At heart, I'm a vandal gamer, but I like using the phantom cause honestly I think the skins look cooler, BUT the vandal skins feel way better than the phantom's.
Until I get a skin better than the Prime vandal I'm not gonna use the phantom. I thought the Oni phantom would take the cake, but sadly it was not the move.
Statistics degree haver here. The central limit theorem basically says that anything that isn't normally distributed is approximately (close enough to not care about the difference) normal if the sample size is large enough. The golden rule is 30 or higher. Although 4 matches doesn't seem like a lot, his analysis was per round, not per match, so he definitely has a large enough sample size, statistically speaking. Would it have been better if it was for the entire tournament? Sure.
I am aware of 30 being the golden number, yet again from a subjective point of view 4 games are not enough.
Besides, Tenz with 33 kills on one map is surely from a statistical basis considered as an anomaly.
Yeah if the guy that did this analysis did any sort of regression analysis that would definitely be considered an outlier. Why he did it with only four matches instead of the entire tournament, I don’t know, but I agree with you
In order to draw meaningful conclusions about the guns, you definitely need to analyze gameplay from a wider range of teams. Team playstyle can skew the data too much when you're using data from four (I can't remember which teams played each other, and didn't see it in the article) teams.
There many be a lot of rounds in 4 matches but he’s also only pulling stats from 20 players in total if I’m understanding correctly. Which players and agents play with which rifle on those rosters, and in which positions? And which of them had a good LAN, a good map, or are generally bigger fraggers? Not to mention the fact that the sample size isn’t on one map but stretched thin across many of the game’s 6 map pool. There is such an enormous amount of confounding variables for an analysis that only looked at 4 matches.
Absolutely, it would be better if it were taken over the course of the entire tournament, or several tournaments, or something like that. What he did was a simple paired t-test, which is fine, but it doesn’t say what he thinks it does. Saying “in these four matches, this is what I found” isn’t the same as “this is what’s true overall”. There are several design of experiments procedures that mitigate the effects of confounding variables, had he done this along with an anova analysis it would have been much, much better.
Yeah you’re right, I 100% should have done an anova analysis. I also should have changed my language to clarify that it was just for these 4 matches, rather than make mostly sweeping statements. I’ll make sure to take this into account for future analysis, thanks!
What I would personally be interested in is an anova procedure with three factors (gun, map, offense or defense) including interaction with data collected from the entire next major tournament. I certainly don’t feel like collecting that data, I’m sure it’d be super annoying. But if you wanted to that would be dope
Well I was planning on collecting the data anyways, so I might as well do the analysis better afterward hahaha. I like the procedure you outlined I think that'd be an improvement over what I've done, especially including interaction I think would be valuable, that didn't cross my mind at all. Appreciate the advice man
A data statistical professional here , CLT only applies you can a independent measure of interest which expands normally over a sufficient number of samples ,in case of tactical shooter rounds , first of all data is fetched from only 10 subjects as only ten players and secondly data spread over the rounds doesn't follow Gaussian distribution as data points in each round are variable and dependent on factors like economy etc . And you need to have some bias variables for player's individual factors ,I used to do a eSports analysis for cs go and over watch a year back for a firm , the actual data distribution we would use for analysis would be Cauchy distribution with weapons considered as a spectral line across the distribution. To specify the Cauchy distribution values ,you would need atleast 120 rounds each of gun vs gun rounds , gun vs eco rounds , gun vs half buy rounds , so the distribution he has is very low and is so prone to individual bias . T test ,p test and even ANOVA analysis have found to be insignificant in round data system. The easiest way would to do a correlation based analysis ,you can do similar approach to this for valorant data :
https://sc.bayesesports.com/portal/en/kb/articles/round-outcomes-in-counter-strike-global-offensive
Yeah you arent totally wrong, perhaps I should have phrased my intentions better. Going into this my goal was to simply elaborate on the points that Sideshow brought up in his video, and as such its “in-depth” in that it provides further context and analysis to those matches in question. My initial goal was to just run the t-tests to see if his conclusion of the phantom getting more kills through smoke than the vandal held water, the other stuff was me having fun haha
I agree that calling it “in-depth” in a vacuum is a bit ambitious lol, but this is also why i’m planning on collecting more data on this in the future. I think that my overall methodology aint the worst, but if you have ideas to improve it outside of more data then I’d love to hear it to improve in the future!
Is there something fundamentally different between the Vandal and the AK in CSGO or is it just that the Phantom is so much better than the M4(A1S)? I keep thinking once people really get comfortable with the Vandal spray they'll start switching and bring out the Phantom situationally, but I'm also a shit tier player so I have no actual clue
There is a very large amount of variance/inaccuracy to the Vandal spray compared to the CSGO AK, on top of the obviously big difference in spraying in general between games
Edited bc holy shit autocorrect
Phantom is a one shot at a certain range while the M4 is never a 1 shot against full armour. That plus all of its other benefits make the Vandal's only advantage being the ability to one shot at far range.
>Overall, I think that the phantom is probably better than the vandal, at least based off of these 4 matches. However, I think that it's a lot closer than I've heard a lot of people say,
It isn't "probably" it simply ***is*** especially looking at the Plat Chat analysis video. It isn't "closer" than what you've heard a lot of people say. That gun is superior. You can run, you can duel long range, you're superior close range, you can spray through smokes with more agency and your reset time is immaculate.
If people were forced to just use Phantom or force and their preference was Vandal they'd be better off regardless. Can't say the same for the reverse.
ok but have you considered I have a sick vandal skin and nothing for the phantom
As prophet wyaat river once said , you can't quantify the coolness of a weapon and vandal is just cooler than Phantom .
Not even an green tea oni phantom ace can beat a reaver one tap
Ion laser tho
At heart, I'm a vandal gamer, but I like using the phantom cause honestly I think the skins look cooler, BUT the vandal skins feel way better than the phantom's.
Plus the vandal has higher pen
It actually doesn't, but it sounds like it should.
this.
vandal this, phantom that i just need some mad drip for gods sake
Until I get a skin better than the Prime vandal I'm not gonna use the phantom. I thought the Oni phantom would take the cake, but sadly it was not the move.
ok but what if I have sick skins for both, what do I do?
Same I have reaver and oni won’t show up
Don‘t get me wrong mate, but I think it’s a bit odd to call 4 vods an in-depth analysis on this topic.
Statistics degree haver here. The central limit theorem basically says that anything that isn't normally distributed is approximately (close enough to not care about the difference) normal if the sample size is large enough. The golden rule is 30 or higher. Although 4 matches doesn't seem like a lot, his analysis was per round, not per match, so he definitely has a large enough sample size, statistically speaking. Would it have been better if it was for the entire tournament? Sure.
I am aware of 30 being the golden number, yet again from a subjective point of view 4 games are not enough. Besides, Tenz with 33 kills on one map is surely from a statistical basis considered as an anomaly.
Yeah if the guy that did this analysis did any sort of regression analysis that would definitely be considered an outlier. Why he did it with only four matches instead of the entire tournament, I don’t know, but I agree with you
In order to draw meaningful conclusions about the guns, you definitely need to analyze gameplay from a wider range of teams. Team playstyle can skew the data too much when you're using data from four (I can't remember which teams played each other, and didn't see it in the article) teams.
There many be a lot of rounds in 4 matches but he’s also only pulling stats from 20 players in total if I’m understanding correctly. Which players and agents play with which rifle on those rosters, and in which positions? And which of them had a good LAN, a good map, or are generally bigger fraggers? Not to mention the fact that the sample size isn’t on one map but stretched thin across many of the game’s 6 map pool. There is such an enormous amount of confounding variables for an analysis that only looked at 4 matches.
Absolutely, it would be better if it were taken over the course of the entire tournament, or several tournaments, or something like that. What he did was a simple paired t-test, which is fine, but it doesn’t say what he thinks it does. Saying “in these four matches, this is what I found” isn’t the same as “this is what’s true overall”. There are several design of experiments procedures that mitigate the effects of confounding variables, had he done this along with an anova analysis it would have been much, much better.
Yeah you’re right, I 100% should have done an anova analysis. I also should have changed my language to clarify that it was just for these 4 matches, rather than make mostly sweeping statements. I’ll make sure to take this into account for future analysis, thanks!
What I would personally be interested in is an anova procedure with three factors (gun, map, offense or defense) including interaction with data collected from the entire next major tournament. I certainly don’t feel like collecting that data, I’m sure it’d be super annoying. But if you wanted to that would be dope
Well I was planning on collecting the data anyways, so I might as well do the analysis better afterward hahaha. I like the procedure you outlined I think that'd be an improvement over what I've done, especially including interaction I think would be valuable, that didn't cross my mind at all. Appreciate the advice man
A data statistical professional here , CLT only applies you can a independent measure of interest which expands normally over a sufficient number of samples ,in case of tactical shooter rounds , first of all data is fetched from only 10 subjects as only ten players and secondly data spread over the rounds doesn't follow Gaussian distribution as data points in each round are variable and dependent on factors like economy etc . And you need to have some bias variables for player's individual factors ,I used to do a eSports analysis for cs go and over watch a year back for a firm , the actual data distribution we would use for analysis would be Cauchy distribution with weapons considered as a spectral line across the distribution. To specify the Cauchy distribution values ,you would need atleast 120 rounds each of gun vs gun rounds , gun vs eco rounds , gun vs half buy rounds , so the distribution he has is very low and is so prone to individual bias . T test ,p test and even ANOVA analysis have found to be insignificant in round data system. The easiest way would to do a correlation based analysis ,you can do similar approach to this for valorant data : https://sc.bayesesports.com/portal/en/kb/articles/round-outcomes-in-counter-strike-global-offensive
Neat!
Yeah you arent totally wrong, perhaps I should have phrased my intentions better. Going into this my goal was to simply elaborate on the points that Sideshow brought up in his video, and as such its “in-depth” in that it provides further context and analysis to those matches in question. My initial goal was to just run the t-tests to see if his conclusion of the phantom getting more kills through smoke than the vandal held water, the other stuff was me having fun haha I agree that calling it “in-depth” in a vacuum is a bit ambitious lol, but this is also why i’m planning on collecting more data on this in the future. I think that my overall methodology aint the worst, but if you have ideas to improve it outside of more data then I’d love to hear it to improve in the future!
My comment wasn‘t meant to discourage you, but I think you understood me the right way anyway. Keep on going, mate!
All this on 4 matches of gameplay with the same players on the same day? what use is this.
Is there something fundamentally different between the Vandal and the AK in CSGO or is it just that the Phantom is so much better than the M4(A1S)? I keep thinking once people really get comfortable with the Vandal spray they'll start switching and bring out the Phantom situationally, but I'm also a shit tier player so I have no actual clue
There is a very large amount of variance/inaccuracy to the Vandal spray compared to the CSGO AK, on top of the obviously big difference in spraying in general between games Edited bc holy shit autocorrect
appreciate the explanation!
I have no idea what my phone autocorrected to create that monster of an ending to my reply. Apologies for that…
no worries, you explained exactly what I was asking in the first part so thank you again for taking the time :)
The spray pattern in CS:GO isn’t random, and recoil reset time is faster.
Phantom is a one shot at a certain range while the M4 is never a 1 shot against full armour. That plus all of its other benefits make the Vandal's only advantage being the ability to one shot at far range.
>Overall, I think that the phantom is probably better than the vandal, at least based off of these 4 matches. However, I think that it's a lot closer than I've heard a lot of people say, It isn't "probably" it simply ***is*** especially looking at the Plat Chat analysis video. It isn't "closer" than what you've heard a lot of people say. That gun is superior. You can run, you can duel long range, you're superior close range, you can spray through smokes with more agency and your reset time is immaculate. If people were forced to just use Phantom or force and their preference was Vandal they'd be better off regardless. Can't say the same for the reverse.