If a champion has less than 40% winrate doesn't it make the champ useless?

S0kaX·Jul 13, 2017·3 votes·716 views

I'm arguing with a friend because he says that it's because that champion is really hard, but I'm saying it's just weak.

21 Comments

WráthfulJul 13, 20172 votes

or maybe the champion is just too hard so when most of the players play them suck at them = low winrate.

Sir YamazukiJul 13, 20172 votes

Context matters. Average win rate is determined by more than just the strength of a champion. The curve/performance by experience, average skill level of the games their picked, and what they play against impact win rate.

Caitlyn for example had her win rate increase after a nerf. Why? Because the best win rate play style for Cait didn't involved building Hurricane and the nerf 'forced' the majority who built Hurricane to build the more optimal way. The difference between Hurricane vs non-hurricane was pretty wide, which is why her win rate went up afterwards despite the nerf for the cycle. Which is why she just got nerfed again.

King of DemonsJul 13, 20171 votes

New champ 99% of all players have never played before with zero knowledge how he works outside of the champ spotlight after a single day of people buying and probably spamming him

Do you really believe he should sit at 50%?

S0kaXJul 13, 20171 votes

Not talking about new champ, but about a fictional old champion that everyone knows

CannonLordFreedJul 13, 20171 votes

Azir?

S0kaXJul 13, 20171 votes

azir has 44% winrate, but I was talking about aatrox before buffs/rework.

King of DemonsJul 13, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Not talking about new champ, but about a fictional old champion that everyone knows

Okay, because I saw threads talking trash about the new champ because "lul 40% wr" so my assumption was based on that.

Have a nice day

PennsJul 13, 20171 votes

Not if ity Ryze lul

PhantomGGJul 13, 20171 votes

I am going to make the safe assumption this topic was about Azir? if so the answer is yes, he's fairly weak, just to easy to get ontop of and blow up. Hard burst champions like Syndra just demolish him. Just about everything counters him in the mid lane at the moment.

S0kaXJul 13, 20171 votes

I was talking about Aatrox before buffs/rework.

CannonLordFreedJul 13, 20171 votes

It means that someone on the balance or design team has fucked up. Or it's just an Azir / Kalista type situation where the champ just needs to be unplayable because they cause problems. Even so, the champ isn't "useless". Every champ has some purpose or role that they're designed to fill, and can do it. They're just not doing it particularly well.

Devilreaper XIIIJul 13, 20171 votes

winrate is nonsense, it tells you nothing really O.o tl.dr : bottom.

just that x ammount of champions are picked by x ammount of players. and that x ammount of players have a win the match they picked that champion.

it doesn't tell how someone wins, and why. i mean they could go with a 0/0/0 kdr and still be calculated in with the winrates.

lets say 1 player plays riven 1 wins the winrate is 100%

lets say 20 players play zac 5 loses and 15 wins the winrate is 75%

lets say 10000 players play jhin 6000 loses and 4000 win the winrate is 40%

what i'm trying to say is that its all situational. and unless you take the same ammount of players its even more meaningless O.o it just says that 100% of riven players, 75% of zac players, and only 40% of jhin players win a team match.

it doesn't state how much chance you got to win with a champion. or whether a champion is strong or weak.

just how many TEAM matches were lost and won that included that champion. it doesn't say one thing about the champion in question.

it only tells you about player behaviour with said champions.

tl.dr below.

jhin winrate is 40% the kdr average = 6/10/12 jinx winrate is 50% the kdr average = 6/15/10

so according to alot of people jhin should have a higher winrate right? or jhin should be useless ? but kdr average shows that jhin performs better than jinx. hence why winrates should be ignored, because winrates are based on individuals (player behaviour), not a team, since LoL in the end is a team game, with objectives that could tip the balance of the game. the average kdr could also be meaningless if they didn't filter out 0/0/0 scores or afkers. and you obviously get contradicting statistics. neither statistics are accurate.

S0kaXJul 13, 20171 votes

So when a champion has 10% win rate or 80% it's balanced right?

Starcraft243verJul 13, 20175 votes

Please, dont talk about correlation or statistics when you obviously have no clue what your are talking about.

Basically the law of large numbers is enough to call your whole post "bullshit".

Devilreaper XIIIJul 14, 20171 votes

{quoted}

Please, dont talk about correlation or statistics when you obviously have no clue what your are talking about.

Basically the law of large numbers is enough to call your whole post "bullshit".

it seems my pinky knows more about correlation and statistics than most people in this forum O.o

so once more i shall explain! cause i'm such a friendly guy and don't want people to get fooled by these 3rth party nonsense sites. luckily though riot doesn't give about it and don't use winrates..... https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/jLGvQ3Wk-before-you-make-a-post-about-balance

saying lets buff/nerf because winrate is not legit .o. winrates don't tell you if a champion is weak or not sonicmaster02 his friend is closer to the truth!

so 10 people are in a running competition! they play 1 match

5 people win 5 lose, they obviously have a winrate of 50% now this stat is so meaningfull .o.

what makes it so meaningfull in this case, is to know whether your guy/girl is amongst the winner or loser so that you could determine how he/she as been doing. this is about someone individual! and help him/her improve!

so lets take soccer! lets say your team has won 3 matches out of 10 thats 30% winrate what does this mean ¿? there is something WRONG with your TEAM!

but what is it? team composition? players fighting eachother? ego trips ? bad decisions? horrible coaching? they need more training? opponents just played better?

winrates don't tell you a thing about individuals in a TEAM game...

you'd have to have visual of your team playing, you'd have to look at the overal performance per player you'd have to compare them to eachother you'd have to know what their coach did

now lets go back to LoL can you answer these questions with yes?

can you see every player perform visually with said champion, calculated in with those win/lose rates? can you see their full overall performance? ( with objectives met) can you see the entire team composition?

if the answer is no! to at least 1 of these, than these statistics don't tell you about individuals!

okok even easier!

lets take zed lets say zed has an average score of 25 kills per match! obviously broken! but the rest of his team is underfed, due to that zed player hogging all the kills! so the opponent team knows this they take down zed and steamroll to victory! and spread the tactic to focus fed zed like wildfire. and suddenly shockingly zed gets a winrate of 20%! .o. oh no so according to you people zed is weak? @.@ ????

stop using these third party sites, they are complete nonsense.

BLACK REALM GODJul 13, 20171 votes

{quoted}

I'm arguing with a friend because he says that it's because that champion is really hard, but I'm saying it's just weak.

it's both.

if a champion is hard it's basically weak. if you have to try harder to win then it's not balanced to be equal. therefore it is both harder and weaker.

as long as neither of you are trying to say that it's both strong and hard because then that's just silly. anyone who says a champion is both hard and strong is fooling themselves or the champion is busted because that's a double standard for balance. hard and strong champions are the ones that have ridiculous win rates but only 5 or 6 people even play them.

a champions strength comes from numbers. if a champion has to attack twice to do the same amount of damage, but then also is granted the ability to attack 2 times as fast to make up for it then they're equally as strong as another champion who only has to attack once, but attacks at a 1:1 rate. however because the champion requires more effort and timing to get the second hit you're always going to lose the match of 1v1 in that scenario as a 2:1 champion in games of equally matched skill (game knowledge). which makes the champion that attacks 1:1 stronger than the champion that attacks 2:1.

you can make that same comparison with any of the numbers because they're all just numbers that represent kill potential.

what weaker numbers at a faster rate does give you however is flexibility. and you can use that flexibility to experiment with the item shop and mastery trees more so than you could with a standard character. that doesnt make a champion more complex and it doesnt make it weaker/stronger. it just means you have options.

take for example hp, armor, and magic resist. if you want to tank you need those three stats.

zac's stats / alistars stats

615 – 2230 / 613 – 2415

24 – 83.5 / 24.4 – 83.9

32.1 – 53.4 / 32.1 – 53.4

when looking at these stats what you notice is that they're pretty identical. without talking about their damage and abilities who would die first fight if both of these two champions were to receive damage from a fight with the same champion at level 1? if we do 3 physical damage per second to both targets and factor in their armor ratings zac would die in 254.2 seconds without regeneration and alistar would die in 254.19 seconds at level 1.

but then if you notice alistar at level 18 blows zacs hp, armor, and magic resist out of the water.

if you do that with all of their stats you can figure out how your champions are weak/strong vs the other champs. usually what it boils down to is that a champion with a low win rate relies too much on luck. critical hit percentage and abilities that require precise input or over the time input.

take alistars abilities. they dont deal direct damage. they deal aoe damage and one of his abilities doesnt deal ANY damage. his passive even heals minions so a lot of his power is wasted. zac on the other hand has a heal that specifically heals him, and 4 damage abilities all AOE. big thing though is that zac has no mana costs and short cooldowns. alistar has higher damage for his basic attacks, but that means diddly squat since he doesnt have any physical damage abilities. on a champion with pure AP abilities you're better off getting something like lich bane, nashoors, and wits end if you're going to basic attack. and because of alistars low attack speed base rating any attack speed you get is wasted - including the scaling attack speed that is added on up to level 18. and even if that wasnt the case your range is only 125 and your movement is 330 so you'll never be able to catch up to an opponent to hit them. so what that means is that as alistar you have to have an ally finish off your kill or stay alive through damage mitigation which is nearly impossible with %max hp, black cleaver, and lifesteal items being bought by marksmen, fighters, tanks, assassins, and sometimes even the weird support . zac has no such problem.

tldr

so it's not that champions with low win percentages are either or. it's both. skill is directly related to how weak a champion is.

Starcraft243verJul 13, 20171 votes

I'm arguing with a friend because he says that it's because that champion is really hard, but I'm saying it's just weak.

You have to watch the winrate of the people who are :

high level : ~ plat/diam
experienced with the champion ( ~ 50+ games played with the champion this season)

With these adjustments to your sample size, you will eliminate a good part of the champions difficulty influence on the winrate.

The Leo CatJul 13, 20171 votes

It means a few things...

A. The champion is probably too hard to use. Ryze and Draven B. The champion's previous nerfs had severely weakened the champion, Olaf C. The Champion's 'rework' had utterly destroyed the champion, and became one massive nerf instead, Kindred D. The champion is often used or seen as a troll pick and therefore the other players immediately throw the match. Old Urgot.

They apparently use High ELO players to assist in balance changes... but I sincerely doubt that is a good idea.

BakedLotionJul 13, 20171 votes

[{quoted}](name=The Leo Cat,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=i1LNpwWK,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2017-07-13T12:23:17.161+0000)

It means a few things...

A. The champion is probably too hard to use. Ryze and Draven B. The champion's previous nerfs had severely weakened the champion, Olaf C. The Champion's 'rework' had utterly destroyed the champion, and became one massive nerf instead, Kindred D. The champion is often used or seen as a troll pick and therefore the other players immediately throw the match. Old Urgot.

But Draven's win rate is the highest among ADCs lul

BALDG1VEN BOOMERJul 13, 20171 votes

Not necessarily there was a guy on EUNE who was rank 1 and had close to 60% - 65% with Ryze. We've continually see people pull off high win rates with champions that are considered weak, to your average player they may be weak but they aren't weak if you take time to learn them.

The Leo CatJul 13, 20171 votes

I didn't call Ryze weak. Just hard to play. Riot had said that Ryze tends to be heavily team dependent, and strong with coordination.