So using win ratio to balance champions is a bad way to balance

DropFill·Nov 19, 2014·2 votes·983 views

But only if the win ratio is low, because low win ratio means nothing. But if the win ratio is like 53% CALL RIOT TO USE THE NERF BAT ( talking about rammus ).

21 Comments

HayaishiNov 19, 20142 votes

Win Rate should be taken into account when balancing,

If a champion wins more than everyone else he should be nerfed, there shouldn't be excuses.

DropFillNov 19, 20141 votes

Win Rate should be taken into account when balancing,

If a champion wins more than everyone else he should be nerfed, there shouldn't be excuses.

But if one loses more than win , he should be buffed too

HalloweenDeathNov 19, 20141 votes

Rammus being nerfed?

DropFillNov 19, 20141 votes

Rammus being nerfed?

They are nerfing his Q CD and his taunt armor reduction

HalloweenDeathNov 19, 20141 votes

Rammus being nerfed?

They are nerfing his Q CD and his taunt armor reduction

Well my rammus support is ruined now. Don't judge the rammus support

DropFillNov 19, 20141 votes

Rammus being nerfed?

They are nerfing his Q CD and his taunt armor reduction

Well my rammus support is ruined now. Don't judge the rammus support

I am not even judging you. I am judging riot for their complete lack of balance

Aurelius MaximusNov 19, 20141 votes

If you look at it objectively, League is one of the most balanced games i've ever played

TheFallenShawNov 19, 20141 votes

they should use the Banned % as a means to deside what champs need nerfed... Cough Yasuo cough... Best kit cough.. syngery in the cough... game... cough....

Stars ShaperNov 19, 20144 votes

So that biased tards have the nerfbat in their hands? No thanks.

MarthianNov 19, 20141 votes

Ever stop to think that it's entirely justified? The top win rate champions are there for a reason: They are very strong. Sona has a lot of strong team utility; Rammus can become obscenely tanky and has excellent ganks early game.

DropFillNov 19, 20141 votes

Ever stop to think that it's entirely justified? The top win rate champions are there for a reason: They are very strong. Sona has a lot of strong team utility; Rammus can become obscenely tanky and has excellent ganks early game.

Sona is a squishy champion that has to stay close as fuck to her teammates to be useful. Also, I cant understand this. If a champion has a top win ratio, he is very strong. But if a champion have one of the lowest, he is not weak? Makes no sense to me

Matthias9119Nov 19, 20141 votes

It's more complicated than just "win rate". As examples:

Easy-to-use champions (low skill floor) tend to have higher win rates than hard-to-use ones (high skill floor).

Some champions can abuse uncoordinated opponents but don't perform nearly as well in organized team play or at high skill levels.

Some champions are very strong counterpicks or can be good if you build a team around them, but are mediocre otherwise.

MarthianNov 20, 20141 votes

Build Sona AP tank. No longer squishy and still provides excellent utility.

Wasted SmurfNov 19, 20141 votes

Rammus destroys vayne holy omg.

DropFillNov 19, 20141 votes

Rammus destroys vayne holy omg.

No he doesn't lol

Aurelius MaximusNov 19, 20141 votes

Because things that have a 47% win rate don't demand as much attention as those with higher win rates. If the overall win rate for a champ is 48%, but there are people who have hundreds of games and have like a 65% win rate, that seems balanced to me.

DropFillNov 19, 20141 votes

Because things that have a 47% win rate don't demand as much attention as those with higher win rates. If the overall win rate for a champ is 48%, but there are people who have hundreds of games and have like a 65% win rate, that seems balanced to me.

Fiddle win ratio has always been high, nerfed once. Amumu win ratio is high too, and his "nerf" is compensated late game and it is not even close to what they are doing with rammus