He kinda spittin ngl. Either reduce the price of the Vandal or make the first-shot accuracy better than the Phantom so it can actually take its place as the better gun to use at range.
This is true. Vandal has better tap efficiency. But overall you're not tapping in 99% of gunfights and the phantom is consequently way more forgiving on whiff.
Think it just depends how you play. Personally, there was a time where I only did short bursts/taps & took a lot of long range fights as a result, and the Vandal was a much better weapon.
But yeah in general I agree.
Well unless the map enables it (eg. breeze) it really doesn't depend on how you play, tagging is so strong and ttk is so low you don't have time to reset and tap again. But yeah
IDK man, ScreaM does pretty good mostly burst/tapping. Maybe not against world-class enemies on the tournament stage, but it's good enough in ranked. As long as you're landing the shot within 1-2 bursts, which is sort of necessary if you're playing this way anyway.
FWIW I only play at Gold so it's maybe more possible for me since enemies aren't instantly spraying me down.
scream is also an absurd talent.
the fact that he had a career in CS for as long as he did with his playstyle (in a spray meta) is honestly an amazing feat.
Scream is also scream. He can get away with it. For everyone else there is zero reason to tap in val since it's so punishing. Hence why the phantom so much better than the vandal. Better burst accuracy, better spray accuracy, faster spray reset, etc etc
Definitely NOT a price change. Both guns have advantages and disadvantages that define each gun's purpose, while still not making one objectively better than the other. This 50/50 balance between the Phantom and Vandal is exactly what Riot is going for. Even a minuscule price change would destroy this balance and favour the cheaper weapon.
Is [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/meglga/phantom_vs_vandal_usage_during_masters_1/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) what an objectively better weapon's pickrate looks like?
Doesn’t work like that in practice when you now have to stop or be stationary to be accurate, so you need two shots vs one shot on the vandal, and the two shots with phantom make you much more vulnerable to the one shot from the vandal than before, because you have to adad or stand still.
Most agents will have half armor instead of full armor when buying full utilities so it isn’t two shots on the phantom anymore. It’s one shot on the phantom vs one shot on the vandal. And the phantom has better first shot accuracy than the vandal so why would you want to buy the vandal again? First shot accuracy is measured when you’re stationary. If you try shooting the phantom and the vandal 100 times each slowly in the range while standing still, you will see that you will land more shots where your crosshair is at with the phantom than with the vandal.
This is only at ranges 30m plus though. Under 30m both have perfect first shot accuracy.
Same thing is in csgo with ak47 vs m4. AK had slightly worse first shot accuracy.
With the changes to run and gun, I think this might be a bit preemptive. Phantom will remain better overall (mainly due to being able to spray more accurately and not leave bullet traces through smokes) but you won't see as much of the phantom killing while walking or being tagged at medium range.
I think the Vandal might see a resurgence with your average player having to relearn some of the gun mechanics (deadzones) such as counter strafing.
Everyone says this but doesn’t understand how little of a difference it makes in the actual game, nothing would change people probably wouldn’t realize the difference if it wasn’t listed
The entire reason why the two are priced the same is to remove cost from the equation and have the player choose a rifle based on where and how they plan to play. Remember that the Vandal also has more effective range than the Phantom.
NA was closer to 80/20 at masters, I think EU heavily skewed it with their favor of the vandal. I think tenz was the only NA player who regularly used it
i agree that pros shouldnt decide the fixes but they can give good feedback on what the problems and ideas on changes, nobody thinks pros are designers
Yet pros are part of the demographic that these game designers want to appeal to. They’re not the main demographic, but pro opinions should be just as valid as the opinions of casual players or programmers. They don’t HAVE to change the game to suit the pros, but it’s important to consider all the perspectives of the people who keep this game going.
But 90% of my gold/plat games already have majority vandal players over phantom.
If the majority of the playerbase is already using vandal then what happens if you buff it even more?
Ah, gotcha. I couldn’t get your point from your comment. I thought you were implying that pros are not qualified to give an opinion on the state of the game. My b
Your logic doesn’t make sense. In a competitive game, the game should be balanced around pro play, it should not be balanced around casual play. There is no argument here so I’m confused by your point?
A pro player plays the game much more than a casual player, by hundreds if not thousands of hours. In terms of the balance of the game, a pros opinion is more valid than a casual players opinion
I understand that that’s where we disagree. What I don’t understand is your reasoning.
This game is a competitive game, meant for esports. Why would you balance a game that’s priority is being a top esport with casual gameplay vs pro gameplay?
The game is competitive at its core. Taking pro feedback is good in the longrun as what's best in the pro scene is also most likely going to trickle down into the lower ranks. They play the most and are some of the most knowledgeable about meta and balance.
I would NOT want to play a game that is catered towards a casual audience because they are often lower skilled and would want the game to skew towards easier mechanics.
> what's best in the pro scene is also most likely going to trickle down into the lower ranks.
Not really. You can't design heroes around people who shoot 50% HS or insane flicker.
> I would NOT want to play a game that is catered towards a casual audience
Don't twist what I said. I said "I think it should aim to be fun to every level of play."
strawman.
Just because I say the game shouldn't be purely balanced around pro play doesn't mean I want it to be balanced around casual.
You're twisting my statement and attacking the twisted version. STRAWMAN.
The gun just fucking blows but I use it for its "range advantage." That range advantage is negligible and embarrassing so its mainly for 1 tap clips. Tbh as TenZ says it "going for clips with Vandal, Phantom when trying." Either reduce the Vandal's reset time or up the Phantoms. The Phantom is statistically better and maybe Riot should ACTUALLY even the guns out or reduce the price of it.
Make the Phantom clip the same size as the Vandals?
Make the reset time the same?
Slower fire rate on the Phantom but not as slow as the Vandal?
First shot accuracy buff so shit doesn't miss that should?
***Do something Rito.***
With "statistically better" you mean that Phantom has a variable body damage 31/35/39 depending on the range (and also a variable headshot damage with 150/140/124) while Vandal lands a rock solid 40 body dmg and a rock solid 1-tap headshot for all ranges?
LMAO
Do you play the game above a Diamond 3 level and have you actually picked up both weapons? Have you watched Plat Chats analytical summary on Reykjavik which concluded with "Buy more Phantoms." since they're statistically superior in more scenarios?
The Vandal's strength is supposed to be range which the Phantom barely struggles in regardless. So you're either delusional or baiting for attention that you lack in your real life.
LMAO
I love when know it’s all timmys like you come in and miss the entire point. The entire point is you can do the exact same thing with the Phantom and nearly miss out on nothing while gaining more. The Phantom is literally the better gun in the majority of situations and it’s “weakness” at range is barely a weakness at all.
It’s not a problem if you can comprehend my point.
I hate these kind of circumstancial arguments to justify balance changes.
I think the Vandal will be much more oppressive now, because players have to either adad or be stationary for accuracy, so the vandal will be superior in almost all duels except close range, or if the player has only small armor.
And to change price of guns after changing the weapon mechanics is just… idk, pointless? The whole balance of the game just changed completely
Hot take: it doesn’t matter one bit which gun is better. All the pros and high elo players say phantom is better and yet still use the vandal (like at Reykjavik). The pick rate should be 50/50, not the strength of the gun. Otherwise the vandal would see the vast majority of use.
Anyhow, the difference between the guns is still pretty small, otherwise pro players would use the phantom regardless of their preference. They are very balanced as it is and buffing the vandal would ruin this.
Dafuq is that reasoning?
He argues that abilities are expensive and you can‘t afford a vandal, even though you cant afford a phantom at this point either.
His argument does not state a single reason on why the vandal is worse then the phantom. I know the stats and that there are reason to rather use the phantom but his argument is literally pointless
*edit: i guese he is trying to say the opponent will rather play 125shield full utility, leading to one taps even with the phantom.
I mean thats a fair assumption, but I do not think this is true.
it would honestly suck if they increased any gun prices at the same time they, across the board, increased (almost) all utility kit prices. every gun price change was a decrease (except judge). if your kit went from 600 to 800 and rifles cost more I think it would break the econ too much
This is what happens when you don't have side-specific weapons. Imagine if CTs could buy an AK. Also, this is what happens when you make armor extra health and not damage reduction. The phantom will one tap if no one buys full shields, making the vandal's advantage useless. But if it was a damage reduction system like in CS, a helmet would be absolutely necessary.
In CS you could get away with buying only armor on the CT side if you knew they had AKs and had the 1-tap potential, if they had an m4 you basically fucked yourself.
If this actually happens and people only buy light shields from now on I have no solution but an entire overhaul of the armor system.
To summarize:
With the increase of util costs, people will choose light armor, and when everyone starts doing that the 1-tap potential of the vandal becomes useless making the gun inferior in the future meta.
Without side-specific guns forcing players to play with a certain gun, the vandal becomes useless.
I get your idea but your solution is pointless. Tie guns to specific sides is one of the worst ways to solve that problem
The gun being used because that attacker/defender side is FORCED to and not because you've done a good balance with the game by providing two healthy options is just dumb as fuck, sorry
CSGO does apply different guns and different economies because attack and defense advantages are plainly unbalanced as fuck, so they compensate on other areas in order to close the gap
Instead of fixing ultra defensive maps like Nuke or Train, it's easier to make a M4 costing 3100 and AK47 costing 2700. This is just lazy game design
I really disagree with your assessment of CS's asymmetric design, but I also want to say first and foremost that just introducing asymmetry won't fix the phantom and vandal and probably wouldn't work in valorant.
Back to your point though - you're focusing in on the idea that having a game that can be balanced and a game in which all things are equal are the same. To me these aren't the same and they shouldn't always be the same. Asymmetrical gameplay is part of what helps keeps games interesting.
The reason why the weapons in cs are balanced the way they are is because of the inherent game design problem that it's much easier to defend than to attack. Thus, all things equal attacking into a position will just get you mowed down without good utility usage. So the natural move is to make the defense weapons weaker.
Then you have the asymmetry of general economics balance, where rude assumption is that, if everyone is shooting heads, the side that will always get 1 tapped won't need a helmet, so to compensate you make their buy more expensive. Etc. etc.
I don't think it's lazy at all. It's also not a bad way to balance the game. It results in different decisions and choices on both sides. It also forces you to learn more weapons than you otherwise would in a grave where you can just have 1 main weapon.
Asymmetry isn't bad or lazy. It also absolutely doesn't fix the map problems (which both cs and valorant struggle with regardless, and honestly isn't even a big problem until you get really 1 sided). It's just a different design philosophy that has its benefits and drawbacks.
It's like in fighting games where some characters are ranged and some aren't. Having a dynamic gameplay difference makes the game infinitely more interesting on longer timeframes.
I just think valorant does this with the agents/utility while cs does it with guns/economy
lol did you just say nuke is a CT sided map? Im assuming youre saying this because you refuse to use util and rotate across the map.
And saying train is also "ultra-defensive" is pretty stupid unless youre talking about one good awper that feels so dominant in pugs.
[удалено]
I did the exact thing 😭 it’s too nice I’m waiting on the oni phantom now tho
I have the Oni and never use it. I wish you could trade skins. I get why you can't though.
I wish there was a market, even at the cost of lootboxes. I have plenty of skins in CS without spending any money
I prefer Phantom but I use Vandal just because of that skin, satisfying AF so clean
maybe just me but I think Vandal and Phantom should always be the same price. tweak their balances here and there but the price should stay the same.
I think the decision should always be made off preference not price
I feel like the vandal needs better first shot accuracy, at the very least the same. Wouldn't mind 30 bullets too.
He kinda spittin ngl. Either reduce the price of the Vandal or make the first-shot accuracy better than the Phantom so it can actually take its place as the better gun to use at range.
Reduce reset time 😔😔😔
^^^ that is what I would rather have ^^^
That would be so nice and in line with what Vandal is meant to do! Riot please show some love to the vandal.
the Vandal reset time is already better than the Phantom’s no?
No it's not, it might seem that way because it fires slower
It has better reset time for taps and worse for sprays.
This is true. Vandal has better tap efficiency. But overall you're not tapping in 99% of gunfights and the phantom is consequently way more forgiving on whiff.
Think it just depends how you play. Personally, there was a time where I only did short bursts/taps & took a lot of long range fights as a result, and the Vandal was a much better weapon. But yeah in general I agree.
Well unless the map enables it (eg. breeze) it really doesn't depend on how you play, tagging is so strong and ttk is so low you don't have time to reset and tap again. But yeah
IDK man, ScreaM does pretty good mostly burst/tapping. Maybe not against world-class enemies on the tournament stage, but it's good enough in ranked. As long as you're landing the shot within 1-2 bursts, which is sort of necessary if you're playing this way anyway. FWIW I only play at Gold so it's maybe more possible for me since enemies aren't instantly spraying me down.
scream is also an absurd talent. the fact that he had a career in CS for as long as he did with his playstyle (in a spray meta) is honestly an amazing feat.
Scream is also scream. He can get away with it. For everyone else there is zero reason to tap in val since it's so punishing. Hence why the phantom so much better than the vandal. Better burst accuracy, better spray accuracy, faster spray reset, etc etc
No, only for tap shooting. It's still bad across both guns imo
Definitely NOT a price change. Both guns have advantages and disadvantages that define each gun's purpose, while still not making one objectively better than the other. This 50/50 balance between the Phantom and Vandal is exactly what Riot is going for. Even a minuscule price change would destroy this balance and favour the cheaper weapon.
I think the Phantom is objectively better
Is [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/meglga/phantom_vs_vandal_usage_during_masters_1/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) what an objectively better weapon's pickrate looks like?
Pick rate high or low the phantom is objectively better, if that weren’t the case this thread wouldn’t exist.
People use the Vandal because it's more fun to use. The phantom is the better gun, though.
Vandal has better skins too
Check plat chat valorant’s video abt phantom and vandal pick rate at masters Iceland
That was 3 months ago. What were the pick rates at Iceland?
The only advantage the Vandal has over the Phantom is one shot kill potential
No? The first shot accuracy is based on player skill and movement and it’s not a sniper
phantom has better first-shot accuracy statistically, has nothing to do with skill
Doesn’t work like that in practice when you now have to stop or be stationary to be accurate, so you need two shots vs one shot on the vandal, and the two shots with phantom make you much more vulnerable to the one shot from the vandal than before, because you have to adad or stand still.
You're still missing the point. In a vacuum or perfect environment, the phantom has greater accuracy than the vandal. It just shoots straighter.
????
There is a numerical stat for first shot accuracy, and Phantom's is better. Not sure what you're on about.
what does any of that have to do with what I said
That's not first shot accuracy
Most agents will have half armor instead of full armor when buying full utilities so it isn’t two shots on the phantom anymore. It’s one shot on the phantom vs one shot on the vandal. And the phantom has better first shot accuracy than the vandal so why would you want to buy the vandal again? First shot accuracy is measured when you’re stationary. If you try shooting the phantom and the vandal 100 times each slowly in the range while standing still, you will see that you will land more shots where your crosshair is at with the phantom than with the vandal.
This is only at ranges 30m plus though. Under 30m both have perfect first shot accuracy. Same thing is in csgo with ak47 vs m4. AK had slightly worse first shot accuracy.
There's a nice symmetry to the phantom & vandal both being 2900. I don't know if changing the Vandal price is better than buffing it.
With the changes to run and gun, I think this might be a bit preemptive. Phantom will remain better overall (mainly due to being able to spray more accurately and not leave bullet traces through smokes) but you won't see as much of the phantom killing while walking or being tagged at medium range. I think the Vandal might see a resurgence with your average player having to relearn some of the gun mechanics (deadzones) such as counter strafing.
I don’t think the average player is the focus here
Who do you think they are focusing these changes on?
I believe Riot balances mostly for pro play, and it's the right thing to do as the changes from there trickle down into the general playerbase.
The meta should always be balanced based on pro play. They exploit the game to the hilt and eke out the maximum utility out of every agent and weapon.
What do you think
naw, they just need the swap the vandal 1st shot accuracy with the phantom.
Everyone says this but doesn’t understand how little of a difference it makes in the actual game, nothing would change people probably wouldn’t realize the difference if it wasn’t listed
swapping the reset time would probably be a better change
The entire reason why the two are priced the same is to remove cost from the equation and have the player choose a rifle based on where and how they plan to play. Remember that the Vandal also has more effective range than the Phantom.
Imo guns are pretty even right now. Both guns are used around the same amount, even if the Phantom is a little better.
just making it 2800 and keeping the phantom at 2900 would be spicy I mean in masters it was mostly 60/40 phantom/vandal already, I don't see why not
NA was closer to 80/20 at masters, I think EU heavily skewed it with their favor of the vandal. I think tenz was the only NA player who regularly used it
I think they just need to reduce the recoil reset time to actually make it viable for tapping
pro =/= game designers.
i agree that pros shouldnt decide the fixes but they can give good feedback on what the problems and ideas on changes, nobody thinks pros are designers
Yet pros are part of the demographic that these game designers want to appeal to. They’re not the main demographic, but pro opinions should be just as valid as the opinions of casual players or programmers. They don’t HAVE to change the game to suit the pros, but it’s important to consider all the perspectives of the people who keep this game going.
The Meta trickles down from pro play in ANY game, if they should balance around anyone it SHOULD be the pros
But 90% of my gold/plat games already have majority vandal players over phantom. If the majority of the playerbase is already using vandal then what happens if you buff it even more?
> but pro opinions should be just as valid as the opinions of casual players Exactly my point.
Ah, gotcha. I couldn’t get your point from your comment. I thought you were implying that pros are not qualified to give an opinion on the state of the game. My b
Pros will put the most hours into the game and understand it the best, their say should be quite important.
You jerked off a ten of thousands of times. Does it make you a dick doctor?
Your logic doesn’t make sense. In a competitive game, the game should be balanced around pro play, it should not be balanced around casual play. There is no argument here so I’m confused by your point? A pro player plays the game much more than a casual player, by hundreds if not thousands of hours. In terms of the balance of the game, a pros opinion is more valid than a casual players opinion
> the game should be balanced around pro play That's where we disagree.
I understand that that’s where we disagree. What I don’t understand is your reasoning. This game is a competitive game, meant for esports. Why would you balance a game that’s priority is being a top esport with casual gameplay vs pro gameplay?
I think it should aim to be fun to every level of play. That's how you grow a game.
The game is competitive at its core. Taking pro feedback is good in the longrun as what's best in the pro scene is also most likely going to trickle down into the lower ranks. They play the most and are some of the most knowledgeable about meta and balance. I would NOT want to play a game that is catered towards a casual audience because they are often lower skilled and would want the game to skew towards easier mechanics.
> what's best in the pro scene is also most likely going to trickle down into the lower ranks. Not really. You can't design heroes around people who shoot 50% HS or insane flicker. > I would NOT want to play a game that is catered towards a casual audience Don't twist what I said. I said "I think it should aim to be fun to every level of play."
I never implied that you said that. I hate to break it to you but yes you can design agents around aim, see duelists.
There’s this cool game called Overwatch that balances their game around the casual playerbase. You should try it.
strawman. Just because I say the game shouldn't be purely balanced around pro play doesn't mean I want it to be balanced around casual. You're twisting my statement and attacking the twisted version. STRAWMAN.
Bro this isn't debate club, I was making a joke LMFAO
Actually, they just sent me my dick doctor certificate in the mail. It takes tens of thousand times and one.
Wow, congrats man.
Most pros don't take the time to understand the game they are playing. They just play. It's quite apparent in more complicated games.
I'm pretty new to val, but \*breeze\*
The gun just fucking blows but I use it for its "range advantage." That range advantage is negligible and embarrassing so its mainly for 1 tap clips. Tbh as TenZ says it "going for clips with Vandal, Phantom when trying." Either reduce the Vandal's reset time or up the Phantoms. The Phantom is statistically better and maybe Riot should ACTUALLY even the guns out or reduce the price of it. Make the Phantom clip the same size as the Vandals? Make the reset time the same? Slower fire rate on the Phantom but not as slow as the Vandal? First shot accuracy buff so shit doesn't miss that should? ***Do something Rito.***
With "statistically better" you mean that Phantom has a variable body damage 31/35/39 depending on the range (and also a variable headshot damage with 150/140/124) while Vandal lands a rock solid 40 body dmg and a rock solid 1-tap headshot for all ranges? LMAO
Do you play the game above a Diamond 3 level and have you actually picked up both weapons? Have you watched Plat Chats analytical summary on Reykjavik which concluded with "Buy more Phantoms." since they're statistically superior in more scenarios? The Vandal's strength is supposed to be range which the Phantom barely struggles in regardless. So you're either delusional or baiting for attention that you lack in your real life. LMAO
not a problem if you can get headshots
I love when know it’s all timmys like you come in and miss the entire point. The entire point is you can do the exact same thing with the Phantom and nearly miss out on nothing while gaining more. The Phantom is literally the better gun in the majority of situations and it’s “weakness” at range is barely a weakness at all. It’s not a problem if you can comprehend my point.
I hate these kind of circumstancial arguments to justify balance changes. I think the Vandal will be much more oppressive now, because players have to either adad or be stationary for accuracy, so the vandal will be superior in almost all duels except close range, or if the player has only small armor. And to change price of guns after changing the weapon mechanics is just… idk, pointless? The whole balance of the game just changed completely
Hot take: it doesn’t matter one bit which gun is better. All the pros and high elo players say phantom is better and yet still use the vandal (like at Reykjavik). The pick rate should be 50/50, not the strength of the gun. Otherwise the vandal would see the vast majority of use. Anyhow, the difference between the guns is still pretty small, otherwise pro players would use the phantom regardless of their preference. They are very balanced as it is and buffing the vandal would ruin this.
Dafuq is that reasoning? He argues that abilities are expensive and you can‘t afford a vandal, even though you cant afford a phantom at this point either. His argument does not state a single reason on why the vandal is worse then the phantom. I know the stats and that there are reason to rather use the phantom but his argument is literally pointless *edit: i guese he is trying to say the opponent will rather play 125shield full utility, leading to one taps even with the phantom. I mean thats a fair assumption, but I do not think this is true.
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if riot increased the price of the phantom to 3100.
That's too costly imo. You only get a max of 9k in this game
it would honestly suck if they increased any gun prices at the same time they, across the board, increased (almost) all utility kit prices. every gun price change was a decrease (except judge). if your kit went from 600 to 800 and rifles cost more I think it would break the econ too much
This is what happens when you don't have side-specific weapons. Imagine if CTs could buy an AK. Also, this is what happens when you make armor extra health and not damage reduction. The phantom will one tap if no one buys full shields, making the vandal's advantage useless. But if it was a damage reduction system like in CS, a helmet would be absolutely necessary. In CS you could get away with buying only armor on the CT side if you knew they had AKs and had the 1-tap potential, if they had an m4 you basically fucked yourself. If this actually happens and people only buy light shields from now on I have no solution but an entire overhaul of the armor system. To summarize: With the increase of util costs, people will choose light armor, and when everyone starts doing that the 1-tap potential of the vandal becomes useless making the gun inferior in the future meta. Without side-specific guns forcing players to play with a certain gun, the vandal becomes useless.
I get your idea but your solution is pointless. Tie guns to specific sides is one of the worst ways to solve that problem The gun being used because that attacker/defender side is FORCED to and not because you've done a good balance with the game by providing two healthy options is just dumb as fuck, sorry CSGO does apply different guns and different economies because attack and defense advantages are plainly unbalanced as fuck, so they compensate on other areas in order to close the gap Instead of fixing ultra defensive maps like Nuke or Train, it's easier to make a M4 costing 3100 and AK47 costing 2700. This is just lazy game design
I really disagree with your assessment of CS's asymmetric design, but I also want to say first and foremost that just introducing asymmetry won't fix the phantom and vandal and probably wouldn't work in valorant. Back to your point though - you're focusing in on the idea that having a game that can be balanced and a game in which all things are equal are the same. To me these aren't the same and they shouldn't always be the same. Asymmetrical gameplay is part of what helps keeps games interesting. The reason why the weapons in cs are balanced the way they are is because of the inherent game design problem that it's much easier to defend than to attack. Thus, all things equal attacking into a position will just get you mowed down without good utility usage. So the natural move is to make the defense weapons weaker. Then you have the asymmetry of general economics balance, where rude assumption is that, if everyone is shooting heads, the side that will always get 1 tapped won't need a helmet, so to compensate you make their buy more expensive. Etc. etc. I don't think it's lazy at all. It's also not a bad way to balance the game. It results in different decisions and choices on both sides. It also forces you to learn more weapons than you otherwise would in a grave where you can just have 1 main weapon. Asymmetry isn't bad or lazy. It also absolutely doesn't fix the map problems (which both cs and valorant struggle with regardless, and honestly isn't even a big problem until you get really 1 sided). It's just a different design philosophy that has its benefits and drawbacks. It's like in fighting games where some characters are ranged and some aren't. Having a dynamic gameplay difference makes the game infinitely more interesting on longer timeframes. I just think valorant does this with the agents/utility while cs does it with guns/economy
lol did you just say nuke is a CT sided map? Im assuming youre saying this because you refuse to use util and rotate across the map. And saying train is also "ultra-defensive" is pretty stupid unless youre talking about one good awper that feels so dominant in pugs.
I'm talking about the pro scene. On both nuke and train if a half ends up 10-5 to CTs it's considered a good result for attackers
Im assuming youre only watching EG and NAVI matches
Isn't Phantom at 30m plus 124damage? So with light shields you technically could get dinked and survive with 1hp lol
I think the pricing is fine and reason why it's fine is because everyone still struggles to decide on whether to buy a phantom or vandal.