What's up with the anti-fact players recently?

TehNACHO·Apr 13, 2018·39 votes·14,309 views

So the Boards has always had a problem with using anecdotes to fuel discussion and leveraging statistics only when it suits them while being critical of stats whenever it contradicts them, but lately it seems like there's been an influx of players who will go out of their way to outright deny any and all statistics for what they feel is right, and even getting in arguments with the few math posts that occasionally pop up. I'm really perplexed about it. Anecdotes are a really good way to introduce an issue and connect with possible readers, but they should not be the be-all and end-all of your argument, especially in reply to more quantitative forms of evidence. Luckily, many of these sort of posts get downvoted to oblivion, or at least ignored, but a few will always slip by and get to the top of the Hot page and I worry that Gameplay is going to further devolve into personal screaming fights if this catches on.

EDIT: Oh cool this popped up.

Just to clarify, I'm not downplaying the use of anecdotes entirely. They have a time and place and we should always be critical of statistics when something is off.

What I'm calling out are the people who blatantly ignore any and all facts to shoehorn their own opinions and agenda. I'm also not sure how the name and shame rule works in this sort of thread so to those of you posting, be careful when you provide examples for the rest of us.

78 Comments

saltranApr 13, 201838 votes

Sometimes it's even worse:

I still can't believe that I saw a coment with more than 50 upvotes calling Xayah a hypermobile adc when the only movement she has is the extra ms when she autoatacks with W. They must think that her ultimate is a jump or something when it's just a Vladimir's pool with the feathers instead of the aoe dmg that Vladimir has.

PubbiApr 13, 20182 votes

{quoted}

Sometimes it's even worse:

They must think that her ultimate is a jump or something when it's just a Vladimir's pool with the feathers instead of the aoe dmg that Vladimir has.

Clever anecdote

DisulfiramApr 13, 201810 votes

There was a thread some time ago where Fiddlesticks was declared mobile and Hecarim immobile, by the thread's author.

[sg-lulu]

PB4UAMEApr 13, 20181 votes

Fid has a blink, and a movement speed steroid that his blink triggers, he can passively trigger with 1.5 seconds of prep time, and a moderate duration W or longer will also proc it; meanwhile Hec has a movement steroid, and a dash. By the same definitions used in that thread, either Garen and Udyr are also as mobile as Hec (spam-able movement speed boosts with more uptime and ms/per second as a result than Hec's E, and both have a mini-dash on their speed up just like Hec's) Or neither Hec, Garen, nor Udyr are considered mobile champions, as they lack a true movement ability, i.e. a dash or a blink --which has by and large been the consensus for about 8 years. Adding in Hec's ult, and its 1000 range dash however, makes Hecarim into a mobile champion, unlike Udyr and Garen, but this latter point was largely lost on the aforementioned thread. In that thread, people seemed to forget about Hec's ult, and were arguing purely off of whether his E counted as mobility, which it strictly speaking does not, hence the confusion.

Really, both Fid and Hec are mobile champs per definition.

DisulfiramApr 14, 20185 votes

Does Fiddle's still count as mobility since he would cover more ground by simply walking (because all of his mobility requires him to stop for quite a while)? (I'd also like to point out that his dash is a 80s cooldown ultimate that he can't actually fight without, thus he can't really waste it as a mobility tool even if he were to successfully channel it for that purpose)

Supreme Senpai69Apr 14, 20182 votes

That's not really fair to say lol. I remember that. He was just showing which champions have no dashes or blinks. Fiddle made it in there cuz his passive and ult. I'm pretty sure when mentioned he conceded that point too

HarrowRApr 14, 20183 votes

Its just an adc hate circle jerk,ask any of these guys and they will tell you all adc hit for 700 damage with only 2 items,are tanky af and godly at 1v1 Its like they never even play the game

Unker139Apr 13, 201818 votes

64% of all the world's statistics are made up right there on the spot. 82.4% of people believe them whether they are accurate or not.

grarrrgApr 13, 20189 votes

{quoted}

64% of all the world's statistics are made up right there on the spot. 82.4% of people believe them whether they are accurate or not.

The math checks out, seems legit!

Velzard of KozApr 13, 20182 votes

What math (sarcastically) check out? It's a joke indeed, but I hope you are not implying the two numbers he gave should've add up to 100%.

EDIT: So as I expected, people expect % of statistics plus % of people is supposed to add up to 100%, they think the two numbers not adding up to 100% is the joke and think that sarcastic "Math checks out" makes sense and I get downvoted for pointing out that the math does unironically check out because it's perceantage of two different things. LUL.

GibberwattApr 13, 20186 votes

woosh

Thee Pie ManApr 14, 20181 votes

Edit, never mind. I understand what happened now.

You're from EUNE, so you might not have heard of this.

Most people that say "The math checks out!" or anything similar when it comes to a joke, are usually joking/being sarcastic themselves.

Velzard of KozApr 14, 20181 votes

I know the phrase, but there is no math to be checked out (sarcastically). Usually when someone uses the phrase there is actually a mathematical sentence that is wrong either intentionally or not and the other person sarcastically says "math checks out". That is not the case with this post tho.

Thee Pie ManApr 14, 20182 votes

I mean, you really can't see how adding up two numbers to get a number percentage that doesn't equal 100% isn't sarcastic when the first line calls the entire statement out, then someone saying "The math checks out"? Towards something that obviously isn't correct..?

I'm pretty sure they know the math didn't check out. The first one is also fairly common where there's two values don't actually add up properly- with the first sentence being "XX% of all the world's statistics are made up right there on the spot." This in of itself is part of the entire joke, they are making fun of all the people out there that quote statistics without having any factual evidence and then making a joke about their own statement. It's like "meta" humor.

It's unfortunate that you're not used to seeing these things and then got cast down for it, but you've got to be a bit more flexible on what you perceive as a joke, if you see it getting a lot of upvotes, asking more directly about the situation, instead of presuming someone might be saying those two numbers are added up; might be the safer option in the future.

You basically stood up in the middle of a comedian's act when everyone was laughing and said something akin to:

"One joke was funny, but I hope you're not suggesting that Thing2 (Which you don't know is joke2) actually made sense" When everyone else got it was 2 jokes :S

Velzard of KozApr 14, 20182 votes

I mean, you really can't see how adding up two numbers to get a number percentage that doesn't equal 100% isn't sarcastic when the first line calls the entire statement out, then someone saying "The math checks out"? Towards something that obviously isn't correct..?

That's the point. The two numbers given by original poster aren't supposed to result in 100% as they are percentages of two different things, thus the original poster did nothing wrong in math on purpose (his joke lied in the irony of providing statistics about how statistics are wrong), so the sarcastic "Math checks out" doesn't fit there.

I'm being downovted because people think that percentage of statistics plus percentage of people is supposed to give 100% as If they were the same thing, then laugh at sarcastic "Math checks out", because they don't see the math does indeed unironically check out. His math did check out, as that wasn't the joke, so the sarcastic "Math checks out" is misused.

I get it was 2 jokes. The second joke just doesn't make sense unless someone is really bad at reading statistics. But I am sorry for pointing out that x% of statistics and y% of people isn't supposed to be 100% of statistic/people. I should have, however, be used at this point that people can't read statistics, even If they are joke and ironic.

As for the upvotes and downvotes thing, there's a lot of people who believe earth is flat, it doesn't make them right.

Thee Pie ManApr 14, 20182 votes

If you understood it was both jokes then why are you doing this? No one is arguing that two statistics for two different things should even remotely add together in any circumstances. You're pointing out information that doesn't "technically" matter because it was a joke in the first place.

I understand what you're saying, but like I said I'm pretty sure it's obvious that those statistics wouldn't add up even in a normal setting.

----------------------------------For those that don't understand, want a TL;DR: Statistics of two different things "add up" on their own, because the numbers you aren't seeing are obviously the outlier. It's akin to saying (This is an example): over 75% of people are low elo in League of Legends. And then saying: And 50% of those people are toxic

To be honest it doesn't matter if those two things add up, because they are accounting for two different things, you wouldn't add them up because they make statements on their own. -------------------------------------. To be fair people don't really give a crap to be honest. No one cares about math, especially in a game board unless it has to do with in-game stats and balancing. I completely agree with you that it doesn't make sense if it makes you feel better- but I still thought it was funny even so. Because it was supposed to be a joke, I perceived it as such. And therefore it is a joke regardless if it didn't make sense- very similar to flat earther's especially, because what they believe in- to me is a joke and therefore also funny even if it doesn't technically make sense.

Edit: Also I apologize if my earlier posts seemed condescending I didn't mean them to be, I just didn't really understand the angle you're coming from until now. I honestly believed you were just not understanding something and that was my bad. It's sad that your getting shit on for pointing it out to be honest.

grarrrgApr 14, 20181 votes

[{quoted}](name=Velzard of Koz,realm=EUNE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=HX6VYtLo,comment-id=0003000000000002000000000000,timestamp=2018-04-14T19:32:00.128+0000)

That's the point. The two numbers given by original poster aren't supposed to result in 100% as they are percentages of two different things, thus the original poster did nothing wrong in math on purpose (his joke lied in the irony of providing statistics about how statistics are wrong), so the sarcastic "Math checks out" doesn't fit there.

There is one key piece of information you seem to be overlooking: "64% of all the world's statistics are made up right there on the spot"

The "64%" is a MADE UP STATISTIC.

Dude A makes a stupid garbage post to be funny. Dude B makes an equally stupid garbage post in response to Dude A. That's it. That's the joke.

BaldBritneyApr 14, 20183 votes

{quoted}

The math checks out, seems legit!

i think theyre both two different statistics , 64% of statistics are made up on the spot / 36% is actually researched, and 82.4% people believe while 17.6% will check

grarrrgApr 14, 20181 votes

{quoted}

i think theyre both two different statistics , 64% of statistics are made up on the spot / 36% is actually researched, and 82.4% people believe while 17.6% will check

... I think you aren't fully realizing a key part of that post: "64% of statistics are made up on the spot"

BaldBritneyApr 14, 20182 votes

{quoted}

... I think you aren't fully realizing a key part of that post: "64% of statistics are made up on the spot"

no, i did realise it, its just that it wasn't a mathematical error if they both were different statistics and yes i do get it that it was made up. apologies for confusion

Velzard of KozApr 14, 20183 votes

Yeah, I get downvoted for saying the same thing. Bunch of people saw two numbers, thought they are supposed to add up to 100% and them not adding up to it is the joke.

C9 Squeeky Apr 13, 20183 votes

hahaha very funny

DexterousGeckoApr 13, 201813 votes

When the facts go against what you believe or want to believe, you ignore the facts. Just listen to Hashinshin talking about top lane and the state of the game. He says "no one wants to play this game, it's terrible. No one wants to watch this game." and yet if you look, the game obviously is doing well and averages close to 100k on twitch. People see what they want to see and ignore anything that goes against that.

for another example check out /r/ireliamains. It's silly how much they've convinced themselves that Irelia is "gutted" lol

Nivek EleventhApr 13, 201811 votes

Gets killed by Riven and says that Riven is the reason no one plays league anymore.

Villainous VApr 13, 20182 votes

Remember when kayn came out and he claimed rhast was the most op thing ever, then he started playing him and suddenly he was underpowered? Not only that but he claims that riven has the highest base damages in the game. People look to him when he's on their side.

Troll for TrumpApr 13, 201813 votes

Misreads statistics "Stop denying stats"

Stars ShaperApr 13, 20189 votes

It's the same reaosn we got flat earthens.

Ppl think that who argues more wins.

Thee Pie ManApr 14, 20181 votes

I think it's more due to ignorance rather than arguing more. It could be a small part of it- but I want to have faith people are just extremely ignorant and just can't be bothered to believe anything outside of their personal bubble of thoughts.

Stars ShaperApr 14, 20181 votes

Unfortunately is a combination of both.

the lack of self criticism is a major issue in these cases as it brings the arguer not to even valuate facts from the other side, won't document himself on the issue and if they do they will just fall into comfirmation bias and only bring "facts" and theories that support their thesis screaming louder the more you try to make them reason.

Thee Pie ManApr 14, 20181 votes

That is quite unfortunate if true, indeed!

I can't even imagine being like that, I'm a huge fan of introspection and try to defeat my own arguments all the time, and sometimes do using facts and research I gather online... I really dislike being ignorant myself and try to prepare myself for things as best as possible. I always value other opinions outside of my own, heck even more so- especially if they are opposing opinions because if I can't prove what I'm saying is right against it, how can it possibly be right?

DraehlApr 13, 20187 votes

My guess is because the game is particularly frustrating right now and is causing folks to jump to conclusions, grasping at straws to try and make a case for change however they can.

Why is it frustrating? IMO because both damage and snowballing are at the (combined) worst I've ever seen. The game is very "stomp or be stomped" leading to a skewed view of the game as a whole. When you're winning you feel like a god. When you're losing you feel useless and many skills from other champions seem brokenly strong, causing folks to come to the forums to gripe.

The game is in need of more parity in that regard. If Riot wants to keep shorter game times then shorten games through objective taking snowball effects (ie a stronger mountain Drake), not raw champion vs champion power that kills most possibilities of counterplay/turnarounds.

AnateraApr 13, 20186 votes

Your feelings do count for something. It's a game, the fun you have playing it is a feeling and one of the game's primary purposes for existing, so anecdotal evidence should be considered. Just not too much.

Yordle XayahApr 13, 20185 votes

You must be new to The Boards if you think this is a recent issue.

JustaNewbApr 13, 20185 votes

While your statement has merit, there is something you are missing. Facts and Figures are held holy by most High School, and secondary learning - but only if you take certain coursework. What one begins to find, especially in the sciences and engineering, is that without anecdote - statistics are theory.

It is the difference between hypothesis and Observation. Example: (yes, someone used it below, but I am stealing it for this)

Statistically Shown Hypothesis - Jhin's Winrate is steady, and thus statistically his champion is a good balance of effective, while at the same time not overly Oppressive.

Observational Anecdotal Evidence As @Azadethe said, he is currently experiencing a monsterous damage output, that is ultimately only limiting him from near guaranteed wins via player error.

Thus we find that the anecdote actually is more precise than the statistics.

This is the case, perhaps, 50% of the time when players use anecdotal evidence to refute facts and figures. They are adamant in what they have actually seen and experienced. Admittedly their experience is often skewed by personal subconscious variables, however that does not remove their observation. Often in these highly irritated people's posts, while they have delved into hyperbole... there is actually truth beneath it, which requires conversation and exploration to find... out of hand dismissal of these things is often how broken mechanics stay broken for some time, until it becomes made popular by a streamer or LCS.

Even I am guilty a lot of times, I'm human.

Cited Sources: Azadethe 7 years study for Evolutionary Psychology with a Minor in Cosmology

HalcyonDwellerApr 13, 20189 votes

It's the combination of statistics and anecdotes, along with deeper analysis and critical thinking that grant a claim it's validity.

I think that the OP is still right in calling people out for claiming, "Well I experienced this so it must be how the game is all the time!" That shit doesn't fly, even if you put it on a catapult.

PandeonorApr 13, 20185 votes

With this sort of argument..... this:

mathematically: be good will mean someone will climb sooner or later

anecdotal evidence: someone is experiencing be better then others in his elo and is not winning and climbing

Yor conclusion as stated above for this scenario: "Thus we find that the anecdote actually is more precise than the statistics. "

Or in other words. You can controvert (correct word?) every statistic with an anecdote.

It is more or less about believing. If a popular streamer believes does not make an anecdote more truth or less. It only gives an argument a higher number of believers in it.

The problem therefore is that two of the extremes are "believers" and "statistics/maths". There is no common base to become quality within discussion. For instance some said that matches were shorter. So I searched for the data. And there is statistical evidence for a decrease about 2 minutes of gameplay between 2015 and 2016 and a second time a decrease imho because of introducing surrender at 15 within the year2017. After proven this I was told that it is NOT the gamelength but "_ It's about how quickly games progress through the early stages_" [with same gamelength given].

And at this point the base of arguments wich can be proven is gone and it´s all about believing or not. I´d the same discussion about wether LoL is dying or not. If someone want to believe that this is a fact because of his personal anecdotal evidence because his friends don´t play LoL any longer then he believes it and it does not matter what statistics, revenues or other sources may tell him.

I was a blogger of macroeconomy. I know what believing is. That´s fundamental for macroecon. ^ ^ That´s why I am a cynic.

Tomoe GozenApr 14, 20183 votes

This isn't a discussion which path is the more correct one. Observation is just observation. It's an opinion stated on how you think something works/performs in a given situation. Observing something is just one step into actually examining it "scientifically" - by the use of specific methods/measuring tools that can extrapolate raw data from the event. After the data is collected, it needs to be processed correctly by having a baseline (something to compare it too).

Riot collects all sorts of data from how we play our games and with which champion. It's not just about winrates, pick rates, ban rates, runes and builds. They can break it down even further than what third party sites like op.gg usually show us.

An observation you stated is that "Jhin is bonkers with a Guinsoo's Rageblade". But it isn't a fact. It's an opinion derived from a fact that Jhin's damage scaling is unique. He scales from multiple stats and all impact his damage/MS, which makes Rageblade such a solid buy for him, as a 4th+ item. However, his AS (which is essential to DPS champions like Marksmen) never scales from its default value. Which means that he has hard time reaching 6 Guinsoo's stacks to fully utilize the item. He can very well get killed before he even reaches its full potential.

With this observation in mind, it's time to look at the facts that come in the form of Jhin's win rate, pick rate, ban rate, itemization, runes, etc. If they sit within the norm of his pre-Rageblade times, it's likely a sign that he needs to be broken down more in terms of laning phase (early, mid, late game), his damage against specific targets (mages, juggernauts, tanks, turrets, objectives), how easy(er), etc.

Observational anecdotal evidence can never be taken as a fact. It's just an observation.

Statistically shown hypothesis is factual evidence. It is when you apply it to your observation that you know for sure if you were correct in your assumptions or not.

AzadetheApr 13, 20184 votes

For example?

Anywho.... it depends on which stats you're talking about, what's driving them, and whether or not those stats actually represent a snapshot of a champ's mechanic, or just the fact they are a specific role (Adc stats are often misinformative, **because while their win rates generally are stable because of some drawback, sometimes a damage mechanic gets through which actually IS broken. **

For example, Jhin 's synergy with item 3124 cannot be described as anything but broken, because it's not working as intended, but rather exponentially..... but that hasn't raised Jhin's win rate to extreme levels, because doubling his damage hasn't resulted in a difference in the fact people kill him during his pauses or running, or the fact a lot of Jhin players Ult from long range, and don't mechanically use him correctly at a close range. (That doesn't change the fact that a 1300-2000 AD scaling is a completely broken mechanic which is in fact caused by a circular calculation that shouldn't exist)

Win rate stats also didn't tell the full story on Zoe , because in fact her win rates could be broken down into more specific stats. Her win timeframes: Pre 20 minutes (surrenders) and Post 35 minutes (When most games were going too long, scaling champs are fed, and when she could actually reliably be a force for a TEAM to be reckoned with). In reality. Her win rate PLUMMETED when she was in normal length games, because the period between 20 and 35 minutes was a point where she received no power spikes, because her CS begins to fall off, and her second item doesn't really change game momentum. It's her third and 4th items which changed games).

And then there's the fact Win rate stats are actually biased toward new players who don't know how to play them. If you follow the win rates of most champs by people who actually main them and have a significant number of games, they generally often push 54-57% win rates. However, some are pushing 48% and others are pushing 63%. That doesn't tell you enough information, but it does tell you that those champs need to be looked at to decide whether the their irregularities are because of some mechanic that's too weak, or because it's a skill capped champ which is actually strong. It still tells you more than an overall "win rate."

Furthermore, Game stat pages do not capture irregular builds. They exclude them in most cases, and some of them have much better stats than the meta retrieved statistics.

epic dude2611Apr 13, 20183 votes

Statistics mean nothing, we have to back up statistics with either 1: a fully fleshed statistical model ( we don't have enough numbers for this)

2: educated guesses as to why these statistics exist

HalcyonDwellerApr 13, 20184 votes

They mean more than anecdotes at least. And at the bare minimum they show that the post author was willing to put effort, thought, and analysis into their claim rather than simply trying to shout it from the rooftops like a soapbox doomsayer.

GayFluffyUnicornApr 14, 20181 votes

Do they? When people come with shit like: Zed has x winrate that means mages can't even get cannon minion against him in lane anymore. Wat. Nah i'd rather listen to the anectdotes of a high ranked player who knows this matchup in and out on a high and equal level and how it usually plays out. I thought this pure statistics thing=powerlevel or whatever the discussion is died out with azir, ryze etc. yet you guys come up with this thread and the comments acting like statistics alone are all that matters. You can try to backup your anecdotes or experiences with statistics or try to explain the statistics but never the one without the other.

HalcyonDwellerApr 14, 20183 votes

{quoted}

It's the combination of statistics and anecdotes, along with deeper analysis and critical thinking that grant a claim it's validity.

I think that the OP is still right in calling people out for claiming, "Well I experienced this so it must be how the game is all the time!" That shit doesn't fly, even if you put it on a catapult.

WolfeurApr 13, 20182 votes

Not only the boards, the whole western society seems to be in what we call Post-truth politics. Basically, what matters aren't facts, now, only feelings.

50Shades0fTryndaApr 13, 20185 votes

facts never mattered for the majority of people, across the world , not just west

JustaNewbApr 14, 20183 votes

As someone who spent my life living in various countries due to my parent's profession, and then my own, I can easily verify that:

People are people everywhere.

GayFluffyUnicornApr 14, 20184 votes

Little adult tip: Don't ever pull wikipedia for politics. Wiki is HEAVILY biased in basically every political topic.

WolfeurApr 14, 20181 votes

This article just explains a phenomenon, it's not politically enclined.

From my experience, wikipedia tends to be pretty exhaustive on those topics.

Yaśuo MainApr 14, 20181 votes

pls ignore him, he's not that... well thought out on the topic of wikipedia

HarrowRApr 14, 20182 votes

I think that the worst offenders are adc hate circlejerkers of which there are many on these boards. I cant count the number of times someone tried to convince me all adcs are hyper mobile,tanky,1v1 gods that do 700 crit with only two items and dont need a support,yet as an adc and jg main i see things totally different,when i catch an adc alone in the lane with yi,kayn,graves its like killing a creep,they only get strong late game and with a good supp

Wrathful ChickenApr 14, 20182 votes

Given the changes in performance of champions depending on experience, and the fact that champions have different learning curves, there is a myriad of different experiences upon different leagues of gameplay, i.e. bronze, diamond, challenger, etc.

It's quite natural for people not to find agreement, because everyone has a different experience. They see different levels of performance of champions. Nobody's experience is invalid, but what causes controversy is when the experience is attempted to be generalized to the entire populace. It is near impossible to generalize these experiences due the vast deviation in performance that can be seen.

The only **true **generalization that can be agreed upon is the actual kit. The literal functionality of the kit is what is true for all people playing this champion. Thus any arguments that have any value in a logical perspective centralizes on contradictions within a kit. However, as we all know, the kit alone is just a tool. Talking about a tool by itself will not tell us how it interacts with something else.

The reliance on interactions between other champions and items is what makes this process complicated logically as it is unavoidable. There is no convenient standard to observe the kit since the optimal situation is always changing. This is why anecdotes are necessary. These experiences give us a certain set of information and when conglomerated, it can show a trend of how the kit it actually is played out. The difference being that we see the **frequency **at which something can be observed.

Even so, a reality can deviate far from the trends a chart shows us. It is these experiences that people have the most trouble with since it seems as though the game the play and the data that is shown does not align.

It's as if these experiences are not important at all.[cass-cry] But they are.

The issue with using anecdotes in arguments has always been the method they are used. A single anecdote can never be generalized to speak for all experiences. HOWEVER, a single anecdote has the power to DENY a generalization.

Thus, in the case where a design philosophy is assumed by Riot, or even generally accepted by the public. If any one experience is found, that while under the same premises, fails to reach its conclusion, then you have successfully invalidated an entire design philosophy.

[zombie-brand-mindblown]

What this means is that the theory that was accepted before must now be reevaluated. It's through this reevaluation that changes are more readily accepted.

Thus, the strength of anecdotes can only be seen when the theories that are accepted is known. If the theory is not made clear, it must be made clear. Propose a theory that people would generally concede to and then thwart this theory. If you have missed something, an attentive someone will be sure to let you know. Then you'll learn something from it. That's what matters in the end.