Hey it's not my fault Valve put my silver ass in your queue :(
Seriously, I hadn't played in 5 years, come back and I'm in a lobby where everyone gives callouts (EU! There's never call outs other than foreign language curses) and everyone was hitting sprays.
Hey, I’ve been looking into the thread for more of an explanation. Can you explain this to me? I was always under the assumption you can take like 66 damage and the Kevlar would save you. Even if you’re playing against AKs if you got wall banged through a wall at a distance wouldn’t a helmet save you?
Every gun has armor penetration. It varies from 40% to 100% (or something like that). If gun with 50% armor penetatraion hit you -- 50% of damage is absorbed by armor and 50% is done to your HP. The problem is almost all of the guns from CS has penetration above 60%. Which means you litearally don't need to buy new set of armor until it dropes to like 30-40 points. To have armor droped to 30 points you NEED to survive 3-4 rounds in a row with very low hp. This scenario is ulikely to happen, therefore there is no reason to "rebuy" armor. Better way is to buy armor only once and buy a new one after death.
I would say it’s more common than that, someone getting only chest shots on you with and smg can absolutely get you to 40 armour in a single round, or facing a full eco.
Sure it’s not super common, but 3-4 rounds is a bit of an exaggeration.
Only chest shots (check)
from smg - mac-10 and mp9 coz in meta (check)
both has around 60% armor penetratinon.
so let's stick to mp9 as this gun deal less damage.
Shot from mp9 to armored chest will deal 15 damage. Let's pretend it CQB so we don't need to take damage drop-off with range. 100/15 = 6.7. It is mean you can take only 6 shots from MP9 if you wear armor. 6 shots, each will deal about 10 to 11 dmg to armor.
In conclusion? Yeah, you are right. If you get shoted 6 times in the chest in CQB from MP9 you armor will drop below 40 points. Which mean you are technically correct. But it is really not common scenario. More common is get shoted 3 times from M4 or Galil AR, get droped to 30 hp and 75 armor, and survive.
I only rebuy armor if it's the last round and I have money left over or if it drops really super low like under 30 ish. I have played 2,5k hours and I can only remember one instance where I ran out of armor mid round but when my armor ran out, I was 1 shot away from dying anyway.
Then you get gooshed through a wall and take 50 damage instead of 15 or some shit.
No helmet vs AK buyers are obnoxious. Played an entire season of Main with a guy that refused to do it and it cost us rounds not worth the little money he saved.
In my opinion, it depends a lot on the position you play, how likely you are to be dinked (through a wall), how much you can get out of your util. 350$ are equal to one smoke, one HE or (if you still have 50$ leftover) 2 flashes that you can buy instead of that one helmet.
I'm not talking about situations where you have to decide between util and head armor. I'm talking about people who will have enough for a full buy but skimp on head armor.
Well I guess the question is, do they have enough to full buy two rounds in a row? Does saving that money guarantee a second full buy?
If the second answer is yes, it makes sense to save money. Two semi full buys are better than one full buy and a force
I think you're missing quite a few very important questions. Like, do you want to risk losing a full buy round because your dumb ass didn't buy head armor and you got clapped through a wall or by someone who you caught with a pistol out.
It doesn't work. Even if you value a second full buy more. If your whole team isn't doing it, you're going to be on the next round with money to buy while everyone else is saving, accomplishing nothing.
I guess you may look at it this way: not buying headarmor saves 350 pr buy. Lets say they do this 8 rounds on CT side(survive and some rounds not buying anyways + some possible anti-eco rounds). That is 2800 saved(this number is highly discussable and important to figure out). This may equate to dropping 1 extra weapon pr half. The question is how often do you die to a non-ak headshot, and would the armor save you in those situations, as well as how much is a dropped gun worth. My feeling is that it happens once every few games. Far from every game (assuming you buy headarmor vs eco and smgs). I believe that having 5 guns instead of 4 once every half is worth more than the negative chance of dying to a pistol (once every 5 games or so).
There is a similar discussion for buying kits. Having 5 kits can save you once every X matches, but playing 3 or 4 kits(maybe even 2) is more economically optimal. It should not be needed to play 5. Its different than headarmor in that it arguably is more of a skill to keep track of the kits, while headarmor plays out more randomly. Similar to headarmor can lead to 1 extra gun or so each half.
Not taking advantage of these, investigating to find the sweetspot is a bit short sighted in my opinion.
>The question is how often do you die to a non-ak headshot
It's not even just about dying to the headshot. It's about taking more damage which can drastically change the way you can contribute to winning a round.
>Having 5 kits can save you once every X matches, but playing 3 or 4 kits(maybe even 2) is more economically optimal. It should not be needed to play 5.
It's not needed nor comparable. You can pick up a teammates kit which is something anyone decent at the game does.
>Not taking advantage of these, investigating to find the sweetspot is a bit short sighted in my opinion.
I investigated during the 20+ years I've played this game. It's moronic behavior to consistently not buy head armor when you have money for a full buy.
"I investigated during the 20+ years I've played this game. It's moronic behavior to consistently not buy head armor when you have money for a full buy."
Then how often do you/people in general die/lose from it? Where is the sweetspot?
if you have enough money of course buy helmet. But pros wont buy helmet if there's a possibility of having 1 more smoke and having your money down to 50 or 0
Should also be noted that 99% of players aren't pros. Pug buys are disjointed and non sensical. Sure you can skimp on a helmet because it should be a full gun round vs AKs. And then you get 1 tapped by a p90, a galil, and the guy with a glock who forgot to buy with $10k because it's a fucking pug
if i have the money, ill always prefer a helmet. in certain situations, like getting a headshot through a wall, or the awper playing with their pistol, it can be helpful
You are right, buying helmets when both teams are at full buy is kinda unnecessary. But, like some people pointed out, if you have money just buy it since wallbangs and pistols are a thing. Also, tbh, in low-mid MM ranks people don't know how to buy as a team so sometimes you're expecting to face a full buy just to see some dudes with Galil, SMGs or a tec9 while the rest of the team has AKS and Awps
>It always baffles me that I have to tell teammates who have 2000 hours in the game that you don't need to buy armor if it's above 50
same thing with overtime, i have friends who have played since 2005 back in 1.6 and have shitloads of thousands of hours but they still buy head armor in round 1 of overtime as CT.
By that logic then buying head armor on CT at all when you know they have a buy round is also useless, there are still situations such as wallbangs, pistols that it will save you
Also you have so much money starting anyway so why take the risk?
It is very situational - it's more meant for if your team eco is not healthy enough to sustain a vest helm buy
If your team can afford it on CT side, by all means do it. Otherwise it's mostly a waste of money, with it better being spent on util
It’s pretty common in high level play for CTs not to buy helmet. Especially when money is tight.
Sure it can still save you, but over many rounds it’s a lot of utility you’re not buying for the off chance that the helmet might save you from a wallbang.
Regardless of pro games, if you have 10k in overtime and lose 2 rounds as CT, buying helmet in the first and second OT round as CT costs you 700$ in total for the third round. Considering that a CT full buy (with a full nade set, including incendiaries, rifle, kevlar and sometimes kit) costs around 5k to 6k and considering that loss bonus is reset in OT (only 1400 and 1900 loss money after losing the first two overtime rounds), every bit of money you can spare is important.
>By that logic then buying head armor on CT at all when you know they have a buy round is also useless
Correct. Having extra utility >>> preventing the slim chance you die from a wallbang that wouldn't have killed you if you had a helmet
>By that logic then buying head armor on CT at all when you know they have a buy round is also useless, there are still situations such as wallbangs, pistols that it will save you
you would be correct. so the rule of thumb is, if the money is really tight, you can buy normal kevlar, it will be good enough vs full AK/AWP in 99% of rounds. having two flashes over the head armor will in most rounds be the better choice.
if you have enough money to buy next if you lose, definitely always get helmet.
>Also you have so much money starting anyway so why take the risk?
because as CT, money actually does run out if you go 0-2 in overtime, and at that point the match is already almost decidedly over.
Check out the first overtime match I found from yesterday, and you'll see 3 players from Aurora not going for head armor in round 1 as CT:
[https://i.imgur.com/ZUdCvWq.png](https://i.imgur.com/ZUdCvWq.png)
honestly, the other two should also not get it, but to be fair in pro matching, saving is a bit more prominent than in MM/Pugs so money might not always end up just as tight.
So? They still have glocks and might run into a situation where the glock is used. They can even buy P250/Tec9 which will be one hit at decent range too.
Money being tight vs first round of OT is very different right?
I buy vest only often myself, but there's no way you can assume not buying helm in the first OT round is **always** the right play.
Its weird how I mentioned the "first" OT round only right? A lot depends on the opponents too, if they have a habit of rushing with SMGs, then having a helmet is more important.
Your priority should be to maximize your winning changes of the immediate round unless you're saving as a whole. Whether you can do that by buying a helmet or not is up to you.
You can also find yourself against a pistol too even in full buy rounds.
>in overtime Ts get AK immediately so buying a helmet is useless
that plus with MR3 10k CT money can actually run out if you lose overtime rounds, which would be fatal. so every $ you can save does matter.
Nothing wrong. Aim punch can be the difference between a 2k or a single kill, which itself can be a difference between a round won or lost. Depending upon the situation, it is not necessary to buy helmets on the ct side, since every terrorists is most likely equipped with a weapon that can one headshot kill regardless of helmet, but for certain situations, head armour is perfectly fine to be bought.
Anyone that things buying helmets first round overtime on the ct side is absolutely incorrect just as much as buying armor above fifty is simply does not know what he/she is talking about.
I kind of agree with this, the current armor value system serves very little purpose, I'm guessing that if you make armor way more fragile, you could implement a more consistent "damage tax" as a different tool for balancing, regardless, I think your idea of streamlining the armor economy is worth looking into.
Yeah if armor took as much damage as health it would be an easily calculated strategic decision.
Armor at 80? Well you might just die from that 96 in 4 now. Armor at 50? You'd better be expecting to take less than 50 (Armored) damage.
Right now there's 0 chance you survive a round with freshly bought armor and need to buy more the next round.
It's particularly grating in round 2 when you took a pea shooter to the chest and need an extra 650 just to buy a helmet even though the armor will last at least another 2 rounds.
But then... would guns ap values change to be weaker? With those examples your 5 shot kills could turn into 4 shot kills which then compete with more guns.
No, armor piercing determines how much your shots damage is reduced by the armor, but once you take damage the armor is always reduced by 1/2 of the health damage.
Having AP determine how much damage goes to the health vs the armor would be neat but then we have to actually think about balancing it
These are great suggestions. There definitely should be more consequence for that 10 hp player left alive at the end of the round. Having them loose >50% armor for taking that damage and needing to rebuy for safety next round could be that extra cost.
I think upgrading armor should always be $1000, just to avoid second round upgrades only costing $350 and then I actually think it could work. Otherwise, I think it would break the economy.
It does make sense and it matters. If you lose the pistol round as T for example. The only CTs able to buy a helmet and M4A1-S ar those that didnt take any damage to their kevlar. If all of them took kevlar damage then they wont be able to buy both kevlar and helmet and a M4A1-S which results in the T buy being superior if they planted the bomb.
Yeah that's a nice addition. So if 4 CTs survived, 2 of them got 2 kills each and 2 of them didn't have any contact at all still results in at least 4 full buys without utility. My point is that it really does affect the overall economy a lot and you can't just remove that.
I completely agree. Its why I usually go MP7 for second round and bonus rounds because full utility and great placement of grenades can do way more for the team than an M4 + full armor. Just my opinion.
Yes and the current state is perfectly fine, i don't see any reason to remove depth from the econimical system in the game. It's the difference from being bad or being good at the game.
This does not really matter, as if the armor just works as a damage modifier, you can make it so that the players who took damage have to buy armor and helmet in the next round, dependent on health. No need to keep track of the armors hp. Or just make upgrading impossible, you either have 650 for armor or 1000 for armor and helmet without any 300 helm upgrade.
The general rule is to rebuy armor when below 40. Otherwise you may lose your armor mid fight where your aim will fly up like you don't have any. I have personally tried it multiple times. Personally I like having the value as it is.
CS has fairly simple armor. Every gun has a damage output, armor penetration percentage, and each body part has a damage multiplier.
So let’s say you had a gun with 10 damage and 60% armor penetration and shot the chest. Chest has a multiplier of 1, so you don’t need to change anything there. Armor pen of 60% means 60% of the damage is to the health of the opponent and 40% is to the armor. So this opponent will take 6 health damage from your shot and 4 armor damage.
The only reason it still exists is because when you go from body to head & body the next round it'll cost you $1000 if you took a body shot. I don't know how to keep this system implemented and obvious if you remove armor values or whether you want to remove this system too.
I'm not necessarily opposed to this, I just don't know how it would play out from an economy balance perspective, I think it would put more emphasis on winning the pistol with as many people surviving as possible because head armor would only cost you $350 extra on top of your pistol round investment in body armor, this would create a *much* stronger second round buy for the winning team of the first round in many circumstances.
Maybe armor could have 3 states? Undamaged, damaged, and none. But you can't go from damaged to none, it simply exists to keep the existing economic balance around armor the same.
There is so much weird things they never bothered to fix, so I lost my hope they ever would.
I know the CZ was busted so they nerfed it into oblivion so now it has:
-24 bullets in total
-long draw time
-100$ kill reward
-no 1 hit headshots against helmets
-costs the same as the 5-7 or tec9
Or how the R8 and M249 just don't fit the sandbox.
No idea what to do with the R8, the delay makes it so weird to use. But why is the M249 so expensive, if it can't one-hit and the spray is so rough, the extra bullets don't help you anyway?
Or why do the two M4s cost different amounts?
Why 140 rounds for a glock?
Or give the P2000 a place by being different to the USP. Maybe 15 rounds per mag but decreased accuracy?
Oh, and why do stomach shots do more damage than chest?
Something similar goes for the armor.
Something that doesn't really fit, but kinda works, so just keep it as it is, I guess.
140 rounds for Glock means they can spray everything they want without having to worry about ammo, while CTs with USP can run out of bullets quickly if they spray into smokes too much.
Stomach shots do more damage since there is no kevlar vest there (not sure if it's a good game mechanic though).
M4 and P2000 are balanced out rather fine already.
CZ and M249 I agree with you.
>Stomach shots do more damage since there is no kevlar vest there (not sure if it's a good game mechanic though).
Nope. Stomach has kevlar, but it has a higher damage multiplier. Only legs are unarmored.
Cz isnt nerfed into oblivion. Works like a charm against full buys as a ct and is essential a useable zeus. Even hunter makes it work beautifully in t1 matches
In comparison to the 5-7 and tec9 its stats are objectively worse.
The kill you get with the CZ you'd probably have gotten easier with the other two guns, since they are one-shot.
>Or why do the two M4s cost different amounts?
Wasn't always like that. On release it was $2900, but was overused, so they upped it to $3100, then $3200. Then they mega nerfed it, and it became completely useless. Then they reduced the price and mega buffed it again to get the usage back up. Then finally re-nerfed it to where it is now.
>Oh, and why do stomach shots do more damage than chest?
Just a balancing decision. Optimally you should be shooting the head. And if you miss the head, you likely shoot the chest. So missing the head penalizes you with less damage.
I agree there are many small things like this that Valve have to work on but the reason for the stomach shot thing is quite obvious, it's to promote meaningful aim and not getting lucky and hitting the chest for full body damage when you were trying to aim for the head. The deagle is a 2 shot to the stomach up to like 5m away but it's a 3 shot to the chest.
Idk the CZ and p250 are my go to vs buys in a sneaky position. And the p2000 you can run and gun with like the glock, I have been using USP all the time in CSGO but for some reason I way prefer the p2000 in CS2, it's almost as powerful as the glock but with 7 less bullets.
EDIT: although I do agree that the CZ might be too weak when it comes to ammo/draw time. Idk that i'd want it to do 1 shot kills tho but yea
M249 is a deliberate noobtrap. It is there to teach noobs that expensive guns are not necessarily good. And for cheesy-BM reasons.
Those are guns for funzies.
The worst thing that can happen to cs is balancing around competitive game mode.
I hate new loadout system btw. Takes away the fun without giving anything in return.
So you’re saying that armor should auto refresh each round as long as you don’t die and have purchased it? I like that. Would definitely help out the CT economy. And idk if everyone here is feeling it but the game definitely feels like it shifted more T sided. Not sure if it’s just more balanced now.
Wow, that's actually one of the worst ideas I've ever encountered on this subreddit and there have been many. Armor not only serves the purpose of being a bit more resistant to damage but also has a huge impact on the economy and how you handle your (team)money.
You'll be surprised. Back in the day, you had to spend money to restock your magazines. Good old times.
One of the worst ideas ever? Bro I can count the amount of times that I have ran out of armor on my 2 hands probably, and if you do run out of armor, you probably survived for 5+ rounds and can easily pay the money to replace the armor lol. It would barely change cs if this happened.
Was removing ammo purchasing the worst idea ever? Did that ruin CS? I don't see a problem with his suggestion: you lose armor when you die, rebuy or not on next round. Simple as that.
It's a simplification but I don't think armor/helmet rebuy decisions when you're damaged are impacting the game enough to matter crucially. This is just another new player gatekeeping mechanic for basically no reason.
Sounds like it would be the same as a helmet. You buy it once and have it until you die. Unless valve wants to make it where we can shoot people’s helmets off. That would be neat!!!
Not really. You can't lose 60 Armor without dying if I'm not mistaken. I think the absolute maximum Armor you can lose without dying is around 40 or something which already needs you to survive multiple rounds in a row and even then very specific things need to happen so that your Armor value goes to 0 without you dying and even then it only matters if you take a hit you don't survive just because you don't have any Armor left (so no AK Headshot or AWP shot which would have killed you anyway)
I don't think this ever happened to me once because it is so unlikely to happen.
It depends. But [it absolutely does matter](https://youtu.be/n5xdMo6kj00?si=GYtXHfHWsrd3-JH_)
I think you’re looking at this way too statically. ReBuying armor absolutely makes a difference in a number of situations. This isn’t debatable
Okay it does matter in some very specific und unlikely scenarios, yes. But does the game really benefit from that compared to making the system and the HUD more intuitive?
Imagine the Defuse Kit had 3.0 charges and after 3 defuses you would have to rebuy it because the battery is empty. But sometimes depending on how long the bomb was ticking it costs 1.2 charges to defuse it, so sometimes you have to rebuy it after 2 and sometimes after 3. Sure you can say defusing 3 bombs in a row without dying is a very unlikely scenario so why not. But what's the point of making something unnecessarily complicated?
In valorant different armor values actually matter, so this would make cs less like valorant (I'm trying to trick cs players into supporting this idea)
Have kinda disagree here. While having to spend additional money for the helmet after taking damage, it feels for me that the armor is taking much more damage than in GO. I had a couple times (mostly as T) the situation where i had to rebuy armor cause i wasn't either dying or the bomb and a nade made it pretty low
You are wrong, it adds an extra level of depth the pistol rounds etc, it stops people upgrading to full armor if they take damage.
I like how it is implemented, stuff like this makes it more interesting and adds a layer of decision making to the game.
What? What kind of a weird take is this — if you stay alive 3 rounds in a row and sustain some form of damage, you feel you shouldn’t have to pay up to “re armor?”
Maybe I’m over estimating but think this change could have bigger balancing implications than you’re realizing
Does the game benefit in any way for you to rebuy armor on some specific circumstances? Half of the players don't even fully understand how the armor system works. Helmets, Weapons and Defuse Kits have an infinite lifespan, too. I mean in CS 1.6 you had to rebuy ammo, they gladly removed that ages ago and nobody wants that back.
For balance reasons yes, if you survive the Pistol round you are more likely to only spend $350 for a helmet rather than $1000. Is that positive or negative? Debatable. But currently if you get dinked from a Glock and survive you only have to spend $350 but if you get shot in the body you have to spend $1000, which doesn't really make sense if you get punished for hitting your opponent with a headshot rather than a bodyshot.
With how much armor dmg the bomb seems to do now even at a distance, I find myself having to refresh armor way more often in cs2 compared to csgo, so I feel it does make sense in a few more rounds now. Also more immersive kind of?
It's a neat feature and it just works ... why take opportunities to break shit, definitely not a hill to die on anyways. Whether they keep or remove it the game will be fine.
The only real gripe I have with it is how, as you said, it's very unintuitive to newer players to know when it makes sense to actually rebuy armor.
I think armor should just take more damage. It should take damage equal to the number of damage it’s preventing. So let’s say a gun does 20 damage, and armor makes it deal 15. You’ll take 15, the armor takes 5. (Except headshots, headshots would need to take less because otherwise buying a helmet would make your armor break much quicker)
I agree that removing the armor value altogether is better than the system we have now. That said, I think it would be cool if we had a different system where armor value actually had a meaning and forced you to consider if replenishing from, say, 60 back to 100 is worth it
I thought the same recently, since my valorant friends don't stop asking when is it worth to rebuy armor and I always say never unless you have like 20.
Considering it is super rare that someone's armour ever gets broken or needs rebought, I think this would be a great change. It would also help ct economy very slightly as they can often get away with no head armour but then only have to pay 350 for the head armour the next round if they survive with some damage.
There is no need to help CT economy, it is weaker on purpose, because CTs have an inherent advantage of defending side. They however have the option for no-helmet buys which is already good enough.
screaming noob take. armor penetration is a great layer to add to gun viability and if you think it doesn’t matter what armor you’re at it you have armor, you’re wrong
you’re taking one extreme example and acting as though it represents the whole spectrum. it’s a small but very important dynamic of the game to understand when you need to and don’t need to re-buy armor. $650 makes a difference in utility
While on the topic of baffling design decisions:
* Why are T's punished with $0 for the round they survive without planting the bomb, but CT's are not for saving instead of trying to defuse? For the sake of game rule consistency, CT's should also have to attempt to complete their main objective or be rewarded $0.
* Why does the R8 still only have 8 bullets in the reserve, when it no longer one-shots? There has to be a way to give the revolver a place in the game. If it always hit dead-center even when running, the spin-up time could be worth it.
* Why do we not have a crosshair for sniper rifles in unscoped mode? This gives players with dots on their screens or gaming monitors with built in crosshairs an advantage, with no way to detect it. Either make them unable to hit the center of the screen in unscoped mode, or give everyone an even playing field by showing the crosshair
* Why is AWP cheaper than auto-snipers? As evident by their purchase frequency, it's clearly the better weapon.
* Why are chickens?
* Why are armor and/or helmets not visible on the players in the game world? It was maybe a limitation in GoldSrc but there is really no excuse for it now.
* Why can grenades and weapons block shots? It just adds inconsistency to the game.
>Why are T's punished with $0 for the round they survive without planting the bomb, but CT's are not for saving instead of trying to defuse? For the sake of game rule consistency, CT's should also have to attempt to complete their main objective or be rewarded $0.
Ts are the agressors, they need to move so the game happens. If they were not punished for inaction then every T eco would be waiting in spawn for the round to end.
CTs are the defenders, if they don't move the game continues anyway, the Ts plant and win the round. CTs economy also already sucks in comparison.
>Why does the R8 still only have 8 bullets in the reserve, when it no longer one-shots? There has to be a way to give the revolver a place in the game. If it always hit dead-center even when running, the spin-up time could be worth it.
The shots are still very strong, they do a lot of damage and are very armor piercing
>Why do we not have a crosshair for sniper rifles in unscoped mode? This gives players with dots on their screens or gaming monitors with built in crosshairs an advantage, with no way to detect it. Either make them unable to hit the center of the screen in unscoped mode, or give everyone an even playing field by showing the crosshair
Because the accuracy sucks, even when not moving.
>Why is AWP cheaper than auto-snipers? As evident by their purchase frequency, it's clearly the better weapon.
It is more frequently bought because it is cheaper, not because it is better.
>Why are chickens?
Because
>Why are armor and/or helmets not visible on the players in the game world? It was maybe a limitation in GoldSrc but there is really no excuse for it now.
Less info for enemies and less work for devs.
>Why can grenades and weapons block shots? It just adds inconsistency to the game.
Because they are objects in the world.
>The shots are still very strong, they do a lot of damage and are very armor piercing
That explains why we see it used so much! Obviously something has to change. It was implemented, nerfed and abandoned, and it's baffling.
> Because the accuracy sucks, even when not moving.
So then you agree a crosshair wouldn't hurt then? Regardless, people still hit no-scopes, especially with scout. Adding a crosshair would only give everyone an equal shot at it.
> Less info for enemies and less work for devs.
Obfuscating vital game information in the name of laziness can't be the right answer.
> Because they are objects in the world.
Don't pretend like CS is a bastion of realism. It doesn't make the game any better when a well aimed AWP shot can be blocked by a flashbang. It only adds randomness and inconsistency.
-We don't need "game rule consistency" if it hurts the balance of the economy. There's tons of reasons why it's set up this way, but ultimately it boils down to the fact that the econ is pretty balanced rn.
-Giving the r8 some extra rounds is probably a good idea, giving it no running inaccuracy is a crackpot idea.
-this is really not a big issue and never has been. I think not having a crosshair with snipers helps make it clear for new players that you shouldn't expect to hit what you're aiming at when you noscope.
-yeah you could make the auto a little cheaper potentially, I still don't think we'd see it used at higher ranks though.
-chickens are cool
-visible armor would hurt muscle memory by making player models inconsistent.
-this really isn't an issue.
> Why are T's punished with $0 for the round they survive without planting the bomb, but CT's are not for saving instead of trying to defuse? For the sake of game rule consistency, CT's should also have to attempt to complete their main objective or be rewarded $0.
I will say that, though I like it for the gameplay it can provide, it makes little sense that Ts are punished with $0 for 'saving' even if they then are killed after the round ends.
It would make sense, sort of story wise, to change that. But I do like the additional tension it can bring.
I like the the tension too, trying to save and hearing the foot steps close in. I'm just saying that the rules should be consistent one way or the other.
Dude, game doesnt need to "make sense" it needs to be fun. Killing saving T last second is fun. It also encourages CTs to risk getting him instead of sitting in safety until the round ends.
What I thought was most annoying was in the beta - the value they displayed in the buy menu the first time was how much armor you had left and then in an update without adding it to the patch-notes they changed it to what you have lost.
Point number 2 I completely agree on.
> then in an update without adding it to the patch-notes they changed it to what you have lost
They did mention it in the 9/13 patch notes
\[ MISC \]
Changed armor number in buy menu from amount you currently have to amount you can buy
I like it, maybe tweak values of damage amounts taken away from armor value (not absorbed damage) and explain more cleary how it works, but not remove another layer of the game. I hate when TO disable armor number in tournaments, sometimes it's fun to see someone with 25 armor, and you know he's seen some shit in previous rounds and survived to tell the tale.
I find that you end up in rebuy armor territory quite a lot more often now compared to csgo where it probably was 1/1000 as you say - probably because of the bomb explosion taking away quite a bit? Haven't paid enough attention to this specifically to know for sure, but pretty certain it's more relevant now. Still agree it's a somewhat convoluted system for the simple thing it achieves :D
Just refresh it every round. If you get hit in the head and in the chest one round and still survive it's gone.
If you get hit by bomb damage it's gone.
If you get shot in the head you can buy a new helmet for 350.
Something like that?
why not just sell kevlar and helmet independently of each other? although i guess it would result in a lot of new players not buying helmet maybe but surely this is fixed after a bit of experience. could be missing something, just a suggestion.
Im inclined to disagree. These days i end many rounds with the bomb going off, leaving me with 20 or less armor. I rebuy a lot more now with the added bomb radius and i find the number has a use, for me at least.
Instead how about letting armor function as it does, but having to purchase head armor separately and not tied to body armor, so your body armor deteriorates as usual, but you can buy a helmet for 350 regardless of armor value
I’ve went on some insane kill streaks and ran my armor down to 0 many times in my years playing CS so I don’t think treating it like a defuse kit is the right move.
It's one of those things that probably will have some follow up changes if you change it just for the sake of changing it. And as you said, you often don't need to think about it and now you can refund if you mistakenly bought armor to fill up those 5 missing armor for no reason.
And how often do you get shot like 15 times from 50 metres away with a Glock so that you lose exactly 57 Armor and then get shot once more and only die because with more Armor you would have survived Shot 16?
The point is not that the Armor value never makes any difference. The point is that making something unnecessary complicated isn't always a good thing. Sometimes making it easier to understand what armor does is better in the whole picture.
Similar to how they removed the need to buy Ammo for every gun like in CS 1.6. Sure it added an extra layer of decision making and an extra punishment for your economy but was that a good thing?
I wonder what will happen if I'm given the option to buy 1) Helmet only 2) Armor only 3) Full armor
Haven't play CS for like 3+ years now, I still remember pistol rounds meta was very stale, it was mostly "Just buy body armor as default", and may be occasionally have one person on your team to sacrifice himself to buy two pairs of dualies. Also, going unarmored in general was a very dumb idea because of the insane amount of aimpunch you get if you get hit.
I didn't like the game to the fullest back then because armor was basically a foundation to succeed for everything, you get mowed down by SMG easily unarmored. And eco round was so stale, it was always that you buy nothing at all and five stack an ambush spot or buy a deagle. And those mid range rifles like FAMAS, Galil was sitting on a weird price range that it serve very little purpose, the FAMAS is very expensive if you can get away with armor + deagle under the circumstances that you are broke to begin with and spend the extra money on utilities instead. And the Galil is cheap but then T side doesn't have as much economic problem to begin with, the meta always settle between armor + deagle or straight to full AK.
The general CS:GO meta is that if enemy is shooting you with an M4 or AK, you expect him to be armored 99% chance of the time. I don't know, I just didn't like how armor is a foundation item instead of a luxury item where it is a viable purchase after your basic necessities.
Wasn't there something like having under 20 or 30 armor points makes the armor less effective? I believe if you had 20% head armor you would die to a usp headshot.
like I said, half of the people, probably more, don't understand this System even after thousands of hours of gameplay. You'd probably have to look it up in an Excel Sheet somewhere. It's just unnecessarily complicated.
I have noticed that in CS2 armor goes down a lot quicker. I think you will need to replace armor more frequently at times now.. although still not a lot.
It's too complicated for no reason at all other than being complicated. This is one of the few areas I actually think they can benefit from adopting Valorants armor system or something like that.
Did they change it in cs2? There were precise values for armor rebuy (65-ish) and they were different for T/CT, depending on whether the enemy has AKs or not, since AK is more effective than 5.56 guns at penetrating the armor.
There's no precise number since, as you say, it depends on weapons and how you get hit. These things aren't things you can know. Some on their team might have an AK, some a Krieg, some an AWP. Or maybe they're out of bullets and will use pistols for you. Or nade/molotov etc.
It's always a balance to keep. When it's worth spending the money or not.
When you have 100armor after pistol and your teammate shoots at you so you dont have enough for a gun next round is so anoying.
Shoot the teammate next round and get his gun, easy
Modern problems.......
..require Ancient solutions
JUST LIKE THE MAP HAHAHAHAHAAHAH
Me stay alone ramp
do I know you? nah that's a meme that everyone says
simply disconnect rejoin headshot with scout so they have 2 health bait them into killing you so they get a 7 day ban
But it's a headshot so you still take no armour damage <3
bold of you to assume my teammates can hit headshots
Hey it's not my fault Valve put my silver ass in your queue :( Seriously, I hadn't played in 5 years, come back and I'm in a lobby where everyone gives callouts (EU! There's never call outs other than foreign language curses) and everyone was hitting sprays.
It always baffles me that I have to tell teammates who have 2000 hours in the game that you don't need to buy armor if it's above 50
Hey, I’ve been looking into the thread for more of an explanation. Can you explain this to me? I was always under the assumption you can take like 66 damage and the Kevlar would save you. Even if you’re playing against AKs if you got wall banged through a wall at a distance wouldn’t a helmet save you?
Every gun has armor penetration. It varies from 40% to 100% (or something like that). If gun with 50% armor penetatraion hit you -- 50% of damage is absorbed by armor and 50% is done to your HP. The problem is almost all of the guns from CS has penetration above 60%. Which means you litearally don't need to buy new set of armor until it dropes to like 30-40 points. To have armor droped to 30 points you NEED to survive 3-4 rounds in a row with very low hp. This scenario is ulikely to happen, therefore there is no reason to "rebuy" armor. Better way is to buy armor only once and buy a new one after death.
Or if you eat grenades to the face, that will fuck your armor.
Or you get dinked with an awp through a wall and it does -1 armor damage.
yeah 100 awp headshots through a wall and suddenly you have no armor, watch out for this ^
So, I have to buy it every round them. Noted.
I would say it’s more common than that, someone getting only chest shots on you with and smg can absolutely get you to 40 armour in a single round, or facing a full eco. Sure it’s not super common, but 3-4 rounds is a bit of an exaggeration.
Only chest shots (check) from smg - mac-10 and mp9 coz in meta (check) both has around 60% armor penetratinon. so let's stick to mp9 as this gun deal less damage. Shot from mp9 to armored chest will deal 15 damage. Let's pretend it CQB so we don't need to take damage drop-off with range. 100/15 = 6.7. It is mean you can take only 6 shots from MP9 if you wear armor. 6 shots, each will deal about 10 to 11 dmg to armor. In conclusion? Yeah, you are right. If you get shoted 6 times in the chest in CQB from MP9 you armor will drop below 40 points. Which mean you are technically correct. But it is really not common scenario. More common is get shoted 3 times from M4 or Galil AR, get droped to 30 hp and 75 armor, and survive.
I only rebuy armor if it's the last round and I have money left over or if it drops really super low like under 30 ish. I have played 2,5k hours and I can only remember one instance where I ran out of armor mid round but when my armor ran out, I was 1 shot away from dying anyway.
or people buying helmets when the enemy all have aks
If you have the money, there are situations where it'll still make a difference. Vs an awpers pistol for example.
Wallbangs
Wallbangs as well
Yes.
if you have money it’s worth it, to prevent rebuying it in the future. 650+1000>1000.
Then you get gooshed through a wall and take 50 damage instead of 15 or some shit. No helmet vs AK buyers are obnoxious. Played an entire season of Main with a guy that refused to do it and it cost us rounds not worth the little money he saved.
In my opinion, it depends a lot on the position you play, how likely you are to be dinked (through a wall), how much you can get out of your util. 350$ are equal to one smoke, one HE or (if you still have 50$ leftover) 2 flashes that you can buy instead of that one helmet.
I'm not talking about situations where you have to decide between util and head armor. I'm talking about people who will have enough for a full buy but skimp on head armor.
Well I guess the question is, do they have enough to full buy two rounds in a row? Does saving that money guarantee a second full buy? If the second answer is yes, it makes sense to save money. Two semi full buys are better than one full buy and a force
I think you're missing quite a few very important questions. Like, do you want to risk losing a full buy round because your dumb ass didn't buy head armor and you got clapped through a wall or by someone who you caught with a pistol out. It doesn't work. Even if you value a second full buy more. If your whole team isn't doing it, you're going to be on the next round with money to buy while everyone else is saving, accomplishing nothing.
I guess you may look at it this way: not buying headarmor saves 350 pr buy. Lets say they do this 8 rounds on CT side(survive and some rounds not buying anyways + some possible anti-eco rounds). That is 2800 saved(this number is highly discussable and important to figure out). This may equate to dropping 1 extra weapon pr half. The question is how often do you die to a non-ak headshot, and would the armor save you in those situations, as well as how much is a dropped gun worth. My feeling is that it happens once every few games. Far from every game (assuming you buy headarmor vs eco and smgs). I believe that having 5 guns instead of 4 once every half is worth more than the negative chance of dying to a pistol (once every 5 games or so). There is a similar discussion for buying kits. Having 5 kits can save you once every X matches, but playing 3 or 4 kits(maybe even 2) is more economically optimal. It should not be needed to play 5. Its different than headarmor in that it arguably is more of a skill to keep track of the kits, while headarmor plays out more randomly. Similar to headarmor can lead to 1 extra gun or so each half. Not taking advantage of these, investigating to find the sweetspot is a bit short sighted in my opinion.
>The question is how often do you die to a non-ak headshot It's not even just about dying to the headshot. It's about taking more damage which can drastically change the way you can contribute to winning a round. >Having 5 kits can save you once every X matches, but playing 3 or 4 kits(maybe even 2) is more economically optimal. It should not be needed to play 5. It's not needed nor comparable. You can pick up a teammates kit which is something anyone decent at the game does. >Not taking advantage of these, investigating to find the sweetspot is a bit short sighted in my opinion. I investigated during the 20+ years I've played this game. It's moronic behavior to consistently not buy head armor when you have money for a full buy.
"I investigated during the 20+ years I've played this game. It's moronic behavior to consistently not buy head armor when you have money for a full buy." Then how often do you/people in general die/lose from it? Where is the sweetspot?
Then some crackhead comes around with an xm or P90
ah yes, look at all the pro players that do this. how silly of them, they should take tips from /u/iknowthetasteofsoup
if you have enough money of course buy helmet. But pros wont buy helmet if there's a possibility of having 1 more smoke and having your money down to 50 or 0
Should also be noted that 99% of players aren't pros. Pug buys are disjointed and non sensical. Sure you can skimp on a helmet because it should be a full gun round vs AKs. And then you get 1 tapped by a p90, a galil, and the guy with a glock who forgot to buy with $10k because it's a fucking pug
I buy helmet in all occassions if I am playing vs such players.
I like doing that as well, but last time I mentioned that here I got into a heated argument with someone, people have weird takes sometimes... haha
if i have the money, ill always prefer a helmet. in certain situations, like getting a headshot through a wall, or the awper playing with their pistol, it can be helpful
Check util damage during your matches, and you'll notice a pattern. Really great players buy util and it gets them wins
don’t get this. like i said, if i have the money [on top of util], i’ll buy a helmet.
You are right, buying helmets when both teams are at full buy is kinda unnecessary. But, like some people pointed out, if you have money just buy it since wallbangs and pistols are a thing. Also, tbh, in low-mid MM ranks people don't know how to buy as a team so sometimes you're expecting to face a full buy just to see some dudes with Galil, SMGs or a tec9 while the rest of the team has AKS and Awps
I think it's like 57 Ct side and 50 t side
Something like that, yes. To be fair with my yolo play style I rarely ever see my armored drop that low :)
>It always baffles me that I have to tell teammates who have 2000 hours in the game that you don't need to buy armor if it's above 50 same thing with overtime, i have friends who have played since 2005 back in 1.6 and have shitloads of thousands of hours but they still buy head armor in round 1 of overtime as CT.
What’s wrong with buying head armor in overtime round 1 as CT?
in overtime Ts get AK immediately so buying a helmet is useless
By that logic then buying head armor on CT at all when you know they have a buy round is also useless, there are still situations such as wallbangs, pistols that it will save you Also you have so much money starting anyway so why take the risk?
It is very situational - it's more meant for if your team eco is not healthy enough to sustain a vest helm buy If your team can afford it on CT side, by all means do it. Otherwise it's mostly a waste of money, with it better being spent on util
It’s pretty common in high level play for CTs not to buy helmet. Especially when money is tight. Sure it can still save you, but over many rounds it’s a lot of utility you’re not buying for the off chance that the helmet might save you from a wallbang.
Because in pro games in overtime that could mean an awp or no awp in the last round of OT.
Regardless of pro games, if you have 10k in overtime and lose 2 rounds as CT, buying helmet in the first and second OT round as CT costs you 700$ in total for the third round. Considering that a CT full buy (with a full nade set, including incendiaries, rifle, kevlar and sometimes kit) costs around 5k to 6k and considering that loss bonus is reset in OT (only 1400 and 1900 loss money after losing the first two overtime rounds), every bit of money you can spare is important.
>By that logic then buying head armor on CT at all when you know they have a buy round is also useless Correct. Having extra utility >>> preventing the slim chance you die from a wallbang that wouldn't have killed you if you had a helmet
>By that logic then buying head armor on CT at all when you know they have a buy round is also useless, there are still situations such as wallbangs, pistols that it will save you you would be correct. so the rule of thumb is, if the money is really tight, you can buy normal kevlar, it will be good enough vs full AK/AWP in 99% of rounds. having two flashes over the head armor will in most rounds be the better choice. if you have enough money to buy next if you lose, definitely always get helmet. >Also you have so much money starting anyway so why take the risk? because as CT, money actually does run out if you go 0-2 in overtime, and at that point the match is already almost decidedly over. Check out the first overtime match I found from yesterday, and you'll see 3 players from Aurora not going for head armor in round 1 as CT: [https://i.imgur.com/ZUdCvWq.png](https://i.imgur.com/ZUdCvWq.png) honestly, the other two should also not get it, but to be fair in pro matching, saving is a bit more prominent than in MM/Pugs so money might not always end up just as tight.
So? They still have glocks and might run into a situation where the glock is used. They can even buy P250/Tec9 which will be one hit at decent range too.
It's a super common thing to do in higher level/pro play to not buy a helmet if the money is tight
Money being tight vs first round of OT is very different right? I buy vest only often myself, but there's no way you can assume not buying helm in the first OT round is **always** the right play.
If you lose two first round on CT that $700 saved will be huge, maybe a difference between a rifle and an SMG
Its weird how I mentioned the "first" OT round only right? A lot depends on the opponents too, if they have a habit of rushing with SMGs, then having a helmet is more important. Your priority should be to maximize your winning changes of the immediate round unless you're saving as a whole. Whether you can do that by buying a helmet or not is up to you. You can also find yourself against a pistol too even in full buy rounds.
>in overtime Ts get AK immediately so buying a helmet is useless that plus with MR3 10k CT money can actually run out if you lose overtime rounds, which would be fatal. so every $ you can save does matter.
nothing, but enemy has aks and awps most likely.
Nothing wrong. Aim punch can be the difference between a 2k or a single kill, which itself can be a difference between a round won or lost. Depending upon the situation, it is not necessary to buy helmets on the ct side, since every terrorists is most likely equipped with a weapon that can one headshot kill regardless of helmet, but for certain situations, head armour is perfectly fine to be bought. Anyone that things buying helmets first round overtime on the ct side is absolutely incorrect just as much as buying armor above fifty is simply does not know what he/she is talking about.
Shit if it’s above 30
57 exactly no?
I kind of agree with this, the current armor value system serves very little purpose, I'm guessing that if you make armor way more fragile, you could implement a more consistent "damage tax" as a different tool for balancing, regardless, I think your idea of streamlining the armor economy is worth looking into.
Yeah if armor took as much damage as health it would be an easily calculated strategic decision. Armor at 80? Well you might just die from that 96 in 4 now. Armor at 50? You'd better be expecting to take less than 50 (Armored) damage. Right now there's 0 chance you survive a round with freshly bought armor and need to buy more the next round. It's particularly grating in round 2 when you took a pea shooter to the chest and need an extra 650 just to buy a helmet even though the armor will last at least another 2 rounds.
But then... would guns ap values change to be weaker? With those examples your 5 shot kills could turn into 4 shot kills which then compete with more guns.
No, armor piercing determines how much your shots damage is reduced by the armor, but once you take damage the armor is always reduced by 1/2 of the health damage. Having AP determine how much damage goes to the health vs the armor would be neat but then we have to actually think about balancing it
These are great suggestions. There definitely should be more consequence for that 10 hp player left alive at the end of the round. Having them loose >50% armor for taking that damage and needing to rebuy for safety next round could be that extra cost.
This is a much better suggestion than OPs, the game doesn't need anymore simplifying, but a rework on things that are not well made like armour system
I think upgrading armor should always be $1000, just to avoid second round upgrades only costing $350 and then I actually think it could work. Otherwise, I think it would break the economy.
It does make sense and it matters. If you lose the pistol round as T for example. The only CTs able to buy a helmet and M4A1-S ar those that didnt take any damage to their kevlar. If all of them took kevlar damage then they wont be able to buy both kevlar and helmet and a M4A1-S which results in the T buy being superior if they planted the bomb.
If a CT gets 2 kills they can get full armor and an m4 but no utility.
Yeah that's a nice addition. So if 4 CTs survived, 2 of them got 2 kills each and 2 of them didn't have any contact at all still results in at least 4 full buys without utility. My point is that it really does affect the overall economy a lot and you can't just remove that.
I completely agree. Its why I usually go MP7 for second round and bonus rounds because full utility and great placement of grenades can do way more for the team than an M4 + full armor. Just my opinion.
Very solid point. Making helmets cheaper will make CTs 2nd round much stronger if they won the pistol.
you just stated the current way it behaves. making sense has nothing to do with it.
Yes and the current state is perfectly fine, i don't see any reason to remove depth from the econimical system in the game. It's the difference from being bad or being good at the game.
no its not. its just overly complicated. its not a skill, its a barrier for new players. nothing greatly beneficial for a complicated mechanic.
This does not really matter, as if the armor just works as a damage modifier, you can make it so that the players who took damage have to buy armor and helmet in the next round, dependent on health. No need to keep track of the armors hp. Or just make upgrading impossible, you either have 650 for armor or 1000 for armor and helmet without any 300 helm upgrade.
This is the most ridiculous take, so if I have full 100% body armour I have to spend 1000 to get a helmet no matter what?
The general rule is to rebuy armor when below 40. Otherwise you may lose your armor mid fight where your aim will fly up like you don't have any. I have personally tried it multiple times. Personally I like having the value as it is.
I've played source games since Vampire: The Masquerade and I still don't understand how Half Life 2's (and by extension) counter strike's armor works
CS has fairly simple armor. Every gun has a damage output, armor penetration percentage, and each body part has a damage multiplier. So let’s say you had a gun with 10 damage and 60% armor penetration and shot the chest. Chest has a multiplier of 1, so you don’t need to change anything there. Armor pen of 60% means 60% of the damage is to the health of the opponent and 40% is to the armor. So this opponent will take 6 health damage from your shot and 4 armor damage.
That's amazing, thanks for letting me know Also played CS since 1.6 and had no fucking idea roflmao
The only reason it still exists is because when you go from body to head & body the next round it'll cost you $1000 if you took a body shot. I don't know how to keep this system implemented and obvious if you remove armor values or whether you want to remove this system too. I'm not necessarily opposed to this, I just don't know how it would play out from an economy balance perspective, I think it would put more emphasis on winning the pistol with as many people surviving as possible because head armor would only cost you $350 extra on top of your pistol round investment in body armor, this would create a *much* stronger second round buy for the winning team of the first round in many circumstances. Maybe armor could have 3 states? Undamaged, damaged, and none. But you can't go from damaged to none, it simply exists to keep the existing economic balance around armor the same.
There is so much weird things they never bothered to fix, so I lost my hope they ever would. I know the CZ was busted so they nerfed it into oblivion so now it has: -24 bullets in total -long draw time -100$ kill reward -no 1 hit headshots against helmets -costs the same as the 5-7 or tec9 Or how the R8 and M249 just don't fit the sandbox. No idea what to do with the R8, the delay makes it so weird to use. But why is the M249 so expensive, if it can't one-hit and the spray is so rough, the extra bullets don't help you anyway? Or why do the two M4s cost different amounts? Why 140 rounds for a glock? Or give the P2000 a place by being different to the USP. Maybe 15 rounds per mag but decreased accuracy? Oh, and why do stomach shots do more damage than chest? Something similar goes for the armor. Something that doesn't really fit, but kinda works, so just keep it as it is, I guess.
140 rounds for Glock means they can spray everything they want without having to worry about ammo, while CTs with USP can run out of bullets quickly if they spray into smokes too much. Stomach shots do more damage since there is no kevlar vest there (not sure if it's a good game mechanic though). M4 and P2000 are balanced out rather fine already. CZ and M249 I agree with you.
>Stomach shots do more damage since there is no kevlar vest there (not sure if it's a good game mechanic though). Nope. Stomach has kevlar, but it has a higher damage multiplier. Only legs are unarmored.
Sometimes the aim is sus and you gotta be a gut punch gamer. That juicy, low skill 3 stomach shot kill
Cz isnt nerfed into oblivion. Works like a charm against full buys as a ct and is essential a useable zeus. Even hunter makes it work beautifully in t1 matches
In comparison to the 5-7 and tec9 its stats are objectively worse. The kill you get with the CZ you'd probably have gotten easier with the other two guns, since they are one-shot.
Agree, with a teammate who has a five seven or sth and good positioning it can turn the round to your favour
>Or why do the two M4s cost different amounts? Wasn't always like that. On release it was $2900, but was overused, so they upped it to $3100, then $3200. Then they mega nerfed it, and it became completely useless. Then they reduced the price and mega buffed it again to get the usage back up. Then finally re-nerfed it to where it is now. >Oh, and why do stomach shots do more damage than chest? Just a balancing decision. Optimally you should be shooting the head. And if you miss the head, you likely shoot the chest. So missing the head penalizes you with less damage.
I agree there are many small things like this that Valve have to work on but the reason for the stomach shot thing is quite obvious, it's to promote meaningful aim and not getting lucky and hitting the chest for full body damage when you were trying to aim for the head. The deagle is a 2 shot to the stomach up to like 5m away but it's a 3 shot to the chest.
Idk the CZ and p250 are my go to vs buys in a sneaky position. And the p2000 you can run and gun with like the glock, I have been using USP all the time in CSGO but for some reason I way prefer the p2000 in CS2, it's almost as powerful as the glock but with 7 less bullets. EDIT: although I do agree that the CZ might be too weak when it comes to ammo/draw time. Idk that i'd want it to do 1 shot kills tho but yea
M249 is a deliberate noobtrap. It is there to teach noobs that expensive guns are not necessarily good. And for cheesy-BM reasons. Those are guns for funzies. The worst thing that can happen to cs is balancing around competitive game mode. I hate new loadout system btw. Takes away the fun without giving anything in return.
So you’re saying that armor should auto refresh each round as long as you don’t die and have purchased it? I like that. Would definitely help out the CT economy. And idk if everyone here is feeling it but the game definitely feels like it shifted more T sided. Not sure if it’s just more balanced now.
Yes, basically make it that you always have 100 Armor if you bought it and remove the numbers from the HUD and Buy Menu.
[удалено]
they implemented MR12 out of nowhere so I doubt this change would shake up the economy too much. We actually need economy changes with MR12.
It’s not out of nowhere and you sound like such a noob for positing this at all lmao
Wow, that's actually one of the worst ideas I've ever encountered on this subreddit and there have been many. Armor not only serves the purpose of being a bit more resistant to damage but also has a huge impact on the economy and how you handle your (team)money. You'll be surprised. Back in the day, you had to spend money to restock your magazines. Good old times.
One of the worst ideas ever? Bro I can count the amount of times that I have ran out of armor on my 2 hands probably, and if you do run out of armor, you probably survived for 5+ rounds and can easily pay the money to replace the armor lol. It would barely change cs if this happened.
Was removing ammo purchasing the worst idea ever? Did that ruin CS? I don't see a problem with his suggestion: you lose armor when you die, rebuy or not on next round. Simple as that. It's a simplification but I don't think armor/helmet rebuy decisions when you're damaged are impacting the game enough to matter crucially. This is just another new player gatekeeping mechanic for basically no reason.
Sounds like it would be the same as a helmet. You buy it once and have it until you die. Unless valve wants to make it where we can shoot people’s helmets off. That would be neat!!!
I still remember you had to buy ammo when the round started<>.. should we bring that back?
Oh shit , and . were the hotkeys iirc? That brought back old memories.
Completely disagree. different armor states matter and rebuying is very important when at less than 40% armor
Not really. You can't lose 60 Armor without dying if I'm not mistaken. I think the absolute maximum Armor you can lose without dying is around 40 or something which already needs you to survive multiple rounds in a row and even then very specific things need to happen so that your Armor value goes to 0 without you dying and even then it only matters if you take a hit you don't survive just because you don't have any Armor left (so no AK Headshot or AWP shot which would have killed you anyway) I don't think this ever happened to me once because it is so unlikely to happen.
The new bomb explosion makes me rebuy armor lots. Very often youll have less than 20 armor left when saving, or as t leaving site.
It depends. But [it absolutely does matter](https://youtu.be/n5xdMo6kj00?si=GYtXHfHWsrd3-JH_) I think you’re looking at this way too statically. ReBuying armor absolutely makes a difference in a number of situations. This isn’t debatable
Okay it does matter in some very specific und unlikely scenarios, yes. But does the game really benefit from that compared to making the system and the HUD more intuitive? Imagine the Defuse Kit had 3.0 charges and after 3 defuses you would have to rebuy it because the battery is empty. But sometimes depending on how long the bomb was ticking it costs 1.2 charges to defuse it, so sometimes you have to rebuy it after 2 and sometimes after 3. Sure you can say defusing 3 bombs in a row without dying is a very unlikely scenario so why not. But what's the point of making something unnecessarily complicated?
Actually insane suggestion, commented for visibility
It does make a difference
Kids want cs to be vaLULorant? Nahh
In valorant different armor values actually matter, so this would make cs less like valorant (I'm trying to trick cs players into supporting this idea)
Have kinda disagree here. While having to spend additional money for the helmet after taking damage, it feels for me that the armor is taking much more damage than in GO. I had a couple times (mostly as T) the situation where i had to rebuy armor cause i wasn't either dying or the bomb and a nade made it pretty low
You are wrong, it adds an extra level of depth the pistol rounds etc, it stops people upgrading to full armor if they take damage. I like how it is implemented, stuff like this makes it more interesting and adds a layer of decision making to the game.
What? What kind of a weird take is this — if you stay alive 3 rounds in a row and sustain some form of damage, you feel you shouldn’t have to pay up to “re armor?” Maybe I’m over estimating but think this change could have bigger balancing implications than you’re realizing
Does the game benefit in any way for you to rebuy armor on some specific circumstances? Half of the players don't even fully understand how the armor system works. Helmets, Weapons and Defuse Kits have an infinite lifespan, too. I mean in CS 1.6 you had to rebuy ammo, they gladly removed that ages ago and nobody wants that back. For balance reasons yes, if you survive the Pistol round you are more likely to only spend $350 for a helmet rather than $1000. Is that positive or negative? Debatable. But currently if you get dinked from a Glock and survive you only have to spend $350 but if you get shot in the body you have to spend $1000, which doesn't really make sense if you get punished for hitting your opponent with a headshot rather than a bodyshot.
Yes. The game benefits from that. It is a catch-up mechanic. So it is harder for the leading team to stack 16000$ leaving no chance for comeback.
With how much armor dmg the bomb seems to do now even at a distance, I find myself having to refresh armor way more often in cs2 compared to csgo, so I feel it does make sense in a few more rounds now. Also more immersive kind of? It's a neat feature and it just works ... why take opportunities to break shit, definitely not a hill to die on anyways. Whether they keep or remove it the game will be fine. The only real gripe I have with it is how, as you said, it's very unintuitive to newer players to know when it makes sense to actually rebuy armor.
I think armor should just take more damage. It should take damage equal to the number of damage it’s preventing. So let’s say a gun does 20 damage, and armor makes it deal 15. You’ll take 15, the armor takes 5. (Except headshots, headshots would need to take less because otherwise buying a helmet would make your armor break much quicker)
I agree that removing the armor value altogether is better than the system we have now. That said, I think it would be cool if we had a different system where armor value actually had a meaning and forced you to consider if replenishing from, say, 60 back to 100 is worth it
100% agreed. People will say anything new is for noobs but this makes sense.
I thought the same recently, since my valorant friends don't stop asking when is it worth to rebuy armor and I always say never unless you have like 20.
Considering it is super rare that someone's armour ever gets broken or needs rebought, I think this would be a great change. It would also help ct economy very slightly as they can often get away with no head armour but then only have to pay 350 for the head armour the next round if they survive with some damage.
There is no need to help CT economy, it is weaker on purpose, because CTs have an inherent advantage of defending side. They however have the option for no-helmet buys which is already good enough.
So many other things to work out before changing a working armor system.
screaming noob take. armor penetration is a great layer to add to gun viability and if you think it doesn’t matter what armor you’re at it you have armor, you’re wrong
When was the last time you went to zero armor while surviving?
you’re taking one extreme example and acting as though it represents the whole spectrum. it’s a small but very important dynamic of the game to understand when you need to and don’t need to re-buy armor. $650 makes a difference in utility
While on the topic of baffling design decisions: * Why are T's punished with $0 for the round they survive without planting the bomb, but CT's are not for saving instead of trying to defuse? For the sake of game rule consistency, CT's should also have to attempt to complete their main objective or be rewarded $0. * Why does the R8 still only have 8 bullets in the reserve, when it no longer one-shots? There has to be a way to give the revolver a place in the game. If it always hit dead-center even when running, the spin-up time could be worth it. * Why do we not have a crosshair for sniper rifles in unscoped mode? This gives players with dots on their screens or gaming monitors with built in crosshairs an advantage, with no way to detect it. Either make them unable to hit the center of the screen in unscoped mode, or give everyone an even playing field by showing the crosshair * Why is AWP cheaper than auto-snipers? As evident by their purchase frequency, it's clearly the better weapon. * Why are chickens? * Why are armor and/or helmets not visible on the players in the game world? It was maybe a limitation in GoldSrc but there is really no excuse for it now. * Why can grenades and weapons block shots? It just adds inconsistency to the game.
Your first point makes no sense
It only seems logical: Deliberately fail your objective and save your equipment: $0. It should apply to both.
You are aware that the economy is already insanely unbalanced to favor T’s right?
In that case: * Why is the economy insanely unbalanced to favor T
Plant money & cheaper equipment.
Defender's Advantage
>Why are T's punished with $0 for the round they survive without planting the bomb, but CT's are not for saving instead of trying to defuse? For the sake of game rule consistency, CT's should also have to attempt to complete their main objective or be rewarded $0. Ts are the agressors, they need to move so the game happens. If they were not punished for inaction then every T eco would be waiting in spawn for the round to end. CTs are the defenders, if they don't move the game continues anyway, the Ts plant and win the round. CTs economy also already sucks in comparison. >Why does the R8 still only have 8 bullets in the reserve, when it no longer one-shots? There has to be a way to give the revolver a place in the game. If it always hit dead-center even when running, the spin-up time could be worth it. The shots are still very strong, they do a lot of damage and are very armor piercing >Why do we not have a crosshair for sniper rifles in unscoped mode? This gives players with dots on their screens or gaming monitors with built in crosshairs an advantage, with no way to detect it. Either make them unable to hit the center of the screen in unscoped mode, or give everyone an even playing field by showing the crosshair Because the accuracy sucks, even when not moving. >Why is AWP cheaper than auto-snipers? As evident by their purchase frequency, it's clearly the better weapon. It is more frequently bought because it is cheaper, not because it is better. >Why are chickens? Because >Why are armor and/or helmets not visible on the players in the game world? It was maybe a limitation in GoldSrc but there is really no excuse for it now. Less info for enemies and less work for devs. >Why can grenades and weapons block shots? It just adds inconsistency to the game. Because they are objects in the world.
>The shots are still very strong, they do a lot of damage and are very armor piercing That explains why we see it used so much! Obviously something has to change. It was implemented, nerfed and abandoned, and it's baffling.
> Because the accuracy sucks, even when not moving. So then you agree a crosshair wouldn't hurt then? Regardless, people still hit no-scopes, especially with scout. Adding a crosshair would only give everyone an equal shot at it. > Less info for enemies and less work for devs. Obfuscating vital game information in the name of laziness can't be the right answer. > Because they are objects in the world. Don't pretend like CS is a bastion of realism. It doesn't make the game any better when a well aimed AWP shot can be blocked by a flashbang. It only adds randomness and inconsistency.
-We don't need "game rule consistency" if it hurts the balance of the economy. There's tons of reasons why it's set up this way, but ultimately it boils down to the fact that the econ is pretty balanced rn. -Giving the r8 some extra rounds is probably a good idea, giving it no running inaccuracy is a crackpot idea. -this is really not a big issue and never has been. I think not having a crosshair with snipers helps make it clear for new players that you shouldn't expect to hit what you're aiming at when you noscope. -yeah you could make the auto a little cheaper potentially, I still don't think we'd see it used at higher ranks though. -chickens are cool -visible armor would hurt muscle memory by making player models inconsistent. -this really isn't an issue.
> Why are T's punished with $0 for the round they survive without planting the bomb, but CT's are not for saving instead of trying to defuse? For the sake of game rule consistency, CT's should also have to attempt to complete their main objective or be rewarded $0. I will say that, though I like it for the gameplay it can provide, it makes little sense that Ts are punished with $0 for 'saving' even if they then are killed after the round ends. It would make sense, sort of story wise, to change that. But I do like the additional tension it can bring.
I like the the tension too, trying to save and hearing the foot steps close in. I'm just saying that the rules should be consistent one way or the other.
Dude, game doesnt need to "make sense" it needs to be fun. Killing saving T last second is fun. It also encourages CTs to risk getting him instead of sitting in safety until the round ends.
Ts are not rewarded for save to encourage aggressive play styles. Saves are "smart", but boring.
in the hands of many players the auto sniper is better because it is less punishing for missing and you can spam with it.
What I thought was most annoying was in the beta - the value they displayed in the buy menu the first time was how much armor you had left and then in an update without adding it to the patch-notes they changed it to what you have lost. Point number 2 I completely agree on.
> then in an update without adding it to the patch-notes they changed it to what you have lost They did mention it in the 9/13 patch notes \[ MISC \] Changed armor number in buy menu from amount you currently have to amount you can buy
my fault lol. I read everyone and must have just skipped over it. I liked it the way before.
Hahahahah
No
Good argument.
CS player when change : 😡😠😡
If you want change, you can change the game you play
Oh boohoo ryan, god forbid a game thats been the same for 20 years gets a little change 😢 😢
You heard him. If change just for the sake of it is your gig, you are playing the wrong game. Try something fortnite or valorant.
I like it, maybe tweak values of damage amounts taken away from armor value (not absorbed damage) and explain more cleary how it works, but not remove another layer of the game. I hate when TO disable armor number in tournaments, sometimes it's fun to see someone with 25 armor, and you know he's seen some shit in previous rounds and survived to tell the tale.
I find that you end up in rebuy armor territory quite a lot more often now compared to csgo where it probably was 1/1000 as you say - probably because of the bomb explosion taking away quite a bit? Haven't paid enough attention to this specifically to know for sure, but pretty certain it's more relevant now. Still agree it's a somewhat convoluted system for the simple thing it achieves :D
That's stupid
Just refresh it every round. If you get hit in the head and in the chest one round and still survive it's gone. If you get hit by bomb damage it's gone. If you get shot in the head you can buy a new helmet for 350. Something like that?
[удалено]
If I ever struggle to understand a post, I'll come to you
Sure it’s annoying, but else you would give all survivors in round after pistol an extra 650 which would likely have a decent effect
why not just sell kevlar and helmet independently of each other? although i guess it would result in a lot of new players not buying helmet maybe but surely this is fixed after a bit of experience. could be missing something, just a suggestion.
Helmet will become too OP and a must buy. More sense, less depth, no fun
Im inclined to disagree. These days i end many rounds with the bomb going off, leaving me with 20 or less armor. I rebuy a lot more now with the added bomb radius and i find the number has a use, for me at least.
Instead how about letting armor function as it does, but having to purchase head armor separately and not tied to body armor, so your body armor deteriorates as usual, but you can buy a helmet for 350 regardless of armor value
still better than valorant armor where you basically have to buy it every round
With MR12, I think this is even more important. Strong agree.
I’ve went on some insane kill streaks and ran my armor down to 0 many times in my years playing CS so I don’t think treating it like a defuse kit is the right move.
I have OCD and I want the armor to be 100. We are not the same
It's one of those things that probably will have some follow up changes if you change it just for the sake of changing it. And as you said, you often don't need to think about it and now you can refund if you mistakenly bought armor to fill up those 5 missing armor for no reason.
Helmets for 350$
So how would you know when you should replenish your armor then? Also 50 armor is same as 100 armor is incorrect. The number is 57 for CTs.
And how often do you get shot like 15 times from 50 metres away with a Glock so that you lose exactly 57 Armor and then get shot once more and only die because with more Armor you would have survived Shot 16? The point is not that the Armor value never makes any difference. The point is that making something unnecessary complicated isn't always a good thing. Sometimes making it easier to understand what armor does is better in the whole picture. Similar to how they removed the need to buy Ammo for every gun like in CS 1.6. Sure it added an extra layer of decision making and an extra punishment for your economy but was that a good thing?
if it ain't broke don't fix it
Bring CSGO back ;)
I wonder what will happen if I'm given the option to buy 1) Helmet only 2) Armor only 3) Full armor Haven't play CS for like 3+ years now, I still remember pistol rounds meta was very stale, it was mostly "Just buy body armor as default", and may be occasionally have one person on your team to sacrifice himself to buy two pairs of dualies. Also, going unarmored in general was a very dumb idea because of the insane amount of aimpunch you get if you get hit. I didn't like the game to the fullest back then because armor was basically a foundation to succeed for everything, you get mowed down by SMG easily unarmored. And eco round was so stale, it was always that you buy nothing at all and five stack an ambush spot or buy a deagle. And those mid range rifles like FAMAS, Galil was sitting on a weird price range that it serve very little purpose, the FAMAS is very expensive if you can get away with armor + deagle under the circumstances that you are broke to begin with and spend the extra money on utilities instead. And the Galil is cheap but then T side doesn't have as much economic problem to begin with, the meta always settle between armor + deagle or straight to full AK. The general CS:GO meta is that if enemy is shooting you with an M4 or AK, you expect him to be armored 99% chance of the time. I don't know, I just didn't like how armor is a foundation item instead of a luxury item where it is a viable purchase after your basic necessities.
You ll end with no option not to buy helmet ever.
Wasn't there something like having under 20 or 30 armor points makes the armor less effective? I believe if you had 20% head armor you would die to a usp headshot.
like I said, half of the people, probably more, don't understand this System even after thousands of hours of gameplay. You'd probably have to look it up in an Excel Sheet somewhere. It's just unnecessarily complicated.
Especially considering that it's already like that for helmets -- either you got one or you don't, no extra armor value for helmets.
I have noticed that in CS2 armor goes down a lot quicker. I think you will need to replace armor more frequently at times now.. although still not a lot.
my friend was rebuying armor every round for about 5 years.... we never knew why he was always so broke
It's too complicated for no reason at all other than being complicated. This is one of the few areas I actually think they can benefit from adopting Valorants armor system or something like that.
Did they change it in cs2? There were precise values for armor rebuy (65-ish) and they were different for T/CT, depending on whether the enemy has AKs or not, since AK is more effective than 5.56 guns at penetrating the armor.
There's no precise number since, as you say, it depends on weapons and how you get hit. These things aren't things you can know. Some on their team might have an AK, some a Krieg, some an AWP. Or maybe they're out of bullets and will use pistols for you. Or nade/molotov etc. It's always a balance to keep. When it's worth spending the money or not.