Monday, February 9, 2026
Home Blog Page 108

The Authenticity Crisis: How Fake Trading Sites Exploit CS2 Players

Counter-Strike 2 has established a booming digital economy where virtual weapon skins and cosmetic items are being exchanged for real cash. The CS2 skin market has set record levels, with the aggregate market capitalization reaching an all-time high $4.5 billion and certain unique knives selling for more than $1 million. This vast economy, founded on goods ranging from a few cents to tens of thousands of dollars, has provided an irresistible target for cybercriminals who have developed increasingly complex methods to exploit unsuspecting players.

Steam trading volume statistics demonstrate the magnitude of this economy, with trade volume on a given day as large as 5.4 million trades, while Counter-Strike 2 is seeing more than 1.8 million players at any given time. The intersection of precious virtual assets, the largely youth-skewing player base, and Steam’s historically weak security measures has made for a recipe for disaster for fraudulent activity that is costing players millions of dollars every year.

The Anatomy of Fake Trading Platforms

Bogus CS2 trading platforms utilize advanced methods to look genuine, sometimes buying Google ads that show when customers look for well-known marketplaces such as SkinMonkey, CS.MONEY, or other prominent platforms. Bogus sites replicate almost identical versions of authentic platforms, including realistic domain names that are different by only one character or utilize different top-level domains. The fraudsters have perfected search engine manipulation to make their imitation sites rank high in search results when gamers seek reputable trading sites.

The way these fake sites have emerged has also become more sophisticated. Spammers go to the extent of copying every element of genuine sites, be it user interfaces or security badges. They even resort to designing fake social media accounts and consumer reviews to establish credibility. Public trading history and ratings by users are also fabricated to create a false sense of legitimacy, making it almost impossible for even savvy traders to distinguish between real and fake sites.

Current counterfeit trading websites employ sophisticated web technologies to present realistic copies of genuine platforms. They execute Browser-in-the-Browser (BitB) attacks that present realistic pop-up windows identical to those of Steam’s login page on the fake website. This method presents what appears to be the official Steam login window, with the proper URL and GUI design, when in reality it’s embedded JavaScript set up to steal credentials.

The underlying infrastructure for such scams has grown increasingly sophisticated. Scammers make use of content delivery networks (CDNs) in order to enable speedy page loads and utilize SSL certificates in order to show the secure padlock icon that users know as indicative of legitimate websites. Scammers also employ anti-detection techniques that block security researchers from easily examining their activities, such as blocking developer tools as well as utilizing obfuscated code.

Steam Account Compromise Tactics

Valve Bans Steam Games with Mandatory In-Game Ads

The most common way fake trading sites take advantage of CS2 players starts with phishing scams meant to capture Steam logins. Impostors orchestrate sophisticated plans in the form of fabricated tournament invitations, professional team recruitment missions, and purported account authentication necessities. The moment players provide their Steam username and password on these fake sites, criminals obtain partial control over their accounts.

The complexity of such phishing activities cannot be overstated. Thieves pose as popular individuals in the CS2 sphere, such as professional gamers s1mple, NiKo, and donk. They fabricate fake YouTube streams using looped gameplay videos while advertising phony skin giveaways. These streams tend to have high search rankings, appearing as the first result when users look for CS2 content, giving them a veneer of credibility.

API Key Exploitation

Once successfully phished with Steam credentials, scammers move on to the next step of their scam: API key theft. Steam’s Web API enables third-party services to view some account information and track trading activity. When users log into phishing sites with their Steam credentials, hostile scripts automatically create API keys for their accounts, allowing scammers to track all trading activity in real-time.

The API scam is one of the most devious exploitations because it runs quietly for years. Scammers may sit for months or years before making their move, watching victims’ accounts for large trades. When a real trade is offered, the scammer’s automated programs immediately reject the initial trade offer and replace it with an identical-looking offer from their accounts. They alter their bot accounts’ names and profile pictures to those of the intended recipient, a very effective impersonation.

The Middleman Scam

Among the most sophisticated scams is false middleman services exploiting the CS2 trading community’s trust mechanisms. In one of the most sophisticated scams, fraudsters pose as authentic cash traders or prominent community members. They target victims by presenting themselves as willing to buy expensive skins but offering the trade link of an actual, credible trader rather than their own. This instills a false confidence in that victims identify with the legitimate trader’s reputation.

The scammer also reaches out to the actual trader from another account, purporting to sell products and asking for the same transaction. When the victim ships products to the actual trader and the trader ships money to what they think is the victim’s account, the money ends up in the scammer’s account. The original owner of the skin and the genuine trader are both victimized by the scam, with the payment going to the scammer and the trader receiving stolen goods in ignorance.

Fake Game Integration Scams

One of the most creative scams found in 2025 was the creation of a completely fabricated Steam game called “Plumber’s Legacy.” Fraudsters crafted imitation CS2 items for the fabricated game that were nearly indistinguishable from real Counter-Strike items, including name, description, wear quality, and even the CS2 game logo. The players were sent trade offers with these imitated items that seemed to be very high-value CS2 skins at first sight.

The complexity of this fraud was unmatched. The counterfeit goods had elaborate descriptions corresponding to actual CS2 skins, appropriate wear ratings, and even market listings. Only meticulous scrutiny of the item’s source game uncovered the fraud. Valve finally removed the imposter game from Steam, but not before many players had been deceived by it.

Financial Effect on Victims

The financial effect of the spoof trading sites on CS2 players is mind-boggling. Individual losses often range from a few hundred dollars to several thousand, with some cases involving losses that exceed $100,000. The monetary value of stolen items typically accounts for a significant fraction of players’ net worth, especially among young fans who have invested considerable time and money in developing their collections.

Market statistics indicate that the economy for CS2 skins generates millions of dollars’ worth of transactions daily on legitimate platforms. When these scam sites are successful, they not only directly affect individual gamers but also complicate market trust and pricing stability. Valve’s introduction of Trade Protection in July 2025, meant to address the scams, had an immediate $104 million market cap fall since trading volumes temporarily dropped with the new seven-day holding periods.

Valve’s Trade Protection System

To counter increasing scam activity, Valve introduced the Trade Protection system back in July 2025. The Trade Protection system puts a seven-day hold of seven days on every CS2 item trade so that players can undo trades if they realize that they’ve been scammed. Although it is a huge development in player protection, it has also revolutionized the nature of the CS2 trade economy.

The Trade Protection framework compels users to authenticate that they know the implications of every trade and warns strongly against scams. Everything that gets traded bears conspicuous yellow shield icons signifying that it is protected, and users can readily view reversal options from their Steam Trade History. Yet, utilizing the reversal system enables a 30-day trading and marketplace ban, thereby making it a strong deterrent against fraud while still granting genuine victims some recourse.

Platform Security Improvements

True trading sites have reacted to the menace of counterfeit sites by introducing improved security features such as two-factor authentication requirements, identity verification processes, and advanced fraud detection algorithms. The sites now use specialized security teams that track suspicious behavior and have databases of known indicators of scams.

Browser add-ons and independent security solutions have been introduced to assist gamers in determining legitimate trading websites and staying away from fake ones. They keep databases that are updated regularly with confirmed sites and issue alerts in real time whenever users try to open suspicious websites. But the cat-and-mouse game played between scammers and security vendors continues to intensify, with both sides creating more and more sophisticated methods.

Final Thoughts

As trading in virtual items accelerates in terms of size and complexity, governments across the globe are starting to map out how digital assets are protected by law. Virtual items as property with tangible economic value are increasingly being recognized, which translates into greater legal protection for virtual theft and fraud victims.

Law enforcement forces are creating dedicated units with training to cover virtual asset crimes, and cooperation models at the international level are being established to deal with the transnational aspect of most online gaming fraud. The effectiveness of these initiatives will play a major role in deciding whether the CS2 trading network can expand further without sacrificing acceptable security levels for players.

The continuous evolution of blockchain-based asset verification networks and decentralized trading exchanges can eventually offer safer substitutes for present-day centralized exchanges. Nonetheless, such technologies also bring added complexities and possible avenues of attack that need to be handled with extreme caution.

Aside from that, Artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms are now being used more to identify fraudulent transactions and spot suspicious trading behavior. These algorithms are able to handle large amounts of transaction data in real-time, perhaps detecting scam schemes before they are able to do much harm.

Haven, Lotus, and the Competitive Viability of Valorant’s 3-Site Maps

Since the dawn of tactical shooters, the bomb defusal mode in video games has been characterized by maps with two bombsites located opposite each other, divided by a middle area. While a few other titles have attempted to deviate from this formula, none were able to match the success of Riot Games’ flagship FPS, Valorant, which not only challenged the formula but also brought it into the mainstream with maps like Haven and Lotus.

Haven was one of the three Valorant maps present in the game at the time of its closed beta, and immediately stood out from the crowd due to its three-site layout. While the community was divided regarding its competitive viability in the Valorant map pool, most still appreciated the devs’ efforts to experiment with fresh, unorthodox designs.

Nearly three years later, Lotus was introduced as the ninth map in Valorant’s pool, and the second to feature three bombsites. Its launch reignited some long-standing concerns about the three-site layout, eventually prompting Riot to remove it from rotation for a rework. However, even in its initial state, Lotus stood out for its unique rotating doors and creative use of verticality, which was certainly a breath of fresh air for many players.

This brings us to the real question: are maps like Haven and Lotus truly viable for competitive play, or should the devs stick to the tried-and-tested formula of two-bombsite maps that games like CS have refined over the years?

The Concept of the 3-Site Map

If you’ve never played Valorant before, or you’re new to the genre, you might be confused about what a “3-site map” is. In simple terms, it’s a map with three bombsites, giving Attackers more planting options and replacing the traditional single mid-area found in most two-site maps.

But why did Riot decide to deviate from the working formula of maps with two bombsites?

The likely design goals behind introducing three-site maps in Valorant were to increase tactical variety, reduce the predictability of early-round pushes, and spice up the rotations from both the Attackers and Defenders. By adding an extra site, the devs may have aimed to create more uncertainty for Defenders, forcing them to adapt on the fly while also opening up fresh strategic possibilities that aren’t possible on traditional layouts.

Apart from differing in layout compared to two-site maps, three-site maps also encourage different defender spreads and economy management. In most cases, though, they give Attackers an upper hand with more entry options, often forcing the Defending side to play for a retake instead.

Case Study: Haven

3-Site Map valorant

As mentioned earlier, Haven was one of the first few maps added to Valorant that featured a three-site layout. Five years later, the layout of the map remains identical to its original version, with little to no adjustments made since its debut. This is a strong indicator that Haven is a well-balanced map providing no significant advantage to either side despite its unique layout that, on paper, should favor the Attackers.

Haven is characterized by its large overall size, a wide and exposed mid-section that encourages early skirmishes, and long sightlines toward A-Main and C-Long, where Vandals, Guardians, and snipers reign supreme. The presence of three bombsites forces Defenders to split resources in a different manner compared to traditional two-site layouts, while also providing them with fast rotation options.

In pro play, the attacking meta often revolves around securing early mid control and executing with heavy utility. While the Operator can be a great tool for the defending side on this map, it’s not uncommon for Defenders to completely give up a bombsite, only to retake it later with a coordinated utility dump.

Haven’s biggest weaknesses are its tendency to punish poor communication and its potential to become Attacker-favored if Defenders lose early map control. However, at the time of writing, Haven actually leans slightly toward Defenders in high-ranked pubs, with win rates of 51% for Defenders and 49% for Attackers, according to Blitz.gg.

Case Study: Lotus

Nearly three years after the launch of Valorant, Lotus was added to the game’s map pool as its second three-site map. It introduced the unique gimmick of rotating doors to the shooter and is still the only map to feature them to this day.

It differentiated itself from Haven in a number of key aspects. Not only is it slightly smaller than its predecessor, but it also has fewer initial entry points for the Attackers onto bombsites. As a result, Defenders can often anchor the B and C bombsites with a solo Sentinel, while A-main control becomes a pivotal objective for both sides.

In most cases, the Defenders will set up a 3-1-1 structure, with three players trying to deny the A-Main space to the Attackers. Similar to Haven, early rotations and heavy utility-oriented retakes are also common in this map.

The initial reception to Lotus within the Valorant community was mixed, to say the least. Many players criticized its layout, arguing that it was too Attacker-sided. As a result, Riot removed the map from the competitive pool for a few months before reintroducing a revamped version aimed at addressing these concerns.

At the time of writing, the Defender side in Lotus holds a win rate of 49.5% in high-ranked pubs, with Attackers narrowly leading at 50.5% as per Blitz, making it one of the more balanced maps in the game.

Competitive Viability

Now that we’ve taken an in-depth look at both Haven and Lotus, now might be a good time to check out the pros and cons of three-bombsite maps in Valorant and see how they fare against their traditional counterparts. 

Kicking off with the pros, three-site maps certainly feel like a breath of fresh air in a genre long dominated by A and B-site layouts. They allow for more creative playmaking on both the attacking and defending sides, and place greater emphasis on communication and teamwork.

Additionally, taking mid control becomes far more important, and repetitive hits on the same site are far less common, resulting in a more engaging experience for viewers as well.

On the downside, defending on three-site maps in Valorant can be more challenging, as it’s generally harder when you’re trying to gamble on a site, and makes five-stacking much less viable on eco rounds. Losing momentum can also put the defending side at an even greater disadvantage.

Furthermore, site holds and retakes on these maps often become overly reliant on utility spam rather than mechanical skill, which can be a turn-off for many players. This also creates a steeper learning curve compared to other maps in the Valorant pool

The Future of 3-Site Design in Valorant

Over the past few years, both Haven and Lotus have proven that three-site maps can, in fact, work in a tactical shooter. But does that mean Riot should add more of them to Valorant’s ever-expanding map pool?

Before we try to answer this question, it’s worth considering that part of what makes these maps special is their rarity. Three-site layouts stand out precisely because they deviate from the norm, forcing teams to constantly adapt, keeping the game fresh and exciting. If Riot were to flood the game with them, it could easily turn into stale, repetitive, and an overall inferior design choice compared to the standard two-site meta.

There’s also an argument to be made for three-site maps acting as “meta disruptors.” When a meta grows stale, introducing a layout that changes the rules of positioning and rotations can breathe new life into both ranked play and pro matches. In this sense, they work best when sparingly placed throughout the map pool to shake things up without redefining the game entirely.

Lastly, should Riot decide to introduce more three-site maps in the future, they should take the lessons learned from Haven and Lotus to heart. Issues like the three-site layouts being inherently Attacker-sided, overly punishing Defender rotations, and over-reliance on utility spam during retakes need to be addressed. Fine-tuning chokepoint placements and adjusting site accessibility options can go a long way in helping Riot preserve the creativity of three-site layouts while minimizing their drawbacks.

Verdict

So, the big question is upon us: are maps with three bombsites truly viable in competitive Valorant?

Both Haven and Lotus have been part of Valorant’s active map pool for a significant amount of time, and they’ve been played enough in the pro scene to show that three-site layouts can work if they’re designed well.

At the same time, one could also argue that these maps are inherently weaker for competitive balance compared to traditional two-site layouts, which have remained a genre staple for decades for good reason.

Yet, perhaps that’s the point. Three-site maps aren’t meant to replace the traditional formula; they’re meant to shake up the stagnant metas and keep players on their toes. And as long as they remain rare in Valorant’s map pool, their pros might just outweigh their flaws.

Regardless, the Valorant community will still be eagerly looking forward to the next three-site map that Riot dares to introduce.

iQOO Battleground Series Day 2: Meta Ninza’s Comeback

Day 2 of the iQOO Battleground Series delivered another masterclass in competitive PUBG Mobile, with Meta Ninza’s incredible consistency and Gods Reign’s clutch performances stealing the spotlight. Six matches across familiar battlegrounds showcased evolving team dynamics, tactical adaptations, and individual brilliance that have fans eagerly anticipating the tournament’s climax.

iQOO Battleground Series Day 2 Matchwise Recap

Match 1: Erangel

The second day opened with characteristic Erangel tension as teams adopted cautious early-game approaches. However, as the play zone began its relentless compression, the battlefield transformed from methodical positioning into absolute chaos.

Orangutan demonstrated their attacking prowess early, racking up an impressive 11 finishes while showcasing the aggressive playstyle that made them Day 1 favorites. However, their aggression proved costly as they fell to 6th position despite their high kill count—a reminder that survival often trumps elimination points in competitive PUBG Mobile.

Meanwhile, Cincinnati Kids displayed textbook positioning and patience, maintaining all four members alive while securing advantageous compounds. Their disciplined approach paid dividends as they entered the final zones with full strength.

The endgame featured an intense four-team standoff between Cincinnati Kids, Gods4Reason, Likitha Esports, and Meta Ninza. After a prolonged and chaotic firefight that tested every team’s coordination under pressure, Cincinnati Kids emerged victorious with 9 finishes, proving that sometimes patience and positioning matter more than pure fragging power.

Match 2: Miramar

Miramar’s vast desert landscape provided the stage for tactical brilliance as teams navigated the challenging terrain. K9 Esports established early dominance, controlling key positions and demonstrating why they’re considered among the tournament’s dark horses.

The final circles created a fascinating 4v4v4v1 scenario between True Rippers, 8bit, K9, and Meta Ninza—a situation that demanded split-second decision making and perfect execution. As the zone continued its squeeze, Meta Ninza and K9 found themselves caught in unfavorable positions and were systematically eliminated.

This left 8bit and True Rippers in a crucial 4v3 engagement. Demonstrating superior zone awareness and tactical positioning, 8bit utilized their advantageous position to claim victory with 9 finishes. Their ability to read the zone and capitalize on positioning advantages showcased the strategic depth that separates championship-caliber teams from the competition.

Match 3: Sanhok

Sanhok’s compact battleground immediately erupted into chaos with multiple hot drop confrontations. Reckoning Esports clashed with Gods Reign, resulting in Reckoning’s early elimination—a costly gamble that ended their match before it truly began.

Simultaneously, Phoenix Esports and Revenant XSpark engaged in their own drop clash, with RNTX suffering elimination in the crossfire. These early skirmishes set a frenetic pace that would define the entire match.

The individual highlight came when Likitha Esports and 8bit engaged in intense combat, culminating in Spower’s spectacular 1v3 clutch—a moment of pure skill that electrified viewers and demonstrated why individual brilliance often decides close matches.

As the circles compressed, four teams remained standing: True Rippers, Meta Ninza, Orangutan, and Phoenix Esports in a 4v4v1v1 configuration. In the ensuing chaos, Meta Ninza rose above the mayhem with exceptional team coordination, claiming victory with 13 finishes—their first win of the day and a statement that they belonged among the tournament’s elite.

Match 4: Erangel

The fourth match began with familiar patience as teams established their preferred positions across Erangel’s diverse terrain. However, as the play zone initiated its compression, the battlefield once again transformed into a war zone with simultaneous engagements across multiple fronts.

The final moments featured a tense 4v2v2 standoff between Meta Ninza, Gods Reign, and Wyld Fangs. Meta Ninza’s momentum from their previous victory carried forward, as they demonstrated remarkable composure under pressure to secure their second consecutive match victory with 11 finishes.

This back-to-back performance established Meta Ninza as genuine title contenders, proving their Day 1 struggles were merely a warm-up phase before unleashing their true potential.

Match 5: Miramar

Miramar’s fifth iteration brought early drama as Phoenix Esports suffered elimination in Stage 2—a disappointing end that highlighted the unforgiving nature of competitive PUBG Mobile, where one mistake can end championship dreams.

The endgame simplified to a compelling 2v2v1 triangle between Reckoning Esports, Gods Reign, and Orangutan. In this crucial moment, Gods Reign showcased tactical superiority and clinical execution, claiming victory with 9 finishes. Their ability to manage a complex final circle situation demonstrated the championship pedigree that tournament observers had been expecting.

Match 6: Erangel

The day’s final match began with geographical intrigue as the play zone formed in an unexpected extreme southeast position, forcing teams to abandon traditional strategies and adapt to unfamiliar rotations.

In a fitting climax to an extraordinary day, the final circles featured three of the tournament’s most beloved teams: Gods Reign, Orangutan, and Revenant XSpark in a 4v4v2 configuration that had fans from all camps on the edge of their seats.

Gods Reign proved their late-day surge was no fluke, maintaining composure in the pressure-cooker environment to claim victory. While their 4 finishes were modest compared to other matches, sometimes survival and positioning triumph over pure aggression—a lesson that resonated throughout Day 2.

As teams prepare for the final day, the stage is set for an epic conclusion. With multiple teams within striking distance and momentum shifting throughout the competition, the iQOO Battleground Series finale promises to deliver the drama and skill that have defined this exceptional tournament.

Exposing the Myth of CS2 Stats: Why Ratings Don’t Reflect True Skill

More than just a shooter, Counter-Strike 2 (CS2) is a highly strategic and intensely competitive esports environment where every move has the potential to alter the match’s outcome. However, one thing has become increasingly evident in the era of analytics: professional teams, fans, and analysts often rely too heavily on player ratings to determine skill.

ADR, impact ratings, K/D ratios, and HLTV ratings have all become acronyms for performance evaluation, but do they tell everything about what a player brings to the table?. Because they are precise and numerical, which might be dangerously convincing. In many situations, these statistics undervalue the players by distorting reality and obscuring important context that cannot be mapped to a number.

In this article, we will try to explore in depth how statistics cannot always tell the truth and if there is a better way to judge the importance of a player in the team besides reducing their impact to mere numbers.

Before we understand how numbers often undervalue players, we need to know how these values are calculated and how their impact can be misinterpreted holistically.

The common metrics include:

  • HLTV Rating 2.0 – A weighted composite that factors K/D ratio, impact, ADR, and survival rate.
  • K/D Ratio (Kills/Deaths) – The simplest measure, comparing kills to deaths.
  • ADR (Average Damage per Round) – How much damage a player deals per round on average.
  • Impact Rating – Tries to account for multi-kills, opening kills, and high-value frags.
  • Entry Frags / Opening Kill Stats – Useful for judging aggressive playstyles.

The Context Problem

The numbers merely translate to the direct impact a player has on the game, while there are many important roles whose importance gets reduced when judged with numbers. These players might lose when the star players make their flashy moves, but their absence is felt just like the big names.

A Support Player’s Dilemma

Perfecto Joins Virtus.pro

Support players are such players who provide utilities, take up space, give room to the stars to do their job, and not only does this take immense skill, but there is an absolute negative impact on their statistics however, there is no measure for their indirect impact that serves as a derivative for the star players’ impressive numbers.

The rating systems widely used to judge players cannot account for the time they spent throwing the perfect flash or how they disrupted the defence by throwing a perfect Molotov. As these things go unnoticed, a support player often fails to back their performance with numbers, which makes them an easy target to point fingers at when things go wrong.

Map and Side Bias

Several positions in the map can be classified as high-impact areas where the chances of taking a duel are relatively higher than others. Even with a poor performance, a player playing in these positions can walk out with a decent IR compared to a player who is isolated and hardly sees action. These biases cause players to have a significant difference in their numerical statistics.

Often due to tactical reasons, teams target certain areas of the map more so than others, leading to the players playing in these positions having more opportunity to stat-pad compared to other positions leading which creates a gap in their statistics, making it easy to misjudge the impact these players have in the game.

How Ratings Reward the Wrong Behaviours

Stat Padding

A notable example of stat padding is eco-fraging. Enemies with pistols are an easy target against Rifles. While these frags may elicit impressive reactions from the audience, they have little impact on the game. Getting multiple chances to get frags in eco rounds leads to good statistics, while another, more valuable player’s stats may suggest poor performance.

Avoiding Risk

The danger and reward of aggressive entrance fragging are significant. The first player’s death provides their team a positional advantage, but their rating gets significantly impacted if they are unable to get a kill. Passive lurkers, on the other hand, may keep their K/D high by staying away from dangerous moves, but it doesn’t make them any more useful, which goes to show that every role provides value in its own way, making every player’s importance equal.

The Invisible Contributions

Communication and Mid-Round Calling

Having the ability to make the team adapt in the mid-round is something no statistics can accurately capture; one needs to understand and process every bit of information for them to be able to give a call that presents their team with the best chance at winning the round. The task may bring a heavy mental toll on the caller, which negatively impacts their performance.

The biggest example of this can be seen in the likes of Karrigan, Aleksib, and Chopper. Not only are they cerebral players, but they pull the strings without contributing much to the kill feed at times, which pulls down their statistics. The poor statistics may look poor on paper, but the value can only be recognised by those in the sector.

twistzz

The space takers

The poor statistics for IGLs can be justified by the massive horde of responsibilities they share, but there is a certain class of players who are easy to point fingers at, but whose contributions are crucial for the team to succeed, which does not show up in the statistics. These players serve as the pillar of a team and show up whenever they are needed, but they are invisible for most of the game but their presence makes up the foundation of the team.

Rain from FaZe Clan, previously one of the stalwart riflers, became a silent pillar who makes space for his team’s stars. He remains a trusty pillar for Karrigan, and they together conquered every CS tournament, but his part was mostly limited to creating space for stars like Twistzzz, broky, and ropz. Despite sacrificing his star roles, Rain answered whenever the situation demanded it, and this cost him.

HLTV would suggest that Rain is a weak point for FaZe Clan, but deeply analyzing his game would change the perspective towards Rain’s contributions to the game.

Final Thoughts

In CS2, statistics can be a valuable tool – but they’re not the whole toolbox. Ratings can suggest the performance of a player, but that is far from the truth. Moving away from statistics, true skill in CS2 is about a combination of mechanical ability, strategic thinking, teamwork, and adaptability, but a lot of it fails to get captured in HLTV.

Human judgment is still indispensable, even if the grey area of contributions gets captured. Coworkers, coaches, and analysts can recognise the intangible, which will eventually lead to finding the best value out of a player, which may not always be what shows up on paper.

iQOO Battlegrounds Series Day 1 Recap: Orangutan & 8bit Dominate Early Standings

0

The inaugural day of the iQOO Battleground Series delivered everything fans could have hoped for—intense firefights, unexpected upsets, and dominant displays from top-tier teams. Six matches across three iconic PUBG Mobile battlegrounds showcased the incredible skill depth of India’s esports scene, with Orangutan and 8bit emerging as the early frontrunners after a day filled with clutch plays and strategic masterclasses.

iQOO Battleground Series Day 1 

Here’s a quick recap of iQOO Battleground Series Day 1:

Match 1: Erangel

The tournament kicked off on Erangel with an unusual twist—an extremely western zone that caught many teams off guard. The opening match set the tone for what would be an unpredictable day of competition.

RGE became the first casualty of the tournament, falling early to Gods4Reason in what would be a sign of things to come. As the circle closed, the battlefield narrowed down to a thrilling finale featuring Genesis, OG, and RNTx in a 4v3v2 situation that had viewers on the edge of their seats.

The final showdown ultimately came down to a 4v3 battle between Genesis and OG. Genesis proved their championship caliber by maintaining composure under pressure, securing their first victory of the series with an impressive 9 kills to announce their arrival in style.

Match 2: Miramar

True to Miramar’s reputation, the second match started at a methodical pace as teams carefully positioned themselves across the desert landscape. However, as the play zone began its relentless squeeze, the action exploded into multiple simultaneous engagements.

The match’s defining moment came when Reckoning Esports’ Dionysus delivered a stunning 1v3 clutch against K9, showcasing the individual brilliance that separates good players from great ones. This incredible play energized his team and shifted momentum in their favor.

The endgame featured Team Forever, Wyld Fangs, and Meta Ninza in a tense 3v3v1 scenario. In the crucial 3v3 engagement between Team Forever and Wyld Fangs, the latter demonstrated exceptional composure and coordination to eliminate their opponents. They then efficiently finished off Meta Ninza’s lone survivor, Beard Baba, claiming victory with a dominant **12 finishes.

Match 3: Sanhok

Sanhok brought immediate drama with a hot drop clash between Phoenix Esports and fan-favorite RNTx. The confrontation proved costly for both squads—RNTx lost two players while Phoenix Esports sacrificed one, setting an aggressive tone for the remainder of the match.

The compact nature of Sanhok ensured chaotic fights throughout the match, but one team rose above the chaos. Orangutan displayed incredible map control and team coordination, systematically dismantling their opposition across the tropical battleground.

The final circles witnessed a 4v2v1 situation between Orangutan, Meta Ninza, and 8bit respectively. Orangutan’s dominance was undeniable as they secured their first victory of the day with an outstanding **16 finishes**—the highest kill count of the tournament so far.

Match 4: Erangel

The fourth match presented a fascinating contrast to the previous encounters. In an unusual display of patience and strategy, all 16 teams survived until the end of Stage 4—a testament to the tactical evolution of competitive PUBG Mobile.

This cautious approach created a powder keg that exploded as the safe zone shrunk. Fights erupted simultaneously across the map as teams scrambled for position in the final circles.

The endgame featured an epic 4v4v4 battle between True Rippers, 8bit, Likitha Esports, and Orangutan. In a bold tactical decision, Likitha Esports launched an aggressive rush on Orangutan’s compound position, successfully wiping them but suffering two casualties in the process.

After an extended and intense firefight, True Rippers demonstrated why patience is a virtue in competitive PUBG Mobile, claiming victory with **11 finishes** and proving that sometimes the best strategy is knowing when to strike.

Match 5: Miramar

The fifth match began with geographical intrigue as the first play zone formed in the southeast with approximately 25% submerged in water—creating unique positioning challenges for all teams.

Early casualties mounted quickly, with both Likitha Esports and Vasista Esports losing three players each by Stage 2, effectively ending their chances before the match truly began.

By Stage 9, only three teams remained standing: Team Forever, 8bit, and Genesis. What followed was a masterclass in aggressive play calling as 8bit showcased extreme domination, systematically dismantling their opponents with clinical precision.

The individual highlight belonged to 8bit’s spower, who alone secured 9 finishes in a phenomenal display of fragging power. 8bit claimed victory with 15 finishes, establishing themselves as serious contenders for the overall title.

Match 6: Erangel

The final match of the day mirrored the patience displayed in Match 4, with all 16 teams surviving through Stage 4 before the inevitable chaos ensued. As teams were forced into closer proximity, the battleground transformed into a series of intense skirmishes.

The climactic finish featured a 3v3v2 battle between 8bit, Orangutan, and Meta Ninza. In a fitting end to an incredible opening day, **Orangutan proved their mettle once again**, demonstrating the consistency that championship teams are built on.

Orangutan secured their second victory of the day with **13 finishes**, capping off a dominant performance that positions them as early tournament favorites.

The opening day of the iQOO Battleground Series witnessed an impressive competition on the Day 1. With Orangutan and 8bit emerging as early leaders through their explosive performances, and several teams showing flashes of brilliance, the stage is set for an incredible tournament ahead.

Breeze, Pearl, and the Problem With Wide-Open Maps in Valorant

Map design is a crucial element of any tactical shooter, and Valorant, for the most part, gets it right. Almost every map in the Riot Games FPS title feels unique, compact, and packed with bold new features like zipways, teleporters, and rotating doors. Not only does this force Valorant players to think creatively and constantly come up with new strats, but it also adds layers of strategic depth to the game and heightens the overall skill ceiling.

However, not every map in Valorant has managed to hit the mark. Breeze and Pearl, in particular, stand out, not for their innovation, but for how their wide, open layouts play a part in disrupting the core fundamentals of the game itself.

While it can’t be denied that large maps like these can provide new tactical possibilities and a fresh change of pace from Valorant’s usual tight-knit layouts, they also expose the structural weakness in its game design. Whether it’s through over-reliance on specific agents or a noticeable lack of close-range engagements and utility-based play, these maps often highlight just how fragile the balance between innovation and competitive integrity can be.

In this article, we’ll take a detailed look at why wide-open maps often struggle to make their mark in Valorant, how they impact and restrict team composition, and what Riot might learn moving forward.

What Makes Breeze and Pearl “Wide-Open”?

Before we take a look at why huge maps like these can be a threat to Valorant’s identity, we first have to try and understand what makes maps like Breeze and Pearl “wide-open.”

In most tactical shooters, maps are generally categorized by tight corridors, layered chokepoints, and certain areas of control that promote calculated play and utility usage. Valorant embraces this approach in maps like Ascent, Split, and Bind, all of which follow this formula with innovative additions like teleporters and mechanical doors on top of that.

Breeze and Pearl, on the other hand, deviate sharply from the norm. Featuring long sightlines, gigantic mid areas, minimal cover, and a heavy reliance on smokes to deny enemies space, these maps shift the gameplay away from utility-driven engagements and toward long-range aim duels where mechanical skills primarily reign supreme.

The past few years have seen Riot Games attempting to fix the Breeze problem by tweaking the map layout multiple times and trimming down the open spaces, but these changes haven’t been nearly enough to keep the map from falling into this category.

The Problem of Space

Lotus valorant

While large, open spaces in tactical FPS maps can have their own merits, in a game like Valorant, their flaws might far outweigh the benefits.

In the congested genre of competitive shooters, Valorant has established its identity through its utility-driven gameplay. However, in open maps like Breeze or Pearl, the rounds often come down to which team is better at taking long-range gunfights. Additionally, snipers like the Operator, Outlaw, or even the Marshal gain disproportionate value, turning most engagements into one-shot duels where utility takes a backseat.

Alongside the power shift toward long-range weapons, certain Agents like Jett, Chamber, and Yoru, who can hold aggressive off-angles with the Operator and quickly escape after securing a pick, also come to prominence in these maps.

There are also other issues like long rotation times for both the Ts and the CTs, alongside an over-reliance on Sentinels like Killjoy and Cypher to hold down flanks. Overall, open-space maps either slow the pace of rounds to a crawl or force teams into brute-force entries, both of which leave a sour taste in the mouth for players and viewers alike.

Same Controllers, Every Time

valorant viper

Whether you’re playing an average pub game or watching the pros compete in the big stages, chances are you’ll be seeing the same few Controllers picked in every game of Breeze or Pearl, sometimes with slight variations. This is because open maps with large spaces like these two absolutely require teams to pick wall smokes like Viper’s “Toxic Screen” or Harbor’s “High Tide.”

Not only does this limit your team comps and room for creative play, but it also renders traditional dome smokes and Agents like Brimstone or Clove almost completely useless in these maps unless they’re being played as the team’s secondary Controller.

For the same reason, in most cases, double Controller comps become a necessity in these maps because of the overwhelming number of angles that need to be cleared otherwise, thereby limiting your overall team’s flexibility in addition to your Agent picks.

As a result, pro play on Breeze and Pearl has become predictably repetitive in Agent picks, and even in the overall playstyle. That’s a tough look for a game like Valorant, where creativity should be rewarded, not punished.

The Player Experience

Due to the issues we mentioned above, casual players can often feel disengaged from these wide-open maps, and they are generally the most hated maps in the community.

Not only do these maps lack clear engagement zones, especially in the case of Breeze, but the fights often feel random or unfair due to the absence of well-defined angles and sufficient cover. Long-range duels dominate the experience in these maps, heavily favoring sniper rifles and Agents like Jett or Chamber, who can both capitalize on those weapons and escape safely after a pick. On the other hand, close-range guns like the Bucky and Judge are rendered nearly useless unless you’re holding a very specific area as a Defender.

For many players, this creates a frustrating, one-dimensional experience that goes against the core appeal of Valorant’s utility-driven combat.

Due to their low popularity, both Breeze and Pearl have found themselves removed from Valorant’s competitive map rotation. Player frustration with wide-open map design might also explain why Breeze had to undergo multiple reworks before being added back to the competitive pool after its initial removal.

Lessons Riot Can Learn

Lessons Riot Can Learn in Valorant

As has been proven time and again, wide-open maps are far from ideal for a tactical shooter like Valorant. Riot seems to be taking note of this as well, as evidenced by the multiple reworks that Breeze has undergone over the past few years. With the Breeze reworks, the mid-section has become significantly less open, the A Site now features better cover, and the map overall has become much more Defender-friendly.

This is certainly a step in the right direction, showing that Riot can balance openness with structure. By introducing more verticality, covers, and clearly defined chokepoints, the devs have shown that even the wide-open maps can be reshaped into something more fitting to the genre and enjoyable at the same time.

Lotus and Sunset, both of which are relatively newer additions compared to Breeze and Pearl, are also fairly large maps, but at the same time, they serve as much better examples of well-balanced open design. Both of these maps blend the open areas with tight corridors, clear entry points, and lots of cover for players to fall back on, making room for more versatile gameplay across all skill levels.

Verdict

Breeze and Pearl deviated from the regular Valorant gameplay by placing more emphasis on long-range, making certain Agents more viable than others, and encouraging a new form of playstyle that relies less on utility and more on raw, mechanical skill. These wide-open maps were a bold experiment from Riot to try and stretch the boundaries of what a tactical shooter like Valorant could look like.

Unfortunately, these maps didn’t resonate well enough with the game’s community, as they disrupted the core identity of what Valorant was supposed to be — a utility-driven shooter. The large, open sightlines, limited cover, and an overreliance on wall smokes like Viper and Harbor have narrowed team compositions and frustrated casual and hardcore players alike.

Open maps in Valorant aren’t inherently flawed, but they require an entirely different set of design principles that don’t sacrifice agent diversity or tactical play.

As Riot continues to tweak and rework its map pool, there’s still plenty of space, both figuratively and literally, to get it right. The answer isn’t to avoid big maps entirely, but to build them smarter.

The $4.5 Billion Question: How CS2 Skins Became Gaming’s Biggest Market

In a world where virtual experiences dominate entertainment, Counter-Strike 2’s skin economy is gaming’s most valuable secondary market. As of April 2025, CS2 skins had a market capitalization of approximately $4.5 billion, with values sometimes reaching over $5 billion during premier esports events. This growth is driven by a combination of community ingenuity, psychological scarcity, reputable trading frameworks, and sociocultural forces, factors that have turned basic cosmetic items in the game into sought-after digital assets.

The Emergence of a Digital Economy

The Emergence of a Digital Economy

The foray of Counter-Strike into cosmetics started in August 2013, when the Arms Deal update added weapon skins to CS:GO. Started as a novelty, the system soon found its way into players’ imaginations. By adding rarity tiers from Mil-Spec Encourtesy blues to legendary Contraband Howl series, Valve established an ecosystem where looks and status became intermingled. Community developers, given power through Steam Workshop submissions, added legendary skins like the Asiimov series for the M4A4, investing high-level art with grassroots credibility. These early roots established the basis of today’s $4.5 billion market cap.

When CS2 debuted on Source 2 in September of 2023, the players kept all their inventory of CS:GO skins, but the game’s new graphics and revised lighting made high-end cosmetics outshine even more. Demand for extremely rare “Blue Gem” Case Hardened designs and Doppler knife models surged. In a matter of months, the skin economy of CS2 overtook previous valuations, reaching a high of over $4.2 billion in March of 2025.

Valve’s Financial Windfall

CS2 case keys

Although most skin transactions are made through third-party marketplaces, Valve’s profits are primarily derived from case key purchases and Community Market fee income. Players opened over 400 million cases between CS:GO and CS2 alone in 2023, buying keys for $2.50 each, providing estimated gross sales of $1 billion prior to fees and regional tax adjustments. The case-opening feature, similar to loot boxes, was incredibly lucrative. March 2025 alone had Valve raking in $82 million in key sales revenue for a single month.

Aside from keys, Valve charges a 15 percent commission on all Community Market transactions. With hundreds of millions of times skins are exchanged each year, that fee system adds hundreds of millions of dollars to Valve’s yearly bottom line, highlighting the firm’s dependence upon cosmetics as a central revenue driver, even exceeding direct sales of games.

Anatomy of Scarcity and Speculation

Blue Gem Case Hardened skin

Its very essence, CS2’s skin economy lives off psychological scarcity. Valve classifies items into tiered rarities, from common Consumer Grade to the coveted Contraband and extremely rare Exceedingly Rare knife drops. Wherein each rarity, float values dictate wear, and discrete pattern indices give some items micro-rarities. A low-wear “Blue Gem” Case Hardened skin, for example, might reach six-figure prices, whereas a common variant reaches mere dollars. These pattern-driven exceptions give rise to speculative activity similar to trading floor arbitrage, in which collectors pursue the most elusive commodities and investors scan price graphs for arbitrage.

Professional traders utilize custom analytics tools, which scrape Steam Market APIs and third-party price aggregators, to monitor price trends across regional markets. Price divergences (such as those between Western markets and Asian platforms, like Buff 163) present fertile ground for cross-market arbitrage. However, they also carry risks of regional payment prohibitions and fraud. This speculative environment is not only appealing to players but also to financial agents who consider skins as other digital assets, diversifying portfolios with cryptocurrencies and NFTs.

Community as Co-Creators

M4A1 Hot Rod

Valve’s move to crowdsource skin designs via the Steam Workshop has been a game-changer. By making submissions publicly available, Valve tapped into the collective imagination and created a feeling of ownership among gamers. Popular Workshop content chosen through community polls becomes official in-game content, with the designers earning royalties on the sale of cases. This model lets creators profit from popular designs while Valve maintains a rotating docket of new cosmetics, and players feel invested in the content pipeline. Legendary skins like the AK-47 “Fire Serpent” and Covert M4A1 “Hot Rod” are representative of this synergy, with high valuations and brand recognition outside of the game itself.

Additionally, content producers and esports personalities boost skin desirability. Influencers displaying unique knives or souvenir-level weapons during broadcasts lift skins from being mere digital trappings to cultural icons. Fans, motivated by in-game status, swarm to buy and sell skins, further developing secondary markets.

Infrastructure and Trust

CS2 Infrastructure and Trust

A secure trading platform is essential for valuable digital property. Valve’s Community Market, built into the Steam client, provides buyers and sellers with an open, escrow-protected marketplace. Third-party sites like CS.Money, Skinport, and CSFloat supplement Valve’s platform through the availability of fiat payments, detailed analytics, and reduced fees. Combined, these sites provide high liquidity and shield traders from fraud, key elements supporting trader trust.

However, price stability evades us. Coordinated “pump-and-dump” operations traders artificially pump the price of items prior to dumping assets, undermining confidence and creating volatility. Regulators and exchange operators keep beefing up anti-manipulation measures, but the decentralized character of trading prevents total oversight.

Market Corrections and Resilience

CS2 Market Corrections and Resilience

Skin gambling arose in tandem with trading, with third-party platforms offering roulette, crash, and sports bets with skins as currency. The unregulated economy attracted millions in bets but elicited legal fury at its similarity to underage gambling. Valve’s 2016 operation, cracking down on skin betting and following anti-gambling policies, compelled numerous sites to close or shift away from bets backed by skins. But by 2025, several operators emerged with tokenized economies, obscuring gambling/trading boundaries. Lawmakers across the globe analyze loot-box mechanisms, and looming regulations potentially could drastically redefine Valve’s case key model and third-party betting routines.

Even with its meteoric climb, CS2’s skin market has endured meaningful corrections. Late in May 2025, a pricing bug on the Asian marketplace Buff 163 caused a brief dip of nearly $1 billion in market cap, which was reversed within 24 hours after the bug was fixed. More meaningful declines follow worldwide esports off-seasons and wider market headwinds when speculative manias subside, trading volumes dwindle, and prices pull back. But each downturn has been followed by strong bouncebacks, proving durability fueled by steady player interest and collectors’ demand for scarcity.

Verdict

Counter-Strike 2’s skin economy is the epitome of the evolution of digital cosmetics into a complex, multi-billion-dollar industry. Through marrying community-designed products, psychological scarcity, secure trading platforms, and status symbols, Valve has created an ecosystem the size of, and on par with, traditional financial markets. Regulatory headwinds and market ups and downs offer obstacles to overcome, but the underlying drivers of creative ownership, rarity value, and global connectivity imply that CS2 skins will continue to be gaming’s most engaging secondary market for years to come.

Why Individual Brilliance Can’t Shine Against Team-Based Esports in CS2

Raw mechanical skills are on display in the biggest stages of Counter-Strike, but players with raw mechanical skills fare poorly against well-balanced teams. While highlights look good in reels, replicating those performances round after round is a nearly impossible task, leading to CS2 teams focusing more on building teams that complement their playstyle.

Super teams driven by individual brilliance rarely work, as evidenced by teams like the earlier iteration of FaZe Clan, which serves as a cautionary tale. CS2 teams are more structured as organisations prefer having a team within a team. Coaches and analysts work together to create a vision for the team, which makes them focus more on getting the right player for every position rather than the best players, which goes to show how teams are willing to let go of individual brilliance for a systemic fit.

The Myth of the Solo Carry in CS2

Solo Carry in CS2

The early days of CS:GO saw the rise of players who could single-handedly win matches. However, these performances were countered by tactically superior teams, and individual brilliance rarely shone against well-coordinated opponents. The rise of teams like Astralis showed the world what tactical preparation can help a team achieve. Goes without saying that even the most coordinated teams will require individual quality to a great extent to keep up with the best in the world.

Looking at more recent examples, Team Spirit arguably boasts the best player in the world, and last season, not only did they fail to win most of the Major trophies, donk dropping unreal numbers against the best teams was not sufficient to lead the team to trophies. The lack of a structure around donk is what led other teams with less individual qualities to break Team Spirit in big matches, which once again proved that individual qualities are not always enough.

The Rise of Tactical IGLs and Support Structures

IGLs and support players have a wide array of responsibilities in the modern version of the game and are no longer just required to set the game up for the star players. Modern Counter-Strike requires players to share responsibilities evenly for the team to work smoothly. While the responsibilities can be dynamic, there are certain fundamental aspects to the roles.

In a team-based esport like CS2, roles and structure matter:

  • Entry fraggers take up space.
  • Supports the use of utilities and sets up stars.
  • Lurkers create pressure elsewhere.
  • IGLs call the shots.

All team members must work in unison for the plan to succeed, and every player needs to fulfill their role; only then can they compete against individual brilliance. However, relying on your team is statistically more dependable than expecting your star players to pull a rabbit out of the hat round after round.

One may argue that sharing the responsibilities would take the flair away from the big names, leading to a more boring form of Counter-Strike. Still, the likes of Vitality and Spirit have mastered the ability to let ZyWoo and donk, respectively, shine in their roles while the team finds a structure that doesn’t take their impact away.

Changing Meta Forces Adaptability

Players should no longer be good in their field of operation alone, as modern dynamics of the game require the players to be versatile, and unless said stars can perform well in mid-rounds, the team suffers, thus negating their ability to deliver when the team is on the back foot.

The modern meta requires all the players to do the following:

  • Understanding the roles of other players.
  • Adapting to perform under different situations.
  • Develop counters for current strats.

Individual brilliance can be static more often than not, and a player doing what they do best is not enough anymore. The CS2 competitive scene punishes predictability; thus, a solo star can become a liability if they can’t adapt within a team structure, and repetition of the same tendencies can lead to tactical failures on the big stage.

Support Players Are the Unsung Heroes

Perfecto’s CS2 Settings (2024) - Crosshair, Sensitivity & Configuration for Pro Gamers

While support players did most of the sacrifices back in the earlier days of the game, however, modern players have more defined roles than just throwing utilities and offering to be the bait. Adaptability is key; support players should be able to perform multiple roles, and on the other end, star players need to pay heed to the needs of the team and take the back seat when need be.

Teams that rely heavily on solo carries often fall against a more rounded team with a more balanced profile of lesser-known individuals. ZyWoo remained the best player for a long time, but it was only when a structure was built around him that Vitality became the dominant team in the world.

When analyzing the best team from last season, Vitality is flooded with star players in every role, which might go against the “star players alone can’t win” agenda. However, if you look deeper, every player was handpicked by the IGL, coach, and analyst to fit the role that Vitality needed to succeed.

Why CS2 Will Always Be a Team-Based Esport

Highlights or style points are something no players would shy away from, but the maturity to have foresight that would lead to a round win is far more valuable than an attempt to get a highlight. At its core, CS2 remains a team-based esport. The maps are critically designed for team control, the economy favours cooperation, and the meta demands coordination for a team to win.

Why individual brilliance can’t save CS2 teams:

  • Fragging power cannot win executions.
  • Misaligned playstyle creates limitations.
  • Lack of teamplay leads to info gaps.
  • Poor economic control ruins momentum.

Final Thoughts

Although individuals are celebrated in Counter-Strike 2, this does not lead to trophies, as the absence of the whole team would lead to. Teams that can successfully combine strategy, talent, and communication routinely beat those that depend only on a single player’s brilliance. The days of the single carry are gone, and in the realm of team-based esports, the need for star players is not as significant. Squads that train, adjust, and succeed together will rule the future.

BGMI Redeem Codes for 4th August: Claim the Cobalt Storm Backpack

KRAFTON India continues to build excitement in its leading Multiplayer Game, BATTLEGROUNDS MOBILE INDIA (BGMI), with today’s official redeem code drop. Players can now unlock the Cobalt Storm Backpack, a rare pink-grade cosmetic that adds flair and power to every loadout. With limited-time access and only 10 redemptions per code, speed is key.

Redeem codes are valid until September 12, 2025, and will be released daily on BGMI’s official channels.

BGMI Redeem Codes for 4th August

  1. DQZBZMCFBK8NQHVD
  2. DQZCZJUNAGVV59C8
  3. DQZDZS4DNSMA8EX6
  4. DQZEZTEBSRSCC38R
  5. DQZFZ3ASP5JAWE9W
  6. DQZGZQ6D68QG37GG
  7. DQZHZQFFNCMWGHNE
  8. DQZIZNJPTEHA6DTM
  9. DQZJZE4GM3FCVAXH
  10. DQZKZBAFCU6U9TER
  11. DQZLZ7K44NV6WR4R
  12. DQZMZVMASDEC5884
  13. DQZNZFMS6CDSGN84
  14. DQZOZRAQQF8GJRSF
  15. DQZPZ3FAJQJ37JMU
  16. DQZQZ856ADFNDDJA
  17. DQZRZX86F4U8CHFU
  18. DQZVZMNA563RTPM6
  19. DQZTZ3KWJJWE5JAC
  20. DQZUZVNSE7MMKDSU
  21. DQZBAZB7V6UNQ5QH
  22. DQZBBZ3KFAFG5HBV
  23. DQZBCZ9SSW33JSS4
  24. DQZBDZSN4Q4RUG3G
  25. DQZBEZTAK3XG4JGD
  26. DQZBFZXA446396FA
  27. DQZBGZQRREDAN8H9
  28. DQZBHZVVH9VDDCCE
  29. DQZBIZXRWJN7AFM6
  30. DQZBJZUV48XHTUMG
  31. DQZBKZ8KMDDQ4UKS
  32. DQZBLZM6649D33XS
  33. DQZBMZHAXS4KP8J7
  34. DQZBNZU5VBQRKTEG
  35. DQZBOZGQWQNKTREG
  36. DQZBPZ8W5PWNX5FH
  37. DQZBQZXGJVEDJ686
  38. DQZBRZKPBDQ3BFKU
  39. DQZBVZUDFJA39AK9
  40. DQZBTZ7FJ4A9DHMF
  41. DQZBUZ3JU6TQC8R4
  42. DQZCAZ9N4SXKB7RF
  43. DQZCBZVAKWTGTT8G
  44. DQZCCZ5RMWCB5VCK
  45. DQZCDZX4KBBQPR3Q
  46. DQZCEZKV9C3F8XK8
  47. DQZCFZKGWW9XST6E
  48. DQZCGZ4QM5DHXJQ3
  49. DQZCHZC645AVA3F5
  50. DQZCIZE45R4RHQN8

Steps to redeem BGMI redeem codes:

Players can follow these simple steps to claim their rewards:

  • Step 1: Go to the Redeem section on BGMI’s official website www.battlegroundsmobileindia.com/redeem
  • Step 2: Enter your Character ID
  • Step 3: Enter the Redemption Code
  • Step 4: Enter the verification/ Captcha code → A message will confirm ‘Code redeemed successfully’
  • Step 5: The reward will be delivered via in-game mail

Rules to Remember:

  • A maximum of 10 users can redeem each code on a first-come, first-served basis
  • A user cannot redeem a code twice
  • Users must claim their rewards via in-game mail within 7 days, else the mail will expire
  • If a player is among the first 10 users to successfully redeem the code, a message will confirm ‘Code redeemed successfully’. If not, users will see ‘Code expired’ or a similar expiry message
  • Each user account can redeem only one code per day
  • Redeem codes cannot be used via guest accounts
  • Rewards to be claimed within 30 days from receiving the in-game mail post which the mail gets deleted.

Yangon Galacticos Crowned as the PMWC 2025 Winners

0

Yangon Galacticos has emerged as the winners of PUBG Mobile World Cup 2025 (PMWC 2025) at the Esports World Cup in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The team’s remarkably navigated from almost getting eliminated from the tournament in the Survival Stage to becoming the world champions.

Yangon Galacticos’ Journey of Becoming the PMWC 2025 Winners

The Myanmar squad’s path to victory was far from straightforward. Yangon Galacticos failed to secure a direct qualification spot from the Group Stage, missing out on the top 8 positions that would have guaranteed them a place in the Grand Finals. This meant they had to fight through the grueling Survival Stage, where they barely scraped through as the eighth and final team to qualify for the Grand Finals with just 70 points.

During the Survival Stage held on 29th-30th July, Yangon Galacticos found themselves in a precarious position. They finished eighth out of 16 teams with exactly 70 points, securing their Grand Finals berth by the narrowest of margins. Just one point ahead of ninth-placed INFLUENCE RAGE who ended with 69 points. Furthermore, this qualifying position made them one of the most unlikely championship contenders heading into the final stage.

The Grand Finals, spanning 1st-3rd August , saw a completely transformed Yangon Galacticos. Led by players Smile, Marnett, Romeo, and SAYCLOUD, the team found their peak form when it mattered most. Over 18 matches, they accumulated an impressive 157 points, securing four Winner Winner Chicken Dinners (WWCDs) that proved decisive in their championship run.

The team’s consistency was remarkable during the Grand Finals. After leading the standings following Day 1 with 67 points, they maintained their position through Day 2, reaching 118 points and setting the match point threshold at 128 points for the final day’s Smash Rule format. Under the Smash Rule, any team reaching 128 points needed to secure a WWCD to claim the championship title.

Yangon Galacticos Becomes the First Myanmar Team to Win PMWC

This victory represents more than just a championship. It’s a watershed moment for Myanmar esports. Yangon Galacticos qualified for PMWC 2025 through their triumph in the PMCL SEA Summer 2025, where they claimed the championship title to earn their spot among the world’s elite teams. Moreover, their journey from regional champions to world champions showcases the growing strength of Southeast Asian PUBG Mobile talent.

The final standings saw Weibo Gaming from China finish second with 142 points and $323,500 in prize money, while Alpha Gaming from Mongolia rounded out the podium in third place with 141 points and $222,000. Notably, Alpha Gaming’s DOK became the tournament’s Most Valuable Player.

Yangon Galacticos’ victory at PMWC 2025 will be remembered as a defining moment that put Myanmar on the global esports map, proving that with determination and skill, any team can rise from the brink of elimination to claim the ultimate prize.