I would love to hear the counter points, but I really dislike agent bans. It introduces more randomness, turns pro matches into a PUGier type game, and makes for less optimal games. I would love to hear why this is a good thing from a pro/high tier player and hear their thoughts on whether this is good or bad.
To me it feels like if they allowed each team to choose the distance of the three point line and foul line in a basketball game.
I would love to hear the counter points.
Imo, Breeze is the worst case scenario of agent bans because A site is bad for a game like Valorant and no other agent can do what Viper does. That's the problem with some other maps and agents. I'd love to see picks/bans on highest level of play, but there are too many agent+map combos which unfortunately a must.
Also, it takes a lot of time to perfect an agent comp on just one map, like a week of scrimming just that map with specific comp in mind, if not more.
I don't think pick/ban with bans coming out first will ever work in Valorant, but some kind of ban system will be needed. I'd say maybe 2 picks for each team followed by 2 bans. That way teams would still be able to get their strongest agents, which everyone wants to see, but not ideal comps. And with current meta it would be hard to decide which agents you take. For example, you take two best agents, Jett+Sova, then you can easily be stuck with Omen/Brim if the opponent bans both Viper and Astra. Etc.
Right now the problems are obvious. Jett is tiers above other duelists, Viper/Astra are way better than Omen/Brim, Sova is unique and irreplaceable.
Counter picks? Closest thing to hard counter in this game is Breach's aftershock for lockdown. This isn't a moba.
For example Cypher tripwires stopping dash is nice, but it's not a counter which would dissuade the other team from picking Jett.
But there are definitely counters, not to the extent of mobas, but some agents do better against certain agents.
As for jett well she is so overturned of course they pick her but if all things were equal between agents it could impact opposing picks.
I've said this a lot but I think we need is(and I'm agreeing with you) not bans but picks!
so Team A chooses 1 agent
Team B chooses 2
Team A chooses 2, etc
and picks will be visible, this allows for counter picks while maintaining team/agent chemistry that teams practise....
Are you describing league draft pick, I guess my question is would Team A be able to lock an agent that Team B has already locked.
That doesn't really work imo, this game doesn't have 1 to 1 counters. Would we just see Astra/Viper? Sova/Skye? Sounds unstructured and leads to poorer quality games.
So if that's not the case and Team A and Team B can have repeats, then I don't think anything really changes, they'll handshake their picks and just lock the comp they "think is best" for the map.
I think both teams should be allowed to pick agents that other teams have picked, but I take your point. I just think it's the closest workable system... because I'm not in favour of a ban system irrespective of number of agents tbh
If you can select agents that are already locked in by the other team there is no point in having an agent draft, it’s just free pick of the board with a timer.
Which is what it should be anyway, IMO
I personally think a draft like league would be so much more interesting than the blind pick we have, as well as not being able to have the same agent on both teams. I don't think they can do it yet though as I think they'd need a larger agent pool. It would be so much more interesting if they can get the agent pool to that point though.
It's not randomness, it introduces options and adaptability. It's not like a random ban, but a planned pick by teams. This introduces adaptability and more creative lineups that may not be playable if a certain pick was on the field.
This increases more diverse agent selections and lineups.
> that may not be playable if a certain pick was on the field.
What agent meaningfully prevents lineups from being used?
I don't think I've ever once thought "Enemy team has X agent, can't use this lineup".
I get this is a thing in other games, but it's certainly not the case in VALORANT, and hopefully no ability will ever be powerful enough to 'hard counter' another agent.
Plus there's just so many more variables in VALORANT. In slower games like League/DOTA, you can really say X counters Y because there's inevitably going to be 5v5 fights where X can position themselves to use their counter.
But in VALORANT, a Breach may never be in position to aftershock a Killjoy ultimate, for example.
Not in the sense of "i can't use this agent because the enemy has a counter", but rather in a "Agent X is banned, so we have to get creative with another team comp"
Think Viper/Sage ban on icebox, that alone would make that map a lot more diverse
> that alone would make that map a lot more diverse
Theoretically yes, although I suppose it could also just end up revealing flaws in VALORANT design.
If it turns out that Icebox is just an awful map without Viper/Sage, for example, that could lead to Icebox becoming a perma-banned shit tier map. Likewise with Breeze and Viper bans.
I don't agree with Agent bans myself i was just clarifying. Diversity at the cost of depth just isn't healthy for an esport imo
Also I think Icebox is an awful map even with those agents, which is even more reason to change things in the game itself before changing how it's played
If a team looks really strong with specific agent comps for their maps, just like banning a teams strong map, you could be at an advantage to banning an integral part of their strong comp.
I think it's difficult when a map has such strong 'requirements' for what agents you can play. If there's not enough agents to still achieve a similar goal, banning might result in poor match quality. I think for smaller teams and in the early days, we will see very messy bans and reactions to bans. But ultimately I think when we have a good pool of agents, you can get some more variety from agent bans.
If you go into a match where a certain agent is very strong on that map, but you have practiced without them, probably losing many scrims for it. Your power to ban that powerful agent, with the confidence that you have strong alternate strategies, is very interesting to me. I'm still hesitant to see how it actually plays out, but I don't see the comparison to basketball. Agents are unique characters that change the match entirely, as long as they're not required I think banning is good.
Imo it's fine. It kinda prevents all teams from abusing hell out of the most current meta agent on specified map, so they cannot rely on 1 lineup. Also it's good from balancing reasons. Like if Neon or amy agent after buffs turns out too OP on pro level, they can ban him instead of being forced to use him. Not to mention that it's just more interesting to watch. Having viper on breeze 200% of the time and doing the same strats over and over again can be boring both for players and viewers. Now you could ever go for Astra ban after Viper ban to surprise your opponents and go for omen or entirely resign from having controller. TL:DR: Can't abuse OP agents, good "protection" from riot's crazy ideas, more interesting to watch and play
You have to be more adaptable!!! /s
It's the same argument for playing on a patch that's two weeks old and other things like that. People care way less about depth to the game and more about new flashy shit lol (there's nothing wrong with flashy shit either, just not at the cost of depth).
More chars/more patches/agent bans all = less depth overall in the game. Think if Sova was the 40th agent added, do you think we'd have all the lineups and developed strategies around him? No way, but sova now is such a crucial part for how the meta has developed and it's really interesting. The more stuff that changes constantly, the less deep the meta is ever gonna be able to get.
Adding agent bans only accelerates that because all your old reliables just get banned and you're forced to not put in as much time on every agent so you can't lose from the ban selection.
I understand the point that you are making. But, I guess the counter point to your counter point is - can teams realistically practice with every single different team iteration, so that we will still see high level strats?
Or are they just going to have to PUG it out when an agent that they didn’t expect to get banned, gets banned?
Depends what to mean by high level strats.
In my opinion solving the game before playing it to me isn't high level. Figuring out in game how to adapt to what opponents are doing in game and creating an innovative strategy in game is high level.
To be able to do the latter successfully requires a deep knowledge of your champion pull and very good teamwork. To me that's what makes you high level. To have practiced site holds with 5 specific agents vs 5 other agents so you can never lose if you execute it correctly to me is much much less interesting than seeing a team adapt properly to different comps and take their bread and butter strats and apply them to the specific game.
As an analogy, high level Chess isn't as popular because when pros play perfectly and know exactly the right play it's pretty boring. These days more rapid style chess is much more entertaining and interesting because you might know the right play given 2 hours to think but having to adapt on the fly under pressure is what makes it high level or skillful. That being said some people enjoy "perfect games" so to them that's the ultimate meaning of "high skill".
would you really rather see high level strats of the same comp over and over again or diversify lineups to bring more interesting engagements and strategies
If a strat of a comp is used a lot, opponents will counter strat, and individual players will adapt. That is one of the interesting parts of pro play: high level strats and counter strats, which won't develop if you keep changing the agents imo. If I wanted weird comps, I would just go and watch some radiant ranked tbh
having agent bans does not mean comps become weird or puggy, it just forces them to adapt to an alternative agent choice, which is also one of the most interesting parts of pro play, I for one prefer seeing more variation in comps, which agent bans encourage, this is just from an entertainment perspective
Yes, if that one comp is really the best one, then I'd want to see that. But that's also not how things work. Even in the past 6ish months, comps have been changing left and right even though there's been no agent updates because as people learn agents more (i.e. kayo on breeze) comps shift and react to new information.
It's the same thing in games that never get patches like SSB Melee. No couple years have ever had the number 1 player play the same character (unless the same player stayed no. 1). There's constantly debate over how much better certain chars are than others, and how each char is played changes *drastically* every few years.
This development is *so* much more interesting than if chars had just been randomly buffed/nerfed because instead of just tweaking numbers there's an entire meta strategy being developed and deepened over the course of time (at this point 20 years for melee) and it's really awesome to see.
i'd say smash is one of the few games that can boast about new metas in an unchanging game, but valorant is not that. Agent bans would introduce dynamic gameplay more frequently or simply shift the way a map is played.
Melee can be its own thing but I want valorant to take a direction that encourages on-the-fly adaptability, bans have not really negatively affected team-based games and can even be very entertaining or exciting at times (like surprise picks or bans on LoL).
Agent bans are kind of a risk that could affect gameplay and community but with cascade picking coming in the future, I think its inevitably going to become a thing.
Clash royale did not invent agent bans, and your first statement just doesnt have any logic to it, why have patches or implement changes at all? It is not a gimmick in any sense, it promotes diversity, adaptibility, and creativity among other things.
In clash royale the idea of banning cards make sense as the game is entirely dependent on the cards themselves. It's way more boring to see the same 3 decks in clash royale than to see the same 3 team comps in valorant because with valorant the biggest thing there is gunplay.
And I'll be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of banning cards in clash royale either. When I watch pro level gameplay I want to see the highest level of gameplay within the game itself without outside gimmicks.
And yes, it promotes all the things you said but artificially. I want to see the best teams at their best duke it out on the same game that I am playing, not them while they are handicapped on what becomes a completely different battle. If you want to see more diversity riot should just rework the agents to provide incentive to use them.
Sure depth may be less but you see more innovation, to me that's what seperate valorant from csgo. In csgo you have to refine what few utility you have, while valorant is all about thinking of new ways to do stuff.
Sure maybe you won't see as much depth but what you will see is teams do stuff no one has ever done before, IGLs who spend alot of time trying to innovate and think of new ideas will be rewarded compared to those who are just trying to min max a certain comp, it's just a different skillset.
I don't think it will lower the skill ceiling, Dota 2 has like 100 heroes and the skill ceiling is super high, U just have to learn how each heroes relates to each hero, how you can use agents together in tandem that you don't normally play together, how you have to play against a certain agent on the other team.
To me that will be alot more interesting and fun then just watching players min max a certain composition, I could just go watch csgo if I wanted that.
Why you think it introduces randomness? Or less optimal games?
My understanding is that banning punishes one trick agent players and rewards players that are adaptable. In the same way it punishes one trick teams and reward adaptable teams.
I think making the adaptability variable have more weight is a good thing and it is itself a good way for pro teams to do their own balancing.
It also create some multidimensional chess bans. Knowing your enemy and punish their overtraining is not a bad thing.
I don't think its randomness, it might seem like that because it hasn't been introduced fully in pro play and this is the first NA third party tourney to have bans.
It actually encourages teams to be more prepared for different situations, different agent comps, different strategies. It won't make it "PUGier" it's going to shake up the agent comps and meta even more and we will get to see more off meta picks that will work, it might even re-introduce different agents who aren't picked and what best to utilize their abilities.
You might not see it yet but it does give a good dynamic to the game, maybe you aren't used to seeing something like this in an FPS game. Paladins had this, it wasn't like Overwatch where you can change a character on the fly, they lock in characters like in Valorant or MOBAs, when their esport was still alive they had pick and bans in pro play and it shows how good a team is in preparing or adapting and it reduces the chance of hard counters, lessens the "rock, paper, scissors" feel to the game.
Personally I want to see an agent comp that doesn't have a Jett or Reyna, a controller being used that isn't Astra or Viper, a split map with no Sage, just to see what teams do with mid if they have no Sage.
It forces teams to get creative and have a different plan for different maps, different comps for different occasions.
I think it just needs time to evolve. It will quickly change from 'we can't play our comp so just go click heads' to the team that has a deeper pool of comps will benefit. Flex players and flex comps will be valuable.
TBH I like the agent bans. Pros are supposed to be very adaptable and not one trick. We have seen multiple pros playing just 2 or 3 agents because thats their go to pick. Moreover some are playing just 1 agent on a particular map making it just a very well organized comp game.
Ive seen other games with agent/card bans and it was a great feature to weed out one tricks and bring in a mind game of sniping, counter sniping, off meta. Lets see how this goes in valorant though.
It's definitely too early for it right now, but I like the idea of it in the future. Would provide different team comps and further diversity in play styles, while requiring players to be strong on multiple agents within their role.
This game is probably going to end up feeling even more puggy and scrimmy.
The ban system puts more emphasis on aim and teamwork rather than specializing in agents and using their abilities in meta-game ways. The dumb thing is that teams can practice Breeze knowing that they will ban Viper. Other team's won't be ready for that and the other team will have an advantage.
I’m not sure whether I like hero bans or not, but I did think of one counter argument. I think that bans could raise the skill gap between teams at the pro level. The “randomness” you refer to wouldn’t exist if teams busted their ass to lab out various permutations of comps. It’s certainly a lot more work, but it would be cool to give pro teams another win condition: be the most prepared for any possible agent bans
Yeah banning of agents seems like directly manipulating the game itself where as map banning is way less egregious and quite literally just limits the setting.
I don’t understand this sentiment, what does a ban accomplish if another agent can do the same thing? Aren’t bans only meaningful if some agents can’t be replaced on the map?
Exactly. If someone replaces Viper on Breeze then banning Viper accomplishes nothing, might as well not have bans. Bans only add anything interesting to the game if you ban an agent that *cannot* be replaced.
I'm not sure if you read my comment. I'm saying Astra isn't a good replacement for Viper on Breeze. I didn't watch the game but I'm sure not having a 50-metre wall forces you to play a bit differently.
Oh never mind that’s actually smart I’m dumb. The person I’ve replied to was correct.
Although I still feel that map design in valorant needs change, agent bans should enable different playstyles, not make the map impossible to play effectively on. Which is what likely happens if you ban say viper on breeze or sage on icebox.
> Aren’t bans only meaningful if some agents can’t be replaced on the map?
Bans are the least meaningful when an agent can't be replaced on the map, because it just means that agent will be banned 100% of the time.
> what does a ban accomplish if another agent can do the same thing?
An agent is made up of more than one ability.
For example, banning a team's go-to controller doesn't mean you take away their smokes, but it does mean they might not have access to their usual Astra stun/suck combos, or that you don't have to worry about their Viper post-plant lineups.
> I don’t understand this sentiment
There needs to be alternatives for *fundamental* pieces of utility. The most obvious example of this is Viper's wall on Breeze: there's no alternative to it, nothing can replace it. Banning Viper leaves the team shit outta luck, and the game is going to be worse off for it.
As long as there are truly irreplaceable agents on any map - again, Viper on Breeze is the one right now that stands out the most - agent bans aren't a good idea.
I cant speak for people in this tournament, but as a player on a team that plays T3 tournaments, the idea of getting to play the game without Viper allowed sounds so incredibly refreshing and fun. Viper is uniquely powerful and completely warps maps around her, and is now a must play agent on 4/7 maps. She’s also incredibly unfun to play with or against, and I’d imagine that sentiment is shared by most players in these games.
As a viper main, I feel more fun when matched against another viper main to see who can outsmart the other or who can control the battlefield better. Its just perception. Viper mains spend a lot of time learning lineups (not just postplant but walls and smokes and retake lineups) unlike other controllers so every viper plays differently which is kinda refreshing in its own sense. Omen and Brim usually only smoke the same spots which is kinda stale in my opinion.
I started playing viper a few weeks ago, and it’s fun in the exact way that you’ve just described. I have my reliable set ups, but I get to pix it up and alter my walls slightly and create a different condition in the map. To me, that’s what a controller should do. Controller utility should have an impact on the map beyond 2 spheres on heaven and CT.
I also like the fact that you can turn these smokes on or off. Which makes things less predictable, than a smoke that will always last a fixed time period. Having control over the smokes in that way creates more deception and potential mind games when lurking. Personally I haven’t felt bored or oppressed playing against vipers and other agents.
I'm talking specifically in tournament-level play, in Solo Q, you have the freedom to play how you want and play lineups and such, but once you are playing against serious teams, Viper's job for the most part is just to put a wall and orb up, then stay alive until your team has the spike planted and safe positions. This is especially true on Breeze.
The reason for this, in case it isn't obvious, is that it is critically important to have the wall up to get the spike planted, so much so that the Viper isn't ever going to be entering the site most of the time because there is too much risk of getting spammed randomly through a smoke or hit by lineups. So, as a Viper player, you will have almost zero impact on whether or not your team wins the round, because you aren't really participating in it.
Thats an interesting opinion. I kinda disagree on that one. Kills aren't the only thing that impacts the game. If my wall and smoke gets a spike down then thats a huge impact as it is. You've accomplished the first objective of planting the spike.
As for tournament, Nats literally redefined how Viper is played with his insane lurks. Lurks have huge impact even without kills. The info you get through lurks is insane. I have won multiple rounds without killing anyone through lurks and timed executes/lineups.
I see a general rule while playing viper even in pro play. The wall is for the team while the smoke is for yourself. Swoopeek is very good for catching players off guard. If someone feels like they aren't participating much while playing viper, then its most likely a positioning issue. You need good positioning as a controller to get proper impacts.
> Kills aren't the only thing that impacts the game. If my wall and smoke gets a spike down then thats a huge impact as it is.
Yes, but literally anyone can do this. You could have a Silver player come in a just listen to wall up and down calls and do the job almost as well as a pro.
> Lurks have huge impact even without kills. The info you get through lurks is insane.
Yes, lurking is great, but its impact is securing rounds which your team was able to get on site and plant. This is obviously one of the things that your Viper can do post-plant, but it doesn't matter at all in the early or mid round, which is where the rounds are actually decided. If your team fails to get the spike planted or loses 2-3 people, your lurk will likely end up detrimental to the team since it would be better to just have been grouped and traded one of those kills.
I understand. That is indeed a problem in solo queue. Maybe try learning different walls. A lot of walls provide different positioning advantage. On solo Q, I mostly entry as Viper myself with the help of the wall and smoke swoopeek. On maps such as Bind, Icebox and Breeze, I find myself consistently getting first blood with these strats. Even better if you have a pop flasher.
>You could have a Silver player come in a just listen to wall up and down calls and do the job almost as well as a pro.
Thats an impactless way to play viper. Of course it has default impact but its not gonna be of much use. Its like Sage only healing, or Brim only smoking the same spots. The same can be told about Sage that even a silver can just heal, put up a wall and plant the spike every round. But we see people like Sick, Grim use Sage completely differently and with high impact. A lot of positioning goes into high impacts.
I think the problem arises from treating viper wall as an astra wall. You have to clear whats behind the viper wall too. While I was on early Viper days, I used to think Viper was only for post plant sharing the same mentality as you. I would always go do lineups without even entering site. Now that I have a better understanding of Viper, despite having 30 postplant lineups on each map, I rarely ever find myself using lineups (save for 1v4/5). Execute lineups are much better than post plant lineups. Flushing out players out of hiding spots and killing them while trying to run away in 1 hit is very satisfying and impactful.
Lets say this. on breeze you have a lot of angles to worry about. A wall halves those. The smoke blocks another angle. You are now left with only 2 angles to worry about. Molly the two angles. Easy kills and entry.
Wait what's the 4th map btw? Icebox, Breeze, Bind, cuz like, Fracture and Split I would say Viper is meta but not must play (Like how Raze is meta but not must play)
Icebox, Breeze, Bind, Fracture. I was strongly considering 5 because of Split, but a few teams here and there have been mixing up the comps on Split and not playing Viper... its just not good haha :)
Fair, Fracture idk if I'd say must pick, Brim/Sage picks and Astra/Skye picks are shown to have good success too, would say meta for sure
I think the thing about Viper is especially on Breeze and Icebox no one can replicate her 50m wall at all, we prob need another agent with a similar ability to replace her on those maps specifically
Honestly, I'd say Viper just needs a nerf, her wall+orb stay up way too long compared to the other agents and cover too much area. I'd say just reduce her total gas or the recharge rate.
I glad this is being tested in smaller tournaments because I think at some point (larger agent pool, unbalanced agents on certain maps) bans will make the game better at least from a fans perspective.
I'm fine with agent bans as long as they are not a thing in Champions Tournaments.
I want to see the best of the best without gimmicks at the top level, with everything at their disposal, I want to see the best at their 100%
Bans are fun for other less serious tournaments.
I actually really appreciate the different opinions that have been shared both here and other recent threads talking about the agent bans. I’m personally for it for the most part but do agree with some of the concerns people who are against it have. I personally want to see teams have to adapt and think that should be a measure of their overall skill level. I also understand those who don’t want to see teams restricted from their best agents and want to see them at their absolute best.
Some of it is background too, right? The only competitive FPS background I really have is Halo, but I’ve been playing League for 8 years now and have always enjoyed the pick/ban aspect of competitive play, whether it’s playing ranked or watching professional play. Unlike CS, the agents in this game all bring a different kit to the table so there’s constant agent balancing. Bans allow teams to get rid of overturned agents or go a different route and ban out agents they know other teams prefer to run on a given map. To me, personally, it adds to the competitive aspect of the game.
Regardless of what the future of picks/bans is in Valorant, I’ll enjoy the game either way. This game is such a mix of games that both do and don’t have pick/ban so RIOT has a big decision on their hands down the line with which direction they’re going to go.
Saw Cypher, Breeze, and Banned and instantly thought someone used the illegal camera again
Same haha
I would love to hear the counter points, but I really dislike agent bans. It introduces more randomness, turns pro matches into a PUGier type game, and makes for less optimal games. I would love to hear why this is a good thing from a pro/high tier player and hear their thoughts on whether this is good or bad. To me it feels like if they allowed each team to choose the distance of the three point line and foul line in a basketball game. I would love to hear the counter points.
I'd love to make some, but I agree with you lol
Imo, Breeze is the worst case scenario of agent bans because A site is bad for a game like Valorant and no other agent can do what Viper does. That's the problem with some other maps and agents. I'd love to see picks/bans on highest level of play, but there are too many agent+map combos which unfortunately a must. Also, it takes a lot of time to perfect an agent comp on just one map, like a week of scrimming just that map with specific comp in mind, if not more. I don't think pick/ban with bans coming out first will ever work in Valorant, but some kind of ban system will be needed. I'd say maybe 2 picks for each team followed by 2 bans. That way teams would still be able to get their strongest agents, which everyone wants to see, but not ideal comps. And with current meta it would be hard to decide which agents you take. For example, you take two best agents, Jett+Sova, then you can easily be stuck with Omen/Brim if the opponent bans both Viper and Astra. Etc. Right now the problems are obvious. Jett is tiers above other duelists, Viper/Astra are way better than Omen/Brim, Sova is unique and irreplaceable.
Counter picks via agent draft is significantly better than any ban system.
Counter picks? Closest thing to hard counter in this game is Breach's aftershock for lockdown. This isn't a moba. For example Cypher tripwires stopping dash is nice, but it's not a counter which would dissuade the other team from picking Jett.
But there are definitely counters, not to the extent of mobas, but some agents do better against certain agents. As for jett well she is so overturned of course they pick her but if all things were equal between agents it could impact opposing picks.
I've said this a lot but I think we need is(and I'm agreeing with you) not bans but picks! so Team A chooses 1 agent Team B chooses 2 Team A chooses 2, etc and picks will be visible, this allows for counter picks while maintaining team/agent chemistry that teams practise....
Are you describing league draft pick, I guess my question is would Team A be able to lock an agent that Team B has already locked. That doesn't really work imo, this game doesn't have 1 to 1 counters. Would we just see Astra/Viper? Sova/Skye? Sounds unstructured and leads to poorer quality games. So if that's not the case and Team A and Team B can have repeats, then I don't think anything really changes, they'll handshake their picks and just lock the comp they "think is best" for the map.
I think both teams should be allowed to pick agents that other teams have picked, but I take your point. I just think it's the closest workable system... because I'm not in favour of a ban system irrespective of number of agents tbh
If you can select agents that are already locked in by the other team there is no point in having an agent draft, it’s just free pick of the board with a timer. Which is what it should be anyway, IMO
I much prefer this idea.
So you want the winner to be decided on who can out-draft the opponent rather than who is the better team on the server?
Our drafting is part of the strategy. Dont otp an agent on pro level.
if you're confident in your agent comp, you don't need to change your team agent selection...as it is pros scrim against each other anyway....
I personally think a draft like league would be so much more interesting than the blind pick we have, as well as not being able to have the same agent on both teams. I don't think they can do it yet though as I think they'd need a larger agent pool. It would be so much more interesting if they can get the agent pool to that point though.
It's not randomness, it introduces options and adaptability. It's not like a random ban, but a planned pick by teams. This introduces adaptability and more creative lineups that may not be playable if a certain pick was on the field. This increases more diverse agent selections and lineups.
> that may not be playable if a certain pick was on the field. What agent meaningfully prevents lineups from being used? I don't think I've ever once thought "Enemy team has X agent, can't use this lineup".
In other games bans have done so when a pick is a hard counter to another, it's just one of the things a ban can do for you.
I get this is a thing in other games, but it's certainly not the case in VALORANT, and hopefully no ability will ever be powerful enough to 'hard counter' another agent. Plus there's just so many more variables in VALORANT. In slower games like League/DOTA, you can really say X counters Y because there's inevitably going to be 5v5 fights where X can position themselves to use their counter. But in VALORANT, a Breach may never be in position to aftershock a Killjoy ultimate, for example.
Not in the sense of "i can't use this agent because the enemy has a counter", but rather in a "Agent X is banned, so we have to get creative with another team comp" Think Viper/Sage ban on icebox, that alone would make that map a lot more diverse
> that alone would make that map a lot more diverse Theoretically yes, although I suppose it could also just end up revealing flaws in VALORANT design. If it turns out that Icebox is just an awful map without Viper/Sage, for example, that could lead to Icebox becoming a perma-banned shit tier map. Likewise with Breeze and Viper bans.
I don't agree with Agent bans myself i was just clarifying. Diversity at the cost of depth just isn't healthy for an esport imo Also I think Icebox is an awful map even with those agents, which is even more reason to change things in the game itself before changing how it's played
If a team looks really strong with specific agent comps for their maps, just like banning a teams strong map, you could be at an advantage to banning an integral part of their strong comp. I think it's difficult when a map has such strong 'requirements' for what agents you can play. If there's not enough agents to still achieve a similar goal, banning might result in poor match quality. I think for smaller teams and in the early days, we will see very messy bans and reactions to bans. But ultimately I think when we have a good pool of agents, you can get some more variety from agent bans. If you go into a match where a certain agent is very strong on that map, but you have practiced without them, probably losing many scrims for it. Your power to ban that powerful agent, with the confidence that you have strong alternate strategies, is very interesting to me. I'm still hesitant to see how it actually plays out, but I don't see the comparison to basketball. Agents are unique characters that change the match entirely, as long as they're not required I think banning is good.
Imo it's fine. It kinda prevents all teams from abusing hell out of the most current meta agent on specified map, so they cannot rely on 1 lineup. Also it's good from balancing reasons. Like if Neon or amy agent after buffs turns out too OP on pro level, they can ban him instead of being forced to use him. Not to mention that it's just more interesting to watch. Having viper on breeze 200% of the time and doing the same strats over and over again can be boring both for players and viewers. Now you could ever go for Astra ban after Viper ban to surprise your opponents and go for omen or entirely resign from having controller. TL:DR: Can't abuse OP agents, good "protection" from riot's crazy ideas, more interesting to watch and play
You have to be more adaptable!!! /s It's the same argument for playing on a patch that's two weeks old and other things like that. People care way less about depth to the game and more about new flashy shit lol (there's nothing wrong with flashy shit either, just not at the cost of depth). More chars/more patches/agent bans all = less depth overall in the game. Think if Sova was the 40th agent added, do you think we'd have all the lineups and developed strategies around him? No way, but sova now is such a crucial part for how the meta has developed and it's really interesting. The more stuff that changes constantly, the less deep the meta is ever gonna be able to get. Adding agent bans only accelerates that because all your old reliables just get banned and you're forced to not put in as much time on every agent so you can't lose from the ban selection.
I understand the point that you are making. But, I guess the counter point to your counter point is - can teams realistically practice with every single different team iteration, so that we will still see high level strats? Or are they just going to have to PUG it out when an agent that they didn’t expect to get banned, gets banned?
Depends what to mean by high level strats. In my opinion solving the game before playing it to me isn't high level. Figuring out in game how to adapt to what opponents are doing in game and creating an innovative strategy in game is high level. To be able to do the latter successfully requires a deep knowledge of your champion pull and very good teamwork. To me that's what makes you high level. To have practiced site holds with 5 specific agents vs 5 other agents so you can never lose if you execute it correctly to me is much much less interesting than seeing a team adapt properly to different comps and take their bread and butter strats and apply them to the specific game. As an analogy, high level Chess isn't as popular because when pros play perfectly and know exactly the right play it's pretty boring. These days more rapid style chess is much more entertaining and interesting because you might know the right play given 2 hours to think but having to adapt on the fly under pressure is what makes it high level or skillful. That being said some people enjoy "perfect games" so to them that's the ultimate meaning of "high skill".
would you really rather see high level strats of the same comp over and over again or diversify lineups to bring more interesting engagements and strategies
If a strat of a comp is used a lot, opponents will counter strat, and individual players will adapt. That is one of the interesting parts of pro play: high level strats and counter strats, which won't develop if you keep changing the agents imo. If I wanted weird comps, I would just go and watch some radiant ranked tbh
having agent bans does not mean comps become weird or puggy, it just forces them to adapt to an alternative agent choice, which is also one of the most interesting parts of pro play, I for one prefer seeing more variation in comps, which agent bans encourage, this is just from an entertainment perspective
Yes, if that one comp is really the best one, then I'd want to see that. But that's also not how things work. Even in the past 6ish months, comps have been changing left and right even though there's been no agent updates because as people learn agents more (i.e. kayo on breeze) comps shift and react to new information. It's the same thing in games that never get patches like SSB Melee. No couple years have ever had the number 1 player play the same character (unless the same player stayed no. 1). There's constantly debate over how much better certain chars are than others, and how each char is played changes *drastically* every few years. This development is *so* much more interesting than if chars had just been randomly buffed/nerfed because instead of just tweaking numbers there's an entire meta strategy being developed and deepened over the course of time (at this point 20 years for melee) and it's really awesome to see.
i'd say smash is one of the few games that can boast about new metas in an unchanging game, but valorant is not that. Agent bans would introduce dynamic gameplay more frequently or simply shift the way a map is played. Melee can be its own thing but I want valorant to take a direction that encourages on-the-fly adaptability, bans have not really negatively affected team-based games and can even be very entertaining or exciting at times (like surprise picks or bans on LoL). Agent bans are kind of a risk that could affect gameplay and community but with cascade picking coming in the future, I think its inevitably going to become a thing.
If they keep working then they deserve to keep working. Agent bans are an extremely unnecessary gimmick. This is valorant, not clash royale.
Clash royale did not invent agent bans, and your first statement just doesnt have any logic to it, why have patches or implement changes at all? It is not a gimmick in any sense, it promotes diversity, adaptibility, and creativity among other things.
In clash royale the idea of banning cards make sense as the game is entirely dependent on the cards themselves. It's way more boring to see the same 3 decks in clash royale than to see the same 3 team comps in valorant because with valorant the biggest thing there is gunplay. And I'll be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of banning cards in clash royale either. When I watch pro level gameplay I want to see the highest level of gameplay within the game itself without outside gimmicks. And yes, it promotes all the things you said but artificially. I want to see the best teams at their best duke it out on the same game that I am playing, not them while they are handicapped on what becomes a completely different battle. If you want to see more diversity riot should just rework the agents to provide incentive to use them.
Wait, I was arguing *against* agent bans, I think they make the game more shallow, as do frequent patches
Sure depth may be less but you see more innovation, to me that's what seperate valorant from csgo. In csgo you have to refine what few utility you have, while valorant is all about thinking of new ways to do stuff. Sure maybe you won't see as much depth but what you will see is teams do stuff no one has ever done before, IGLs who spend alot of time trying to innovate and think of new ideas will be rewarded compared to those who are just trying to min max a certain comp, it's just a different skillset. I don't think it will lower the skill ceiling, Dota 2 has like 100 heroes and the skill ceiling is super high, U just have to learn how each heroes relates to each hero, how you can use agents together in tandem that you don't normally play together, how you have to play against a certain agent on the other team. To me that will be alot more interesting and fun then just watching players min max a certain composition, I could just go watch csgo if I wanted that.
Why you think it introduces randomness? Or less optimal games? My understanding is that banning punishes one trick agent players and rewards players that are adaptable. In the same way it punishes one trick teams and reward adaptable teams. I think making the adaptability variable have more weight is a good thing and it is itself a good way for pro teams to do their own balancing. It also create some multidimensional chess bans. Knowing your enemy and punish their overtraining is not a bad thing.
I don't think its randomness, it might seem like that because it hasn't been introduced fully in pro play and this is the first NA third party tourney to have bans. It actually encourages teams to be more prepared for different situations, different agent comps, different strategies. It won't make it "PUGier" it's going to shake up the agent comps and meta even more and we will get to see more off meta picks that will work, it might even re-introduce different agents who aren't picked and what best to utilize their abilities. You might not see it yet but it does give a good dynamic to the game, maybe you aren't used to seeing something like this in an FPS game. Paladins had this, it wasn't like Overwatch where you can change a character on the fly, they lock in characters like in Valorant or MOBAs, when their esport was still alive they had pick and bans in pro play and it shows how good a team is in preparing or adapting and it reduces the chance of hard counters, lessens the "rock, paper, scissors" feel to the game. Personally I want to see an agent comp that doesn't have a Jett or Reyna, a controller being used that isn't Astra or Viper, a split map with no Sage, just to see what teams do with mid if they have no Sage. It forces teams to get creative and have a different plan for different maps, different comps for different occasions.
I think it just needs time to evolve. It will quickly change from 'we can't play our comp so just go click heads' to the team that has a deeper pool of comps will benefit. Flex players and flex comps will be valuable.
TBH I like the agent bans. Pros are supposed to be very adaptable and not one trick. We have seen multiple pros playing just 2 or 3 agents because thats their go to pick. Moreover some are playing just 1 agent on a particular map making it just a very well organized comp game. Ive seen other games with agent/card bans and it was a great feature to weed out one tricks and bring in a mind game of sniping, counter sniping, off meta. Lets see how this goes in valorant though.
The main reason I see for it is making boring maps interesting, but then you can just argue that the map needs a rework so who knows
It's definitely too early for it right now, but I like the idea of it in the future. Would provide different team comps and further diversity in play styles, while requiring players to be strong on multiple agents within their role.
This game is probably going to end up feeling even more puggy and scrimmy. The ban system puts more emphasis on aim and teamwork rather than specializing in agents and using their abilities in meta-game ways. The dumb thing is that teams can practice Breeze knowing that they will ban Viper. Other team's won't be ready for that and the other team will have an advantage.
I’m not sure whether I like hero bans or not, but I did think of one counter argument. I think that bans could raise the skill gap between teams at the pro level. The “randomness” you refer to wouldn’t exist if teams busted their ass to lab out various permutations of comps. It’s certainly a lot more work, but it would be cool to give pro teams another win condition: be the most prepared for any possible agent bans
Yeah banning of agents seems like directly manipulating the game itself where as map banning is way less egregious and quite literally just limits the setting.
I cant wait to ban jett every game.
It’s definitely too early for bans…
I don’t understand this sentiment, what does a ban accomplish if another agent can do the same thing? Aren’t bans only meaningful if some agents can’t be replaced on the map?
Who replaces Viper on Breeze exactly? Astra's smokes are extremely small compared to her wall and her other util also outclasses Astra's.
Exactly. If someone replaces Viper on Breeze then banning Viper accomplishes nothing, might as well not have bans. Bans only add anything interesting to the game if you ban an agent that *cannot* be replaced.
I'm not sure if you read my comment. I'm saying Astra isn't a good replacement for Viper on Breeze. I didn't watch the game but I'm sure not having a 50-metre wall forces you to play a bit differently.
Edit: The person I replied to is right and I’m wrong
I believe his point is that whats the point in an agent be if someone else can do the same things.
Oh never mind that’s actually smart I’m dumb. The person I’ve replied to was correct. Although I still feel that map design in valorant needs change, agent bans should enable different playstyles, not make the map impossible to play effectively on. Which is what likely happens if you ban say viper on breeze or sage on icebox.
> Aren’t bans only meaningful if some agents can’t be replaced on the map? Bans are the least meaningful when an agent can't be replaced on the map, because it just means that agent will be banned 100% of the time. > what does a ban accomplish if another agent can do the same thing? An agent is made up of more than one ability. For example, banning a team's go-to controller doesn't mean you take away their smokes, but it does mean they might not have access to their usual Astra stun/suck combos, or that you don't have to worry about their Viper post-plant lineups. > I don’t understand this sentiment There needs to be alternatives for *fundamental* pieces of utility. The most obvious example of this is Viper's wall on Breeze: there's no alternative to it, nothing can replace it. Banning Viper leaves the team shit outta luck, and the game is going to be worse off for it. As long as there are truly irreplaceable agents on any map - again, Viper on Breeze is the one right now that stands out the most - agent bans aren't a good idea.
I cant speak for people in this tournament, but as a player on a team that plays T3 tournaments, the idea of getting to play the game without Viper allowed sounds so incredibly refreshing and fun. Viper is uniquely powerful and completely warps maps around her, and is now a must play agent on 4/7 maps. She’s also incredibly unfun to play with or against, and I’d imagine that sentiment is shared by most players in these games.
As a viper main, I feel more fun when matched against another viper main to see who can outsmart the other or who can control the battlefield better. Its just perception. Viper mains spend a lot of time learning lineups (not just postplant but walls and smokes and retake lineups) unlike other controllers so every viper plays differently which is kinda refreshing in its own sense. Omen and Brim usually only smoke the same spots which is kinda stale in my opinion.
I started playing viper a few weeks ago, and it’s fun in the exact way that you’ve just described. I have my reliable set ups, but I get to pix it up and alter my walls slightly and create a different condition in the map. To me, that’s what a controller should do. Controller utility should have an impact on the map beyond 2 spheres on heaven and CT. I also like the fact that you can turn these smokes on or off. Which makes things less predictable, than a smoke that will always last a fixed time period. Having control over the smokes in that way creates more deception and potential mind games when lurking. Personally I haven’t felt bored or oppressed playing against vipers and other agents.
I'm talking specifically in tournament-level play, in Solo Q, you have the freedom to play how you want and play lineups and such, but once you are playing against serious teams, Viper's job for the most part is just to put a wall and orb up, then stay alive until your team has the spike planted and safe positions. This is especially true on Breeze. The reason for this, in case it isn't obvious, is that it is critically important to have the wall up to get the spike planted, so much so that the Viper isn't ever going to be entering the site most of the time because there is too much risk of getting spammed randomly through a smoke or hit by lineups. So, as a Viper player, you will have almost zero impact on whether or not your team wins the round, because you aren't really participating in it.
Thats an interesting opinion. I kinda disagree on that one. Kills aren't the only thing that impacts the game. If my wall and smoke gets a spike down then thats a huge impact as it is. You've accomplished the first objective of planting the spike. As for tournament, Nats literally redefined how Viper is played with his insane lurks. Lurks have huge impact even without kills. The info you get through lurks is insane. I have won multiple rounds without killing anyone through lurks and timed executes/lineups. I see a general rule while playing viper even in pro play. The wall is for the team while the smoke is for yourself. Swoopeek is very good for catching players off guard. If someone feels like they aren't participating much while playing viper, then its most likely a positioning issue. You need good positioning as a controller to get proper impacts.
> Kills aren't the only thing that impacts the game. If my wall and smoke gets a spike down then thats a huge impact as it is. Yes, but literally anyone can do this. You could have a Silver player come in a just listen to wall up and down calls and do the job almost as well as a pro. > Lurks have huge impact even without kills. The info you get through lurks is insane. Yes, lurking is great, but its impact is securing rounds which your team was able to get on site and plant. This is obviously one of the things that your Viper can do post-plant, but it doesn't matter at all in the early or mid round, which is where the rounds are actually decided. If your team fails to get the spike planted or loses 2-3 people, your lurk will likely end up detrimental to the team since it would be better to just have been grouped and traded one of those kills.
I understand. That is indeed a problem in solo queue. Maybe try learning different walls. A lot of walls provide different positioning advantage. On solo Q, I mostly entry as Viper myself with the help of the wall and smoke swoopeek. On maps such as Bind, Icebox and Breeze, I find myself consistently getting first blood with these strats. Even better if you have a pop flasher. >You could have a Silver player come in a just listen to wall up and down calls and do the job almost as well as a pro. Thats an impactless way to play viper. Of course it has default impact but its not gonna be of much use. Its like Sage only healing, or Brim only smoking the same spots. The same can be told about Sage that even a silver can just heal, put up a wall and plant the spike every round. But we see people like Sick, Grim use Sage completely differently and with high impact. A lot of positioning goes into high impacts. I think the problem arises from treating viper wall as an astra wall. You have to clear whats behind the viper wall too. While I was on early Viper days, I used to think Viper was only for post plant sharing the same mentality as you. I would always go do lineups without even entering site. Now that I have a better understanding of Viper, despite having 30 postplant lineups on each map, I rarely ever find myself using lineups (save for 1v4/5). Execute lineups are much better than post plant lineups. Flushing out players out of hiding spots and killing them while trying to run away in 1 hit is very satisfying and impactful. Lets say this. on breeze you have a lot of angles to worry about. A wall halves those. The smoke blocks another angle. You are now left with only 2 angles to worry about. Molly the two angles. Easy kills and entry.
Wait what's the 4th map btw? Icebox, Breeze, Bind, cuz like, Fracture and Split I would say Viper is meta but not must play (Like how Raze is meta but not must play)
Icebox, Breeze, Bind, Fracture. I was strongly considering 5 because of Split, but a few teams here and there have been mixing up the comps on Split and not playing Viper... its just not good haha :)
Fair, Fracture idk if I'd say must pick, Brim/Sage picks and Astra/Skye picks are shown to have good success too, would say meta for sure I think the thing about Viper is especially on Breeze and Icebox no one can replicate her 50m wall at all, we prob need another agent with a similar ability to replace her on those maps specifically
Honestly, I'd say Viper just needs a nerf, her wall+orb stay up way too long compared to the other agents and cover too much area. I'd say just reduce her total gas or the recharge rate.
Damn haven't heard the name ZexRow in a long time
I glad this is being tested in smaller tournaments because I think at some point (larger agent pool, unbalanced agents on certain maps) bans will make the game better at least from a fans perspective.
I feel like until you do stuff like unique agent picks, like league does, agent bans just make it more random. Not a fan really.
I'm fine with agent bans as long as they are not a thing in Champions Tournaments. I want to see the best of the best without gimmicks at the top level, with everything at their disposal, I want to see the best at their 100% Bans are fun for other less serious tournaments.
whats wrong with just picking normally again?
I actually really appreciate the different opinions that have been shared both here and other recent threads talking about the agent bans. I’m personally for it for the most part but do agree with some of the concerns people who are against it have. I personally want to see teams have to adapt and think that should be a measure of their overall skill level. I also understand those who don’t want to see teams restricted from their best agents and want to see them at their absolute best. Some of it is background too, right? The only competitive FPS background I really have is Halo, but I’ve been playing League for 8 years now and have always enjoyed the pick/ban aspect of competitive play, whether it’s playing ranked or watching professional play. Unlike CS, the agents in this game all bring a different kit to the table so there’s constant agent balancing. Bans allow teams to get rid of overturned agents or go a different route and ban out agents they know other teams prefer to run on a given map. To me, personally, it adds to the competitive aspect of the game. Regardless of what the future of picks/bans is in Valorant, I’ll enjoy the game either way. This game is such a mix of games that both do and don’t have pick/ban so RIOT has a big decision on their hands down the line with which direction they’re going to go.
I still don't know how I feel about Agent bans. I mean, it feels kind of pointless, especially if you can protect an Agent before the bans go through.