Original Post — Direct link

According to penguinVALORANT (Agent Dev) they are going through with the Chamber 1 trip Nerf. (https://www.reddit.com/r/VALORANT/comments/uhpubl/comment/i77mvyq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)

I don't know about you guys but I haven't seen a pro player or coach satisfy or agree with this change.

Lots of posts of on PBE Valorant reddit say the change kill the sentinel aspect of Chamber and make him a duelist

But it seems like the Devs don't care and it's really sad to see.

What is the point of making public announcement of the nerf and set up PBE to test the Nerf but to ignore all feedbacks and go through with the nerf anyway?

External link →

Originally posted by _JackalEST

"But it seems like the Devs don't care" Huh? Dont care about what? They're actively changing an agent to make the game more balanced. Not caring would be letting characters stagnate and the game to devolve into an unhealthy state without updating accordingly.

Also, there's a difference between taking feedback into account and proceeding as-planned vs ignoring feedback. Guarantee you're not seeing everything they are.

Also, there's a difference between taking feedback into account and proceeding as-planned vs ignoring feedback. Guarantee you're not seeing everything they are.

Appreciate the callout here. I'll always be a proponent of having changes posted earlier/on PBE, even when players disagree with the direction. I've spent a decent amount of time coming up with reaction plans post-4.09 for Chamber if necessary and have a few different possible directions lined up for our testing if the changes don't end up working out in a healthy manner.

Originally posted by ZeeMan7807

I know you're probably not looking for some random player's thoughts on how to nerf an agent, but on the off chance that you read this - regardless of whatever other nerfs you apply, I feel that a TP cooldown nerf is absolutely imperative; he's able to use it potentially 7 times a round, gets very little punishment for setting up on the wrong site, and just generally results in very few direct counterplay options.

While I'm not sure what the exact numbers should be, a general flat increase to the cooldown seems like it would be a good idea, something around 30-40 seconds. Maybe it would be reasonable to keep it to 20-30 if the TP is recalled without being used; the anchors being broken should likewise have a 10 or more second penalty though.

Alongside this, it feels like an incredibly reasonable change to make it so that recalling TPs after the TP has been used or an anchor has been broken results in the cooldown resetting if the new cooldown would be larger than the old one (which is always the case currently). It feels pretty nonsensical that you could recall your TPs at 1s cooldown and have them up instantly, but recalling them after the TP is available puts you back at 20s.

Another possible way to implement this would be to have the TP recall cooldown be additive, i.e. regardless of what your cooldown is at between 0 and 20 seconds, recalling a TP anchor adds 10 seconds to the cooldown. Then you could have the base TP cooldown still be 20 seconds, so players are rewarded for placing TPs in reusable locations but also give opponents a window in which the player could only repeek with TP in the same location. This also introduces an interesting dynamic where Chamber players are rewarded for having a flexible "destination" TP - they're able to get away with only recalling one of the anchors - and punished for rotates or picking the wrong site. I think this change (alongside increasing the cooldown if TP anchors are broken) would not only decrease the overall power level of his TP, but also create an interesting niche of play and counterplay that would make it feel more interactive to play as a Chamber and against a Chamber.

Anyway, sorry for the long comment, and sorry for backseating your balancing. I appreciate the dev team for paying attention to the community and interacting when the community has questions, as well as identifying and addressing pain points in the meta.

Anyway, sorry for the long comment, and sorry for backseating your balancing.

nah I don't mind I have pretty thick skin and your post was pretty well written out - the TP tuning is definitely a bit funky & this is reasonable analysis from your end :)