Can the Major format be improved?

It is clear that Valve dictates the terms to tournament operators. It's hard to argue with these guys, they know better. But the time has come to pay attention to the problems that surround the most significant CS:GO championships.

"Everything new is well forgotten old" - Roger Bacon

In today's article, we would like to talk about the most important thing - the Major format. Many fans do not even remember that before there was no Swiss system, just as the teams played the usual BO1 in the group stage. Since six years have passed since the change, it's time to talk about the need for change. In the general scheme, let's estimate all the shortcomings of the existing format and try to comply with the well-known scheme: Criticize - offer.

Weaknesses we currently have

Perhaps we should stop here, since each shortcoming flows smoothly from another problem. In order not to get lost, we suggest dancing from one obvious drawback - tight deadlines.

What Major in a row do we start with two overlapping rounds. Well, who came up with the idea to arrange a marathon of sixteen BO1 matches in a row? Of course, we are talking about Valve.

It's no secret that Valve recommends completing each stage in 4 days, leaving teams a day off when moving from Challengers to Legends. However, the presence of the Swiss stage, which consists of five rounds, forces the organizers to take time from the teams to prepare and hold two starting rounds in a row.

As a result, we get that the team will know the name of their next opponent in an hour or two (at best). From here, full-time analysts and the coaching staff are forced to work in marathon mode in order to somehow prepare for the next round.

From the viewer's point of view, one can similarly get tired of the countless matches that go on one after the other. Moreover, anyone who is in any way connected with the coverage of the event is forced to non-stop stay in good shape for the whole day.

Only based on this, it is possible to select the optimal form, which will reduce the risks from the participants and protect them from existing shortcomings.

What major format can be considered appropriate?

First of all, we adhere to the existing system of seeding teams based on their performance at RMR tournaments. In general, no one refuses the qualifying round, leaving the distribution of participants into three ranks: Contenders, Challengers and Legends. On this basis, we still rely on the system of distribution of participants from 1 to 24.

Now we are considering a format that could be useful not only for the audience, but also for the bands themselves.

General scheme of majors

• Challengers and Legends stages - group stage (sixteen participants are divided into four quartets based on their rank at the end of RMR tournaments)
• Round-robin group stage with BO2 matches
• The top two teams from each group advance to the next stage (Legends and Champions respectively)
• Calculation of final places based on points earned: victory - 3 points, draw - 1 point, defeat - 0 points
• Tiered Points - BO1 Replay

Analyzing the participants of the current Intel Extreme Masters Rio Major 2022 and their seeding, below is a possible distribution by groups:

Challengers

Group A:

• OG, Grayhound Gaming, BIG, FURIA

Group B:

• Team Vitality, Imperial Esports, Bad News Eagles, 00 Nation

Group C:

• Evil Geniuses, IHC Esports, MOUZ, Outsiders

Group D:

• Cloud9, fnatic, 9z Team, GamerLegion

Legends

Group A:

• FaZe Clan, 8th, Sprout, 4th

Group B:

• Natus Vincere, 7th, Heroic, 3rd

Group C:

• Ninjas in Pajamas, 6th, Team Spirit, 2nd

Group D:

• ENCE, 5th, Team Liquid, 1st

Champions

Starting seeding in the playoffs:

• one. A1 - D2
• 2. B1 - C2
• 3. C1-B2
• four. D1-A2

It seems that the proposed format will help save teams from a number of difficulties. First of all, they will have the optimal time to prepare for each opponent, which, in part, will be known in advance.

Secondly, we will abandon the partially random BO1 format, where sensations occur so often that they are already tired of it.

Thirdly, there will be no double game days when teams have to play two matches in a row and deprive themselves of rest. Fourthly, we will tritely refresh majors that have not been updated for almost six years.

Counter-Strike, or CS for short, has left an indelible mark on the world of first-person shooters, captivating millions of players globally for more than two decades. Its competitive gameplay, ever-changing maps, and regular updates have kept the community engaged and the esports scene flourishing. Yet, in this dynamic gaming landscape, players are increasingly looking to CS2 trade sites for new trading possibilities. These platforms have become pivotal in the game's ecosystem, enabling players to engage in buying, selling, and trading in-game skins and items, while also fostering a thriving marketplace where the worth of virtual items can fluctuate dramatically. In this article, we'll explore the evolution of Counter-Strike and examine the significant role played by CS2 trade sites in shaping the contemporary gaming experience.