The good and the bad of the VRS race
The good and the bad of the VRS race
As the dust settles on the intense sprint to the final qualifying spots for the StarLadder Budapest Major, it’s time to take stock of the newly introduced Valve Regional Standings (VRS) system.
Valve’s move to implement the VRS system marked a significant change—one that not only overhauled the previous model, but also reflected a much more hands-on approach than the developer usually takes. While there were moments that highlighted the system’s promising potential, there were also clear shortcomings that suggest the VRS still needs refinement.
✅ What the VRS got right
Encouraging LAN participation
Perhaps the most compelling benefit of the VRS system is that it forces teams out of their homes and into LAN environments. The ultimate aim of professional esports is to perform under live event conditions—and too much of the lower-tier CS scene has recently been confined to online play, where the stakes and conditions are different.
This season showed teams stepping up: for instance, fnatic clawed their way into a Major spot by delivering under pressure at LANs, whereas SAW faltered when it mattered most. LAN conditions reduce uncertainty around cheating and connectivity, and provide a richer competitive spectacle.
Rewarding consistent performance under pressure
A further strength of the VRS is that it spreads the qualification pressure over time rather than concentrating it in a single event. Teams know each tournament, each match, matters for their overall standing.
For example, Ninjas in Pyjamas may have stumbled during smaller tournaments, but they delivered when it counted and secured their qualification through strong showings in the run-up.
This contrasts with the prior RMR-based model, where the fate of qualification hinged on a single event. Under VRS, the race plays out over weeks and months—creating a narrative arc rather than a one-off dash.
Re-emphasising grassroots LAN events & ‘David vs Goliath’ match-ups
Another positive of the VRS system is the boost it gives to smaller LAN tournaments. As teams rush to collect as many points as possible in the final qualification window, smaller LANs—such as the Birch Cup, DraculaN or Fragadelphia—are flourishing.
These events recreate the old-school LAN hall vibe and grant lesser-known teams vital exposure and experience, including the opportunity to play against more established organisations.
❌ Where the VRS fell short
The system remains imperfect
Despite the advantages, the VRS has several notable flaws. One recurring criticism is that the system tends to favour established, higher-budget teams. As one coach put it:
“You really need to have a decent rank in January … as long as people protect their own points and don’t play lower opponents.” — Marco “Snappi” Pfeiffer
There were also concerns over transparency: which events count fully towards VRS, which partially, and how much weight each event carries remains unclear.
Drama is not guaranteed
While this year’s qualification race produced dramatic moments (for example, a last-minute push from some teams), there is no guarantee future seasons will yield similar excitement: if a dominant team secures qualification early, the final weeks may lack suspense.
Moreover, teams with greater resources enjoy significant advantages: attending multiple LANs, travelling more, and thereby accruing more points—an equity concern in a merit-based competition.
There have even been scenarios where teams chose to skip or withdraw from events because only part of the event counted toward VRS, reducing risk of a loss harming their standing.
Complexity and fan accessibility issues
One of the biggest practical drawbacks of the VRS is how difficult it is to follow. Whereas the previous RMR-system boiled qualification down to “play and win this one tournament”, the VRS requires tracking multiple sub-factors, events, points, and standings over many months. The article even jokes you might need “a PhD, several top-end calculators, and a spreadsheet that reads like War and Peace” to make sense of it.
The complexity risks alienating casual fans who don’t have time to dig into every detail—and that threatens overall spectator engagement.
🚦 Final verdict
In short: the VRS system has both very strong positives and significant drawbacks. To label it simply a success or failure would ignore the nuance of the situation. The main takeaway: it needs time to mature. As the article puts it:
“The main takeaway from this season’s VRS battle royale is simple: VRS needs more time and refinement.”
The article suggests that it’s unlikely Valve Corporation will revert to the older RMR system wholesale, so the onus is on Valve and the CS : GO ecosystem to refine the VRS—tightening rules, improving transparency, and making the system more accessible for fans.
Related News
