|
Welcome to this patch's General Discussion thread for the League of Legends subforum. This thread is for discussion around League of Legends. Free feel to talk about anything LoL related here that does not already have its own thread.
Non-League of Legends discussion should go in the LiquidLegends Lounge.
Certain topics are blacklisted from LoL General Discussion and they include:- "Elo hell"
- The Tribunal
- Bans, either from TL.net or LoL
Additionally, the TL LoL Ten Commandments are available for you to reference if you have any questions about this subforum.
Use the LoL Strategy subforum if you have game or champion specific questions. Lastly, confine QQing and bragging to their respective threads.
Patch 9.2: Live on Jan. 24, 2019
In this patch, Sylas: The Unshackled, will be released. Find out more in the Champion Reveal and Champion Trailer.
+ Show Spoiler [Previous GD Threads & Patch Notes] +
|
|
|
I'm sure making jungles want to farm less will stop the chain ganks laners think is ruining the game. Confident even.
|
Fck, my goal this season was to get diamond, looks like that just got harder.
They just hit Irelia with a sledge hammer, flat scaling on her Q, is there any other dmg ability in the game that's the same?
+ Show Spoiler +
- Jax nerf is dumb
- Kass nerf is dumb
- Rakan looks nerfed into the ground, not sure why
- Why Zyra getting nerfed???
- Finally ignite is getting nerfed, making the lives of squishy champions bearable.
Overall not that happy with the patch. Especially because Lost Chapter wasn't touched, and it's just too good right now. Also nothing in bot lane was touched, which is both good and bad.
|
Also nothing in bot lane was touched, which is both good and bad.
Zyra and Brand were touched, that means a lot for solo q.
|
I really don't see a lot of Zyra or Brand in soloQ. They're not uncommon, but op.gg puts them at 7% picks rates each, that's decently low. Good win rate on Zyra too, but I suspect that's because people who know how to play her are more likely to pick her.
|
I'm not saying they dominated. I just think they're too reliable as sources of high damage (as long as you're minimally competent on them). If their play rates end up dropping, melee supports are going to be much more viable.
|
I really dont understand why they keep nerfing Jax and Irelia when the real issue is how stupid the Triforce/Steraks/Titanic trinity is. When literally all items they build so effectively combine raw damage and health and synergize so well it's really a nobrainer champions like them are bound to be balance hell.
Zyra's "nerf" is "-5MS" level of Rito troll. lol
|
Can anyone explains why a win rate within a specific elo cannot be solo considered as an indicator if a champion is op, bad or balanced? What difference does it make if the champ is easy to play, mechanically advanced, picked a lot, requires better game knowledge and other bullshit like these. People constantly argue that because a champ is simple for example he is balanced on 54% win rate or something within these lines and that if he has 50% means that he is weak atm. Also if he is picked a lot and have 50+ win rate, he is overpowered. How the fuck does it matter what is the reason for a champ to have its win rate? Why do we have to put theoretical scenarios such as because the champ is hard he has low win rate but with time when people become good on him he will balance, maybe it will, maybe it will not, why do they need to theorize at all? If the champ has 54% win rate within a specific elo (assuming that 48-52 is what is considered balanced) it means that that champ is op in this elo at that moment, who cares if its because he is easy to play? or because people cannot play against him? why does the reason matter at all? if the reason changes, few weeks later his win rate will change too, wont it? At the end of the day a champ with 50% win rate will win 50% of his games even if it has 100% pick rate or I am missing something?
|
On January 24 2019 23:24 M2 wrote:
Can anyone explains why a win rate within a specific elo cannot be solo considered as an indicator if a champion is op, bad or balanced? What difference does it make if the champ is easy to play, mechanically advanced, picked a lot, requires better game knowledge and other bullshit like these. People constantly argue that because a champ is simple for example he is balanced on 54% win rate or something like that and that if he has 50% means that he is weak atm. Also if he is picked a lot and have 50+ win rate, he is overpowered. How the fuck does it matter what is the reason for a champ to have its win rate? Why do we have to put theoretical scenarios such as because the champ is hard he has low win rate but with time when people become good on him he will balance, maybe it will, maybe it will not, why do they need to theorize at all? If the champ has 54% win rate within a specific elo (assuming that 48-52 is what is considered balanced) it means that that champ is op in this elo, who cares if its because he is easy to play? or because people cannot play against him? why does the reason matter at all? if the reason changes, few weeks later his win rate will change too, wont it? At the end the day a champ with 50% win rate will win 50% of his games even if it has 100% pick rate or I am missing something?
Can you give us an example?
|
On January 24 2019 23:26 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2019 23:24 M2 wrote:
Can anyone explains why a win rate within a specific elo cannot be solo considered as an indicator if a champion is op, bad or balanced? What difference does it make if the champ is easy to play, mechanically advanced, picked a lot, requires better game knowledge and other bullshit like these. People constantly argue that because a champ is simple for example he is balanced on 54% win rate or something like that and that if he has 50% means that he is weak atm. Also if he is picked a lot and have 50+ win rate, he is overpowered. How the fuck does it matter what is the reason for a champ to have its win rate? Why do we have to put theoretical scenarios such as because the champ is hard he has low win rate but with time when people become good on him he will balance, maybe it will, maybe it will not, why do they need to theorize at all? If the champ has 54% win rate within a specific elo (assuming that 48-52 is what is considered balanced) it means that that champ is op in this elo, who cares if its because he is easy to play? or because people cannot play against him? why does the reason matter at all? if the reason changes, few weeks later his win rate will change too, wont it? At the end the day a champ with 50% win rate will win 50% of his games even if it has 100% pick rate or I am missing something? Can you give us an example?
Unfortunately its mostly coming from some reddit discussions, however, with Riot members explaining how do they balance and decide what has to be balanced or not? I've seen it several times, I particularly remember Rioter explaining that Pantheon having 51% win rate means that the champion is weak at the moment, because an easy to play champ like Panth should have around 53 to be considered in a good state. There was another one recently about Ezreal and Karthus because these two have more than 50% win rate but also a very high pick rate, it means that they are stronger than normal, something like that. Everyone can pick Karthus or Ez and with few games to have good results, which should mean they are strong
|
Looking at an extreme example may help illustrate this idea:
Imagine that half of all Riven games were people trying her for the first time and losing. And that the other half of her games were one tricks that had 10,000 games of experience on her and that they won at a 100% win rate. Her overall win rate would be 50%. But the champ would be busted beyond belief because everyone playing her correctly would have a 100% win rate.
All champions are like that to some degree, though obviously a lot less than in the example. There are some number of very new players who are dragging down the winrate and some number of players playing the champ correctly and winning at the champ’s actual win rate. We the players only can see the average of those two groups on win rate stat websites. So the average total winrate will always appear lower than it should be because new players drag down the rates. If a champ is very easy, new players don’t drag rates down as much. If the champ is hard, they drag it down more. So if you are just comparing average total win rates, you need to adjust for how easy the champ is. If you are looking at winrate for experienced players with similar numbers of games played on the champ you wouldn’t need to make that adjustment.
|
On January 25 2019 03:48 General_Winter wrote:
Looking at an extreme example may help illustrate this idea:
Imagine that half of all Riven games were people trying her for the first time and losing. And that the other half of her games were one tricks that had 10,000 games of experience on her and that they won at a 100% win rate. Her overall win rate would be 50%. But the champ would be busted beyond belief because everyone playing her correctly would have a 100% win rate.
All champions are like that to some degree, though obviously a lot less than in the example. There are some number of very new players who are dragging down the winrate and some number of players playing the champ correctly and winning at the champ’s actual win rate. We the players only can see the average of those two groups on win rate stat websites. So the average total winrate will always appear lower than it should be because new players drag down the rates. If a champ is very easy, new players don’t drag rates down as much. If the champ is hard, they drag it down more. So if you are just comparing average total win rates, you need to adjust for how easy the champ is. If you are looking at winrate for experienced players with similar numbers of games played on the champ you wouldn’t need to make that adjustment.
Actually not true, Champion.gg has win% based on game played.
However, bringing up Riven is a good example, because people with 51+ games on her are winning about 54.5% of the time, while players in the 1-50 bracket are sub 50% with the aggregate winrate being 50.21%
|
While true, it becomes pretty hard to quantify a player who is 'good' at a champion. People who play a champ a lot aren't necessarily good at them, I've seen an Ezreal player with over 200 games on him this season alone, and he could barely cs. This might seem trivial, but it feeds into the stats of certain 'noob' champs: if for example yi had a 48% win rate in diamond, 52% in gold, but experienced yi mains have a 53% in both divisions, is he balanced? There are probably more yi mains in gold than in diamond too, both in absolute and percentage of player population, but more people play yi in gold in percentage of games: which metric determines balance?
I still hold the belief that the game is too complicated to perfectly balance, and Riot makes patch notes in the interest of their business model. Blatantly broken stuff gets nerfed, but reworked Irelia for example has been around for too long because people enjoy seeing and playing her, despite being busted or at least a god tier pick. The metrics they have on champs just help them figure out how to keep the player base hooked.
|
On January 25 2019 05:29 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2019 03:48 General_Winter wrote:
Looking at an extreme example may help illustrate this idea:
Imagine that half of all Riven games were people trying her for the first time and losing. And that the other half of her games were one tricks that had 10,000 games of experience on her and that they won at a 100% win rate. Her overall win rate would be 50%. But the champ would be busted beyond belief because everyone playing her correctly would have a 100% win rate.
All champions are like that to some degree, though obviously a lot less than in the example. There are some number of very new players who are dragging down the winrate and some number of players playing the champ correctly and winning at the champ’s actual win rate. We the players only can see the average of those two groups on win rate stat websites. So the average total winrate will always appear lower than it should be because new players drag down the rates. If a champ is very easy, new players don’t drag rates down as much. If the champ is hard, they drag it down more. So if you are just comparing average total win rates, you need to adjust for how easy the champ is. If you are looking at winrate for experienced players with similar numbers of games played on the champ you wouldn’t need to make that adjustment.
Actually not true, Champion.gg has win% based on game played. However, bringing up Riven is a good example, because people with 51+ games on her are winning about 54.5% of the time, while players in the 1-50 bracket are sub 50% with the aggregate winrate being 50.21%
Non top 50 challenger one tricks having a 60+% winrate on a champion doesn't automatically mean that champion is broken.
If I'm a hardcore riven onetrick my riven is diamond 1 level, and every other champion I play at a plat 5 level, then my riven winrate is going to be massively inflated if i only play soloq and don't always get my role.
Making up some numbers, say I get riven in a bit over half of my games, that means there's a bit over half of my games where I'm playing at a diamond 1 level and a bit under half where I'm playing at a plat 5 level.
The exact stats are obviously impossible to know for sure, but lets say "plat 5 level play" has a 25% winrate at d4, and "d1 level play" has a 75% winrate at d4. If I play riven in just over half my games, then after enough games played i should average out at d3-ish mmr with a 65-70% winrate on riven.
Does this mean riven is broken? No... It just means that I'm a d1 riven player with a vastly inflated winrate because all my riven games are spent stomping people two divisions lower than my riven playing self, and I'm going to keep stomping these worse people whenever i get riven because I lost most of my games when I don't play riven.
These numbers are obviously pulled from thin air for illustrative purposes, but if you look at the vast majority of riven or yasuo or whatever one tricks who have a consistent 55+% winrate on their main but are also aren't in the process of climbing to their "true" mmr, they will have a ton of other champions with a sub 50% winrate which are keeping their from the mmr where they would have a 50% winrate with their main.
|
On January 25 2019 05:44 killerdog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2019 05:29 Gahlo wrote:On January 25 2019 03:48 General_Winter wrote:
Looking at an extreme example may help illustrate this idea:
Imagine that half of all Riven games were people trying her for the first time and losing. And that the other half of her games were one tricks that had 10,000 games of experience on her and that they won at a 100% win rate. Her overall win rate would be 50%. But the champ would be busted beyond belief because everyone playing her correctly would have a 100% win rate.
All champions are like that to some degree, though obviously a lot less than in the example. There are some number of very new players who are dragging down the winrate and some number of players playing the champ correctly and winning at the champ’s actual win rate. We the players only can see the average of those two groups on win rate stat websites. So the average total winrate will always appear lower than it should be because new players drag down the rates. If a champ is very easy, new players don’t drag rates down as much. If the champ is hard, they drag it down more. So if you are just comparing average total win rates, you need to adjust for how easy the champ is. If you are looking at winrate for experienced players with similar numbers of games played on the champ you wouldn’t need to make that adjustment.
Actually not true, Champion.gg has win% based on game played. However, bringing up Riven is a good example, because people with 51+ games on her are winning about 54.5% of the time, while players in the 1-50 bracket are sub 50% with the aggregate winrate being 50.21% Non top 50 challenger one tricks having a 60+% winrate on a champion doesn't automatically mean that champion is broken. If I'm a hardcore riven onetrick my riven is diamond 1 level, and every other champion I play at a plat 5 level, then my riven winrate is going to be massively inflated if i only play soloq and don't always get my role. Making up some numbers, say I get riven in two thirds of my games, that means there's two thirds of my games where I'm playing at a diamond 3 level and one third where I'm playing at a plat 5 level. The exact stats are obviously impossible to know for sure, but lets say "plat 5 level play" has a 25% winrate at d4, and "d1 level play" has a 75% winrate at d4. If I play riven in just over half my games, then after enough games played i should average out at d3-ish mmr with a 65-70% winrate on riven. Does this mean riven is broken? No... It just means that I'm a d1 riven player with a vastly inflated winrate because all my riven games are spent stomping people two divisons lower than myself, and I'm going to keep stomping these worse people whenever i get riven because I lost most of my games when I don't play riven. These numbers are obviously pulled from thin air for illustrative purposes, but if you look at the vast majority of riven or yasuo or whatever one tricks who have a consistent 55+% winrate on their main but are also aren't in the process of climbing to their "true" mmr, they will have a ton of other champions with a sub 50% winrate which are keeping their from the mmr where they would have a 50% winrate with their main.
I wasn't discussing MMR in the slightest. Relevant to champion or position.
|
On January 25 2019 05:49 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2019 05:44 killerdog wrote:On January 25 2019 05:29 Gahlo wrote:On January 25 2019 03:48 General_Winter wrote:
Looking at an extreme example may help illustrate this idea:
Imagine that half of all Riven games were people trying her for the first time and losing. And that the other half of her games were one tricks that had 10,000 games of experience on her and that they won at a 100% win rate. Her overall win rate would be 50%. But the champ would be busted beyond belief because everyone playing her correctly would have a 100% win rate.
All champions are like that to some degree, though obviously a lot less than in the example. There are some number of very new players who are dragging down the winrate and some number of players playing the champ correctly and winning at the champ’s actual win rate. We the players only can see the average of those two groups on win rate stat websites. So the average total winrate will always appear lower than it should be because new players drag down the rates. If a champ is very easy, new players don’t drag rates down as much. If the champ is hard, they drag it down more. So if you are just comparing average total win rates, you need to adjust for how easy the champ is. If you are looking at winrate for experienced players with similar numbers of games played on the champ you wouldn’t need to make that adjustment.
Actually not true, Champion.gg has win% based on game played. However, bringing up Riven is a good example, because people with 51+ games on her are winning about 54.5% of the time, while players in the 1-50 bracket are sub 50% with the aggregate winrate being 50.21% Non top 50 challenger one tricks having a 60+% winrate on a champion doesn't automatically mean that champion is broken. If I'm a hardcore riven onetrick my riven is diamond 1 level, and every other champion I play at a plat 5 level, then my riven winrate is going to be massively inflated if i only play soloq and don't always get my role. Making up some numbers, say I get riven in two thirds of my games, that means there's two thirds of my games where I'm playing at a diamond 3 level and one third where I'm playing at a plat 5 level. The exact stats are obviously impossible to know for sure, but lets say "plat 5 level play" has a 25% winrate at d4, and "d1 level play" has a 75% winrate at d4. If I play riven in just over half my games, then after enough games played i should average out at d3-ish mmr with a 65-70% winrate on riven. Does this mean riven is broken? No... It just means that I'm a d1 riven player with a vastly inflated winrate because all my riven games are spent stomping people two divisons lower than myself, and I'm going to keep stomping these worse people whenever i get riven because I lost most of my games when I don't play riven. These numbers are obviously pulled from thin air for illustrative purposes, but if you look at the vast majority of riven or yasuo or whatever one tricks who have a consistent 55+% winrate on their main but are also aren't in the process of climbing to their "true" mmr, they will have a ton of other champions with a sub 50% winrate which are keeping their from the mmr where they would have a 50% winrate with their main. I wasn't discussing MMR in the slightest. Relevant to champion or position.
Are you saying that a smurf playing against worse players is a good metric for judging champion balance based purely off the smurfs winrate, because if not then you misunderstood my post.
Unless you meant that riven was an example of a well balanced champion in the post i quoted in which case i misunderstood you. I assumed you were agreeing with the post you responded to.
Champions like riven tend to be outliers like this because becoming a better riven player includes a lot of skills like combos and animation cancels which don't transfer directly to your ability to play other champions, whereas becoming better at a "lower mechanical skill cap" champion means improving other aspects of your game which are more likely to translate into other champions/roles.
Hence one tricks of unique champions like riven are more likely to have a larger divergence in ability between their main and other champs, which leads to higher winrates on their one trick and lower winrates on everything else they play.
|
Ok, let me give a kinda weird example.
Let's say everyone in solo queue is given a rating out of 10 for their performance. For your team to win a game of solo queue your team's rating sum must be higher than the other team.
If someone is playing Sion for the 3rd time, their rating is more likely to be above 5 than below.
If someone is playing Riven for the 3rd time, their rating is more likely to be below 5 than below.
That means that an easy champion that is easier, both at lower levels and at lower experience levels, will naturally have a higher winrate. Now imagine when at 300 games, the Sion player matches up against a 300 game Riven player, and they get shit on despite them being the same rank. That's because hard champs break the 10 cap after enough experience. They can theoretically become a 12/10 champ if you're good. To keep up for that, an easier champion needs to be more frequently rank higher in the 10 scale, therefore giving them a better average win rate.
Also, Riot doesn't care about champions being broken. They care about champs being unhealthy. That's why Lucian survives not being nerfed when he goes on his months-long 50% ban rate/30%+ pick rate shenanigans every year lol. I'd argue that was unhealthy but what do i know?
|
lucian doesn't get nerfed because of affirmative action
|
On January 25 2019 06:27 Slayer91 wrote:
lucian doesn't get nerfed because of affirmative action
Imagine nerfing lucian just after MLK day
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
