How To Think About Tactical FPS by ddk

This essay identifies the major principles behind gaining advantage and some of the mechanisms for how those principles are used in professional play. The goal is to create more clarity in analyzing professional VALORANT or CS:GO matches.

In VALORANT or CS:GO, like anything else that is competitive, teams are looking to create advantageous positions consistently. The individual performance element for the player and their opponents is unreliable; At the same time, they cannot guarantee any outcomes; they are always, in every snapshot of the game, working to make the next move that will secure an advantage. The advantages they’re looking for are found in positions that allow them the strongest response or opportunity against what the player and their team are up against. Having the correct guess can be difficult in a tactical FPS because teams must navigate imperfect information.

When a player makes decisions, whether seeking to win a single fight, or meet any other win condition for themselves when on attack or defense, there are always three operating principles they are working with, both in the macro and microelements. These principles dictate what the player can do and how good or bad it may be to do it. My goal is to create a more structured approach to analysis in Tactical FPS by describing these principles and their interactions. These principles are Information, Timing, and Positioning.

Information is the ability a player has to make the best guess about what actions the opponent plans to do. Timing is the cost of any action and/or movement required to make a play from a position or to get to that position in the first place. Positioning is the physical location on the map one occupies to give options that are either working for or against oneself, based on what’s coming next.

By seeking information, a player can know which positions are available to best counter the opponent or capitalize on any given opportunity. For example, if a Sova recon dart reveals three players on Bind, Long B, we can guess that the opponent is looking to gain orb and teleporter control to pressure B-Site. The defenders must then be mindful of the strongest possibilities for the remaining two players. The most likely options could be: 1) At least one lurking showers and at least one Short B; 2) Two pushing hookah to split with the Long players, etc.) Correctly deduced that one piece of initial information (Sova recon dart) has now given us a framework for what to expect and how we should position to deal with that expectation (the Long split play).

A consideration of timing is crucial for the next aspect of the decision-making process: rotation. This is the term used to describe moving from one position to the next position. Using the previous example from Bind, in a 3-A 2-B setup, the defenders would want the B players to delay the attackers long enough to create a sufficient window of time for the A players to rotate through spawn and settle into optimal defensive positions for the B site.

Consider positioning. A good position is about options, game mechanics, and context: Angle of engagement advantage, options to delay opponent, cover, access to teammates, synergy with your abilities, etc. For example, U-Hall is a great defensive position against a rush because it allows a lone player strong opportunities to deal with multiple oncoming opponents. Potential advantages can include: Taking cover, making multiple position resets, and strong options with pistols, shotguns, SMGs, or a rifle. It’s important to keep control of the U-Hall position for the retake. One doesn’t necessarily need a teammate to hold it, as the small chokepoint makes an opponent trade more challenging. Instead of putting themselves at great risk by over-exposing themselves, a player can utilize the many different agent abilities — flashes, mollies, smokes — to create a delay while waiting for teammate support to defend as a unit.

Each of these three principles defines what a player can accomplish during any one moment of the game. Information informs position, and timing limits position. For example, if there are 20-seconds left in the round and a defending player has identified that either all of the attackers or the spike are towards the A-Site, they know that there is no time for them to rotate anywhere else; the defenders should be positioned for and rotating to the best spots possible, on the A-Site, to defend the incoming attack, as the attackers have no other option. So long as the defenders have the time to position before the attack comes, they should win the round.

This is a basic example where the round winning advantage is clear for the defenders to meet a rotation timing requirement.

However, the factors that guide these principles are far from being so clear in a professional match. The complicated and fast-paced nature of a given match lends so much beauty to professional matches. Both teams are constantly jockeying for advantages by 1) Winning and losing position, and 2) Gaining and losing information. Many methods allow us to make these three principles work in a team’s favor and deal with how the enemy is trying to do the same. These methods include, but are not limited to: Pacing, conditioning, defaults, pressure, delaying, faking, setting information traps, cutting noise, retaking setups, set pieces (AKA: “executes”), and more.

Pacing describes the general speed with which an attacking team moves and acts around the map. If this speed and pattern are consistent, it can be used for “conditioning.” of the opponent. By changing the pacing unexpectedly, attackers can take advantage of their previously set patterns. For example, if the attackers have repeatedly been rushing, their opponents will respect this information in the next round by taking positions and using defensive measures (retaking setups, burning more utility early on, etc.…). As mentioned before, information in TAC FPS is imperfect. As such, if the defenders in this example have a strong indication that something may happen and the cost of not preparing for it is great as the likelihood of a rush happening is high, their best option is often to respect the pattern and act on a plan to defend a rush in the following round. Attackers can then anticipate the defender's response and take risks that exploit the likely adjustments. However, any experienced team will understand this use of conditioning and try to take measures against it (perhaps by anticipating the attacker's next adjustment, playing aggressively for information, etc.).

Switching up the pace of a default that has established timings is also effective in creating “information traps.” This is a dynamic that the attackers can take advantage of when they have map control due to a successful default, and they can then decide to wait for the defenders to push for information and then punish them. If the attacker's pacing has been consistent, they can likely predict when the defenders will feel it's least risky to push for information. The defenders will usually push an extremity position. (I.e., A-Main or B-Main on Ascent.) Upon pushing, if activity is found on the extremity in this context, it means it’s very likely the attackers are looking to finish on the corresponding bomb site. If it’s empty, defenders can deduce that they will finish on the opposite site. In pro matches, we see many fighting around these extremities, including tactical setups to retake these areas at key moments, deny them completely, disrupt defaults, and win the information game. Defenders may deem the possibility of falling into information traps too risky and avoid this scenario entirely by instead focusing on bombsite retake setups and by staying away from the extremities.

Sometimes a gamble is the best choice when the defenders lack information. It is important to understand when the defenders are gambling, as the best teams can often find a way to avoid this unless there is a good argument. “Gambling” is a term that distinguishes when a team is doing something without the information in the round to justify a call. Instead, they may be using knowledge of previous behavior, match-up familiarity, information in the meta, or just plain guesswork. Although gambling has a negative connotation, there are moments when it’s smart. Gambling can be justified if the cost (position, timing, player numbers) or risk of information gathering is too high or, in the case of a pistol save, the defenders know that they’ll need the numbers and positional advantage to mitigate their disadvantage in weaponry. A common example is when the defenders are 3v5; the best plays will usually include placing the remaining three players together on one site (unless a player is stuck and can’t rotate safely) to have the best chance at effectively defending or to save as three if the other site is attacked.

An essential, common, and complex aspect of professional play is the “default.” It is an effective, team-specific framework to win the information and position game by keeping the attack as unpredictable as possible. Defaults serve a few purposes:

1. Conditioning the opponent

• The attackers can establish timing and movement patterns that condition their opponents' expectations.
• Conditioning the opponent narrows the possible decisions they have, which gives the attackers a better understanding of what their opponent will do.

2. Gaining map control

• It gives your team information while taking information away from the other team, which will eventually force the opponent into a position to gain information.
• Deductive reasoning is easier when trying to understand what the defenders are doing.
• It gives the attackers more ways to work together to coordinate, which increases the overall strength of the attack.
• Allows a team to change plans and fake plays more effectively
• Can increase defender rotations and shorten attacker rotations creating an attacker favored timing advantage
• The opportunity to constantly gain defender information. This is highly valuable to a good caller, as they will be able to spot the signs that will allow them to know where the weaknesses are in the defender positioning or timings.

3. Forcing the opponent to react (aggressively or defensively)

• Manipulation of the defender's rotations creates weaknesses elsewhere on the map. Sometimes an attacking team will recognize they have the other team beat simply on timings, so even though the defenders know how to position, they won’t have the time to rotate, and the round will be lost
• If you force a team to react hyper-defensively, more space on the map is opened, allowing for more opportunities to lurk and obscure information
• If the defenders react aggressively, the attackers gain valuable information about their setups, early in the round
• If orb control is strategically important, sending three players to assure orb control creates a situation wherein the defenders decide whether they want to give up control for free or challenge it. If they decide not to challenge control, they must then take an advantage elsewhere on the map to make up for it
• If the attackers gain a kill or even go one-for-one, they are in an advantageous position, as the defenders have a lot less information to work from, and their plays to gain information — or defensive set-ups — become predictable

Pressure is a part of every default. This is where attackers will take action(s) to show presence on a specific map area. This can be for many purposes, but this is information that has to be respected and reacted to by the defense. The key purpose of pressure in the context of a default is to suggest that certain attacking outcomes are possible to obscure what the attacker's true intentions might be. This creates a major lack of information for the defenders. Creating the sense that anything could happen is a scary prospect and usually results in an information play, a gamble play, or a “safe” setup. (These are generally strong positions and are good for delay or surviving and maintaining an area of control for retakes.)

Taking map control is an opportunity when creating pressure: the more map control, the more options and information. In the example of a standard attacker default on Haven where A lobby, A-Short, and A-Long may be won by the attackers, even if they decide to go elsewhere afterward, they may leave a lurking player by himself to hold that ground as the rest of the team works the rest of the map. As this lurker holds the ground, he can punish information plays, give his team the opportunity to go back to that bombsite, late-lurk into the site to flank, call defender rotations or continue pressure on the bombsite to keep a player on that site and further obscure the attacking team's intentions.

Cutting noise/resetting position is a powerful tool for the attackers and hinges upon the idea that the value of information decays over time. If, for example, the attacking team takes A-Long control on Haven, the initial response from the defenders will be to rotate players to help defend. If the attackers simply silently sit and show zero action, the defenders will either make an information play into the attackers, or they will eventually be forced to rotate off the A Site when enough time passes (the amount of time it would take for the attackers to walk to the other side of the map), allowing the attackers an easier re-execution onto A as there will be fewer players there to defend. This is information decay at play. Information is only good for so long, again bringing us back to the principles of information and timing. Often, the best way for defenders to deal with this is to take control immediately in areas previously under zero pressure (C-Long / Grass / Mid). This follows the idea of “nothing for free.” If a team loses something, at worst, they want an equal exchange or better; otherwise, they fall into a disadvantage.

Similarly, for defenders, delaying is a strong play as it can create an anti-timing for the attackers. Simply staying alive can be far more impactful than getting kills if the defender can improve their teammates’ rotation timings. Meaning they will have opportunities to get better positions. An “anti-timing” occurs when one team has a strong timing window missed to the degree that it becomes highly disadvantageous to continue with the original plan. I.e., on Bind, teams like to put Omen in U-Hall because “paranoia” can hit almost all of A-Short and is an extremely effective way to delay and buy time for rotations. The attackers have a specific amount of time to gain control of specific areas, if they fail to do so, the strength of their attack weakens.

Performing a set-piece, or execute, into a bombsite is an effective way an attacking team can invest heavily in a play that aims to gain bombsite control. Typically, winning the round after an execute comes down to how good post-plant positioning is. For example, if a team has a Short-plant on Bind, A site, and they lose U-Hall control with no showers control, the attackers have only one position to defend from, A-Short. This is extremely favorable for the defender retake.

A fake (if it is successful) forces terrible positioning and timings for the defending team against what is truly happening. Usually, the trade-off may require a lot of utility and up to two players to sell a fake. In VALORANT, Killjoy’s ultimate, “lockdown,” is an effective tool for fakes as it clears out players from its radius, creating a window of time where the defenders will struggle to gain information as to what is really happening.

As readers can see, there are many considerations when analyzing the complicated nature of tactical first-person shooters. I wanted to provide an introductory framework for analyzing VALORANT gameplay; while this mostly covers macro elements and methodologies, I think this is the best place to start. I hope this serves as a good starting point for anyone looking to understand how to think about how games like VALORANT operate in competitive terms.