Can't believe none of them uttered the forbidden name: Aurelion Sol. A conversation about why win rate does not work for balancing could start and end with that champion.
I kinda feel this conversation revolves around 2 topics: fun, and spectators. You need to have fun whilst playing the game, so depending on your individual success and skill, reflects your champ pool. Simpler mechanics may be boring to you, or maybe your success with the harder to operate isn't great so you may lean towards the 'simpler' champs. From a spectator view, you've got to show a spectacle. 'Simpler' champs don't have me, thinking "damn i wish i could do that", "or that was a hard choice". It needs to be provoking of thought, and planning, not just execution. Else everyone will return back to simpler to execute comps as they're 'more reliable', which could result in the esport looking repetitive. Lets not forget the player base "copying the pros". People see the top players, playing certain champs, doing cool stuff, and being successful. We're like, "i wanna do that", so copy the picks/ drafts. This impacts pick rate, which will impact win rate, which will impact ban rate. They all impact each other. I get balancing (nerfs/ buffs) are attempts by the developers to move the meta to keep it fresh, but also to allow each champ to have it's own identity. (but as the roster grows i feel the latter is beginning to more of an issue.)
I do kind of fall in with Meteos' view. Simple champions should display a higher win percentage overall at all levels of play. However, champions that require a higher skill floor would show a skewed win-rate. Those who play "high skill" champs in lower level wouldn't perform as well dropping the win-rate, and at the higher tiers with proper mechanics, those champs might smash. Mind you, there are far more players in lower tied ranks than the highest level, win-rate is a bad barometer for balancing a champion.
It's crazy how great these 3 are together they make watching competetive league so much more fun even if 3/4 of the time is filled with Sneaky and Meteos meming
To sum up what Doublelift is saying: He wants players to be incentivized for playing high skilled champions via strength (when it comes to balancing) versus balancing purely off of what champion is winning the most at the time (win rate). This makes sense in hindsight but like Metos was saying it wouldn't work even though it sounds great because of the fact, there are always going to be first time players, and bad players (in general) skewing the numbers. Therefore no matter if they was to balance it in that way the hardest champions will still have low win rates.
So i might be wrong but from what i understand : Meteos is saying that if the game was balanced, champions should have the same power level, and so easier champs to play should have higher winrate because the skill floor should be closer to the skill ceiling. I completely agree with that, and it's why he says winrate shouldnt be a good metric to balance the game. Doublelift is saying that the game is less fun when basic champs (I.E. noc) are meta because people play meta champs, of course, and he'd prefer higher skill champions to have higher winrate meaning they would be meta and played more, and then easier champs would trade power for simplicity. while i don't agree on that because it would mean the game is less balanced, (see what meteos is saying for good balance), it highlights the fact that some champs are old and not fun to play against / with / as and they should be, at least imo, reworked (instead of releasing new champs that just overshadow the old ones) to make less fun champs be funnier to play with, as and against.
In low rank soloq, not losing lane is sometimes "winning." Marco mistakes happens more often and most of the time will erase lane leads over time. "Easier" champs should have higher win rates because the skill floor is so much lower and as long as you don't feed the enemy 10 kills in 10 minutes there is a high chance it'll coin flip to a win.
Doublelifts idealistic view that the most optimal way to play a game should be the most fun is so unlikely. Usually the most "optimal" way to play to win is using disproportionately strong units that are somewhat easy to execute, which is almost never high-risk = high-reward "more mechanical" champions.
I believe he meant that IF the game is perfectly designed and balanced, the most optimal way to play would also be the most fun way to play. If the most optimal way to play is also boring or feels unfair/exploitative, that's evidence of a design/balance flaw that the designers and balance team should attempt to address.
It clearly shows in this discussion that they can't really have a discussion about game balance, because they have so different views on basic terms like winrate, champ strength, etc. I'm not saying they are talking bullshit, I'm trying to say that I just sense constant struggling, because they don't know how to factor in winrate outliers (noobies and one tricks), they don't have a consensus about what is the method or framework of defining or evaluating champ attributes. I'm pretty sure at riot there are a few statistical analyst who really know what the numbers mean, and keep in mind, they have a lot more data on various variables that they can filter like mastery at 10,20,50 games in different elos. They can exclude extreme cases (outliers) and have a general winrate. It's so complex, like think about it, what does a 49 winrate mean on a late game champ in an early game focused meta? Same for early game champ? In low elo, in high elo? I think its interesting to see the community engage in such discussions, but the overwhelming weight of lack of statistical knowledge, lack of data (u.gg is not enough) and lack of consensus on guidelines makes it hard for us to understand game balance. Imo
I'm late to this but a lot of the simpler champions like Nasus, Darius, or Yi are more difficult for lower ranked players to play against because the counter isn't just dodge 'x' ability or wait for the them to use it to go in, etc. The counter for those champions usually plays into game fundamentals like wave manipulation, short trades, or focusing/cc chaining and those aren't really easily nerfable or buffable aspects of the game which makes the game overall hard to balance due to the varying complexity of champions
A lot of it depends on the role. For example, in LCS it seems like Azir is in the game all the time mid. He is super low winrate on opgg. On the other hand, it feels like in the jg, the same champs you see in LCS are the ones with high winrates and the ones you see in gold solOQ games
I think both Meteos and Doublelift are right. You should be designing the game somewhere in the middle, and then both outcomes occur. Neither outcome is inherently bad and neither outcome could be prevented anyway. If you are good at a difficult champion, you inherently get a stronger pick. If only for the reason that your opponents are caught unawares. But no matter how hard you try to make it not true, higher skill picks provide more tools to win. A sniper is always a better gun in fps games, but only if you can hit the headshots. However, not everyone is going to be a good at Zed. So if you can't play Zed or Riven, you find more success with simpler champs and their winrate rises. If you can't aim for crap, you go with the shotgun because you don't need to (or in this case can't) aim. It's only a problem when you get something so unbalanced that your shotgun is a sniper. And, per my example of CoDMW Remastered, it should be quickly patched out.
3:42 this is at it's peak right now. Start nerfs with all the regen champs right now that that can gain half their life in 10 seconds even at low levels but can still 1 shot / be tanky.
For high skill cap champions, inital winrates for new players playing these champions should be analyzed as to show if the champion's impact on the game outweighs the impact of the player's mistakes, because if a high skill cap champion is winning more initially it means that the champion's strength is too impactful and the skill needed to play said champion does not matter because the mistakes new players make do not have as severe consequences as it would be for other high skill cap champions. Effectively making the champ a low skill floor champ with high skill floor champ strength and impact which is not healthy for players playing champs like amumu or udyr. Not saying to use the inital winrate for 100% of balance decisions for high skill cap champs but definitely take considerable account for this as most inital winrates for hard champs are lower than 50 or 40 percent.
I think that champion strength should be decided based on the ratio between ease of excecution and w/r measuring the otp on one side and everybody else. If a hard to play champ has a high winrate it means that people who mess up their gameplay is winning stil... so thats unbalanced
It’s important to note that Riot changes the way they balance champions based on what skill bracket they are in. A champ getting nerfed because it’s good in low Elo is going to look different than a champ getting nerfed because it’s good in high elo. They tend to make decisions based on changing something about the champ to make them more balanced amongst the player base playing them. It’s the same with buffs too. Giving a weak champ some damage on a skill shot helps better players because better players will hit more skill shots. Obviously win rates don’t tell the whole story and I’m sure Riot knows that too. But it’s definitely more than just “a champ is good in a certain elo and all nerfs are going to be the same.”
My main issue with DL's point I that he really is looking to much at winrate through the lens of a pro/high elo Meteos os looking at the playerbase as a whole.
Maybe a good way to balance a game would be through scaling? Stupid easy champs like Hec, Udyr, and Cockturn should be really strong for the first 15-25 minutes but get completely ass fucked by 35 minutes. Kalista for example is designed as an early game champ but executing on her is more difficult compared to Jinx/Mf. This would probably be difficult to do since champions role throughout the game is also dependant on their kit itself, but it was just an idea. Either was I'm stuck in pisslow so i could be wrong on this.
Any good game developer has to play the game he's creating or maintaining. Being good at it isn't always going to happen, but having _someone_ in design group being actually good at the game is important, you cannot rely on play testers to get the feel of what is broken for you.
I think tank tops need help, because most of them are really easy to play but rn they’re also really weak. I’d love to see a tank with an insanely high skill cap and that’s able to compete vs the bruiser meta(not win fights, but survive in lane without losing the game for your team). Feel like they should nerf the damage of the tanks and tank items and make them much better at clearing waves early and given them more defensive abilities. I think it’s bad when the only thing a tank can offer is cc, I think tanks should have abilities to create space and time for their team to come in and assist them. Why do bruiser champions like Gwen and veigo and Fiora etc get abilities that make them immune or untargetable this seems like this they could use for tanks. Instead of just making them so the only way they’re viable is by cc’ing someone long enough for them to die or having high enough damage to straight up one shot squishies
If you balance the game around winrates then you have to take the pickrate into consideration. Take Ezreal for example. 49.15% winrate above plat and 500k games. Ezreal is supposedly a hard adc to play. So either the champ is very good or everyone turned into an Ezreal main for some reason.
What if they survey players what champs need nerfed/buffed and why? Many people would love to input feedback, and they could "easily" boil the feedback down to something digestible via pattern recognition.
A big portion of players have good ideas about game balance, but when you talk to some people, notably in lower elo, a big majority of people would be terrible at balancing (yes some low ELO have good ideas and a lot of high ELO have bad ideas too, I'm not trying to just bash low ELO players). The solution is simply to have people directly at riot knowing what they're doing, which isn't completely the case ATM unfortunately
I think all the Devs should be gold/plat cause they’re super middle of the road. They are just good enough to feel the actual changes, but not so good it won’t affect the low ELO players.
As much as I agree with “high skill should have high win rates” a champ like nocturne in the jungle has little to no reason to play mechanically well since there playing jungle. Mechanics arnt everything. There’s a reason the 2 singed mains are in top100 challenger almost every season
I see what DL is saying here. Nerfing on Winrate should factor in Playrate. Sure, harder champs should be balanced towards an INITIAL lower winrate. But if a champ has on average 50 games played from each player and another has like 3 and is almost autofilled/fill/first time tier and have the same win rates, then that's a bit fucked.
This happens in business all the time. Someone picks a metric that sounds important like champion win rate does here and says "This metric determines whether or not we're doing a good job" and ignores everything else. Then they make a bunch of decisions based on this one metric that actually hurt the business. So take fast food for example. Some genius will say "How fast we can get you your order in the drive-thru determines customer satisfaction". Then they'll go around and tell everyone the only thing that matters is speed. So the guy on the fry station will keep old, soggy French fries around so no one has to wait on fresh ones. The guy making the sandwiches will just slap things together as fast as he can and ketchup will end up all over the fucking wrapper and he'll forget the pickles half the time. Then suddenly no one wants to buy your food and management goes, "Huh, that's weird, we're like super fast though, oh well" and then guy who had that brilliant idea in the first place gets promoted and a bonus because he can say "Look guys, I got the speed number right" the way that Riot can say "Look guys, it's balanced, the champion win rate number is right". I'm impressed Meteos understood from the beginning that you can't just focus on one stat and exclude everything else and also impressed that Doublelift realized his mistake and changed his mind. In any given boardroom Meteos' perspective wouldn't exist and Doublelift's would've been how the decision was made.
I remember Yorick getting huge nerfs for being high winrate in low elo. Absolutely insane to consider nerfing a champ with a 49% winrate in diamond+ because low elo players can't figure out how to play against it. 200 years I guess.
really isnt insane from a game design perspective considering how most of the playerbase is low elo, which means more players are affected by him being strong in low elo than him being weak in high elo
Low elo is where a majority of riot player base are at, so it make sense they would nerf something a majority of players are having problems with. It's more insane to let a champion that is dominating a majority of your players be left strong because
I think meteos really should have mentioned something like this. If a difficult champ like lee sin had a 53% winrate, how fucking broken would he be if someone good is playing him? Like the game is probably at its most balanced when that is the state of winrates.
Ayo sneaky pls give us tri cast for eu I would of loved to see ur guys reactions from the rogue and G2 choke Na is such a clown fiesta I’ll still watch u guys regardless but pls pls give us eu the people need it
True but just take the L and do it for playoffs Na is just so boring to watch it’s so predictable Jizuke will throw eventually TL win or lose will be boring as fuck Tsm will dominate or completely grief 100t will win but it won’t be clean The eu games this past week were stupid hype had me on the edge of my seat the entire series
Should remove surrender vote from ranked. FORCE NA PLAYERS INTO COMMITMENT Force players to think about the comp their choosing to play. HARDFORCE players to LEARN how to make decisions to end a game. Super BAN penalties for afk’s END players trying to spam ff for 30 minutes straight. Reward players who enjoy carrying.
Can't believe none of them uttered the forbidden name: Aurelion Sol. A conversation about why win rate does not work for balancing could start and end with that champion.
sadge :(
Or Illaoi, same thing. Almost no one plays her, but the people who do are 1 tricks.
Really good points by both of them.
Anyway who's the mute guy?
I kinda feel this conversation revolves around 2 topics: fun, and spectators.
You need to have fun whilst playing the game, so depending on your individual success and skill, reflects your champ pool. Simpler mechanics may be boring to you, or maybe your success with the harder to operate isn't great so you may lean towards the 'simpler' champs.
From a spectator view, you've got to show a spectacle. 'Simpler' champs don't have me, thinking "damn i wish i could do that", "or that was a hard choice". It needs to be provoking of thought, and planning, not just execution. Else everyone will return back to simpler to execute comps as they're 'more reliable', which could result in the esport looking repetitive.
Lets not forget the player base "copying the pros". People see the top players, playing certain champs, doing cool stuff, and being successful. We're like, "i wanna do that", so copy the picks/ drafts. This impacts pick rate, which will impact win rate, which will impact ban rate. They all impact each other.
I get balancing (nerfs/ buffs) are attempts by the developers to move the meta to keep it fresh, but also to allow each champ to have it's own identity. (but as the roster grows i feel the latter is beginning to more of an issue.)
I do kind of fall in with Meteos' view. Simple champions should display a higher win percentage overall at all levels of play. However, champions that require a higher skill floor would show a skewed win-rate. Those who play "high skill" champs in lower level wouldn't perform as well dropping the win-rate, and at the higher tiers with proper mechanics, those champs might smash. Mind you, there are far more players in lower tied ranks than the highest level, win-rate is a bad barometer for balancing a champion.
And this is why Will has his own show. His points were so well thought out and well expressed.
why you say Will like you best friends with him and not meteos
@@boofy2592 who cares
@@Skrillexxon cuz shit is weird to call people you don't know by their first name
Title for the next costream video: zack, peter and will
I said Will due to his level of professionalism.
It's crazy how great these 3 are together they make watching competetive league so much more fun even if 3/4 of the time is filled with Sneaky and Meteos meming
To sum up what Doublelift is saying: He wants players to be incentivized for playing high skilled champions via strength (when it comes to balancing) versus balancing purely off of what champion is winning the most at the time (win rate).
This makes sense in hindsight but like Metos was saying it wouldn't work even though it sounds great because of the fact, there are always going to be first time players, and bad players (in general) skewing the numbers. Therefore no matter if they was to balance it in that way the hardest champions will still have low win rates.
Meteos talking to Double is like 1 step forward, 6 steps back.
So i might be wrong but from what i understand :
Meteos is saying that if the game was balanced, champions should have the same power level, and so easier champs to play should have higher winrate because the skill floor should be closer to the skill ceiling. I completely agree with that, and it's why he says winrate shouldnt be a good metric to balance the game.
Doublelift is saying that the game is less fun when basic champs (I.E. noc) are meta because people play meta champs, of course, and he'd prefer higher skill champions to have higher winrate meaning they would be meta and played more, and then easier champs would trade power for simplicity. while i don't agree on that because it would mean the game is less balanced, (see what meteos is saying for good balance), it highlights the fact that some champs are old and not fun to play against / with / as and they should be, at least imo, reworked (instead of releasing new champs that just overshadow the old ones) to make less fun champs be funnier to play with, as and against.
Will the boys actually make some hour-long podcasts together?
Hope so
In low rank soloq, not losing lane is sometimes "winning." Marco mistakes happens more often and most of the time will erase lane leads over time. "Easier" champs should have higher win rates because the skill floor is so much lower and as long as you don't feed the enemy 10 kills in 10 minutes there is a high chance it'll coin flip to a win.
Doublelifts idealistic view that the most optimal way to play a game should be the most fun is so unlikely. Usually the most "optimal" way to play to win is using disproportionately strong units that are somewhat easy to execute, which is almost never high-risk = high-reward "more mechanical" champions.
I believe he meant that IF the game is perfectly designed and balanced, the most optimal way to play would also be the most fun way to play. If the most optimal way to play is also boring or feels unfair/exploitative, that's evidence of a design/balance flaw that the designers and balance team should attempt to address.
It clearly shows in this discussion that they can't really have a discussion about game balance, because they have so different views on basic terms like winrate, champ strength, etc. I'm not saying they are talking bullshit, I'm trying to say that I just sense constant struggling, because they don't know how to factor in winrate outliers (noobies and one tricks), they don't have a consensus about what is the method or framework of defining or evaluating champ attributes.
I'm pretty sure at riot there are a few statistical analyst who really know what the numbers mean, and keep in mind, they have a lot more data on various variables that they can filter like mastery at 10,20,50 games in different elos. They can exclude extreme cases (outliers) and have a general winrate. It's so complex, like think about it, what does a 49 winrate mean on a late game champ in an early game focused meta? Same for early game champ? In low elo, in high elo?
I think its interesting to see the community engage in such discussions, but the overwhelming weight of lack of statistical knowledge, lack of data (u.gg is not enough) and lack of consensus on guidelines makes it hard for us to understand game balance.
Imo
I'm late to this but a lot of the simpler champions like Nasus, Darius, or Yi are more difficult for lower ranked players to play against because the counter isn't just dodge 'x' ability or wait for the them to use it to go in, etc. The counter for those champions usually plays into game fundamentals like wave manipulation, short trades, or focusing/cc chaining and those aren't really easily nerfable or buffable aspects of the game which makes the game overall hard to balance due to the varying complexity of champions
Why do I randomly hear some champ saying, "Perfect"?
thats sneakys sub sound on twitch
its kaisa and its Sneaky's sub and stream notification sounds
@@MultiNatew oh got it, thanks for letting me know
@@CodyyGames thanks, I had no idea it was that.
are these clips all taken from watch parties for the LCS?
A lot of it depends on the role.
For example, in LCS it seems like Azir is in the game all the time mid. He is super low winrate on opgg.
On the other hand, it feels like in the jg, the same champs you see in LCS are the ones with high winrates and the ones you see in gold solOQ games
I think both Meteos and Doublelift are right. You should be designing the game somewhere in the middle, and then both outcomes occur. Neither outcome is inherently bad and neither outcome could be prevented anyway.
If you are good at a difficult champion, you inherently get a stronger pick. If only for the reason that your opponents are caught unawares. But no matter how hard you try to make it not true, higher skill picks provide more tools to win. A sniper is always a better gun in fps games, but only if you can hit the headshots.
However, not everyone is going to be a good at Zed. So if you can't play Zed or Riven, you find more success with simpler champs and their winrate rises. If you can't aim for crap, you go with the shotgun because you don't need to (or in this case can't) aim.
It's only a problem when you get something so unbalanced that your shotgun is a sniper. And, per my example of CoDMW Remastered, it should be quickly patched out.
3:42 this is at it's peak right now. Start nerfs with all the regen champs right now that that can gain half their life in 10 seconds even at low levels but can still 1 shot / be tanky.
For high skill cap champions, inital winrates for new players playing these champions should be analyzed as to show if the champion's impact on the game outweighs the impact of the player's mistakes, because if a high skill cap champion is winning more initially it means that the champion's strength is too impactful and the skill needed to play said champion does not matter because the mistakes new players make do not have as severe consequences as it would be for other high skill cap champions. Effectively making the champ a low skill floor champ with high skill floor champ strength and impact which is not healthy for players playing champs like amumu or udyr. Not saying to use the inital winrate for 100% of balance decisions for high skill cap champs but definitely take considerable account for this as most inital winrates for hard champs are lower than 50 or 40 percent.
9:27 sneaky felt hungry
you can hear the co-stream in the back XD
Annoying as hell ^^
I don't get it
I fucking love those talks.
What happend to the Monkeys?
I think that champion strength should be decided based on the ratio between ease of excecution and w/r measuring the otp on one side and everybody else. If a hard to play champ has a high winrate it means that people who mess up their gameplay is winning stil... so thats unbalanced
sneaky casually picking the nose @ 4:11
It’s important to note that Riot changes the way they balance champions based on what skill bracket they are in. A champ getting nerfed because it’s good in low Elo is going to look different than a champ getting nerfed because it’s good in high elo. They tend to make decisions based on changing something about the champ to make them more balanced amongst the player base playing them. It’s the same with buffs too. Giving a weak champ some damage on a skill shot helps better players because better players will hit more skill shots.
Obviously win rates don’t tell the whole story and I’m sure Riot knows that too. But it’s definitely more than just “a champ is good in a certain elo and all nerfs are going to be the same.”
My main issue with DL's point I that he really is looking to much at winrate through the lens of a pro/high elo Meteos os looking at the playerbase as a whole.
Maybe a good way to balance a game would be through scaling? Stupid easy champs like Hec, Udyr, and Cockturn should be really strong for the first 15-25 minutes but get completely ass fucked by 35 minutes. Kalista for example is designed as an early game champ but executing on her is more difficult compared to Jinx/Mf.
This would probably be difficult to do since champions role throughout the game is also dependant on their kit itself, but it was just an idea. Either was I'm stuck in pisslow so i could be wrong on this.
Why not just do winrate over average number of games [skew more games to + .15]
Any good game developer has to play the game he's creating or maintaining.
Being good at it isn't always going to happen, but having _someone_ in design group being actually good at the game is important, you cannot rely on play testers to get the feel of what is broken for you.
You also have to consider the win rate per Rank of a champion.
I think tank tops need help, because most of them are really easy to play but rn they’re also really weak. I’d love to see a tank with an insanely high skill cap and that’s able to compete vs the bruiser meta(not win fights, but survive in lane without losing the game for your team). Feel like they should nerf the damage of the tanks and tank items and make them much better at clearing waves early and given them more defensive abilities. I think it’s bad when the only thing a tank can offer is cc, I think tanks should have abilities to create space and time for their team to come in and assist them. Why do bruiser champions like Gwen and veigo and Fiora etc get abilities that make them immune or untargetable this seems like this they could use for tanks. Instead of just making them so the only way they’re viable is by cc’ing someone long enough for them to die or having high enough damage to straight up one shot squishies
If you balance the game around winrates then you have to take the pickrate into consideration. Take Ezreal for example. 49.15% winrate above plat and 500k games. Ezreal is supposedly a hard adc to play. So either the champ is very good or everyone turned into an Ezreal main for some reason.
Winrate is not everything but its the easiest and best to work metric for most situations, you cant use it for every case but for most.
If an easy champ has a low winrate it’s underpowered if a hard champ has a high winrate it’s overpowered.
dbd developers: wait we have to play the game?
What if they survey players what champs need nerfed/buffed and why? Many people would love to input feedback, and they could "easily" boil the feedback down to something digestible via pattern recognition.
A big portion of players have good ideas about game balance, but when you talk to some people, notably in lower elo, a big majority of people would be terrible at balancing (yes some low ELO have good ideas and a lot of high ELO have bad ideas too, I'm not trying to just bash low ELO players). The solution is simply to have people directly at riot knowing what they're doing, which isn't completely the case ATM unfortunately
I think all the Devs should be gold/plat cause they’re super middle of the road. They are just good enough to feel the actual changes, but not so good it won’t affect the low ELO players.
As much as I agree with “high skill should have high win rates” a champ like nocturne in the jungle has little to no reason to play mechanically well since there playing jungle. Mechanics arnt everything. There’s a reason the 2 singed mains are in top100 challenger almost every season
I see what DL is saying here. Nerfing on Winrate should factor in Playrate. Sure, harder champs should be balanced towards an INITIAL lower winrate. But if a champ has on average 50 games played from each player and another has like 3 and is almost autofilled/fill/first time tier and have the same win rates, then that's a bit fucked.
Yeahh they're right! If they dont listen to the player base then just play the game themselves and see the monsters that they've created
why is this called a podcast xd
Phreak disapproves
Yea a lot of super lame champs are really strong atm, sucks
doublelift draven.
This happens in business all the time. Someone picks a metric that sounds important like champion win rate does here and says "This metric determines whether or not we're doing a good job" and ignores everything else. Then they make a bunch of decisions based on this one metric that actually hurt the business.
So take fast food for example. Some genius will say "How fast we can get you your order in the drive-thru determines customer satisfaction". Then they'll go around and tell everyone the only thing that matters is speed. So the guy on the fry station will keep old, soggy French fries around so no one has to wait on fresh ones. The guy making the sandwiches will just slap things together as fast as he can and ketchup will end up all over the fucking wrapper and he'll forget the pickles half the time. Then suddenly no one wants to buy your food and management goes, "Huh, that's weird, we're like super fast though, oh well" and then guy who had that brilliant idea in the first place gets promoted and a bonus because he can say "Look guys, I got the speed number right" the way that Riot can say "Look guys, it's balanced, the champion win rate number is right".
I'm impressed Meteos understood from the beginning that you can't just focus on one stat and exclude everything else and also impressed that Doublelift realized his mistake and changed his mind. In any given boardroom Meteos' perspective wouldn't exist and Doublelift's would've been how the decision was made.
I remember Yorick getting huge nerfs for being high winrate in low elo. Absolutely insane to consider nerfing a champ with a 49% winrate in diamond+ because low elo players can't figure out how to play against it. 200 years I guess.
really isnt insane from a game design perspective considering how most of the playerbase is low elo, which means more players are affected by him being strong in low elo than him being weak in high elo
Low elo is where a majority of riot player base are at, so it make sense they would nerf something a majority of players are having problems with. It's more insane to let a champion that is dominating a majority of your players be left strong because
I think meteos really should have mentioned something like this. If a difficult champ like lee sin had a 53% winrate, how fucking broken would he be if someone good is playing him? Like the game is probably at its most balanced when that is the state of winrates.
Ayo sneaky pls give us tri cast for eu
I would of loved to see ur guys reactions from the rogue and G2 choke
Na is such a clown fiesta
I’ll still watch u guys regardless but pls pls give us eu the people need it
sneaky is usually up until 3-5am so in NA EU starts around 8-9am, the sleep schedule just doesn't work out for the gamers
True but just take the L and do it for playoffs
Na is just so boring to watch it’s so predictable
Jizuke will throw eventually
TL win or lose will be boring as fuck
Tsm will dominate or completely grief
100t will win but it won’t be clean
The eu games this past week were stupid hype had me on the edge of my seat the entire series
@@8thgstriker412 if they cared about EU enough they’d do it obviously they disagree
@@8thgstriker412 They'll surely do it for worlds, which is going to be in EU time zone
@@madotee are you implying eu playoffs is comparable to worlds?
So ur not gonna title this show? Lol
Most low elo players decide there mains by champ depth. Dunnings-Krueger effect at its finest
Fuck u Nocturne. Lethal Temp noct or HOB+stridebreaker+Noct E is absolutely cancer.
Should remove surrender vote from ranked.
FORCE NA PLAYERS INTO COMMITMENT
Force players to think about the comp their choosing to play. HARDFORCE players to LEARN how to make decisions to end a game. Super BAN penalties for afk’s
END players trying to spam ff for 30 minutes straight. Reward players who enjoy carrying.
doublelift is so pepega
Hhhhhhhhhhh