League of Legends Dev Tracker

Originally posted by tflo91

I’ll play monkey in the middle here

The problem with his initial take is that he selectively removed data from his statistics by removing all of RNG’s rumble games because “they were free wins”. Sorry? But they were still wins and he didn’t remove lesser teams that picked Rumble that also stood no chance of winning. That means any conclusions you draw from the sample will be flawed. The bottom line is that in group stages, the close games that can be used as champion data are few and far between. If he really wanted to get his point across, he could have simply used c9 vs DK as his case study, and suggest a better jungler Canyon could play in Rumbles place.

LS also likes to say how drafts should be assessed on champions being executed perfectly. While that sentiment can be appreciated and even applied in trading card games and even which draft is technically better ON PAPER, humans are inherently not perfect. League is much more open ended than any TCG and at one si...

Read more

Originally posted by topdrogon

Absolutely, you’re 100% correct on this. It’s impossible to play test every situation.

But (and I might be wrong on this) it shouldn’t be hard to play test versus META champs and META styles that are common in pro. You just need to beat what’s common and what you’re opponent are trying to do - you aren’t trying to beat a 99.9999% optimally drafting and playing AI.

For example, you can just play test Rumble jungle versus Lucian or Tristana mid or Leona or Alistar support. Of course different champs have important differences and nuances, both both have similar flavors/playstyles.

Similarly, you can play test the rumble-Morgana and Rumble-Udyr jungle matchup in customs in isolation from laners and then in in-houses with laners. Again, I’m not a league expert, so I’ll leave it to the pro players and coaches who have experience in the various ways champs need to be tested as to the best way for doing this.

Most importantly, I genuinely think your ana...

Read more

Originally posted by Puzzleheaded_Bowl386

The difference grows with player skill, and it's bad for Rumble jungle.

That is true when we are comparing Rumble Mid against Rumble jungle, but imo for the most part they should be considered on their own, because:

Sure, maybe Morgana (liked you suggested in the video) is the best jungler, maybe mid rumble is the absolutely best champion in the game. I think the part that people most take offense to/disagree with is that Rumble jungle is just bad.

And Rumble Mid has the "Azir curve", whereas Rumble Jungle looks to either have the bellcurve (if we want to interpret into the -0.5 between Plat and Master/include Bronze, Silver) or is pretty much completely flat (past gold).

Rumble jungle is underperforming very simlarily among multiple brackets of play. And that flat underperformance can again be attributed to players having less experience on the champion than would be ideal.

One final note, somewhat unrelated: I alw...

Read more

Originally posted by qo3s17

I'm seeing 51.45% winrate over 344 Challenger games on 11.10 from u.gg but maybe the site is wrong? 344 games probably a big enough sample size to read into the variation, but again I'm not sure. Also not sure how 51.45% that compares to the avg jungler.

I think the intuition has been presented elsewhere, and makes sense to me: people in Bronze-Master are not learning the champ well/fast enough, so the trend is they get punished harder as they get closer to master; then from Master-Chall the players are learning the champ quickly and getting rewarded for it in terms of winrate.

I think this intuition makes a lot of sense because even in pro play junglers have been getting criticized for not playing the champion optimally (heat management during clear, equalizer placement, etc.) so it makes sense that soloq players below Challenger are also having a rough time.

Originally posted by topdrogon

Yeah I have no idea how to account for any of that. There’s no proper mathematical way of doing so. That’s why pro play shouldn’t be on the chart at all.

BUT that doesn’t mean that the chart itself is useless. If done correctly, I actually think your analysis has the beginnings of actually statistically correct analysis that can provide meaningful insights for the pro scene as well as soloq in general.

The best way of approaching this IMO would be to keep soloq analysis as soloq, and then draw conclusions from soloq as to new possible strategies and in what contexts they could be good for pro.

From the conclusions you draw from soloq, you can then form hypotheses as to what new strategy (champ/build/rune) might be OP. You then can test these hypotheses in customs in-house and in scrims.

If a strategy passes all these tests and then doesn’t perform well on stage, it doesn’t necessarily mean you were wrong (low srs he sample size). But it could mean...

Read more

Originally posted by Kyriios188

Ah my bad then

It really felt like an answer to their previous stream where they talked a lot about your tweet and your usage of soloQ data since it came right after

Originally posted by qo3s17

Hey man! Think your content is great and the fact that you're interacting with people on reddit is awesome.

Some other people have mentioned it, but I think your grouping of Masters+ as one tier is misleading, because the skill difference between 0 LP Master and 1k LP Challenger is very significant.

Looking on u.gg, looks like Rumble jungle's Masters+ winrate is 47.71%. When you break it down between Masters, GM, and Chall, his winrate goes from 45.74% in Masters to 46.58% in GM to 51.45% in Chall. So his winrate isn't even dropping in higher skill brackets, the way you group the data just makes it seem like it is.

Originally posted by Disafae

Wouldn't you expect that as Jungle Rumble is played in higher and higher skill brackets that the people playing against Jungle Rumble would better know how to punish an off pick like that?

Originally posted by Cahecher

The issue with the underlying point is that your entire argument only holds up based on the global data that is scewed towards EUW and NA. If we look just at the Korean server, your argument falls flat, since Rumble jungle winrate is actually high and continues to go up with ranks. Considering the initial point was that western teams and western players in general are behind on the pick, it actually supports the argument of LS and IWD.

Another thing, even though mid Rumble in Korea has slightly higher winrates, the amount of games is significantly lower, i.e. on u.gg there ~560 mid Rumble games and ~2900 jungle Rumble games tracked in dia2+(cumulative 11.9 and 11.10). So it is kinda expected that a lower pick rate would inflate winrate, it's a rather common occurrence. However, if you still want to use it to say that Rumble is not a jungler because his winrate is somewhat lower than in mid, you'd still be wrong - if a champion has 52%+ wr in both roles, I'd say it's good ...

Read more

Originally posted by topdrogon

You didn't use MMR as your independent variable. You used tier (Bronze - Masters+). The analysis SIGNIFICANTLY changes if you actually use MMR (more precisely MMR range) as the independent variable. I quickly made a visual where each cell = a standard unit of MMR range (100 LP). (Not sure if this is actually the case as obviously MMR and LP are not 1-to-1, but this is the best I can do as a non-Rioter).

https://i.imgur.com/g0VwYdL.jpg

You CANNOT group Masters+ when the range for Masters+ is LARGER than all of Iron - Diamond combined. Sure, you might have sample size issues at the highest of MMR ranges, but for popular champions the analysis would at least be somewhat correct if done in this way. I promise you that with enough games, the Lillia and Rumble plots you made would look parabolic and their winrates would get higher and higher as MMR increases from masters to GM and beyond. In that case, wouldn’t it actually be...

Read more

Originally posted by ExceedingChunk

I would expect that true damage was a class at this point, and that things like this shouldn't be possible. But I guess the legacy code is too spaghetti to fix.

Also, it should be standard developer practice to create a unit test to check obvious stuff like this on all spells or items that increases or reduces damage. I'm really curious about how much of this is bad practice, and how much is just working on a system that was poorly coded and got too big to fix.

Bugs obviously do happen everywhere, but for things like true damage the system itself should prevent a single developer from "forgetting" or messing up.

Originally posted by Easilytitled

I maybe stupid here, but I just feels like where you see the huge drop off in winrates from diamond to master because people are better at abusing inexperienced players and the margin of errors got significantly lower, which I feels like it will get better as times goes on.

Edit: I still feels like the total games played have to still be significantly lower than Rumble mid, as the pick just became recently popular in the Jungle

Originally posted by bigfish1992

I mean Lillia has been around 44-46% win rate jungler in D2+ as far back as u.gg allows (which is 11.6) and yet is still highly prioritized as a competitive jungler.

Trying to conflate solo queue winrate with competitive viability is not good analysis. If the argument was/is Rumble isn't good in solo queue and you could make arguments for why it's not sure that would be more reasonable as Lillia requires a good amount of coordination with her ultimate. Rumble is probably similar in his equalizer and fighting in spots where his ult is most impactful.

But Phreak wants to use this data to say it's a bad competitive pick when he also tweeted about Rumble having I think a 3-7 record after taking out RNGs "Free" wins (it's actually 4-7) without taking into account some of the free losses from teams like DWG beating Infinity on the last day. If we take the RNG wins into account Rumble is 7-7 in jungle, if we take out Group A games his record is 4-6 in jungle.

I'm c...

Read more

Originally posted by Kyriios188

IMO Phreak shouldn't answer them so directly so quickly like this.

For a part of Riot to argue out in the open directly with two other big league personnalities feels very unprofessional to me

Originally posted by catseye013

I've never had issues with Phreak being wrong, the issue is him being unable to admit it. Wasn't long ago he had that whole Zeal item Caitlyn argument about how building a Zeal item on Caitlyn was objectively bad because it's not as gold efficient as full AD Crit items, and when multiple pros added how Zeal items give movement speed and lets you stack headshots faster (which can't be measured in gold effiency) he literally said "i don't care, it's a bad build" while casting.

Rumble could literally go 100% wr 100% pb for the rest of MSI and Phreak would still argue he's not a good jungler and that he's right

Originally posted by azaza34

But isnt there something to be said for Rumble not really being analogpus to other league of legebds champs in the same eay that other picks are? IE experience on other champions does not translate well to rumble. At least for mid and toplaners, they have probably laned against rumble and are more familiar with the mechanics and playstyle than junglers necessarily would.

Originally posted by AxeAndRod

Sorry for wall of text.

It's clear you still don't understand Phreak's argument at all.

If we give tiers for each soloQ level's amount of coordination I think it would be made clearer. (I'm making these up to show Phreak's point, but I hope we can all agree that coordination level goes up when you go up in rank)

Iron: 0/10 Coordination

Bronze: 1/10 Coordination

Silver: 2/10 Coordination

Gold: 3/10 Coordination

Platinum: 4/10 Coordination

Diamond: 6/10 Coordination

Master/Gm: 7/10 Coordination

Challenger: 8/10 Coordination

Now, you are right that Pro play is another level on top of this, for now we can just assume that Pro play is the highest level of coordination, AKA a 10/10.

So, in the video Phreak demonstrates that Rumble's SoloQ jungle relative win-rate goes down with increasing rank. This simply correlates with the idea that as players get better, coordination ge...

Read more

Originally posted by topdrogon

I completely disagree with your point about context of statistics. If you provide stats and use it for an argument, the onus is on YOU to provide the CORRECT context and interpretation of the stats and when it can be applied and when it cannot be applied. The onus is NOT on people to rectify your misuse of the statistics.

Example: Hecarim had a 48-49% win rate in plat+ soloq forever, but it turns out people were building wrong/using the wrong rune. Before people figured out phase rush made him broken, phreak’s ENTIRE argument could be used to make it seem like Hecarim is not a good pick for pro play in the jungle. This was categorically false, and people could have said “yes the soloq winrate for hecarim doesn’t matter because people are playing/building/runing him incorrectly” is absolutely a sound argument. Yes, that person needs to then say “this alternative playstyle, build path, rune choice is wholly superior”.

Saying that soloq data is useful because of large...

Read more

Originally posted by Easilytitled

I think it's normal that the winrates for Rumble jungle in higher elo is lower because the pick is newer than Rumble mid, and jungler have not grown accustomed to how he should be played; therefore got abused in higher elos

Originally posted by Wickd

Decided to fire this up on Reddit because the conversation is important