EPTxin "stomped" competitive then he got nerfed. he doesnt "stomp" solo queue now either, rarely played and the fact that he can snowball when fed doesmt mean much because so does nearly every other champ
[Patch 3.12] (j/k) Jinx General Discussion - Page 288
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
xin "stomped" competitive then he got nerfed. he doesnt "stomp" solo queue now either, rarely played and the fact that he can snowball when fed doesmt mean much because so does nearly every other champ | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:11 Slayer91 wrote: i havent seen xin (unless im playing him) or trynd in ages in solo queuer not since diamond was super popular for his jungle xin which did very well might i add untl they NERFED him for that reason rammus is very rarely played so it might be difficult to say how accurate the stats are, could just be not used to being against him while the only guys who play him are rammus mains he seems pretty strong with homeguard speed boots. i dunno. he's at like 53% on korean diamond too. i saw bengi spamming a lot of rammus recently on his alt | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
In pro play, it's a combo of both. | ||
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
In professional play, there are some champs that are, on average, easier to win with than other champs. These two lists of champs are not identical. | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:09 TheYango wrote: You've been given a big list of examples its just that you're treating "situational pick that occasionally suits a particular draft" as being the same thing as "viable in competitive play". Everything is viable in competitive play if you're looking at it that way, it's just that people haven't explored certain champs enough to develop teamcomps that suit them that are comfortable enough to draft when given the opportunity. That Xin an Tryndamere are pickable for certain drafts in competitive play doesn't invalidate the fact that there is a significant disparity in their power in competitive play vs. solo queue play. I think you're starting to get my point. Now, just take everything you said about me and my argument and say it about pub games. Do you see my point? You guys are treating situational snowball champs like they are pubstomp gods but really they just work in certain situations. Xin and Tryndamere are not even that good in pub games. If we are talking about equal skill level games--because like we all recognize, putting doublelift into a bronze 5 game with any champ and any runes/masteries would still result in a huge stomp--then the champion pool's strength is about the same. There's no huge disparity in champ value, it's just that if you are a good player playing against bad players it doesn't matter who you play. The champions aren't imbalanced for pro vs pub play. Riot has been doing a really good job about that this season. | ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
For an example of the principle involved: say you flip two coins in a row. The odds of getting two heads in a row or two tails in a row instead of a mix of the two is 50% right? If you flip three coins in a row, the odds will be 12.5% of getting all heads or tails, so almost every time you try this you'll get a mix of heads and tails - so you can see the less games you're looking at, the higher the odds you'll see the same thing occur repeatedly. | ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21245 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:26 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: You guys are treating situational snowball champs like they are pubstomp gods but really they just work in certain situations. you're the only one (of note) who has insinuated anything of the sort, stop straw manning | ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21245 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:28 UniversalSnip wrote: I also want to point out that just mathematically it makes no sense for there to be as even a distribution of picks in pro play as in solo queue because the sample size is so much smaller for pro games... disregarding *every* other factor, such as preference or picking strategy or whatever, sample size alone should make a very, very significant difference. The more games you're looking at, the less likely you'll see the same champions picked over and over. For an example of the principle involved: say you flip two coins in a row. The odds of getting two heads in a row or two tails in a row instead of a mix of the two is 50% right? If you flip three coins in a row, the odds will be 12.5% of getting all heads or tails - so you can see the less games you're looking at, the higher the odds you'll see the same thing occur repeatedly. There are enough pro games to draw a statistically significant conclusion. Your comment might be true back when the game changed every two weeks, but now, we have much longer stable periods, and have enough games to draw significantly significant conclusions. | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
Like, yeah, I guess if you play against people who occasionally die to jungle and towers without you doing anything then you guys are right, Nunu and Poppy are perfect examples of pub gods. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:25 GrandInquisitor wrote: In low-level solo queue, there are some champs that are, on average, easier to win with than other champs. In professional play, there are some champs that are, on average, easier to win with than other champs. These two lists of champs are not identical. so you mean in low level play some champs are easier to play for less skilled players against less skilled players, sure but "some champs stomp in solo q" a HUGE extension of that. We'd need significant winrate stats and a hard line definition of where you define solo q. Bronze-s->gold. Gold-->plat. Bronze--->Diamond? All lists could change drastically based on what area of skill you're talking. i imagine all-challenger team comps are very close to pro play team comps On October 23 2013 04:28 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: you're the only one (of note) who has insinuated anything of the sort, stop straw manning actually, I thought this was the whole argument. Some champs are slightly more successful among different levels of play. sure, random fluctuations are going to be all over solo q and pro play based on patch changes and skill level, but nothing drastic enough to comment on. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:28 UniversalSnip wrote: I also want to point out that just mathematically it makes no sense for there to be as even a distribution of picks in pro play as in solo queue because the sample size is so much smaller for pro games... disregarding *every* other factor, such as preference or picking strategy or whatever, sample size alone should make a very, very significant difference. The more games you're looking at, the less likely you'll see the same champions picked over and over. For an example of the principle involved: say you flip two coins in a row. The odds of getting two heads in a row or two tails in a row instead of a mix of the two is 50% right? If you flip three coins in a row, the odds will be 12.5% of getting all heads or tails, so almost every time you try this you'll get a mix of heads and tails - so you can see the less games you're looking at, the higher the odds you'll see the same thing occur repeatedly. It's not a bottleneck effect though. There's still plenty of games in pro play. Comparing coin flips from 1000 coin flips, vs 1 million coin flips, is vastly different than 10 coinflips to 1000. Shit like support annie was developed out of pro play for specific situation, something you wouldn't really see in solo queue. (i'd still argue it's not nearly as effective in solo queue as it is pro play) Pre-worlds support annie would have been "lol report faggot for playing support annie, troll us hard" | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:28 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: you're the only one (of note) who has insinuated anything of the sort, stop straw manning My position is that there is no champion which is considered "OP" in pub that isn't also considered playable at pro level. | ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:29 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: There are enough pro games to draw a statistically significant conclusion. Your comment might be true back when the game changed every two weeks, but now, we have much longer stable periods, and have enough games to draw significantly significant conclusions. The concept actually does remain significant at this level. It has a great many applications on a large scale, for example, grading hospitals and schools. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:33 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: My position is that there is no champion which is considered "OP" in pub that isn't also considered playable at pro level. Janna. Huge soloq winrate. Basically zero pro play. | ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:33 Amui wrote: Janna. Huge soloq winrate. Basically zero pro play. That's the first good example I've heard. | ||
|
Shelke14
Canada6655 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:30 Slayer91 wrote: i imagine all-challenger team comps are very close to pro play team comps Well that's in part because solo queue bandwagons super hard on competitive picks irrespective of actual solo queue effectiveness. The consequence of this is that it's actually probably pointless for us to have this discussion because it's impossible to show one way or the other because it can't be proven that solo queue success of a particular champ isn't attributable to the player being overly familiar with it. And conversely it can't be proven that correlation between solo queue and competitive picks isn't driven by heavy bandwagoning at all levels. On October 23 2013 04:33 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: My position is that there is no champion which is considered "OP" in pub that isn't also considered playable at pro level. For the most part there are very few champs which are not at least playable at the pro level at all given the right draft. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:34 TheYango wrote: Well that's in part because solo queue bandwagons super hard on competitive picks irrespective of actual solo queue effectiveness. The consequence of this is that it's actually probably pointless for us to have this discussion because it's impossible to show one way or the other because it can't be proven that solo queue success of a particular champ isn't attributable to the player being overly familiar with it. And conversely it can't be proven that correlation between solo queue and competitive picks isn't driven by heavy bandwagoning at all levels. for sure thats why whoever started it is starting something which requires a lot of proof of which he has none | ||
|
Kinie
United States3106 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:25 GrandInquisitor wrote: In low-level solo queue, there are some champs that are, on average, easier to win with than other champs. In professional play, there are some champs that are, on average, easier to win with than other champs. These two lists of champs are not identical. Solo Queue Champs: Yi, Kassidan, Fizz, Jinx, Shen Pro-level Champs: Kassidan, Fizz, Shen, Zed, Ahri Any other champs I'm missing? | ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21245 Posts
On October 23 2013 04:33 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: My position is that there is no champion which is considered "OP" in pub that isn't also considered playable at pro level. there's a difference between saying competitive and saying op | ||
| ||
