Boards›Gameplay

Win Rate TIMES Pick Rate is more important than just Win Rate

g07h4xf00··19 votes·11,169 views

http://champion.gg/champion/Thresh

Win Rate * Play Rate = 48.96% * 39.12% = 19.15% So just under 1/5 of all games won in Plat+ have a Thresh in their comp.

http://champion.gg/champion/Vayne

Win Rate * Play Rate = 51.41% * 34.93% = 17.9% So just over 1/6 of all games won in Plat+ have a Vayne on their team.

Why aren't Vayne and Thresh banned more often?? There are other champions that also fall into this category (Janna Riven Ahri Jinx) that most players don't bother banning even though statistically, they should.

How do we fix some of these champions? This is debateable and can be highly controversial, but I'll just quickly give some of my own personal ideas that you can downvote me for.

Vayne ? Tank buster or squishy annihilator/assassin: choose one. If you want her to be a tank buster, keep the Silver Bolts procs as-is and remove her AD steroids from her Q and R. If you want her to be a squishy annihilator / assassin, make the silver bolt procs do flat true damage only or make it do magic damage instead.

Thresh ? Remove the shield from his lantern. What's the point? Lantern is good for moving your allies around. It'll still be good without the shield. Remove the passive portion from his flay. The active already has CC and damage. Why have a passive portion? Extra magic damage on ranged-autos why?

Janna ? I honestly think she's fine. If we really want to do anything then maybe give her tornado a smaller width / higher cooldown and reduce the knock-back of her ult?

Ahri ? Probably just remove the movement speed from her Q. That's all she needs, honestly. I don't think she's too bad.

Jinx ? I don't really have anything against her I think she's fnie. Maybe reduce the range of her Q rocket auto's. It already gives her magic damage on-hit and AOE crit/damage, why make her safer to play?

Riven ? I could write a PhD thesis on changes with her. Just some ideas:

  • Remove AD scaling from her shield completely.
  • Make it so she can't jump over walls with her third Q anymore (like the old days). She can already spam her Q and E on ridiculously short/non-existent cooldowns, make her have to use them to go AROUND walls so it's less obnoxious.
  • Change the knock-back on her third Q to a short slow instead. It shouldn't be able to cancel channels/teleports/abilities. Hard CC on an assassin? Why? She already has a stun...
  • Reduce her base movement speed. 340 on a champion with 4 dashes who also builds item 3044 and item 3142 ?? -Reduce her base AD. 56-107 is pretty good for a champion who builds full AD and gets a million AD steroids. Isn't Orianna punished with a really low base AD for having a passive that gives her magic damage on-hit? Yes, she's a different class of champion but Rito always does this. Gives some champions a really good steroid and nerfs their base stats to compensate. They didn't do this with Riven, for some reason.

[Honorable Mention] Irelia? -Reduce the duration of her stun to scale from 0.5 seconds to 1.5 seconds instead of 1 to 2. -Hiten Style gives too much healing (her ult already heals). Reduce the healing flat damage to half the amount or make it a % lifesteal amount so building item 3078 into full-tank won't allow her to heal flat 13-26 HP per hit. -Make the tenacity on her passive more interactive. Maybe she has tenacity against champions she's engaging. Maybe say like "reduces durations of disables from champions she's damaged with her abilities or basic attacks in the last T seconds by X%". Makes it good when she's dueling or hunting down a single champion but easier to get stopped by peeling abilities from her target's allies. Right now it's just free stats.

Just some ideas off the top of my head. I haven't thought about it that hard but these were things I felt were "obvious" problematic elements.

Let the downvoting begin...

62 Comments

Leaf of the lake5 votes

http://champion.gg/champion/Thresh Win Rate * Play Rate = 48.96% * 39.12% = 19.15% So just under 1/5 of all games won in Plat+ have a Thresh in their comp.

Cool, but... (100 - 48.96%) * 39.12% = 19.97% So just under 1/5 of all games lost in Plat+ also have a Thresh in their comp, and in fact, more losing teams have a Thresh than do winning teams.

So if anything, this says that we should not be banning Thresh, because if the enemy team picks him, it statistically favors us to win. And thus, we get right back to only looking at win rates - while ensuring their pick rate is high enough to make win rate a valid metric. Win rate is an unreliable metric for low sample sizes, but once you have an adequately large sample, it doesn't matter how much larger you make it; the results aren't gonna change much.

the blue moongod2 votes

This. Saying that winrate*playrate is important is very strange since playrate is a much bigger factor in that statistic than winrate (which trends to 50%). A champion can be popular and not overpowered just because people think the champion is fun e.g. Thresh. Yes he has a big kit and yes he is a great allrounder, but people have learned how to play around him and he is worse at niche jobs. He will never be as good at getting the enemy carry and locking them down as leona is. He will never be as good at grabbing as Blitzcrank is. He offers no lane sustain like Raka, Nami, Janna or Sona.

But you can make plays with him. You feel useful when you make plays. This is the greatest reason Thresh is popular.

g07h4xf001 votes

[{quoted}](name=Leaf of the lake,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=t2AaoIK4,comment-id=000e,timestamp=2015-08-14T09:40:50.891+0000)

Win Rate * Play Rate = 48.96% * 39.12% = 19.15% So just under 1/5 of all games won in Plat+ have a Thresh in their comp.

Cool, but... (100 - 48.96%) * 39.12% = 19.97% So just under 1/5 of all games lost in Plat+ also have a Thresh in their comp, and in fact, more losing teams have a Thresh than do winning teams.

So if anything, this says that we should not be banning Thresh, because if the enemy team picks him, it statistically favors us to win. And thus, we get right back to only looking at win rates - while ensuring their pick rate is high enough to make win rate a valid metric. Win rate is an unreliable metric for low sample sizes, but once you have an adequately large sample, it doesn't matter how much larger you make it; the results aren't gonna change much.

Again, it's a two-sided coin. By your logic this means you DON'T WANT Thresh on YOUR team because you're more likely to lose since he has such a high pick rate. It's similar logic why people banned TahmKench Bard on-release and Fiora after rework. They are bad but you also don't want them on your team, but players tend to pick popular / high-pickrate champions by definition.

Sire Hippington1 votes

if you use it as an indicator on who to ban rather than who is strong...but that means we should ban high pickrate champs regardless of winrate, cause if they are strong, we don't want enemies to pick it, if it is weal, we don't want them in our team. In terms of banning, i'd condider winrate more important than pickrate, but picrate shouldn't be ignored. Banning a champ that is strong but rarly picked probably does little, but so does banning a champ that isn't strong but ofen picked... generally, banning champs based on statisticks in soloQ is not that helpfull. If a champ is strong and you ban him, you take away the champ also from your team. Rather ban what you know you don't perform well against or just don't like banning against. If you plan on playong a certain champ, ban out bad matchups...

However, you used pick*win as metric to to determine who should get nerfed on your OP, while it does a even worse job for that than winrate alone...

g07h4xf004 votes

People seem to ban based on champions who got buffed in the recent patch and their own personal frustrating experience against certain champions. It would make more sense to ban based on stats, I would think.

RiotRiotRepertoir4 votes

This is cool stuff!

One of the things I think we fall short on is having a shared understanding of metrics that indicate a champion's or item's power level. Because Win Rate is so easily accessed and intuitive, it's something that players (developers included) default to as the first place they look to to determine power. This is probably as good a start as any other, but stopping there leaves much to be desired. As you have demonstrated, simply adding in a contribution for play rate can tell a much different story about what is powerful.

Something challenging with data like this is that, as you add in more contributing factors, figuring out or remembering what they mean becomes less intuitive. Thankfully, you continually reminded us how to read the info you provided with the "X game in plat+ are won by Y champ."

I'm somewhat curious as to how many players prefer to let data drive their pick and ban decisions vs how many prefer to just play and ban what they personally think is strongest.

DJ Di01 votes

{quoted}

This is cool stuff!

One of the things I think we fall short on is having a shared understanding of metrics that indicate a champion's or item's power level. Because Win Rate is so easily accessed and intuitive, it's something that players (developers included) default to as the first place they look to to determine power. This is probably as good a start as any other, but stopping there leaves much to be desired. As you have demonstrated, simply adding in a contribution for play rate can tell a much different story about what is powerful.

Something challenging with data like this is that, as you add in more contributing factors, figuring out or remembering what they mean becomes less intuitive. Thankfully, you continually reminded us how to read the info you provided with the "X game in plat+ are won by Y champ."

I'm somewhat curious as to how many players prefer to let data drive their pick and ban decisions vs how many prefer to just play and ban what they personally think is strongest.

For me, and I think a lot of players, it's a bit of both.

If I'm first pick and want to go Ahri mid or Soraka support I'll ban what i think does best against them. Other times I'll simply look at op.gg's stats on bans and choose from the list.

Häßlich2 votes

Highlighting the importance of pick rate in terms of win rate is always good, but the proposed changes would make most of those champions unplayable.

Vayne especially is very high risk for very high reward, so nerfing her is almost synonymous with removing her (the way they did with Morde at the end of Season 1). Same with champs like Lee Sin, Riven, and Thresh. The power of these champions is not expressed solely through their kit, but the player, because these tend to be MUCH more mechanically demanding to play at a high level than say, Orianna, Ahri, Garen, or Annie.

The bottom line is that pick/win rates can be used as an indicator for when a champion is strong, but these ones fall well within the parameters of normalcy (45-55% win rate). When you want to talk about pick and win rates, you can't just multiply them and get a meaningful number, because they express different things.

Win rate = how strong the champion is + how well people can play it (this second part is EXTREMELY important in these discussions) Pick rate = how popular the champion is (and can indicate/reflect their perceived power or enjoyability to play)

Just from this you can see how merely multiplying them not only obfuscates the issue, but detracts from what the numbers really mean. Beyond that, such an equation doesn't account for other variables like team composition, player warding habits, and team cohesion. It also doesn't account for afks/leavers which contribute to losses marked against those champions (and often against popular ones).

There is no way to interpret these numbers in a basic form. There is simply too much involved with it. Calling for nerfs because, "Teams with X champion win Y% of the time" simply doesn't make sense.

g07h4xf001 votes

{quoted}

Highlighting the importance of pick rate in terms of win rate is always good, but the proposed changes would make most of those champions unplayable.

The changes I proposed are SOME IDEAS. Don't have to implement them all together, maybe only a few of these. Or one. Who knows? Like I said in OP, I didn't think about it too much but that's some IDEAS off the top of my head.

Vayne especially is very high risk for very high reward, so nerfing her is almost synonymous with removing her (the way they did with Morde at the end of Season 1). Same with champs like Lee Sin, Riven, and Thresh. The power of these champions is not expressed solely through their kit, but the player, because these tend to be MUCH more mechanically demanding to play at a high level than say, Orianna, Ahri, Garen, or Annie.

The bottom line is that pick/win rates can be used as an indicator for when a champion is strong, but these ones fall well within the parameters of normalcy (45-55% win rate). When you want to talk about pick and win rates, you can't just multiply them and get a meaningful number, because they express different things.

Win rate = how strong the champion is + how well people can play it (this second part is EXTREMELY important in these discussions)

You don't know how well people can play certain champions. You may be able to look up your team quickly in op.gg but you have almost no information about strangers you will be playing with.

Pick rate = how popular the champion is (and can indicate/reflect their perceived power or enjoyability to play)

Just from this you can see how merely multiplying them not only obfuscates the issue, but detracts from what the numbers really mean. Beyond that, such an equation doesn't account for other variables like team composition, player warding habits, and team cohesion. It also doesn't account for afks/leavers which contribute to losses marked against those champions (and often against popular ones).

It doesn't because when you are banning, no champions have been picked. Again, like I've been stressing: you have little to no information the pick and win rates simply provide a general average across ALL games of a certain elo.

There is no way to interpret these numbers in a basic form. There is simply too much involved with it. Calling for nerfs because, "Teams with X champion win Y% of the time" simply doesn't make sense.

Most people call for nerfs when they have a frustrating experience playing against a champion (Kalista FizzRiven ) or happen to lose a lot against a champion that shows up all the time (Vayne Irelia Riven)

Moral of the story? Nerf Riven :^)

Häßlich1 votes

Neither of those are really reasons to nerf in most cases, despite people calling for them. A lot of people call for nerfs when they lose against something instead of learning how to deal with and defeat it. For example, Ahri and Fizz are common examples of "frustrating" to play against, but if you take the time to learn how to play them yourself, you find out how they work, what their weaknesses are, how you might exploit those weaknesses, and how to bait a player into making a bad decision. Yet so many people on these boards don't do any of that. Worse, you see this at all elo of play, yet you have some arrogant pricks on here acting as if their rank makes them an exception.

Nerfs are hard to justify in most cases, because most champions have already been nerfed down to a point where they border on playability. Crossing this border is why Morde is getting a rework now after 4 years of being mostly ignored--he was nerfed into the ground. This is not a healthy game policy, and it is no way to respect your players and the champions they want to play.

Abyssphere1 votes

{quoted}

This is cool stuff!

One of the things I think we fall short on is having a shared understanding of metrics that indicate a champion's or item's power level. Because Win Rate is so easily accessed and intuitive, it's something that players (developers included) default to as the first place they look to to determine power. This is probably as good a start as any other, but stopping there leaves much to be desired. As you have demonstrated, simply adding in a contribution for play rate can tell a much different story about what is powerful.

Something challenging with data like this is that, as you add in more contributing factors, figuring out or remembering what they mean becomes less intuitive. Thankfully, you continually reminded us how to read the info you provided with the "X game in plat+ are won by Y champ."

I'm somewhat curious as to how many players prefer to let data drive their pick and ban decisions vs how many prefer to just play and ban what they personally think is strongest.

I once saw a guy ask if he should replace his Ryze permaban with an Elise permaban because "He heard she was strong now". I asked him would he not consider at least playing against her before he permabanned her and he said he's rather ban what other people tell him to than ban go through bad experiences first.

Pretty sure a small minority of players ban based on solid reasoning. It's just the latest FOTM.

Adrian Umbra1 votes

As someone who plays primarily top and jungle, my list is generally Elise, Kayle, Master Yi, Xin Zhao, Yasuo, Shyvana. I don't like trying to fight against an Elise who has strong snowball potential early game combined with almost excessively high utility in the form of her stun. I don't like trying to stop a Kayle from snowballing into a lategame monster while combatting her amazing utility. Xin has a similar deal as a devourer jungler. Yi and Shyv have strong snowball potential from farming and a very strong lategame, which I don't like dealing with. Yasuo... fuck Yasuo. Yes, I know he's not played much anymore and that he's not considered to be that strong, but I don't like dealing with him and would rather not see him in my games.

If these champs or the items they rely on get nerfs, I change this list, same if there's something else I'd rather not see. Most other things in this game I can deal with or trust my team to deal with. I still take recommendations on bans though, because I like to support my teammates and help encourage communication as early as I can. If they request a ban that I don't understand, I ask why. If they can't give me a good reason or if I disagree, I continue on with my personal ban list.

g07h4xf001 votes

{quoted}

This is cool stuff!

One of the things I think we fall short on is having a shared understanding of metrics that indicate a champion's or item's power level. Because Win Rate is so easily accessed and intuitive, it's something that players (developers included) default to as the first place they look to to determine power. This is probably as good a start as any other, but stopping there leaves much to be desired. As you have demonstrated, simply adding in a contribution for play rate can tell a much different story about what is powerful.

Something challenging with data like this is that, as you add in more contributing factors, figuring out or remembering what they mean becomes less intuitive. Thankfully, you continually reminded us how to read the info you provided with the "X game in plat+ are won by Y champ."

I'm somewhat curious as to how many players prefer to let data drive their pick and ban decisions vs how many prefer to just play and ban what they personally think is strongest.

Malphite and Singed (my main) both have about 52-53% win rate in plat+, two of the highest in top lane. They are never banned (which I'm happy with). Probably because they are seldom picked. Now, if every other game contained a Malphite or a Singed and people started noting they are losing a lot to them (more than winning) then suddenly they might start getting banned. In this case, pick rate comes into play.

Linna Excel1 votes

If you are first pick and are picking something that is hard countered, you ban those counters. After that you ban those annoying champs you hate dealing with.

g07h4xf003 votes

Basically if you're a plat+ player in soloQ then statistically the best 6 bans are

Vayne Thresh Janna Ahri Jinx Riven

Sakura Mirage1 votes

Statistically I mean where is the tf ban where is rek sai elise ban. Can't just base every ban on stats. Even kalista is more ban worthy than those champs

g07h4xf001 votes

{quoted}

Statistically I mean where is the tf ban where is rek sai elise ban. Can't just base every ban on stats. Even kalista is more ban worthy than those champs

How does that make sense? I just gave you numbers. Kalista has a 50.71% win rate and an 8.72% pick rate which means there's a 4.4% chance that she's picked in any game AND WINS. Unless you know for a fact there's a Kalista main on either team who will get their role, you have very little knowledge in champ select so you're better off banning based off statistics.

Nameless Voice3 votes

No, Kalista is worth banning because otherwise, win or lose, I have to sit through a 20-60 minute game hating every minute of it because the enemy team have a Kalista that I cannot interact with because of my pick.

I ban her whenever possible because she limits my choice of champions too much.

g07h4xf002 votes

[{quoted}](name=Nameless Voice,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=t2AaoIK4,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2015-08-13T21:54:20.607+0000)

No, Kalista is worth banning because otherwise, win or lose, I have to sit through a 20-60 minute game hating every minute of it because the enemy team have a Kalista that I cannot interact with because of my pick.

I ban her whenever possible because she limits my choice of champions too much.

Right, so you're banning her based on how she makes you feel (frustrated, not having fun) rather than your statistical chance of winning the game. This is fine, but I'm just pointing out that if all you care about is winning then you may want to re-consider bans.

Nameless Voice2 votes

If I'm frustrated and not having any fun, then I'm not playing at my best and am more likely to lose the game because of it.

g07h4xf001 votes

[{quoted}](name=Nameless Voice,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=t2AaoIK4,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-08-13T22:03:26.561+0000)

If I'm frustrated and not having any fun, then I'm not playing at my best and am more likely to lose the game because of it.

Fair enough.

Minrog3 votes

She hard counters all the melee champions but not every team is melee heavy. So if you know your team is not going to be able to stack multiple CC's on her then the statistical chance of her winning goes way up (making the ban worth using). Against teams with Maokai/Annie she probably is below 50% and not worth banning.

ChaoticPinecone8 votes

your statistics dont take into account that two of the most popular champions are basically permabanned. Now, thresh and vayne are abnormally high, but lets take Janna and Jinx.

  1. Janna - 1% ban rate, 24% pick rate. So in the 99% of games she is available, she is picked about 24% of the time. (54% winrate)
  2. Jinx - .66% ban rate, 24% pick rate. So in the 99% of games she is available, she is picked 24% of the time. (53% winrate)

Compare that to two permabanned champions -

  1. Shyvana - 68% ban rate, 10% pick rate. So in the 32% of games where she is available, she is picked 31% of the time (52% winrate)
  2. Elise - 60% ban rate, 10% pick rate. So in the 40% of games she is available, she is picked 25% of the time (54% winrate)
kile1471 votes

Exactly, OP is not taking "pick or ban" champs into account. They are op but won't show up on his radar.

GroundRuleDouble3 votes

Here's a way to fix that. Change the formula to find "True Pick Rate" which is their pick rate divided by their not-banned rate. So, for the two highest banned champs, Shyvana and Elise:

Shyvana has a ban rate of 67.75, which means her not-banned rate is 32.25. If we take 9.51 (her pick rate) divided by 32.25, we get 29.49, which is the percentage she is picked in games that she is not banned. Then, we throw that in OP's formula, and we get 15.24%, which is still lower than Thresh and Vayne.

Elise in this formula is 13.59%...also lower.

Thresh, once we find his "True pick rate" through OP's formula is 19.49%, and Vayne is 20.37%. So even though OP didn't take Elise and Shyvana into consideration, Thresh and Vayne are still higher. I didn't want to run the numbers for the other ones mentioned, but feel free to.

g07h4xf001 votes

{quoted}

Exactly, OP is not taking "pick or ban" champs into account. They are op but won't show up on his radar.

Who are the "pick or ban" champions? This varies depending on the league/division, whether or not you are playing normals/ranked, whether or not you are in the LCS or not in the LCS, etc. When you're playing SoloQ with strangers and have almost no information on anyone (though, you CAN look up your teammates during champ select for some info) you should probably rely on statistical averages for a lot of the ban decisions.

GroundRuleDouble1 votes

In your post that these replies stem off, you said "Plat+ Solo Queue." So that's what he was referring to. And the ban prison champs in Plat+ Solo Queue are Shyvana and Elise.

ChaoticPinecone2 votes

The one problem with your analysis:

The pickrate and winrate for highly banned champions. For example, Shyvana boasts a 68% ban rate in Plat+ games, and is still picked around 10% of the time. That means in the 32% of games she is available, she is picked about 1/3 of the time. If we extend this statistic to all games if she was never banned, she SHOULD have a 30% pick rate with a 52% winrate, edging out all champions except Thresh and Vayne. So its a current permaban that is justified.

Elise is the second highest, with a 60% ban rate. So in the 40% of games she is available, she is picked about 1/4 of the time, and wins 54%. If we do a similar analogy and guess the amount of times she would be picked if she was never banned, it would be 25% - still edging out all champions except Thresh and Vayne. So again, its a current permaban that is justified.

g07h4xf001 votes

{quoted}

The one problem with your analysis:

The pickrate and winrate for highly banned champions. For example, Shyvana boasts a 68% ban rate in Plat+ games, and is still picked around 10% of the time. That means in the 32% of games she is available, she is picked about 1/3 of the time. If we extend this statistic to all games if she was never banned, she SHOULD have a 30% pick rate with a 52% winrate, edging out all champions except Thresh and Vayne. So its a current permaban that is justified.

Elise is the second highest, with a 60% ban rate. So in the 40% of games she is available, she is picked about 1/4 of the time, and wins 54%. If we do a similar analogy and guess the amount of times she would be picked if she was never banned, it would be 25% - still edging out all champions except Thresh and Vayne. So again, its a current permaban that is justified.

Good point. Though, there's no real guarantee that IF Elise and Shyvana were banned less that they would be picked more, or that if they were picked more they would necessarily win more. There's a lot of speculation in there. High pick rates don't mean much if they come with really low win rates. Some champions (like Azir a perfect example) is considered to be one of the strongest mid laners but boasts a 44% (or around there) win rate in plat+ because players tend to pick him "just because" so you should expect that if any Azir is picked on any side, you should expect them to suck (unless you know they are a main).

LeonDemonOfDeath1 votes

{quoted}

Good point. Though, there's no real guarantee that IF Elise and Shyvana were banned less that they would be picked more, or that if they were picked more they would necessarily win more. There's a lot of speculation in there. High pick rates don't mean much if they come with really low win rates. Some champions (like Azir a perfect example) is considered to be one of the strongest mid laners but boasts a 44% (or around there) win rate in plat+ because players tend to pick him "just because" so you should expect that if any Azir is picked on any side, you should expect them to suck (unless you know they are a main).

I have literally gotten stomped by an Azir then still kicked his ass and won the game later because he didn't know what to do with the feed he got.

ChaoticPinecone1 votes

No, there is no guarantee. But its the closest statistic we have - in the games she is available, Elise is picked 25% of the time and has a 54% winrate. If we assume that the players are chosen randomly (big assumption thats not really true, but necessary for any kind of statistical analysis on observational studies like the original post is trying to make), there should be the same number of Elise players in the 40% of games she isnt banned compared to the 60% of games she is banned.

Sire Hippington2 votes

While i agree that winrate isolated is a bad indicator, winrate times pickrate isn't much better.

So thresh is part of 19.15% off all winning teams? Well, 19.97% off all loosing comps have a thresh in them... so in the end, it doesn't show us much other than winrate does... iT's a even worse indicator for champion power actually, cause while pickrate is a factor in some way, it doesn't say as much over the actuall power level than winrate while it's a bigger factor i your math as pickrates differ far more than winrates. A champion with 10% pickrate and 100% winrate would be less powerfull than a champ with a 80%pickrate and 20% winrate by your approach...

Winrate is the defining factor for power, however it usually is biased by many other factors, so it has to be seen in conjunktion with thos other influences.

Pickrate is a factor, mostly in that high pickrate correlates to lowers winrate and low pickrate increases winrate compared to what should be by raw power of the champ. A low pickrate champ usually does better cuase his enemies probably never face him and have no experience in that matchup. Chances are also that low pickrate champs fill a very specific niche and thus usually get used as counter picks vs certain strats/picks, which means they are mosly played in an enviroment they thrive in.

High pickrate champs how ever are well know, everyone probably has played vs thresh a couple of times and knows the matchup(probably also played as thresh, which helps even more at playing vs him) They also oftern get picked regardless of counterpicks, so they run into bad matchups for the sake of playing the FotM.

Also, as ChaoticPinecone explained, you have to see pickrate in corelation to ban rate.

Another important factot is winrate in comparison to player games with that champ, cause else high skill floor/cap champs would apear weak. Compareing winrates atr 125+games, so the winrates of mains does show how well those champions perform if used to their max potential(though still biased by pick-reate realted matchup experience, counterpicks etc) This however hets influenced by counterpicks. 'Mains' often pick their champ regardless off the matchup, so it can happen that mains have a worse winrate than people with less games on that champ. Sona for example has 53.2% win for players with 5-15 sona-games, but only a 52.2 winrate for players with 125+ sona games. This ofc also means winrates should be seperated for differnt elos, as their might be a difference in the skill required to play compared to the skill required to play against, leading to different winrates in different elos.

Another factor is how team-reliant a champ is, so in which style of teamcomp he works best. For example: Champions that are strong in pickcomps for usually have a worse performance in soloQ than in competetive 5v5, as pick comps need a high level off coordination than death-ball or siege comps.

Winrate based on gamelength compared to average gamelength is a factor aswell If all champions that have a high lategame winrate have a overall low winrate, maybe it is to hard to reach lategame. If all champs that have a strong lategame have a overall high winrate, maybe it's to hard to abuse a weak early and finish befor late(or the earlygame of all of them is to strong compared to their lategame power)

DJ Di01 votes

So, if my math is correct then only 2% of games won in Plat+ have a Sona in their comp?

g07h4xf003 votes

[{quoted}](name=DJ Di0,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=t2AaoIK4,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2015-08-13T21:07:40.386+0000)

So, if my math is correct then only 2% of games won in Plat+ have a Sona in their comp?

Basically, yes.

Let A = Sona was picked on the team. Let B = Team wins

Win rate of a champion is defined as proportion of times a team wins given that champion is on the team. If we say that Sona has a 52.33% win rate, that means that a team has a 52.33% win rate given that Sona is on it. Aka we say Sona's Win rate is P( B | A ) = 52.33%

The chance that a team wins AND it has a Sona on it is P( A & B ) which can be computed by P( B | A ) * P( A ) which is a champion's win rate TIMES their pick rate.

Therefore, if you ban Sona in champion select then you're banning against the 2% chance that Sona is picked and ALSO wins.

Sakura Mirage1 votes

Btw thresh needs that passive portion on his flay to be able to get his relic shield procs or else it is really tough to coordinate with your adc in solo queue. If you want all these irelia riven changed why don't you just changed their names to olafed like Jesus I can understand the third q not being able to jump over walls but the rest is just a gutting. Vayne is by no means a squishy killer compared to other's that build crit such as draven and graves. If you're going to nerf Janna at least make her abilities not cost more mana than her ult. Shortening jinx's range is just asking for her not to be a hypercarry anymore. Ahri needs that movespeed from her q to escape ganks pre 6 and honestly removing that would probably need some compensation like better mana costs early game and I know you hate spammable abilities Riven .

g07h4xf001 votes

{quoted}

Btw thresh needs that passive portion on his flay to be able to get his relic shield procs or else it is really tough to coordinate with your adc in solo queue. If you want all these irelia riven changed why don't you just changed their names to olafed like Jesus I can understand the third q not being able to jump over walls but the rest is just a gutting.

That's why I said these are IDEAS. Not all of them have to be implemented. Maybe some of them. Maybe just one of them. I've provided a sample buffet of all possible ways to improve / fix some of these champions. I just think SOMETHING should be done.

Vayne is by no means a squishy killer compared to other's that build crit such as draven and graves.

Are you suggesting that a Vayne with the same amount of gold as a Draven or Graves would lose a 1v1 against those champions, or any other champions? In late game it's definitely irrefutable that Vayne has the same (or more) crit, AD, and Attack Speed than most ADCs (ESPECIALLY) Draven and Graves so she can certainly melt non-tanky targets in a matter of hits.

If you're going to nerf Janna at least make her abilities not cost more mana than her ult.

Again, I'm just throwing out ideas. I actually like the way Janna is currently.

Shortening jinx's range is just asking for her not to be a hypercarry anymore.

She's a hypercarry because of her attackspeed steroids, ability to crit in an aoe/do magic damage, and an execute. The range of her Q rockets aren't that contributing of a factor for her hypercarry-ness. Again, I'm relatively fine with Jinx I'm just throwing out ideas in case people really can't stand her or thinks he needs a change.

Ahri needs that movespeed from her q to escape ganks pre 6 and honestly removing that would probably need some compensation like better mana costs early game and I know you hate spammable abilities Riven .

Again, I personally have no problem with Ahri but she is really strong right now and a lot of players really hate her. Just an idea.

LeonDemonOfDeath1 votes

{quoted}

That's why I said these are IDEAS. Not all of them have to be implemented. Maybe some of them. Maybe just one of them. I've provided a sample buffet of all possible ways to improve / fix some of these champions. I just think SOMETHING should be done.

Are you suggesting that a Vayne with the same amount of gold as a Draven or Graves would lose a 1v1 against those champions, or any other champions? In late game it's definitely irrefutable that Vayne has the same (or more) crit, AD, and Attack Speed than most ADCs (ESPECIALLY) Draven and Graves so she can certainly melt non-tanky targets in a matter of hits.

Again, I'm just throwing out ideas. I actually like the way Janna is currently.

She's a hypercarry because of her attackspeed steroids, ability to crit in an aoe/do magic damage, and an execute. The range of her Q rockets aren't that contributing of a factor for her hypercarry-ness. Again, I'm relatively fine with Jinx I'm just throwing out ideas in case people really can't stand her or thinks he needs a change.

Again, I personally have no problem with Ahri but she is really strong right now and a lot of players really hate her. Just an idea.

There's something called burst which both Graves and Draven have plenty of. Vayne should be dead before even proccing her silver bullets.

Nameless Voice1 votes

Thresh is ranged (and a top-tier support), I have no problem with him having a really hard time getting those Relic Shield procs.

g07h4xf001 votes

[{quoted}](name=Nameless Voice,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=t2AaoIK4,comment-id=00020001,timestamp=2015-08-13T21:56:19.734+0000)

Thresh is ranged (and a top-tier support), I have no problem with him having a really hard time getting those Relic Shield procs.

Exactly. The flay on-hit passive is so unnecessary it just makes him more annoying in general, doesn't really add depth or complexity it's just free stats.

Meep Man1 votes

This system seems a little leaning on play rate. A champion could have 50% play rate, but only win 40% of the time and that would make them have about a 1/7 of all games won have X champion on them. Just below Vayne. We should just stick with the "base it on how it looks" approach. If the champion has a low win rate, but super play rate, it is safe to assume the champion is harder for new people to play, but the general public believe the champion is OP and might be. If the champion has a high win % and play %, it means the champion is easy to play, easy to win with.

JustMyBassCannon1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Inept Maverick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=t2AaoIK4,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2015-08-14T01:39:12.455+0000)

If the champion has a high win % and play %, it means the champion is easy to play, easy to win with.

And/or powerful in the current meta

g07h4xf001 votes

[{quoted}](name=Inept Maverick,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=t2AaoIK4,comment-id=0009,timestamp=2015-08-14T01:39:12.455+0000)

This system seems a little leaning on play rate. A champion could have 50% play rate, but only win 40% of the time and that would make them have about a 1/7 of all games won have X champion on them. Just below Vayne. We should just stick with the "base it on how it looks" approach. If the champion has a low win rate, but super play rate, it is safe to assume the champion is harder for new people to play, but the general public believe the champion is OP and might be. If the champion has a high win % and play %, it means the champion is easy to play, easy to win with.

IT's a two-sided coin, right? A 40% win rate with a 50% pick rate also justifies a ban because you don't necessarily want someone on your team picking it (unless they main it and have abnormally high win rate with them).

Nine Ravens1 votes

I feel there's a significant flaw in your method - you aren't accounting for a champion's games lost. Let's examine your Thresh example - sure 19.15% of winning teams include a Thresh, but 19.97% of losing teams have one (51.04% loss rate.) More teams with Thresh lose than win. Why should you ban a champion that statistically will more likely lose than win? And Thresh is not alone in having a losing record among high pick-rate champions - as per champion.gg, seven of the top twenty most-picked champions have losing records.

Which is not to say that pick rate isn't important, since if you ban a champion nobody was going to play anyways it's effectively a wasted ban. For example, despite his high winrate of 53.48%, you probably shouldn't ban Galio because he is only picked in 0.39% of games - most likely nobody is going to play him in your game anyways.

The answer to "who should I ban?" is always going to be more complicated than any simple metric, and the one you're suggesting has serious flaws.

g07h4xf001 votes

[{quoted}](name=Nine Ravens,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=t2AaoIK4,comment-id=000c,timestamp=2015-08-14T09:02:18.348+0000)

I feel there's a significant flaw in your method - you aren't accounting for a champion's games lost. Let's examine your Thresh example - sure 19.15% of winning teams include a Thresh, but 19.97% of losing teams have one (51.04% loss rate.) More teams with Thresh lose than win. Why should you ban a champion that statistically will more likely lose than win? And Thresh is not alone in having a losing record among high pick-rate champions - as per champion.gg, seven of the top twenty most-picked champions have losing records.

Which is not to say that pick rate isn't important, since if you ban a champion nobody was going to play anyways it's effectively a wasted ban. For example, despite his high winrate of 53.48%, you probably shouldn't ban Galio because he is only picked in 0.39% of games - most likely nobody is going to play him in your game anyways.

The answer to "who should I ban?" is always going to be more complicated than any simple metric, and the one you're suggesting has serious flaws.

Again, you don't want champions that lose a lot to be on your team either so banning them it still beneficial. It's why TahmKench Bard Fiora saw periods of being banned.

ChaosThief1 votes

The thresh E passive though, good for AD thresh.

... In all honesty, making it %bonus AD and scaling the souls to it accordingly could be better, in my opinion.

Mr Broken Wings1 votes

If you check the statistics of riven you can actually see that she is underpowered, hilarious how he tries to argue for nerfs for her LOL. Riven has the HIGHEST games played per player number. That means the playerbase is the MOST experienced with their champion and she still only has slightly over 50% winrate. She isnt picked casually at all, why? Because she suckz if you dont waste 200 games on her to master her, and even then the winrate isnt good enough to justify learning her. You can play Irelia and hit the same winrate with 40 games on her for comparison, same lane, same role, still 10x easier to get elo with statistically. Typical silver board thread.

Linna Excel1 votes

Eh, I couldn't care about the popular champs in the game, and don't see the need to nerf them.

Why?

Because you nerf those champs and the champs that they were keeping out of the meta will move into that spot and people will beg for them to be nerfed. A few months later people will be QQing about how weak the nerfed champs are and then riot will have to buff them back up. Again.

techBoss1 votes

I came up with this formula as well. Win ratio * Pick ratio also gives you the highest value bans.

Sona Ping1 votes

{quoted}

I came up with this formula as well. Win ratio * Pick ratio also gives you the highest value bans.

Win Rate TIMES Pick Rate is more important than just Win Rate g07h4xf00 (NA) #submitted 4 years ago in Gameplay

The Iceborn1 votes

Reviving old threads that already had their time to shine is against Universal Rules and as such I will be locking this thread to make sure it lands at the bottom of the howling abyss. I would encourage looking at how old a thread is before commenting on it.

Should there be any questions regarding this action feel free to reach out in our Moderation Discord.

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 g07h4xf00

5.16 looks like literally one the dumbest patches in the history of the game (item change analysis).
Gameplay268 comments
358
votes
Why are Turrets so worthless?
Gameplay188 comments
195
votes
How To Make Any Champion Broken (Rito Game Balance New Employee Training)
Gameplay117 comments
148
votes
RIP Tanks (5.5-5.16)
Gameplay257 comments
127
votes
Tank Mains and AP/Mage Mains Need to Unite Against AD Oppressors
Gameplay82 comments
94
votes
Someone at Rito got PAID to Design this...
Gameplay20 comments
36
votes