Boards›Gameplay

What we have learned from Worlds so far

Lugg··5 votes·2,387 views

Gangplank Most banned champion at 45 games. 100% win rate at 4-0. Needs more nerfs. Mordekaiser Had 1 less ban than GP. 100% win rate at 4-0. Stupidly broken right now. Needs reworked. Lulu 29 bans, 16 picks, went 8-8. 50% win rate when played by teams that aren't even the best on her. Probably needs nerfing. Azir 22 bans, 11 picks, 73% win rate. Still way too strong, needs nerfs/rework. Elise Was pick/ban. 17 bans, 30 picks (tied for 1st), 63% win rate. Needs more nerfs. RekSai 16 bans, 18 picks, went 9-9. Still very strong. Kalista 14 bans, 20 picks, 40% win rate. Surprised by this one. She looks like she is pretty close to balanced now. TwistedFate 12 bans, 10 picks, 70% win rate. Very strong, needs a nerf since he was banned away from the best TF players. Darius 11 bans, 30 picks, 57% win rate. High win rate even with teams building against him. Definitely needs nerfing. LeeSin 9 bans, 14 picks, went 7-7. Still as strong as ever. TahmKench 8 bans, 5 picks, lost 1 game. Players are discovering how OP he is. Definitely needs nerfs. Veigar 7 bans, 4 picks, won 1 game. As expected, Veigar is fine, no changes needed. Thresh 6 bans, 21 picks, 52% win rate. Still very strong as always. Gragas 4 bans, 20 picks, 45% win rate. Strong but pretty balanced it seems. Leblanc 3 bans, 6 picks, 67% win rate. OP as always when smart picked. Jinx 1 ban, 20 picks, 60% win rate. OP as always. Needs actual nerfs. Kennen 1 ban, 11 picks, 64% win rate. Super strong in teamfights due to the AoE stun. Probably needs a nerf. Shen 1 ban, 5 picks, 100% win rate. Very strong. Looks like he may have been overbuffed.

All other champs were either played to little to be able to draw anything from it or their numbers were pretty normal. I was surprised that Tristana and Vayne had low win rates.

65 Comments

EndlessSorcerer25 votes

What has been reaffirmed by Worlds: People are sheep and demand nerfs to champions by their mere presence in a competitive game.

Juggernaut6289 votes

{quoted}

What has been reaffirmed by Worlds: People are sheep and demand nerfs to champions by their mere presence in a competitive competition.

Incarnati0nn plays Veigar once... "Better nerf Veigar"

ChargeItDownMid3 votes

[deleted]

XaviorZeroBlazer2 votes

who was asking for a tf nerf?

DrNova1 votes

Right? XD

Lugg1 votes

I guess a 70% win rate is underpowered. Wake up.

XaviorZeroBlazer3 votes

at worlds, and no where else

Lugg1 votes

Yeah, let's completely ignore the fact that TF mains in Plat + have a 56% win rate. He has a 52% rate overall.

XaviorZeroBlazer2 votes

both of which are numbers that are average, and no where near 70%

Lugg1 votes

50% is average. Anytime a champion gets 55% or above, they are probably OP.

XaviorZeroBlazer2 votes

I can no longer tell how much of your post is genuine or just supper high level bait.

Lugg1 votes

If you don't think pros pick champs because they are strong/OP, you honestly have no understanding of this game at all.

Malix Farwin5 votes

{quoted}

If you don't think pros pick champs because they are strong/OP, you honestly have no understanding of this game at all.

try playing those champs in soloqueue and watch you get smashed. The thing is those people are playing those champs because they have had time to practice them with their own team and know the ins and outs on how they would synergize with them. That is the key reason that LCS is not a good balancing metric.

Lugg1 votes

The champs that are wrecking at Worlds for the most part are the same ones wrecking solo q.

EndlessSorcerer5 votes

Pros are playing the game competitively to earn a living; of course they are going to do what they believe gives them the best chance of victory.

However, high-tier play and organized teams is entirely different situation than solo-queue. While the champions may be strong in a competitive 5v5 environment at the highest level of play, that doesn't necessarily affect their balance in solo-queue.

Differences in player skill, communication, strategies, and meta greatly affect champions' power at every level of play. While champions such as Master Yi and Katarina may excel at lower levels of play where people don't know how to play around them, versatile champions and those capable of applying map pressure with proper coordination may excel at higher levels of play.

Abyssphere3 votes

{quoted}

If you don't think pros pick champs because they are strong/OP, you honestly have no understanding of this game at all.

I think the point is that the pros have to pick someone. A fair bunch of the champions in your list could do with nerfs, because they are exceedingly popular, but on the other hand you have a lot of "Was picked five times and did well, probably needs a nerf" choices here. You have to question why you're actually nerfing, particularly for someone like Kennen where you seem to have jumped to a harsh conclusion very quickly. He's done very well but his pick rate is still moderate and he was unseen until very recently - how can you be sure he's not just a random FOTM who'll pass? And while he's strong, has he actually done anything unfair?

Nerfing stuff just because they're proven to be decent is (and I don't mean any offense in this) very shortsighted balancing. When it gets to the stage where you're nerfing people just for showing up at a decent number of games in a single event, with no other supporting evidence of strength, you're pretty much admitting to yourself that you're just never going to stop nerfing champions. And that should ring alarm bells - you're just playing whack-a-mole and that isn't how you should balance.

WookieJesuz13 votes

You plan on nerfing 15+ champions because they were played in worlds? Some of those I agree, but comon..... just because played doesn't mean op.

ModAttysu The Poro8 votes

Just because PROFESSIONALS play a champion, making team comps around it and knowing how to work around basic soloq problems like communication, people assume any champ doing well during Worlds should be nerfed. Even Mordekaiser got nerfed, the only reason he's so OP is because they're a patch behind, the patch before all the balancing and nerfs for juggernauts came in.

Lugg1 votes

The nerfs were pretty minor and those champs are ridiculously OP. To say otherwise is just plain silly.

ModAttysu The Poro2 votes

I haven't seen Mordekaiser since the nerf, so I dunno what you're talkin about. Also, they are professionals. This is their job. Of course they're gonna do well on good/great champions, it doesn't make them OP.

Lugg1 votes

You don't see Morde because he is perma ban. If I was a Morde main, I would be BEGGING for nerfs so I could play my champ.

ModAttysu The Poro2 votes

He's never banned in my ranked games, and I never see him in normal drafts or teambuilder either. O-o

Kaelnor4 votes

[deleted]

lofi n chillhop3 votes

additionally, the pro meta is not the same as solo queue or even sub-pro team meta. some champs are OP in bronze, some are OP in high-elo solo que, some are OP in pro play, and some are OP in high-elo not-pro team play. ideally riot games would work on balancing all levels of play. for example maokai was recently nerfed because he was dominating pro play, but his play everywhere else was actually quite fair and normal and didn't really stand out.

Kaelnor1 votes

Right it's not even the same at all in general. That's why I don't see the point in worrying over worlds, unless your favorite team lost

Unlucky Number74 votes

the sample size is way too low to draw any conclusive data from it. The only info you can gleam from this is which champions pros like to play.

Lugg1 votes

I disagree. The games here are played at the highest level, so the data is much more relevant. A small sample size at this level is worth 100 games at a low level.

Unlucky Number72 votes

{quoted}

I disagree. The games here are played at the highest level, so the data is much more relevant. A small sample size at this level is worth 100 games at a low level.

that's not how sample size works.

what you're saying is akin to saying

"since four percent of children play dungeons and dragons, and four percent of adults play dungeons and dragons, then the percentage of people who play dungeons and dragons is eight percent."

Lugg1 votes

Clearly you have missed the concept.

Let's say you are wanting to test something. You are saying it's better to go off of the research of the average joe on the street rather than going to Mensa and getting it tested by geniuses.

Seeing how professions do is MUCH more relevant than seeing what joe smo does.

Unlucky Number72 votes

{quoted}

Clearly you have missed the concept.

Let's say you are wanting to test something. You are saying it's better to go off of the research of the average joe on the street rather than going to Mensa and getting it tested by geniuses.

Seeing how professions do is MUCH more relevant than seeing what joe smo does.

it depends on what you are testing on. if you are testing on the time it takes the average person to solve a puzzle then why are u testing a member of mensa.

and if you want to test how well the full potential of a champion does against other champions played at their full potential then my original point still point still stands. The sample size is too small. only 49 games have been played at worlds so far. almost any data gleamed from such a small number is statistically inconsequential. And you admitted yourself that not every worlds team plays at the same skill level.

{quoted}

Well let's be fair. That game was basically a Challenger team facing a Platinum team.

Lugg1 votes

The title of my thread was so far. I am interested to see if these trends continue thru the bracket stage. If so, the sample size will definitely be big enough to validate my arguments.

Unlucky Number72 votes

{quoted}

The title of my thread was so far. I am interested to see if these trends continue thru the bracket stage. If so, the sample size will definitely be big enough to validate my arguments.

again, sample size does not work that way.

the quarter finals will give us 21 to 35 more games to watch. within the 70 to 84 games that will be played at worlds an individual champion may be played a maximun of about 20 times. The win loss ratio resulting from such a minuscule sample size cannot provide any useful data because it's small enough to be polluted by other factors such as

1). a champion is played in different roles 2). gold inequality between champions and teams 3). the champion doesn't fit his current teams composition 4). the champion does poorly against the opposing team's composition 5). one team's strategy and shot calling was superior

and most importantly

6). being played by people of different skill levels,

Even at Worlds champions are not always played to their full potential. Ask any Darius main here and they'll tell you that they thought that they felt some Darius plays were lacking.

The only data we can reliably get from worlds is 1). which champions are PERCEIVED to be strong during the 5.18 patch. 2). which League of legends team is the strongest team in the world 3). which champions the pros have been practicing the most on. 4). and how diverse the number of viable champions are. 5). the overall skill level of the players and teams that attended worlds.

and you've already drawn conclusions from data the you yourself now admit to be insufficient. sigh remember in the 2004 presidential election between George W. Bush jr and Al Gore? remember how they f***ed up the election by reporting on the polls before they were finished. That's kinda like what you're doing.

come back when the pros play over 100 games against each other on a single patch, or you've taken a statistics class. Whichever one comes first.

Lugg1 votes

What you are missing is that every one of those pros has played HUNDREDS of games on those champs. So the skill level of the players will be very close to each other. Since they have played so many games, and the fact that this is professional play, don't you think they will take the strongest champion for the game and the champs will be played at the highest level on average?

Like I said, this is some of the best data you can look at due to it being an infinitely better control group than can ever be had in solo queue. The variables that can throw off the data is at it's absolute lowest. That's why I said 1 game at Worlds is worth 100 games in solo q.

While Worlds is still going on, there are some definite trends that have come out. To ignore them is just plain silly.

Unlucky Number73 votes

{quoted}

Like I said, this is some of the best data you can look at due to it being an infinitely better control group than can ever be had in solo queue. The variables that can throw off the data is at it's absolute lowest. That's why I said 1 game at Worlds is worth 100 games in solo q.

SAMPLE. SIZE. DOES. NOT. WORK. THAT. WAY!!!!

you cannot just multiply the number of games because it it just so happens that everyone in the sample size meet the requirement for the test. You exclude outliers because they do not fit the requirements for the the experiment. and what we got is what we got. 70 to 84 games with an individual champion being played maybe a maximum a 20 times. any useful data that comes out of this is either overly specific or complete conjecture.

let me give this a shot

Azir 22 bans, 11 picks, 49 total games

world's data pick/ban rate 67% (33/49) data: pros highly value this strong champion. he must have something that pros want.

champion data Azir a highly difficult zone control mage that is has decent mobility, damage, and safety.

therefore pros do not care about a champion's difficulty, they value zone control, moblity, damage and safety from a mid laner.

win rate 73% (8 /11) data this champion won 73% of the game he participated in. this champion won 16% (8/49) of all worlds games so far

data: this is his winrate.

other important information that we don't have azir's typical gold advantage over champion before laning phase ends azir's damage done to champions azir's average kill participation

now if you were to look at lol king's data points

Azir mid

popularity; bronze 4.9 % silver 5.2 % gold 5.7 % platinum 5.7 % diamond 6.0 %

conclusion: azir remains an unpopular pick through all tiers of play. he's and unpopular champion. something must be keeping players from picking him up. However as the level of play increases his play rate increases. This is consistent with high skill floor and high ceiling champions. azir must be a highly difficult champion to master and that difficulty turns off most players.

win rate; bronze 43.1 % silver 42.7 % gold 42.0 % platinum 41.4 % diamond 40.9 %

conclusion: azir's winrate decreases as the level of play increases. this suggest that while players get better at playing azire, other players are getting better at playing against azir players at a faster rate. It can also suggest that as the level of play increases the mid laner is pressured to adopt more difficult champions that they do not yet know how to use well.

ban rate; bronze 1.4 % silver 1.5 % gold 1.7 % platinum 1.7 % diamond 1.8 %

conclusion: azir is not banned often. he must be not very frustrating to play against, too mechanically weak to be worth a ban, or presumed that no one on the enemy team plays him. Last one is a safe assumption giving azir's low popularity. However azir's ban rate increases with level of play. This suggest that players expect to see more azir as level of play increases.

win rate as a function of time

the longer the game goes the more likely it is for azir to win.

conclusion: azir scales well with items.

we can then compare this data with the world's data. one does not invalidate the other.

azir has a higher winrate in the lcs and worlds then in solo q.

conclusion: pro players might practice with azir more. corollary: people who practice azir more tend to go pro.

azir has a higher ban rate and pick rate in the lcs and worlds

conclustion: azir has a higher ban rate because he is a more popular champion here then in soloq.

azir has won 73 % of the games he participated in worlds

conclusion: inconclusive data. he was only picked in 11 of the 49 games. i was able to draw a tentativve conclusion from pick/ban rate because those are compose of 33 of the 49 games, and because those are final vectors. The only variables that go into pick/ban rate are the pro's perception of the game. there are a multitude of different variables that can and do effect win rate

if you notice you still can't extrapolate much useful data on champion balance even with this. stop pretending that champion balance is easier than it is.

{quoted}

What you are missing is that every one of those pros has played HUNDREDS of games on those champs. So the skill level of the players will be very close to each other. Since they have played so many games, and the fact that this is professional play, don't you think they will take the strongest champion for the game and the champs will be played at the highest level on average?

we all know that the skill of the teams at worlds is not close to each other. if it were then there wouldn't be favorites to win. If your goal was to compare champions that are played at their very best then you're bound to fail because the ideal lab conditions do not exists.

{quoted} While Worlds is still going on, there are some definite trends that have come out. To ignore them is just plain silly.

no one said anything about ignoring the outcome, but any extrapolation on champion balance that can be gained from worlds is flimsy at best. you said it yourself, these are "trends." trends are not discernible data points. And to top it off you're basing your balancing stance on a champions win/lose ratio which is already the most unreliable statistic to balance around.

Lugg1 votes

[{quoted}](name=Unlucky Number7,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=u69EKmcP,comment-id=000900000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-10-14T15:55:27.589+0000)

SAMPLE. SIZE. DOES. NOT. WORK. THAT. WAY!!!!

You clearly have no understanding of sample quality which is WAY more important that size.

this champion won 16% (8/49) of all worlds games so far

Honestly, what does this have to do with anything? That is a completely meaningless stat you just threw in.

other important information that we don't have

Which is why we have to go with the data we do have.

conclusion: azir remains an unpopular pick through all tiers of play.

Due solely to his difficulty in playing him, not his power level.

win rate; bronze 43.1 % silver 42.7 % gold 42.0 % platinum 41.4 % diamond 40.9 %

conclusion: azir's winrate decreases as the level of play increases. this suggest that while players get better at playing azire, other players are getting better at playing against azir players at a faster rate. It can also suggest that as the level of play increases the mid laner is pressured to adopt more difficult champions that they do not yet know how to use well.

I like how you CONVENIENTLY left off his 67% win rate in Challenger since it doesn't fit your hypothesis.

conclusion: azir is not banned often. he must be not very frustrating to play against, too mechanically weak to be worth a ban, or presumed that no one on the enemy team plays him. Last one is a safe assumption giving azir's low popularity. However azir's ban rate increases with level of play. This suggest that players expect to see more azir as level of play increases.

Azir isn't banned often because the chance of you facing someone really good with him is very low. So people ban out strong champs that are likely to be played. And while that number make look low, he was banned more than 81 champs.

conclusion: pro players might practice with azir more. corollary: people who practice azir more tend to go pro.

No, players who practice with Azir more, win more.

azir has won 73 % of the games he participated in worlds

conclusion: inconclusive data. he was only picked in 11 of the 49 games. i was able to draw a tentativve conclusion from pick/ban rate because those are compose of 33 of the 49 games, and because those are final vectors.

You are failing to consider that he was banned in 22 games because there was a much higher chance of him winning those games. So his win rate would have been even higher without those bans.

if you notice you still can't extrapolate much useful data on champion balance even with this. stop pretending that champion balance is easier than it is.

While champion balance isn't easy, I think you are actually making it harder than it is. When a player is banned, it's due to the perception of power. This perception comes from experience having to face that champion. So it's a very good gauge of how strong they are. High pick rates and win rates are also proof that a champion is probably too strong.

we all know that the skill of the teams at worlds is not close to each other.

Yet another facepalm.

no one said anything about ignoring the outcome, but any extrapolation on champion balance that can be gained from worlds is flimsy at best. you said it yourself, these are "trends." trends are not discernible data points. And to top it off you're basing your balancing stance on a champions win/lose ratio which is already the most unreliable statistic to balance around.

I based it off of win/loss, picks, and bans. When you use all of them, you get a much clearer and more accurate picture of whether a champ is balanced or OP. Once again, Worlds provides a good control group for this.

I understand where you are coming from, but the logic behind it is flawed.

Mr Broken Wings4 votes

Lulu is just good in coordinated play, not in soloque for example. I told you once to stop with your balance threads, and Ill do it again. Please, for the love of god, stop making balance threads.

Lugg1 votes

Lulu is great in solo q if you play her well. Saying she is only viable in coordinated play is kind of laughable.

It's remarks like these that give you pretty much zero credibility on balance issues. So I really don't worry about your opinion.

Gigahappytown3 votes

>because worlds/lcs play a the same skill level and coordination as solo quere players.

Lugg1 votes

How often do you see the same moves and tactics used in solo q after it is successfully used at the pro level?

The answer is quite often since a lot of players are smart enough to see what works and incorporate it into their game. (I'm talking Plat plus here)

That is why seeing the results at Worlds is so important. It allows you to see the true power of champions.

Unlucky Number73 votes

{quoted}

How often do you see the same moves and tactics used in solo q after it is successfully used at the pro level?

The answer is quite often since a lot of players are smart enough to see what works and incorporate it into their game. (I'm talking Plat plus here)

That is why seeing the results at Worlds is so important. It allows you to see the true power of champions.

yeah. i'm sure mid olaf will take off eventually just because faker did it once in the group stages.

Enosetc2 votes

there's a huge difference between using data from worlds to assess a champion's strengths and weaknesses and just gauging a champion's strengths and weaknesses on the most volatile part of a tournament

when people try to argue that "pick/win rate mean nothing", it's mostly because of people who do exactly what you're doing right now

Lugg1 votes

Champions are banned because they give the other team the best chance of winning the game. This means that a team recognizes how strong that champion is. Picks are champions that give the team the best chance of winning. Why would you ever pick a champion that isn't the strongest for the situation? While you may pick a lesser played champions to throw the enemy team a curveball, you will still pick a strong one.

Enosetc2 votes

{quoted}

Champions are banned because they give the other team the best chance of winning the game. This means that a team recognizes how strong that champion is. Picks are champions that give the team the best chance of winning. Why would you ever pick a champion that isn't the strongest for the situation? While you may pick a lesser played champions to throw the enemy team a curveball, you will still pick a strong one.

you're basing your data off of the pickrates and winrates of games played where some of the strongest teams in the world faced off against some of the weakest

if you're gonna go full sheep, at least wait for data when the games are a little more even

Lugg1 votes

{quoted}

some of the strongest teams in the world faced off against some of the weakest

You just lost all credibility with that statement. It's WORLDS! All the BEST teams from around the globe are competing. Other than BKT, to say they are weak is absolutely laughable.

https://media.giphy.com/media/sYouWihaF0WY0/giphy.gif

Enosetc3 votes

{quoted}

You just lost all credibility with that statement.

like anyone cares about if some bronze 5 armchair competitive analyst gives them credibility lmao

Lugg1 votes

Well you should since you have been getting destroyed by one.

Binxy Prime2 votes

You dont factor in that some of the teams that won with these champs are just better at the game, I agree with Mordekaiser, and I could maybe get behind a gp nerf, although I don't think he is as bad in solo q, but every champ with a good win rate at worlds doesn't need a nerf.

Lugg1 votes

EVERYONE at Worlds is better at the game. That's why they are at Worlds.

This is just once again showing what champs are, and have been, OP. It's just that people want to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the problems.

Unlucky Number72 votes

what he is saying is some teams at worlds is better the other teams at worlds. technically tsm and SKT 1 are in the same league but no one expects tsm to take a win from SKT1

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 Lugg

Lee Sin needs a major nerf
Gameplay245 comments
199
votes
This was pretty damn funny
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous37 comments
176
votes
Players trying to imitate what they see at Worlds
[ARCHIVED] Miscellaneous26 comments
104
votes
Loving these "BUFF FIORA" threads
Gameplay169 comments
93
votes
Congrats to SKT, Season 5 World Champions
Esports122 comments
71
votes
Project: Ashe needs reworked
Gameplay45 comments
61
votes