Why the lower win rate champions are in a way worse spot then you think they are.

Megatankbot·Mar 10, 2015·3 votes·1,144 views

The difference be the win rate of zac and vi is only 7.5%. With that small of a difference you could see how some people, especially after playing nemesis draft, would think that they have about they same power level. But they dont, not even close, here's why. Most of the time when a lower win rate champion is picked, he is the only one in the game. The rest of the players pick fotm or at lest ok champions. You never see a urgot, poppy, olaf, veigar, and taric team outside of the normal game modes. Now lets do a thought experiment. Lets represent each champion with a pair of dice. to win the game your teams total dice roll needs to be higher then the other teams. Your in ranked so all your team mates and the other team picked the most op champions. So they all get a six sided dice. You on the other hand just want to play the champions you think are fun. So you pick zac jungle. He is not has powerful as their vi so lets give him a three sided die. Now, you may think that is way to low, I gave him half the power of vi even know their win rate is almost the same. That would be true, if this was a 1v1 game, but its not. If you combine the dice the enemy team has a max roll of 30, and you team has a max roll of 27. You team has a 47.37% chance of wining. I cut his power to half of everyone in the game and his win rate is still higher then his actual win rate.

As bad as that is, the true difference in power is even worse. Like most of the up champions, zac has a super low play rate. It is only 0.82%, vi has 25 times that. Which means zac is only played by his mains. Just imagine how low it would get if he was played by every tom dick and bronzy like vi.

11 Comments

WeedlayerMar 10, 20154 votes

Your math is off. The variance weighs rolls towards the middle, moreso the more dice there are.

GoosetardMar 10, 20153 votes

A lot of mathematically incorrect shenanigans in here... what I believe you mean to say is that low winrate champs are played only by people who love them so much they are forced to master them to make them viable, and if everyone played them they'd have an even lower winrate.

WeedlayerMar 10, 20152 votes

{quoted}

A lot of mathematically incorrect shenanigans in here... what I believe you mean to say is that low winrate champs are played only by people who love them so much they are forced to master them to make them viable, and if everyone played them they'd have an even lower winrate.

This isn't what he means at all. He's saying low win rate champions have teams that can carry him. Imagine a champion that does literally nothing. His team plays 4v5. While his power is 0, he'll still have a ~20-30% win rate (or whatever) because 4v5s are winnable.

The OP's math suggests he would have a 40% win rate, which is of course patently absurd (Azir was literally worse than an afk?), but his main point about bad champions being carriable is somewhat valid.

GoosetardMar 10, 20151 votes

Whoah. You're absolutely right, I didn't read closely enough. And they aren't shenanigans at all. I think what I thought (thoughtception) he was saying was a tangential point hinted at in the last paragraph. Thanks.

WeedlayerMar 10, 20152 votes

{quoted}

Can you tell me how my math was of? I think i have it right, but I was never good at math.

Well, first off you dice analogy doesn't quite work. LoL isn't dice, and a champ with a power of 10 might just straight ALWAYS beat a champion with a power of 5.

But even assuming the analogy is valid, the 5 wouldn't be 50% as strong. The odds of a 5 sided die outrolling a 10 sided die is 20%, with a 10% chance of a tie.

disregardableMar 10, 20151 votes

Zac isn't even that underpowered though.

OhOkYeaMar 10, 20151 votes

He's alright. His kit is way outdated though and can't keep up with the top tier junglers enough to be useful.

MegatankbotMar 10, 20151 votes

The point of the post is not to show how powerful zac is or isn't. He was just the example. It is to show that a small difference in win rate means a lot more then most people think.

MegatankbotMar 10, 20151 votes

Can you tell me how my math was of? I think i have it right, but I was never good at math.

VardenSaladMar 10, 20151 votes

I think the guy was saying that underpowered champs are in such a bad spot because even when only mains play them (due to low pick rate) they win rates are STILL very low.

Weak champs with low pick rates are, so to speak, in a doubly bad spot because even MAINS can't get their win rate up.

I, personally, don't think their are as many 'single champ mains' as we'd like to hope, but that's a different argument.