VRS Flaws Explained: Valve might be on a Self-Destructive Path

In our previous discussion with Dejan Minic, we tried to get to the heart of how organizations operate with players and contracts, all while trying to peel back the curtain on the economy of the scene and how punishing it can be, especially for tier-two organizations. With Valve introducing the VRS (Valve Regional Standings), their concerns have only grown, as the standard for invitations to tier one teams has changed completely.

The VRS has created a situation where the top-ranked teams get the lion’s share of the benefits, leaving those on the fringe in a desperate scramble. The system, which was designed to “level the playing field,” has instead driven a wedge between tier-one and tier-two teams. With limited exposure to major tournaments, it’s become increasingly difficult for organizations to secure sponsorships and maintain financial stability.

Let’s take a deep dive into the “what” and the “how,” as I unfold the details of my conversation with Dejan, who offered valuable insights into the tier-two landscape and how the VRS has impacted them. I also pulled from references like TechGirlZA’s Feed The Trolls Ep. 33, HLTV Confirmed’s episode with Snappi, bird’s video explaining how VRS points are calculated, and Dweg’s video on the issues with VRS.

What Valve Had in Mind When Creating VRS

The idea behind the VRS was, in theory, a simple one “a level playing field,” as they like to say with unshakable confidence. It was meant to eliminate bias and do away with the notion of tournament organizers favoring partnered teams or refusing to invite teams they don’t see eye to eye with. So, Valve standardized the VRS to be the gateway for inviting teams into tournaments, where a select number of top teams would be invited, depending on the type of event.

For tier-one tournaments, the top 16 teams are guaranteed invites, while the outliers are left to either hope a team rejects their invite or fight it out in Open Qualifiers. On the surface, this seems fair, as the top 16 teams are privileged by the rank they must maintain, while the rest have an open playing field to conquer and earn their rankings. However, the execution of this system, particularly at the lower levels has caused a tremendous shakeup in the scene.

How do you calculate VRS points?

VRS follows a formula that is complex, at least to me, but I’ll break it down in the simplest way possible without getting lost in the weeds of mathematics. VRS points start with a base value of 400 and can reach a maximum of 2000

The fundamental equation is :

400 + ( ( Roster_Average – Min_Average ) / ( Max_Average – Min_Average ) ) * 1600 = 2000.0

In this formula, the Roster Average refers to the average of four key factors for the target team: Bounty Offered, Bounty Collected, Opponent Network, and LAN Wins, all of which are evaluated over the last six months. 

Bounty Offered is where prize money pulls the most weight, making it the biggest driving force behind a team’s points. It’s calculated by taking a team’s prize winnings, multiplying them by an age-weight factor, and then dividing by the fifth-highest prize total among all teams. If a team’s earnings exceed this threshold, the value is simply capped at 1. The result is then scaled using a curve function.

To illustrate, let’s look at ATOX. When calculating their Bounty Offered, we take the sum of the top 10 prize winnings after applying the age-weight factor, which results in $25,555.47. The team with the fifth-highest winnings, NAVI, has earned $188,876.95. Dividing these two values gives 0.14, which is then adjusted by the curve function (1 / (1 + abs(log10(x)))), yielding a final Bounty Offered value of 0.535. This value, when compared against other teams, determines ATOX’s Bounty Collected.

The other metrics, such as Bounty Collected and Opponent Network, are calculated based on the team’s best 10 wins, and these values contribute to the final Head-to-Head (H2H) score. Once all four factors are determined, their average is plugged into the initial formula. For ATOX, the average of Bounty Collected, Bounty Offered, Opponent Network, and LAN Wins comes out to be 0.412.

Now that we have the Roster Average, we will go back to the fundamental equation. The lowest-ranked team, set at 0 by Valve, represents the Min Average, while the highest-ranked team in this case, Team Spirit, has an average of 0.825. Substituting these values into the formula, we get 400 + ((0.412 – 0.000) / (0.825 – 0.000)) * 1600 = 1198.8. But the calculation doesn’t stop there. The Head-to-Head value for all of ATOX’s games is factored in, which in this case is -13.4, bringing the final score to 1185.4.

So where does the problem lie? – TLDR

If you want to skip all the maths, the TLDR is that theoretically, Valve is doing almost everything right. They are taking into account how tough your opponents are, how well you performed at events, your head to head with other teams, how many wins were at LAN, while also factoring in age weight and event weight, but there are still certain issues. Let us look into them in detail.

1. The Open Qualifiers Are a Mess

The Open Qualifiers are meant to be the great equalizer, but therein lies the problem: the execution. Recently, we’ve seen numerous issues crop up in the Open Qualifiers. Whether it’s cheating accusations or mismanagement, the problems are hard to ignore. With thousands of teams competing, most TOs simply don’t have the resources to handle the magnitude of these tournaments. Running them online simply isn’t cutting it. We’ve seen cases where teams cheat right up until the final decider, only to dodge punishment. This has only widened the chasm between tier-one and tier-two teams, and unless action is taken, it will only continue to grow.

2. New Rosters Are Affected the Most

This situation has also impacted roster changes in a big way. In the past, teams only had to worry about the Major when changing rosters, meaning a complete overhaul could still result in qualification if they performed well enough in tier-one events. But now, with tier-one tournaments relying on the VRS for invites, changing the core roster means your points reset, and you won’t get those coveted invites. This has caused massive upheaval, as seen with Falcons signing Heroic’s core just to ensure they would be invited to tier-one events. 

3. The Case of Imperial FE

LAN wins is one of the criteria that might need correction in the future. As it stands right now, it doesn’t take into consideration the quality of opponents and events, and gives disproportionate points for wins. As Thorin highlighted, this was one of the reasons why Imperial FE gained so many ranks so fast because they accumulated a lot of wins on LAN. Not only this, but the event weight of some of the female tournaments have been unfair.

4. Considering Prize Money as the Driving Force

It’s been already talked about a lot how prize money isn’t always the best yardstick for measuring a team’s performance, and for good reason. Not only does it have its fair share of flaws, but it can also lead to some downright bizarre outcomes. The case of GamerLegion was one of them. At the cutoff time, they didn’t climb the rankings simply because they were still competing, while a team eliminated earlier pocketed prize money and was credited with points. It cost them invites to later events, despite outperforming the team that got the nod.

The economic viability in tier-two

If you first look at the tier two orgs, I confirmed with Dejan that they are spending close to a million dollars a year just to keep their players and staff. If they choose not to go the traditional route of maintaining their core and instead sign new players, getting ranked quickly becomes nearly impossible. As dweg highlights in his video, since not all Open Qualifier matches are on HLTV, many don’t contribute to a team’s ranking. And to obtain a rank, teams must play at least 10 VRS-ranked games which could take a lot longer and burn a lot of money meanwhile.

Even after getting ranked, earning points remains a challenge. Most of these qualifiers offer little to no prize money, and teams often face low-level opponents with weak Opponent Network scores in non-LAN games. This makes it incredibly difficult to accumulate points at a meaningful pace. As a result, staying in CS becomes unsustainable for many orgs, which is why we acre already seeing so many leave.

Tier-two tournaments face an even bigger hurdle. While tier-one TOs are in a competition, pouring prize money into their events, tier-two TOs are left scrambling just without a single top-nine team. As Thorin pointed out in the Feed The Trolls podcast, regional events are struggling to secure their regional best team, which makes tier-two tournaments less appealing from a business perspective.

If tier-two tournaments don’t thrive, it breaks the ladder to the top, including the Major. The impact of this broken ladder is most glaring in teams like NIP, who opted for better players rather than sticking with their core to preserve their chances for invitations. Even if they have the potential, the broken ladder makes it near impossible to regain their tier-one status.

Even with its flaws VRS could be on the right course

It is clear that VRS is far from perfect. But despite all its flaws, it has the potential to give birth to a far better circuit. The flaws, albeit there, can be taken in stride. With concerted effort from Valve, the teams, and the community, it has a lot of scope to improve. The question here is: how much time will Valve take to implement this change?

Valve has never been known to make decisions on the fly. This article has made it pretty clear how each passing day adds fuel to the fire of increasing running costs for the organizations. The work for Valve is cut out. They should start by focusing on the tier-two tournaments first. The gap between tier-one and tier-two has started to widen. The longer Valve takes, the larger the ripple effect on the ecosystem.