If you base your entire argument on a champion's winrate you basically dont have an argument

koshkyra·Mar 13, 2018·19 votes·1,721 views

there are many shit champs who are >51% because of other factors (safety, reliability, team synergy, etc) and there are many busted champs who are <49% because of other factors (high risk, inconsistency, low-skill playerbase in general, elo's)

im not saying winrate is worthless in an argument but if your argument sounds something like "x has a 52% winrate obviously they need nerfs and are god-tier" then you have a shit argument.

i know its very obvious what im referring to but for me-being-attacked-for-having-an-opinion reasons im not going to directly state it.

20 Comments

BlåbæretMar 14, 201810 votes

Gotta love ADC mains putting out their cancer marksmen's win rates without context like it's some sort of overarching truth. ADC win rates are conditional, as in they only play against themselves. An ADC could literally be at 30% win rate and be overpowered as long as some other ADC was there to overshadow them. Other lanes don't have this issue as they are way more diverse and champs in these lanes actually have to be balanced around each other.

Riot needs to nerf ADCs into the ground until they're no longer mandatory. and we start seeing some variation in bot lane comps. Only then can we call marksmen balanced. But ya, let the ADC mains continue spamming the boards with "Twitch needs buffs threads". Keep it up. Tristana is balanced too, amirite?

Yaśuo MainMar 14, 201810 votes

Gotta love ADC mains putting out their cancer marksmen's win rates without context

Oh I'm pretty damn sure everyone enforcing the ADC circlejerk is doing this and not the actual mains.

Also, you think anyone who mains ADC would do that other than Triistana (cant remember their name :(, but they already proved that tristana isn't as bad as people think). Oh wait, you scared all of them off with the "letter to all ADC mains: stop flaming me" by other people and "twitch is cancer, fuCKING NERF". I bet you can't even get me 3 examples of an ADC main doing this, but you'll get 10+ examples of everyone else doing it against ADCs. Way to go.

Riot needs to nerf ADCs into the ground until they're no longer mandatory

Lets fuck over an entire class because I said so - LesVitesses, professional game balancing supervisor.

Uh huh, where are ADCs gonna go without people complaining.

Top? Hashinshin will lead against that for sure. Jayce is half marksman and people hate him so much just for that.

Mid? Mage mains will flip out. If an ADC is strong and is in mid, mage mains will be on the nerf train faster than a Lee Sin buff would attract attention.

Jungle? Ezreal. That's an example of ADC jungle being stupid. Imagine Xayah ganks. Oh wait, they would be utterly bad. Try hitting Xayah feathers vertically while the target moves left, and hit 2+ of them at that.

Only then can we call marksmen balanced.

You just said nerf them into the ground till they aren't mandatory. However, them not being mandatory in a meta is likely them being impractical in general, thus garbage.

let the ADC mains continue spamming the boards with "Twitch needs buffs threads"

Do you live in the Negative Realm where everything is opposite. Last time I remember, 50+ upvote threads of "FUCKING NERF TWICH" was roaming as king. Keep up the lying.

Tristana is balanced too

Right, you gave yourself to say that sarcastically because you pulled out some psychic-levels of pseudo-research that stated "ADCS HAVE CONDITIONAL WINRATES WHICH MAKES THEM ALL ABLE TO BE OP WITH BAD WINRATES". So basically, saying every ADC is OP while compared to a non-adc is unable to be disproven. That's how bad this entire comment is.

KaìjuMar 14, 20185 votes

Ashe is shooting yourself in the foot in low elo because of her lack of self defense unless you want to waste your engage tool because that's what her R is. No mobility, lowest average damage of the class outside of maybe Kai'Sa but she's in a weird spot. And super team dependent because Ashe does not take over and 1v5 nearly as hard as other marksmen. So why am I wrong and she deserves to be gutted?

Troll for TrumpMar 14, 20188 votes

Because outside of winrate/playrates, there's little objective, decisive evidence to be used to support an argument, so it ends up being overused

IfnethMar 14, 20181 votes

Well-said.

Jackin ur lawnMar 14, 20181 votes

Except that it's not an accurate support to an argument because every match is different.....so you can't take a winrate and use it as proof unless it's the same team comp vs the same team comp w/ the same players every single game which is quite impossible (and sounds incredibly boring.)

DracosKasuMar 14, 20181 votes

Generally speaking if a champ manage to get a playrate of 30% and still get a winrate over 51% can show if the champ is just play because he is too strong over a champ play because it got a playerbase.

Troll for TrumpMar 19, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Jackin ur lawn,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7sRAHfEc,comment-id=00050001,timestamp=2018-03-14T17:15:52.089+0000)

Except that it's not an accurate support to an argument because every match is different.....so you can't take a winrate and use it as proof unless it's the same team comp vs the same team comp w/ the same players every single game which is quite impossible (and sounds incredibly boring.)

What? Yes you can. The meta is always changing; by incorporating the various matchups, the winrate becomes representative of the champ's state in the meta. When comparing with other champs in similar scenarios, the data is comparable.

There are some inconsistencies with certain champs (kass being anti-mage and being picked specifically for that, for instance), and it's hard to compare ADC winrates with Top winrates, but you shouldn't dismiss winrates as inaccurate support to an argument

FCJAAAAGOOOOMar 14, 20182 votes

well people generally uhh...

know how champions work to uhh...

explain their effectiveness which is what uhh...

affects...

uhh...

their WR...

DeloricVIMar 14, 20182 votes

I mean, If the winrate is like 60% it probably needs a look to see just what the hell is going on. But, you're right. If the winrate is just slightly high, that doesn't mean anything.

No matter what win rate you use, it's going to be different at every level of play. If you go with overall win rate across all ranked games, bronze is going to be way to over-represented. It just feeds into the argument of how Riot should balance the game, because of the massive difference between casual and pro play.

BarcidMar 14, 20183 votes

Usually the winrates presented in these arguments are pulled from Plat+ (as it's the default setting in champion.gg), so you're looking at higher level play for the most part (although higher level play can be just as braindead sometimes).

It's not invalid if you lump it with playrates, as playrates with high winrates means the champion consistently sees victory over a variety of playstyles and knowledge bases, from newbie to veteran - usually meaning that anyone who mains the champion is actually seeing grossly inflated winrates.

If there's an explanation behind the 52% winrate, then it's something to be looked at.

DeloricVIMar 19, 20181 votes

There's also a metric ton of other factors that contribute to game wins/losses - we see this a lot with late-game champions in bronze. Since Bronze players can't close a game, champions like Veigar and Nasus tend to have inflated win rates because the games just go on for so long they can amass stacks on stacks on stacks and just win with brute force.

Not to mention that the champion could just be a common counter pick - I see it pretty often at plat and above, that people might only use a champion to counter their lane opponent or the enemy's comp altogether, but only in very specific situations. So, logically, some of these champions may just be used only in optimal conditions at that level of play, and thus have a much higher probability of winning, due to natural counterplay present in the game

BarcidMar 19, 20181 votes

That's kind of the reason I mentioned that most winrates are pulled from Plat+ for champions claimed to be "OP" or "broken" - god knows Azir was at 45% winrates for ages but still got nerfed because anyone who knew him well enough stomped him but a bronze player maining him meant about as much as a knife attack to a steel wall, and was just about as effective.

And counter picking being common doesn't mean much - if a champion is at 16% playrates with 53% winrates, they're probably fucked up one way or another even if they're a counter to another popular champion. Counterpicking doesn't generally seal the game, and even were it the case the two stats tend to balance out as a 100+ champ roster tends to mean everyone has multiple counters - now if that champion is outperforming their own counters in the same game, there's probably an even bigger issue.

Colton147Mar 14, 20181 votes

I still stand by my threads. [slayer-jinx-wink]

vgamedudeMar 14, 20181 votes

If a champion has a low winrate in plat plus because it's inconsistent than maybe just maybe it isn't overpowered? What better metric would you judge champions by?

Fear the KaynMar 14, 20181 votes

Graves

JackMcSnipeyzMar 14, 20181 votes

Leave him alone riot executed him long ago ;_;

Fear the KaynMar 14, 20181 votes

No, I'm saying hes really bad, but his winrate isn't horrible because only 1-tricks play him. He needs a buff.

ŚhunpoMar 14, 20181 votes

People complained about Katarina because she was doing well, and yet....she was never a problem in the meta, she was a refreshing pick to see. But because she had a 53-54% winrate due to one tricks boosting her winrate people complained and now she's kinda bad.

JmmanMar 14, 20181 votes

Must not have taken Prob and Stats in college.

See i'll start here. You are Kind of right but are applying it incorrectly.

{quoted}

there are many shit champs who are >51% because of other factors (safety, reliability, team synergy, etc) and there are many busted champs who are <49% because of other factors (high risk, inconsistency, low-skill playerbase in general, elo's)

The would be ground to for nerfs. because its not low play rate driving the numbers up from mains. You said Safety, reliability, team synergy. for good things. This is controlled by Riot. Again the bad things are also controlled by Riot. These can be changed for balance reasons.

How lets look at a champ with 53% win rate and .57 play rate. Is this champ burst or only picked by mains and counter picks for favorable match ups. This has nothing to do with what you listened. This has to do with what the enemy picked and how good the mains are.

Now lets look at the "balanced" WW with 54% win rate and 5.74% play rate or jax with a 52.20% win rate and 5.95% play rate. vs Tryndamere's 53.41% win rate and .49% play rate. Did almost 12% of the people just get better at the jungle? WW and Jax main are just more skilled than Gragas jungle mains? NO the champs are better than the rest due to the reasons you listed above. This should change.

Instead Riot will nerf the .57 play rate and 53% win rate fiddle mid. Tryndamere's jungle etc etc and not touch the "balance" high win rate and high play rate ones. What is happening is mains are taking them to new spots that people haven't seen before. This is to try and make them work in a meta that doesn't favor them. So they don't know how to play against them. This is shown by the low play rate. Now the high play rate ones are easier and gives you a higher % to win. Naturally this means they are stronger. So if you don't want to nerf them the other have to be brought to there level. Not nerf the low play rate ones.

But what you listed are controllable aspects to the game. You can Quantify this and balance the champ out with MATH. But sadly Biology majors weren't required to take stat classes to learn this. The unknown, who they pick and the skill level between them are not quantifying stats. This might be different every time. This is one reason everyone get mad when they balance for LCS and it destroys solo que.

If you would have added high win rates with high play rates you would be correct. But as you put it now you are countering our own argument.