Ziggz Q

{quoted}

Nobody thought teemo was good until Hai picked him 2 years ago either, then he literally got a 30% ap ratio cut on his shrooms. A year after that a challenger team by the name of G2 (sound familier?) got beat by teemo who then got gutted losing half the duration of his traps while upping the arm time and making the slow decay. The pros most certainly undervalue champs for a very long time. This seems to be a little lacking, but teemo has a 100% mid/top competitive winrate according to this.

http://lol.esportspedia.com/wiki/Teemo/Match_History

The 2% was master+ on lolking and again a lack of evidence can not be used as evidence. It is a fallacious argument (specifically argument of ignorance) regardless of speculation on a 50% winrate when he is getting played very rarely means that he is at the very least running an even winrate.

If you can't prove a negative you can't make a valid argument that he isn't at least viable at challenger level. That doesn't mean he is a great pick either, but speculation on the matter =/= objective champion strength.

The only way to really prove this would be donating to streams to get ziggs games in at a challenger level (good luck, no one streams on their challenger account) or wait for an unnecessary buff that makes ziggs obscenely powerful then they will have no choice but to play him.

the Teemo nerf was primarily due to solo queue performance, not competitive (much like in Heimerdinger's case). moreover Teemo was never a common competitive pick so It's much easier for him to be overlooked. although. it was less about being overlooked and more that he's simply not a champion on which most pro players had enough practice to feel comfortable that early in the season. he was also not strong enough to justify playing with little experience. however, once Teemo got some play, many more people were picking him up. there have been attempts at Ziggs this season, for example by GBM ( although not particularly inspiring and I can't think of any other players using Ziggs even as a surprise pick). this did not lead to a wave of Ziggs play as would've been expected if he was underappreciated akin to Lulu mid many seasons ago.

unlike Teemo, Ziggs was a competitive staple in the past so it's an entirely different situation. furthermore, Teemo was actually picked more than Ziggs that season. it was close to the beginning of the season when people we're still exploring what was strong and what was was not (a lot of Teemo's strength came from the new masteries ). the game was in flux and there was no solid meta established. it's not strange to find new picks that early on. if you saw the whole season go by in the exact same context and Teemo was essentially ignored in every region, then you'd have a point.

If you can't prove a negative you can't make a valid argument that he isn't at least viable at challenger level

your standard for evidence is unreasonable. as I said previously, absence of data at high levels is itself evidence over this long of a period and even Riot agrees here. it's not accidental that some champions like Garen are infrequent guests at top level and it's not because they don't know what Garen does or how he functions. you don't even see a lot of the practice and analysis these teams have had to decide on the champions they picked. there are different demands on a champion's kit and power level to be picked in competitive.

this is not a fallacy in this context. you're basically saying that the entire competitive world for every region must be wrong even though Ziggs isn't some revolutionary new pick and nothing drastic has changed for a while. many of these teams have analysts and coaches who they pay specifically to find new strategies and picks. there are hundreds of millions of players for this game and I don't think all of the high level players are biased against Ziggs. you'd at least expect some Challenger players to main Ziggs even if he wasn't considered a worthy competitive pick (think Kha'Zix).

the burden of proof isn't on me to to show that Ziggs isn't a particularly good pick in Challenger and competitive. if you think otherwise, you have to have some damn good reasons to say that professional players, analysts and coaches from every region who breath this game everyday (at a much higher level of play than you) have been deluded for nearly a year. if you don't have extraordinary convincing evidence the contrary, you have no argument besides "I don't believe it."

My standard for evidence is based widely accepted principals, I am not saying ziggs is amazing, I am saying he is a perfectly viable pick if people choose to play him even at challenger level. This is exactly what the very scarce evidence agrees with, you are the one claiming that ziggs is not viable and that is why he is not picked. AGAIN this is a logical fallacy or in other words a false line of reasoning. You cannot use the lack of evidence as evidence.

This means that the burden of proof is on whoever is making a statement that contradicts the evidence that IS available (That is another fallacy, shifting burden of proof). The very few amount of games available from challenger in which ziggs does 50/50 or from diamond and master where his success is also ~50%. This evidence shows that ziggs can be viable at challenger, if you want to say he isn't you must have some reason other than a lack of evidence.

P.S. - Using the line of reasoning players that are "at a much higher level of play than you" don't play him is also a fallacy (false authority). I am not a challenger level player, I fully understand that. But that does not mean I can't look at statistical evidence and say "yeah ziggs is perfectly viable, maybe not strong enough to get people off of cass, vlad, vik, and syndra, but still viable." You can't use illogical arguments as the basis for a statement, it indicates a weak stance.

This isn't Skittles. Champions in Challenger and eSports aren't normally picked on a whim. I wouldn't put much stock in a winrate for a champion so seldom picked. That suggests mains or better than average comps and it's a meaningless sample size anyway. Near absence from high tier play is far more telling and better evidence than winrate indicators.

If a champion had a decent winrate and was actually strong, you better believe his pickrate would go up a lot throughout the season. Even so-called boring champions get a lot of play at the top level when they're actually strong. Kog was considered a bit boring by many players (not me personally) and pre-nerf Kog last season was still pick/ban. Referring to pickrate isn't a fallacy unless Ziggs wasn't getting played just by chance or people somehow didn't know about him. These are conscious decisions, not the roll of a dice.

Winrate isn't even that good of a metric and tends to point more to reliability, ease of use etc. LB had a piss-poor winrate even when she was clearly over the top for skilled players. The burden of proof is indeed on you since you have a drastically different opinion on Ziggs compared to those who play and study this game for a living.

Riot on winrates:

A champion’s win rate is a useful indicator as to which champions we should look at, but it’s not directly representative of whether a champion is balanced/unbalanced. Context’s really important, with a lot of factors potentially making a number misleading at first glance. That includes things like: Average number of games players have played on a champion. A champion with a really experienced playerbase will have a higher average win rate for the amount of power in the kit, so it might be appropriate for their win rate to be above 50% when balanced. How difficult the champion is to play. A character with a really high skill ceiling, who’s hard to play initially, should, all else being equal, have a lower win rate than the average champion (newer players will struggle a lot, so a 50% win rate means experienced players will be way too strong). What the champion’s presence says about team comps. Tanks and supports generally have somewhat higher win rates because their presence on a team tends to mean that team has a better than average team comp. Assassins, especially by contrast often have lower than average win rates in part because they’re often picked on teams they’re not a good fit for or into games where they’re not a good choice. The assassins themselves may have balanced kits, but the situations players are choosing to use them in can depress their statistical performance. The different ways in which a champion is played. A champion who’s balanced, or even strong, in one position, or with one build, might have a weak looking average win rate if a significant amount of their play’s using an alternate build, or in a less effective role. Win rate is impacted by a lot of factors, so it can’t be a sole indicator.

Not every reference to an authority figure is a fallacy. Ignoring the experience of qualified people isn't a virtue. It would be a fallacy if there was a discussion about something easily solvable like a chess tactic and instead of doing so, someone just said you're wrong because Magnus Carlsen claims X. Champion strength can't be accurately gauged by us since we are not at that level. It's as naive as a bunch of Bronze players crying about the scourge of Garen or Yi. Those who are capable of an evaluation and specialize in mid competitively don't agree with you on Ziggs.

Ziggs is a bit weak overall but has the potential to be situationally strong. The unreliability makes him a risky pick and the upside isn't there. If he had LB level burst and could at least snowball better, he'd be considered more. Likewise, it would be easier to justify the risk if Ziggs had a tremendous late game. He's not Azir level trash but he's so far down the list that there's rarely a real reason to invest in him. If somehow the top ten mid champions were banned, we'd probably get the occasional Ziggs. When you see a champion picked at Worlds, it's not just because they're viable (aka, not game losing). It's because they're either too strong or fit a strategy. I don't think anyone's claiming that Ziggs is unplayable at the highest levels. He's just not typically a logical pick.

Well to start the difference here is the ofart is trying to say his opinion is objectively true because no one in challenger uses ziggs. This is a fallacy because lack of evidence is not a valid argument. This is not my opinion this is a definition of a argument of ignorance in which you use a lack of evidence as evidence.

I will disregard the quote on winrate due to us discussing challenger level play and riot has stated that challenger level is not the target of balance therefore the only evidence of a champion objective strength is their performance within challenger. This is required as the entire debate is based around zigg's "objective" balance as per ofart's definition. So as per these rules ziggs sees almost no play in challenger and runs around a 50% winrate when he does, this means that the only evidence we have is telling us he is at least viable at the highest level.

The fallacy in regards to authority was ofart's reference ONLY to froggen specifically, references only one authority is biased due to the one-sided nature (and btw I found a video of froggen playing ziggs just 2 weeks ago, into a counter matchup no less, in challenger. I am currently watching to see his opinion.) This wasn't linked, which I let pass, but is a rather weak piece of evidence by itself. Now if he had linked 5-10 quotes within the last month on ziggs being weak from challengers, that would be solid evidence as to a clear state of ziggs.

This last section is all opinon, which is absolutely fine I have nothing against differing opinions. It is just ofart's fixation that zigg's is objectively bad (or his words "mediocre at best"), this is simply not supported by any evidence and is quite frankly disproved by the evidence I have referenced.

the fact that he is not really picked in challenger or even masters IS evidence, you you just don't accept it.

the Ziggs game froggen played was due to the stream picking his champion through a poll. froggen's already on a team and it's late in the season. he isn't trying to prove anything, he's just trying to have fun. pros get bored of seeing the same champions just like we do. he also played some Lee mid a few weeks ago.

I've asked him to play Ziggs dozens of times on stream and he flat out said Ziggs sucks. froggen's opinion isn' t an exception. pretty much everyone near his level implicitly claimed Ziggs isn't good right now by simply not picking him. the funny thing is Ziggs is actually a good stylistic fit for him but he still doesn't find it worth it.

{quoted}

the fact that he is not really picked in challenger or even masters IS evidence, you you just don't accept it.

the Ziggs game froggen played was due to the stream picking his champion through a poll. froggen's already on a team and it's late in the season. he isn't trying to prove anything, he's just trying to have fun. pros get bored of seeing the same champions just like we do. he also played some Lee mid a few weeks ago.

I've asked him to play Ziggs dozens of times on stream and he flat out said Ziggs sucks. froggen's opinion isn' t an exception. pretty much everyone near his level implicitly claimed Ziggs isn't good right now by simply not picking him. the funny thing is Ziggs is actually a good stylistic fit for him but he still doesn't find it worth it.

This isn't a debating point, a lack of evidence is not evidence. I did not just pull this out of nowhere, it is literally defined as a flawed argument. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings or what I believe constitutes evidence. Now if it was something like "is ziggs meta?", pickrate would have a direct tie to the question and could be used as evidence. How objectively good a champion is, is not tied into pickrates though.

Yet he did well right? Doesn't that imply ziggs can perform well at a challenger level? He also did not say at any point in the video that ziggs was bad as a champion. If you would like to link any quotes/videos saying otherwise current to the last 7 patches (the previous ziggs bug fix) I would happily respond to them. Would really prefer not froggen just due to biased opinion problems (he performed poorly at ziggs even when he was meta, this makes him more likely to have a negative opinion). I was letting sources slide before, but your entire argument is held within this claim that challengers openly declare he is bad.

Btw if I can't use people "near his level" and have to use exclusively challenger stats/opinions. I think it is fair to say that you should not be able to just drop that as evidence without name and rank. Preferably a source as well but name and rank is a good starting point.

{quoted}

This isn't a debating point, a lack of evidence is not evidence. I did not just pull this out of nowhere, it is literally defined as a flawed argument. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings or what I believe constitutes evidence. Now if it was something like "is ziggs meta?", pickrate would have a direct tie to the question and could be used as evidence. How objectively good a champion is, is not tied into pickrates though.

Yet he did well right? Doesn't that imply ziggs can perform well at a challenger level? He also did not say at any point in the video that ziggs was bad as a champion. If you would like to link any quotes/videos saying otherwise current to the last 7 patches (the previous ziggs bug fix) I would happily respond to them. Would really prefer not froggen just due to biased opinion problems (he performed poorly at ziggs even when he was meta, this makes him more likely to have a negative opinion). I was letting sources slide before, but your entire argument is held within this claim that challengers openly declare he is bad.

Btw if I can't use people "near his level" and have to use exclusively challenger stats/opinions. I think it is fair to say that you should not be able to just drop that as evidence without name and rank. Preferably a source as well but name and rank is a good starting point.

it's not a lack of evidence!!!!!!! I give up... you're arguing as if pickrates are random and not correlated with strength at the highest levels or that the meta is simply fashion and not based on results/study/analysis/patch changes. it's nonsense and you misinterpret what a "lack of evidence" actually means when referring to an argument. i've clearly explained all the reasons already and you have yet to refute anything of substance. you just repeat yourself even when I explain why it doesn't apply.

Froggen stated Ziggs sucks about a month ago. i'm not going to look up all his streams for you. this doesn't mean you auto lose and can't have good games on Ziggs. it's just relative to other picks. if you think you know better than the pros in the masters+ population of every region, you would have to have special information and extraordinary evidence. if you don't, then your whole argument is moot. it's a bit like saying "I know there's an invisible unicorn in this room" and then when everyone contradicts you, you say they can't prove that he's not there. this is not an argument.

{quoted}

Ok so as to humor your point even if it is illogical in nature, why is ziggs with a 2% pickrate and 50% winrate, worse than varus with a 5% pickrate (one of the lowest) and a ~44% winrate? Because the pros have picked varus in worlds, that would have to mean that the lack of statistical evidence does not support the balance of a champion correct? Or that pros hang on to comfort picks rather than what is strongest? I mean even cass follows the same low pickrate (lower than varus even, though she is banned 8% of the time), but actually has a ~50% winrate and she is a staple almost every single game at worlds. Aurelion sol is all but busted (and has been almost since release) but had ~1.5% pickrate before clg picked him a few days ago.

The thing is the only claim I am making is that ziggs is viable and can definitely stand up to current meta picks, all of the statistical evidence currently supports this claim. Your claim is "relative to other picks" ziggs isn't good, your evidence is his lack of pickrate and one pro. Do you see why your stance seems weak? It isn't a matter of knowing better than the pros, its a matter of looking at a champion and what they bring in a team. I am not some all knowing meta picker, but I have a history of being right in terms of champions that were heavily undervalued.

Another thing you have to realize is that you are claiming to have the "objective" balance of a champion. To have an absolute status on a champion don't you think that a lack of something (pickrate) and one pro opinion is pretty weak compared to the claim you are making?

If a pick is valued in pro play, it's already better proof of its strength than any ranked games. The issue is when a pick isn't valued in ranked or pro play and you also don't find amazing one-tricks. This is the case for Ziggs and the most reasonable thing to believe is that he's not very good right now.

The champions you mentioned were generally well-regarded irrespective of popularity or winrate (at least in some regions). There are Challenger one-tricks for Aurelion Sol & Cassiopeia. It's also a different situation because one is a new champion and the other had a rework. Ziggs hasn't had changes on that scale.

By the way, Varus isn't just a comfort pick. In many ways, he's a better Ziggs.

{quoted}

If a pick is valued in pro play, it's already better proof of its strength than any ranked games. The issue is when a pick isn't valued in ranked or pro play and you also don't find amazing one-tricks. This is the case for Ziggs and the most reasonable thing to believe is that he's not very good right now.

The champions you mentioned were generally well-regarded irrespective of popularity or winrate (at least in some regions). There are also Challenger one-tricks for Aurelion Sol & Cassiopeia.

You can't just say that its reasonable to assume a pick is bad solely because it isn't picked. That is an invalid argument as said numerous times before.

Now if evidence led to support he isn't picked because he does poorly in tiers below that, maybe you could make an argument. But the thing is Ziggs does well in the few games he has in challenger and in the games in diamond and master. I mean I wanted to leave you guys some room to do your own research and expand your knowledge but I've really had enough of this thread.

Ziggs is good, you can look up the top players from each region. They all have high winrates in master-challenger.

http://euw.op.gg/summoner/userName=deathcoill

http://ru.op.gg/summoner/userName=moreloveplz

http://na.op.gg/summoner/userName=meilleurluxqc

http://www.op.gg/summoner/userName=%ED%95%B4%ED%96%88

Every nation (excluding China) in worlds right now. Korea is the only one not in masters at least and he is 1-0 in his promos to it.

These certainly aren't one tricks, but they all play ziggs and they all do well vs the highest level of competition.

Not played =/= Bad.

P.S. - Bjergson called ryze, yet another low pickrate champion, absolute garbage after his rework making his opinion very clear. Who else is a high priority pick in worlds?