If your argument is "Idc about their win/pick rate. They're broken because of their BAN rate"...

chipndip1·Aug 31, 2018·7 votes·1,229 views

...please do us all a favor and delete the thread you're making.

21 Comments

KhristophorosAug 31, 20184 votes

X% banrate = X% of the playerbase would enjoy the game more if the champ didn't exist.

HethaleanAug 31, 20183 votes

Ban rate is a good reflection of how exactly absolutely horrible a champion is to face. This is a game that is about fun. If everything is unfun to play against, no one plays the game. I mean... I guess DOTA still exists and that is just absolutely in the mark of "if eveyrone is crazy OP and does insanity "I AM SUPERMAN"" level of powers... then everyone is fine, but this isn't DOTA 2.

Frosted TipsAug 31, 20183 votes

But the champion in question is not insanely OP

haaaaaaalpAug 31, 20183 votes

Why? Banrates artificially deflate winrates. A 50% winrate and low ban rate is fine. A 50% winrate and 95% ban rate means the hero is overpowered.

Also, before you say what about champion x who has both a high pick and ban rate, I really don't care. One champion being overpowered doesn't preclude another from also being overpowered. There are 140 champions in the game and riot has not done a good job of balancing up to now. There are probably a good 40-50 champions who are all demonstratively stronger than an average champion. We shouldn't be saying should champion a or b be nerfed, we should be saying lets nerf champion a, b, c, d and find some more overpowered champions to nerf.

chipndip1Aug 31, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Why? Banrates artificially deflate winrates. A 50% winrate and low ban rate is fine. A 50% winrate and 95% ban rate means the hero is overpowered.

No it doesn't. Any time a champ is banned, you have no idea if that champ would have raked in a win or a loss in that match. They COULD have. They also could have lost. Ban rates show who people don't want to play with. They have no direct relationship with champion strength, although they do have a correlation (You could have a high ban rate because you're too strong. You could also have a high ban rate because people just don't like you or think you're too strong when you aren't).

haaaaaaalpAug 31, 20181 votes

{quoted}

No it doesn't. Any time a champ is banned, you have no idea if that champ would have raked in a win or a loss in that match. They COULD have. They also could have lost. Ban rates show who people don't want to play with. They have no direct relationship with champion strength, although they do have a correlation (You could have a high ban rate because you're too strong. You could also have a high ban rate because people just don't like you or think you're too strong when you aren't).

You don't have to know if an specific game will be a win or loss. You just have to know that on average, high ban rates artificially deflate winrates.

Also, that isn't to say all champions with high ban rate are overpowered. You have cases where champion has like 30-40 ban rate and mid 40's winrate and no one knows exactly where the winrate would be naturally. However, a high ban rate with a winrate at or above 50% is almost always indicative of a champion that is stronger than the average of the 140 other champions.

chipndip1Aug 31, 20181 votes

{quoted}

You don't have to know if an specific game will be a win or loss. You just have to know that on average, high ban rates artificially deflate winrates.

...bans have literally 0 to do with win rates. I just explained this to you.

That aside, we don't perma-ban champions that deserve to be perma-banned, or else we'd be perma-banning Jax right now, but the thought hasn't even crossed most people's minds, I imagine.

haaaaaaalpAug 31, 20181 votes

{quoted}

...bans have literally 0 to do with win rates.

That is just flat out false. if a champion has a high ban rate, that means that the games that they do play in are usually when their lane opponent has a specific counter or game plan against that champion. Their winrate is not representative of how they do in every situation, it is representative of how they do in unfavorable situations.

Conversely, a champion with a low ban rate get to play in a lot more games where they have favorable matchups. That is why high banrates always artificially deflate winrates. The higher the ban rate, the more likely that the games they do play in are into unfavorable situations.

chipndip1Aug 31, 20181 votes

{quoted}

That is just flat out false. if a champion has a high ban rate, that means that the games that they do play in are usually when their lane opponent has a specific counter or game plan against that champion. Their winrate is not representative of how they do in every situation, it is representative of how they do in unfavorable situations.

People ban what they don't want to see, period. WHY is anyone's guess. You can't assume what you don't know, so objectively speaking, you can't make that conclusion, which is why you're wrong.

haaaaaaalpAug 31, 20181 votes

{quoted}

People ban what they don't want to see, period. WHY is anyone's guess. You can't assume what you don't know, so objectively speaking, you can't make that conclusion, which is why you're wrong.

You can't just hide behind ignorance for everything. We don't know for certain why everyone bans what they do. We do know that a certain percentage of players ban champions that counter their playstyle. As a result, we know that a portion of bans targeted a champion artificially deflate their winrate.

chipndip1Aug 31, 20181 votes

{quoted}

You can't just hide behind ignorance for everything. We don't know for certain why everyone bans what they do. We do know that a certain percentage of players ban champions that counter their playstyle. As a result, we know that a portion of bans targeted a champion artificially deflate their winrate.

Here's what you know:

A champion was banned
A champion will not be played this game

Here's what you DON'T know:

Why that champion was banned
If that champion would have won or lost that game they were banned in

So why on Earth are you assuming its effects on a champion's win rate if you have no idea why the ban was done or if they'd have won or lost the match they were banned in? You can't assume these things. You logically cannot make that assumption. You're dead wrong. Period.

haaaaaaalpAug 31, 20182 votes

{quoted}

Here's what you know:

A champion was banned

A champion will not be played this game

Here's what you DON'T know:

Why that champion was banned

If that champion would have won or lost that game they were banned in

So why on Earth are you assuming its effects on a champion's win rate if you have no idea why the ban was done or if they'd have won or lost the match they were banned in? You can't assume these things. You logically cannot make that assumption. You're dead wrong. Period.

We are looking at population data, not singular games. In a single game, your model applies. However, when we look at the entire population of plat+ or diamond+ or LCS, we have to expand the model.

When we look at the larger picture, we know that banrates do infact deflate winrates. Again, this is due to the fact that the winrate of a high ban rate champion does not representative of how they do in every situation, it is representative of how they do in unfavorable situations.

You can keep plugging your ears and screaming "your wrong" like a four year old child, it won't really help your arguement.

Colton147Aug 31, 20182 votes

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/353/279/e31.jpg

SithesisLordAug 31, 20182 votes

They can´t seem to understand that a single statistic means nothing. The combination of all three, on the other hand, can explain a champion's power and even if they are in need of nerfs/buffs.

People have been complaining about Aurelion Sol's high winrate since, i believe, the beginning of the season and probably even before, but they gloss over his pick and ban rates, which, for a champion with his learning curve, are completely fine. Low pick rate means mostly mains play him and low ban rate means he's mostly banned when a main gets target banned.

Now champs like Camille and Kai'Sa, both coincidentally made by the same designer, which explains a lot too, are both being picked a lot, banned a lot and are still finding success, meaning that they should be nerfed.

JoeAnarchyAug 31, 20182 votes

well you have to remember, from a GAMEPLAY stand point, champions with higher than average ban rates, are probably just less fun to play against.. the issue with some champions is that they are very fun to play and watch, but horrible to play against.. when Riot is making/balancing a champion, they need to take into consideration both. is it fun to play AND is it fun to play against? if the answer is no to either of these, than it should be changed.

chipndip1Aug 31, 20182 votes

Yeah...but who's asking?

Real talk: The fun for playing a competitive game comes from the struggle to win in said game. If you're trying to design a character in a competitive game "Based on if it's fun to play against it", you're going to be massively limited in what you can do because, obviously, people are all gonna bitch and whine when they lose. You think anyone likes losing to ANYTHING? Everything has a chance to be obnoxious in this game. Marksmen ass-blasting the map with crits, Diana bursting people, Rengar bursting people, LB bursting people, Yi running through entire teams, Olaf running through entire teams, Nasus raid bossing, Pantheon slapping your top lane into a coma, Teemo taking two LCK wins...literally EVERYTHING gets complained about all the freaking time. We even got shoved right back into our stale ass "marksman every game" meta because people couldn't handle change. Is it good for the game's health? FUCK NO, but we literally have to make every damn team revolve around marksmen for the rest of our lives because everyone will bitch about everything.

Saying "It has to be fun to play against" is basically saying "I have to feel like I can win". You should feel like that on your own so long as there isn't some egregious balancing issue. The rest is supposed to be on you.

JoeAnarchyAug 31, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Yeah...but who's asking?

Real talk: The fun for playing a competitive game comes from the struggle to win in said game. If you're trying to design a character in a competitive game "Based on if it's fun to play against it", you're going to be massively limited in what you can do because, obviously, people are all gonna bitch and whine when they lose. You think anyone likes losing to ANYTHING? Everything has a chance to be obnoxious in this game. Marksmen ass-blasting the map with crits, Diana bursting people, Rengar bursting people, LB bursting people, Yi running through entire teams, Olaf running through entire teams, Nasus raid bossing, Pantheon slapping your top lane into a coma, Teemo taking two LCK wins...literally EVERYTHING gets complained about all the freaking time. We even got shoved right back into our stale ass "marksman every game" meta because people couldn't handle change. Is it good for the game's health? FUCK NO, but we literally have to make every damn team revolve around marksmen for the rest of our lives because everyone will bitch about everything.

Saying "It has to be fun to play against" is basically saying "I have to feel like I can win". You should feel like that on your own so long as there isn't some egregious balancing issue. The rest is supposed to be on you.

majority.

lets look at it this way.

when was the last time you heard/saw someone complaining about playing against Elise? it'd be far and few between. her kit isn't bad per se, but it's underwhelming, and isn't annoying to play against. when was the last time you played against a Jinx and said "oh my god she's sooo borke, i can't outplay her" probably not often, even tho she's a marksman and can get hella fed and far ahead, she's also just a marksmen and is really weak to soooo much (as most marksmen are)

now, how many mother f**king times have you seen people complain about yasuo, Zoe or the new Akali? considerably more, yes? it's because of just how hard they are to outplay and play against.. their kits are more in line with a single player game, as opposed to a 5v5 team fighting game.. they might be fun to play as, but they are not fun to play against.. you have to just pray that the enemy Yas is one of those that feeds, otherwise you know it's GG..

the simple fact is, there are some champs that are fun to play as, but not play against, and probably vice versa, and probably both, and probably neither.

when they hit marksmen, they became more fun to play against, but became considerably less fun to play as, and were so unplayable, that Pro players were literally being forced to step down, to make way for subbed in top laners just to play that weird bruiser/mage botlane nonsense.. marksmen were just at an un-optimal spot, and were not fun to play as for casual/non-pro players. it was the opposite end of the spectrum.

and honestly when was the last time you played against ANY marksman and thought "they have no outplays, i can't do anything to them"? because that's how most of us feel about Yasuo, Zoe, Akali, etc..

chipndip1Aug 31, 20181 votes

{quoted}

majority.

lets look at it this way.

when was the last time you heard/saw someone complaining about playing against Elise? it'd be far and few between. her kit isn't bad per se, but it's underwhelming, and isn't annoying to play against. when was the last time you played against a Jinx and said "oh my god she's sooo borke, i can't outplay her" probably not often, even tho she's a marksman and can get hella fed and far ahead, she's also just a marksmen and is really weak to soooo much (as most marksmen are)

You've literally proven my point with your two examples.

The last time everyone hated Jinx was season 5, when she was the main face of the bot lane trifecta. Elise's hay day was also around season 5 or 6, a bit after the Cinderhulk meta ended. Back then, EVERYONE was complaining about them (and Lee Sin). Now? Not so much. Why? Because people think they aren't a big deal. Your own words even state that Elise is "underwhelming" and "not annoying".

So, if you're designing a champion, do you want to design a champion that feels strong and impactful and fun, or a champion that's "underwhelming and not annoying so other people don't want to ban it"? Perception is key. We aren't talking about if any of these champions are ACTUALLY deserving of being perma-banned. We're talking about what people think, which is different from reality. If we wanted to perma-ban things that actually should be perma-banned, we'd be banning Ahri and Jax, not Akali (a 48% win rate champ) and Zoe (a 46.5% win rate champ).

The problem isn't that some champs "Aren't fun to play against". The problem is that some parts of the roster don't feel like they're capable of all that much in comparison to other parts of the roster, regardless of reality. Updating and working on weaker designs to bring them up to standard will eventually make people realize that the fun designs aren't the problem, but it's the unfun, limp-dick ones that are.

Side note: If you can't figure out the counter-play to Akali, you need to try harder.

Frosted TipsAug 31, 20181 votes

Lol that was quick.