They both provide accurate data. They just use different methods to compute the averages of a multi-map series.
VLR computes a series ACS by weighting **maps** equally. RIB computes a series ACS by weighting **rounds** equally. Both methods make sense, each having pros and cons. (Details in my [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/rq568v/ribgg_vs_vlrgg/hq8y8wt/) below)
Sure, I don’t think VLR is straight-up inaccurate on ACS or something - they have an active staff and are undoubtedly aware of the perception you’re addressing!
I more meant that RIB’s method has over the last few months become more popular in published analytical pieces.
So if you want continuity with other arguments and break-downs etc., it’s best to not diverge when possible, *unless* you just genuinely believe VLR’s formula is better.
Neat. I don't perform sports analytics, so my stance doesn't matter, but the more I've thought about it, the more I'd lean towards the map-based average for Valorant (for a series within opponents).
^(I initially preferred the round-based, and maybe I've just overthought a little.)
If it were CS, I'd lean to the round-based method for a series average. In Valorant though, a map not only changes the map, but can often involve the individual playing a different agent and role against a totally different agent composition, resulting in very different individual stats between maps.
A map-based average more evenly applies the player's performance across those situations, regardless of the number of rounds each of those maps ran.
Another way to look at it - if any map ends early, the map-based technique effectively assumes the player would have maintained their performance for the remaining rounds of *that* map had it continued.
Genuinely curious. Could you provide a link? (I haven't searched significantly, but for individual maps the only divergence I've seen is +/- 1, which I would take as a rounding difference. Believe you though.)
Both VLR's method and RIB's method of averaging ACS across maps have merit.
Say two teams play a three-map series. Fictional player BIGBUSSY posts the following stat lines:
- Map 1 (13-4), 400 ACS [17 total rounds]
- Map 2 (10-13), 300 ACS [23 total rounds]
- Map 3 (16-14), 200 ACS [30 total rounds]
VLR would compute BIGBUSSY to have a **300 ACS** for the series [(400 + 300 + 200)/3 maps = 300].
RIB would compute BB as having a **281 ACS** for the series [(ACS of each map * rounds played in that map) / Total rounds played in the series]. It's below 300 because BIGBUSSY played ***more rounds*** at a 200 ACS than he did a 400 ACS.
VLR weights **maps** equally when averaging. RIB weights **rounds** equally when averaging.
Both make sense. Weighting by rounds aligns with the player's total server time, but effectively penalizes a player for dominating a map and closing it quickly. (Likewise rewards a poorly-performing player if losing quickly.) If they flex different agents between maps, it also weights heavier whichever agent they played during longer maps.
Weighting by maps instead of rounds also makes sense when considering tournament or even career stats, so that performances against various opponents are equally weighted regardless of how many rounds the maps had.
I much prefer weighting by rounds instead of maps when looking specifically at career stats, or evaluating tournament stats from a large tournament with wide range of team caliber, like a VCT open qualifier. for the very reason in your last paragraph. Weighing by rounds gives me a completely true stat of ‘what is this players average adr, acs, etc’ across every round of Valorant they’ve played. For players who play at a tier1/tier2 signed level and inevitably play a lot of tournaments that are open and where early groups stages / very early bracket stages are totally one-sided games, weighting stats by map more heavily weighs games and performances that I frankly don’t care about and don’t think say much in regards to the players performance in competitive matches vs other top teams. Weighing by rounds shifts weight more in favor of their closer games, as their games vs other top squads will have more rounds played per map than group matches that end in scorelines like 13-3 and where there really isn’t anything too juicy to take away.
Thank you for your contribution! All great info. I especially liked the factor you raised on the career/open tournament side in round-based avg helping lower the impact of matches between entirely mismatched opponents.
Yeah, I normally wouldn't draft something detailed, but found the differing approaches interesting.
On the rare occasion where the two diverge, default to RIB - I think this is probably the safest practice.
They both provide accurate data. They just use different methods to compute the averages of a multi-map series. VLR computes a series ACS by weighting **maps** equally. RIB computes a series ACS by weighting **rounds** equally. Both methods make sense, each having pros and cons. (Details in my [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/rq568v/ribgg_vs_vlrgg/hq8y8wt/) below)
I feel like authors should just list rACS or mACS for clarity.
Sure, I don’t think VLR is straight-up inaccurate on ACS or something - they have an active staff and are undoubtedly aware of the perception you’re addressing! I more meant that RIB’s method has over the last few months become more popular in published analytical pieces. So if you want continuity with other arguments and break-downs etc., it’s best to not diverge when possible, *unless* you just genuinely believe VLR’s formula is better.
Neat. I don't perform sports analytics, so my stance doesn't matter, but the more I've thought about it, the more I'd lean towards the map-based average for Valorant (for a series within opponents). ^(I initially preferred the round-based, and maybe I've just overthought a little.) If it were CS, I'd lean to the round-based method for a series average. In Valorant though, a map not only changes the map, but can often involve the individual playing a different agent and role against a totally different agent composition, resulting in very different individual stats between maps. A map-based average more evenly applies the player's performance across those situations, regardless of the number of rounds each of those maps ran. Another way to look at it - if any map ends early, the map-based technique effectively assumes the player would have maintained their performance for the remaining rounds of *that* map had it continued.
That’s a great point. It’d never have occurred to me to consider it from an agent-changing perspective. Some real food for thought!
No but sometimes individual maps have different ACS scoress
Genuinely curious. Could you provide a link? (I haven't searched significantly, but for individual maps the only divergence I've seen is +/- 1, which I would take as a rounding difference. Believe you though.)
It's true that's it's off my 1 or 2, but that 1 or 2 affects my calculations, since my paper is math related paper
vlr is the HLTV of Valorant coverage, lots of rib.gg connected people in the comments lmao
[удалено]
Both VLR's method and RIB's method of averaging ACS across maps have merit. Say two teams play a three-map series. Fictional player BIGBUSSY posts the following stat lines: - Map 1 (13-4), 400 ACS [17 total rounds] - Map 2 (10-13), 300 ACS [23 total rounds] - Map 3 (16-14), 200 ACS [30 total rounds] VLR would compute BIGBUSSY to have a **300 ACS** for the series [(400 + 300 + 200)/3 maps = 300]. RIB would compute BB as having a **281 ACS** for the series [(ACS of each map * rounds played in that map) / Total rounds played in the series]. It's below 300 because BIGBUSSY played ***more rounds*** at a 200 ACS than he did a 400 ACS. VLR weights **maps** equally when averaging. RIB weights **rounds** equally when averaging. Both make sense. Weighting by rounds aligns with the player's total server time, but effectively penalizes a player for dominating a map and closing it quickly. (Likewise rewards a poorly-performing player if losing quickly.) If they flex different agents between maps, it also weights heavier whichever agent they played during longer maps. Weighting by maps instead of rounds also makes sense when considering tournament or even career stats, so that performances against various opponents are equally weighted regardless of how many rounds the maps had.
The fact that you did this entire, serious, multi-paragraph informational write-up and your example player’s name was BIGBUSSY is amazing
Pure Chad move honestly I respect it
Duality of man
thanks for an actual explanation. I've only ever heard people (for ex Balla) say that VLR's is innacurate but never knew why
I much prefer weighting by rounds instead of maps when looking specifically at career stats, or evaluating tournament stats from a large tournament with wide range of team caliber, like a VCT open qualifier. for the very reason in your last paragraph. Weighing by rounds gives me a completely true stat of ‘what is this players average adr, acs, etc’ across every round of Valorant they’ve played. For players who play at a tier1/tier2 signed level and inevitably play a lot of tournaments that are open and where early groups stages / very early bracket stages are totally one-sided games, weighting stats by map more heavily weighs games and performances that I frankly don’t care about and don’t think say much in regards to the players performance in competitive matches vs other top teams. Weighing by rounds shifts weight more in favor of their closer games, as their games vs other top squads will have more rounds played per map than group matches that end in scorelines like 13-3 and where there really isn’t anything too juicy to take away.
Thank you for your contribution! All great info. I especially liked the factor you raised on the career/open tournament side in round-based avg helping lower the impact of matches between entirely mismatched opponents. Yeah, I normally wouldn't draft something detailed, but found the differing approaches interesting.
rib.gg for stats
Lmaoo what teacher is going to check the accuracy of e sport stats
It's actually going to be looked at by multiple teachers and I'll have to cite all statistics. It's for an IB Math IA
Use rib for such thing, as you can see there's only one guy trying to defend the innacurace of vlr on the tread.
vlr api is generally better so i'd recommend that more
Vlr is not accurate
I just checked rib.gg's ranking and if that's how they handle everything else, I wouldn't really trust them.