Meta report #5: ALGS European Online Qualifiers #2 - World of Gas

written by RkT 3 months ago

Finally we have the second online tournament. In this edition I want to concentrate more on the appearance of Caustic and how he impacted these qualifiers. Also my idea is to start generating indicators to describe how the teams behave in more detail. Disclaimer: The data obtained for the pick rates of the legends were obtained through streams; so there may be errors in some compositions. Kill count information was obtained from Battlefy (https://battlefy.com/leagues/algs/seasons/2020).

End circle and pick rate info.
End circle and pick rate info.

Looking at composition pick rates in these five games: Wraith, Wattson, Gibraltar (55% pick rate): It remains the preferred option in Europe. It has decreased compared to the previous qualifier (From 75% to 55%). Wraith allows safe team rotations, Wattson is very good at setting up defensive perimeters and Gibraltar equipped with his dome allows him to set up fights in open spaces for his team. Wraith, Wattson, Pathfinder (30% pick rate): with an interesting increase over the first qualifier (from 10% to 35%) begins to compete with the Wraith, Wattson, Gibraltar composition. Pathfinder can scan the beacons and allow the teams to decide when and where to rotate a bit faster than a team opting to choose a different legend besides Pathfinder. Wraith, Wattson, Caustic(5% pick rate): Only one team used this composition (Alliance). It had the same percentage of use with respect to the previous tournament (5%), but for a different team, Warthox had clinched the third place spot in the first qualifier with the same composition. Wraith, Wattson, Bangalore(5% pick rate): Any Smilers? was the only team that tried to play with Bangalore (after their first game with Pathfinder) although they did not get good results with this composition.

Analyzing the average points per team in the five rounds, we have:

If we split the top 5 in 3 groups we have: Group 1 (Alliance 75 points):Safe at the top, great distribution of points, two first place games and in all their games top 5 in placement. There is a massive 24 point difference between the top spot and 2nd place.

Group 2 (Wygers 51 points and Triumph 50 points): Good performance from both of these teams, despite having practically the same score. Triumph showed they were much more aggressive than Wygers in-game.

Group 3 (CrowCrowd 44 points and Necessary Evil 38 points) CrowCrowd is on the edge; low for the second group, and high for the third group. Necessary Evil performed very similarly to Myth (37 points) and Kebabrulla (36 points). Any of these three teams could have grabbed fifth place.

If we look at the results per round:

Alliance: They were the most stable team. They were in the top 5 every round; their minimum score was 7 points and they had on average 15 points per game. Wrygers and CrowCrowd: They had two good rounds which allowed them to secure their position in the top 3. A good overall performance helped them as well. Finally Triumph and Necessary Evil had a good round. Triumph was able to be more consistent in the first four rounds and secured their spot with a round five with 26 points. Necessary Evil had a lower average performance than Triumph, but they had a good first round with 20 points.

Looking more closely at the performance of each team:

Alliance:

  • Hakis as Wraith
  • Vaifs as Wattson
  • Lowley as Caustic

With a composition around Caustic, as well as favoring early rotations, they found a way to get consistent placements in top 5. As stated there was a 24 points differential compared to second place.They also had a fairly balanced point ratio between placement points (40 points) and kill points (35 points)

Wygers:

  • Pyradice as Wraith
  • Ruabbe as Wattson
  • Kryp as Pathfinder

With only a one point difference from 3rd place and a style of play that benefited from placement points (31 points) over the kill points (20 points) the team still performed admirably. Their best performance was in the second round when they were able to secure second place.

Triumph

  • Graceful as Wraith
  • Jmw as Wattson
  • Maydeelol as Pathfinder

Triumph took third place thanks to the number of kills (31 kills) and 19 points for placement. In round five they got around 50% of their total points with 14 kills. Definitely a team with potential.

CrowCrowd

  • WrugbEZ as Wraith
  • NLaaeR as Wattson
  • Sanya as Gibraltar

CrowCrowd had a good balance between placement points (22 points) and kill points (22 points). They also had big performances with 93% of their total points coming from rounds two and three. This is the first composition with Gibraltar in the top 5 and their best performance was in rounds 3 and 4 (both epicenter fences in open areas, where the Gibraltar dome had a much greater impact than in claustrophobic building areas)

Necessary Evil

  • dctzr as Wraith
  • iPN as Wattson
  • jaazz as Gibraltar

Necessary Evil had a similar path to CrowCrowd; the main difference is that Necessary Evil had only one good round (Round 1 where they scored 52% of their total points) and were able to score some points in the remaining four rounds. With a kill-oriented point distribution (23 points) over placement (15 points).

Relationship between placement points and kills.

The aim of this section is to understand a little more about the teams and what styles of play they have. To do this, I will analyze the distribution of total points in the five games and how many of those points came from placement and which points came from kills. There were a total of 565 points, 295 by kills (52% of the total score) and 270 by placement (48% of the total score). In order to visualize this information I obtained the quotient of: points per kill / total points per kill: This indicates how much participation in kills a team had. The higher this number is, the more fights they had (and won) points per placement / total points per placement: This tells us how far a team has prioritized positioning. The higher this number, the better the positioning of the team. Making a graph with these two variables (which are not completely independent) can give us an idea on if a team focused on being aggressive, if they chose to get good positioning by avoiding fights, or if they had a more balanced approach when it comes to these two variables.

The size of the circles indicate the number of total points (you can hover to show the tooltip). Most teams have a similar relationship between kill points and placement points. The dotted line indicates the balance between placement points and kill points. Teams above that line got more points per placement while those below it got more points per kill. Some teams were more aggressive, such as Triumph, while Wygers got a lot of their score from placement points. This can help us understand which teams are more aggressive and which are more conservative (at least within these five games). It also helps us to see how teams using Pathfinder have a higher average kills than teams using Gibraltar. This is still evidence and does not replace in any way when looking at the game and seeing why these results were given. I think it may be a good indicator to understand the teams.

Conclusions: As I said in the first five qualifiers, they do not show the potential of these teams and with a very good performance round you can easily reach the top 5. In spite of this, we saw Alliance with an excellent performance playing outside the normal team composition (Wraith, Wattson, Caustic). Wygers and Triumph with practically equal scores, but with very different styles of approach with Triumph being more aggressive, both playing with Wraith, Wattson, Pathfinder. Finally the compositions with Wraith, Wattson, Gibraltar (the preferred one in the European region) were in fourth and fifth place (CrowCrowd and Necessary Evil).

Add Comment

You must be logged in to be able to post comments.

Login – OR – Register