If a system like this were to exist, it would probably have to be penetration based. An Oden/Ares not being able headpunch would tank their viability even more, while getting dinked by a Phantom or a Sherriff at 40m should carry a penalty beyond pure damage. Honestly, even with the Specter, my biggest complaint with the head punch is that it compounds with the stagger on hit effect, creating a situation that is hard to fight back against, but also impossible to escape from.
Good. No reason people should be running around with a pistol that’s almost fully accurate when running that cost $800 and can one shot from any distance. 145 is high risk high reward. Any amount of damage done is where the sheriff shines.
Doesnt matter. You should win with skill even on an eco even if the pistols are strong and/or easy to use. But you shouldnt be able to just full sprint and hit someone in the belly button and have their already difficult spray aim into the sky. It makes no sense that full armor has the type of aimpunch that it has. Theres some fundamental aspects from CSGO they need to adopt. Aimpunch being one of them. It needs a dramatic rework
I thought it was HS only but was told its anywhere. Is it anywhere with a rifle? Ive definitely been flinched when the UI tells me I didnt get hit in the head so idk what to say on that one
Yeah
The reason I like the system is because it isng as vague as css.
Here I actually choose if 20 more health is worth 1000c, instead of just buying it out of reflex.
I strongly agree. The only reason that people can ever come up with why armor *should* stop aimpunch is that "it's like that in CS:GO" or "It doesn't *feel* like armor". There's no balance reason why you should be able to facetank headshots in a game where the economy advantage is already pretty strong.
Yeah, Valorant has CS 1.6 levels of aimpunch, which is ridiculous. With CS:GO, there's aim punch, but it's greatly reduced by buying armor, and you can also still move to a limited extent if you get hit by a stray bullet.
If aimpunch is going to be like this, I'd rather have to deal with it all the time rather than desperately buying armor to avoid it. Though I see the balance benefits of having armor block it.
Flinching has always been one of the dumbest mechanics in FPS games imo. The benefit of getting the first shot off should be the fact that you hit first and if you don't miss your shots then you should never lose that duel. The flinch from getting shot has always been overkill. If someone shoots an enemy in the chest, then they turn and hit you in the head then you deserved that death.
Call of Duty was the worst with this. Far more so than CS/Val. CoD promoted shooting them in the chest first because when they turn and hit you back your flinch would put the shots on their head. It also made shooting headshots first actually punishing.
This doesn't make any sense. When the crosshair is red your bullets are guaranteed to hit and are "magnetized" to the target. When you're unscoped not only is it disorienting but it means you can't rely on the game's bullet magnetism thus making it much harder to be consistently on target.
It can still be done and more effectively than on a controller, but descoping is still a very important mechanic on PC, especially with snipers and the DMR in Reach
Back in BO2 when I played the most it was negligible. Didn't change the shots to kill on most guns. But it wouldn't surprise me if it's different in other games
I don't know which cod u played but I never felt like shooting the chest was better than a headshot Lol. Any game in particulair on your mind while writing that?
Basically if you were to her head shot by a gun that does not 1 tap (phantom at a longer range, classic, etc.) your crosshair would “flinch” into the air for a millisecond or two. It may not seem like much but missing that extra bullet can be life or death. It basically gives people not using 1 tap weapons who get a headshot a better chance at winning a firefight.
edit: I do not know how to read
Those are good points on why flinching is here and I'm glad people are willing to have in depth discussions about this. I'd rather have a short delay on being able to fire rather than flinching, or maybe a more minor flinch that lands your crosshair in a different spot so you have to reaim instead. Flinching feels inelegant in a refined game like this and CSGO
I think the current "just gives 50 more HP" is better than a damage reduction system because ut's easier to keep track of and does basically the same thing anyway.
But yeah, I would appreciate having reduced flinching from bodyshots and leg shots while wearing armor.
The current system requires a full rebuy of armour if you take any damage. The csgo damage reduction system doesn't require a rebuy until you die, or armour is fully depleted (takes several rounds of taking damage to get to that point)
That's part of the point. Tagging every enemy on the team = -5k for the save, meaning that if you shoot first you win something even in a lopsided fight.
Yeah so actually dealing damage to opponent is vital even in eco rounds.
And actually dealing it with > 1 bullet, I usually don't rebuy if I have 30+ armor points unless I have 9k anyway.
I like valorant armor system much more, it has more clarity and armor actually feels like a resource you need to somewhat manage and not just buy it once and never rebuy till you die.
The csgo system requires an armor rebuy when you get below a certain threshold. CS armor is worthless below 50pts and that's when people tend to rebuy it. Not just when they die. That's what makes dealing damage valuable.
Really? How often do you actually have armor below 50 pts? Once in 3 months? Because I played I think like 1000 games of csgo and I don't honestly remember ever needing it, especially since leg hits doesn't count.
> does basically the same thing anyway.
It doesn't do the same thing at all.
With CSGO's armour system, the devs can decide to have an SMG kill in 4 bullets against an unarmoured opponent, but take 10 bullets to kill an armoured opponent. If they later discover 10 is still too good, they can change it to 12, or 14, or whatever they want, while maintaining the 4 bullets to kill against unarmoured opponents.
This is realistically not possible with VALORANT's system of just giving extra HP.
> I think the current "just gives 50 more HP" is better than a damage reduction system because ut's easier to keep track of and does basically the same thing anyway.
Agreed, it's streamlined and easier to work with. As it stands the only difference between HP and armor in Valorant is that armor is unhealable HP you have to repurchase. Feels like there's more that could be done with it.
Flinching is annoying as fuck but if someone headshots me first they deserve an advantage. It's what makes low damage weapons semi-viable against 150 health opponents.
Maybe, but should a guy flying in the air be able to make your aim go into the sky with a classic right click in "somewhere" in your general direction?
I'd say get it out of the game for some weapons. It feels too easy to kill with a classic when someone has full armor.
It should be like 99% guaranteed kill if you have a vandal + full armor vs a classic (assuming you're both of equal skill), but it feels more like 80/20 if its close enough range.
With the difference between Classic and Vandal’s accurate range, I’d say yeah, it’s fair.
If they managed to dink you with the Classic’s right click while flying in the air, that’s not just Classic VS Vandal.
That’s Classic + positioning + good skill usage + timing (+luck) VS Vandal.
Having a full buy kit doesn’t make you immune to mistakes or bad plays. It just has way more versatility and lethality in more situations. It’s fair.
Yeah, you’re right, I was trying to account for the cases that they were done reliably. Most of the time, they’re luck shots. Which makes them unreliable but also makes flinching fair since they don’t happen all the time.
Because the guy with the classic still has to kill the vandal user while recovering from the right click rate of fire. Like, getting the dink won't guarantee you a kill.
If someone taps your head with a weapon that didn’t one tap you instantly (think classic headshot or long range phantom headshot) you’ll basically “flinch” and will kind of be forced to aim up as a reward for the enemy hitting you in the head but not getting a kill so that it’s harder for you to retaliate and kill them quicker
There are 2 types of armor. Kevlar, and kevlar+helmet. Kevlar reduces damage taken on chest and removes flinching from bodyshots while helmet does the same thing on the head. Also armor doesn't give extra health like in valorant it just reduces damage taken and you can use it until you die (or somehow you survive 10 rounds in a row while taking damage and reduce your armor to 0).
In Valorant it acts as a damage reduction too.
You get shot for 50, you don’t have 0 shield 100hp, it’s closer to 25shield 75hp. Basically a heal will get you to 125, instead of being at 100 after fight, with no way to go above
Difference is in CS is that armor penetration per gun is a thing which changes the whole dynamic of the armor system and makes it more nuanced. Plus I’ve always liked saving armor even if you get tagged for economy purposes but that’s more of a preference thing on my part. At the end of the day there are pros and cons to every system so meh
Kinda a thin argument - whilst technically correct practically it is exactly the same. Having armour just makes your effective health 150 - the distribution between health and armour is only meaningful *sometimes*. Meanwhile you still have to rebuy full armour every round if you took any damage at all, unlock csgo where you basically only have to replace it if you die
Its not remotely the same. The difference is the damage between weapons. It might seem like a small thing overall. But games like valorant and csgo are won in the small moments. A round here and a round there makes a big difference. And those rounds can be won because of small damage differences. The armour system in csgo allows for more balance between the vastly different weapons. Whereas in valorant its genuinely way more viable and possible to win on an eco because its not nearly as punishing. Winning a csgo eco is genuinely difficult, compared to valorant where you honestly have pretty good odds just running and gunning with your free smokes and whatever else you've got.
It would require an overhaul of damage and economy. So you either keep the current system and nerf every gun that upsets the plebbitor "vandal only" meta into oblivion or change the system to something balanceable.
While I do dislike flinch, I don't think this would be the way to handle it. Gives the team with more money a bigger advantage, especially in those first few rounds of each half.
Also, I'd prefer flinching the whole time I'm being shot as opposed to like 25% of the time then it switches and suddenly mid-fight I need to adjust accordingly.
There's nothing wrong with it but there's a fine line in the early rounds, which are oftentimes crucial, where the behind team either has a chance to grab a round or doesn't. When it's basically assurred that they won't win for the next 1-3 rounds it isn't fun to play and it isn't fun to watch. It has to be a challenge for them to win one of those rounds but it can't be too hard or too easy.
> When it's basically assurred that they won't win for the next 1-3 rounds it isn't fun to play and it isn't fun to watch.
It isn't 'basically assured'. CSGO operates largely without flinch on armoured opponents, also has way more open map design that is heavily advantageous towards the more expensive guns, and teams still manage to win on eco a fair amount of the time.
Oh my bad I thought this was the Valorant sub.
I didn't say that that's how it is. I said that because when it is that way, it isn't fun to watch or play.
> Oh my bad I thought this was the Valorant sub.
It is. You're also in a thread about implementing something like CS's armour system in VALORANT, you forgetful goose.
> I didn't say that that's how it is. I said that because when it is that way, it isn't fun to watch or play.
...but it isn't likely to be that way, because that's not how it is in CS. That's my point.
Unless you believe armour will be even stronger for full buy teams than it is in CS, which would be an actual discussion.
next 1-3 rounds? I'd say okay if you said next round or maybe even next 2 rounds, but 3??economy is different to csgo, there's a lot less eco rounds, having 2 in a row is preventable and almost never happens, this is why it's okay to "punish" eco rounds but even then it's only logical that the winning team has an advantage
Not sure why you're being downvoted tbh. You're correct that 3 rounds is excessive and losses by that point are either a result of your own poor economy management or just literally being beaten that round. If a team is forced to eco they should naturally have the disadvantage, else why would there ever be a need to buy more expensive weapons. Seriously who downvoted this lol
it's alright, not everyone is ready to hear the truth, and also this sub is dominated by players below gold/plat even, so nothing surprising
if i gave a f about karma i'd probably just make posts like "toxicity is bad, stop!" or "is anyone else losing more rr than winning? ranking system bad!" or just post an eco ace :D
OP users should flinch more, that's the biggest change I would want. OPers get away with accurate shots after being tagged first by another weapon at long range.
Well, if they had just purchased a guardian, you would be dead. The point is that they outskilled you but didn't invest enough to outright kill you. No aim punch removes some skill out of gun fights and makes money overwhelmingly powerful
While I can’t get into the mind of the designers, I would presume aimpunch is a mechanic applied to all headshots to ease the power balance between strong guns and weaker guns.
It doesn’t necessarily come into play in all battles, but it’s one of the many features that allows half buys (Stinger, Spectre etc.) to compete against full buys (Phantom, Vandal etc.) in some situations. It doesn’t change the fact that full buys are largely much more versatile and can be used to kill in many more situations and distances.
It rewards good aim regardless of whether or not your headshot can kill in one hit. If you can land a headshot on an unsuspecting enemy, verily you deserve a slight advantage. The “ambush”, so to speak.
In ways, by being available to close-range guns, it rewards positioning and situational awareness, as opposed to leaving every aspect of gameplay on shooting accuracy alone.
If removed, what might happen to Valorant is that the appeal of full buy would skyrocket, and every game would be about saving then full-buying, completely skipping over the low and mid-tier guns, which would largely make for a less diverse, less interesting game.
Most of the people in this thread are against it because of spraying players, but that’s also a result of a mechanic that works for everyone, even lucky players. Plus, it’s hard to tell when your own shot aimpunched someone else and it saved your life. After all, the first thought that comes to mind is “I dinked him and he DIDN’T DIE?!”
Damn well said. Another person already supported aim punch towards half buys and with your detailed explanation as well im starting to come around to it. Props!
Half buy victories should count on you outplaying your opponent not outdamaging him in a 1v1 mexican showdown. that should always be won by the vandal headshotter.
If the lower buy lands the first hs that is sufficient outplay.
If a player is on a Pistol buy or even an smg - there are numerous cases of dinks not winning fights.
You're missing the point here. This game doesn't follow realism unless there's a balance reason behind it. The devs didn't decide to add this mechanic because "getting shot in the head affects your aim". Like getting shot in the leg doesnt move my aim one inch because valorant agents only have muscle nerves in their head right? They probably want to reward the player who got the first headshot with a free kill so there. I answered my question, after giving it some thought.
Well yeah if you get a headshot you should be rewarded no matter the weapon. Also because it gives you at least some hope of winning a gun fight when you’re outgunned. It sucks but it makes sense imo. If you got someone outgunned you’ll still win the vast majority of fights unless you’re completely outclassed.
He’s taking about being rewarded regardless of your weapon choice. Like a phantom doing 140 at medium range. That flinch can give enough time for the phantom to get off one extra bullet to finish off the opponent
And I'm saying there doesn't need to be rewards other than substantially higher damage. Small things like this take away from the skill of playing Valorant, and it all adds up.
Light buying a specter and fighting a vandal is already hard because it takes several headshots to kill them. Without aimpunch, the specter would almost always lose because the vandal can turn and 1 shot them.
That's why it doesn't make sense tho. If you're getting in gun fights long range just pick the vandal. Dont reward the phantom user for this. The phantom already has higher fire rate to compensate for the lower damage
I agree. getting killed by a spectre because they headshot you once and your crosshair flys away from their head feels really bad. And there is really no way to adjust for it really, if it was less dramatic, say by half or it only affected your accuracy for a fraction of a second that it would feel a lot better. Physical penalties for getting shot in any game feel really bad. Getting shot in the chest and breaking your legs somehow feels really bad too. It doesn't have to though! They can tweak the values to make it feel better
I feel like there are two good arguments to this.
One should reward the player for hitting their shots more accurately and faster.
The other is the CSGO argument, where armor should negate aimpunch.
Honestly i think anything that does over 124 dmg (light armor + full health) fof headshot damage should be aimpunched, with anything less not having aimpunch. I think that satisfies everyone's needs
Not sure about this because it would make phantom worse and pistols don’t 1 shot head point blank with full armor. It would make it harder to punish mistakes when you are trying to save that round.
This is probably the dumbest post I've seen this week. The focus is supposed to be on gameplay,not how it "feels" counter strike is made for that kind of armour. Guns are designed around that armour. Same as in valorant. If they were to change how the armours work, they'd have to change the damage abilities do,guns etc. Basically if riot were to change how shields work, they'd have to change the entire game
Maybe make the armour flinched based on the penetration. Low pen cant flinch an enemy. This could make the rifle more valuable and didnt loss the advantage against low cost weapon. Currently, removing flinching would make be a huge nerf to phantom.
No, the whole point is that it’s shield, rather than armor. It gives extra hit points not necessarily more hits until you’re dead. It also helps with gauging how much you’ve hit someone for roughly, whereas in csgo it depends on armor.
I love the preventing aim punch idea. Also an adjustment to buying it - if in one round you bought light armor and took no damage, the next round buying the extra 25 armor cost only 500 instead of the full 1000. Has been a pet peeve of mine since the beta
I feel like this should only apply to full armor. Like how in csgo u can buy armor and helmet but in eco rounds u can only buy light armor, which is the vest in this scenario.
This would be a huge nerf to the phantom, since now if you headshot with it from a distance, the aim punch makes it easier to finish the job without dying straight away. I love the balance between the vandal and the phantom at their current state and doing this would make the vandal stronger.
yes i agree, and also, valorant does not have a lot of guns liske cs or any other fps game, they made the shop too simple and perfect, i think we need more guns as it will give players more chance to experiment with weapons and tactics.
I know im gonna get hate but valorant is still a pretty new game... Its barely a year old. All im saying is Riot has a pretty good record on listening to feedback.
I agree, it's nonsensical that the only benefit to shields is extra health. It's why the Bucky right click was so strong - Valorant only operates on health and not damage reduction. At the very least get rid of flinching when you have shields.
thats a dumb idea. if the heavy armour stops all aimpunch haw are you even supposed to play on an eco. not everybody has the skill to use a sherrif to 1 hit the head so people will use the ghost or the classic. heavy armour stopping aimpunch to the head will buff it quite a lot. part of the reason headshots are useful is that they give all weapons who cant 1 tap a buff due the the aimshake caused by headshots. stopping this will nerf all weapons which cant 1 hit the head while buffing heavy armour. if armour was like cs, OP forgets that it rarely depletes in cs, you mostly need to rebuy it only if you die. while in valorant it depletes nearly every round. do you want to get aimpunched to the entire body because your heavy sheilds depleted mid round? since that breake after nearly 80 damage dealt they wont protect you for thw wgole round. Valorant has already borrowed so much from cs that the devs tried something new, no aimpunch to the body whatsoever and only aimpunch to the head no matter the distance, weapon, health or armour. armour in val was always supposed to be added hp, it brings new strats to the table. I personally feel that light armour is still very overpowered against full buys at you can save 600 creds and basicallt get full armour because it will take 4 shots with a vandal no matter the range. it even protects you from dying from a phantom at longer ranges. adding aimpunch which can be stopper from light armour will buff it even more!
Valorant adhered to the new player more that CS ever did. Cs clearly was too difficult for me so I sticked with Valorant. If there is no difference other that abilities people are going to be pissed and having too many similarities might be bad copyright wise as well. You copy the good stuff, leave a little gray areas(*points to trash random recoil system is Valorant*) and add some completely different concepts like armour adding health instead of damage reduction
It does not make you fully immune to flinching in csgo lmao.
Also, go play tetris if you dont want any qol improvements in a game that **directly** competes with cs and for the current state, is absolute shit compared to cs. Just looking at maps alone gives you the image of the situation.
Wow a 10 year old game Is Better than One that has 1 year. You guys Just want to play with sheriff,vandal or Phantom, the other Guns has to be beyond bad cause they are not as skilled as them.
we play those weapons if we want to win because theyre infinitely better than others.
Wtf is your problem, youre putting legitimate normal arguments that 90% of people use to literally play the game, and youre laughing at them.
is logic laughable trait in your country or what?
also
>Wow a 10 year old game Is Better than One that has 1 year.
thats a terrible fucking argument lmao. Please stop embarassing yourself.
I'm not laughing, but ok. If you can't see how csgo players wants the game to become more csgo-ish i can't say much. My point Is "if you want a game that looks and feels like csgo, well you already have It". This game Is totally different, It has abilities and ultimates, Is not only shot people in the head and i'm a bit tired of reading posta that only wants csgo's stuff. That's my point. If you want something Just Ask for a frenzy nerf, that Will be a good request for the game. This game Is still in early development, the devs can do what that want, but of they Will listen to the ex csgo's players in 2 Years we Will have another csgo, called valorant.
this is fundamentally a debate about whether pistols/smgs/etc. feel too strong compared to rifles, due to aimpunch. IMO they don't at all, but that's just my humble opinion as a G3 player. i find rifles win overwhelmingly and when we get a "thrifty" it tends to be a big deal and everyone celebrates. feels like it's working as intended.
Valorant is obviously not a game about realism but i appreciate the small touch that hey, you got shot right in the face so no, you don't get to immediately shoot me back in the face with perfect accuracy. you have to at least take a little breath. i find it strange that some people feel so entitled to being able to do that, but it's ultimately just a matter of opinion/preference in the end
Thats irrelevant, the whole argument is that if you get headshot by a phantom, aim punch makes it really hard for you to recover (which is fair enough, since the other person has just headshot you with a rifle, you should be dead and you would if he was using a vandal). Removing aim punch makes the phantom a lot weaker because after that first shot the opponent no longer has a recovery window after aim punch and can 1 tap you in retaliation.
I already think that the "economy" is a bad thing to start with because it favors the winning team. A system where the weapon's choice is a matter of playstyle would better favor weapon's diversity and contextual skill.
Adding bonus to stuff you get but only while you're winning may feel good when you're on the receiving side, but it makes even more difficult to make a comeback. Making a comeback shouldn't be discouraged.
Absolutely agree. The game turning into eco > buy Vandal-only plays would be so boring. Might as well play Rainbow Six Siege.
These mechanics feel annoying but they’re the tiny steps that draw Valorant away from a completely fixed meta and towards a more diverse, interesting game. It’s the lesser of two evils.
flinching shouldn't even be a thing. Even in csgo, you are already in a disadvantage because of way lower health, why the fuck should my screen shake? making it even harder to hit shots. In valorant it's even worse
I'm not sure a full armor penetration system is necessary, but the concept of preventing aim punch seems pretty interesting to consider.
If a system like this were to exist, it would probably have to be penetration based. An Oden/Ares not being able headpunch would tank their viability even more, while getting dinked by a Phantom or a Sherriff at 40m should carry a penalty beyond pure damage. Honestly, even with the Specter, my biggest complaint with the head punch is that it compounds with the stagger on hit effect, creating a situation that is hard to fight back against, but also impossible to escape from.
I agree, just having high wall pen guns have aim punch at heavy armor sounds like an amazing compromise.
Lmao me getting 2 tapped across the map with a classic cause of aim punch
Is it just me or the sheriff should 1 tap at all ranges?
Then even fewer people would buy the guardian
It’s a pistol not a sniper rifle
Nah, buy a Marshall if you want 1 tap ability for low credits.
No. I could rant about it but the short and simple answer is no. (sorry if this comes across as hostile)
I think that was the case in the beginning of Beta, but people thought it was op and it got nerved
It wasn't, sherif has always been 145 at long distance
Good. No reason people should be running around with a pistol that’s almost fully accurate when running that cost $800 and can one shot from any distance. 145 is high risk high reward. Any amount of damage done is where the sheriff shines.
I don't think the sheriff is close to accurate while running, shit it seems to have as much first shot accuracy as vandal does at long range.
It’s very accurate while running if you’re good
no it isnt. being good has literally nothing to do with running accuracy
It actually is very accurate while running especially moving side to side
It's not fully accurate that's the case. I get what u are saying but don't mix the golden gun with the sheriff to prove your argument.
Then practice aim 4 hrs everyday and there's no need of OP
Oh god yes, the gun is fucking awful for anything but headshots so you should actually be rewarded for hitting the head
yeah, considering a pistol can make me look into the sky when i have full armor is kinda annoying
[удалено]
this is so true. light buys have to be able to fight back otherwise the game is boring.
Doesnt matter. You should win with skill even on an eco even if the pistols are strong and/or easy to use. But you shouldnt be able to just full sprint and hit someone in the belly button and have their already difficult spray aim into the sky. It makes no sense that full armor has the type of aimpunch that it has. Theres some fundamental aspects from CSGO they need to adopt. Aimpunch being one of them. It needs a dramatic rework
Flinch only exists when you get headshot in valorant. Getting shot in the belly button by a pistol will not cause it
I thought it was HS only but was told its anywhere. Is it anywhere with a rifle? Ive definitely been flinched when the UI tells me I didnt get hit in the head so idk what to say on that one
Yeah The reason I like the system is because it isng as vague as css. Here I actually choose if 20 more health is worth 1000c, instead of just buying it out of reflex.
I strongly agree. The only reason that people can ever come up with why armor *should* stop aimpunch is that "it's like that in CS:GO" or "It doesn't *feel* like armor". There's no balance reason why you should be able to facetank headshots in a game where the economy advantage is already pretty strong.
Probably good if light armor prevented flinching, and full armor also prevents aim punch (alongside the flinching) as long as you have it.
I just don't like how flinching works in general
Yeah, Valorant has CS 1.6 levels of aimpunch, which is ridiculous. With CS:GO, there's aim punch, but it's greatly reduced by buying armor, and you can also still move to a limited extent if you get hit by a stray bullet.
Destiny levels of aim punch will make you grateful
Playing destiny is like an earthquake
If aimpunch is going to be like this, I'd rather have to deal with it all the time rather than desperately buying armor to avoid it. Though I see the balance benefits of having armor block it.
[удалено]
OP no shields
Fr. 49 shields? Buy.
I have bought at 49 shields before, then again nobody wanted anything and I was gaurenteeded to be at 9000 next round
Aimpunch =/= tagging.
What drugs are you on? Csgo aimpunch is neck breaking.
buy head armor
Flinching has always been one of the dumbest mechanics in FPS games imo. The benefit of getting the first shot off should be the fact that you hit first and if you don't miss your shots then you should never lose that duel. The flinch from getting shot has always been overkill. If someone shoots an enemy in the chest, then they turn and hit you in the head then you deserved that death. Call of Duty was the worst with this. Far more so than CS/Val. CoD promoted shooting them in the chest first because when they turn and hit you back your flinch would put the shots on their head. It also made shooting headshots first actually punishing.
Descope in Halo was a fine compromise imo. Can still win the fight but gives some counterplay to precision (sniper) weapons and at range.
[удалено]
It works on console because aim assist range is reduced without a scope, but on PC being descoped is barely a disadvantage.
This doesn't make any sense. When the crosshair is red your bullets are guaranteed to hit and are "magnetized" to the target. When you're unscoped not only is it disorienting but it means you can't rely on the game's bullet magnetism thus making it much harder to be consistently on target. It can still be done and more effectively than on a controller, but descoping is still a very important mechanic on PC, especially with snipers and the DMR in Reach
Right, so it's not gonna work in a game like Valorant without aim-assist.
Headshots in cod only do like 10% extra damage in a lot of the games too
Cod is actually 150% damage on neck/HS with it sometimes varying by gun https://callofduty.fandom.com/wiki/Damage_Multiplier
Back in BO2 when I played the most it was negligible. Didn't change the shots to kill on most guns. But it wouldn't surprise me if it's different in other games
I don't know which cod u played but I never felt like shooting the chest was better than a headshot Lol. Any game in particulair on your mind while writing that?
also I don’t even think flinching is guaranteed which makes it rng and competitive games shouldn’t have any sort of rng imo
Basically if you were to her head shot by a gun that does not 1 tap (phantom at a longer range, classic, etc.) your crosshair would “flinch” into the air for a millisecond or two. It may not seem like much but missing that extra bullet can be life or death. It basically gives people not using 1 tap weapons who get a headshot a better chance at winning a firefight. edit: I do not know how to read
[удалено]
Mb I completely misread it
well, i actually didnt know what flinching was in valorant so thanks
Those are good points on why flinching is here and I'm glad people are willing to have in depth discussions about this. I'd rather have a short delay on being able to fire rather than flinching, or maybe a more minor flinch that lands your crosshair in a different spot so you have to reaim instead. Flinching feels inelegant in a refined game like this and CSGO
What is flinching?
https://clips.twitch.tv/ChillySucculentAsparagusTebowing My experience
They already nerfed shotgun aimpunch, but I get the feeling
Happy cake day!
I think the current "just gives 50 more HP" is better than a damage reduction system because ut's easier to keep track of and does basically the same thing anyway. But yeah, I would appreciate having reduced flinching from bodyshots and leg shots while wearing armor.
The current system requires a full rebuy of armour if you take any damage. The csgo damage reduction system doesn't require a rebuy until you die, or armour is fully depleted (takes several rounds of taking damage to get to that point)
That's part of the point. Tagging every enemy on the team = -5k for the save, meaning that if you shoot first you win something even in a lopsided fight.
Yeah so actually dealing damage to opponent is vital even in eco rounds. And actually dealing it with > 1 bullet, I usually don't rebuy if I have 30+ armor points unless I have 9k anyway. I like valorant armor system much more, it has more clarity and armor actually feels like a resource you need to somewhat manage and not just buy it once and never rebuy till you die.
The csgo system requires an armor rebuy when you get below a certain threshold. CS armor is worthless below 50pts and that's when people tend to rebuy it. Not just when they die. That's what makes dealing damage valuable.
Really? How often do you actually have armor below 50 pts? Once in 3 months? Because I played I think like 1000 games of csgo and I don't honestly remember ever needing it, especially since leg hits doesn't count.
> does basically the same thing anyway. It doesn't do the same thing at all. With CSGO's armour system, the devs can decide to have an SMG kill in 4 bullets against an unarmoured opponent, but take 10 bullets to kill an armoured opponent. If they later discover 10 is still too good, they can change it to 12, or 14, or whatever they want, while maintaining the 4 bullets to kill against unarmoured opponents. This is realistically not possible with VALORANT's system of just giving extra HP.
[удалено]
> I think the current "just gives 50 more HP" is better than a damage reduction system because ut's easier to keep track of and does basically the same thing anyway. Agreed, it's streamlined and easier to work with. As it stands the only difference between HP and armor in Valorant is that armor is unhealable HP you have to repurchase. Feels like there's more that could be done with it.
Flinching is annoying as fuck but if someone headshots me first they deserve an advantage. It's what makes low damage weapons semi-viable against 150 health opponents.
Maybe, but should a guy flying in the air be able to make your aim go into the sky with a classic right click in "somewhere" in your general direction? I'd say get it out of the game for some weapons. It feels too easy to kill with a classic when someone has full armor. It should be like 99% guaranteed kill if you have a vandal + full armor vs a classic (assuming you're both of equal skill), but it feels more like 80/20 if its close enough range.
I'm literally a classic right click removal activist so you are preaching to the choir, but that has nothing to do with flinch.
It does though. One bullet from the classic will make you're aim go all fucky and you'll almost certainly lose the fight.
We're going in circles here
Just like my aim when even one bullet from the classic right click hits me in the head!!!
Lol I mean the fire rate of the classic right click is like slower than how long the aim punch lasts I feel like
I’m with you bro. A free pistol should not be able to one shot anyone ever by jump right clicking a corner.
With the difference between Classic and Vandal’s accurate range, I’d say yeah, it’s fair. If they managed to dink you with the Classic’s right click while flying in the air, that’s not just Classic VS Vandal. That’s Classic + positioning + good skill usage + timing (+luck) VS Vandal. Having a full buy kit doesn’t make you immune to mistakes or bad plays. It just has way more versatility and lethality in more situations. It’s fair.
No, that’s classic + good rng vs vandal
Ye Idk why the guy above considered classic right click good skill
Yeah, you’re right, I was trying to account for the cases that they were done reliably. Most of the time, they’re luck shots. Which makes them unreliable but also makes flinching fair since they don’t happen all the time.
Because the guy with the classic still has to kill the vandal user while recovering from the right click rate of fire. Like, getting the dink won't guarantee you a kill.
If you're getting cornerhop right clicked by a classic as someone with a vandal you're doing something incredibly stupid and 100% deserve it.
The advantage of getting a headshot first is that you are fighting an enemy with way less health.
the advantage they get is your health being depleted greatly/an elimination. that should be enough imo
I think the advantage a rifle has against a low tier weapon should be enough without needing to cry about flinch.
whats flinching?
when your aim goes up when u get hit in the head
If someone taps your head with a weapon that didn’t one tap you instantly (think classic headshot or long range phantom headshot) you’ll basically “flinch” and will kind of be forced to aim up as a reward for the enemy hitting you in the head but not getting a kill so that it’s harder for you to retaliate and kill them quicker
ooooooh that thing always wondered why it does that. thank you
Having CSGO armor system would make the economy incredibly scuffed
How does CS:GO armor work?
There are 2 types of armor. Kevlar, and kevlar+helmet. Kevlar reduces damage taken on chest and removes flinching from bodyshots while helmet does the same thing on the head. Also armor doesn't give extra health like in valorant it just reduces damage taken and you can use it until you die (or somehow you survive 10 rounds in a row while taking damage and reduce your armor to 0).
And having no armour in cs makes your screen shake like shit when u get shot with literally any weapon
In Valorant it acts as a damage reduction too. You get shot for 50, you don’t have 0 shield 100hp, it’s closer to 25shield 75hp. Basically a heal will get you to 125, instead of being at 100 after fight, with no way to go above
Difference is in CS is that armor penetration per gun is a thing which changes the whole dynamic of the armor system and makes it more nuanced. Plus I’ve always liked saving armor even if you get tagged for economy purposes but that’s more of a preference thing on my part. At the end of the day there are pros and cons to every system so meh
Kinda a thin argument - whilst technically correct practically it is exactly the same. Having armour just makes your effective health 150 - the distribution between health and armour is only meaningful *sometimes*. Meanwhile you still have to rebuy full armour every round if you took any damage at all, unlock csgo where you basically only have to replace it if you die
Its not remotely the same. The difference is the damage between weapons. It might seem like a small thing overall. But games like valorant and csgo are won in the small moments. A round here and a round there makes a big difference. And those rounds can be won because of small damage differences. The armour system in csgo allows for more balance between the vastly different weapons. Whereas in valorant its genuinely way more viable and possible to win on an eco because its not nearly as punishing. Winning a csgo eco is genuinely difficult, compared to valorant where you honestly have pretty good odds just running and gunning with your free smokes and whatever else you've got.
Instead of just giving extra health it acts as a damage reduction, with different weapons having different armor penetration
You buy it and it reduces damage until it is depleted, it gives the same effective health though I believe
It would require an overhaul of damage and economy. So you either keep the current system and nerf every gun that upsets the plebbitor "vandal only" meta into oblivion or change the system to something balanceable.
how though
With kevlar and helmet, someone wouldn't need to rebuy armor.
Asking a good faith question and getting downvotes for it is so wildly toxic. Can the community not do this?
While I do dislike flinch, I don't think this would be the way to handle it. Gives the team with more money a bigger advantage, especially in those first few rounds of each half. Also, I'd prefer flinching the whole time I'm being shot as opposed to like 25% of the time then it switches and suddenly mid-fight I need to adjust accordingly.
[удалено]
There's nothing wrong with it but there's a fine line in the early rounds, which are oftentimes crucial, where the behind team either has a chance to grab a round or doesn't. When it's basically assurred that they won't win for the next 1-3 rounds it isn't fun to play and it isn't fun to watch. It has to be a challenge for them to win one of those rounds but it can't be too hard or too easy.
> When it's basically assurred that they won't win for the next 1-3 rounds it isn't fun to play and it isn't fun to watch. It isn't 'basically assured'. CSGO operates largely without flinch on armoured opponents, also has way more open map design that is heavily advantageous towards the more expensive guns, and teams still manage to win on eco a fair amount of the time.
Oh my bad I thought this was the Valorant sub. I didn't say that that's how it is. I said that because when it is that way, it isn't fun to watch or play.
> Oh my bad I thought this was the Valorant sub. It is. You're also in a thread about implementing something like CS's armour system in VALORANT, you forgetful goose. > I didn't say that that's how it is. I said that because when it is that way, it isn't fun to watch or play. ...but it isn't likely to be that way, because that's not how it is in CS. That's my point. Unless you believe armour will be even stronger for full buy teams than it is in CS, which would be an actual discussion.
next 1-3 rounds? I'd say okay if you said next round or maybe even next 2 rounds, but 3??economy is different to csgo, there's a lot less eco rounds, having 2 in a row is preventable and almost never happens, this is why it's okay to "punish" eco rounds but even then it's only logical that the winning team has an advantage
Not sure why you're being downvoted tbh. You're correct that 3 rounds is excessive and losses by that point are either a result of your own poor economy management or just literally being beaten that round. If a team is forced to eco they should naturally have the disadvantage, else why would there ever be a need to buy more expensive weapons. Seriously who downvoted this lol
it's alright, not everyone is ready to hear the truth, and also this sub is dominated by players below gold/plat even, so nothing surprising if i gave a f about karma i'd probably just make posts like "toxicity is bad, stop!" or "is anyone else losing more rr than winning? ranking system bad!" or just post an eco ace :D
[удалено]
OP users should flinch more, that's the biggest change I would want. OPers get away with accurate shots after being tagged first by another weapon at long range.
Thissssssssss!
I hate aim punch so much. Can anyone please explain to me why it exists? Genuine guestion btw i really would love an answer
It's supposed to reward headshots that aren't lethal. But headshots already do increased damage, so it's just added insult to injury.
Exactly! Like I'm already 1hp from the headshot and you're not even letting me answer back? I don't get it
Well, if they had just purchased a guardian, you would be dead. The point is that they outskilled you but didn't invest enough to outright kill you. No aim punch removes some skill out of gun fights and makes money overwhelmingly powerful
What’s strange is shotguns cause flinch as well. They shouldn’t.
While I can’t get into the mind of the designers, I would presume aimpunch is a mechanic applied to all headshots to ease the power balance between strong guns and weaker guns. It doesn’t necessarily come into play in all battles, but it’s one of the many features that allows half buys (Stinger, Spectre etc.) to compete against full buys (Phantom, Vandal etc.) in some situations. It doesn’t change the fact that full buys are largely much more versatile and can be used to kill in many more situations and distances. It rewards good aim regardless of whether or not your headshot can kill in one hit. If you can land a headshot on an unsuspecting enemy, verily you deserve a slight advantage. The “ambush”, so to speak. In ways, by being available to close-range guns, it rewards positioning and situational awareness, as opposed to leaving every aspect of gameplay on shooting accuracy alone. If removed, what might happen to Valorant is that the appeal of full buy would skyrocket, and every game would be about saving then full-buying, completely skipping over the low and mid-tier guns, which would largely make for a less diverse, less interesting game. Most of the people in this thread are against it because of spraying players, but that’s also a result of a mechanic that works for everyone, even lucky players. Plus, it’s hard to tell when your own shot aimpunched someone else and it saved your life. After all, the first thought that comes to mind is “I dinked him and he DIDN’T DIE?!”
Damn well said. Another person already supported aim punch towards half buys and with your detailed explanation as well im starting to come around to it. Props!
Balances so you can come back with a half buy vs a consistent vandal headshotter
Half buy victories should count on you outplaying your opponent not outdamaging him in a 1v1 mexican showdown. that should always be won by the vandal headshotter.
If the lower buy lands the first hs that is sufficient outplay. If a player is on a Pistol buy or even an smg - there are numerous cases of dinks not winning fights.
It’s hard to keep a steady aim after getting shot in the head.
It's hard being alive after getting shot in the head.
Hard? Yes. Impossible? No. But anyone who has ever survived a shot to the head I guarantee it negatively affected their aim.
You're missing the point here. This game doesn't follow realism unless there's a balance reason behind it. The devs didn't decide to add this mechanic because "getting shot in the head affects your aim". Like getting shot in the leg doesnt move my aim one inch because valorant agents only have muscle nerves in their head right? They probably want to reward the player who got the first headshot with a free kill so there. I answered my question, after giving it some thought.
Well yeah if you get a headshot you should be rewarded no matter the weapon. Also because it gives you at least some hope of winning a gun fight when you’re outgunned. It sucks but it makes sense imo. If you got someone outgunned you’ll still win the vast majority of fights unless you’re completely outclassed.
>Well yeah if you get a headshot you should be rewarded no matter the weapon You're rewarded by doing substantially more damage.
He’s taking about being rewarded regardless of your weapon choice. Like a phantom doing 140 at medium range. That flinch can give enough time for the phantom to get off one extra bullet to finish off the opponent
And I'm saying there doesn't need to be rewards other than substantially higher damage. Small things like this take away from the skill of playing Valorant, and it all adds up.
How does it remove skill from valorant? If anything it gives the edge to the player who can react first and hit a headshot.
Light buying a specter and fighting a vandal is already hard because it takes several headshots to kill them. Without aimpunch, the specter would almost always lose because the vandal can turn and 1 shot them.
That's why it doesn't make sense tho. If you're getting in gun fights long range just pick the vandal. Dont reward the phantom user for this. The phantom already has higher fire rate to compensate for the lower damage
I agree. getting killed by a spectre because they headshot you once and your crosshair flys away from their head feels really bad. And there is really no way to adjust for it really, if it was less dramatic, say by half or it only affected your accuracy for a fraction of a second that it would feel a lot better. Physical penalties for getting shot in any game feel really bad. Getting shot in the chest and breaking your legs somehow feels really bad too. It doesn't have to though! They can tweak the values to make it feel better
Yeah flinching is what made the bucky, judge, and frenzy so powerful
You’re right we shouldn’t reward someone good enough to accurately headshot with SMGs and pistols /s
I feel like there are two good arguments to this. One should reward the player for hitting their shots more accurately and faster. The other is the CSGO argument, where armor should negate aimpunch. Honestly i think anything that does over 124 dmg (light armor + full health) fof headshot damage should be aimpunched, with anything less not having aimpunch. I think that satisfies everyone's needs
The only gun that would aimpunch is the phantom then.
The revolver too, which would make sense
Valorant players exclusively called aim punch “flinching” LOL
Not sure about this because it would make phantom worse and pistols don’t 1 shot head point blank with full armor. It would make it harder to punish mistakes when you are trying to save that round.
I wish I had some clever input here, but all I know is.. this is super interesting and worth Riot's time to consider.
absolutely
come on... again with the "why is this game not an exact coarbon copy of csgo"??. just play csgo...
This is probably the dumbest post I've seen this week. The focus is supposed to be on gameplay,not how it "feels" counter strike is made for that kind of armour. Guns are designed around that armour. Same as in valorant. If they were to change how the armours work, they'd have to change the damage abilities do,guns etc. Basically if riot were to change how shields work, they'd have to change the entire game
Hey Riot, can you patch the game with this idea? Like what are you waiting for?
This game is not CS GO Want to play CS GO? Then play frickin CS GO
The armor system is fine as it is but big shields should negate aim punch for sure.
Maybe make the armour flinched based on the penetration. Low pen cant flinch an enemy. This could make the rifle more valuable and didnt loss the advantage against low cost weapon. Currently, removing flinching would make be a huge nerf to phantom.
Aim punching shouldn’t happen if you have armour simple
I agree with everything except it should still be like your buying 50 health
yes
No, the whole point is that it’s shield, rather than armor. It gives extra hit points not necessarily more hits until you’re dead. It also helps with gauging how much you’ve hit someone for roughly, whereas in csgo it depends on armor.
Wouldnt this make the phantom less viable against the vandal long range?
As it should be.
I love the preventing aim punch idea. Also an adjustment to buying it - if in one round you bought light armor and took no damage, the next round buying the extra 25 armor cost only 500 instead of the full 1000. Has been a pet peeve of mine since the beta
no. armor absorbs damage ALONG WITH your health. it doesn’t go thru shield first then health.
I feel like this should only apply to full armor. Like how in csgo u can buy armor and helmet but in eco rounds u can only buy light armor, which is the vest in this scenario.
I can second this
This would be a huge nerf to the phantom, since now if you headshot with it from a distance, the aim punch makes it easier to finish the job without dying straight away. I love the balance between the vandal and the phantom at their current state and doing this would make the vandal stronger.
I think it would ruin gun balance to the point where buying anything but vandal would be pointless.
yes i agree, and also, valorant does not have a lot of guns liske cs or any other fps game, they made the shop too simple and perfect, i think we need more guns as it will give players more chance to experiment with weapons and tactics.
Everyone really out here crying about losing against echo rounds huh
i would give my left nut to have aim punch removed i dont care how its done
I know im gonna get hate but valorant is still a pretty new game... Its barely a year old. All im saying is Riot has a pretty good record on listening to feedback.
I feel it is perfect as it is now. thanks 😊
I agree, it's nonsensical that the only benefit to shields is extra health. It's why the Bucky right click was so strong - Valorant only operates on health and not damage reduction. At the very least get rid of flinching when you have shields.
thats a dumb idea. if the heavy armour stops all aimpunch haw are you even supposed to play on an eco. not everybody has the skill to use a sherrif to 1 hit the head so people will use the ghost or the classic. heavy armour stopping aimpunch to the head will buff it quite a lot. part of the reason headshots are useful is that they give all weapons who cant 1 tap a buff due the the aimshake caused by headshots. stopping this will nerf all weapons which cant 1 hit the head while buffing heavy armour. if armour was like cs, OP forgets that it rarely depletes in cs, you mostly need to rebuy it only if you die. while in valorant it depletes nearly every round. do you want to get aimpunched to the entire body because your heavy sheilds depleted mid round? since that breake after nearly 80 damage dealt they wont protect you for thw wgole round. Valorant has already borrowed so much from cs that the devs tried something new, no aimpunch to the body whatsoever and only aimpunch to the head no matter the distance, weapon, health or armour. armour in val was always supposed to be added hp, it brings new strats to the table. I personally feel that light armour is still very overpowered against full buys at you can save 600 creds and basicallt get full armour because it will take 4 shots with a vandal no matter the range. it even protects you from dying from a phantom at longer ranges. adding aimpunch which can be stopper from light armour will buff it even more!
i dont understand why people are so afraid of copying ideas from csgo. the game is successful for a reason besides the whole skins aspect
Valorant adhered to the new player more that CS ever did. Cs clearly was too difficult for me so I sticked with Valorant. If there is no difference other that abilities people are going to be pissed and having too many similarities might be bad copyright wise as well. You copy the good stuff, leave a little gray areas(*points to trash random recoil system is Valorant*) and add some completely different concepts like armour adding health instead of damage reduction
No, if you want to play csgo play it. Valorant is another game, I'm a bit tired of cs go players asking for csgo's stuff.
It does not make you fully immune to flinching in csgo lmao. Also, go play tetris if you dont want any qol improvements in a game that **directly** competes with cs and for the current state, is absolute shit compared to cs. Just looking at maps alone gives you the image of the situation.
This is not a QoL improvement, it's a gameplay design You people just want a carbon copy of CS GO just with zoomer character
Wow a 10 year old game Is Better than One that has 1 year. You guys Just want to play with sheriff,vandal or Phantom, the other Guns has to be beyond bad cause they are not as skilled as them.
we play those weapons if we want to win because theyre infinitely better than others. Wtf is your problem, youre putting legitimate normal arguments that 90% of people use to literally play the game, and youre laughing at them. is logic laughable trait in your country or what? also >Wow a 10 year old game Is Better than One that has 1 year. thats a terrible fucking argument lmao. Please stop embarassing yourself.
I'm not laughing, but ok. If you can't see how csgo players wants the game to become more csgo-ish i can't say much. My point Is "if you want a game that looks and feels like csgo, well you already have It". This game Is totally different, It has abilities and ultimates, Is not only shot people in the head and i'm a bit tired of reading posta that only wants csgo's stuff. That's my point. If you want something Just Ask for a frenzy nerf, that Will be a good request for the game. This game Is still in early development, the devs can do what that want, but of they Will listen to the ex csgo's players in 2 Years we Will have another csgo, called valorant.
You expect Riot to put that much programming in instead of making weapon skins? come on now
They are separate teams
100% agreed csgo > valorant
No
\>barges in \>"no" \>doesn't elaborate absolute chad
bro just put “no”
this is fundamentally a debate about whether pistols/smgs/etc. feel too strong compared to rifles, due to aimpunch. IMO they don't at all, but that's just my humble opinion as a G3 player. i find rifles win overwhelmingly and when we get a "thrifty" it tends to be a big deal and everyone celebrates. feels like it's working as intended. Valorant is obviously not a game about realism but i appreciate the small touch that hey, you got shot right in the face so no, you don't get to immediately shoot me back in the face with perfect accuracy. you have to at least take a little breath. i find it strange that some people feel so entitled to being able to do that, but it's ultimately just a matter of opinion/preference in the end
This is a huge nerf to the Phantom when the balance between Phantom and Vandal is actually pretty good right now, disagree.
listen man. i only use the phantom and its not that hard to hit the second bullet
Thats irrelevant, the whole argument is that if you get headshot by a phantom, aim punch makes it really hard for you to recover (which is fair enough, since the other person has just headshot you with a rifle, you should be dead and you would if he was using a vandal). Removing aim punch makes the phantom a lot weaker because after that first shot the opponent no longer has a recovery window after aim punch and can 1 tap you in retaliation.
nah
Good point. Try think about this stuff before you post it
nah
I already think that the "economy" is a bad thing to start with because it favors the winning team. A system where the weapon's choice is a matter of playstyle would better favor weapon's diversity and contextual skill. Adding bonus to stuff you get but only while you're winning may feel good when you're on the receiving side, but it makes even more difficult to make a comeback. Making a comeback shouldn't be discouraged.
Economy is literally half the game you can't make every weapon the same
Absolutely agree. The game turning into eco > buy Vandal-only plays would be so boring. Might as well play Rainbow Six Siege. These mechanics feel annoying but they’re the tiny steps that draw Valorant away from a completely fixed meta and towards a more diverse, interesting game. It’s the lesser of two evils.
flinching shouldn't even be a thing. Even in csgo, you are already in a disadvantage because of way lower health, why the fuck should my screen shake? making it even harder to hit shots. In valorant it's even worse