Quake Champions player statistics are more useful when they describe which format, period and opponents produced a result. A single winning percentage cannot fully explain a duel matchup. This guide lays out a repeatable player-form and head-to-head workflow without inventing current ratings or unsupported records.
Build a match-level dataset first
For every played match, record the event, event date, players, winner, series score, map names, map scores, duel mode and source URL. Flag no-shows, disconnections, replayed maps and disputed results separately. The distinction matters because a 2–0 walkover should not automatically improve a map win-rate statistic.
Use the current tournament directory for event discovery and Plus Forward's match archive or organizer bracket as a primary result record. Record the retrieval date: live databases may correct older entries.
Recent form: more than five colored circles
The phrase “last five matches” hides context. Five games against new players at regional events may not measure performance against top opponents. Look for strength of schedule, map scores, series length, opponent identity, date and format. A player winning five of five matches in old three-champion Duel Rounds should not be merged casually with modern Time Limit Duel data.
A practical review can use a recent window, for example 60–90 days, only if the sample is large enough. When there are fewer matches, show the count and widen the time range transparently. A ten-map sample is noisy; do not present a win rate to decimal places as though it predicts the next map.
H2H: why direct matchups can mislead
Head-to-head (H2H) records answer “what happened when these opponents met?” They are not a standalone prediction. A 3–0 H2H score may come entirely from one season, a different map pool or one player's injury or disconnect. For each H2H meeting, note:
- Event and date, so repeat meetings at the same bracket are not confused.
- Map pool and veto order, where the source provides them.
- A played or administrative result.
- Whether the match used the same duel format as the upcoming event.
An H2H table should be paired with a larger sample of each player's recent matches.
Map-level splits and champion context
Suppose a player is successful on Awoken but rarely appears on Corrupted Keep. A flat win percentage can overstate confidence if Corrupted Keep is likely in the upcoming veto. Conversely, a “0% win rate” from one played map is nearly meaningless. See the map-veto analysis for how the selection mechanism changes relevance.
Champion preferences and balance changes can also reduce comparability. The game's published patch notes describe changes to champions, weapons and maps over time. A useful dataset notes the patch era, although most public match summaries will not be detailed enough to attribute a win to a specific patch.
An honest comparison table
| Metric | Player A | Player B | Quality check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time Limit Duel matches, recent period | Collect | Collect | Same date window |
| Map wins / played maps | Collect | Collect | Exclude administrative results |
| H2H matches, comparable format | Collect | Collect | Date and tournament source |
| Map-by-map history | Collect | Collect | Minimum sample shown |
| Strength of opposition | Explain | Explain | No unverified ratings |
“Collect” is deliberate: this page contains a methodology, not fabricated live statistics. Downloadable tables should only be populated after results can be sourced.
Interpretation and next step
Prefer an explicit statement of uncertainty over a single “confidence” number. If there is no credible map-specific sample, mark the matchup as underdetermined. Then use the duel-rules guide and odds explanation to keep historical performance, game mechanics and market price distinct.
Sources and verification
This article was editorially checked on . Current tournament schedules and availability can change after that date.
