Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Make servers prime only

[dys]

As stated in my post with about 30 seconds of research and couldn't find this one.
I think this should be enabled. I disagree that it will produce a smaller community because of how established we already are. It can't hurt to enable it and disable it if there is no change in the frequency of disruptions on the servers.

 

[shatteredblade89]

I like the idea, as having prime servers would prevent troublemakers from making new accounts to rejoin to cause more trouble.

 

[Luna]

Everyone keeps saying, this would kill pop, our pop would die. I just want to see actual evidence of this because it's never been tried on our current servers. Our old servers were prime only around 2016-2018 and they had no issues getting pop.

 

[Ninjaloot]

I would love to see this

 

[Nouille Chinoise]

I only play JB. Ive been playing Counter Strike since 1.6 and I have never played anything else than community

 

[rame]

instead of making it prime only it could be an idea to instead check the account age. Newer accounts are usually ban evaders or cheaters

 

[4g0tt3nSou1]

When valve made the game free to play, they ruined prime. I would agree if we were talking before the game went free to play, prime would make a difference. But now I don't know.

 

[BeastTheNinja]

instead of making it prime only it could be an idea to instead check the account age. Newer accounts are usually ban evaders or cheaters

just becausse ban evaders use new accounts dosen't mean they are... which is why we dont check them unless they cause problems... which is why prime servers are better than having some random new steam account checked for ban evasion or cheating

 

[rame]

just becausse ban evaders use new accounts dosen't mean they are... which is why we dont check them unless they cause problems... which is why prime servers are better than having some random new steam account checked for ban evasion or cheating

I am just saying, if the player has less than ex) 8 hours on cs2 or is a new account we could just block them from joining

 

[jii]

I am just saying, if the player has less than ex) 8 hours on cs2 or is a new account we could just block them from joining

non-prime accounts with age go for pennies on the account trading market, prime accounts are pretty cheap but atleast allow the cost to accrue

 

[Nappin]

Hi all, first I'd like to point out that this has been suggested numerous times before. While this suggestion has been denied previously, I was hoping to re-introduce the suggestion as Valve has further modified how prime in CS:GO works. Similar threads can be found here and here.

As you may know, Valve has modified the prime system to remove the ability to "earn" prime by leveling up to 21. In addition, they have introduced non-prime matchmaking.

I personally am in the belief that having the servers be "prime only" would best prevent unnecessary griefing, hacking, and miscellaneous server disruptions.

The majority of this opinion comes from a similar system in Minecraft. In Minecraft, it is possible to get "cracked" accounts for free. Users can log in with these (free) cracked accounts and join cracked servers. Of course, these servers are generally less popular, less mainstream, and certainly much less secure. The primary difference here is that Valve themselves have built CS:GO for a few years to be free. It's not illegal and it certainly is much more supported.

This being said, I believe (with no real evidence, some statistics would be great here) that preventing non-prime accounts from joining would reduce and discourage the usage of alt accounts and rule breaking. Furthermore, I believe that requiring players to pay for prime would impact a minimal amount of players on eGO, as the large majority of players already have prime. With all of this stated, I think I'd like to summarize the pros and cons of the option. Please let me know your thoughts on this subject.

Pros:

• Harder to get an alternative account
• More obstacles to bypass a ban
• Places value on accounts

Cons:

• Prevents non-prime users from accessing the server
• (Potentially) reduces player count

If you ask me (speaking from a jb perspective) we should wait and see how our numbers look after ttt and other server come back. I have a feeling once ttt comes back were not gonna see the same number of players

 

[MS]

The goal of our servers isn't to have the most players, it's to have fun.

If we have 64 players but 20 of them are causing havoc and breaking rules (and happen to be non-prime), I'd say they're a sacrifice worth making.

 

[Jacko]

The goal of our servers isn't to have the most players, it's to have fun.

If we have 64 players but 20 of them are causing havoc and breaking rules (and happen to be non-prime), I'd say they're a sacrifice worth making.

Is there an easy way to see what the statistics are of prime vs non-prime players who regularly play on our servers?

 

[WaSe]

IMO - Don't fix what isn't broken

Our old servers were prime only around 2016-2018 and they had no issues getting pop.

The quality of gameplay was higher, but JB's pop then was 20 people. Now, JB being a "healthy" pop is 45+. Also that prime was a little different because it was based on comp play time and the XP you get from that. Now, getting prime is based on paying $15.

I think it's true that adding prime could be cool and it also could hurt pop. I'm not sure which path is best, but I do know that this is a debate that been active for like 5+ years now on the forums. No one really discusses it game, so I don't think 90% of the server cares.

It's known the current non-prime status is a good way to get a player base and ban evaders/new accounts are dealt with pretty quick by admins. I think we're debating fixing an issue that doesn't really exist.