|
On July 11 2015 04:30 Ritha wrote:
Do people still honestly think TLV are bad this patch? I waited a few extra days on top of the 7 it takes to hotslogs to roll over. My prediction (on page 3) appears to be true. Vikings went from gratuitously, ridiculously OP (58%+ win rate) to being close to balanced, but still a 52% win rate. Even with all those nerfs, they are still winning more games than they are losing. Compare, again, to Abathur the other big soak hero, who still has a 46% win rate.
I know hotslogs aren't perfect stats, but really. TLV have a >50% win rate at every MMR bracket except Bronze, which is to be expected. They are still one of the best heroes in the game.
They just went from being the best soakers in the game, godlike in team fights, great at split pushing, damage immunity+mobility, and not being punished as hard for dying as other heroes to being the best soakers in the game, and mediocre to good at everything else. Yeah, they look bad now if you compare them to the most op hero I had ever seen in a moba ever that they were pre-patch. But they are still amazing.
I think the issue with looking at the naked win/rate is that you aren't taking into account if the players playing the hero are exceptionally skilled at it.
LV went from being played - prepatch - around 7% of all games to around 3% of all games - which is the lowest in the game (as I remember it).
Given the mechanical entry barrier and skillcap of the hero its not unreasonable to expect that the type of people who play this hero are more dedicated to master it compared to wat you see from the average valla player (as a counterexample). E.g. if the average LV viking player is lvl 9 and the average Valla player is lvl 5, it should be clear that the win/rates cannot be directly compared.
The real question is what type of win/rate they would have had if they had invested the same amount of time into playing another hero.
We get a bit of an indication of that by only looking at the win/rate in master league where its in the bottom half (though the sample size is so low so the value of the data isn't very high).
But without any "advanced statistics" I think it makes more sense to look at whether they get pick/banned in competetive games as that is a more objective evaluation of their strenght. (even though their ofc might be a difference between soloq and competitive viability).
|
On July 12 2015 03:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2015 04:30 Ritha wrote:
Do people still honestly think TLV are bad this patch? I waited a few extra days on top of the 7 it takes to hotslogs to roll over. My prediction (on page 3) appears to be true. Vikings went from gratuitously, ridiculously OP (58%+ win rate) to being close to balanced, but still a 52% win rate. Even with all those nerfs, they are still winning more games than they are losing. Compare, again, to Abathur the other big soak hero, who still has a 46% win rate.
I know hotslogs aren't perfect stats, but really. TLV have a >50% win rate at every MMR bracket except Bronze, which is to be expected. They are still one of the best heroes in the game.
They just went from being the best soakers in the game, godlike in team fights, great at split pushing, damage immunity+mobility, and not being punished as hard for dying as other heroes to being the best soakers in the game, and mediocre to good at everything else. Yeah, they look bad now if you compare them to the most op hero I had ever seen in a moba ever that they were pre-patch. But they are still amazing. I think the issue with looking at the naked win/rate is that you aren't taking into account if the players playing the hero are exceptionally skilled at it. LV went from being played - prepatch - around 7% of all games to around 3% of all games - which is the lowest in the game (as I remember it). Given the mechanical entry barrier and skillcap of the hero its not unreasonable to expect that the type of people who play this hero are more dedicated to master it compared to wat you see from the average valla player (as a counterexample). E.g. if the average LV viking player is lvl 9 and the average Valla player is lvl 5, it should be clear that the win/rates cannot be directly compared. The real question is what type of win/rate they would have had if they had invested the same amount of time into playing another hero. We get a bit of an indication of that by only looking at the win/rate in master league where its in the bottom half (though the sample size is so low so the value of the data isn't very high). But without any "advanced statistics" I think it makes more sense to look at whether they get pick/banned in competetive games as that is a more objective evaluation of their strenght. (even though their ofc might be a difference between soloq and competitive viability).
The "only good players use him" thing is hard to really talk about when it comes to balance. But I will point out that Chen is played less than TLV, and has a 45ish% win rate. If you want to try to use the whole Master League play thing, he isn't in the bottom half. He is 18th, though he might have been 19th when you posted because they are close. So he is in the top half, but barely. So better than half the heros in the game.
Besides, if you want to go with the skilled player thing, they should be lower in standings as you go down in skill brackets. Which they aren't. They are near the top in win rate at Plat, Gold, Silver and Bronze. In fact, they seem to be better in low skilled games. Which I take to mean they aren't that hard to get to work, and it takes skilled opponents to shut them down from being one of the best heroes to being a solid middle choice.
So, despite nerfs, they are still top 10 in win rate in Bronze, Silver, Gold and Plat. They drop to the middle of the pack in Master. So... they are still a viable pick at Master, and a really strong pick at every other level of play?
|
The "only good players use him" thing is hard to really talk about when it comes to balance. But I will point out that Chen is played less than TLV, and has a 45ish% win rate.
Chen isn't unique in terms of mechanics. He is clearly played little due to him being relatively boring (no cc, no damage) + UP. But Vikings was played rarely even when they had 60% w/r.
Besides, if you want to go with the skilled player thing, they should be lower in standings as you go down in skill brackets. Which they aren't. They are near the top in win rate at Plat, Gold, Silver and Bronze.
I know where you getting at, but your are actually comparing apples to oranges here.
You need to think about is whether there are players who would be in higher leagues if they invested the same amount of time into a different hero. If they perform similarly with a level 5 Valla as with a level 9 LV, it's an indication of LV being too weak. The correct approach is to look at win/rates for a given amount of experience for each hero.
Without this statistic, the second best approach is to look at master league win/rate. The reason for that is that almost everyone in masters will have tons of experience will all the heros they play --> This makes the assymmetry less significant. Unfortunately, the sample size is way too low to get there.
As an actual example, Riven in League of Legends is a hero that attracts a "special type of player", and while the average win/rate for the champion is close to 50/50, the win/rate for people with less than 50 games with it is very low. But the average win/rate is inflated because Riven - on average - is played by people who has lots of experience with the champion.
LV is definitely a unique hero, and it's very unlikely that the playerbase is significantly different from that of other heroes. Therefore blindly beliving naked win/rates here is a huge mistake. Unfortunately, Blizzards balance department (read Starcraft) has a long track of not properly understanding the factors determining win/rates, which makes them too reliant on naked win/rates.
Thus, I expect LV to remain unviable in competititve play for a long time as it won't be buffed due to maintaining close to a 50% win/rate.
|
On July 10 2015 06:56 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2015 06:27 FeyFey wrote:
I love Blackhearts Bay leave it alone. The only map where you can play around with weird talents and still be able to win. It is the only map were I can take uppercut D: .
Of course, because it doesn't really matter which talents you get to clear the creeps and merc camps huehuehue. Now seriously, we really don't need PvE maps in this game.
goodbye sky temple then ? ;(
Don't even need to farm monsters there just tank em  .
|
On July 12 2015 05:38 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +The "only good players use him" thing is hard to really talk about when it comes to balance. But I will point out that Chen is played less than TLV, and has a 45ish% win rate. Chen isn't unique in terms of mechanics. He is clearly played little due to him being relatively boring (no cc, no damage) + UP. But Vikings was played rarely even when they had 60% w/r. Show nested quote +Besides, if you want to go with the skilled player thing, they should be lower in standings as you go down in skill brackets. Which they aren't. They are near the top in win rate at Plat, Gold, Silver and Bronze. I know where you getting at, but your are actually comparing apples to oranges here. You need to think about is whether there are players who would be in higher leagues if they invested the same amount of time into a different hero. If they perform similarly with a level 5 Valla as with a level 9 LV, it's an indication of LV being too weak. The correct approach is to look at win/rates for a given amount of experience for each hero. Without this statistic, the second best approach is to look at master league win/rate. The reason for that is that almost everyone in masters will have tons of experience will all the heros they play --> This makes the assymmetry less significant. Unfortunately, the sample size is way too low to get there. As an actual example, Riven in League of Legends is a hero that attracts a "special type of player", and while the average win/rate for the champion is close to 50/50, the win/rate for people with less than 50 games with it is very low. But the average win/rate is inflated because Riven - on average - is played by people who has lots of experience with the champion. LV is definitely a unique hero, and it's very unlikely that the playerbase is significantly different from that of other heroes. Therefore blindly beliving naked win/rates here is a huge mistake. Unfortunately, Blizzards balance department (read Starcraft) has a long track of not properly understanding the factors determining win/rates, which makes them too reliant on naked win/rates. Thus, I expect LV to remain unviable in competititve play for a long time as it won't be buffed due to maintaining close to a 50% win/rate.
Going with statistics win rate corrected for MMR is the most logical way to gauge winrates of a hero. Ie you do a logistic regression of the heroes and MMR onto winrate and then you get the winrate for heroes corrected for MMR, this is what blizzard does. Hotslogs could also provide this data with it's own mmr but doesn't and i guess it's a bit cumbersome perhaps.
Even with such analysis the statistics don't neccesarily say much, there can be tons of reasons why correlation does not mean much, for example a hero can be very niche so that when he's picked he excels and the other times he just isn't picked. Or a hero can be fine but 'second best' in a role for example the second best healer or tank meaning he's up against the best healer/tank most of the time.
Another important influence on heroes winrate is the draft format. Drafting itself sort of autobalances heroes and makes the information muddled. For example assume there are 3 heroes that dominate far above the rest. One of these is the best and is usually picked first, however the other 2 are almost always picked by the other team then and give their team an advantage. In that case the best hero of the game could just have bad winrates. Of course such an example is highly theoretical but there are so many things that could cause winrate not to mean anything that it's foolish to look too much into them.
I heard there are cases I believe in LoL where a hero was buffed in patch notes but the exact change was actually not implemented because it was forgotten. Still the hero changed quite a bit in winrates showing how much of it is just perception. For the unpopular heroes the winrates are especially unreliable, because the reasons they are picked are so different. Some unpopular heroes may be picked more because only great players rely on them and want to test them out while others are mostly picked by afk picks (this number makes up a relatively large portion of the plays for very unpopular heroes). Coupled of course with the fact that the variance on low sample sizes is large.
I'm a statistician but I find the statistics on the heroes on hotslogs to be nearly useless as balance goes, for balance I think pro player opinion and pick/ban information from tournaments is more useful than general information. Of course you do have heroes that are never a problem in high level play but they feel they need to tone down anyway for the public. Thrall, the recent Anub'arak and Brightwing are examples of these, Thrall wasn't even played in competitive games when he was 'broken', Anub'arak was decently popular last patch but 3rd/4th warrior and Brightwing was popular but not clear #1 support as she was in pubs.
Zuna's tierlist always seems quite reasonable to me. I disagree with some stuff like azmodan being weaker and murky and nazeebo being better than he thinks but overall it seems solid.
|
On July 12 2015 08:38 FeyFey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2015 06:56 Ramiz1989 wrote:On July 10 2015 06:27 FeyFey wrote:
I love Blackhearts Bay leave it alone. The only map where you can play around with weird talents and still be able to win. It is the only map were I can take uppercut D: .
Of course, because it doesn't really matter which talents you get to clear the creeps and merc camps huehuehue. Now seriously, we really don't need PvE maps in this game. goodbye sky temple then ? ;( Don't even need to farm monsters there just tank em .
But Sky Temple has a lot of interactions between players when it comes to fighting for the Temple or for the Boss and map is designed that way that you will have a lot of fights.
BHB on the other hand... you can PvE all day every day there.
|
I'm loving the new Malf. I like going Moonfire at 1, Elune's Grace at 4 and then ideally Regrowth at 7 but sometimes need Cleanse or Mule. With Moonfire and Elunes combo at 1/4 he becomes an absurdly good waveclear.
|
Going with statistics win rate corrected for MMR is the most logical way to gauge winrates of a hero. Ie you do a logistic regression of the heroes and MMR onto winrate and then you get the winrate for heroes corrected for MMR, this is what blizzard does.
A proper regression analysis - intended to estimate the win/rate whenever a player picks Hero X - would contain at least the following two explanatory variables:
Explanatory variable 1: Hypothetical MMR that excludes games played by Hero X
Explanatory variable 2: Amount of games the player has played with Hero X
Technical explanations (note: won't be easy to understand)
The hypothetical MMR will depend on 3 factors:
(1) His average MMR (indirectly)
(2) How well he has performed with the non-Zera heroes
(3) How many games he has played with non-Zera heroes
Example
- Player Y loads a game as Zeratul
- He is level 13 with Zeratul
- Has no other hero above level 5
If the hypothetical MMR had not excluded his MMR gained by playing Hero the regression analysis would "double-count" as it would ignore that one of the reasons for him being high MMR in the first place was due to playing a lot of games with Zeratul. This is problematic as he then would get a second boost to the estimated win/rate from the second explanatory variable
When you remove games played by Zeratul, his MMR will likely be relatively low. However, the proper way to calculate this MMR isn't that simple. Instead, this is how it should be done:
Non-Zera MMR = MMR with the other heroes that he would have had if had played the other heroes an average amount of games.
This "average" will depend on his MMR/skill-level. So if he is rank 1, the average amount of games for a hero might be 40-50 while if he was rank 30 it might be 15-20.
Final remarks
After you have made these estimations, you can then calculate the estimated win/rate and compare it to the actual win/rate. If estimated win/rate <> actual win/rate, it's a sign that there might be a balance problem. Next you can start to filter for compositions and maps to see whether irrational draft picks can explain the assymetry.
|
Butcher + Diablo is one scary as shit gank squad. Pretty much everyone gets killed by it. Later on, Apocalypse and Butcher's charge play well off each other.
|
On July 15 2015 15:15 xDaunt wrote:
Butcher + Diablo is one scary as shit gank squad. Pretty much everyone gets killed by it. Later on, Apocalypse and Butcher's charge play well off each other.
I still love Butcher + Tyrande more. Tempo Storm were using it on few occasions and before that me and my friend tried it and haven't lost a game with it.
EDIT: And we have witnessed Butcher + Diablo in one of our Butcher + Tyranda games and we have absolutely destroyed them. It's not a bad combo, but 2 melees without escape mechanic(even though they are tanky) can backfire. You can be body-blocked, you body-block each other and it is easy for every AoE to get both of you. Now I am pretty sure that it is a lot different to play this on very high level, but just stating my experience with 2 melee gankers.
|
|
|
keep dreaming.. its gonna be Artanis
|
what Heroes should I get for Hero League? atm I have:
-BW
-Zagara
-Valla
-TLV
-Tyrael
-Arthas
I know I'd need more supports for sure (I like Rehgar), I also liked playing Jaina and Zeratul.
|
On July 16 2015 02:21 Ej_ wrote:
what Heroes should I get for Hero League? atm I have:
-BW
-Zagara
-Valla
-TLV
-Tyrael
-Arthas
I know I'd need more supports for sure (I like Rehgar), I also liked playing Jaina and Zeratul.
The 3 you mentioned are pretty good picks. Jaina and Zeratul are really common bans in pro matches and get played a lot in HL. Malfurion is the best healer in the game right now, but Rehgar isn't bad by any means.
I'd also recommend Sylvanas, just because I play and love her to bits. Raynor can also be played very effectively with a good team (this may surprise some people, but his sustain build is actually really good).
|
On July 16 2015 02:21 Ej_ wrote:
what Heroes should I get for Hero League? atm I have:
-BW
-Zagara
-Valla
-TLV
-Tyrael
-Arthas
I know I'd need more supports for sure (I like Rehgar), I also liked playing Jaina and Zeratul.
Looks like you need 4 more. One of Uther/Rehgar and Malfurion are must adds (frankly, you should have all three). For the remaining two, you have some flexibility. Jaina would be a good addition because you need more ranged damage. Adding another tank -- like Muradin or Johanna -- would also be a good idea to round out your roster. I'd also consider adding someone like Tychus to give you another ranged DPS in case Valla is unavailable.
|
On July 16 2015 02:21 Ej_ wrote:
what Heroes should I get for Hero League? atm I have:
-BW
-Zagara
-Valla
-TLV
-Tyrael
-Arthas
I know I'd need more supports for sure (I like Rehgar), I also liked playing Jaina and Zeratul.
For strong tanks you can add Muradin (2k) and/or Anub'Arak (4k).
Healer wise get Malfurion (2k) and Uther or Rehgar (7k) (or Li Li for 2k if you're short on gold).
Jaina and Zeratul are both solid picks, do keep in mind Zeratul is hard to play and relies heavily on solid Void Prison placements.
|
So Zeratul is bound to get nerfed soon. Even if his hots dogs win% is just a shade above 50% we all know that in the hands of a really competent player he is a game changer. Personally I'd like to see his utility stay the same (in other words VP) but probably lower his damage. Since Focused Attacks got a flat buff last patch that seems like the main issue throwing him out of balance. Maybe introduce a nerfed version of Focused Attacks for Zeratul which gives like 50% instead of 75%. Basically make it so he isn't not only the best player killer in the game and not simultaneously one of the best team fight pace dictators in the game.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
I'm really sad because Zeratul will get nerfed and he probably doesn't deserve iT. What's wrong with having an impact on the game if you play good? What's wrong with having a hero that rewards skill? Also he isn't even imbalanced imo, he is just a good designed hero his is a versatile assassin with an excellent heroic. Frankly the problem is people don't really know how to play agaisnt heroes like him, and his winrate isn't even that great as you point out. If anything heroes should be buffed and nerfed to be around the level zeratul is
|
On July 16 2015 05:05 [Phantom] wrote:
I'm really sad because Zeratul will get nerfed and he probably doesn't deserve iT. What's wrong with having an impact on the game if you play good? What's wrong with having a hero that rewards skill? Also he isn't even imbalanced imo, he is just a good designed hero his is a versatile assassin with an excellent heroic. Frankly the problem is people don't really know how to play agaisnt heroes like him, and his winrate isn't even that great as you point out. If anything heroes should be buffed and nerfed to be around the level zeratul is
It's not wrong to have impact on the game if you play good, it's wrong to have much much higher impact in the game than most of other heroes if you play them equally well.
He isn't good designed hero when he has almost everything, damage, burst, utility, multiple escape mechanics, even some sort of sustain and you are almost always invisible. I am not even talking about pub perspective, Nova is also amazing pub hero too... but just when you take a look at his kit you understand how he is too strong.
If all heroes would've been buffed to the Zeratul level then we would have too much shit in the game and the game would become way too much frustrating to play(as it is very frustrating to play against competent Zeratul).
|
On July 16 2015 04:49 Tenks wrote:
So Zeratul is bound to get nerfed soon. Even if his hots dogs win% is just a shade above 50% we all know that in the hands of a really competent player he is a game changer. Personally I'd like to see his utility stay the same (in other words VP) but probably lower his damage. Since Focused Attacks got a flat buff last patch that seems like the main issue throwing him out of balance. Maybe introduce a nerfed version of Focused Attacks for Zeratul which gives like 50% instead of 75%. Basically make it so he isn't not only the best player killer in the game and not simultaneously one of the best team fight pace dictators in the game.
I don't know, it's the perfect example of a game very good at high level play but not so special in most pubs. Things like vision control and combo enablers just don't do as much without voicechat / coordinated teams.
Also he isn't that super highly regarded either amongst pro's to be a problem yet. He is quite popular and often banned but you also see plenty of times where he goes by without a ban or pick. Since there isn't much complaining about him I don't think he'll get a nerf soon.
As for the nerfed version of focused attacks, that's what Zeratul used to have and it was never picked. Although I do believe focussed attacks was weird at the time that attacking more increased the cooldown on it instead of decreasing it. It is kind of a shame though how he went from having lots of builds to just 1 build again with only some variation at lvl 1 basically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
