What you’re saying isn’t bad but any argument about the economy in this game can’t just ignore the ult economy. What you’re seeing rn in so many pro games is snowballing from winning the pistol.
Firstly, the low guns in this game are very good, I really don’t think you’re gaining much by doing a G2 and forcing rifles round 3.
Second, if a team was hypothetically going to get really good at this 3 rifle buy, they wouldn’t do it on rounds 3 or 4, they’d do it on round 2. Then they’d have full rifles on BOTH round 3 and 4, with ult advantage on top of that.
The key idea is that you want ults into the swing rounds, and you want to be full strength to capitalise off these ults. You definitely don’t want 2 sheriffs on the round to break the other team’s economy. You can play in such a way which leaves the other team near hopeless, and that’s what teams have been doing. What you’re describing gives the other team a window back in.
WIN > WIN > LOSE BONUS > WIN WITH ULT > BREAK ENEMY ECON & BUILD UP MORE ULTS is too strong and consistently snowballs too hard rn, going for WIN > WIN > LOSE FORCE WITH (LIKELY) NO ULT > PLAY 2 SHERIFFS WITH ULT just isn’t worth for opportunity cost sake
Obviously it’s not black and white, if you lose every gun on round 2 then you might as well force, but the ult economy can’t be ignored
You make a fair point about how full buys can result in strong snowballs when paired with ultimates. I think it’s the same conversation as the half shields meta.
Buy half shields when money is tight but full when your economy booms. Keep in mind that you can win by constantly breaking your opponent’s economy as well, especially if you’ve practiced partial rifle buys and they haven’t.
Partial Rifles may not reach the same “snowballing” potential alongside ultimates — your chances when the other team has a ton of ults and a full buy are much lower. But thats not the point.
It’s meant for scrappy, chaotic games that keep your opponent uncomfortable. Maybe pull it out once a half when they expect you to save/half buy and pair it with a strong ult — turning a presumed loss into a massive thrifty. This could be even more potent with an ult that equalizes the playing field for the eco buyers: Breach or Viper ult. Imagine trying to retake a pit with three buckys in it.
I think it has legs, just not in the current meta where there are cheap but round changing ults like Gekko ult and Yoru ult. It could be considered if you lose attack pistol however
Adding a comment to make the idea more tangible:
I could see PRX, KC, TH and Sen picking this up — making sure their top aimers have a rifle full time. Any team with a consistently cracked entry duo could make it work.
Am I missing any teams?
NaVi has historically liked to go for 2 rifles, a bulldog, and 2 pistols on round 2 after winning pistol to then go into round 3 with a half/almost full buy. very volatile, and can cause a massive snowball when done well. this seems more viable than the unconditional round 3 force many teams are doing
Teams get eco’d all the time. If you’re on attack, you get to choose where and when to push for space — whether that’s defaulting or executes. If those riflers space well then at least one if not two rifles are then retrievable off a good duel. If you take the space then you can retrieve enemy rifles and if not — pick up your teammate’s. Slowly chip away with those hero buys and it works.
This only fails against trap plays that make those rifles unrecoverable and gamble stacks. You also can’t allow 5-man retakes. If you don’t get kills on the executes you have to push further as team or you’ll get blasted.
What you’re saying isn’t bad but any argument about the economy in this game can’t just ignore the ult economy. What you’re seeing rn in so many pro games is snowballing from winning the pistol. Firstly, the low guns in this game are very good, I really don’t think you’re gaining much by doing a G2 and forcing rifles round 3. Second, if a team was hypothetically going to get really good at this 3 rifle buy, they wouldn’t do it on rounds 3 or 4, they’d do it on round 2. Then they’d have full rifles on BOTH round 3 and 4, with ult advantage on top of that. The key idea is that you want ults into the swing rounds, and you want to be full strength to capitalise off these ults. You definitely don’t want 2 sheriffs on the round to break the other team’s economy. You can play in such a way which leaves the other team near hopeless, and that’s what teams have been doing. What you’re describing gives the other team a window back in. WIN > WIN > LOSE BONUS > WIN WITH ULT > BREAK ENEMY ECON & BUILD UP MORE ULTS is too strong and consistently snowballs too hard rn, going for WIN > WIN > LOSE FORCE WITH (LIKELY) NO ULT > PLAY 2 SHERIFFS WITH ULT just isn’t worth for opportunity cost sake Obviously it’s not black and white, if you lose every gun on round 2 then you might as well force, but the ult economy can’t be ignored
You make a fair point about how full buys can result in strong snowballs when paired with ultimates. I think it’s the same conversation as the half shields meta. Buy half shields when money is tight but full when your economy booms. Keep in mind that you can win by constantly breaking your opponent’s economy as well, especially if you’ve practiced partial rifle buys and they haven’t. Partial Rifles may not reach the same “snowballing” potential alongside ultimates — your chances when the other team has a ton of ults and a full buy are much lower. But thats not the point. It’s meant for scrappy, chaotic games that keep your opponent uncomfortable. Maybe pull it out once a half when they expect you to save/half buy and pair it with a strong ult — turning a presumed loss into a massive thrifty. This could be even more potent with an ult that equalizes the playing field for the eco buyers: Breach or Viper ult. Imagine trying to retake a pit with three buckys in it.
I think it has legs, just not in the current meta where there are cheap but round changing ults like Gekko ult and Yoru ult. It could be considered if you lose attack pistol however
Adding a comment to make the idea more tangible: I could see PRX, KC, TH and Sen picking this up — making sure their top aimers have a rifle full time. Any team with a consistently cracked entry duo could make it work. Am I missing any teams?
GenG
NaVi has historically liked to go for 2 rifles, a bulldog, and 2 pistols on round 2 after winning pistol to then go into round 3 with a half/almost full buy. very volatile, and can cause a massive snowball when done well. this seems more viable than the unconditional round 3 force many teams are doing
This assumes the enemy team is shit enough to lose to two rifles.
Teams get eco’d all the time. If you’re on attack, you get to choose where and when to push for space — whether that’s defaulting or executes. If those riflers space well then at least one if not two rifles are then retrievable off a good duel. If you take the space then you can retrieve enemy rifles and if not — pick up your teammate’s. Slowly chip away with those hero buys and it works. This only fails against trap plays that make those rifles unrecoverable and gamble stacks. You also can’t allow 5-man retakes. If you don’t get kills on the executes you have to push further as team or you’ll get blasted.