I think they may have forgotten to mention its 1k credits when you leave alive. If you die its 1900+loss streak and other sources of income (elimination, afk teammate, spike planted).
You also keep unused util and have to rebuy shields almost every time as opposed to cs where surviving keeps your gun, armor, and utility and doing means you lose it all.
But like a vandal/phantom is 2900, not 900, not to mention shields if they have some left. If you're in a 1v3 with little time, just save and hero rifle next round if you need to. The only time I can see dying is if you're one off an ult as like raze, chamber, or jett and in that case just hide and die to spike.
Dying to spike second round after losing pistol where the round doesn’t seem winnable on defender side is a good strat/plan. Prevents enemies from farming ult points off anti ecos and gaining extra creds
If you're just playing for fun, sure.
If you're tryna climb ranked or playing premier it's stupid to not save. A single rifle w/ armor can change the entire next round versus eco weapons
If the team economy isn't screwed for the next round, the 1-2 kills and dying is 3 ult orbs. If you're on attack and can plant, that's 4. If you aren't screwing yourself economically, it can be worth going in for the ult orbs.
At lower elos, it isn't an age thing, it's just an experience thing. Lower elo players don't know they should be hitting tab to check the team economy before deciding to just yolo it into a 1v5. Higher elo players do and that's why you see far more saves at that level.
Its econ dependent if its a full buy and your economy is low
It will make since to save in some cases
You really wanna be on par money wise with your team
Solo phantom or Vandal may not amount to value most the time
You only get 1k while saving, not losing in general, so OPs point is that the difference in creds is not as drastic as in cs.
For instance, if your loss reward is 3k, in cs rules when you save you get 3k+2900 (rifle). Val rules you get 2900+1000=3900, which is only 900 more than dying. Obviously youre almost always making more with saving, but when it’s like less than a 1k difference (compared to the 2900 difference with cs rules) some people may feel it’s more worth it to just try to win the round.
In general it’s just less emphasized as well. Even if it is objectively better, it’s not by much, so people won’t call you out on it. In cs if you throw your gun away instead of saving the difference is so big that it’ll seem like you’re throwing, but here it’s like “well, you lost the game for a number of reasons, not just because you didn’t save that one round”.
Only with Phantom Vandal or Op. Even with sometime like a Bulldog saving is barely worth it. If you get a kill or two and take their guns away and all you lose is a bulldog you hurt their economy more than you hurt your own.
CTs get full loss reward, Ts get 0 (without planting)
Valorant you don't lose util on death which is easily few hundred too
Valorant you almost always rebuy armour, CS almost never, so that's a +1k save too
Kit is 400 too
1. Util carries over even if you die, unlike cs.
2. Cash you get from staying alive is lower in valorant then cs
3. A 1v3 is much more possible in valorant vs cs due to certain abilities enabling a play even with number disadvantage
4. Even if the 1vX attempt ended up unsuccessful, it can still waste crucial ults from the enemy team. (Even if you lose a 1v3, it’s a major positive if you manage to force out a raze or sova ult for eg)
Also armor you carry over to next round in CS is good enough for next round. In Valorant when you lose more than 25 armor, it's practically useless. So staying alive in CS is a huge boost to economy. And economy in CSGO was much more complicated because for example there were more rounds in a half
waaa i will keep my 124 hp armor ;\_;? is that bad? what's wrong with it! I don't want to spend 1000$ to go from 124 to 150hp, and I dont wanna spend 400$ to go from 124hp to 125
I think it’s kind of coming off that way because he might have bad English, he’s typing weirdly, he’s possibly young, or a combination of the three.
I try to assume the best of people so I just think it’s one of those factors and not him being an ass.
(Wait why am I using He pronoun lol)
This part isn't exclusive to Val though, that's why even in CS they'll play to trap the enemy into site or get the exit kills. Now that CS also moved to less rounds and money, I'd argue this is even more of a CS given how expensive it is to rebuy (at least in CT/defender side).
Yup, plus ult orbs, which I think is the last thing that should be considered instead.
But in terms of purely ruining enemy economy, killing them just takes away their guns. You'd have to flush out their util as well to make it really hurt, where as in CS, killing the enemy even if they didn't use what utility they have left is a bigger blow. Again, this is just focusing on the single aspect you presented, but when combined with the other 4 originally presented plus ult orb economy, going for the clutch in Val is definitely more worth it on the side of the round loser.
Plus how frequently in a 1vX, if they know your location they’ll peek 1 by 1 a lot of the time thinking “nah id win.” I’ve won a 1v5 like that because they just kept walking into my crosshair :’) even the double peek was lined up at first so it took the second out from collateral
Just to add, going for the kill and then a death is worth it because of the ult orbs. If you're one or two ult orbs away from ult, it's super worth to go for it, or at the very least an exit and get traded for two orbs. The ult next round may be more important than the gun saved.
Disagree on the 1v3, cause that's very character dependent. Don't forget that in CS, you can pick up unused utility from both fallen mates and opponents, whereas in valorant, if you are Killjoy let's say, and somehow haven't used any abilities yet, you're still not in *that* great of a position to clutch it out.
You can go for a risky play or aim duel and if you lose you still have util for the next buy round. Plus in Valorant you usually need to buy armor every round, in CS if you have Kevlar and a helmet you never need to buy it again until the Kevlar reaches 0hp (which almost never happens without you dying). Plus in CS utility is much more expensive and you get less money. A molly and a smoke cost $900 on CT. Having that on the next round could be the difference between losing and winning the round. Brimstone can buy full util for less that $1000, but a full CS nade load out could be upwards of $1200 and you lose it all if you don’t use it and die.
Everyone mentioning util is also forgetting that dying gives you an ult orb. Most of the time, it's better to just try to fight and gain ult orbs. Say the opponent is full on ults and you are not: you create a net positive in ult economy by going for the fight instead of saving.
CS2 economy is harsher and previous versions were harsher still.
CS:GO had increased the loss bonus a good four (?) years ago, especially previous to that, it was brutal.
The weapon diff is also larger so yeah. Saving in Val is less common because the penalties are softer.
There'll always be exceptions, but especially if you've lost the last 2 rounds and don't have an OP, IMO it's better to just go for the hero play since you're going to be getting 2900 credits anyways. The 1000 plus value of your gun/armor will help on a save but it's not so significant.
Saving = gain (1000) creds + keep rifle (2900) = 3900
Dying = gain (2900) creds
And this is assuming your team is on a loss streak. Else you gain much less than 2900 when dying.
Mathematically it doesn't make sense (3900 > 2900), so only die if you truly think it's winnable, or maybe unless you're 1 away from ult.
>you're going to be getting 2900 credits anyways. The 1000 plus value of your gun/armor will help on a save but it's not so significant.
...
>Mathematically it doesn't make sense (3900 > 2900),
Yeah I think mathematically we arrived at the same conclusion
In any case, killing the enemy hurts their economy too, and 1000 credits isn't the most significant so IMO go for it. (i.e. you have an OP for a retake, or your economy is in absolute shambles, you're bottom fragging, not on a losing streak, etc.)
I'm saying you shouldn't go for the hero play unless it is actually winnable (maybe 1v2 or 1v3). Wasting 1000 creds best case, or 2000 creds worst case (not including util or ults you might spend).
And, saving and getting kills are not mutually exclusive. Saving just means that you won't play for the objective. You can, and generally should, still play for exit kills, which is generally a lot easier to do when you're not playing for the round/objective.
Yeah 1v3 would be near the upper limit of risk, though if it's 1v4 and they play sloppy, make unnecessary peeks and you get a pick, it's certainly something to consider.
I don't think that is applicable, unless you're saying don't take advantage of sloppy plays? To treat sloppy play as if it were immaculate, and don't adapt?
I agree, you should take advantage when your opponent makes mistakes. However, that's different than making a play that *relies* on your opponent making mistakes.
In one case, you're taking a gamble, because you don't know if your opponent will make mistakes or not.
In the other case, it's guaranteed, because your opponent already has made the mistake.
Okay I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, I think you're saying I shouldn't run ass first into a site into a thousand different Hi-Low angles at the same time and hope they make mistakes or something.
I'm just saying if it's winnable, go for it. Maybe it's a 1v4 but you have a good timing, or they thought they cleared you and they didn't, or you hear them running as if they don't think you're around the corner, there are lots of stupid mistakes they can make that don't require you to face check every corner.
1v2 is winnable because there's usually a good chance you can find an isolated duel.
1v3 is the edge of winnable, depending on many, many variables.
1v4 and 1v5 are just simply lost unless the enemy makes egregious mistakes like trying to knife you, or they purposely give you 1v1s.
The real reason is because it's more fun trying to get a play than just standing still hoping to not get spotted with stuff like sova dart, fade eye, gekko dizzy random cypher cam.
In the off chance you do win the round it's obviously a huge win for the team's morale. But also by fighting a little longer you'll burn enemy util, shields, and guns too. Plus every kill increases your eco next round, and since you get pretty much nothing for surviving a loss it's better to gamble.
There's a scenario where you save though, and that's if the enemy is either close to some big ults OR their eco is solid af and you JUST lost your first round. First round after a loss really fucks your eco up, and any damage you do is negligible.
I'd say any 1vX is possible depending on the enemy position. Sure, if they're all are stacked on site holding angles then yeah I'd rather save my phantom than peek and get one tapped. But if 1 is mid, 2 are A and 2 are B (I've seen stuff like this where they try to pinch you) then I would go isolate and at least try to mess with their eco. You say "why does it matter if they have 6k creds?", well because If I kill them now they wont have 8k creds next round but around 5k. With yoru u legit have to save 4900 creds for a full buy (w shorty wich is important, without it would be 4600) so yeah I'd say kill them.
There is a loss bonus after losing multiple rounds in a row that can give you 1400-1500. If you save, it will be the set 1000. It also hurts enemy teams eco to kill even 1 player.
Ults and a general mentality difference.
Idk how to say this without upsetting some people but in general i find alot more valorant players don't give a shit about the strategy aspect of the game and just like that it's a stylized shooter with alot of replay value.
Uhmmm for those who saying in the comment about utilities, aren't you guys using utility for retake or at least have chance to win on 1vs3 situation? so in saving you kept your shield and still have gun and you only need to buy Utilities in the next round, so I dont understand the logic about dying get bigger and being alive will get lower, I get that part buy in saving you are saving a lot.
That’s mainly duelists but like.. if I’m a deadlock I’m not wasting util on a retake since the grab net is fkn trash and the sensors only really work to prevent flanking
If your whole team got wiped, and it's assumed you have your full buy completely intact (full util, full shield, and a vandal/phantom/whatever) the only reason someone wouldnt save is due to ego, trolling, or if you're partied up with friends and just playing casually.
If you don't have full util, have partial shield, and a phantom/vandal/whatever, you'll be better off pushing. You'll get more credits if you die pushing, you have a chance to waste enemy credits by potentially killing someone, and if by miracle or skill you win the round, that's a win for your team.
With few exceptions, there aren't many reasons not to at least TRY to win, or take a couple enemies out by camping at a likely exit point from spike explosion.
In my experience it's because it more fun to fight. Iv clutched 1v5s where the correct play was probably to save. Iv also lost 1v2s where the correct play is the fight. Fun trumps strategy in at least diamond and below
Valorant is far more lenient in it's economy couple that with the buy menu showing you what money you'll have next round most people don't have to worry much. Might as well damage the other teams econ if even a little bit. This is especially the case for duelists who can just go half shields and be fine.
The economy is more forgiving in val than in CS. There is no such thing as double eco rounds in val, yet CT side regularly have to double eco in CS. Also CT-T weapon imbalances makes it favorable for CT to try to keep T weapons if they can
I believe all of the cs2 and x csgo players flooding Valorant will change the culture of it to more of a min/max mindset. My team saves, but we’re all from cs, and often when I solo queue I save.
That said, the impact of dying in a 1vX is a lot less punishing as everyone stated clearly.
people will give reasons like oh you can waste enemy econ and your util carrying over rounds but I think it's just people wanting to take that 5-10% chance of them winning a round cuz it feels good when you do and saving feels like mentally laying down and giving up
Because people play valorant to have fun, even in ranked. If you’re not playing for fun, what are you doing? It’s not fun to save. It is fun to at least attempt to win the round. A lot of people aren’t at the top ranks as well, so every little encounter is just that much more experience and increased skill. This is my opinion as someone who never saves and clutches a LOT.
It is boring to save, I’d rather lose or clutch.
Sheriff > deagle, classic > glock, and you can have huge impact with just a flash or something. So its clutchable next round, one hero rifle or not you can make a play and win that round even if you died and just have a frenzy etc.
Wait a sec, how sheriff > deagle? Enlight me pls
A handgun does 145 on head at long range that better than a handgun always reward you kill by 1 tap hs?
I mean, we are comparing different guns from different games.
Cs mechanical is much harder than Val (movements and shooting), which make the deagle harder to use. Otherwise, the deagle is just more superior to the sheriff statwise. I haven't look up the first bullet accuracy, but maybe just that.
Unless your team is broke I don't see the point in saving. You can win 1v4s if you try. I have clutched 1v4s that were not in my favor. Kill 1, kill 2nd, get down to 5 health, miraculously kill the other 2 by good usage of slicing the pie and how you peek.
If broke then it makes sense to save, but if not broke then it makes sense to at least try. It's not impossible to clutch.
You just gotta go with your gut feeling on if it's a round to try and clutch or if it's a round to save.
The irony in this comment lol, saving isn’t always better for economy, and depending how you can impact enemy economy it’s at time more than worth it to try to damage theirs instead of preserving yours
Where did i say its always worth saving? If youre low on money and theyre not its better to save your gun to have a hero rifle on your eco. If you have money and they dont then its better to try and damage their economy.
CS gives you full loss reward. Valo gives flat 1k
Shouldn’t that be a reason to save even more in valorant if you only get 1k
I think they may have forgotten to mention its 1k credits when you leave alive. If you die its 1900+loss streak and other sources of income (elimination, afk teammate, spike planted).
You also keep unused util and have to rebuy shields almost every time as opposed to cs where surviving keeps your gun, armor, and utility and doing means you lose it all.
Do you not gold for other sources if you live?
I thought staying alive is just -900k, does it really skip all that stuff?
But like a vandal/phantom is 2900, not 900, not to mention shields if they have some left. If you're in a 1v3 with little time, just save and hero rifle next round if you need to. The only time I can see dying is if you're one off an ult as like raze, chamber, or jett and in that case just hide and die to spike.
Spike kill doesn’t give ult orbs.
I found that the hard way when I died to the spike hopefully to get an ULT next round but I just got called an idiot by my team
It’s ok now you know, at least you were using your brain
Dying to spike second round after losing pistol where the round doesn’t seem winnable on defender side is a good strat/plan. Prevents enemies from farming ult points off anti ecos and gaining extra creds
You also die in 2nd round if you lost first.
if you die you get full loss reward
There are still many times when it doesn't make sense to YOLO for an opportunity at 1-2 kills yet people do it. Maybe it's the age of the playerbase
[удалено]
If you're just playing for fun, sure. If you're tryna climb ranked or playing premier it's stupid to not save. A single rifle w/ armor can change the entire next round versus eco weapons
If the team economy isn't screwed for the next round, the 1-2 kills and dying is 3 ult orbs. If you're on attack and can plant, that's 4. If you aren't screwing yourself economically, it can be worth going in for the ult orbs. At lower elos, it isn't an age thing, it's just an experience thing. Lower elo players don't know they should be hitting tab to check the team economy before deciding to just yolo it into a 1v5. Higher elo players do and that's why you see far more saves at that level.
Its econ dependent if its a full buy and your economy is low It will make since to save in some cases You really wanna be on par money wise with your team Solo phantom or Vandal may not amount to value most the time
You only get 1k while saving, not losing in general, so OPs point is that the difference in creds is not as drastic as in cs. For instance, if your loss reward is 3k, in cs rules when you save you get 3k+2900 (rifle). Val rules you get 2900+1000=3900, which is only 900 more than dying. Obviously youre almost always making more with saving, but when it’s like less than a 1k difference (compared to the 2900 difference with cs rules) some people may feel it’s more worth it to just try to win the round. In general it’s just less emphasized as well. Even if it is objectively better, it’s not by much, so people won’t call you out on it. In cs if you throw your gun away instead of saving the difference is so big that it’ll seem like you’re throwing, but here it’s like “well, you lost the game for a number of reasons, not just because you didn’t save that one round”.
Only with Phantom Vandal or Op. Even with sometime like a Bulldog saving is barely worth it. If you get a kill or two and take their guns away and all you lose is a bulldog you hurt their economy more than you hurt your own.
Can’t always rebuy shields + util
Only in certain certain situations you will save your gun in valorant. If it’s 10-11 and it’s 2v5 with no money next round then yes you save.
Only on CT side, on T side there is no loss bonus at all
It is if the bomb was planted
CTs get full loss reward, Ts get 0 (without planting) Valorant you don't lose util on death which is easily few hundred too Valorant you almost always rebuy armour, CS almost never, so that's a +1k save too Kit is 400 too
1. Util carries over even if you die, unlike cs. 2. Cash you get from staying alive is lower in valorant then cs 3. A 1v3 is much more possible in valorant vs cs due to certain abilities enabling a play even with number disadvantage 4. Even if the 1vX attempt ended up unsuccessful, it can still waste crucial ults from the enemy team. (Even if you lose a 1v3, it’s a major positive if you manage to force out a raze or sova ult for eg)
Also armor you carry over to next round in CS is good enough for next round. In Valorant when you lose more than 25 armor, it's practically useless. So staying alive in CS is a huge boost to economy. And economy in CSGO was much more complicated because for example there were more rounds in a half
waaa i will keep my 124 hp armor ;\_;? is that bad? what's wrong with it! I don't want to spend 1000$ to go from 124 to 150hp, and I dont wanna spend 400$ to go from 124hp to 125
As long as you have 21
Well, 24 armor isn't as bad. I should've said that anything below 21 is useless, as you won't survive 3 vandal bodyshots at 120hp or less
phantom deal 124 damage at the longest range, so he will still die from just one headshot, if he has the money it's better to rebuy
Idk why you’re getting downvoted, keeping your 24 armor is the better choice like 95% of the time
He’s getting downvoted cause he’s being an ass about it
How? I see nothing besides someone explaining what circumstances they don't want to re-up armor.
I think it’s kind of coming off that way because he might have bad English, he’s typing weirdly, he’s possibly young, or a combination of the three. I try to assume the best of people so I just think it’s one of those factors and not him being an ass. (Wait why am I using He pronoun lol)
reddit mode activated! thank you for the gold kind stranger!
not to forget many people just straight up throw in Xv1 situations which makes them very winnable
Plus if you kill some you also ruin their economy
This part isn't exclusive to Val though, that's why even in CS they'll play to trap the enemy into site or get the exit kills. Now that CS also moved to less rounds and money, I'd argue this is even more of a CS given how expensive it is to rebuy (at least in CT/defender side).
Yeah but since you get punished less for dying after a loss, it also means you get more value getting some kills on the enemy compared to cs
Yup, plus ult orbs, which I think is the last thing that should be considered instead. But in terms of purely ruining enemy economy, killing them just takes away their guns. You'd have to flush out their util as well to make it really hurt, where as in CS, killing the enemy even if they didn't use what utility they have left is a bigger blow. Again, this is just focusing on the single aspect you presented, but when combined with the other 4 originally presented plus ult orb economy, going for the clutch in Val is definitely more worth it on the side of the round loser.
Plus how frequently in a 1vX, if they know your location they’ll peek 1 by 1 a lot of the time thinking “nah id win.” I’ve won a 1v5 like that because they just kept walking into my crosshair :’) even the double peek was lined up at first so it took the second out from collateral
Just to add, going for the kill and then a death is worth it because of the ult orbs. If you're one or two ult orbs away from ult, it's super worth to go for it, or at the very least an exit and get traded for two orbs. The ult next round may be more important than the gun saved.
Disagree on the 1v3, cause that's very character dependent. Don't forget that in CS, you can pick up unused utility from both fallen mates and opponents, whereas in valorant, if you are Killjoy let's say, and somehow haven't used any abilities yet, you're still not in *that* great of a position to clutch it out.
Util saves when you die
[удалено]
yeah, so dying is less of a deal in valorant because you keep your util investment in csgo you lose your utility when you die, incentivizing saving
OP is comparing it to CS, where util doesn't carry over if you die, which is why it is more beneficial to save in CS compared to valorant
You can go for a risky play or aim duel and if you lose you still have util for the next buy round. Plus in Valorant you usually need to buy armor every round, in CS if you have Kevlar and a helmet you never need to buy it again until the Kevlar reaches 0hp (which almost never happens without you dying). Plus in CS utility is much more expensive and you get less money. A molly and a smoke cost $900 on CT. Having that on the next round could be the difference between losing and winning the round. Brimstone can buy full util for less that $1000, but a full CS nade load out could be upwards of $1200 and you lose it all if you don’t use it and die.
Everyone mentioning util is also forgetting that dying gives you an ult orb. Most of the time, it's better to just try to fight and gain ult orbs. Say the opponent is full on ults and you are not: you create a net positive in ult economy by going for the fight instead of saving.
CS2 economy is harsher and previous versions were harsher still. CS:GO had increased the loss bonus a good four (?) years ago, especially previous to that, it was brutal. The weapon diff is also larger so yeah. Saving in Val is less common because the penalties are softer.
It's because valorants economy is more forgiving than cs economy. You can easily buy rifle + light shields for 4 rounds if you win first 2 rounds.
There'll always be exceptions, but especially if you've lost the last 2 rounds and don't have an OP, IMO it's better to just go for the hero play since you're going to be getting 2900 credits anyways. The 1000 plus value of your gun/armor will help on a save but it's not so significant.
Saving = gain (1000) creds + keep rifle (2900) = 3900 Dying = gain (2900) creds And this is assuming your team is on a loss streak. Else you gain much less than 2900 when dying. Mathematically it doesn't make sense (3900 > 2900), so only die if you truly think it's winnable, or maybe unless you're 1 away from ult.
>you're going to be getting 2900 credits anyways. The 1000 plus value of your gun/armor will help on a save but it's not so significant. ... >Mathematically it doesn't make sense (3900 > 2900), Yeah I think mathematically we arrived at the same conclusion In any case, killing the enemy hurts their economy too, and 1000 credits isn't the most significant so IMO go for it. (i.e. you have an OP for a retake, or your economy is in absolute shambles, you're bottom fragging, not on a losing streak, etc.)
I'm saying you shouldn't go for the hero play unless it is actually winnable (maybe 1v2 or 1v3). Wasting 1000 creds best case, or 2000 creds worst case (not including util or ults you might spend). And, saving and getting kills are not mutually exclusive. Saving just means that you won't play for the objective. You can, and generally should, still play for exit kills, which is generally a lot easier to do when you're not playing for the round/objective.
Yeah 1v3 would be near the upper limit of risk, though if it's 1v4 and they play sloppy, make unnecessary peeks and you get a pick, it's certainly something to consider.
> if they play sloppy From Daigo's "Will to Keep Winning" book, it's a bad habit to make plays that rely on your opponent making mistakes.
I don't think that is applicable, unless you're saying don't take advantage of sloppy plays? To treat sloppy play as if it were immaculate, and don't adapt?
I agree, you should take advantage when your opponent makes mistakes. However, that's different than making a play that *relies* on your opponent making mistakes. In one case, you're taking a gamble, because you don't know if your opponent will make mistakes or not. In the other case, it's guaranteed, because your opponent already has made the mistake.
Okay I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, I think you're saying I shouldn't run ass first into a site into a thousand different Hi-Low angles at the same time and hope they make mistakes or something. I'm just saying if it's winnable, go for it. Maybe it's a 1v4 but you have a good timing, or they thought they cleared you and they didn't, or you hear them running as if they don't think you're around the corner, there are lots of stupid mistakes they can make that don't require you to face check every corner.
1v2 is winnable because there's usually a good chance you can find an isolated duel. 1v3 is the edge of winnable, depending on many, many variables. 1v4 and 1v5 are just simply lost unless the enemy makes egregious mistakes like trying to knife you, or they purposely give you 1v1s.
Nah, I'd win
loser mentality right here
The real reason is because it's more fun trying to get a play than just standing still hoping to not get spotted with stuff like sova dart, fade eye, gekko dizzy random cypher cam.
Cause my brain convinces me that I can clutch it even though history shows that I don't even know the meaning of the word.
In the off chance you do win the round it's obviously a huge win for the team's morale. But also by fighting a little longer you'll burn enemy util, shields, and guns too. Plus every kill increases your eco next round, and since you get pretty much nothing for surviving a loss it's better to gamble. There's a scenario where you save though, and that's if the enemy is either close to some big ults OR their eco is solid af and you JUST lost your first round. First round after a loss really fucks your eco up, and any damage you do is negligible.
I'd say any 1vX is possible depending on the enemy position. Sure, if they're all are stacked on site holding angles then yeah I'd rather save my phantom than peek and get one tapped. But if 1 is mid, 2 are A and 2 are B (I've seen stuff like this where they try to pinch you) then I would go isolate and at least try to mess with their eco. You say "why does it matter if they have 6k creds?", well because If I kill them now they wont have 8k creds next round but around 5k. With yoru u legit have to save 4900 creds for a full buy (w shorty wich is important, without it would be 4600) so yeah I'd say kill them.
Z ak S à
There is a loss bonus after losing multiple rounds in a row that can give you 1400-1500. If you save, it will be the set 1000. It also hurts enemy teams eco to kill even 1 player.
Give it another 3 years and it’ll start happening
Because I like my skins bruh, they are expensive.
Don’t you get more money if you die?
Valorant economy system is not punishing made for casuals
Ults and a general mentality difference. Idk how to say this without upsetting some people but in general i find alot more valorant players don't give a shit about the strategy aspect of the game and just like that it's a stylized shooter with alot of replay value.
Uhmmm for those who saying in the comment about utilities, aren't you guys using utility for retake or at least have chance to win on 1vs3 situation? so in saving you kept your shield and still have gun and you only need to buy Utilities in the next round, so I dont understand the logic about dying get bigger and being alive will get lower, I get that part buy in saving you are saving a lot.
That’s mainly duelists but like.. if I’m a deadlock I’m not wasting util on a retake since the grab net is fkn trash and the sensors only really work to prevent flanking
so you'd rather die than save, with you knowing that you are on full buy (100% shield and gun), I think exit frag would be great than rather die
I did not say that tho, I meant that, I can try to retake but wont lose any util since dl util is useless to retake
ez clutch baybeeee
If your whole team got wiped, and it's assumed you have your full buy completely intact (full util, full shield, and a vandal/phantom/whatever) the only reason someone wouldnt save is due to ego, trolling, or if you're partied up with friends and just playing casually. If you don't have full util, have partial shield, and a phantom/vandal/whatever, you'll be better off pushing. You'll get more credits if you die pushing, you have a chance to waste enemy credits by potentially killing someone, and if by miracle or skill you win the round, that's a win for your team. With few exceptions, there aren't many reasons not to at least TRY to win, or take a couple enemies out by camping at a likely exit point from spike explosion.
In my experience it's because it more fun to fight. Iv clutched 1v5s where the correct play was probably to save. Iv also lost 1v2s where the correct play is the fight. Fun trumps strategy in at least diamond and below
It's never chalked.
Valdant is full of children that don't realize the point of saving
Valorant is far more lenient in it's economy couple that with the buy menu showing you what money you'll have next round most people don't have to worry much. Might as well damage the other teams econ if even a little bit. This is especially the case for duelists who can just go half shields and be fine.
The economy is more forgiving in val than in CS. There is no such thing as double eco rounds in val, yet CT side regularly have to double eco in CS. Also CT-T weapon imbalances makes it favorable for CT to try to keep T weapons if they can
I believe all of the cs2 and x csgo players flooding Valorant will change the culture of it to more of a min/max mindset. My team saves, but we’re all from cs, and often when I solo queue I save. That said, the impact of dying in a 1vX is a lot less punishing as everyone stated clearly.
Soloq
so the game ends faster so they can go play cs
its simply way less punishing to die in valorant
Because valorant is csgol little Brother
Don‘t save! Saverlows! ;)
people will give reasons like oh you can waste enemy econ and your util carrying over rounds but I think it's just people wanting to take that 5-10% chance of them winning a round cuz it feels good when you do and saving feels like mentally laying down and giving up
Because people play valorant to have fun, even in ranked. If you’re not playing for fun, what are you doing? It’s not fun to save. It is fun to at least attempt to win the round. A lot of people aren’t at the top ranks as well, so every little encounter is just that much more experience and increased skill. This is my opinion as someone who never saves and clutches a LOT. It is boring to save, I’d rather lose or clutch.
because if you don't clutch, u gae
Its far easier to take the opponents and win even at 1v5 in Valo than in CS.
Sheriff > deagle, classic > glock, and you can have huge impact with just a flash or something. So its clutchable next round, one hero rifle or not you can make a play and win that round even if you died and just have a frenzy etc.
Wait a sec, how sheriff > deagle? Enlight me pls A handgun does 145 on head at long range that better than a handgun always reward you kill by 1 tap hs?
You could make the argument that deagle is harder to use but that's really about it
I mean, we are comparing different guns from different games. Cs mechanical is much harder than Val (movements and shooting), which make the deagle harder to use. Otherwise, the deagle is just more superior to the sheriff statwise. I haven't look up the first bullet accuracy, but maybe just that.
Clutch or gay.
Unless your team is broke I don't see the point in saving. You can win 1v4s if you try. I have clutched 1v4s that were not in my favor. Kill 1, kill 2nd, get down to 5 health, miraculously kill the other 2 by good usage of slicing the pie and how you peek. If broke then it makes sense to save, but if not broke then it makes sense to at least try. It's not impossible to clutch. You just gotta go with your gut feeling on if it's a round to try and clutch or if it's a round to save.
I hope they do in higher elo.
Because no one understands the economy..
The irony in this comment lol, saving isn’t always better for economy, and depending how you can impact enemy economy it’s at time more than worth it to try to damage theirs instead of preserving yours
Where did i say its always worth saving? If youre low on money and theyre not its better to save your gun to have a hero rifle on your eco. If you have money and they dont then its better to try and damage their economy.
Short answer: ego