I made a video showing how overtime is completely CT sided using IEM Cologne’s matches as data points. CTs seem to be getting too much of an advantage from the lack of economy worries.
I made a video showing how overtime is completely CT sided using IEM Cologne’s matches as data points. CTs seem to be getting too much of an advantage from the lack of economy worries.
CTs winning 60% of rounds in overtime means that something is imbalanced, and I believe that it’s the lack of getting money reset for losing rounds as would happen in regulation rounds. CTs are given full money as if they were dominating with 5 players alive for 5+ rounds in a row, meaning you get full awp, kits, nades, etc. while Ts have essentially the normal buy.
In regulation you rarely see these rounds in a close game, meaning that the game was close even with the CT economy situation being so dire, often including double force buys. I believe that if the game had no money at all, the overtime stats would appear in regulation too.
Should OT money be changed? Most casual players will probably never even notice this as overtime games are so rare that these patterns may not have been immediately obvious to most.
1 Comment
CTs winning 60% of rounds in overtime means that something is imbalanced, and I believe that it’s the lack of getting money reset for losing rounds as would happen in regulation rounds. CTs are given full money as if they were dominating with 5 players alive for 5+ rounds in a row, meaning you get full awp, kits, nades, etc. while Ts have essentially the normal buy.
In regulation you rarely see these rounds in a close game, meaning that the game was close even with the CT economy situation being so dire, often including double force buys. I believe that if the game had no money at all, the overtime stats would appear in regulation too.
Should OT money be changed? Most casual players will probably never even notice this as overtime games are so rare that these patterns may not have been immediately obvious to most.