Many players, coaches and team representatives have already criticised the VRS system for its closed nature, unfair scoring and undervaluing of tournaments. It is almost impossible for new teams to break into the rankings, and invites are distributed among established teams. In this article we have analysed the key problems of VRS, found out why it hinders the development of the scene, and suggested possible solutions that could make the system more fair and transparent.

What is VRS and how does it work?

Valve Regional Standings is a ranking system for teams in CS2 based on their results over the last 6 months. It works by taking into account prize money, the number of opponents defeated and the strength of those victories, with recent matches having more weight.

ELO is based on the principle of updating the rankings after each game: a team gains or loses points depending on the strength of the opponent and the result of the match. Teams rise with wins, especially against strong opponents, and fall with losses, with recent games affecting the rankings more than old ones.

For example, there is Team A and Team B. Team A has recently won a major tournament with a high prize pool, but has played few matches in recent months. Team B, on the other hand, has not won any major tournaments, but has consistently beaten various teams. In the initial ranking, Team A is favoured by prize money, while Team B is favoured by the number of wins.

When the system applies the ELO algorithm, taking into account recent matches, the situation changes. If Team A loses a few games and Team B wins a series of matches, Team B's ranking goes up, even if their opponents were weaker. Since Valve's system is stronger at evaluating recent results, Team B can rise above Team A despite its past performance.

Why is the VRS system broken?

The VRS has been heavily criticised by players and representatives of organisations due to its closed nature and unfairness. To get into the top 30, teams have to go through the toughest open qualifications where competition is at its highest and the likelihood of encountering cheaters is high. At the same time, major tournaments that could serve as an alternative way of advancement are artificially lowered in importance, making the way up even more difficult. New teams are trapped in a vicious circle: without rankings they are not invited to tournaments, and without tournaments they cannot gain rankings.

The bottom line is that CS needs more tournaments to be VRS-ranked. The most important thing is to identify what points of friction exist between tournament organizers and the VRS system and work to alleviate them as soon as possible. Additionally, increasing the number of open qualifier slots across all levels of competition would help mitigate these issues. 

told bo3.gg an expert in the field, who decided to stay anonymous.

The owner of Preasy also shared his opinion especially for us:

I feel that the departure of franchised tournaments was a good thing, but right now the scene has just become even more closed off. It’s almost impossible for anyone outside the top 50, and that’s not sustainable.

- told bo3.gg owner of Preasy Michael Hertz.

In addition to the experts, Snappi also gave his public opinion:

It is borderline impossible to grind rank. CS2 fully closed down the entire system, and you are killing organisations not already ranked top30. We went through 6 open qual games vs multiple paid teams. How is anyone supposed to get up, when almost nothing is ranked 

Snappi

The system's problems are compounded by the unfairness of ranking points. Teams that drop out early can get a bonus for prize money, while those who continue to participate lose points because their payments have not yet been counted at the time of calculation. This was the case with GamerLegion: on 3 February, the team was ranked 13th in the VRS and didn't make it into the top 12, causing them to lose their invites to BLAST Open Lisbon 2025, PGL Bucharest 2025, YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025, IEM Melbourne 2025 and IEM Dallas 2025. But on 4 February, after finishing IEM Katowice 2025 and taking home $38,000 in prize money, they moved up to 11th place, but that didn't change their invitational situation. They were overtaken by FURIA, who already had prize money included in the rankings for 3 February, which raises questions about the transparency of the system.

There’s also another problem, and that’s the ranking updates, which is an issue. We need more transparency about when the ranking is applicable to a specific tournament, and the ranking system should operate in real-time

 - told bo3.gg owner of Preasy Michael Hertz.

Also commenting on this was Complexity Manager, Graham Pitt

Congratulations, you qualified for the Shanghai Major Opening Stage - parts of the value of your wins are only worth 14.3% because despite playing at the major, the first stage is considered a $0 prize qualifier? This applies to multiple other events, off the top of my head - IEM Katowice, IEM Cologne, ESL Pro League, the TWO Swiss stages of BLAST Austin, BLAST Bounty (online part).

The situation is aggravated by the fact that there are fewer qualifications for T2 tournaments, and many of them are now available only by invites. Previously, teams could get through open qualifications, but now there are almost no chances left. Exceptions are possible, but they are rare and require participation in single open qualifications, which take place in BO1 MR12 format. This format makes them extremely random, as one mistake can undo months of work. Even successful performances at prestigious tournaments do not guarantee promotion in the rankings if the system considers them insufficiently significant.

New clubs in these conditions just won't emerge. Now the way to the professional scene is to play in ESEA leagues for a year. At the same time, even T2 tournaments are now closed, and there are no open qualifications for them. The scene has split into the ranked and those with minimal chance.

lmbt 

Due to the closed nature of the ranking and the lack of clear promotion mechanisms, young teams lose motivation and organisations leave the discipline. It has become almost impossible to break through to the top of the rankings without significant financial investment and connections, which jeopardises the development of the scene. As a result, top teams continue to receive invites based on established positions, while those outside the elite are forced to fight in unfair conditions.

While we can't comment on specific revenue figures, the core issue from our perspective is not past revenue—it’s future projection. If you’re an investor looking at the space, the Tier 1 scene seems far more attractive because maintaining a strong VRS ranking ensures invites to major events, bringing exposure, viewers, and advertising opportunities. In contrast, for Tier 2+ teams, the lack of VRS-ranked events for months makes it nearly impossible to justify long-term investment. This situation has already driven some organizations out of the scene, as we've seen with recent departures. - Anonymous Source

Esports Organizations Call on Valve to Fix the VRS System

After IEM Katowice 2025 2025, a group of 22 esports organizations sent a letter to Valve, urging the developer to refine the tournament system introduced this year. The teams pointed out that the only way to enter the VRS is through open qualifiers for tier-one events, while smaller tournament organizers run invite-only competitions due to a lack of resources to manage open qualifiers.

Additionally, not all Tier-1 tournaments offer open qualifier slots, further limiting opportunities for teams to earn VRS points. The letter also criticized the inconsistency in granting or revoking a tournament's VRS status mid-event, creating uncertainty for players and organizations.

Moreover, the letter called for the creation of a centralized platform where teams and tournament organizers can get clear explanations about the ranking system. Currently, many players and even tournament organizers struggle to fully understand the system, despite Valve having made the ranking model open-source.

Finally, the teams urged Valve to reintroduce open qualifiers for Majors, as the current Major Regional Qualifiers (MRQ) format only includes teams with VRS points, making it nearly impossible for new teams to qualify for CS2’s biggest tournament.

The letter was signed by Ninjas in Pyjamas, Metizport, Endpoint, JANO, ENCE, MOUZ, BIG, HAVU, EYEBALLERS, IMPERIAL, LEGACY, FALCONS, OG Esports, 3DMAX, 9z, FURIA, M80, Monte Esports, Fnatic, GamerLegion, 9INE, Aurora.

How to Fix VRS Problems?

The VRS system has been heavily criticized for its closed nature, unfair scoring, and the artificial undervaluing of tournaments. These issues make it nearly impossible for new teams to advance, leading to stagnation in the professional scene. Without changes, more organizations will leave CS2, competition will weaken, and the overall tournament structure will degrade.

One of the biggest flaws is the lack of transparency in ranking calculations. Teams often don’t understand why their position shifts, and in some cases, prize money is not factored in at the right time, affecting invitations to key tournaments. For instance, GamerLegion finished IEM Katowice 2025 and earned $38,000 in prize money, yet due to how the rankings were calculated on February 3rd, they lost multiple major invitations to teams whose prize money had already been counted.

Another core issue is that there aren't enough VRS-ranked tournaments, particularly at the Tier 2+ level. Many teams struggle to accumulate points because they are locked out of high-tier events. 

The bottom line is that CS needs more tournaments to be VRS-ranked. The most important thing is to identify what points of friction exist between tournament organizers and the VRS system and work to alleviate them as soon as possible. Additionally, increasing the number of open qualifier slots across all levels of competition would help mitigate these issues.

told bo3.gg an expert in the field, who decided to stay anonymous.

Manager Preasy also pointed out how the scene has become even more restrictive:

I feel that the departure of franchised tournaments was a good thing, but right now the scene has just become even more closed off. It’s almost impossible for anyone outside the top 50, and that’s not sustainable.

 

On top of that, the ranking system overemphasizes recent results, leading to instability. A single bad streak can drop a team significantly, while others may climb rapidly due to a short period of success. This unpredictability makes it even harder for lower-tier teams to gain traction.

What Needs to Change?

The VRS system currently functions more like an exclusive club for top-tier teams rather than an open, merit-based ranking. Invitations to key events are largely reserved for established organizations, while tier-2 tournaments—which used to be a gateway for new teams—have become scarce and often require direct invites rather than open qualifications. This creates a cycle where teams can’t compete in high-level events because they lack ranking points, but they can’t gain points because they’re locked out of these events.

This closed circuit is financially unsustainable for lower-tier teams. Without regular access to VRS-ranked events, sponsorship deals dry up, revenue becomes unpredictable, and long-term stability is almost impossible. 

If you’re an investor looking at the space, the Tier 1 scene seems far more attractive because maintaining a strong VRS ranking ensures invites to major events, bringing exposure, viewers, and advertising opportunities. In contrast, for Tier 2+ teams, the lack of VRS-ranked events for months makes it nearly impossible to justify long-term investment. This situation has already driven some organizations out of the scene, as we've seen with recent departures.

told bo3.gg an expert in the field, who decided to stay anonymous. 

If Valve wants a healthier, more competitive ecosystem, key changes are needed:

• Increase the number of VRS-ranked tournaments to give lower-tier teams a chance to earn ranking points.
• Reintroduce and expand open qualifiers, ensuring 40-50% of C-tier, 20-30% of B-tier, and 10% of A-tier event slots are open to qualification.
• Make ranking updates transparent and real-time, so teams know exactly how points are distributed and when they impact invitations.
• Reassess tournament importance—events like IEM Katowice, ESL Pro League, and BLAST should weigh more heavily in the rankings.
• Ensure financial sustainability for teams outside the top 30 by improving tournament access and exposure opportunities.

Currently, VRS functions as a locked system rather than a ranking based on performance. If these issues are not addressed, CS2 risks becoming an exclusive circuit with little room for new talent, leading to stagnation and fewer professional teams. Competitive Counter-Strike thrives on openness and meritocracy, and unless Valve makes meaningful changes, the pro scene will suffer.