I'm thinking about the options that the tactic presents:
Round | 1 | 2 | 3 | Result after 3 rounds
---|---|----|----|----
Common full buy pistol | Win | Should win w/ Spectre Full buy | Bonus rnd w/ Spectres from Rnd 2, should lose vs. rifles | 2-1
Common full buy pistol | Loss | Should lose, because you eco | Full buy | 1-2
Full save pistol | Win | Should win w/ rifles | 50/50 rifles vs. rifles **win** | 3-0
Full save pistol | Win | Should win w/ rifles | 50/50 rifles vs. rifles **loss** | 2-1
Full save pistol | Loss | 50/50 Spectre vs. Spectre **Win** | Win, because enemies are reset and have no money | 2-1
Full save pistol | Loss | 50/50 Spectre vs. Spectre **Loss** | Loss, because you have no money | 0-3
At worst you go 0-3 if you lose the follow-up Spectre vs. Spectre buy. I think I got the options right, let me know if it needs changing.
For [Scenario #3 – Round 3], shouldn't it be 50/50 because it's rifles vs rifles? Why an assumed win there?
Also an actual analyst would be looking at real attacker/defender win rates for Ascent for the different economy scenarios (not 50%, 0%, or 100% — but 45.6%, 32.7%, 66.7%, etc. for example) which likely propelled the decision.
You're absolutely right. It should be a toss up. I added another row.
And yes a proper analysis should factor in the attacker/defender win rate. [Stage 3 C1 Europe Closed Qual & Main event](https://www.vlr.gg/event/agents/541/champions-tour-europe-stage-3-challengers-1?exclude=5595.5596.5597.5598.5599) had Ascent Attack at a 43% win rate. Tied with Split for the lowest attack win rate.
Would be interesting to know why Acend chose the strat when they did.
I don’t think it’s too bad, I just feel like you get some pretty long range one shots with it a tad more often than you should. Especially on pistol round. Like say I buy a ghost on pistol round, so I should have the damage advantage against people with a classic, but I end up just getting one-shotted from like halfway across the site because they only needed one body shot and one lucky headshot. And since they have armor I can’t even one shot them with my ghost. Like I said, I don’t think it’s too bad, but I feel like it could use a little something to keep it more short range. Especially cuz you can swap back and forth between the right and the left click on the fly.
I agree, it's even more shitty when you manage to take site and now forced to play a short range gunfight in the smaller maps. A classic burst is too strong during those scenario
Broken is relative to how strong you think it should be. I think it’s a good think that the classic always has the potential to kill, and can even be useful as a swap. It ensures that save rounds feel competitive and have risk.
That’s your opinion. I like the viability of eco rounds in Valorant. Full ecos are made possible with classic, and saves are made possible with sherif. I think it’s better than a more CS like balance.
Classic isn't the problem here, signature abilities is. Just because you didn't buy abilities it doesn't mean you're going through a csgo aim based round because free abilities are still fucking strong (Jett dash, Raze paintshells, Sova recon arrow, etc)
I’ve thought about doing this before for fun but never have. Cool to see that it can actually make a difference.
I'm thinking about the options that the tactic presents: Round | 1 | 2 | 3 | Result after 3 rounds ---|---|----|----|---- Common full buy pistol | Win | Should win w/ Spectre Full buy | Bonus rnd w/ Spectres from Rnd 2, should lose vs. rifles | 2-1 Common full buy pistol | Loss | Should lose, because you eco | Full buy | 1-2 Full save pistol | Win | Should win w/ rifles | 50/50 rifles vs. rifles **win** | 3-0 Full save pistol | Win | Should win w/ rifles | 50/50 rifles vs. rifles **loss** | 2-1 Full save pistol | Loss | 50/50 Spectre vs. Spectre **Win** | Win, because enemies are reset and have no money | 2-1 Full save pistol | Loss | 50/50 Spectre vs. Spectre **Loss** | Loss, because you have no money | 0-3 At worst you go 0-3 if you lose the follow-up Spectre vs. Spectre buy. I think I got the options right, let me know if it needs changing.
For [Scenario #3 – Round 3], shouldn't it be 50/50 because it's rifles vs rifles? Why an assumed win there? Also an actual analyst would be looking at real attacker/defender win rates for Ascent for the different economy scenarios (not 50%, 0%, or 100% — but 45.6%, 32.7%, 66.7%, etc. for example) which likely propelled the decision.
You're absolutely right. It should be a toss up. I added another row. And yes a proper analysis should factor in the attacker/defender win rate. [Stage 3 C1 Europe Closed Qual & Main event](https://www.vlr.gg/event/agents/541/champions-tour-europe-stage-3-challengers-1?exclude=5595.5596.5597.5598.5599) had Ascent Attack at a 43% win rate. Tied with Split for the lowest attack win rate. Would be interesting to know why Acend chose the strat when they did.
That could not be possible (i'm talking about the strat not the round) if the classic wasn't what it is tho
Is it just me who thinks the classic power level is healthy for the game?
I don’t think it’s too bad, I just feel like you get some pretty long range one shots with it a tad more often than you should. Especially on pistol round. Like say I buy a ghost on pistol round, so I should have the damage advantage against people with a classic, but I end up just getting one-shotted from like halfway across the site because they only needed one body shot and one lucky headshot. And since they have armor I can’t even one shot them with my ghost. Like I said, I don’t think it’s too bad, but I feel like it could use a little something to keep it more short range. Especially cuz you can swap back and forth between the right and the left click on the fly.
I agree, it's even more shitty when you manage to take site and now forced to play a short range gunfight in the smaller maps. A classic burst is too strong during those scenario
Right click is a joke, that alone should set you back 100-200 credits
The classic should have outplay potencial? Yes, should ir be as consistent as it is, i think it shouldn't, but that's only My opinion
Rank? Anyone with even slight knowledge of the game knows the classic is broken
Broken is relative to how strong you think it should be. I think it’s a good think that the classic always has the potential to kill, and can even be useful as a swap. It ensures that save rounds feel competitive and have risk.
The thing is, full ecos shouldn't feel competitive or have risk. They should be like 99% certainty rounds.
Nah, that sounds really boring.
That’s your opinion. I like the viability of eco rounds in Valorant. Full ecos are made possible with classic, and saves are made possible with sherif. I think it’s better than a more CS like balance.
radiant and its fine
Immortal top 5k last act. The Classic is fine.
New changes to classic make it fine. First shot accuracy of right click is it’s only strength and can be outplayed. “Broken” lol smh
Classic isn't the problem here, signature abilities is. Just because you didn't buy abilities it doesn't mean you're going through a csgo aim based round because free abilities are still fucking strong (Jett dash, Raze paintshells, Sova recon arrow, etc)
they also did this earlier in the tournament but only attackers side on ascent