Should there be more rounds in a map? So many maps end in 11:13, so much stake in pistol rounds, not enough normal full buy rounds. If team loses all rounds unless you save a lot it could get only 5 full buy rounds in a half where losing one results in eco which is lost most of the time. Comparing 8:4 and 7:5 halves the difference is only one lost round in the end of half but it has so much impact. What do you think?
0
BO24 vs BO30
posted in
General Discussion
Comments:
Threaded
Linear
ranker11 [#2]Economy needs slight adjustments instead of increasing rounds
Definitely one of the solutions, ability for couple of people to buy more than only pistols on save rounds would be healthier for matches overall.
FIreFistOM [#4]Isnt that what makes game so interesting since losing to a eco can lose you the map...so you have to play strategically, always maintaining your economy and be careful even if your enemies are on eco... Id say BO24 is a better format..
As I see it its like playing all in in poker all the time. Thats of course a hyperboly. Somebody will win but strategy and mind games are out of the window. In practice nobody is able to maintain their economy, generally if you win a round, you get additional buy round whenever you lose, if you lose a round you get to eco with pistols, not much variance here especially in back to back rounds. So the question is does it makes sense and does it promote the things you should in the whole game system. Of course some people like "all in" high stake sense more than others, some people would really enjoy only all in poker matches as well but does it make sense to have that when you have more variables which would make a game more interesting to watch/play but they are being not used to their full potential due to limitations from other aspects of the game.
Some people argue that bo24 is what makes valorant so complex. Rn we are seeing a lot of new teams rising and old glories failing to qualify to Iceland, and there is a statement pointing out that bo24 has a lot of impact on this. Imo, this stuff has to do more with meta shifts (astra, viper, op/no op, etc. ) rather than rounds but definitely there should be slightly changes to the economy so the skill gap increases a bit.
Jockie [#8]Some people argue that bo24 is what makes valorant so complex. Rn we are seeing a lot of new teams rising and old glories failing to qualify to Iceland, and there is a statement pointing out that bo24 has a lot of impact on this. Imo, this stuff has to do more with meta shifts (astra, viper, op/no op, etc. ) rather than rounds but definitely there should be slightly changes to the economy so the skill gap increases a bit.
Where are these people? I'd like to see their arguments. I was always a bit sceptical about bo24 but the meta changes just fueled that feeling. Viper basically became a must in bind and icebox as it is so good for the postplants on the attack. I cant help but compare the game to cs. In cs there were so many times that team starting a game on something like 7:0 half manages to adjust their team play to properly counter enemy and completely reverse the whole thing. It just seems that this gets lost in valorant as there is no way to figure out the enemy in game in those 10 rounds when the game really begins and then get to do something about it. When you finally get how to counter, you already at something like 8:1
Discord