Answering VALORANT Masters 3 Berlin Questions: Part 2

After VALORANT Champions Tour Stage 3 Masters Berlin finished, I asked for your questions about the tournament. I got some interesting questions and great suggestions! This article will analyze some of your responses with statistics and analysis.

This is part two of a series. In this one, I am answering the questions that took a bit longer to collect data: reviewing all the games, multiple days of data collection, or questions that would require lots of time. Also, for those asking about impact, I am planning about writing an article about impact, so I will not be answering those. But no matter the method, here is your questions answered, part two!

A massive thank you to Run-it-back (rib.gg) for letting me use their servers to collect data, they are a life saver. For more agent pick-related questions, and just general stat questions, I used vlr.gg, so a thank you to them as well.

How many of the Berlin players switched weapons at Berlin?

Suggested by: u/nterature on Reddit

Weapon usage is dependent on the player. Some players feel as though the Vandal is better on map X, but prefer the Phantom on maps Y and Z. Some players only stick to the Phantom. So, I looked at every player, their weapon usage, and compared it to the weapon usage in their last online VCT affiliated tournament. Included in this mix are players who pick the Operator more frequently than any other gun. So, while not included in the question, I looked for those as well. Here are the biggest changes I saw.

Note: the percentage is how more often then used the gun compared to the previouly. So a 60% means they used the gun 60% more than that same gun in a previous tournament online.

Phantom

1. Vision Striker’s Kim “Lakia” Jong-min: 100%
2. 100 Thieves’ Spencer “Hiko” Martin: 54.2%
3. 100 Thieves’ Peter “Asuna” Mazuryk:  53.5%
4. F4Q’s Chae “Bunny” Joon-hyuk: 50.3%
5. F4Q’s Jeong “Esperanza” Jin-cheol: 46.7%

Vandal

1. F4Q’s Yoo “fiveK” Sung-min: 86.9%
2. 100 Thieves’ Nicholas “nitr0” Cannella: 53.4%
3. Crazy Raccoon’s Teppei “ade” Kuno: 41.6%
4. Acend’s Vladyslav “Kiles” Shvets: 40.6%
5. Paper Rex’s Benedict “Benkai” Tan: 32.6%

Operator

1. Sentinels’ Shahzeb “ShahZaM” Khan: 29.4%
2. Havan Liberty’s Felipe “liazzi” Galiazzi: 16.7%
3. F4Q’s Chae “Bunny” Joon-hyuk: 15.7%
4. Vision Striker’s Yu “BuZz” Byung-chu: 13.0%
5. Crazy Raccoon’s Byeon “Munchkin” Sang-beom: 11.2%

Overall, 59.4% of players barely changed what guns they played when transitioning from online to LAN (<10% change). And only about 18.8% of players really changed what guns they played overall (>25% change).

How many lurk kills did Gambit Esports Ayaz “nAts” Akhmetshin get at Berlin?

Suggested by: u/Dytlan and u/RobbieTIME on Reddit

For those unaware, nAts was frequently referred to as a “rat”, as he would typically linger in areas where the enemy lack info, grabbing a kill (or two) then running off with no repercussions. A “lurk”, in particular, does not always mean that a player is slowly walking up behind enemy lines. Rather, it is when a player is in an area where the enemy has little or no information. While this typically occurs with a player walking up a point, then flanking the entire enemy team, it is not always the case. Thus, for this, I included all times where nAts was able to snag a kill because the enemy lacked information. This includes, but is not limited to: lurking up behind enemy lines, waiting in a corner while his team makes noise, walking onto point without making noise, etc. Here is what I found:

35.1% of the kills that nAts got in Berlin were from these lurks. The majority of them (somewhere around 60-75%) were on more open maps, like Icebox and Breeze. This could be either from them playing the maps more often than other maps (played these open maps six times, the most another map was played was Bind at four), or because there is more space, meaning more area for nAts to creep around.

I would also like to point out that nAts wasn’t the only lurker. I caught Igor “Redgar” Vlasov lurking frequently as well, particularly on Bind. They both pick characters that allow them to have control across the map, making their lurks even more potent. They don’t need to be right next to the team in order to provide value.

How often did clutches reset momentum?

Suggested by: @Bfishy44 on Twitter

Momentum is an unspoken key part to VALORANT pro play. If a team gets the ball rolling, then it is really hard to stop it. To test this question, I looked for all the clutch moments in this tournament (there were 156). Then I looked at the round before and the round after. The number of clutches that resulted in momentum shifting into a team’s favor (given that the clutch came from a player of the same team) was 40. Put another way, about 25.6% of the clutches resulted in that clutcher’s team pulling momentum to their favor, resulting in a win streak of at least 2 rounds.

91 clutches (58.3%) did not sway momentum one way or another. So if the clutcher’s team was winning, they kept winning, and if the clutcher’s team was losing, they stayed losing.

Finally, 25 clutches (16.0%) resulted in the opposite, where the clutcher’s team started losing after the clutch round.

So, while clutches definitely did cause shifts in momentum, they weren’t the sole reason for a change in a streak.

Do Jetts with Skye on their team perform better than those without?

Suggested by: u/M31ApplePie on Reddit

No. A Skye being picked in a comp does not seem to impact whether or not a Jett does better. The number of games won with a Jett and Skye was 32, and the number lost was 24, so about 57.1% of the games. Similarly, the number of games won with a Jett but without a Skye was 31, and the number lost was 25, so about 55.3%. That is only about a 1.8% difference, which is not enough to suggest that Skye being there made a difference in a Jett player’s abilities.

How often did teams win the second round after the pistol round?

Suggested by: @Vansilli on Twitter

The conversion rate was about 90.9%. So pick any team in Berlin, there is a 90.9% chance that if they won the pistol, they won the second round. I went a step further and looked at what teams, in particular, were better or worse at converting on 2nd pistol round. Here is what I found:

There were 8 teams at Berlin who did not have a perfect second round conversion rate. The following are the teams that did not, with the accompanying conversion rate:

1. Gambit Esports: 94.74%
2. KRÜ Esports: 87.50%
3. F4Q: 87.50%
4. Crazy Raccoon: 85.71%
5. Sentinels: 83.33%
6. Vision Strikers: 77.78%
7. 100 Thieves: 77.78%
8. Vivo Keyd: 75.00%

Along with this, the following teams were the ones who were able to snatch those 2nd rounds, even if they lost the pistol.

1. Gambit Esports: 3 rounds
2. Team Envy: 2 rounds
3. G2 Esports: 2 rounds
4. ZETA DIVISION: 1 round
5. Paper Rex: 1 round
6. Acend: 1 round
7. F4Q: 1 round
8. Sentinels: 1 round

Did team timeouts matter?

Suggested by: @__ScottThompson on Twitter

Not really. See, the thing about team timeouts is that, if one team calls it, the other team gets one too. So, even if a team calls a timeout, both teams are having a chance to get a mental reset. There are several other factors to consider too, like the economic state. The numbers reflect this, with only 34.4% of the timeouts resulting in a win for the team that called it.

While timeouts can be used to reset momentum, they don’t always succeed.

How many times did a team lose to an enemy team with less economy?

Suggested by: @DickyMclaughlin on Twitter

For those unaware, the economy is split into 4 different groups, measured based on how much a team has spent that round. The first, full eco (0-6k credits), semi-eco (6k-14k), semi-buy (14k-20k), full buy (20k+).

Out of all the rounds played at Berlin, 299 were lost to a team with less economy. 162 were lost to a team with one less tier, 132 were lost to a team with 2 less tiers, and 5 were lost to a team that was 3 tiers below.

To put another way: let’s label each economy tier as full eco ($), semi-eco ($$), semi-buy ($$$), and full buy ($$$$).

162 were lost to a team with a $ difference, 132 were lost to a team with $$ difference, and 5 were lost to a team with a $$$ difference.

How do the women’s and minor region scenes in VALORANT compare to other scenes?

Suggested by: u/The-Dark-Mage on Reddit

Since this was more a VCT Game-Changers question than a Berlin question, I wanted to wait until that tourney was done to see how it went.

I went through most of the top esports games from around the world (DotA 2, StarCraft II, League of Legends, Fortnite, Overwatch, Fortnite) and found the same common string between all of them:

Women and minor regions were not as prevalent in the pro scene. There are definitely several breakout women players and players from regions that aren’t a part of the “main region”, but overall, their presence is really lacking.

I did find examples of minor tournaments organized for women and minor regions that were organized by regional groups, but nothing to the extent of the major competitions that the games are known for.

While VALORANT Champions Tour is not perfect, and I am not claiming to be perfect, it does feel as though they are giving minor regions a chance, as well as trying to push more women in the pro scene with Game-Changers. There is still a long way to go though.

What do coaches do for a team?

Suggested by: @EmilyTangerine on Twitter

At Berlin, we got to see coaches and players interact quite frequently, with the coaches sometimes cheering with the players or taunting with their team. But if a team already has a group of 5 amazing players, who can synergize well together, what IS the point of a coach?

I am not experienced enough in this field, so I asked Mikes (VALORANT Coach/Analyst) Here is what he had to say:

Mikes: “Coaches offer an outsider perspective, since they are more likely to see all the pieces in motion in the team. Players can often feel a certain way emotionally or mentally about something going wrong, but they might not have all the context to understand the situation. Coaches also provide a lot of organization … (and) generally should be directing the team in a successful direction.”

How long will Gambit’s run last?

Suggested by: u/Samichy on Reddit

Gambit took the reigns at Berlin and proved that the CIS region was not messing around. But that left many questions, the main one being “how long will this go.” Since this is more of an opinion based question, I asked these smart people:

VALORANT Analyst and Caster Doug (@esportsdoug): I think NA comes back. There is depth in the region as we saw with Envy making a deep run in Berlin, but I think every region gets stronger after an international event.

VALORANT Caster and Analyst Matt Twigg (@TwiggyCasts): Oh I could for sure seeing someone else take #1 from them, when they’re good they’re amazing but there have been several stretches that have been lacklustrer. I think probably they take Champions unless Sen makes some major changes.

VALORANT Analyst and Caster Vansilli (@Vansilli): 1 event. NA back on top at Champions.

VALORANT Analyst Balla (@Ballatw): I think they still have some growing to do this year, but I think they could create an era in 2022.

VALORANT Reporter George Ceddes (@GeorgeCGed): Not sure. Probably staying with Gambit since I think they looked the most dominant.

VALORANT Caster and Analyst Zescht (@zescht): Gambit never seemed satisfied yet in any way. They have proven that they‘ll work on their teamwork and grind their way through the toughtest challenges. For me, they aren‘t done. Once they got their mental fixed 100% and all 5 can keep calm 24/7, then it gets real dangerous.