You are probably wondering why you care about what I have to say; and perhaps, you ask, what credentials does this guy have? Well, to tell the truth, not much. But I have played upwards of 5000 hours of CS in my life through low and high ranks. In this guide I will go over what I see as common mistakes for people stuck in so-called "elo hell," and how I suggest improving at the game. Of course, these are just my observations; however, I believe that they are universal truisms throughout most ranks.

Perhaps a good start is to define: what exactly is "elo hell"? And, in short, it can be defined as a plateauing stage in the increase of skill where it becomes difficult to increase in rank--losing games or otherwise--even when you appear to be doing quite well in match making. To illustrate, there becomes a certain point in a general skill increase graph where it flat-lines for a while. Although this can be interpreted as a "skill ceiling," I would instead argue that it is a stage of skill that must be conquered before moving on to higher skills.

A not-so-perfect graph of the basic idea can be seen here (Hernandez):
According to this graph, there is a slow beginning to learning (evident by a large portion of time being spent at the low silver rank), though after that, there is a steep acceleration towards proficiency. Proficiency, I believe, is quite an overstatement in terms of Counter Strike. And it is my observation that this graph, in fact, is replicated three times in the journey to get good at Counter Strike. "Proficiency" instead refers to for that skill tier--low, medium, and high. The "elo hell" occurs after proficiency, at the plateau of the accelerations. My postulation is that skill tiers in counter strike are roughly: Silver-Nova = low Master Guardian-Legendary Eagle Master = Medium Supreme-Semipro = high. (The top ends of the ranges are where proficiency lies)

Evidently, the most complained about "elo hell" occurs in the high nova range (and sometimes high silver. The high silver is perhaps the reflection point of the slow beginning where the slope rapidly increases). I estimate that "proficiency" lies somewhere around Gold Nova 2, it is where you are good enough to be consistently good against other low-tier players; however, not good enough to play against medium-tier players consistently with success.

This start of this guide will focus in specifically on the plateau that occurs at high nova and the semi-plateau that occurs at the high silver ranks. Later on, we will focus more on advanced techniques and problems which will focus on medium skill plateauing and eventually high skills (though I would not consider myself anywhere near passing this plateau).

Throughout my time in silver--and smurfing in silver ranks--I have noticed many common traits that separate the culture from that over higher nova players. The differences can be generalized by two main things: knowledge of the game and perception of the possibility to win. In this guide it should become evident that knowledge of the game is the more minor problem (however still, in many cases, grave) and the possibility to win is a major problem in "winnable" games.

To define what is meant through knowledge of the game, first, we must discuss what is known as "game sense," though many people are familiar with this term, it is clear that the scope is far too broad for it to be of much use in specific guides. So, here I will break it up into different categories: specific game mechanics, timings, understanding roles/team play, and reading the other team.

Though I assume the perception of the possibility to win is quite obvious, quickly, I will define it as simply perseverance.

It seems as if, when stuck in "elo hell" game mechanics that may already be known are thrown out the window.

Buying as a team

Take for example the economy of the game: the teamwork involved in buying and saving. Far too often I see buys something like so:

Orange - Glock-18

Blue - Mac-10 + Armor
Purple - AK-47
Yellow - p250 - Armor
Green - Deagle

As we can see here, the team is partially full bought and partially saving. Although a half buy on some could be acceptable if proper grenades are purchases to close the distance on the terrorist side, evidently, even if 'nades are bought, they are almost never used. The clear misunderstanding of "team play" is a major factor in hindering people from ranking up; though their kills may be high, a team that can not take or hold a site is a losing team. Through my experience in low-level match making, there are four different buying categories people fall into: The "primary awper;" force buy every round; smart buys; and the team player. The goal is to fall under the last two categories for many reasons, however, take this situation which you may be familiar with:
We are playing De_Dust II on the CT side. I full-saved so I can buy an AWP next round and make an impact on B even though I had $3400 this round. The rest of my team had $5000 and were able to purchase M4s and 'nades. The terrorist team decides to rush B and as I am soloing it with a USP and no way of slowing down the push, they take it easily and no rotate comes in until post plant. The B bombsite on Dust II is one of the hardest sites to retake in the game and thus my team loses trying to defend the site. Now this round my team has little money and yet I have around $6000.
This "broken buy" that I created was why, ultimately, we lost the round. And it can be the reason why we lose the next round even though I could get 3 AWP kills (since I forced my team on a save). And it is all too common in the low ranks. The same thing can also happen on the T-side although it certainly is less detrimental if one team member saves.

When to walk; When to run

Perhaps one of the more frustrating misunderstandings in low-level matches that I come across is movement. I see my team members running into upper tunnels and down the stairs, then they begin to walk push to the end of lower as if the enemy could not hear them stomping about. This is why, in my opinion, the seemingly timeless classic of "Contact rush B" on Mirage seems to go wrong every time. There is a fundamental lack of understanding of not only when to walk, but when to run as well. The team, incredibly split up, has one person push out of the apartments and cause the whole team to rotate without getting the rest of the team close enough to make a difference. In silver and low nova it seems that a full-stomping rush is the best bet on pistol rounds.

This actually is a very interesting concept when watching people play maps such as Overpass, Nuke, or even to a certain extent Vertigo. The verticality of these three maps make footsteps incredibly easy to hear and nine times out of ten there is wasted time from someone in a 1v1 making noise and then walking right after. To illustrate this, in one match it was a 1v1 on Overpass, the terrorist threw a smoke heaven, a flash out over water, and then walk-pushed onto site from the catwalk. It left me wondering: do you truly believe that this is a fake-out? That your opponent is going to assume you are indeed going A instead of B? This situtation almost worked out, however, the bomb was defused with "0.2 seconds remaining." Could this have been a win had they not fiddled about with their shift key? Probably given the ample amount of rotate time the CT was given from A.

Thus, I believe that, in lower ranks, it is vital that you understand where you can be heard from and where you can not be heard from. Think about it this way, if you are stomping about on a vertical map, you can be heard from anywhere below you; if you are stomping about on a horizontal map, you can be heard from the nearest two landmarks. For instance, if you start pushing long doors on dust II, you can be heard from car and from palm tree (which is top mid). So either direction's nearest two landmarks you can be heard from. Although this is not always the maximum distance, think of it as a rule of thumb.

Finally, if you are going to be throwing grenades as a fake out, be careful what you throw and from where. Say you are playing inferno and you would like to throw a fake smoke from banana to A. If the CT is playing B, he will certainly hear you jump when you go to throw it, so that is out of the question, but if they are playing A, and it comes from an angle that does not make sense and lands randomly, they may suspect it is the other bombsite. In which case RUN! Now, lets say you, as many silvers have, attempt to throw a flash towards A from banana. Well, quite simply it is going to pop in mid air and sound like it came from B. So don't bother.

Moving, tapping, Spraying: the three poisons

Move, tap, or spray. Pick your poison. Do not choose all three. More often than not, I see hybrids of two while using rifles. I see a spray/tap where you are tapping so fast that the recoil is high yet you seem to believe you need not account for it. I see moving and spraying where your shots are so inaccurate that you can't hit someone next to you. And I see someone not realizing that they need to counter-strafe to be accurate while tapping, not just running and tapping.

Moving: Simply, please stop moving before you shoot with a rifle. If you have an smg be my guest, but and m4a1-s is not an smg, nor should it be used like one.

Tapping: If you are going to tap, spend some time either in warmup or before you play a game refreshing yourself on how fast you can tap. Don't think you can tap the AK-47 like it's a thrash-metal concert and you're the drummer and still not account for spray control. For instance, the greatest tapping speed with a deagle is the beat to the song "Staying alive," if you recall the lyrics "ah. ah. ah. ah," you will recall how fast to shoot the deagle.

Spraying: Learn the spray patterns. Simple as that. Take some time, 5 minutes even, every time you go to play a game, hop on a spray control map and try to learn how to pull down and AK and your choice of M4. You don't want to lose your 1v1 because you did 87 in 3 after spraying a full clip.

The floor is in fact not your enemy

This one I will keep rather brief as the other sections have been long. When playing Counter Strike, do not aim at the ground. Is the ground going to shoot you? (Aside from the catwalk from B on Vertigo) No. So why waste your time and flick up every time you see the enemy? I believe that a lot of aiming at the ground comes from two things: the same reason people look at the ground while walking in real life, and it being rather uncomfortable to aim high.

Many people look at the ground while they walk to help them see where their feet are and where they are going. I believe that this is part of the problem in Counter Strike. Perhaps people do not know where they are going or perhaps they are afraid of running into a random barrel or box. However, have no fear, if you are going to run into a box, you are going to see it if you aim at head-level. You certainly will have time to see it since you will be approaching it from a distance. Further, you could perhaps spend your time during warmup to run around the map aiming and the floor. Get used to where things are so that you can focus on aiming high during the game.

Finally, I noticed that people often believe they are aiming too high when they are at head level. Yes, it does seem like you are aiming upwards, but no, you are not going to fly above their head. Many times you will be fine if you go maybe a millimeter above where you think their head will be until you get used to how it feels.

Although perhaps one of the least obvious is the failure to understand where the enemy could be at what time. I'm sure you've seen a similar situation before, you call a B-rush, bomb B, and your team mates are running towards B from Long with an AWP out--the slowest way to move. Evidently, the enemy is not likely to come out catwalk, or even middle without a smoke or a flash, and so what is the purpose of slowing down your rotate? Probably none and just a lack of awareness.

Rotating

This would beg the question: how to get better? Because you certainly don't want to be caught with your knife out and be killed easily. I suppose a rule of thumb could be a use of vicinity and count of the enemy. Take for example our Dust II B rush again, assuming your team mate called out that the bomb was B and that there are 3 or 4 people, it's safe to say you don't need your gun out until you can see middle. Perhaps there is someone going to push out mid doors and that would be the missing person. However, a pistol out would likely be enough--especially if you are using an AWP. You do not want to be the last person to the bombsite and not able to do anything or what is the point of having a team.

Now maybe your team mate exaggerated and there is merely one person pushing out B solo. Although it is gonna suck if you die to a long push, it's not going to be your fault and that's a fringe scenario. A good rule is: trust your team mates until they break the trust multiple times. Sometimes we make a bad call, but that doesn't mean we can't make good calls. So be forgiving. Toxic team mates make for bad players. It can make someone think less and just push or never leave the site. Assume positive intention unless you there's reason otherwise.

Pushing

Now let's focus on the T-side's perspective on this example. We decided as a team to rush B, or maybe there was a dictator who decided this for us... But nonetheless, the plan is to rush B. What is the point of rushing B? To get there before the enemy can set up completely and be able to kill them out in the open. However, what if the spawn was fully towards A? How do you expect to get to B fast enough? You can't. And so, if you are dead-set on rushing a site, and A-rush would certainly be better for the situation. This is a pretty basic idea: don't rush without good spawns. Feel free to take some rounds slower than others.

A less common, but still prevalent mistake I see is when a player decides to lurk on the T-side. Most of the time they do not push when they need to; more often than not they are incredibly late, though sometimes are fairly early. Many times there seems to be one player who decides to "lurk," also known as baiting the whole team after there is a B-rush and they sit long doors waiting for a person to push out. Although a 4 person rush and a 5 person rush are negligible in difference, imagine the impact this player could get if they instead lurked lower mid and cut off any aggression into the tunnels or instead pushed out the doors after the team took site. So, if there is a rush called and you still want to lurk, make damn sure your lurk is going to help the team and is as close as possible to where your team is rushing. At the same time, if you are too slow pushing on a slower round then you will again have little impact. If the bomb is about to be planted B, that's your queue you are too late on your push... Push when you think the rotate is gonna happen--oftentimes a few seconds after the bomb is spotted and a push is confirmed.

But the T-side isn't the only side that can push. What about the CTs? The CTs have a very interesting role in pushing and applying pressure on the map. On many maps there are multiple spawns that the CTs can get, unfortunately Dust II is not one of them. So let's go over when to push and when not to on "Dust II maps" and "Cache maps."

"Dust II maps" have very set spawns, every round there will be someone spawning in the ideal long position, ideal b position, and the three middle spots. Perhaps you could use these as a cue if you should push B tunnels or A long. But maybe not. I would propose on these kinds of maps, aggression is often something that should not be done very often--certainly not 40% of the rounds. Instead, 20% may be better. Stick to your site. If you have a good spawn for your site AND the terrorist team should not be rushing/saving, go for it. I must stress that this is the most important part of rushing as a CT, the terrorist team should NOT be saving and you should NOT have a cue that they will be rushing (for instance every round they rush b). But if you think they are buying and they play at a medium speed, go for the ballsy play. Maybe you will die but maybe not. In matchmaking, it's all about making plays. That's worth saying again.
In matchmaking it's all about making plays. Not all the time, but sometimes. Think about if you get the kill 10% of the time, die 5%, and get valuable info 5% that can make the Ts run into a stack. You have increased the likely win percentage by 15 and increased the likely loss percentage by 5. That sounds damn worth it. Again, you are only pushing on these kinds of maps maybe 20% of the time max though.

"Cache maps" are even easier to decide if you are going to push something. Do you have the spawn? Are the terrorists likely buying this round? Are they likely to not rush a site with 5 men? If it's yes to all of these questions, go for it. There are very obvious spawns for aggression on maps like Cache, Mirage, and Inferno (though inferno is a bit Dust II-like).

Ultimately, be free with how you push. Don't become stale and predictable. Go off your feelings. But if you are a hyper-aggressive player, perhaps follow the rules strictly; if you are hyper-passive, do the same. Force yourself to push or to play passive (especially play passive if you are alone on a site). And make sure to communicate to your team what you are doing--you don't want them to plant B and wonder where their B player went. But if you are somewhere in the middle of passive and aggressive, go also off of feeling. Are you feeling confident? Is your aim on-point? If so then do it; why not?

Coming 11/17

Coming 11/18

Coming 11/20

Coming 11/20

The future of this guide--after all of the original points have been fleshed out--is to expand on new ideas that I realize. I would like to continue writing this as I believe it is important information. Perhaps I will go into a higher level of match making and dive into the problems I see at that peak. Perhaps I will take a scientific perspective on why these things occur: baiting, toxicity, and team failures, etc. Ultimately, I would like to keep a list here of what I would like to do upon completion and give an estimate as to when I will have it finished.

Unfortunately, these ideas take some time to dig into and really think about what the underlying problem and solutions are. However, if anyone has a suggestion for what I should talk about or would like to hear my thoughts on something, I am definitely open; just comment below!

• Consistency 11/23
  
• Why do we bait? How do we make an impact? 11/25
  
• Conquering toxicity 11/27
  
• Why do some teams fail while some are well-oiled machines? 11/30

Hernandez, Jonathan & Humphries, Leigh & Keeling, W. & Golkar, Farhaad & Dimou, Francesca & Garrett, Joseph & Sommers, K.. (2012). Robotic lobectomy: flattening the learning curve. Journal of Robotic Surgery. 6. 10.1007/s11701-011-0275-6.