|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How important is it to get the first frag in a round? Important enough to revolve your entire strategy around striking first? Absolutely, says GameSense lead developer Jason "Warthog" Roman. ![]() By: Jason "Warthog" Roman This is the first of many articles (once every week or two) which will use GameSense as a statistical basis for revealing important and interesting information about competitive Counter-Strike. The visible part of GameSense on the GotFrag website is just a glimpse of the system's capabilities, and you will see this in the upcoming months. In the meantime, these articles should wet your appetite. Today I am analyzing how often a team wins when they get the first frag in a round. I asked a few people around the community how often a team wins when they score the first frag. The responses I received were anywhere from 50-80% of the time, and judging by the number of 50-60% guesses, many players thought it wasn't very important at all. Wrong. The team that gets the first frag in a round wins 75% of those rounds. Seventy-five percent! Simply put, if your team is better at striking first, then odds are, you're going to win the match. Period. We've got 15,000 Rounds of CS in GameSense to back this up. It is also staggering how consistent that 75% mark is. I took several random samples of 10, 50, and 100 rounds at a time, and that percentage never deviated by more than a couple percent. Now, first frag statistic is alarming by itself, but there is a lot more we can reveal. How strong is your position to win the round if you get the first 2, 3, or 4 frags? It's almost a guarantee. Get the first 2 frags and your chance of winning the round jumps drastically to 90%. Even more telling is teams that get the first 3 frags win 98% of the those rounds. Incredible. The other team might as well type kill in console and save everyone time. Given these staggering numbers, you may ask, "Has any team ever won a round after the other team got the first 4 frags?" Yes, but it's happened literally just a handful of times - 7 out of 2839 to be exact - a 99.8% success rate for the team getting the first four. That's almost as good as a pregnancy test (not that I have any experience with that). If there is enough interest I will do a follow-up article on those seven of the greatest clutch (or choke) rounds of all time. It's technically possible to win the round if all 5 of your players were fragged without once fragging the other team, but it's never happened. Let's summarize our results with a chart.
I affectionately refer to this as the '75/90 Rule' or the '75/90/98 Rule.' Now we can break this data down into several more interesting points, so let's start with how the First Frag data is affected by round time. The results may surprise you. While gathering information for this article I was asked a relevant question: how does your data change when comparing the old 3-minute round timer to the current 1:45? The general consensus was that the first frag would have more of an impact with the shortened round time in determining which team won the round, since the game is (theoretically) played at a faster pace. So I checked the numbers and not surprisingly, the general consensus was correct...sort of. The difference was less than one percent, both around the 75% range - ultimately insignificant. The same insignificance held true for teams getting the first 2 or 3 frags - a 1-2% change at most. I'm busting out full chart mode today so here's the actual numbers.
The conclusion here is that the shortened round time had absolutely no significant impact on the importance of striking first. |






User Comments
and 3:00 for 1:45 = more action in the game !
3:00 = hold ZzZzz..zZz.. hold hold...
silly cbble
U can just take an average for pistol rounds... 2 every match.
i.e. 2 every 20-25 rounds(avg rounds per match)
so 15000/25 *2 (no. of pistol rounds in the data set) = 600 x 2 = 1200.
so to see the ratio we can just find out the %
1200/15000 = x / % given in article
so
x = 150/12 * (% given in article)
Just replace the % in artcle to get x which is the respective % for pistol round.
See such stupid posts like #12 makes mathematicians out of gamers :)))
Oh you made it up.. thanks.
Considering he presents this article with alot of real data and expect us to use an average for a pistol round only proves my point of bad journalism.
Did he mention save rounds (where they useually try to get the first kill and save the gun)?
Or do you have all these answers in ur ass and you'd expect me to swallow it?
Nice try though.
Bad sampling means ur numbers are all garbage. If you took a statistic class you'd know that.
OH WAIT BUT YOU COULD DIVIDE!
#25, of course statistics never tell the whole story, but they can spot trends and patterns very well.
#24, I find it amusing that because one piece of data is missing, you dismiss the entire article as garbage. We could go on all day about different scenarios with this statistic - checking the 2nd half vs. the 1st half, etc.
However I will concede the point you are making, that it would be useful to look at this stat for pistol rounds. Therefore I quickly checked, and there is indeed a difference. The team getting the first frag in pistol round wins 68% of the time vs. 75%. Also I checked rounds 2 and 3, since those are the only ones we can assume to be save rounds. The number was 80%. The 80% number is more logic, but it also shows that the first frag does not matter as much on the pistol round. I thank you for bringing that point to my attention, but would appreciate if you made constructive suggestions in the future.
EDIT: lol i posted this before reading 32.
anyways more constructive criticism skipping/messing up "one" part of a problem will result in guess what... the wrong answer.
What can we really use these number for? Pistol rounds? Nope no mentionioning it. Save rounds? Nope. How about gun rounds? Nope because these numbers arent accurate considering you didnt use only gun rounds or save rounds when you punched these number up in your calculator.
#33, please explain how this is 'bad sampling.' I've got 15,000 rounds of data and sampled both randomly, and using all of the rounds.
Again #37 I just calculated the pistol round data (and the following 2nd and 3rd rounds), and found that the number in Round 1s changes to 68% instead of 74%, making the entry kill less important. I will add that in my next article as a follow-up point to this one in case people don't read the comments.
Thats why they have this comment section at the end of the page to leave comments. Do I question his ability to write and present data? Yes otherwise they'ed be throwing who knows what kind of garbage down our throats.
Im not trying to flame and i hope the author doesnt take any of this personal but as a reader isnt it my responsibility to let other people know when something is wrong?
EDIT:
#39 arent you sampling for the percentage of times winning after getting the entry kill?
I guess if I'm saving and stack my team long A and someone walks into my stack then i have a 78.9% chance of winning ct side?
If you say so.
I dont know about you but everything is getting a bit vague to be an article about statistics.
I must admit I shouldnt criticise the sampling more the use of the sampling.
More Pages
Submit Comments
Registered Users Only
In order to post comments, you must be a registered member. If you have not registered, it's free and easy!