Making Space:
Master's Capstone Project
Do cohesion and play style separate the best teams from the pack in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO)?
I designed and administered a questionnaire study to examine amateur CS:GO teams for their cohesion and play style. I then compared these scores to determine how higher-level teams differ from their lower-level peers. The full paper can be found here.
Why study these facets of teams (or esports at all)?
Esports is a multimillion dollar industry rivaling traditional sports -- and is ripe for research in HCI and sports psychology. I've been involved with competitive Counter-Strike for nearly a decade at the amateur and collegiate levels.
I wanted to combine my HCI and psych backgrounds with a passion for CS:GO to analyze the mechanisms of teams that lead to high performance, contributing valuable insights to teams across skill levels.
I wanted to combine my HCI and psych backgrounds with a passion for CS:GO to analyze the mechanisms of teams that lead to high performance, contributing valuable insights to teams across skill levels.
How did I assess teams?
I analyzed various facets of team dynamics to determine if they significantly differed across teams. I utilized a questionnaire to assess players on their perceptions of these dynamics, i.e., cohesion, aggression, and structure.
To assess cohesion, I adapted the 1985 Group Environment Questionnaire by Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley, previously validated to assess sports teams.
I developed my own scale called the Counter-Strike Team Aggression and Structure Scale (CSTAGSS) for assessing aggression and structure in teams. Players and analysts alike often compare teams conversationally by these dimensions, so I created this scale to see if teams really differ in these aspects.
Finally, I divided teams into low, middle, and high amateur groups based on their level of league play, and utilized an ANOVA to find significant differences between them.
To assess cohesion, I adapted the 1985 Group Environment Questionnaire by Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley, previously validated to assess sports teams.
I developed my own scale called the Counter-Strike Team Aggression and Structure Scale (CSTAGSS) for assessing aggression and structure in teams. Players and analysts alike often compare teams conversationally by these dimensions, so I created this scale to see if teams really differ in these aspects.
Finally, I divided teams into low, middle, and high amateur groups based on their level of league play, and utilized an ANOVA to find significant differences between them.
Teams differed only in structure.
The only dimension that significantly differed between teams was in their team structure scores. Middle amateur teams were significantly more structured than their low-amateur counterparts.
Why does it matter?
I developed and validated a method for assessing teams on these dimensions, and can be applied to various future research designs.
My findings suggested that structure plays a key role in helping teams ascend to higher echelons of competition.
Aggression seemed to be only a matter of philosophy on play, and did not have an impact in performance.
Cohesion surprisingly did not differ, but was significantly positively correlated with structure. Structure likely plays a role in both performance and player perceptions on team cohesion.
For teams to find improvement in competitive environments, they must focus a great deal of attention on structured play.
My findings suggested that structure plays a key role in helping teams ascend to higher echelons of competition.
Aggression seemed to be only a matter of philosophy on play, and did not have an impact in performance.
Cohesion surprisingly did not differ, but was significantly positively correlated with structure. Structure likely plays a role in both performance and player perceptions on team cohesion.
For teams to find improvement in competitive environments, they must focus a great deal of attention on structured play.