@tawaAlx yup, sapphire and BCC plugins broke on vegas for me after like 570.xx. braindead. you can go into group policy editor and exclude drivers from windows update to solve the auto update though afaik.
@thisdudelikesAI is this something I can apply at the OS level or is it code that would have to be implemented by the dev for a specific app? Im not a programmer but this seems like it could have implications for gaming workloads.
@TheCS2Historian Just do an API for amateur and if tournaments like ESEA finals or Fragadelphia want to be more widely covered for VRS, its on them to implement it. No work for HLTV past the initial setup. Charge a fee per event for coverage to offset the hosting. Done.
Here's my take. VRS should be enabled for all of ESEA Finals. VRS should act like an ELO system for teams. More VRS enabled games are better for everyone, because the best teams in the region are going to be able to win VRS vs the lower ranked teams. To keep HLTV's prestige which keeps people motivated, don't make pro HLTV profiles for players & teams below the ECL level. Instead, pull everything below tier 2 from HLTV entirely and cover it on a new website like "https://t.co/G1BrPAhUr5" or some other section of HLTV. Problem solved by covering matches from the lower levels on a separate section or separate website. Giving everyone access to VRS in the finals would mix things up on the ranks temporarily, but in the long run the system would stabilize and the pecking order would be sorted out.
Also it goes without saying. But, giving more teams VRS doesn't make anyone better or worse. Imagine that. The only counter-point I can see to this is regarding the intended purpose of the VRS system. From Valve's perspective the system exists to qualify teams for majors, and anyone who cannot get ranked on the VRS ladder as it exists now, wouldn't be in contention for a spot at a major anyway.
Honestly @HLTVorg I don't even know what to say. The logic behind covering the top 12 of advanced to only top 8 of the finals (when the prize money is split between all 16 teams) is poor and comes at such a dissapointment. I understand you hide behind the excuse of not wanting to create so many HLTV team/player profiles BUT in this case I feel like a mistake is being made.
Why is a 33,500$ 16 team tournament getting only HALF coverage?!
ESEA is a long time reliable TO putting up a lot of money to win. Surely a handful of team profiles and 2 days worth of single elim bo3's isn't out of your scope to cover considering this is technically where the "open qualifier" got us to. A lot of these teams are already on the VRS and my team is 1 game away with our whole team already having HLTV profiles. All teams are recieving prize money. (Yet another excuse hltv has used to not cover games in the past if the game was not for prize money)
Considering HLTV is the central hub for Pro CS2/The VRS and is plastered in gambling sites (ones that infringe on the Counter-Strike IP that Valve has banned TO's from using as sponsors btw) I refuse to believe this is a budget problem. This FEELS like a "we don't want to" problem. How are smaller scenes supposed to grow and become "pertinent" in HLTV's eyes if all smaller regions are just fighting for their life to have a handful of games covered.
I don't blame @ESEA at all as hopefully they did everything in their power to make it work. I thank them for the wonderful job and effort they have put in to try and bring VRS to all regions. I know their hope was to have the entire finals covered every season. Guess we'll have to work even harder for it but IMO covering a small portion of a single elim bracket everyone spent 2+ months fighting for is a slap in the face. One day I'm hopeful the coverage issue in non EU regions is solved by @CounterStrike
My final thoughts are this is a larger issue than one event or JUST the NA region as I've stated time and time again. A biased FOR PROFIT journalism company like HLTV should NOT be the main and only source of data colleciton and rule enforcement for the VRS/TOR if they are limited by funds. I doubt anyone disagrees with that.