Boards›Gameplay

People are absolutely clueless and illogical about how ban rates, pick rates, and win rates work.

KirbyCake··1 votes·1,112 views

I'm only going to post this one time because people post completely nonsense arguments about how ban rates, pick rates, and win rates work.

Let's start with 2 basic assumptions.

  1. People are logical. Is 55% a higher number than 45%? If you know this then that's enough.
  2. People want to win. This is highly questionable due to the amount of hard inters and trolls.

Given just these 2 assumptions and data and ban rates, pick rates and win rates, which champions are the most overpowered in the game?

The answer is simple. The champions with the highest BAN rate are the most overpowered. Win rate is completely irrelevant here. Champions get banned because they have a good match up against most other champions and relatively higher win rates overall. You ban a champion because you plan on picking a champion that gets hard countered by that champion. You will not ban a champion if you are going to pick a champion that hard counters that champion. The most banned champions are the ones that hard counter most of the rest of the champions.

If there is an extremely broken overpowered champion that only has 1 hard counter that it loses to, then it will have really dumb stats like 96% ban rate and 40% win rate because the only time the champion gets picked is when it gets hard countered. This is why win rate is irrelevant here when the ban rate is high. The champion is clearly overpowered as hell and still has a bad win rate.

Saying dumb shit like champions get banned because they are annoying and not overpowered is completely illogical and goes against the assumption that people want to win. If a champion truly isn't overpowered it won't get banned, it's that simple.

Akali, yasuo, and irelia are completely overpowered and we have additional evidence of that in pro games where they actually get picked in a team environment and they are clearly not team based champions. They are annoying BECAUSE they are overpowered.

Ok after we identified the most overpowered champions by looking at the ban rate, which champions are the strongest then?

That would be the champions with high pick and win rate. These champions are champions not overpowered enough to make the cut to get banned but are very strong/decent against the rest of the champions not banned and no/few hard counters. Basically stats that the banned champion would have if there were no bans.

What about low pick rate high win rate champions? You cannot say anything about those champions except that the champion is probably underpowered. The most logical conclusion is that they hard counter a small set of champions and lose to the rest of them and only get picked as a counter. If those champions were strong at all as a generic pick then their pick rate would increase and if they are truly that broken then their ban rate would increase. Winning to a small set of champions but losing to the rest of them to me is underpowered but I guess you can call it a niche pick.

So the next time you make a dumb argument like that champion has a high ban rate because the champion is annoying, or if you say a champion has a 1% pick rate and 55% win rate and is clearly overpowered, then you have to also say that either people are retarded and illogical, or they just don't want to win. Because those stats don't happen if people actually want to win.

8 Comments

La Belle Sauvage6 votes

Oh the irony.

You claim other people are illogical about the reasoning behind bans, when you are as guilty if the similar argument.

"Saying dumb shit like champions get banned because they are annoying and not overpowered is completely illogical goes against the assumption that people want to ..."

What you really seem to be saying is, because it's how you base your bans, then everyone should ban that way, else your wrong (illogical).

Simpler still?

"if you don't agree with my line of thinking then you're wrong."

Why is it hard for you to acknowledge that both premises can be true?

  1. Some people ban champs that are OP

And

  1. Some people ban champs based on how annoying they are to play against?

I ban champs based how on frustrating they are or if I struggle vs them, but my bans aren't always what some conisder OP.

Before you state others are dumb or write dumb arguments based on faulty reasons, be sure you're not guilty of the same.

By the way, there isn't anything wrong if you feel people are dumb, if they base their bans on how annoying a champ is to play against, but it's wrong to claim a premise is true when you lack supporting evidence.

Are you sure people only ban op champs every time? If so how do you know?

Hint, the ban rate percentages available to us are too ambiguous to support your claim.

KirbyCake1 votes

[{quoted}](name=La Belle Sauvage,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=sTYFm3aj,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-11-05T20:12:01.313+0000)

Oh the irony.

You claim other people are illogical about the reasoning behind bans, when you are as guilty if the similar argument.

"Saying dumb shit like champions get banned because they are annoying and not overpowered is completely illogical goes against the assumption that people want to ..."

What you really seem to be saying is, because it's how you base your bans, then everyone should ban that way, else your wrong (illogical).

Simpler still?

"if you don't agree with my line of thinking then you're wrong."

Why is it hard for you to acknowledge that both premises can be true?

  1. Some people ban champs that are OP

And

  1. Some people ban champs based on how annoying they are to play against?

I ban champs based how on frustrating they are or if I struggle vs them, but my bans aren't always what some conisder OP.

Before you state others are dumb or write dumb arguments based on faulty reasons, be sure you're not guilty of the same.

By the way, there isn't anything wrong if you feel people are dumb, if they base their bans on how annoying a champ is to play against, but it's wrong to claim a premise is true when you lack supporting evidence.

Ate you sure people only ban op champs every time? If so how do you know?

Hint, the ban rate percentages available to us are too ambiguous to support your claim.

If you are banning annoying champions rather than overpowered ones then you are not trying to win. I already made my argument on the 2 basic assumptions and nothing else. People are logical and people try to win games. You can start with different assumptions and come up with a different conclusion but most arguments that people make are not consistent with any set of assumptions. For example, people say X gets banned because he/she is annoying, not overpowered. Then they don't say anything else relevant or maybe they say they have a low win rate but like I've already stated, win rate has nothing to do with how overpowered the champion is when ban rate is that high. Also there are many champions with completely annoying kits that never get banned. Or champions that used to have a high ban rate then they got nerfed and no longer gets banned. If the champion is annoying then nerfing its numbers shouldn't affect its ban rate, but they don't address that. They just say something and have nothing to back it up that makes any sense. What if riot makes a champion that does absolutely nothing but at level 6 it has an ability that wins the game? It is not annoying at all to lane against since it does absolutely nothing but it will have a 99.99% win rate. And you're going to tell me the champion won't get banned?

It's like math, you start with an set of axioms and if it makes sense then it is valid. Pretty much most of the garbage on boards here about balance and people using ban/pick/win rates are illogical.

La Belle Sauvage2 votes

I reject your initial Premises because they're ambiguous and unsupported.

  1. People are Logical

    • Based on what evidence? *How do you know every player is Logical?
    • Define what is logical in terms of LoL?

  2. People Try to win games

    • Who plays to lose (besides players who int)?

**Your Premises: **

3 you are banning annoying champions rather than overpowered ones then you are not trying to win.

  • how do you support this claim?

My reply Premise 3:

I ban YI so I don't have to face him Top lane. The popular opinion is that YI isn't actually that OP, except in the Lower ELO, which is where I play. I ban him, because I don't understand his KIT and because I find it annoying to lane against, because I typically lose the laning phase when I face him top. My best chance to improve my chances of winning the game is by eliminating a know weakness I have. That isn't to say there isn't better bans, or don't struggle vs other more OP champions. It's that I haven't played a lot of YI and I haven't had the chance to play him top myself. hence, I bust your claim, I'm trying to win by banning a champ that isn't OP and I find Annoying.

Then you slip in a Red Herring and try to change your original argument by adding this:

  1. What if riot makes a champion that does absolutely nothing but at level 6 it has an ability that wins the game? It is not annoying at all to lane against since it does absolutely nothing but it will have a 99.99% win rate. And you're going to tell me the champion won't get banned?

Which is a common fallacy and needs no reply.

KirbyCake1 votes

[{quoted}](name=La Belle Sauvage,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=sTYFm3aj,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-05T22:02:27.171+0000)

I reject your initial Premises because they're ambiguous and unsupported.

  1. People are Logical
    • Based on what evidence? *How do you know every player is Logical?
    • Define what is logical in terms of LoL?
  2. People Try to win games
    • Who plays to lose (besides players who int)?

**Your Premises: **

  1. you are banning annoying champions rather than overpowered ones then you are not trying to win.
  • how do you support this claim?

My reply Premise 3:

I ban YI so I don't have to face him Top lane. The popular opinion is that YI isn't actually that OP, except in the Lower ELO, which is where I play. I ban him, because I don't understand his KIT and because I don't I find it annoying to lane against, because I typically lose the laning phase when I face him top. My best chance to improve my chances of winning the game is by eliminating a know weakness I have. That isn't to say there isn't better bans, or don't struggle vs other more OP champions. It's that I haven't played a lot of YI and I haven't had the chance to play him top myself. hence, I bust your claim, I'm trying to win by banning a champ that isn't OP and I find Annoying.

Then you slip in a Red Herring and try to change your original argument by adding this:

  1. What if riot makes a champion that does absolutely nothing but at level 6 it has an ability that wins the game? It is not annoying at all to lane against since it does absolutely nothing but it will have a 99.99% win rate. And you're going to tell me the champion won't get banned?

Which is a common fallacy and needs no reply.

You can reject initial assumptions, nothing wrong with that. My argument is only based on people actually trying to win games and are not braindead. However if you make the assumption that people are not logical pretty much no argument makes sense.

By banning yi and thinking he is not overpowered you are going against either my first or second assumption, my argument is still valid. If you know you're not banning the most overpowered champion then you are not trying to win.If you are trying to win, then you are just an idiot. Either way one of my assumptions is broken and my argument still stands.

Now if you ban yi because he is overpowered in your elo, then nothing is wrong with my argument either. Yi is op in your elo so you ban him to try to win games. An op champion getting banned, I see nothing wrong here.

You mean I've strengthened my argument with an obvious base case.

  1. The theoretical champion I've created cannot be annoying, it literally does nothing except kills the nexus when it hits level 6.
  2. No player who has a brain and wants to win the game would not make sure the champion isn't banned. It is banned because it is overpowered, not annoying. Also I already stated it is illogical to think that champions get banned because they are annoying rather than overpowered. In what case has a highly banned champion get a massive numbers nerf and still maintain that ban rate? If you can't name 1 champion then all the evidence shows that people ban overpowered champions, not annoying ones.
sneakydoug3 votes

“Saying dumb shit like champions get banned because they are annoying and not overpowered is completely illogical and goes against the assumption that people want to win. If a champion truly isn't overpowered it won't get banned, it's that simple.”

I ban champs like Yasuo, Akali, and irelia because I hate playing against them. As a jax main I counter Yasuo and irelia, and I eventually hard outscale Akali. But I ban them anyways, because they are completely unfun to play against.

Thanks for telling me how the world works, though. You are the most enlightened player I’ve ever met.

KirbyCake1 votes

{quoted}

“Saying dumb shit like champions get banned because they are annoying and not overpowered is completely illogical and goes against the assumption that people want to win. If a champion truly isn't overpowered it won't get banned, it's that simple.”

I ban champs like Yasuo, Akali, and irelia because I hate playing against them. As a jax main I counter Yasuo and irelia, and I eventually hard outscale Akali. But I ban them anyways, because they are completely unfun to play against.

Thanks for telling me how the world works, though. You are the most enlightened player I’ve ever met.

If you play games to not try to win then good for you. I'm sure your teammates appreciate you trying to lose games. If you are not lying then I am 90% sure you have a horrible win rate.

sneakydoug2 votes

{quoted}

If you play games to not try to win then good for you. I'm sure your teammates appreciate you trying to lose games. If you are not lying then I am 90% sure you have a horrible win rate.

Sound logic 100% You must be a philosophy major!

KirbyCake1 votes

{quoted}

Sound logic 100% You must be a philosophy major!

I'm a math major but thanks.

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes

More by KirbyCake

Revert the swain and karthus nerfs?
Gameplay47 comments
128
votes
This game has fallen a long way
Gameplay115 comments
114
votes
Give me a good reason not to dynamic boost people
Gameplay74 comments
83
votes
Oh I see, rework on AP means makes weaker while rework on ad means makes stronger
Gameplay168 comments
70
votes
karthus has a 33% win rate in diamond, swain 41%
Gameplay73 comments
69
votes
Dynamic queue has made many high diamond players indifferent about winning
Gameplay33 comments
67
votes