its disrespectful to forfeit the match, its disrespectful to forcefully throw the game so it ends faster, it is NOT disrespectful to do a move that they believed will help them win the match. twitter dude is delusional
@@redroman4214It is tho. There was a similar strategy in early valorant where everyone died to an ally ability because you get an ult point for dying and this way you deny the enemy the money AND ult point in a round you were probably gonna lose anyway.
@@over9000lord tell that to the map designer who give a literal suicide cliff at the spawn. Because it's more beneficial for G2 to literally died at the first 3 seconds of the round than to let the opponents have a chance to get a kill and guarantee to get an ult orb or two.
No less entertaining than having 2 players on a team hide and save for 2 minutes, when in the first contact of the round they lost 3 players immediately.
This is one of those cases where if G2 ended up winning the game, this would be looked back as one of the most insanely big brain plays in E-Sports history.
no it was so braindead, its like what tenz said. IF the opponenet does the fpx emea buy,which is to buy 3 rifles and keep 2 pistols from last round then its braindead. Thats what lev did. Levs economy was so good after the g2 throw. Honestly,one of the most braindead calls ever, they immediately lost the match as soon as they did that
Not a good decision anyway you look at it, people do win pistol rounds against rifles not often but they happen, denying your chance to convert on it just to deny 5 ult points to me it's not worth at all, they even lost the next round making them look even worst
there was a time in CSGO when pros would die to molotovs on purpose because the ump-45 was a super popular weapon and a kill with a molo gives $300 and $600 with an ump. then it got banned from the tournaments (because it wasn't an engaging way to play the game for the audience), but nobody thought this strategy was disrespectful or that the players should get fined for doing it, it's allowed then ppl do it.
As someone said: "Players are going to find the most optimal way to play, if the most optimal way to play is boring, then that's just bad game design."
@@ElMancoDelSigloThere is also another saying, "Players will optimise the fun out of gaming" Weird how both sayings are popular but in different genres of gaming haha
It’s funny how people don’t understand this is almost no different from a 3 man save. The point is to not give your opponent money and orbs. And if you’re using classics vs rifles, snipers, etc. on the longest range map in the game, you’re going to lose hands down 95% of the time unless you have a miracle round. Think mark, think!
it’s the same when cs pros used to die in a molly to prevent giving extra money to smgs, so that’s alright by me btw jumping off is disrespectful in valorant while pros in cs are casually showing middle fingers while losing 1 : 11 (broky from faze) and after they comeback and win they still show middle fingers, i don’t and probably will never understand valorant community and these rules against toxicity toxicity is what makes watching gaming interesting, i’d like to see someone as toxic and as good as s1mple has been a long time ago
@@Crucial54321 don’t know about valorant ability mechanics, but not giving something extra to your opponent that can destroy next round for you is just a good strategy
@@oLabbb68 Basically most agents have strong abilties called ultimates, and every kill gives you one point towards it. Most ults are 7/8 orbs, so yes its very worth preventing the opponent from gaining 5 orbs spread out across the team
G2 Afks in a rat spot so they dont give money to Lev, Audience: BOOOOO NOW WE HAVE TO WAIT 2 MINUTES FOR NEXT ROUND G2 Jumps off the map and just skips the round, Some random caster: WTF ARE YOU DOING, THE DISRESPECT IS CRAZY
This is a fine way to play. It's unexciting for viewers, and if rito wants to fix it, it's super simple.. put a wall there, and the next day, it never happens again. But in essence it's no different to regular sports: - in baseball a pitch can choose to throw 4 balls so far from the batter that he has no chance to hit them. The better gets a free walk to 1st base, but you can do it to stop a great hitter from hitting a home run. - in American football a quarter back can take a knee to avoid being tackled, or they can throw the ball out of bounds to avoid the risk of interception. Very unexciting, but legal way to play the game.
yep, similar like wasting time in football/soccer by acting being injured, it is boring to watch but its legal. Its just about took advantage the flaw of the rules
For that football kneeling, there was once a team that tried to make a play even though they were up with like seconds left on the timer. Fumbled and instantly lost. Offensive coach was fired on the spot. Or for actual boredom with technical upside, there’s basketball and the Hack a Shaq. But in Valorant, there’s tons of boring spectator moments that we’re fine with. Saving guns in a 1v3 is basically the same situation of “technically winnable, but really?”
They threw one round to give themselves a better chance at the more important rounds. What matters is winning the match not a specific round. What they did is totally fine, hate the game not the players.
@@typekkleks4013 The question wasn't if it was a good play. The question was if it was a legal or ethical play. You shouldn't be punished for making a bad play (even though it is debatable if this was a bad play or not).
This is like the CSGO molly issue. IM SURE they weighed the possibility of getting some pistol kills, lowering their eco, and winning the round. But they realized that if they lost then the other team would have just snowballed out of something they could manage which caused them to make a play. If riot has an issue then don’t make a map the allows this mechanic.
@@ashreen4330 That makes no sense. Do you know what even happened in the pro scene with mollys back then? On full ecos pros would suicide in other teams mollys to not get killed from 2nd round smgs which give $600 per kill, thats $3000 vs lets say a buy round would be $300 per kill so $1500 total. Thats full utill on one player right there denied. Now they can full buy into 5 umps with half util. Thats the advantage. Also all the kill money is stacked to one player
If it's strategic in nature and doesn't violate rules, it's fair game. If Riot doesn't want those kinds of strategies in their game, they shouldn't put a ledge in spawn. The onus would be on them to patch those sorts of strategies out of the game if they don't want them in their game.
1:53 the second take is very wrong, he said that "they deny 1000 credits and 5 ult orbs" but they actually deny 1000c {5x200} in kills, 5 ult orbs {kills}, 2 ult orbs {pick up}. 1500c {spike plant} and 1 ult orb from planting. Also I saw them use *some* abilities at the start of the round which also cost them a bit of money, if they waited for the enemy to use more abilities they risk the chance of them making it to a site and planting, getting a - as the post says "shitton of cash". Jumping off is a valid strategy, as it can't be applied every round {cause you would lose} but it saves your team the mental draining of having to fight an extremely unfavourable fight and probably getting completely destroyed. Best thing is that you can do this if you hear the enemy chamber ult pre round {even if it is highly unlikely that a chamber would ult on enemy eco round, you never know}. I don't want to say whether it's a good or even approved of strategy, but it has it's benefits beyond what the post said.
but enemies also use up gold on utility, on shields (to refix them), you can gain money if you manage to take out 1,2,3 enemies, and get ult orbs as well, and you have a chance to win the round itself. as tenz said, sometimes its ok, but sometimes its braindead, and enemies werent close to ults when this happened
Never thought jump of the cliff to deny enemies economy is disrespectful in valorant terms. Wait until bros see broky flipping liquid at 1:11 and they might fainted because of that.
You can also argue that from a viewer point of vue, it's not disrespectful because they skip the boring one sided round to get faster to the interesting rifle round. When Siuhy rings the inferno bells in an eco round in CS I know it's because they have a little timeout to make their enemy waste their util, I don't get upset and call him a troll, I even find it amusing. Plus as Tenz outlined it, this could be a bad decision so it's not like it's a boring meta every team is gonna adopt. I guess the real 4head move was the attention bait by Lothar, it clearly worked 😄
it's a tactical decision, it doesn't matter if it's the best one or not. I think that because it's a tactic that (at least in G2's eyes) gives them a better chance to win the game it's not unsportsmanlike and that if it is unintended then that's a problem that riot need to fix and G2 is within their rights to use the unconventional strat.
I don’t think anyone who knows valorant would say it’s a disrespect/troll move. There was a tactic and reasoning behind it. Now is it the best move? That’s up to debate, but I mean the fact that there are debates show that it is indeed a tactic that can be used for min maxing. Somethings to note imo. This is likely a strat that was planned out before hand bc if not they would probably do the meta which is to hard stack a site with classics and smaller guns if possible economically like sheriffs, try to get a pick, then die to spike. Things to consider: •meta is now during the force attack round not everyone is forcing you usually only see 3-4ppl buying bc usually you expect to lose one person, that one person usually is lurker which means you aren’t giving them a gun if the lurker gets picked off or the person who didn’t force just picks up the gun of someone who has died and forced. •defenders jumping off means that the attackers aren’t using their util (aka money) to get onto site •on the other hand they aren’t getting plant money and ult points
Wonder if baiting it to waste there util then jumping off would be better. They lose money, don't get ult orbs, and the extra money from kills. Honestly would see this as more disrespectful but it's the game not the player.
If it's in the game and it's not an overt exploit, then it shouldn't ever be against the rules. Having special rules for Esport matches that disallow players from doing things that can easily be done in regular ranked matches is just a way to excuse or ignore poor game design.
Lothar is about as qualified to talk about this as a bronze hardstuck on pro level strategy. He thinks u win a round with classics vs full or antieco buy at this long range map. Good luck lol 99% ur cooked
In early CS, talking like CS 1.3, the meta eco save was to camp T spawn and wait out the round timer, which was like 2 minutes back then. It was very boring. They updated the economy rules in later patches. If Riot doesn't like this they'll patch it.
what community you talking about? Most people think it's fine. There's an analyst that posted something on "twitter", and you consider that the community?
It's crazy to think how long I've been watching theScore esports... Dimitri has really grown into such a solid host for this channel. Big props, brother.
I mean, it is quite common in vct for defenders to die to the spike blast if they're on very very eco round, it is the same principle, but even better because you don't give ult orbs to the enemy with a spike plant or explicit kills
I recall back in the days in CS, there are teams end themselves with molotov to deny the opponents from killing them with UMPs. And that got praised as a 5head move.
This feels like the exact same as a CS:GO team on pistols sitting in spawn all round using an eco round as a time out. Happens all the time, you're not really trying to win the round, you're just utilizing the time of the round to discuss the next round at no cost because you didn't buy. Then last second rush on to a site and die and reset for the next round. That strat does not get criticized at all, so why would this get any different reception. It's strategic. Twitter fella is dumb.
I haven't personally competed at a professional level but for a long time (until the past few years) I've been tied to the eSports community in some way shape or form, like being part of/working for smaller orgs that are still professional competitive and reputable in the scene. Here is my two cents. It's interesting seeing the shift: When eSports was much smaller and driven by passion there was so much pride and emphasis on competitive integrity. Despite being in my early 20s, its that older school eSports mentality. People in my circle with that mentality have felt miserable lately with the lack of competitive integrity and passion in the industry. Everything is all about META Slaving, perfect optimization, or cheese now and I think the discourse around that match demonstrates this well. While it has tactical advantage, what G2 did is cheese. The players didn't put countless hours of practice in to play against that. The passionate fans didn't watch to see that. The casters didn't show up to call that. There was no competition that round. No demonstration of skill. It was just a cheesy tactic in an effort to optimize economy. Disagree all you want but THERE IS A REASON no other team dared to do it before. And even if others replicate it there's a reason why it will never become a thing every team does (other than it not necessarily being the most optimal play in every circumstance). Those who know, know.
Lol bro as someone who else competed in a small esports and was "kinda pro" i can guarantee you right now if u played in a 1 000 000 $ tourney youd also jump if you think itll help you get the money. You people act as if them playing is the same as you playing ranked and keep forgetting that theres a shit ton of money on the line
Its your job, you are competing to play your best, valorant is not about just aiming and killing, its an strategic game with different mechanics (as advertised by riot) and eco administration is one of them; on the "viewers side" it was a time save from a boring round which lev was 99% assured to win and snowball, it made it less boring and actually added spice to it; the reason no other team dared to do it before was because it was risky, not because of some weird "pride and sportsmanship", you brag about old scool eSports mentality when this debate its just a reenactment of the same problem in different games, csgo self-kill, mineral boosting in starcraft, r6 operator swap, a bit older, League of legends tower execution , oh you wanna go older? WoW raid wipes , Dungeon mobs reset. Sacrifices have always been a part of esports or high level play in general, people just like to hate on any interesting strat.
@@antovinkovic No. Reputation, integrity and standing in the community used to be important. In fact it still is in some communities, with GAs (gentlemen’s agreements) and the like still being an important part of the scene. Plus players see a lot less of that money than most would think. The older school eSports community cared far more about restricting broken/unbalanced weapons/mechanics/etc for fair and competitive play than the new community has. Honestly the whole DNA changed when gaming exploded during the pandemic. Gaming suddenly became cool and a bunch of people who didn’t have that same passion, framework and long-developed skill flooded the scene. It’s where this “win at any cost” mindset (META slaving and cheesing) and “everyone’s cheating/if you ain’t cheating you ain’t trying” mindset blew up, with these problems plaguing eSports/gaming as a whole ever since. For background I was mostly in the old CoD, and Halo scenes, but later on I did also form connections and compete a bit in the NBA 2K community plus the friends/network I’ve made cover more (older and newer) eSports titles. A lot of legitimate pros, as well as people like me, quit or fell out of love due to the culture change and the trend of “over-casualization”. Devs have been limiting skill expression and making games easier/cheesier (and as a result unbalanced/less rewarding at higher level play).
@@swe872 See the issue with that is you’re nitpicking and comparing it to cheese strats that were all still frowned upon. Esport players/gamers and passionate viewers DO still have what you refer to as “weird pride and sportsmanship.” In fact it’s intricately tied to the eSports itself, otherwise you wouldn’t see bans by leagues, let alone Gentleman’s agreements between players and coaches still being a thing. It’s one of the strengths of the MLG/grassroots era that made it so good, passionate and competitive. The fact that having competitive integrity, sportsmanship and passion is now considered weird is so ass-backward that it could sum up a lot wrong with the world right now. There was nothing interesting about that strat… they tossed themselves off the map because they were afraid of losing an aim fight. Also why tf is everything considered bragging nowadays? Talking about something isn’t necessarily bragging, if you took my original comment that way then (respectfully) that’s on you. Nothing was in a boastful or condescending way at all (until arguably that last sentence). Giving background to better context my views is NOT bragging, nor did I directly and intentionally insult anyone else’s views (like calling them weird or haters for example).
as a middle ground, I think there should be a time limit as to when they can jump. It's gonna change some rush tactics but also at least not force something like this to happen. maybe 20 seconds into the round is good enough
If Riot wants to add a map to competitive where the whole gimmick is falling off then what's the problem with a team doing what the map was designed for. If a team does it as part of a strategy that is meant to end with them winning the game then what's wrong with playing the map in the way it was designed? If it's a problem then why did Riot design the map to allow it in the first place? Basically, so long as it's not FFing there should be nothing wrong with a team using a strategy that is based on the way a map is designed. That's literally what Valorant is and if G2 gets any kind of punishment for this they'd be taking the fall for whoever designed and whoever greenlit this map.
Imo, it's in their best interest to somehow grief the enemy team of any resources that can be acquired and this is the most efficient way of doing it in this map.
This is what is known in game design theory as emergent gameplay, we've seen a million games where you shoot things you win things, it's so fucking boring and vanilla that seeing a whole team kill themselves as a way to play a meta game is just so genius and exciting. People criticizing their play probably only know how to have sex in missionary. If I was one of the designers for Valorant I would acutally implement MORE things like this where you can have emergent tactical decisions that go beyond 'SHOOT THINGS'.
This is fine as long as it's kept to a minimum. The reason it's controversial is if 5 man suicides become recognized as efficient or even meta, spectators will hate it while the actual players will have little motivation to do the "cool" thing of playing rounds out. Same goes if such a strategy proves effective enough to make ranked players do it. That'll require a balance update from riot themselves.
It would only really be effective if your opponent is half buying (so mostly round 2 or 14), if anything it might get more exciting if it does become meta, round 2 would become a mind game of "are they jumping off or not?" You think they are? Don't buy. But if you think the enemy is expecting you to jump off, force buy on a loss when they didn't buy. The counter to that? Don't buy, wait a few seconds and jump off and have the enemy stuck with worse guns in round 3. It becomes a deeper and deeper mind game, and I think it would be enjoyable to watch.
Is saving a weapon in CS for strategic reasons, a.k.a. "Jame Time", a disrespectful move? Sure it might be boring to play against and witness, but the logic is undeniably present.
You are still playing the game when you are saving, sure the objective might have changed but the game is still being played as in you can still try and hunt down the people saving. There is nothing you can do about 5 players jumping off the map as soon as possible.
@@noha7688 Vertigo: If it's a strategy that the game allows and the strat isn't objectively bad (aka it can benefit you in certain situations), then in my opinion there's no reason to not allow that.
it’s a welll thought out decision in the hopes of making the game more even, and possibly giving the viewers a a better game later because of it. I’m not a massive fan that you can jump off the map in general but since it’s apart of the game you might as well use it. Up to Riot if they want to change that or not
This reminds me of some decks in Magic The Gathering where you keep a bad hand and a concede game 1 if an opponent casts a thoughseize to keep the deck a mystery for game 2, since the chances of winning after losing the best card in your hand
I love how he tried to use the "will everyone hate on TenZ too?" When TenZ was making an ENTIRELY different and actually valid point when he broke it down. Lothar needs to go to logic 101, because in his mind it is reasonable to say that an apple is exactly the same as an orange.
Meanwhile in cs we have broky flipping off team liquid before and after faze pulled off one of the best comebacks in cs2 so far. Its really amazing how sensitive valorant players can get.
Dont play Val but it makes sense to me that if you have a chance to come back at the cost of giving up a round, you take that advantage. Unless it became an issue of there being a round or multiple rounds a match where teams just reset then there is no reason to change the rules for giving up a round.
@@youyou01101 No you don't but the vertigo conversation in CSGO was that pros jumped of the map to denie kill rewards back when smgs were super strong. It all started when a team jumped into a molly to denie kill rewards and it was banned shortly after when vertigo was put in the map pool
@@tallafan4399 jumping into mollies and jumping outside the map are not the same, its not worth it to deny 600 dollars if the cost is your round loss money
One team got a 100% chance to win the round, the other got a less "bad" of a lost round. Where's the problem ? Watching people play the game as optimally as they can, no matter how weird the strat is the whole point of watching pro players. If there was a rule against things like this there is no point to watch to be honest.
Very unsportsmanlike in my opinion, but arguably the correct decision. This isnt an issue in CS, but in Valorant denying ult orbs makes it super worth while to jump off maps. When there is what can be round winning abilities instead of just some kill money at stake... It just makes sense.
well it is... there is a strat in cs pro play were you in force buy rounds for the enemy you jump on a molly they throw to stop them from getting kills with there smgs as it smgs give more money then mollies. the cs pro scene tried to also say that was unsportsmnlike and ban it but they quickly realized its hard to releaze if someone is killing themselves on accident or purpose
@@theotherchase8442 Except its a bad strat and nobody does it. There are like 3 examples of this actually happening. It's an incredibly niche scenario that just doesn't happen. Generally speaking going for bomb plant is far more advantageous. Dying by molly builds money on one player, which usually give enough for a round 3 awp on ct side. The scenario: Ts lose pistol without doing any damage or getting bomb down. CTs can stack a site in r2 and save while still getting loss bonus, Ts cannot save and get loss bonus without planting bomb. Ts must also think it's impossible to get site, and guaranteed that CTs are already getting an awp. Overall its just a losing strat and it's why you saw it maybe twice or three times in 2017-2018 when the econ was being tested and not really ever again - at least not on a team suicide level. Yes we occasionally see 7hp full save final player off themselves in a molly in a 1v4, but past that it's just not a strat. Killing even one player in a full save as Ts is more econ efficient than dying as a team to a molly.
This is exactly the same as jumping off the map in Overwatch when you are the last left in a fight, denying the enemy team from staggering you or farming a bit of ult charge.
It happened before, the teams usually wait for the enemy team to plant the spike and die to it so they dont give them ult orbs, the difference with this is that its faster
I feel like this is just the same as hiding for the rest of the round to save, or hiding to prevent the enemy from having an ace, or throwing away the op so no one could get it. all of it is frustrating to encounter, but i feel like this only gathered so much traction because the entire team did it. It do be like that sometimes
also people are forgetting that G2 just gave Leviathan a free round win, which still gives them more credits for the next round as well as puts more pressure on G2 to bring back another round win
It’s just the same as the old “everyone dies to brim molly tactic” no? There was a similar strategy in early valorant where everyone died to an ally ability because you get an ult point for dying and this way you deny the enemy the money AND ult point in a round you were probably gonna lose anyway.
To counter the point that Tenz brought up about the FPX buy, if all the teams start doing the FPX buy and simultaneously jump off the map on abyss, how is that con for the jumping off strat? That's a counter to the said strat but if every team starts doing it then it's just a normal strat. Much like the half shield buy that FNC started. You can still counter it by buying an outlaw and odin or ares, and it's just a normal strat. That's not really a Con per say for the half shield buy.
As someone who use to play Singed in Ranked 5s vs Challengers, as well as having been diamond 2 before they ever made Master, Grandmaster, or Emerald; Every engagement is winnable.
how much did they deny? 8 ult orbs (5 on kills, 2 on harvest, and 1 on spike), frag creds, plant creds. plus they have the +1900 round loss creds intact going into round 15 with a 2-round losing streak bonus. Plus if the other team did a force-buy, they will have weaker guns. For a map that introduces off-map deaths, it's actually an ok strat, given that they can afford dropping a round. Probably the bad thing about it was they were not able to recover in this map even with such exploit. On another note, maybe they should remove the spawn area fall traps. Make people jump off at mid or on the sites.
If there isn't a rule specifically saying this isn't allowed then you aren't allowed to complain. This isn't even a case of bending rules(happens in f1 a lot). They just made a smart play.
I get both sides here. As a viewer I can't tell if it creates a better experience to watch this strat unfold or be denied a round valorant that could of been fun to watch. I lean towards them getting a fine because even if its a legit strategy it would be pretty boring for this to become meta in the pro scene.
i get why tenz said it could be stupid to try it because you could win the round, but at pro level if you’re not winning against people in an eco round it’s sort of weird. i mean sure they had a chance to but they just thought that it was potentially better for them overall to just give it up and minimise the damage
In Dota 2, you can even execute to a Neutral Creep (jungle monster) to prevent max gold income to the enemy team. It's a strat, not disrespect. In Valorant, it's kinda like finding a loophole that no one else knows about and actually using it to your team's advantage, except in the case of Dota 2, every one knows this.
I do think there is a good point to be made about how the game is designed to support this kind of strategy. This is one of the first times I’ve seen a team go to this extent, and I think it’s bizarre that this is a possible choice a team can make. However, I think it’s a bit more broad of an issue than simply disrespect and the economy design. Abyss is still in a fresh state, but it seems really tough to put together a good plan for a save round on this map, especially as a defender. A lot of the fights are longer range, so shotguns aren’t super useful, pushing out as a defender is pretty difficult, neither site has a tight space like lamps or dice, and retaking on weak weapons just sounds suicidal on this map. How are you going to retake on a map where the bridge plant exists? How about if the attackers plant for spam? There doesn’t seem to be great options for defenders. It’s pretty attack sided, and I don’t see a good way to save as defenders on that map. The plan itself is strange, but on this map it’s not one that surprises me. If ascent or bind had a pit, I doubt we’d see this sort of strategy come out of it. I don’t believe this should be banned, but I do think that abyss needs a rework. The map should be a little more defender sided imo.
What's the difference between that and a whole team jumping into a molly to deny a round in CS with pretty much the same things except the ultimate orb?
reminds me of the time in cs go where a pro team (i dont remember what team it was) ran in a molotov because they didnt want to give the enemies money.
I Have a problem with this because there's no counter on the other team, in cs when you hit the bucket on yourself, a random enemy player is awarded the rewards meaning, the value you'd get from denying them eco frags doesn't really exist unless you survive the round, giving the enemies a chance to farm you and you a chance to fight back, the name of the game is being able to do something, here in valorant they've denied any chance for counter play and I think that's bad
I just think that, if it shouldent be done, it shouldent be possible. I can understand why people are angry about it, but in the end it´s the rulebook that decides what is wrong or right
Funnily enough Riot went out of the way to nerf a playstyle similar to this in League because of the impact it had on lower elo. TheBauss(i think thats how he spells it) made a playstyle that can be considered soft inting(intentionally losing for those unaware) on a character that gets a short beserk zombie effect on death that allows you to still attack enemies for a duration after you die. You still die, and the death credit and rewards still only go to the people that kill you before that starts, but you get to influence the game a little before having to wait for respawn. He realized this character has extra value from dying, and because another system exists that lowers the rewards given for killing a player that has died alot(its supposed to be a catch-up mechanic to slow down players who get ahead and snowball off the one guy behind), he came up with a way to utilize that value to gain more resources from dying than enemies gain from killing him, that he later uses to focus on destroying towers and the nexus instead of just killing the enemy team. The problem is his playstyle is both very risky and very hard to pull off, but looks like(to an unskilled/unintelligent viewer) a braindead strat, so low elo players started copying the strat increadibly unsuccessfully, resulting in a bad pllayer experience overall. Riot then nerfed the ability to destoy towers and gain resources in that zombie mode in an effort to de-incentivize the strategy, and that kind of worked. Bauss still uses his strat when he sees an enemy comp that is vulnerable to it, but other players more or less avoid it besides diehard believers and people trying to hide their ACTUAL inting(thats another reason it became popular, you could int and say you were doing the strat so "dont ban plz i was trying honest") .
What I really dont understand is the point about entertainment value. I watch on youtube and usually skip full ecos and only rewatch if there was a thrifty or got close. For those not on youtube or those watching live, you have to sit through a couple min of nothing. This is way quicker. Also, even a bit funny, at least since it was the first time
its dumb to fine or considering fine or any sort of punishment i just believe that its just not the best idea i believe that its best to stack one of the 2 sites with all players and if they dont hit that site just jump off or if ur down 2 or 3 players and haven't been able to retrieve any better firearms then the team should jump off i think that jumping at the start is a little bit silly because although chances of winning is unlikely they are still very possible with the correct calls i also think in this case it is much worse as they were already down alot of rounds i think if ur up by 3 or 4+ rounds its defo viable but when down by 5 rounds it isnt the smartest decision to do off the rip of a round
I personally think that was the right thing to do but I would prefer to do that if the rounds were more close like 0-1 or 7-6 for example. The best part for me are Doug and Babybay's reactions of SILENCE and then, "Yeah..." 😂
