CSPPA reveals a new CS:GO world rankings system

The new rankings aim to prevent player burnout and won't penalise players missing events

IEM Katowice 2019

The Counter-Strike Professional Players’ Association has revealed its own rankings system that looks to rank CS:GO teams in a more transparent way that also promotes its overarching goal to improve playing conditions.

The new rankings, which aim to “promote a more sustainable work-life balance” for CS:GO players, aim to reward individual teams’ performances over a 36-week rolling period but only award ranking points to a select number of tournaments and will not award any to tournaments hosted during player breaks. Although points are awarded to individual players, with the total points of all five players tallied up for the team’s score, the rankings system does not penalise players for missing events through injury, illness, or mental health breaks.

“Current rankings systems incentivise players to play as many matches and tournaments as possible,” the CSPPA announcement reads. “[Existing rankings] often fail to afford players and teams reasonable protections in case players are unable to attend matches or tournaments due to health and burnout issues.”

Over 30 pro players and “key stakeholders” in CS:GO esports were consulted on how to form these new rankings, which will be updated on the first Monday of every month herein.

While the CSPPA rankings aim to be more transparent and simplified, the lengthy rulebook that sets out the parameters of the leaderboard suggests otherwise.

The CSPPA rankings look pretty different compared to existing ones from the likes of ESL and HLTV. Evil Geniuses are currently deemed the top team, with Natus Vincere in second and FURIA in third. The number one team in both ESL and HLTV’s rankings, BIG Clan, is relegated to fifth.

While the premise of a rankings system that promotes the CSPPA’s objective of better player conditions is positive, the reaction to the CSPPA’s ranking of CS:GO teams has been one of confusion, with the majority disagreeing with the order of the teams.