Reducing the Deficit - Evaluating CS:GO's Recent Economic Changes

Traditionally, in a round without a bomb plant, the losing side of the first round would not be able to put together a reasonable buy until they had a three-round deficit. With two major economic factors changed in the past few months, Valve seems to be pushing the game towards its most volatile state ever. But is this all necessary?

After some thought I came up with the following criteria that the update should have satisfied given two months of implementation, assuming the intentions of Valve are the same as the ones I guessed:

• All 7 automatic rifles should have some use within the competitive setting.
• The losing side of the pistol round should have more economic choices.
• It should be impossible to determine the winner of the fourth round given only the winner of the first round.

Let me introduce you to the scoped ARs

Both the SG553 and AUG received direct economic buffs in the October 9th patch, with their prices reduced by $250 and $150 respectively. This led to several professionals, including Magisk of Astralis and karrigan of FaZe Clan, to switch to the scoped ARs. Beyond the obvious benefits of paying less, players who use the AK or M4 are less willing to pick up scoped ARs over a Galil or FAMAS, despite the higher damage output and greater ease of use at range. This begs the question, should players learn the mechanics for the three or four rifles they use personally or all seven in case they have to pick up one they haven't learned?

In the current meta, the vast majority of players still use the AK47 and M4A4, so you only need to learn those three or four (more if you use the scoped ARs), but as that proportion reduces it will become more and more essential.

Pressing the Advantage

After winning the first round as the Counter-Terrorists, it is no longer financially viable for every player on the team to buy SMGs, as you may have to buy rifles in the next round. The Terrorist side can now gain the loss-after-plant bonus providing a potent Round 3 buy. Currently, tier 1 teams purchase two to three of the weak ARs and set up the remaining players with SMGs for kills so they can claim the increased kill reward and buy their preferred AR in Round 3.

It is increasingly popular for the Counter-Terrorists to buy immediately after a pistol round loss like in the previous meta as $4300 (the combined loss bonus of Rounds 1 and 2) isn’t enough to cover the cost of an M4 or AUG, armor, and sufficient utility. Therefore as a Terrorist, there is little change between the old and new meta - buy SMGs, get money, buy ARs in Round 4, and be prepared to change your plan if the Counter-Terrorists seem to have ecoed.

Using statistics

At the beginning of the article, I described three metrics which would be used to determine the effectiveness of the October 9th patch. First of all, how many of the seven ARs are in use in competitive play? According to hltv.org, between November 9th and December 9th, the AUG has crept into the Top 7 guns in terms of most kills, however the SG553, Galil and FAMAS are nowhere to be seen, for now. Perhaps given time this will improve as in theory there is no reason they can't be used in the examples given above.

As for an increased number of economic choices, the Counter-Terrorists can now opt to buy in either Round 3 or 4, potentially forcing the Terrorists' hands in terms of their economy, the Terrorists still have fairly set strategies, without a pistol round bomb plant you eco once then full buy, with a plant you force on the second round (given you have at least $2700 you are nearly on par with the CTs).

The last metric, looking at the likelihood of winning the fourth round if you won the first, was measured based on the results of the ESL Pro League Finals in Odense. It turns out that exactly 50% of fourth rounds were won by the team that won the first round. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the winner of the fourth round given the result of the first.

Overall it seems like the patch has solved the pistol round dilemma, but evaluations like this rely on your opinions for improvements! Contact me on Twitter using @sigmoyd so I can hear your side of the debate.

Like our content? Support us by getting our merchandise in our shop