|
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On August 10 2015 00:11 nafta wrote:
That is because you have the wrong mindset when going into playing a game.If you actually cared about being better you would be enjoying the sandbox because it is helping you improve.You just want to play for fun and get cool icons(or other stuff never played rocket league) but can't even realize it or you just aren't honest with yourself.
lmao
I'd love to play a game designed by nafta. I imagine it's Osu except without music (music is for scrubs and casuals), just a soundtrack blaring "IF YOU AREN'T HAVING FUN YET, YOU'RE JUST A FUCKING SCRUB WITH THE WRONG MINDSET WHO ISN'T HONEST WITH HIMSELF".
I do agree with TheYango's very long post immediately after yours. I think that's pretty accurate.
|
On August 11 2015 01:17 nafta wrote:
The real "problem" with viktor is he clears waves with 1 ability and he can keep using it a lot even without mana items other than his hexcore.Even azir has to stop and actually auto the wave to clear it and he is straight up fucking retarded.
Also alaric saying tf is safer than viktor gave me cancer.
I didn't say safer. And I said when playing defensively. And I added that you then miss the point of picking TF.
Then again since Riot changed the minions' MR and HP to make them more resilient to MPen, I dunno if TF can one shot the wave (or at least the casters) with a single Q when skipping LB as first item anymore.
|
On August 11 2015 01:33 Caiada wrote:
Kali was 50% in soloq the entire time she was broken as all hell.
Ryze's highest since 5.11 is 51%. 50% on 5.12.
Rumble's been 50% for a long time.
Azir's never had a good winrate. Zed. Old, not-broken Elise in S4/S3. Leblanc. Ekko. Rek'sai. Gragas.
They're not comparable.
perceived "OP" champs don't count because players that don't know how to play them end up playing them and dropping the winrate. You would have to look at consistent performers that aren't picked up by the average solo q scrub to get a real read. Sivir is a good example, as is orianna. I would assume both of these champs are over 50% without looking but maybe im wrong.
of those champs rumble is actually another good example...a chronic 50% that is quite overrated for some reason. I don't know that he does particularly well in competitive but he's been picked quite a bit. I think the 50% is pretty correct.
|
On August 11 2015 01:33 Frolossus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 01:27 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:24 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:17 VayneAuthority wrote:
not really, its not hard to take that into account, a good example is fiddlesticks who IS strong if left unattended but would never work in competitive due to how it works. doesnt mean hes not strong as a champion even though just mains play him.
and for a recent example elise, her winrate was shit then she got buffed and surprise shes over 50% now and back in competitive. How does solo q winrate mean nothing? lol you can't compare fiddlesticks in solo queue and competitive when talking about solo queue win rates? the thing is that a lot of characters do better in certain elo brackets than others. the ones that have high win rates can easily be skewed because the largest % of the playerbase is sub-silver. so all you get from observing the win rate is that a given character is above average performance in bronze you know you can filter that stuff right? all the information im taking is from Diamond - challenger database. i dont understand the first part about fiddlesticks what you are saying there. Fiddlesticks isnt in competitive so theres nothing to compare there. im talking about champions that only "mains" play since you brought that up the most that you can take out of looking at a character's win rate is that it follows a trend in X bracket. it is not a good indicator of relative power or balance at all. if you take a high/mid challenger fiddle main he'll likely stomp everyone through masters or so. while still performing at above average within his own bracket because it is his main. if a character has a low rate of play and a dedicated playerbase then all of their stats are not reflective of the state of the character. Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 01:30 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:25 Caiada wrote:
Heimerdinger's 55%, motherfucker is super OP.
Oh wait, he's just easy and is easy to gank for and snowball.
How about some actual analysis instead of picking one context-less statistic? heimerdinger is the same as fiddlesticks. He is an incredibly strong champion but doesnt function in competitive since most of his gameplay is based on gimmicks like taking blue lvl 1 from enemy jungler and building promote/taking advantage of little communication in solo q so that he can simply push down your base and control the map. There's also his fast baron cheese of course. In competitive these gimmicks wouldnt work and teams would simply know how to rotate around his turret setups or just pick poke comps which heimer sucks against. As you can see this doesnt mean heimer isnt a strong champion, just that niche champions dont see play in competitive for a reason. this is exactly summarizes the point that i'm trying to make that solo queue win rate means next to nothing.
wouldnt this disprove your theory unless im misinterpreting? solo q means a lot for how strong a champion is but not how we will do in competitive. I'm just saying that solo q statistics > competitive for any real info. nothing else. It would be so easy for any good team to artificially inflate a shitty champs winrate if they wanted to. Im sure SKT or fnatic could get heimer way higher then 55%
|
On August 11 2015 01:49 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 01:33 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:27 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:24 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:17 VayneAuthority wrote:
not really, its not hard to take that into account, a good example is fiddlesticks who IS strong if left unattended but would never work in competitive due to how it works. doesnt mean hes not strong as a champion even though just mains play him.
and for a recent example elise, her winrate was shit then she got buffed and surprise shes over 50% now and back in competitive. How does solo q winrate mean nothing? lol you can't compare fiddlesticks in solo queue and competitive when talking about solo queue win rates? the thing is that a lot of characters do better in certain elo brackets than others. the ones that have high win rates can easily be skewed because the largest % of the playerbase is sub-silver. so all you get from observing the win rate is that a given character is above average performance in bronze you know you can filter that stuff right? all the information im taking is from Diamond - challenger database. i dont understand the first part about fiddlesticks what you are saying there. Fiddlesticks isnt in competitive so theres nothing to compare there. im talking about champions that only "mains" play since you brought that up the most that you can take out of looking at a character's win rate is that it follows a trend in X bracket. it is not a good indicator of relative power or balance at all. if you take a high/mid challenger fiddle main he'll likely stomp everyone through masters or so. while still performing at above average within his own bracket because it is his main. if a character has a low rate of play and a dedicated playerbase then all of their stats are not reflective of the state of the character. On August 11 2015 01:30 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:25 Caiada wrote:
Heimerdinger's 55%, motherfucker is super OP.
Oh wait, he's just easy and is easy to gank for and snowball.
How about some actual analysis instead of picking one context-less statistic? heimerdinger is the same as fiddlesticks. He is an incredibly strong champion but doesnt function in competitive since most of his gameplay is based on gimmicks like taking blue lvl 1 from enemy jungler and building promote/taking advantage of little communication in solo q so that he can simply push down your base and control the map. There's also his fast baron cheese of course. In competitive these gimmicks wouldnt work and teams would simply know how to rotate around his turret setups or just pick poke comps which heimer sucks against. As you can see this doesnt mean heimer isnt a strong champion, just that niche champions dont see play in competitive for a reason. this is exactly summarizes the point that i'm trying to make that solo queue win rate means next to nothing. wouldnt this disprove your theory unless im misinterpreting? solo q means a lot for how strong a champion is but not how we will do in competitive. I'm just saying that solo q statistics > competitive for any real info. nothing else. It would be so easy for any good team to artificially inflate a shitty champs winrate if they wanted to. Im sure SKT or fnatic could get heimer way higher then 55%
no, it means that solo queue is a bad indicator of relative character strength and should not be used as a metric to determine how balanced a character is. a character can be viewed as bad and have a good win rate for any number of reasons. this does not mean that the character needs to be adjusted.
competitive > solo queue if looking for game balance.
|
On August 11 2015 01:53 Frolossus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 01:49 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:33 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:27 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:24 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:17 VayneAuthority wrote:
not really, its not hard to take that into account, a good example is fiddlesticks who IS strong if left unattended but would never work in competitive due to how it works. doesnt mean hes not strong as a champion even though just mains play him.
and for a recent example elise, her winrate was shit then she got buffed and surprise shes over 50% now and back in competitive. How does solo q winrate mean nothing? lol you can't compare fiddlesticks in solo queue and competitive when talking about solo queue win rates? the thing is that a lot of characters do better in certain elo brackets than others. the ones that have high win rates can easily be skewed because the largest % of the playerbase is sub-silver. so all you get from observing the win rate is that a given character is above average performance in bronze you know you can filter that stuff right? all the information im taking is from Diamond - challenger database. i dont understand the first part about fiddlesticks what you are saying there. Fiddlesticks isnt in competitive so theres nothing to compare there. im talking about champions that only "mains" play since you brought that up the most that you can take out of looking at a character's win rate is that it follows a trend in X bracket. it is not a good indicator of relative power or balance at all. if you take a high/mid challenger fiddle main he'll likely stomp everyone through masters or so. while still performing at above average within his own bracket because it is his main. if a character has a low rate of play and a dedicated playerbase then all of their stats are not reflective of the state of the character. On August 11 2015 01:30 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:25 Caiada wrote:
Heimerdinger's 55%, motherfucker is super OP.
Oh wait, he's just easy and is easy to gank for and snowball.
How about some actual analysis instead of picking one context-less statistic? heimerdinger is the same as fiddlesticks. He is an incredibly strong champion but doesnt function in competitive since most of his gameplay is based on gimmicks like taking blue lvl 1 from enemy jungler and building promote/taking advantage of little communication in solo q so that he can simply push down your base and control the map. There's also his fast baron cheese of course. In competitive these gimmicks wouldnt work and teams would simply know how to rotate around his turret setups or just pick poke comps which heimer sucks against. As you can see this doesnt mean heimer isnt a strong champion, just that niche champions dont see play in competitive for a reason. this is exactly summarizes the point that i'm trying to make that solo queue win rate means next to nothing. wouldnt this disprove your theory unless im misinterpreting? solo q means a lot for how strong a champion is but not how we will do in competitive. I'm just saying that solo q statistics > competitive for any real info. nothing else. It would be so easy for any good team to artificially inflate a shitty champs winrate if they wanted to. Im sure SKT or fnatic could get heimer way higher then 55% no, it means that solo queue is a bad indicator of relative character strength and should not be used as a metric to determine how balanced a character is. a character can be viewed as bad and have a good win rate for any number of reasons. this does not mean that the character needs to be adjusted. competitive > solo queue if looking for game balance.
well I just disagree with that completely. if tahm kench had a 75% winrate because fnatic decided to play him 6 times and won all 6 and then CW played him twice and lost both you would think he is a good champion? I dont understand that logic at all.
|
idk kinda depends on what your trying to find out.
Q:what is a good champion for me to play in solo q
in the case of broken op Leblanc, even with her bad win rate the answer was yes, the problem was the fotm status, she was actually super strong if not stronger in solo than in pro play if you were good at the hero.
In the case of Heimer, even though he would probably be terrible in pro play, his win rate is actually an indicator of how strong he is in solo Q as opposed to pro play.
idk mabye I'm way off on what the argument is but I find win rates to be pretty situationally accurate.
On August 11 2015 01:55 VayneAuthority wrote:well I just disagree with that completely. if tahm kench had a 75% winrate because fnatic decided to play him 6 times and won all 6 and then CW played him twice and lost both you would think he is a good champion? I dont understand that logic at all.
perfect example of this is Master Yi being undefeated in LCK
lck and eu lcs winrates are likely (without checking) to be skewed by the fact that the top team in each of those leagues could probably win with anything
|
On August 11 2015 01:59 Slusher wrote:
idk kinda depends on what your trying to find out.
Q:what is a good champion for me to play in solo q
in the case of broken op Leblanc, even with her bad win rate the answer was yes, the problem was the fotm status, she was actually super strong if not stronger in solo than in pro play if you were good at the hero.
In the case of Heimer, even though he would probably be terrible in pro play, his win rate is actually an indicator of how strong he is in solo Q as opposed to pro play.
idk mabye I'm way off on what the argument is but I find win rates to be pretty situationally accurate.
well thats the problem I have no idea what hes arguing and it seems to change every post. His latest post is just ludicrous to actually believe that when in competitive the champion picks rarely matter except in extreme circumstances. its all about the team playing the champions. It gives you zero info...
|
On August 11 2015 01:55 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 01:53 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:49 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:33 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:27 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:24 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:17 VayneAuthority wrote:
not really, its not hard to take that into account, a good example is fiddlesticks who IS strong if left unattended but would never work in competitive due to how it works. doesnt mean hes not strong as a champion even though just mains play him.
and for a recent example elise, her winrate was shit then she got buffed and surprise shes over 50% now and back in competitive. How does solo q winrate mean nothing? lol you can't compare fiddlesticks in solo queue and competitive when talking about solo queue win rates? the thing is that a lot of characters do better in certain elo brackets than others. the ones that have high win rates can easily be skewed because the largest % of the playerbase is sub-silver. so all you get from observing the win rate is that a given character is above average performance in bronze you know you can filter that stuff right? all the information im taking is from Diamond - challenger database. i dont understand the first part about fiddlesticks what you are saying there. Fiddlesticks isnt in competitive so theres nothing to compare there. im talking about champions that only "mains" play since you brought that up the most that you can take out of looking at a character's win rate is that it follows a trend in X bracket. it is not a good indicator of relative power or balance at all. if you take a high/mid challenger fiddle main he'll likely stomp everyone through masters or so. while still performing at above average within his own bracket because it is his main. if a character has a low rate of play and a dedicated playerbase then all of their stats are not reflective of the state of the character. On August 11 2015 01:30 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:25 Caiada wrote:
Heimerdinger's 55%, motherfucker is super OP.
Oh wait, he's just easy and is easy to gank for and snowball.
How about some actual analysis instead of picking one context-less statistic? heimerdinger is the same as fiddlesticks. He is an incredibly strong champion but doesnt function in competitive since most of his gameplay is based on gimmicks like taking blue lvl 1 from enemy jungler and building promote/taking advantage of little communication in solo q so that he can simply push down your base and control the map. There's also his fast baron cheese of course. In competitive these gimmicks wouldnt work and teams would simply know how to rotate around his turret setups or just pick poke comps which heimer sucks against. As you can see this doesnt mean heimer isnt a strong champion, just that niche champions dont see play in competitive for a reason. this is exactly summarizes the point that i'm trying to make that solo queue win rate means next to nothing. wouldnt this disprove your theory unless im misinterpreting? solo q means a lot for how strong a champion is but not how we will do in competitive. I'm just saying that solo q statistics > competitive for any real info. nothing else. It would be so easy for any good team to artificially inflate a shitty champs winrate if they wanted to. Im sure SKT or fnatic could get heimer way higher then 55% no, it means that solo queue is a bad indicator of relative character strength and should not be used as a metric to determine how balanced a character is. a character can be viewed as bad and have a good win rate for any number of reasons. this does not mean that the character needs to be adjusted. competitive > solo queue if looking for game balance. well I just disagree with that completely. if tahm kench had a 75% winrate because fnatic decided to play him 6 times and won all 6 and then CW played him twice and lost both you would think he is a good champion? I dont understand that logic at all.
taking a single team or single player who does well with a character is what i mean when players main a character and do well with it inflating the win rate. this happens independently of whether it is solo queue or competitive.
if he wins a lot with fnatic and loses a lot with CW then look at all the games where he was picked and figure out the differences that lead to the success of fnatic over CW. it does not necessarily mean that tahm kench is a good character but it could mean there is a lot of potential use for him that other teams are overlooking.
however if every team is suddenly picking tahm kench and doing extremely well with him in competitive then it is obvious that balance changes are necessary
|
On August 11 2015 02:02 Frolossus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 01:55 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:53 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:49 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:33 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:27 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:24 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:17 VayneAuthority wrote:
not really, its not hard to take that into account, a good example is fiddlesticks who IS strong if left unattended but would never work in competitive due to how it works. doesnt mean hes not strong as a champion even though just mains play him.
and for a recent example elise, her winrate was shit then she got buffed and surprise shes over 50% now and back in competitive. How does solo q winrate mean nothing? lol you can't compare fiddlesticks in solo queue and competitive when talking about solo queue win rates? the thing is that a lot of characters do better in certain elo brackets than others. the ones that have high win rates can easily be skewed because the largest % of the playerbase is sub-silver. so all you get from observing the win rate is that a given character is above average performance in bronze you know you can filter that stuff right? all the information im taking is from Diamond - challenger database. i dont understand the first part about fiddlesticks what you are saying there. Fiddlesticks isnt in competitive so theres nothing to compare there. im talking about champions that only "mains" play since you brought that up the most that you can take out of looking at a character's win rate is that it follows a trend in X bracket. it is not a good indicator of relative power or balance at all. if you take a high/mid challenger fiddle main he'll likely stomp everyone through masters or so. while still performing at above average within his own bracket because it is his main. if a character has a low rate of play and a dedicated playerbase then all of their stats are not reflective of the state of the character. On August 11 2015 01:30 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:25 Caiada wrote:
Heimerdinger's 55%, motherfucker is super OP.
Oh wait, he's just easy and is easy to gank for and snowball.
How about some actual analysis instead of picking one context-less statistic? heimerdinger is the same as fiddlesticks. He is an incredibly strong champion but doesnt function in competitive since most of his gameplay is based on gimmicks like taking blue lvl 1 from enemy jungler and building promote/taking advantage of little communication in solo q so that he can simply push down your base and control the map. There's also his fast baron cheese of course. In competitive these gimmicks wouldnt work and teams would simply know how to rotate around his turret setups or just pick poke comps which heimer sucks against. As you can see this doesnt mean heimer isnt a strong champion, just that niche champions dont see play in competitive for a reason. this is exactly summarizes the point that i'm trying to make that solo queue win rate means next to nothing. wouldnt this disprove your theory unless im misinterpreting? solo q means a lot for how strong a champion is but not how we will do in competitive. I'm just saying that solo q statistics > competitive for any real info. nothing else. It would be so easy for any good team to artificially inflate a shitty champs winrate if they wanted to. Im sure SKT or fnatic could get heimer way higher then 55% no, it means that solo queue is a bad indicator of relative character strength and should not be used as a metric to determine how balanced a character is. a character can be viewed as bad and have a good win rate for any number of reasons. this does not mean that the character needs to be adjusted. competitive > solo queue if looking for game balance. well I just disagree with that completely. if tahm kench had a 75% winrate because fnatic decided to play him 6 times and won all 6 and then CW played him twice and lost both you would think he is a good champion? I dont understand that logic at all. taking a single team or single player who does well with a character is what i mean when players main a character and do well with it inflating the win rate. this happens independently of whether it is solo queue or competitive. if he wins a lot with fnatic and loses a lot with CW then look at all the games where he was picked and figure out the differences that lead to the success of fnatic over CW. it does not necessarily mean that tahm kench is a good character but it could mean there is a lot of potential use for him that other teams are overlooking. however if every team is suddenly picking tahm kench and doing extremely well with him in competitive then it is obvious that balance changes are necessary
cmon thats bs and you know it ^^ there's no secret strat with a champion, its because a good team played him and won and a bad team played him and lost regardless of what they pick.
|
On August 11 2015 01:39 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 00:11 nafta wrote:
That is because you have the wrong mindset when going into playing a game.If you actually cared about being better you would be enjoying the sandbox because it is helping you improve.You just want to play for fun and get cool icons(or other stuff never played rocket league) but can't even realize it or you just aren't honest with yourself. lmao I'd love to play a game designed by nafta. I imagine it's Osu except without music (music is for scrubs and casuals), just a soundtrack blaring "IF YOU AREN'T HAVING FUN YET, YOU'RE JUST A FUCKING SCRUB WITH THE WRONG MINDSET WHO ISN'T HONEST WITH HIMSELF". I do agree with TheYango's very long post immediately after yours. I think that's pretty accurate.
Clearly you complaining about the competetive aspect being too competetive and me saying that is a stupid statement is insane.You could just play normal matchmaking when ranked is too intimidating no?
You guys are forgetting the most important in champ win rate in le solo- are they hard to play?Look at heimer than look at leblanc.
|
On August 11 2015 02:05 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 02:02 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:55 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:53 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:49 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:33 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:27 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:24 Frolossus wrote:On August 11 2015 01:17 VayneAuthority wrote:
not really, its not hard to take that into account, a good example is fiddlesticks who IS strong if left unattended but would never work in competitive due to how it works. doesnt mean hes not strong as a champion even though just mains play him.
and for a recent example elise, her winrate was shit then she got buffed and surprise shes over 50% now and back in competitive. How does solo q winrate mean nothing? lol you can't compare fiddlesticks in solo queue and competitive when talking about solo queue win rates? the thing is that a lot of characters do better in certain elo brackets than others. the ones that have high win rates can easily be skewed because the largest % of the playerbase is sub-silver. so all you get from observing the win rate is that a given character is above average performance in bronze you know you can filter that stuff right? all the information im taking is from Diamond - challenger database. i dont understand the first part about fiddlesticks what you are saying there. Fiddlesticks isnt in competitive so theres nothing to compare there. im talking about champions that only "mains" play since you brought that up the most that you can take out of looking at a character's win rate is that it follows a trend in X bracket. it is not a good indicator of relative power or balance at all. if you take a high/mid challenger fiddle main he'll likely stomp everyone through masters or so. while still performing at above average within his own bracket because it is his main. if a character has a low rate of play and a dedicated playerbase then all of their stats are not reflective of the state of the character. On August 11 2015 01:30 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:25 Caiada wrote:
Heimerdinger's 55%, motherfucker is super OP.
Oh wait, he's just easy and is easy to gank for and snowball.
How about some actual analysis instead of picking one context-less statistic? heimerdinger is the same as fiddlesticks. He is an incredibly strong champion but doesnt function in competitive since most of his gameplay is based on gimmicks like taking blue lvl 1 from enemy jungler and building promote/taking advantage of little communication in solo q so that he can simply push down your base and control the map. There's also his fast baron cheese of course. In competitive these gimmicks wouldnt work and teams would simply know how to rotate around his turret setups or just pick poke comps which heimer sucks against. As you can see this doesnt mean heimer isnt a strong champion, just that niche champions dont see play in competitive for a reason. this is exactly summarizes the point that i'm trying to make that solo queue win rate means next to nothing. wouldnt this disprove your theory unless im misinterpreting? solo q means a lot for how strong a champion is but not how we will do in competitive. I'm just saying that solo q statistics > competitive for any real info. nothing else. It would be so easy for any good team to artificially inflate a shitty champs winrate if they wanted to. Im sure SKT or fnatic could get heimer way higher then 55% no, it means that solo queue is a bad indicator of relative character strength and should not be used as a metric to determine how balanced a character is. a character can be viewed as bad and have a good win rate for any number of reasons. this does not mean that the character needs to be adjusted. competitive > solo queue if looking for game balance. well I just disagree with that completely. if tahm kench had a 75% winrate because fnatic decided to play him 6 times and won all 6 and then CW played him twice and lost both you would think he is a good champion? I dont understand that logic at all. taking a single team or single player who does well with a character is what i mean when players main a character and do well with it inflating the win rate. this happens independently of whether it is solo queue or competitive. if he wins a lot with fnatic and loses a lot with CW then look at all the games where he was picked and figure out the differences that lead to the success of fnatic over CW. it does not necessarily mean that tahm kench is a good character but it could mean there is a lot of potential use for him that other teams are overlooking. however if every team is suddenly picking tahm kench and doing extremely well with him in competitive then it is obvious that balance changes are necessary cmon thats bs and you know it ^^ there's no secret strat with a champion, its because a good team played him and won and a bad team played him and lost regardless of what they pick.
uh, no it's not. this is literally how the meta evolves and is shaped.
one team picks him and figures out how to do good with it then everyone else imitates
|
I mean Sbenu could pick SKT's champions and SKT would win (if the win was relevant to the standings)
|
On August 10 2015 21:32 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Only in the Spring. But I didn't discount that, just noted it.[I was only ever using summer stats because summer is the most relevant given patches, just like we wouldn't go to Season 4 stats to see if a champion was strong] In the Summer Viktor had, if anything, a slight weak team bias. Crate did a blog about correcting for strength of schedule (which has some problems, but isn't particularly worse than what we're doing here] and Viktor's win rate came up in Korea/China summer. [This was before week 12 though, where viktor won more than he lost, so its possible that a SOS correction done after that would put him over the 50% mark]
On August 10 2015 17:52 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 14:31 Goumindong wrote:On August 10 2015 11:19 Gahlo wrote:On August 10 2015 11:04 Goumindong wrote:On August 10 2015 10:44 Gahlo wrote:On August 10 2015 09:37 Goumindong wrote:On August 10 2015 09:33 Ansibled wrote:I looked at statistics for S5 rather than just Summer. ![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/jvFqT/517beb5688.png) Should be very close to dead even for all of s5 including playoffs. Part of that is that his early adoption tended to be biased towards better teams (GE/Faker being basically the only ones who picked him in Korea in the spring for example) Doesn't it get tiring to consistently move goalposts? I am not and have not ever shifted goalposts. I mean you all keep doing so it can be hard to keep up with whatever insane claim you're making today but no I aused the same set of numbers each time, picked them irrespective of their value at the time and picked the most relevant statistics. I just don't understand why you guys think he is so strong. Do you not understand the champion of something? "Part of that is that his early adoption tended to be biased towards better teams (GE/Faker being basically the only ones who picked him in Korea in the spring for example)" Uh huh, sure.. In S5 Korea Spring, Viktor was played 11 times. 5 Times by GE Tigers, 3 times by Faker, 3 times by others. That is clearly not a balanced set of picks between the strong and weak teams. And if we look at recent play and filter out wildcard/challenger teams, Viktor has a 20-19 record. But if we filter out Faker and Kuro we end up with 19-17. But if we aren't counting when he's picked by the best mids, we should be able to discard games where he is played by bad mids/teams, no? There goes 1 loss from Shiphtur, 1 loss from IM, 2 losses from Giants, 1 loss and 1 win from Sbenu, 2 losses from UP, 2 losses from Masters3, and 1 loss from WE. That comes to a 1-10 reduction. Now Viktor is 18-7. Look at that, it's almost like he's a good champion!
Sigh. If you want a Strength of Schedule review go look in the Blogs where (surprise surprise) Viktor came out about dead 50% for Korea/China. The theory was that Viktor potentially had a "bad team bias" which was dropping his win rate even if his value was strong. [I.E. a bad team wins 40% without viktor, picks viktor goes to 45% this indicates Viktor is a strong pick]
What I did was note the discrepancy but accept the stats[he is indeed slightly positive for all of Korea for all of S5. ] you're doing is cherry picking stats to fit your narrative.
On August 10 2015 16:45 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
I mean I think it's not so much that Viktor is bad compared to other mids but rather that the particular choice of midlaner isn't really that big of an influence on winrate. He's clearly strong, perhaps even the best choice, which is definitely debatable in many ways. Honestly, though, choice of midlaner isn't as important as many other factors in the game which all have a bigger aggregate effect on the outcome than which midlaner is chosen.
Also to address how FP Viktor could be an advantage that doesn't show up in winrate is that perhaps Viktor is simply so strong that he HAS to be FP'd at the risk of giving the opposing team Viktor + another high priority champ. Or perhaps that when he's not banned, teams have specific strategies to counter his FP (or they simply pick him if left to second pick, which WOULD show up in the stats normally).
Mid laner clearly isn't as important as AD is right now. But its not jungle.(pre-Elise patch)
In the Jungle there were two big jungle picks, Rek'Sai and Gragas. Rek'Sai had a 51% win rate. Gragas had a 50% win rate. Everyone else was below them.
That is where Viktor would be right now with Azir. Except that there are plenty of other mids with high pick rates and high win rates. So we can't just say that Viktor is top two and leave it at that. There being high pick/high win rate mids does not jive with the idea that Azir/Viktor are 1/2 50/50 like Gragas/Reksai were.
On August 10 2015 18:51 JJMC wrote:
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?
Well imagine a champion that had lots of those evaluative strengths but then, in 100 games played won zero.
We can either say 'clearly he is a good pick i can see the strengths" or we can say "since these strengths didn't translate into wins either they weren't strengths or we made a mistake evaluating them".
Its not like Viktor is a bad pick. He does indeed have a lot of strengths, lots of reasons to pick him. He just isn't a "strong" pick.
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.
The argument on win rates must be reversible. If a high win rate is indicative of strength a low win rate must be indicative of weakness.
(iirc PBE mk2 becomes equal to live mk2 at level 15? That's super late).
No. On the PBE the PERFECT core is equivalent at level 15. The MK2 loses 40 AP and 1AP/Level over live. So you're down 55 AP at level 15 if you haven't upgraded the core.
|
idk theres no point in talking to this frolossus guy if he truly believes that. I guess I got trolled 10/10. you heard it here first guys if SBENU plays every game and loses every game except 1 with Sivir she is clearly a trash champion despite the reality being her winrate just got tanked by a garbage team x]
|
On August 11 2015 01:44 VayneAuthority wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 01:33 Caiada wrote:
Kali was 50% in soloq the entire time she was broken as all hell.
Ryze's highest since 5.11 is 51%. 50% on 5.12.
Rumble's been 50% for a long time.
Azir's never had a good winrate. Zed. Old, not-broken Elise in S4/S3. Leblanc. Ekko. Rek'sai. Gragas.
They're not comparable. perceived "OP" champs don't count because players that don't know how to play them end up playing them and dropping the winrate. You would have to look at consistent performers that aren't picked up by the average solo q scrub to get a real read. Sivir is a good example, as is orianna. I would assume both of these champs are over 50% without looking but maybe im wrong. of those champs rumble is actually another good example...a chronic 50% that is quite overrated for some reason. I don't know that he does particularly well in competitive but he's been picked quite a bit. I think the 50% is pretty correct.
Sivir's at 53%.
Ori is at 46% though. Not been near 50 in 3 months.
Also, this is from champion.gg, which is Plat+ only.
Jayce mid's been considered quite strong in competitive for a while. 48%. Maokai was hands down the best top in the game on 5.14. 48%. Corki's a mainstay and is at 50%, over Tristana, who is quite popular now.
Probably my most obvious example is Soraka. She's popular, has a high winrate in soloq. Never seen in competitive. Winrate is not a useful standalone stat, soloq or no.
|
?? Soraka is strong in solo Q, is this conflated somewhere on the earlier pages? solo q is a different game I thought that was already agreed on in general
|
On August 11 2015 02:13 Caiada wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2015 01:44 VayneAuthority wrote:On August 11 2015 01:33 Caiada wrote:
Kali was 50% in soloq the entire time she was broken as all hell.
Ryze's highest since 5.11 is 51%. 50% on 5.12.
Rumble's been 50% for a long time.
Azir's never had a good winrate. Zed. Old, not-broken Elise in S4/S3. Leblanc. Ekko. Rek'sai. Gragas.
They're not comparable. perceived "OP" champs don't count because players that don't know how to play them end up playing them and dropping the winrate. You would have to look at consistent performers that aren't picked up by the average solo q scrub to get a real read. Sivir is a good example, as is orianna. I would assume both of these champs are over 50% without looking but maybe im wrong. of those champs rumble is actually another good example...a chronic 50% that is quite overrated for some reason. I don't know that he does particularly well in competitive but he's been picked quite a bit. I think the 50% is pretty correct. Sivir's at 53%. Ori is at 46% though. Not been near 50 in 3 months. Also, this is from champion.gg, which is Plat+ only. Jayce mid's been considered quite strong in competitive for a while. 48%. Maokai was hands down the best top in the game on 5.14. 48%. Corki's a mainstay and is at 50%, over Tristana, who is quite popular now. Probably my most obvious example is Soraka. She's popular, has a high winrate in soloq. Never seen in competitive. Winrate is not a useful standalone stat, soloq or no.
You guys just need to realize the double retard(retard proof and retard magnet) champ synergy.Soraka is literally the perfect example right there.It inflates the winrate.
|
On August 11 2015 01:39 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2015 00:11 nafta wrote:
That is because you have the wrong mindset when going into playing a game.If you actually cared about being better you would be enjoying the sandbox because it is helping you improve.You just want to play for fun and get cool icons(or other stuff never played rocket league) but can't even realize it or you just aren't honest with yourself. lmao I'd love to play a game designed by nafta. I imagine it's Osu except without music (music is for scrubs and casuals), just a soundtrack blaring "IF YOU AREN'T HAVING FUN YET, YOU'RE JUST A FUCKING SCRUB WITH THE WRONG MINDSET WHO ISN'T HONEST WITH HIMSELF". I do agree with TheYango's very long post immediately after yours. I think that's pretty accurate.
I know this is just some random example but how would is playing Osu! without music a good comparison? It's a pretty core part of the game.
|
On August 11 2015 02:15 Slusher wrote:
?? Soraka is strong in solo Q, is this conflated somewhere on the earlier pages? solo q is a different game I thought that was already agreed on in general
They were arguing soloq winrate is somehow important for champion strength in competitive. So I provided a bunch of examples of how that's nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
