devtrackers.gg
AND WE AAAAALL LIFT TOGETHERRR
AND WE AAAAALL LIFT TOGETHERRR
Sometimes we gotta take time to go back to the drawing board and admit mistakes. Hopefully this (at least in some small part) shows our commitment to listening to feedback.
EDIT: Hard work went into the new drakes from a number of Rioters (including myself), so it’s important to stay constructive and respectful in feedback, especially since reverting something that took hard work can be pretty painful. I just ask that people remain respectful.
Finally, some good news! Did anyone really like this drake lol
Like it definitely is impactful, but more often than not it's just frustrating.
I'll be honest in that I actually enjoyed playing with Chemtech rift but clearly most people didn't. So through that lens, good change, Riot.
Dang, I wasn't expecting any real change until the big mid-season patch. Wonder if there were formal complaints from eSports orgs/players after these opening weeks, forcing their hand early?
This wasn't a decision related to esports (or really affected by it at all). It was a decision about what is best for players (which incidentally includes esports). We had already made the decision quite a bit before that article came out, so it was more of a happy coincidence.
You mentioned potentially tweaking the type of rift that was accompanying the dragon, if you guys did decide to bring it back would it be like in the preseason or in the regular season
Unsure as of yet, depends how the iterations go.
Shout out to all the people who said riot was too proud to revert the change and admit they were wrong. That riot spent time coding it and they wouldn't undo it because of the time invested.
It is indeed painful to disable something that devs have worked so hard to produce. (In this case a lot of dedicated and hard working folks on the Summoner’s Rift Team)
It’s also fair to say that there’s a ratio between how much effort goes into a thing and how much additional effort we’ll put into iterating on something when it doesn’t land quite right initially.
Ultimately the hope is that we come off as being sensible and not stubborn.
Sometimes we gotta take time to go back to the drawing board and admit mistakes. Hopefully this (at least in some small part) shows our commitment to listening to feedback.
EDIT: Hard work went into the new drakes from a number of Rioters (including myself), so it’s important to stay constructive and respectful in feedback, especially since reverting something that took hard work can be pretty painful. I just ask that people remain respectful.
We’ll said.
Oy, Phreak! This is a bit out of nowhere, i've been following your latest data deep dives for LoL lately and got a question.
How do you account for a low playrate when coming up with strong Winrate trends? Do you have a threshhold regarding sample size?
I find it hard to analyse the meta when the strongest winrates fall onto less than 1% Playrate champs or builds.
In terms of pure variance, 10k games is usually +/- 1% win rate and 2.5k games is +/- 2%. If something has 3k games and is +4%, I'm pretty confident that something really good is going on. Even with fewer samples, it can still be worth investigating.
Then I mostly just mentally account for "doing well" biases that items like Mejai's and more expensive options provide.
1% playrate is irrelevant. Number of games is the only stat that matters.
And finally, checking games only within a patch or only at higher MMRs is overrated. If Conqueror is better than Fleet Footwork, it'll be better at every MMR and it'll be better in 12.1 as well as 12.2. So knowing when and where to grow your dataset to get more reliable results is helpful. There can be some exceptions here, but they tend to be fairly obvious.
Thanks for the deetz, brother. 🤜
Do you know which site has the most data, or is the most reliable? I tend to go for U.GG
I like lolalytics.com as a power-user. It seems to give me the best ways to drill down on stuff.
if you get to very % you have to take care of things like coutner picking.
Counter-picking and synergy picking are relevant regardless of sample size.
Singed Bot has a very, very high win rate. 55% of his games are with Yuumi support. It doesn't matter if that across 3k games or 300k games, that's a gigantic bias.
You're approximating WR as a binomial distribution of p=0.5 and using 2 standard deviations? That's a pretty sweet way of doing it.
Yeah I think that's a solid way of approaching that sort of data.
One thing I'd also like to do as well is additive smoothing for lower-quality data but I'm not sure what numbers to use for that.
That's an interesting idea. Thinking about it;
If you just want to avoid 0 (or 100), then an alpha = 1 is probably fine, because 2 extra games would hardly change the WR while still removing outliers.
On the other hand, it could be useful to choose a higher number if you wanted to push your lower count data towards the uniform while decreasing its standard dev. Thinking about it heuristically, I know that if I play ten games, they'll be very random and have very little statistical weight. Whereas if I play 100 games, they'll be pretty accurate and have good statistical weight. So maybe a value between 10 and 100 would be good for alpha.
This is all just me pontificating though.
Thanks for the insight. As far as I can tell it’s all arbitrary so I’ll just come up with an arbitrary alpha that suits my purposes :)