Aug 14, 2026 · 2 hr 28 min · 22 segments
Thorin and Mauisnake are joined by caster Trav to break down why Falcons won't dominate despite winning Cologne, Twistzz's rocky move to in-game leader, and what is quietly breaking Counter-Strike…
Alex EllenbergHostTravGuestThat's kind of what, as you said, I do a lot of my, what pays the bills is my online Counter-Strike work.
You know, I had a chance to do some great events in my career, but I just cover so much of the online circuit.
And what I absolutely despise right now is cores of online teams and maybe even like decent online teams as well.
Ones that are like, you know, top 30, top 40.
They're being propped up in the VRS for too long with no progress for me.
I understand it's important to give orgs and players a chance to find new additions to the team, not just have their ranking drop off the face of a cliff.
But I just hate how a significant number of teams are simply just existing in online Counter-Strike.
And more importantly, a lot with the way they play is like there's simply no desire to make progress, just existing.
And we've seen that teams like 100 Thieves, BC Game, look, I understand they have money to back them, but they can have a couple of two decent events.
They can rocket to the top 50 with a brand new lineup when they only keep maybe two of the five players on the previous roster.
I don't think it would hurt to have some kind of addition to decay after roster changes.
If you deserve to be top 50, you'll get there quite quickly.
We've seen that.
There's evidence of that.
I know I've referenced two teams, as I said, with this and saying names and budgets, but to make that progress happen quickly, it still hasn't been smooth sailing for either of them, right? Like they have lost some bad games in some of those lands, like 100 Thieves at one of the park and lands, et cetera, et cetera.
So I just wish there was a change to that in some way, shape or form.
And that's a conversation I want to have.
What could that change be to stop so many online teams from just going through the motions?

I'm kind of a, so I don't know how much this pertains to the higher rank stuff because this is something, this is kind of an issue that I sort of look at when I'm just kind of glancing at the rankings.

And I'm kind of, what's the, so how does this really play out tournament to tournament for you? It's just that you see the same sort of like semi-dead rosters?
Yeah.
One of the great examples for me is one of the teams that was, you know, has actually brought up a couple of good players.
I think Dvuska is a player that we've seen like kind of grow on Hotu recently.
He was a part of this core called Insilio, which provided quite a few decent name value players in tier two over the course of the year.
They're existing on an org-less team name called Bebop right now.
That's kind of what, as you said, I do a lot of my, what pays the bills is my online Counter-Strike work.
You know, I had a chance to do some great events in my career, but I just cover so much of the online circuit.
And what I absolutely despise right now is cores of online teams and maybe even like decent online teams as well.
Ones that are like, you know, top 30, top 40.
They're being propped up in the VRS for too long with no progress for me.
I understand it's important to give orgs and players a chance to find new additions to the team, not just have their ranking drop off the face of a cliff.
But I just hate how a significant number of teams are simply just existing in online Counter-Strike.
And more importantly, a lot with the way they play is like there's simply no desire to make progress, just existing.
And we've seen that teams like 100 Thieves, BC Game, look, I understand they have money to back them, but they can have a couple of two decent events.
They can rocket to the top 50 with a brand new lineup when they only keep maybe two of the five players on the previous roster.
I don't think it would hurt to have some kind of addition to decay after roster changes.
If you deserve to be top 50, you'll get there quite quickly.
We've seen that.
There's evidence of that.
I know I've referenced two teams, as I said, with this and saying names and budgets, but to make that progress happen quickly, it still hasn't been smooth sailing for either of them, right? Like they have lost some bad games in some of those lands, like 100 Thieves at one of the park and lands, et cetera, et cetera.
So I just wish there was a change to that in some way, shape or form.
And that's a conversation I want to have.
What could that change be to stop so many online teams from just going through the motions?

I'm kind of a, so I don't know how much this pertains to the higher rank stuff because this is something, this is kind of an issue that I sort of look at when I'm just kind of glancing at the rankings.

And I'm kind of, what's the, so how does this really play out tournament to tournament for you? It's just that you see the same sort of like semi-dead rosters?
Yeah.
One of the great examples for me is one of the teams that was, you know, has actually brought up a couple of good players.
I think Dvuska is a player that we've seen like kind of grow on Hotu recently.
He was a part of this core called Insilio, which provided quite a few decent name value players in tier two over the course of the year.
They're existing on an org-less team name called Bebop right now.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.