I Discovered A Game Changing Valorant Secret
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2025
- My Twitter is here: / thinkingmanvalo
My Twitch is here: / thinkingmansvalo
Join the discord: / discord
Any business enquiries email me here: valorantvodreview@gmail.com
Any drawings are done by EpicPen - it's a free download!
You can find the valorant maps and what not in some videos on valoplant.gg
#Valorant #Tips&Tricks #Analysis
Addendum is here for all of the NERDS! ua-cam.com/video/tHZgu0OyzTE/v-deo.html
I now promise to always force second round attackers after planting in first one
Do you feel that the results will be even more true considering the buffs to the stinger and anti-eco guns like the Spectre being nerfed? I now dread buying a Spectre or even a phandal+light knowing how frequent force buying stinger-light is these act and it makes the second round pretty coin flippy even in high elos.
for those contemplating using this on your ranked games - keep in mind this only really works if the whole team is on board
Just excitedly ask “yo… stinger light shields boys???” And they will always go for it haha it’s fun af. And if you lose you can still often get a rifle and light shields.
@@Girvo747 Genuinely, you sound like an excellent ranked teammate, love seeing this approach. I’ve found too that meeting individual teammates where they are at is always better than pushing for what ones idea is about what is correct/standard every time. Morale management is unfortunately huge when you’re queued up with strangers.
Even better to be like stinger no shields boys? And then you can generally buy your util and full rifles w light shields round 3. And you really don’t need heavy shields in this game.
@@Venomx-nb1jr no shield means enemies get a pre nerf chamber ult for 950 creds
@@Venomx-nb1jr If we were pro, definitely. But I’m just diamond 3 so in my diamond/ascendant lobbies the light shields helps everyone haha. I run no shields myself sometimes coz I’m a demon with the stinger but most don’t practice with it tbh
I’m not too familiar with the higher levels of Valorant play (only being gold and not following pro play or anything) but one thing I feel like I have noticed is how valuable having one gun versus no guns is. I’m not sure if this has been expanded upon in any sense, but I feel like it certainly has potential.
My idea is for one person on your team to always have enough to buy the next round. This provides your team with a gun to play around, and even if that person dies, you can play in such a way that maximizes the likelihood of retrieving it. Optimally, you get a kill with that gun, and suddenly you have the potential for a second gun to play around from the other teams player.
Obviously this all would be easier said than done, but I think that having that firepower with the one vandal/phantom is enough to make a round more winnable than a normal save where everyone is saving.
If this strategy were to work, I would see the saving team often buy full shields and no guns, giving them the opportunity to steal their fallen teammate or enemies gun and still have the full capability to fight as if it were a buy round. As for abilities, I’m sure it would be a case by case scenario, but I haven’t tested it enough to see how this would go, so that would need more looking into.
I appreciate you reading this, and would love to see any kind of response to this idea (whether it would work or not haha). Love the videos!
hero rifle, niche strat seen in csgo
Have you ever thought of just never losing pistol 🤔🤔
Implementing this from now on with my team, thank you sir
This reminds me of crieg(SG) from cs:go. This weapon was there all the time, super broken, but nobody used it.
maybe that’s why they buffed stinger to encourage forcing and bring more diversity. personally ive started forcing more and more especially since astra kit is so damn cheap you can get away with 3stars vandal+light for only 3500
ur literally the only utuber who goes into so much detail and studies the game, thank you smm
It depends on the half. In the first half, always force. If you get onto the second half with a large lead it makes sense to give up a couple rounds to make sure that you have the highest possible chances to win a round since you will only need like 3 round wins. Especially because ults exist, if you save properly you can make it almost impossible to lose every round in the second half.
If you are losing in the second half keep force buying because every round is precious.
Wait, what about forcing on 2nd round as defenders? Defenders have an advantage with weaker buys because enemies are coming to them and they can play ratty angles or force closer fights. I think you should include this in the analysis. 100T forced on defense during the Redbull games and I've seen it have a big impact in ranked games as well, especially because you can essentially force round 2 and round 3 and STILL have a full buy for round 4 because of the loss bonus
Mentally I’ve always liked forcing. It sends a message to your team that you’re not playing the long game and you feel like you can win. And oddly enough instinctively when I force and the whole team has forced up even if you don’t win round 2 you generally do damage and both teams are able to buy rifles and are buying light shields and Sherriffs and Marshalls. That 3rd round is always a brawl.
I believe the guard did something like this during the Tarik Ludwig event. They would basically force buy stinger light armor if they lost the pistol round and would still have enough for another light buy next round even if they lost
Very interesting results! I wonder though, would it be better to light force and buy only stingers with no shields/little utility or to full force and spend all your credits? Especially since the bonus round conversion of 44% would likely be even higher against a light shield and rifle buy if your team does light force because the bonus team would have more utility and shields.
I did check for things like this where a team maybe bought all sheriffs or all stingers round 2, it was a tiny sample though so i didn't include it
I think it's also important to note that forcebuying is more effective the less often it happens. One of it's strengths is that you can take players by surprise with your guns and pick up a 5v4 advantage early in the round. If everyone forced all the time, the rounds would probably be a fair bit more balanced.
I'm around high plat/mid diamond kind of elo in ranked so that's where I'm drawing my experience from, but honestly forcing works extremely well on average in my games.
The hardest part about winning a force round is just convincing the entire team to go through with it. I don't usually call it on EVERY map, since I don't have a good eco strat an all of them, but there are a couple of maps where I will often call a force buy strat for the team and it typically works extremely well. We usually either win the round or narrowly lose it in like a 1v1 that doesn't go our way. Occasionally you get unlucky and they will stack the part of the map you focus on and then it can go either way, but if you're careful with exactly what you buy you can usually still muster up mostly rifles + small shields + util or a weaker gun + full shields in the subsequent round if you do lose.
I think it works even better in ranked than in pro play because in pro play extremely coordinated team work is the minimum expected standard, whereas outside of super high elo that is fairly rare in ranked. However, force strats are typically quite simplistic in nature and so easy to call. Usually the other team will be caught off guard by the force, won't have a setup to deal with it and since they're all randomers they won't have any protocols to deal with the surprise and the chaos will usually mean you get some entry kills and they have to retake with a man disadvantage.
In my opinion, calling force buys and a good rush strat works a charm in ranked; can't speak for other ranks but it tends to work for me in plat/diamond games. You just need to have a coherent plan to lay out to the team in order to get people on board, if you just say "we should force" and don't have a plan of how to get value out of your stingers then people probably won't do it and I think you're less likely to see results.
Makes me think of the WarOwl video where he explains the economy in CS early game that you should essentially be full buying every round until someone wins 2 rounds in a row just because of how the money works you'll have essentially equal buys
Thank you, TMV, for blowing my nips off. Didn't know how much I needed the ol' nips blown.
this guy went through EVERY GAME?????? the commitment
in tier 1 or 2 valorant
he just looked at stats.
Thank you tmv for revealing this Game Changing Valorant Secret
I'm a little early this time :)
keep up the good videos!
Sure
I think another thing that also goes under the radar is that almost everyone just straight up forgot about the (former) fpx buy, which helps so much in those bonus rounds which changes it even more
Hi, love your content, but do you think limiting to round 4 skews towards forcing. Because in terms of just 3 rounds left, winning 1 right now seems much better than gifting it away, as to get a 3-1 in saving requires you to win the round you save, which is not the purpose. I feel maybe if we go more rounds(6-7) it might show that saving is indeed better.
that's a great opinion, I noticed that at least in valorant, the early game is the most analyzed because the first 4 rounds are usually considered the ones where you build up your economy. if you lose the pistol and save, you have an advantage in the 3rd round (bonus for the enemy team) and you are considered more likely to win it. And then, the 4th round is considered a 50/50 which obviously leads to the 3-1 scoreline you mentioned, although idk how you got that for a 3-1 you need to win the 2nd round lol.
if you force buy on the other hand, you have some guns and if used correctly, you are going to have a much better chance of winning, which would then make us favorites for the 3rd round as well, ofc, this is taking into consideration the fact that your team is going to be at least somewhat smart with their utility usage and not just dump it all for no reason.
at least according to this graph, the most likely outcome for saving is 3-1 for the enemies while the most likely outcome for forcing is 2-2.
Now, the reason why I don't believe he didn't do the spreadsheet up to round 6 or 7 is because after round 5 the economy is more or less stable, we are entering the "mid-game" phase of that specific half which isn't the purpose of the video. Also because math is hard and actually going to round 7 needs to take a lot into consideration like "was round six a save? a full buy? a half buy? what ults does each team have?" and combine all that with your early game and you get multiple versions of the same graph
@@andreitv9921 if you have lost the pistol, and wanna finish 3-1, you have to win the second round. Otherwise you lose 2 out of 4 rounds and best possible score is 2-2. I don't think the stable economy thing is true, and if indeed is, everything should be a fifty fifty over a large sample space, which i am pretty sure is not. Because when you save the second round after losing, you are going for 2-2, with winning 2 rounds in a row, which means the other team has bad economy and you are much more favourable to win the 5th round. So I don't think both the cases are the same, and we need some more complicated data to get it right.
@@priyanshugautam5322 ooooh, 3-1 for your team, I got it completely wrong, sorry for that, I thought you meant 3-1 for the enemy, I got no idea why I didn't think of that, sorry for the possible confusion.
When I talk about a "stable economy" I am talking about your average game where you also win some rounds so you aren't forced into a "full buy-save" loop, which is the worst case scenario over the course of the half, in the first 4 rounds, if you lose once, your buy is going to be weaker than your previous buy (unless you force I guess) if you go into a match, and the score is like 5-4 or something, and let's say both teams have done the right strats and didn't just do weird Iron level stuff, one of the teams can go and lose 2 or 3 rounds in a row without having to go on a full save, that's a stable economy. An unstable economy is a full buy-save loop and it only happens when
Your team loses by a big margin, aka it's 6-0, 5-1, 7-0 or something similar, which indicates the existance of an at least somewhat stable economy if one team isn't significantly better than the other one. Obviously this is all in general and mostly apply to the very top level of the game, all the proof you need for the existance of a stable economy is to go in a game, and look at what kind of buy you have every round, you can do multiple matches if you want and test both buys, if the game is relatively equal, and you personally aren't like 1/12 or something you're going to notice that you could lose a few rounds while still having some money left to buy the next round, or even the round after that. If you're in the loop I mentioned so many times, come back and tell me.
Yes, this is an extremely bad approach, that is the same as saying "Forcing will more often result in a 1-1 at the end of round 2 than saving", and then concluding forcing is better.
When you force 2nd round you shift the rounds where you alternate between saving and forcing and thus, the round you stop at makes a difference in the analysis.
I am sure if TMV would have analyzed until the end of round 5 (where in the worst case scenario saving is in a buy, and forcing is in an eco) results would have been flipped.
i wish you talked about losing after you force save round more
I knew it! Irons know the right way, I always knew it!
this video changed my worldview
so THIS is why we didnt get a video yesterday LOL, incredible work and commitment man
Honestly, i might try this as my team's IGL when we play next time, it sounds rather interesting. At least in ranked this probably will end up working rather decently
Another note is the recent ressurgance of the stinger, and the strength of the marshall. Before these buffs I wonder if forcing would have yielded the same success
if he pulled every single game, then he also got some games where the stinger was actually stronger than now, and then it got nerfed and still got decent use, and now is just broken again but not quite the same level as on the start
I'm not sure if you should buy Marshall in 2nd force unless you're Tenz or something
@@takepan631 if you can still buy a rifle + half armor on the third round, it makes sense. (if you get kills and bomb planted)
@@pedrorezende4873 Its not even remotely broken, and when it was nerfed it got zero use.
@@thishandleistaken1011 aaaaaand is nerfed again as we speak. Riot disagrees with you
images get more random in every slide💀 ly tmv
images get more random in every slide💀 ly tmv
I Love how you at 2:07 just said that there ain't no way you are dumb and my viewer.
pictures be like: ROMANIA. SHOE. QUEEN ELIZABETH I.
figure it out Jaeinn!
Shout out to the editor
Nice
basically stinger go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
been following this channel for a long time, easily the reason my igling and understanding of the game has allowed me to rank up so easily, great shit as always
With how this man Thinking man's valorants, He thought all over the place. Hit the like and subscribe guys.
Consider my nips blown off
Does this apply to forcing on defence? Does this strictly apply to if you've gotten the plant bonus? I imagine it doesn't apply to defence, and it includes plant and no plant bonus, but I'm curious what your criteria for data collection were.
It’s confirmed, getting an ace on pistol round and loosing is actually bad cause you won’t let your team force😂
So I just took all examples of when a team lost the attacking pistol regardless of whether they planted or not. So no I didn't collect data about defensive forcing, I didn't fully look into forcing when you don't plant just did they force or not. If the % are right though then I think you could make an argument forcing no matter on attack is worth, I'd have to look into the save potential for defenders as to whether forcing on defensive side is worth it.
@@ThinkingMansValorant Thanks! I imagine the defensive force isn't quite as effective, due to not being able to concentrate those creds to the site that's pushed, but if you find any data on that please let us know!
@@crumb2684 defensive force is more effective because you choose where the fights happen and can give yourself the best chance at doing damage. Marshals fight long range, stingers or buckys fight closerange.
On most maps the attackers have to go through mixed ranged fights, and on maps where Attackers can guarantee closerange fights the defense can easily predict that and stack the areas that are most dangerous against a forcebuy.
@@MilaneseMoon if you ace you pick up the sheriff or ghost and buy light shields and then bait your teammates somewhat and grab a stinger or a marshal when they go down.
Do you know what? I think I will try this shit out. I'm losing as is anyways, so whats the worst that could happen? I'll let you know if it works :P
Instead of doing the whole good, decent and bad outcomes thing, I think you should’ve done expected rounds (EV). This data is slightly skewed in the favor of forcing because you’re grouping 1-3 as the same as 0-4, which they are not. Saving gives you a very very low chance of going 0-4, which is probably it’s main benefit.
But Saving absolutely does not give you a good chance of avoiding 0-4, in fact it's happening just under a third of the time when you save. And as I mentioned in the video when saving of all the possible 8 outcomes by round 4, the one that leads to be 0-4 is the single most likely of any. This is actually one of the main reasons you should force.
@@ThinkingMansValorant I think the economic outcome of each scenario needs to be considered, not just the round count. the economy is if anything more important than +/- 1 round. in the "force second round" scenario, if it results in 1-3 then your economy is in absolute shambles and you'll probably be saving round five and going down 1-4. however at 1-3 if you save round two, the economies should be somewhat even even with a round 4 loss.
a snowballing economy is a much bigger hurdle than being down one extra round and this analysis does not consider that. ask any coach
didn't 100t essentially do this at RBHG?
Is this due to the stinger buffs or some other patch? It would be interesting to see the stats from 2021 and previous years would show different stats, and therefore a different conclusion. I'm interested to know because saving when you lose pistol has been the consensus for a long time, so it has to have come from somewhere.
Perhaps but at champs pros were already using the stinger and that was before the buff
This goes back all the way to Masters reykyavik. In truth the stinger buff didn't do that much the gun was already surging and whilst I'm sure it helps I don't think the gap would be that big!
I’ve actually found that a lot of the time my team wins these 2nd round force buys in the 2nd half. Only reason we force is due to the other teams huge lead. Maybe you’re onto something here 🤔
What does forcing as 50% mean?
Forcing with half the team?
Forcing with half the money?
Using the data as forcing wins 50% of the time. I didn't really trust the number, it felt too high for a low sample size so I did the same but trying different numbers instead
Irons/Bronzes who buy spectre in the 2nd round no matter what: "Am I a genius?"
my subconscious mind already knew it and i always feel to force when I have more than 2300 creds but not but stinger light shield and a guy or 2 with sheriff light shield that is the best 2nd round buy with full util or semi util u can also do this on non spike plant rounds but chance to lose increases
tmv pls delete this video, you know too much.... it isnt safe for u anymore
u should make the percentage of defender and attackers force perentage winrate
This seems like it can't be right.... But.... Hmm
Bro cracked the code
Irons been doing this for years lol
thinking man’s val discovering what csgo players discovered 8 years ago
on CS is quite different because you have more rounds to spare and if you break the enemy economy, they cant buy rifles for 2 rounds, in other words, It is less risky and more profitable to force.
@@pedrorezende4873 and i guess what also is important to know is that specific guns give more or less money if you get kills with them in csgo, but in valorant you get the same amount for every gun.
CSGO is a totally different game and simply getting a single bomb plant can start snowballing your whole economy, which is not a thing in valorant
@@n0skll721 And CT economy is way more expensive than T side economy, so even if CTs win 1st they cant get better than MP9 or scouts vs Ts with galils or AK no helmet if they win 1st
@@cream9773 trueee
So force whenever spike is planted 👍
So ranked was right, buy until you die
*generic comment about being here within 10 minutes of posting*
"blow your nips off"got me GGOOOOOODDD LMAO
love ur vids bro i learnt everything thro u now im diamond3 from bronze
Been doing this since ever and let me tell you that stingering down unsuspecting enemies is always fun.
now i usually prefer forcing for round 2, mostly due to the way i have my controls set up. i use space to shoot, which does slow my ability to spam semi auto, but i have it that way cause i get crazy adrenaline rushes in stressful situations, which often leads to me jarring my aim a lot when i click. probably is something that held me back with the operator. its taking some time to relearn it all, but i think itll be worth it
also, i love using the stinger anyways. i actually spent so long training with it in DM that it started to throw off my vandal and phantom aim lol.
Ive been doing this for a while, even if we lose 1st round ill usually buy a stinger bc its fairly cheap and even if im the only one forcing on the team i can still change the tide of the second round with 1 stinger.
Since the stinger got buffed forcing is just the way to go , it’s depends on the map/ur comp and if u have a strat of course, but still the stinger is way better gun than the specter in close ranges and even if u lost the round u probably got a few kills did a decent damge to the enemy team’s economy
I think the second most significant factor besides the win/loss due to second round force buy is the subsequent 3rd round outcome. Thing is, what if the force buy doesn't work? 3rd round will be very hard to manage financially. In pro games this can be somewhat coped with because everyone is cooperative. In ranked games have fun watching your teammate bait you to steal your gun.
man this is definitely good, all these numbers and stuff, great work really. but you must take into account all the specifics of each game. for example: teams who forced in second round more often either simply "better" (1st round most random so they may lose it) and have a high chance of winning their force or (if teams similar in caliber) they have strong force buy round and they know what they doing(it's a prep strat and not just random dicision). that statistic are very interesting and informative but things way more complicated
the 20% figure really shows the value of forcing. Real world games could be skewed by teams only forcing when they feel there gonna win, plus if a player spends a lot 1st round and doesn't get value out of it it's likely there force buy would still be a pistol. Saving might always be worth it for teams who go for th 3rd round op too
have actually noticed most of my ranked games people force buy stingers on the attack after losing pistol and easily kill my team mates who bought vandals XD and all of a sudden its a chain reaction of lost rounds it also works out well most the time when I'm on attack too.. seems to be the meta as long as the stinger stays strong
I think the original logic comes a lot from CS where the economy is much more punishing. It's difficult to force and the advantage in having rifles is much bigger ( from what I remember, I don't really follow CS anymore).
Definitely forcing with stingers is a great strategy. Of course, like TMV said, this could also change the 2nd buy round for the winning team - I believe FPX was doing something where only half the team would buy spectres so that they could afford rifles in the 3rd round.
Probably would also have to take into account the maps and which maps are more attack sided - would forcing in Split be useful at all?
Thank you mir TMV for literally discover the game.
This is interesting, but since this is based on real data, it is possible that the data is biased. Not every team will force in the second round. Only teams who have a clear plan of what to do with the forced weapons will do it. Such teams are mostly gonna win that round because of their plan and the surprise factor. However, the fact that you only need a higher than 20% chance to win the force makes forcing the better option, but it depends on whether the remaining win percentages were drawn from actual match data or not.
Something important to consider:
What was the economic state in the 5th round? If you'd save 2nd, 3rd lost and 4th saved again then you'd have a full buy but what about the force buys?
I think pro teams are likely to force buy only when they see high chance of coming out on top so that affects the stats but still for all the reasons TMV stated, from now I think I'm gonna buy after almost all of my pistol losses if we get a plant.
I implemented this in my 5-stack ranked games (bronze-gold players) and we are constantly crushing the enemy forcebuy bc they dont expect us to mow them down with our stingers and light shields. I have yet to figure out how to buy in round 3 after loosing our counterforce though.
This man out here giving game changing advice without being stuck behind a member pay wall?????? TMV youre actually the goat
This needs more data but it seems like it's trending towards the right conclusion. I'd like to see a bigger sample size from last year's games, plus have it broken down by episode or major. Changes to the stinger/spectre and evolutions of the anti-eco meta (buying bulldogs and rifles) during the year probably shifted the numbers a lot.
i mean if you've been listening to the streets of pre-season scrimbux you'd know that every single team is forcing stingers after losing pistol and that it is working insanely well. I think a stinger price adjustment is badly needed
Games more fun without free save rounds. No one would willingly pick a stinger over a rifle. So I don’t think a nerf is necessary. This simply means that the pistol doesn’t have as much of an impact on economy as it does in CSGO and the game is better for it. It makes no sense why a random pistol round should result in 2 rounds won.
The thing that too many players don't seem to get is that the most important part of this whole conversation is, everyone on the team should be making the same choice in terms of forcing or saving or else it is all thrown out of the window. Maybe in higher elos get someone with a hero rifle and try to play around that but other than that, stick together with the economy.
It's funny to me the things that I originally thought were good when I just started are turning out to be true. Another one to me is that the bulldog is a super underated buy especially when you need more util
@@NotThatJojjo people don’t understand the meta and don’t understand that you only save when you have to buy sherrifs. Generally having some way to affect a rifle round even if you lose is better than full saving. And then even when people full save they just play like the round doesn’t matter. Not understanding the damage you can do w classics. If everyone rats super hard on a full save you can find some kills. And if you full save and manage to kill 3 those rifles start to get expensive quick. Not to mention it lessens the ability of the other team to start buying OPs.
This really reminds me of football. It’s clear that you have studied that sport, as the concept of saving second round is like the punt(?) where you just put it down the field as far as you can, rather than try and play for the next 10yd line. Statistically, this play is never good, because the chance that you can get that 10yd is better than the improvement the other team has from picking it up where you are.
My teammates back in bronze learning this tactic years before any radiants or pros even attempted it in their games...
This is how it is supposed to work. I remember hearing devs talk about how valoramt economy is structured so that players are more likely to go for clutch than CSGO i.e. risky play is the intended behavior.
Hah, this fits my anecdotal experience. My team always forces now.
Remember in CS people did not play AUG because they thought it was a bad weapon. But after a price buff people started using it and figured out it is actually OP. So they had to then actually nerf it. The weapon was there the whole time and people did not notice. So is it possible that TMV discovered something new? Definitely!
Same thing happened to the UMP. These guns were broken for years and only a handful of people were taking advantage of it, then all of a sudden everyone is using it.
Would love to see if this also applies in CSGO. I think a lot of eco strategies were inherited from that game, and it'd be incredible if you end up shaking up the meta in both games
Damn, a thumbnail that is actually NOT a clickbait.
Thanks TMV
And then there's me, force-buying every round 2 because i just dont like using pistols
I think what's most important for playing comp, is that your team is all "on-board" with whatever strat you guys decide to do. If you guys are going to force 2nd round, after losing the 1st; the whole team should do it together, not just a few people. If you're going to save, you guys should all save together.
I think the statistics should 100% be separated by side and also map as there are so many factors to think about.
Do you think saving on the pistol round would be a better option if you are always going to force second round? Just everyone run classics with a couple pieces of util for a rush
Damn, so sinatraa been forcing every round was actually onto somethinng
Me to my team mates rn:
You all laughed at me, all i have to say is, you’re not laughing now
Roughly 50% make sense. Both team basically have stingers/specters + shields and some utility. I personally do think saving is useless. It is more benefitial to adapt team strategy for close range fights. Depends on map too though.
wasabi ace clip was fire
What about for the defending team? Would it still be better for them as well since they can't get the 300 credits from planting
I did this research months ago to give my pro team an advantage and they all said no multiple times to trying it 😢
ok so I have a very stupid idea: host a tournament (maybe with the help of some other Valorant Creators) and make it regular competitive rules but you always force second round and take the data from that. it'll be a hopefully larger data pool and will hopefully be more accurate.
if you're tweaking the intial 50% win chance for forcing because of small sample size...doesn't that apply to all your other percentages too?
The 90%-10% odds after winning a force and the 30%-70% odds after losing a force, and so on, those are all similarly small samples sizes, right?
Still, it was a fun watch! :)
And it does seem like teams are forcing more in these off season matches with recent stinger/spectre changes so maybe a change is coming!
Yes, I was looking for this comment.
there is one thing though it really depends on how u play ur save round if you are on autopilot and default then ye u are not going to win ur save round
you on woohoojin's stream was a nice surprise
Should you just force in every round?
If your team has no money for full-buy, and it ecos, loses the next gun round, it has to eco again. Maybe the win percentage is higher with just 3 force round with less powerful guns
Honestly maybe, no one is really trying that so it's hard to get data but maybe just being super aggro is the way!