×
OR

By continuing, I agree to GINX' Terms and Conditions

OR
Please enter a valide email address

Already a GINX member? Sign in

CHOOSE YOUR USERNAME

Your username is how other community members will see you. Ever dreamt of being called JohnWick ? Now is the time.

Back
Valorant
Videos results
Fetch more videos
Articles results
Fetch more posts
Users results
Fetch more users
News > FPS > Valorant
World

Valorant suicide economy trick has the community divided

By giving up a round they stop the opposing team gaining a further economic advantage and some are asking Riot to make a change.

It's a debate as old as time, or as old as Counter-Strike, which for some of you reading is basically all of time. What's the best strategy on after a round 1 loss? The perceived wisdom has always been to do a full eco, and buy the next round, but some Valorant players have found another tactic and it has divided the community.

Brought to the attention of Valorant's popular subreddit, the tactic involves the eco team deliberately killing themselves by using an ability such as Brimstone's Molotov or Phoenix's Hot Hands.

 

Valorant suicide tactic, valorant team killing tactic, valorant team killing eco tactic
Raze's paint shells have also been used to kill teammates to manipulate the economy. (Picture: Riot Games)

 

YourAfricanDad, who posted a clip showing the tactic in action, simply wanted to know one thing - whether this stat "prohibited or not".

"These people in ranked kept losing the pistol fight. Every time they'd lose it, the Brimstone/Raze would just team kill them, thus they would start the new round with about 5k each. And apparently, 'everyone does that'."

 

I'm just simply asking if this is prohibited or not; These people in ranked kept losing the pistol fight. Every time they'd lose it, the Brimstone/Raze would just team kill them, thus they would start the new round with about 5k each. And apparently, "everyone does that". from VALORANT

 

Now on the subject of whether this is prohibited or not,  let's be clear, doing this is not against the rules and will not get you banned.

If you are unsure of what advantaged can be gained by doing this imagine this scenario.

You have lost the opening round, most teams would do a full eco and try and do whatever material damage you could to the opposing side, who are likely to be sporting SMGs etc.

Now if the entire team decides to kill themselves you deny your opponent a potential bomb plant/defuse bonus, the picking up of any ultimate's found on the map, any ultimate's from kills and credits from kills thus reducing the max potential money they can earn for the round.

On your side, you get one ultimate each from dying, and the round loss bonus - which should work out to roughly 11,7000 across all five players, give or take the ability cost needed to kill your team.

Now, of course, you can win an eco round, and turn it on its head but that is a risk, and with this strategy you can take the loss, go 2-0 down, but know that a full buy is coming plus being ahead on ultimates. A good position for any team to be in.

Whether doing this is in the spirit of the game was debated with some considering this a perfectly viable tactic, "You play any advantage that you think you can get in a legit way within the rules of the game," said NotCatnip. 

Adding, "Whether this is genuinely and objectively an advantageous play is highly debatable and would likely depend on the map and your assessment of the enemy team."

Other's felt that the tactic itself isn't worth it.

 

 

Similar tactics were employed at the start of Counter-Strike's life as a competitive game and subsequently, Valve introduced monetary and matchmaking penalties for teamkilling, currently, there are none in Valorant.

 

 

As it stands Riot has yet to respond to this criticism so whether it will be like this going forward is anyone's guess, though the idea of your whole team committing Seppuku at the start of a round and it being a viable high-level tactic won't be a great look for the game so the chances of this getting corrected in some way down the line is highly likely.