|
|
"Viktor's spikes aren't as strong as they were pre-rework, so midgame he's weaker and I'm bothered by how it changes his playstyle.
- hurr durr what an idiot, he said Viktor was 100% better pre-rework, TL hipster meme yay"
I'm wondering who's lacking hindsight here. Of course his late game is stronger when Q's range is increased, he gets the MS buff (and in a meta with more tanks and control mages, because the MS wouldn't save him at all from Zed/Rengar/Ahri/etc. usually), and starting from level 14 it does a bit more damage, culminating at around 150 more on squishies at level 18 (+ whatever damage he gets from 60 AP on mk3 + multipliers (deathcap, dragon which is new, etc.)).
You also have to take into account that people started playing him rushing Luden's, which didn't exist at the time and doesn't have to do with his kit changes at all.
And the meta has been alot slower with games often going late (it started being a bit faster recently, though I wouldn't be able to say how much, between NA/EU being shitfests with little punishment, LPL I don't watch often and LCK often goes late barring top team playing), so Viktor being stronger late helps him more competitively than being weaker midgame makes him less interesting (only mid peaking midgame then falling off played is Varus; you could argue for Lulu but she's picked in comps where her utility doesn't fall off).
And as I said on the PBE thread I'm annoyed at Viktor hitting him early and midgame and delaying his waveclar as much as they can (it'll also have consequences on his builds if he can't oneshot the wave rushing Abyssal, Luden's or Mk2 + raw AP, as he'll be forced to itemise mp5 instead to make up for the additional casts needed, eg. build Morellonomicon first), and I'd rather they hit his lategame since that's just homogeneising power curves.
But it's easier to ignore/forget most of what was said so you can stroke yourselves and try to look smug, duh.
|
I'm just amazed and can't really process how Viktor isn't strong. Hell, how Viktor is not one of the best mids.
EDIT: I mean, the not winning part seems pretty crappy as an excuse. We can evaluate strengths and weaknesses of a champion without him blowing up the nexus or not really?
|
On August 10 2015 17:14 Ketara wrote:
Goumindong has done little to convince me that my way of looking at winrates is wrong.
If a champion has a high winrate, that is an indicator that they are good.
If a champion has a low winrate, that does not mean they are bad.
The logic is that something could be good no matter the win rate, but a high win rate generally means a champion is good?
So what does a bad winrate mean? Does it mean nothing? If so why do good winrates mean anything?
|
I guess it's because anyone can play a champ badly but its much harder to play a champ well if he's not good
but if a champ was good and is still popular got nerfed and his winrate dropped a lot there's a bigger chance that the low winrate is important. So low winrates are important for popular champs, but can also be expected if they were FoTM, got nerfed but are still good, and any random dude uses it as their goto pick while all the mains of that role switched to something else.
|
Because the fact that a champion wins lots of games can be used to refute an argument that they are a bad champion. Maybe they're not as good as some other champion with a lower winrate for whatever reason, but they can't possibly be bad because they win games.
But the fact that a champion doesn't win games doesn't necessarily refute arguments that they are good and not being represented properly.
Teut puts it pretty well. Any champ can be played badly, but its much harder to play a champ well if they aren't any good.
|
Didn't season 3/early season 4 Elise have simliar shitty win rates in solo q and pro. While few would arguing she wasn't top tier till about the fourth round of nerfs.
And while u can argue all you want that tf and Ezreal win games and viktor doesn't blah blah. Let's see a team fp tf in the lck and see how poorly it goes unless they have an extremely well planned draft around tf as fp.
|
Fiora has 55% winrate for quite a while and she still was a pretty trashy champion. Not sure about those winrates being used to determine the quality of champions.
|
if you're talking about pre changes fiora she was stronk as fuck
you had to hope to have good cc or strong exhaust reflexes and in solo q its not guaranteed at all.
|
On August 10 2015 19:28 Ketara wrote:
Because the fact that a champion wins lots of games can be used to refute an argument that they are a bad champion. Maybe they're not as good as some other champion with a lower winrate for whatever reason, but they can't possibly be bad because they win games.
But the fact that a champion doesn't win games doesn't necessarily refute arguments that they are good and not being represented properly.
Teut puts it pretty well. Any champ can be played badly, but its much harder to play a champ well if they aren't any good.
I think in the end it comes down to what 'good' represents. If 'good' means 'good for winning soloq' then soloq winrates are pretty much the indicator. If 'good' means 'the champion has a strong kit' then you can't really tell by win rate how good a champion is, but then your definition of good isn't very useful because whether a champion has a strong kit is basically theoretical talk.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 10 2015 19:26 Slayer91 wrote:
I guess it's because anyone can play a champ badly but its much harder to play a champ well if he's not good
but if a champ was good and is still popular got nerfed and his winrate dropped a lot there's a bigger chance that the low winrate is important. So low winrates are important for popular champs, but can also be expected if they were FoTM, got nerfed but are still good, and any random dude uses it as their goto pick while all the mains of that role switched to something else.
I thought the discussion was concerning competitive winrates and not solo queue winrates, though?
|
The same logic applies though.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 10 2015 19:26 Slayer91 wrote:
So low winrates are important for popular champs, but can also be expected if they were FoTM, got nerfed but are still good, and any random dude uses it as their goto pick while all the mains of that role switched to something else.
Except this part, because in competitive "random dudes" aren't playing mid, and only mid specialists will ever be playing mid?
|
competitive winrates is a strange thing because not only do you have low sample size, you have teams which greatly outskill other teams so the top teams favourite picks will naturally be higher winrates
normally pick/ban rate is a more reliable metric I'd say. Having such a low amount of games makes it difficult to make meaningful conclusions but at least contended picks/bans are backed up by all the scrims and such.
On August 10 2015 21:29 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 19:26 Slayer91 wrote:
So low winrates are important for popular champs, but can also be expected if they were FoTM, got nerfed but are still good, and any random dude uses it as their goto pick while all the mains of that role switched to something else. Except this part, because in competitive "random dudes" aren't playing mid, and only mid specialists will ever be playing mid?
not sure why you posted this after you established i was talking about solo q
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 10 2015 21:29 Slayer91 wrote:
competitive winrates is a strange thing because not only do you have low sample size, you have teams which greatly outskill other teams so the top teams favourite picks will naturally be higher winrates
I mean, isn't that what Goumindong is saying when he says Viktor's LCK winrate is overrating his value due to being picked disproportionately often by better teams more than worse ones?
Fundamentally the question here with regard to competitive is "what does it mean when a champ is picked/banned a lot but loses a lot when it gets picked"? I'm not sure how Teut's argument prior addresses that question.
On August 10 2015 21:29 Slayer91 wrote:
not sure why you posted this after you established i was talking about solo q
Because Ketara said "the same logic applies [to competitive]", and I'm not sure how it does.
|
But the logic applies anyway.
If a champion has a 70% competitive winrate, they're probably pretty good, or at least not bad.
But if a champion has a 30% winrate, there's all sorts of reasons why they might be a good champion with a low winrate because reasons.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 10 2015 21:33 Ketara wrote:
But the logic applies anyway.
If a champion has a 70% competitive winrate, they're probably pretty good, or at least not bad.
But if a champion has a 30% winrate, there's all sorts of reasons why they might be a good champion with a low winrate because reasons.
In a general sense, yes. My impression was that Teut's argument was a tad more specific than that. Maybe I'm just reading too much into his specific example, idk.
|
I didn't agree with ketara there. I don't know it does, simply because its unlikely that pro players who's job is to optimize play of a champ through a large amount of practice will stray far from the optimal play.
If a champ is picked banned a lot but loses a lot when it gets picked, there are a few situations which could be occuring
-Weaker teams picking him a lot to copy stronger teams but not necessarily winning a lot with them
-A low sample size meaning it's not too relevant
-Champ is weak but well-practiced and versatile and was good in the past meaning there is a bias toward the status quo and that champ will still be fairly useful anyway.
In terms of the viktor winrate being skewed by faker you also have to look at why the best player in the world would waste his time with viktor, his winrate might be skewed but it doesn't mean he's not still good.
As far as I knew viktor was popular and strong in all regions competitive and soloq.
He's basically got the best burst for an AP in the game from my observation and pays with his shortish range and no jump spells.
(Kind of a more versatile annie)
|
You can't really compare that with Annie because one of her biggest strengths if her instant AoE cc on top of the burst, for initiation. Viktor hurts, but about 2/3rd of his ult's damage is in the periodic AoE (it's also slightly higher than Tibbers' burn compared to the initial damage, in relative terms), and his cc needs 1.5s + cast time to apply, so unless you're fed enough that you can flash + ult/E an enemy squishy and kill him, you're going to need some setup.
It's not an issue in the current meta where Thresh and Alistar are the biggest supports, Sivir a popular pick, and unless you run something silly like Rumble+Nidalee you're going to have hard cc (often AoE) from the offlane and the jungle too, however Viktor is less likely to make plays by himself than Zed, LB or Ahri (who are all off meta).
I can see the argument that he does 0K vs Azir and can bully Kog around, and that he's picked more easily because he comes online faster even though he lacks the 1v5 potential-especially after the passive nerfs on Azir so he actually needs levels and not just some gold now.
I'm not sure how you think he's safer than TF (both are fairly safe if they play defensively, it's more about TF wasting the pick if you're going to do that in the laning phase) or Azir (Azir has his ult and E, worst case Q's slow, Viktor's answer to ganks is generally "threaten to turn and kill someone"). Without jungle pressure Diana should beat him but she hasn't caught on after her stint around MSI. He's great against Sivir initiations, esp. near chokes but Kalista is very troublesome for him.
And his waveclear is valuable when people run Maokai or Rumble top, Kalista over Sivir bot, and something like Nidalee or Lee Sin in the jungle. He's not unique though (and I kind of facepalm when I see teams not drafting any waveclear, like Gravity yesterday who had iirc Urgot, Elise, Shen, Braum, Kog at some point? Kog's got some but still).
|
That doesn't mean you can't compare her with annie, it just means he's not equivalent to annie (in the same way amumu is equivalent to sejuani)
viktor trades the instant cast damage and cc with more range and guaranteed damage.
Chaos storm taking time to do damage isn't so problematic when viktor himself doesn't need to be in range, and being in range is the main difficulty when it comes to doing damage as a squishy. (If annie didn't have short range she'd be the best champ in the game, low cds incredible point and click burst and aoe as well as cc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
