Turdburger
Member
Again lol, i dont discount the stat, i just think that it is a poor indicator of the common range of conclusions ppl draw from the stat. If i discuss talent strategy, for example, winrate wont figure in to it. If i discuss general talent strength, even that is contextual, but it is something talent winrate gets closer to (and again has very little to do with sussing out talents on your own). Like put simply, the jump a lot of ppl make from stat -> conclusion doesnt hold for me, 4/5 doctors recommending this toothpaste doesnt make me think this toothpaste is better for me. Agaaain, i dont discount the stat but for the purposes of a lot of things i think about it's not relevant. Ill never say something like i think x talent is good, it posts a high winrate, ill say something like imposing presence has a lot of value against all these auto-attackers, etc. and it's those types of considerations ppl should think about when choosing a talent. Again the caff example i gave, he doesnt consider the winrate when he thinks out those leoric builds because it isnt relevant.
At the pro level, winrate isn't relevant because of sample size and team skill differential, unless you get some really ridiculous statistics over a decent period of time.
Also how many ppl use his passive the way he describes? If that is good advice, how does it figure into winrate? Is leoric a bad champion if he has a low winrate but ppl dont use his passive properly? Etc. Like those are questions that winrate isnt involved in. The only real question i can answer with winrate is what is the winrate of leoric in this sample? While it can tell me certain things about the hero to a certain extent (things like ease of play, general strength, etc.) it again tells me very little about why the stat is the way it is, how this winrate stat is created essentially.
The goal of the game is to win. If a hero wins an abnormal amount of games in a sufficient statistical sample, then the conclusion is the same no matter how you get there: there's a balance problem. It's pretty simple.
The balancing to me is basically like, oh nazeebo posts high numbers lets put him more in line despite him having a range of counter play vs. oh cast aside seems kind of ridiculous even though ppl dont win with it a lot or play tyrael much in general lets get rid of it, vs. nova makes the game unfun for a lot of ppl lets deal with that, and i only really like the last two types of balancing in this example because there is a grabbable idea behind it. I dont think anyone was complaining about nazeebo or thought he was overpowered, he was literally just winning a lot.
Yes, Nazeebo was winning a lot. Thus the slight balance change. The amount of complaining or general perception is not relevant to whether a hero is balanced or not. Lol
Blizzard has made it very clear they approach balance differently for competitive play and the general population.
Nazeebo doesn't see play in competitive because of counterplay that isn't relevant at lower levels of play. His early game laning is bad and exploitable, his mobility is weak, and in a meta full of CC, control and burst damage, his kit doesn't do much in a team fight. At lower levels of play, though, he still just does a shitload of damage over time.
If you compare Nazeebo to Lunara, they do damage in similar ways. But Lunara has more utility (wisp), better CC (slow with her W vs. unreliable Zombie Wall) and far better mobility.