Conqueror is so op that...

cPXt3JHpf4·Jul 15, 2018·8 votes·2,625 views

within the top 20 champions with the highest pick rate only 2 use it. must nerf it...

24 Comments

OatheSwornJul 15, 20183 votes

Conqueror gives so much free AD and true damage... if you don't see that you must be blind. Statistics don't mean everything, just because they are the top 20 champions doesn't mean other variables don't come into play. Assassins prefer Electrocute over Conqueror because it gives burst, marksmen will likely get the other keystones within the Precision Tree because Conqueror doesn't reset for ranged, tanks will obviously go for Resolve... have you seriously thought this post out?

It's not a matter of who's using it, it's a matter of what it's doing. Look at Conqueror on Master Yi for example. It's clearly the best choice with him being a melee, damage-type champion with high attack speed and true damage already built into his kit; Conqueror just fits him extremely well. Add Rageblade onto that and he's basically doing tons of damage on top of tons of damage, literally for free.

AirKingNeoJul 16, 20185 votes

#10-35 AD is not a lot of AD Statistics do mean everything. They are the facts of the game. Conqueror isn't overpowered because the stats prove it. There is no other evidence existing.

Conqueror Yi is at a 45% winrate. His banrate dropped to 10%. He has a sub 5% pickrate. https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/champions/stats/masteryi/jungle/diamond

SwiftKitten88Jul 16, 20181 votes

[deleted]

AirKingNeoJul 16, 20182 votes

Conqueror gives so much free AD and true damage

OatheSwornJul 16, 20181 votes

{quoted}

#10-35 AD is not a lot of AD Statistics do mean everything. They are the facts of the game. Conqueror isn't overpowered because the stats prove it. There is no other evidence existing.

Conqueror Yi is at a 45% winrate. His banrate dropped to 10%. He has a sub 5% pickrate. https://www.leagueofgraphs.com/champions/stats/masteryi/jungle/diamond

#DEEP BREATH IN*

10 AD is a lot of damage because it's FREE damage. Think about early game, everyone has less than 100 AD---usually sitting around 70-80; if you have Conqueror, you already have a higher chance of winning simply because you picked Conqueror. Of course, the enemy could have Conqueror too and that would even the field but think about it in reverse. YOU didn't have Conqueror and they did. Your odds are already looking smaller. Each point of AD is huge simply because everyone has so little health__average 800.

If you say things like: it's only [amount], it's not much so who cares, you clearly don't understand what I'm talking about. Think about it this way: you teleport back and buy an item. Now you have a remainder of 335g and have the option of waiting a few seconds for a Long Sword (+10 AD) or leaving just to get to your lane faster. Which would you pick? From your standpoint of "10-35 AD is not a lot of AD" you would leave it because it's only 10 AD which is "not a lot of AD". I would stay and I'm sure the majority of players would too.

As for your opinion on statistics, you haven't thought about it. Sure, statistics do give general information but they fall short in specifics. Here's an example: if [Champion] was broken because of [item/rune] but the rest of the champions in the game were not, would general information really tell you anything important? It would take account of all the games people play but you wouldn't be aware of that specific problem because your information is generalized.

Here's an even simpler way of explaining the unreliability of statistics. Statistics say that if you drop a coin 10 times, it will land heads 50% of the time and tails 50%. That's generalized information. It would be the same if you flipped the coin 200 or even 1000 times. Statistics will still say 50% each and every time. Why? Because there are only 2 options and so 100 over 2 would equal 50. It doesn't take specifics into account like: what coin was tossed, what was the shape of the coin, how high the coin was tossed, what kind of surface it landed on, what angle the coin hit the table, etc. Each of these variables are either absorbed into the mass, or simply ignored. If you turn this into an analogy, the variables would be the champions with their respective abilities and the coin would be the Conqueror rune.

Now try flipping a coin 10 times. Based on statistics, that's 5 heads and 5 tails. That might happen but the chances of it actually occurring are pretty low---even lower the more times you flip. Statistics become increasingly unreliable for each variable put into play. You can count on them to show the middle ground but for the highs and lows, you're completely in the dark.

If you want me to get even more specific, the chances of a coin landing on heads/tails 50% of the time would be incorrect. There is also the chance that the coin may land on its side. The probability of that happening based on statistics is 0.00016666666666667 or 1 in every 6000 tosses. That would change the probability percents for the heads/tails--it wouldn't be 50-50 anymore but honestly, no one cares about that. The chances are so slim, it's just ignored and people instead focus on the middle ground which is the 50-50 standpoint. That's what you are claiming--statistics are facts. Statistics as statistics are facts, but it would be incorrect to look only at statistics, otherwise there would be ignored variables. These variables are the specifics and they are also facts.

This is the truth on statistics--small values are ignored, and only the larger average is shown. The statistic for the coin landing on its side is ignored in the larger statistic which is the 50-50 but that doesn't make sense because if statistics are facts, why does it ignore other facts? The answer is because only statistics as statistics are facts--meaning it's a fact that the statistics are the overall picture but it's false if you claim they are everything. Small as they are, specifics are there and so when you say that there "is no other evidence existing", that's purely based on statistics.

AirKingNeoJul 16, 20181 votes

10 AD is a lot of damage because it's FREE damage.

It isn't free. You're taking it over other keystones. Grasp of the Undying is also much stronger early game.

As for your opinion on statistics, you haven't thought about it. Sure, statistics do give general information but they fall short in specifics. Here's an example: if [Champion] was broken and was able to 1v5 because of [item/rune] but the rest of the champions in the game were not, would general information really tell you anything important? It would take account of all the games people play but you wouldn't be aware of that specific problem because your information is generalized.

It would tell you that specific champion is either overpowered or has too much synergy with an item/rune. These can be changed; it isn't hard to understand that. Your lack of understanding the power of statistics and what you can derive from them is why you don't believe in them, but they are the foundation for information about the game. We can use Ezreal as a hypothetical example.

Ezreal strong right now according to his winrate and pickrate. Ezreal is not strong unless he builds double tear according to his double tear buyrate-winrate vs mono tear buyrate-winrate. No other champion builds double tear, but also no one else has the potential to even use double tear because no one has the hybrid ratios and stacking power.

Stats just told me that Ezreal is powerful from double tear. From this, you should nerf Double tear. See, it wasn't that hard.

Now try flipping a coin 10 times. Based on statistics, that's 5 heads and 5 tails. That might happen but the chances of it actually occurring are pretty low---even lower the more times you flip. Statistics become increasingly unreliable for each variable put into play. You can count on them to show the middle ground but for the highs and lows, you're completely in the dark.

But we aren't flipping a coin 10 times. We're flipping a coin over 1 million times. With such a large number, your statistics are more likely to be accurate.

Slim or not, specifics are there and so when you say that there "is no other evidence existing", that's purely based on statistics.

So what other evidence exists besides the stats? You never really answered that.

OatheSwornJul 16, 20182 votes

{quoted}

It isn't free. You're taking it over other keystones. Grasp of the Undying is also much stronger early game.

You haven't once considered that Grasp of the Undying is also free? All you are doing is deciding from different sources of free damage. Grasp of the Undying is free, Conqueror is free, Electrocute is free. You have them from the start to the end of the game and during that entire time, you don't spend a single gold on it. It's free.

It would tell you that specific champion is either overpowered or has too much synergy with an item/rune. These can be changed; it isn't hard to understand that. Your lack of understanding the power of statistics and what you can derive from them is why you don't believe in them, but they are the foundation for information about the game. We can use Ezreal as a hypothetical example.

I don't know where you got the idea but I never said anywhere in my post that I didn't believe in statistics, don't just assume. I said and I quote, "You can count on them to show the middle ground," which means I do understand the usefulness of statistics and I do understand the benefits you can receive from them. All I'm trying to prove is they aren't everything. You saying "Statistics do mean everything. They are the facts of the game," was literally the whole reason for my reply which was why I said, "Statistics as statistics are facts, but it would be incorrect to look only at statistics, otherwise there would be ignored variables."

Ezreal strong right now according to his winrate and pickrate. Ezreal is not strong unless he builds double tear according to his double tear buyrate-winrate vs mono tear buyrate-winrate. No other champion builds double tear, but also no one else has the potential to even use double tear because no one has the hybrid ratios and stacking power.

Stats just told me that Ezreal is powerful from double tear. From this, you should nerf Double tear. See, it wasn't that hard.

Again, I never said anywhere that statistics aren't useful. I've said multiple times throughout that statistics display generalized information. My point was that statistics are facts, just not the whole fact which was why I said, "only statistics as statistics are facts--meaning it's a fact that the statistics are the overall picture but it's false if you claim they are everything." As for your example, you put Ezreal. That wouldn't just be a statistic, but also a specific. It shows information on a specific champion but the information is generalized. The point of this conversation was to show that specifics are there and that statistics aren't everything.

But we aren't flipping a coin 10 times. We're flipping a coin over 1 million times. With such a large number, your statistics are more likely to be accurate.

Accurate, but not precise. The reason being are the outliers that didn't really fit into the middle ground that statistics tend to show. By use of the coin example, even if you flipped the coin a million times, you'd probably never get exactly 500,000 heads and tails. The outliers are the ones that added or subtracted from the equilibrium--the middle ground.

So what other evidence exists besides the stats? You never really answered that.

I never stated it because I thought it to be quite obvious. It's your own judgement. Statistics might say that to counter-pick [Champion Y], you should pick [Champion X] because 65% of players won with [Champion X] against [Champion Y]. The problem is statistics don't take into account player skill/experience and so if the player did not understand how to play [Champion X], the statistical information goes out the window.

AirKingNeoJul 16, 20181 votes

You haven't once considered that Grasp of the Undying is also free? All you are doing is deciding from different sources of free damage. Grasp of the Undying is free, Conqueror is free, Electrocute is free. You have them from the start to the end of the game and during that entire time, you don't spend a single gold on it. It's free.

If every option is "free" then you ignore the concept of trade offs for taking one option over another.

I don't know where you got the idea but I never said anywhere in my post that I didn't believe in statistics, don't just assume. I said and I quote, "You can count on them to show the middle ground," which means I do understand the usefulness of statistics and I do understand the benefits you can receive from them. All I'm trying to prove is they aren't everything. You saying "Statistics do mean everything. They are the facts of the game," was literally the whole reason for my reply which was why I said, "Statistics as statistics are facts, but it would be incorrect to look only at statistics, otherwise there would be ignored variables."

Statistics are everything. You're the one apply variables they don't exist at the highest level of play.

Accurate, but not precise.

I don't think you understand that those two words mean the same thing.

The problem is statistics don't take into account player skill/experience and so if the player did not understand how to play [Champion X], the statistical information goes out the window.

We're talking about statistics at the highest level of the game. Accuses like "player skill" are irrelevant at the highest level.

OatheSwornJul 16, 20181 votes

{quoted}

If every option is "free" then you ignore the concept of trade offs for taking one option over another.

It's free damage. That you pick over other free damage. What do you not understand. It costs no gold for you to attain it, and it's still available in all levels. I'm not ignoring the concept of trade-offs, I literally said right here and in my previous post that "All you are doing is deciding from different sources of free damage." You are, at this point, trying to play with words. When you said "then you ignore the concept of trade offs for taking one option over another," you conveniently left out "then you ignore the concept of trade offs for taking one FREE option over another." Stop ignoring things I've already pointed out to suit your purposes.

Statistics are everything. You're the one apply variables they don't exist at the highest level of play.

And there you go again ignoring the variables. The highest level of play is NOT everything. In fact, it's barely anything. Nearly 50% of all League players are in Silver and 1.99% of the entire playerbase is anything above Diamond. I'd hardly call that everything, the "highest level of play" doesn't even amount to 2%.

I don't think you understand that those two words mean the same thing.

They are similar but not completely same as a whole. Make sure you look things up before trying to nitpick counter-replies.

We're talking about statistics at the highest level of the game. Accuses like "player skill" are irrelevant at the highest level.

Again, the "highest level of play" barely amounts to anything. I'm talking of all ranks, and everyone of different skill levels. You can't just ignore 98.01% of players for the 1.99%. For someone trying to prove that statistics are everything, you sure are getting pretty rank-specific.

I'm not quite sure, but I'm almost positive so I'll mention it anyway. All my replies fall exactly at zero, if it's you who's down-voting via smurf accounts, you prove my point already. It means you know you are wrong but want to twist the votes to try to appear "correct". If it's not, then just simply ignore this.

AirKingNeoJul 16, 20181 votes

And there you go again ignoring the variables. The highest level of play is NOT everything. In fact, it's barely anything. Nearly 50% of all League players are in Silver and 1.99% of the entire playerbase is anything above Diamond. I'd hardly call that everything, the "highest level of play" doesn't even amount to 2%.

Competitive games aren't balanced around low ladder. Doesn't matter if Diamond+ is >2% of players because they're still better by definition.

Again, the "highest level of play" barely amounts to anything. I'm talking of all ranks, and everyone of different skill levels. You can't just ignore 98.01% of players for the 1.99%. For someone trying to prove that statistics are everything, you sure are getting pretty rank-specific.

Yes, you can ignore 98% of players because 98% of players aren't good at the game by definition of how a ranking ladder works. Should Master Yi be nerfed because the bottom 50% of players lose to him despite him being completely garbage in the top 10%? Of course not because that doesn't make sense. Clearly, if the top 10% find no issue with him, then the bottom 50% are just players who need to improve at the game.

OatheSwornJul 16, 20181 votes

{quoted}

Competitive games aren't balanced around low ladder. Doesn't matter if Diamond+ is >2% of players because they're still better by definition.

That's a great way to lose players and that's not the point--I'm not talking about how Riot should balance the game.

Yes, you can ignore 98% of players because 98% of players aren't good at the game by definition of how a ranking ladder works. Should Master Yi be nerfed because the bottom 50% of players lose to him despite him being completely garbage in the top 10%? Of course not because that doesn't make sense. Clearly, if the top 10% find no issue with him, then the bottom 50% are just players who need to improve at the game.

I don't think that's the way Riot wants things to be done. Ignoring 98% of its entire community to stay faithful to the 2% is terrible--anywhere, in any game. Riot wants a game that all players of all ranks can enjoy. Can you seriously imagine a game where the message they are sending out is "if you aren't the best of the best, you'd better become one--otherwise this game is no fun"? That's a terrible slogan and basically what you are saying Riot does.

You are, in a way, discriminating against the lower ranks by putting the higher ranks on a pedestal. Normally there is nothing wrong with respecting players above you but if you lower and demean anyone under that, it's wrong and you should stop. The way things usually work is "majority votes win" and I'm sure that has to be true for people to enjoy the game.

AirKingNeoJul 17, 20181 votes

That's a great way to lose players and that's not the point--I'm not talking about how Riot should balance the game.

And yet play.pokemonshowdown.com has their tier banning only allows voting for people who are of a high enough ELO (for that format), and formats have playbases.

Competitive games wouldn't be competitive if you didn't balance around high level competition.

You are, in a way, discriminating against the lower ranks by putting the higher ranks on a pedestal. Normally there is nothing wrong with respecting players above you but if you lower and demean anyone under that, it's wrong and you should stop. The way things usually work is "majority votes win" and I'm sure that has to be true for people to enjoy the game.

That isn't discrimination. It's simple competition. Higher ranked players provide data that is more accurate and more useful. That's why games are balanced around high ladder.

OatheSwornJul 17, 20181 votes

{quoted}

And yet play.pokemonshowdown.com has their tier banning only allows voting for people who are of a high enough ELO (for that format), and formats have playbases.

Look. That literally has. Nothing. To do with what we were talking about. I tried to indulge you a bit to see if you would return to the original point or if there was an reason for what you were saying but there clearly isn't.

Competitive games wouldn't be competitive if you didn't balance around high level competition.

That isn't discrimination. It's simple competition. Higher ranked players provide data that is more accurate and more useful. That's why games are balanced around high ladder.

I can already tell you are set in your ways and no amount of reasoning could convince you. This isn't even part of the discussion and you keep trying to point out things that have nothing to do with the original focus. I tried to bring you back on track numerous times but it seems you don't even feel like arguing your point anymore. I'm done.

AirKingNeoJul 17, 20181 votes

Look. That literally has. Nothing. To do with what we were talking about. I tried to indulge you a bit to see if you would return to the original point or if there was an reason for what you were saying but there clearly isn't.

you said basing things on for high ladder would kill your playerbase though, so it is related.

OatheSwornJul 17, 20182 votes

{quoted}

you said basing things on for high ladder would kill your playerbase though, so it is related.

It's only related to your pointless point. Take a look at who even brought up "highest level of play" in the first place.

AirKingNeoJul 21, 20181 votes

the only person here who tried to claim high elo stats were invalid was you.

which makes me not a fact denier.

OatheSwornJul 21, 20181 votes

{quoted}

the only person here who tried to claim high elo stats were invalid was you.

which makes me not a fact denier.

I never claimed anything about high elo stats being invalid. The entirety of what I've been saying all along is that statistics aren't everything. You are the one that brought up specific tier levels and you are the one claiming lower tiers are invalid. You simply don't seem to understand that it's not just the Masters and Challengers playing this game. In a sense, they could be considered 'out of this world' in terms of average skill and so balancing the game around people who are clearly unequal for the general community is a terrible idea.

DuskDaUmbreonJul 15, 20182 votes

Highest pickrate is irrelevant. Yasuo has a constantly high pickrate because he's Yasuo.

Winrate matters significantly more.

Also, the ones using it are also all abusing it. It's not used a lot. It's abused a ton by those who use it however. Just like Kleptomancy in its prime - not used by many, but abused by Nasus Ezreal Illaoi and a few others.

cPXt3JHpf4Jul 16, 20181 votes

those champions that use it have a 48-50% winrate...

SugeMinPikkJul 16, 20182 votes

It has less to do with how it does than what it does. It contributes to the lack of tanks in this meta. The only two tanks who are meta rn give zero fucks about true damage. Singed DrMundo

ankoanko19Jul 17, 20181 votes

{quoted}

It has less to do with how it does than what it does. It contributes to the lack of tanks in this meta. The only two tanks who are meta rn give zero fucks about true damage.

Tanks didnt dissappear because of conq but because of the endless direct & indirect nerfs to them. Conq was released in 8.6 but tanks were gone even before then. Some stayed but they were gone in 8.11 mostly due to the ADC changes. Trust me, they could gut conq and make it so that nobody uses it but that wont make tanks come back. Only 7 bruisers use conq, 2 of which being op because of a lot of buffs ( Yasuo Darius ), 3 of them being very average atm ( Tryndamere Riven Jax ) 1 being weak as fuck and need buffs asap ( Irelia ) and lastly the champ that is on the verge of being really good but were not sure yet Kled .