's very likely your team mate will be in one of these categories. One of two. Either a new person, or a person who is seasoned. In either of these circumstances if you tell the bad players they are good (ranking bad players in 12k or higher) and tell the seasoned players they are bad (ranking people who were faceit level 10 at 6k or lower, which has already been complained about by a majority of the community) then you have effectively created a rewards loop that would entice all players, good or bad, to participate in your scandal.


I am convinced the game is rigged at this point. I'm not here to talk about the possibility of server side reg being easily manipulated to maximize engagement potential for your players (this is a concept called DDA or Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment)

Simply trying to give a theory as to why seemingly everyone's expectations are being met but in a negative connotation.

[Orangeman404]

SWOT Analysis of the Theory that CS2 is "Objectively Bad" on Purpose:

Strengths:
- Insightful Perspective: Offers a critical view on game design and player engagement.
- Real Concepts: Mentions Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment, a known game design concept.
- Addresses Frustration: Resonates with players experiencing similar issues.

Weaknesses:
- Lack of Evidence: The theory is speculative without concrete proof.
- Cynical View: Presents a potentially divisive perspective of the developers.
- Negative Focus: Heavily centered on negative aspects, overlooking potential positives.

Opportunities:
- Discussion Starter: Can initiate debates on game design ethics and engagement strategies.
- Player Feedback: Could serve as feedback for developers if it resonates with many.
- Exploration of DDA: Opens up dialogues on the implications of Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment.

Threats:
- Reputation Damage: Could harm the game’s reputation if taken seriously.
- Misinformation: Risk of spreading misconceptions without evidence.
- Player Discontent: Could lead to increased dissatisfaction if players believe the theory.

Conclusion:
While intriguing, it's crucial to approach such theories critically, seeking evidence and considering diverse viewpoints. This analysis aims to highlight potential discussions and insights while cautioning against misinformation and negative perceptions.

[Funpire]

wat?

So you drive off your good/comp players and streamers, who go to the competitor, taking their fan bases with them? I don't think...

*spins gerbils*

I don't think that's right.

[pepsi]

that's absolutely true, cs2 sucks hard

[76561198172971267]

You might be right, tho I think that it's not a good move for them because it's too risky in my opinion and it might even backfire, I play both CS and Val and even tho I'm new to both games I still find both of them fun because they're both amazing games, in my opinion I don't think it's worth it to ruin the veteran's experience in the game just for the sake of gaining more players from other games that is not even 100% guaranteed to transition to CS 2, personally the reason why I play both CSGO/CS 2 and Valorant at the same time is because for me both games offer different gameplay and experience and even tho there are similarities in both games they're also very different to each other and is both fun in their own way from my experience.

[ktulu84]

what

this is just a shooting game dude, its not that deep

[Searching for network]

Originally posted by Funpire:

wat?

So you drive off your good/comp players and streamers, who go to the competitor, taking their fan bases with them? I don't think...

*spins gerbils*

I don't think that's right.

No infact quite the opposite because good comp players and streamers are not going to leave, they are going to grind to get what they feel their rank is.

It's all speculation that's for sure. And the evidence is already coming out, for example the number of tests that show that hit reg is "REMARKABLY" worse in cs2 than csgo, also the reddit thread about shots not going where the crosshair is placed is pretty strong evidence of manipulation.

[Searching for network]

Originally posted by Orangeman404:

SWOT Analysis of the Theory that CS2 is "Objectively Bad" on Purpose:

Strengths:
- Insightful Perspective: Offers a critical view on game design and player engagement.
- Real Concepts: Mentions Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment, a known game design concept.
- Addresses Frustration: Resonates with players experiencing similar issues.

Weaknesses:
- Lack of Evidence: The theory is speculative without concrete proof.
- Cynical View: Presents a potentially divisive perspective of the developers.
- Negative Focus: Heavily centered on negative aspects, overlooking potential positives.

Opportunities:
- Discussion Starter: Can initiate debates on game design ethics and engagement strategies.
- Player Feedback: Could serve as feedback for developers if it resonates with many.
- Exploration of DDA: Opens up dialogues on the implications of Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment.

Threats:
- Reputation Damage: Could harm the game’s reputation if taken seriously.
- Misinformation: Risk of spreading misconceptions without evidence.
- Player Discontent: Could lead to increased dissatisfaction if players believe the theory.

Conclusion:
While intriguing, it's crucial to approach such theories critically, seeking evidence and considering diverse viewpoints. This analysis aims to highlight potential discussions and insights while cautioning against misinformation and negative perceptions.

There is evidence of strong server side manipulation already present, i have not provided them. but yes this is just a theory, a devil's advocate type theory. Presenting a more unethical reason to why this game is so bad after 12 years of data and at least 5 of development. Dev has 12 + years of data and we all know that valve loves to analyze, so lack of transparency about leveraging data can only lead to speculative doubt.

[MythicCommon]

I agree with OP, this guy goes over it well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLPaDWXv774

Originally posted by Orangeman404:

SWOT Analysis of the Theory that CS2 is "Objectively Bad" on Purpose:

Strengths:
- Insightful Perspective: Offers a critical view on game design and player engagement.
- Real Concepts: Mentions Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment, a known game design concept.
- Addresses Frustration: Resonates with players experiencing similar issues.

Weaknesses:
- Lack of Evidence: The theory is speculative without concrete proof.
- Cynical View: Presents a potentially divisive perspective of the developers.
- Negative Focus: Heavily centered on negative aspects, overlooking potential positives.

Opportunities:
- Discussion Starter: Can initiate debates on game design ethics and engagement strategies.
- Player Feedback: Could serve as feedback for developers if it resonates with many.
- Exploration of DDA: Opens up dialogues on the implications of Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment.

Threats:
- Reputation Damage: Could harm the game’s reputation if taken seriously.
- Misinformation: Risk of spreading misconceptions without evidence.
- Player Discontent: Could lead to increased dissatisfaction if players believe the theory.

Conclusion:
While intriguing, it's crucial to approach such theories critically, seeking evidence and considering diverse viewpoints. This analysis aims to highlight potential discussions and insights while cautioning against misinformation and negative perceptions.

He also has a little bit more proof.

[norm]

Originally posted by Orangeman404:

SWOT Analysis of the Theory that CS2 is "Objectively Bad" on Purpose:

Strengths:
- Insightful Perspective: Offers a critical view on game design and player engagement.
- Real Concepts: Mentions Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment, a known game design concept.
- Addresses Frustration: Resonates with players experiencing similar issues.

Weaknesses:
- Lack of Evidence: The theory is speculative without concrete proof.
- Cynical View: Presents a potentially divisive perspective of the developers.
- Negative Focus: Heavily centered on negative aspects, overlooking potential positives.

Opportunities:
- Discussion Starter: Can initiate debates on game design ethics and engagement strategies.
- Player Feedback: Could serve as feedback for developers if it resonates with many.
- Exploration of DDA: Opens up dialogues on the implications of Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment.

Threats:
- Reputation Damage: Could harm the game’s reputation if taken seriously.
- Misinformation: Risk of spreading misconceptions without evidence.
- Player Discontent: Could lead to increased dissatisfaction if players believe the theory.

Conclusion:
While intriguing, it's crucial to approach such theories critically, seeking evidence and considering diverse viewpoints. This analysis aims to highlight potential discussions and insights while cautioning against misinformation and negative perceptions.

chat gpt comment

[RedTrustfactor]

I don't know their motives but I do know that CS2 is trash.

[🐠🍑]

Originally posted by yeksihwehtssap:

Imagine you had a market, split. With half of your community playing a competitor's game, and the other half playing your game. How would you capture everyone's attention?

simple. Convince the bad players they are good (the people who play the other game will try your game and then you will tell them they are good at it, and now they are inclined to stay here) and the good players that they are bad (Long time veterans are so sure of their skill set that the will not accept being placed with poor skilled players on a scale if you make it known to them)

And here we have the dilemma. Long time CS players from all walks getting absolutely destroyed by players who objectively playing "bad" cs (no holding or utility usage, coordination or trades, etc, And just dry ferrari peeks.) And because of the scale of player base we are touching here, it's very likely your team mate will be in one of these categories. One of two. Either a new person, or a person who is seasoned. In either of these circumstances if you tell the bad players they are good (ranking bad players in 12k or higher) and tell the seasoned players they are bad (ranking people who were faceit level 10 at 6k or lower, which has already been complained about by a majority of the community) then you have effectively created a rewards loop that would entice all players, good or bad, to participate in your scandal.


I am convinced the game is rigged at this point. I'm not here to talk about the possibility of server side reg being easily manipulated to maximize engagement potential for your players (this is a concept called DDA or Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment)

Simply trying to give a theory as to why seemingly everyone's expectations are being met but in a negative connotation.

Skill issue.

[Tomoko]

CS2 is not "objectively bad".

[MythicCommon]

Originally posted by ☺:

Originally posted by yeksihwehtssap:

Imagine you had a market, split. With half of your community playing a competitor's game, and the other half playing your game. How would you capture everyone's attention?

simple. Convince the bad players they are good (the people who play the other game will try your game and then you will tell them they are good at it, and now they are inclined to stay here) and the good players that they are bad (Long time veterans are so sure of their skill set that the will not accept being placed with poor skilled players on a scale if you make it known to them)

And here we have the dilemma. Long time CS players from all walks getting absolutely destroyed by players who objectively playing "bad" cs (no holding or utility usage, coordination or trades, etc, And just dry ferrari peeks.) And because of the scale of player base we are touching here, it's very likely your team mate will be in one of these categories. One of two. Either a new person, or a person who is seasoned. In either of these circumstances if you tell the bad players they are good (ranking bad players in 12k or higher) and tell the seasoned players they are bad (ranking people who were faceit level 10 at 6k or lower, which has already been complained about by a majority of the community) then you have effectively created a rewards loop that would entice all players, good or bad, to participate in your scandal.


I am convinced the game is rigged at this point. I'm not here to talk about the possibility of server side reg being easily manipulated to maximize engagement potential for your players (this is a concept called DDA or Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment)

Simply trying to give a theory as to why seemingly everyone's expectations are being met but in a negative connotation.

Skill issue.

my honest reaction to your profile:

[Searching for network]

Originally posted by 大家，早安:

CS2 is not "objectively bad".

What a thrilling response from a clearly highly experienced community member

[T]

very thanks