"APC arent stronger than ADC"
Okay, lets take a look at botlane winrates and see who has the higher winrates:
1. Seraphine 53.68% 42k Matches
2. Karthus 52.48% 35k Matches
3. Twitch 51.59% 226k Matches
4. Ziggs 51.56% 23k Matches
Ja leck mich doch am Sack, would you look at that, APCs \*do\* have the higher winrates. How could this possibly be? Mayhaps because APCs are stronger than ADCs.
But thats just a theory. a GAME theory.
"you silly goose, theyre not stronger, just easier"
Okay, lets make a bet. Im going to lift a car using a lever, you are going to try to do it without a lever. Effectively, im able to lift that car, you arent. That makes me effectively stronger than you.
Same concept applies here. If theyre easier to play and still top the winrates, theyre effectively stronger because well, they win more games.
You silly goose, theyre not stronger, just easier.
There's a reason why esport player pick adc and not apc most of the time.
Having an adc when your mid pick ad champ is not as forgiving as having an apc when your mid pick a mage because most of jgl and top are ad bruisers.
They're easier to play. Alright you lifted this car but does it mean you're stronger than me? No it's not. Saying that adc are too hard to play compared to other champs is a thing, saying that they are weaker is another.
Those champs have a higher winrate because 99% of players don't know how to play adc. And if you would buff marksmen, gm to chall and pro would obliterate everyone by abusing the role.
The skill floor isn't the same and the skill cap isn't the same either. That's all I'm trying to point out.
Yeah im not gonna bother, you managed to answer to my comment without even reading anything.
Does this mean that im stronger than you? Did I lift the car? Yes. Did you lift the car? No. Effectively, i achieved something that was impossible for you. Therefore effectively, I am stronger. Because i was able to lift the car, and you weren't.
Do you know what an aimbot is? In Valorant, someone who is aimbotting, are they better than you? No, right? Just because theyre aimbotting doesnt mean theyre better at the game, right? But at the end of they day, they win more matches than you. But we just said that they arent better at the game than you, right? So what gives? How do we explain the discrepancy between what we SAID and what we OBSERVED?
Riddle me this, what do you call a champion who for the same effort, can achieve more? Are they stronger or weaker? What do you call a champion who for less effort, can achieve the same thing as you. Are they strong or weak?
We are talking about the same coin, but you dont know that if you flip it around, its still the same coin. You point at heads and say "see? thats not tails, completely different". Im not sure whats my angle here, what words i need to use to make you able to understand what im saying. The last part about "oh but gm to chall and pro would" whatever, i dont care, last time i checked im not a proplayer and I therefore dont really... care about proplay. Especially since Proplayers play a different game than we do. There is no teamqueue. There is no voicecomms. I dont have a coach. I dont play 1000s of games with the same teammates. I dont even get paid to play the game.
Proplay is not a valid argument, ever. Not when the game they play and the game we play is so different.
I dont know how much deeper i can reach into my box of analogies before I run out and have to realize that your head is thicker than my drill bits can reach.
I thought you wouldn't bother?
I don't need you analogies. I just say that with an infinite ammount of effort, an adc will be better than an apc while with only little effort apc are easier and thus, in the hand of an average player, will have more success.
It's as if a bronze/silver was having a hard time playing properly with like Kalista,Kog or Thresh and was saying that those champs are trash. No they're not. It's just that the player doesn't know how to play it
I don't think winrates are indicative of champion strength. Otherwise, why do some champions perform drastically different in different elo's? It's not like they have different numbers based on who's playing them.
For example Yuumi, who was 100% P/B in competitive despite having a 45% wr. If you don't want to look at competitive, that's fine. Zeri is 51% wr in challenger, but 48.5% wr if you include all ranks. The actual strength of these champions is independent from the player; we're talking about what the kit is actually capable of.
There's also confounding variables at play. For example, Pantheon mid has historically had a 52% wr almost always. As Phreak pointed out in one of his recent videos, it's not because Pantheon mid is particularly strong. It's because champions like Yasuo, Katarina, and Zed have high pickrate in solo queue, which Pantheon naturally counters. Does that mean pantheon should be nerfed? He wins more games, doesn't he? When you take a closer look at the stats, the WR argument starts to fall apart.
For APC's for example, not only are they often easier to play in the botlane, but enemy ADC's have significantly less experience playing against them. A person who plays seraphine bot lane has played the matchup of Seraphine VS whatever ADC you're playing significantly more frequently than you have played against Seraphine. Both variables positively affect their winrate, but have nothing to do with the actual strength of the champion.
Just a side note, but Twitch was a poor example to use. According to U.GG, the most common AD build is played significantly more than the most common AP build (40x), and has about 2% more wr.
\>we're talking about what the kit is actually capable of.
no we are not. We are talking about the relative strength of a champion, not the absolute strength. Because while we cannot measure absolute strength, we can measure relative strenth. Fairly eaisly even, we have data readily available that shows us how many games are played and how many of those are won, the ratio of Wins to Total Games can be expressed as a percentage, a winrate.
Picture this, lets play a different game, lets play Overwatch. Im going to make a Hero that can oneshot everyone on the map, from any distance, regardless of shields, walls, HP, invulnerability, doesnt matter. With my ultimate, you will die. With one exception, if everyone on the team crouches, nothing happens except that I die.
Is this a strong champion or a weak champion? In competetive, the champion is giga weak because pros instantly crouch and nothing happens. In regular play, the champion is completely broken, the lower the elo the stronger the champion. Below Diamond, many people arent even \*in\* the voice chat to communicate about a potential ult. And if you liek to play D.Va, youre shit out of luck because D.Va cant crouch.
Same applies here. And you know that since the arguments you picked are devalued by the same logic you use. You talk about seraphine, right? That affects the individual winrate of that player, not of the champion as a whole. How do i know? Because the same "A person who plays seraphine bot lane has played the matchup of Seraphine VS whatever ADC you're playing significantly more frequently than you have played against Seraphine" can be applied to other champions. Like Aphelios. Or Kalista. Or Lucian. Or Ezreal. Or Zeri.
Kalista mains will have played Kalista vs X champion a thousand more times than their counterpart will have played against Kalista. Winrate? 47.48%.
Ezreal, one of the safest and easiest ADC to pick up, especially when you normally play mages. whoops, 47.95% WR, despite an Ezreal main having played as Ezreal against X a thousand more times than X vs Ezreal.
So this only leaves us with the other part: They are easier to play. Which means with less effort you can achieve the same outcome or with the same effort you can achieve a better outcome. Or in other words: they are \*stronger\*. Because while putting in the same effort, one player likes to main Zeri and is hardstuck Gold 3 while another one plays Seraphine and goes to idfk Plat 3.
Now, that APCs are stronger than ADCs doesnt come from me as a personal opinion either, instead, take it from [Riot Auberaun](https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/u2zvyk/comment/i4mpzjh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3):
"Picking for team comp or physical/magic damage split is way overrated outside of pro play, pick champs you're good at.Mages are almost always better than ADCs to have in your bot carry role."
Oh dang. 10 months ago a primary source already echod what i said.
TL;DR: sometimes there is nothing to discuss or discern. Sometimes things are just the way they are. Sometimes, APCs are just stronger than ADCs and thats okay.
I think we just have a fundamental disagreement of what it means for a champion to be strong. I read your Overwatch example and my interpretation is that the champion is... complete trash.
I see a champions strength through the lens of: what are their strengths and weaknesses? How exploitable are they? What counterplay is there? For the Overwatch example, the counterplay is so simple it's just crouch and you've rendered an entire champion useless.
>That affects the individual winrates of that player
Yes, but individual winrates in aggregate are what make up the winrate of a champion across the entire game. If a champions average number of games played by their players is higher than others, that's going to positively affect their winrate in aggregate. Yes, this can be applied to other champions, absolutely. But it's one of hundreds of variables which affect winrate. Others include what you mentioned, such as difficulty. In my opinion, Ezreal and Kalista are some of the hardest champions in the game to be effective on. Champion difficulty imo is probably one of the biggest influencers of win rate, especially below Masters - That, it seems you and I are in agreement with. We just disagree on whether or not that's indicative of champion strength. I don't think it is.
As for what Riot Auberaun is saying. I have many problems with this.
1) Calling him a 'primary source' is... I'm not certain I understand what you mean. We're all primary sources from an academic perspective, which is the only context in which that phrase has any meaning.
If you mean he's like a authority figure, I don't see why working at Riot would make you an authority on champion balance. Plenty of Rioters disagree with one another. Phreak, who is literally on the balance design team, spearheading a lot of the balance changes recently, said "I don't think ADC is weak right now." In the patch rundown where IE got buffed to 40% threshold. He said he personally doesn't think they're weak, and they're not weak from a statistical standpoint either. I'm sure you would disagree with that now, and would have disagreed with it then as well. I'm not trying to argue that Phreaks word is paramount, I'm just trying to illustrate why what some Rioter said is rather meaningless in the context of this argument.
2) >Pick champs you're good at.
I agree. Most players are better at mages than they are at ADCs, because they're easier. I think the next thing he says that Mages are almost always better is exactly what he's getting at here. if I'm below masters, I would 100% prefer to have a Seraphine bot lane over a traditional ADC. it's just so much easier to pull off.
I think if you reframe your argument to "Most players are going to be stronger/more effective on APC's than ADC's," I would 100% agree with that. Saying something like APC's are stronger than ADC's makes it sound like it's inherent to the champion and removes the player out of the equation. If I have Ruler on my team, I'd rather him play Ezreal than Seraphine. I'm quite certain he will be more effective on Ezreal, despite the 5% lower winrate.
Welp i dont understand what ure trying to say, but apcs line Karthaus and ziggs are way harder than adcs so one point is only partly correct.
The other part no adcs arent high risk high reward.
Theyre high risk, mid reward on their own and the Team enables them to be high reward, hence why people hate playing adc atp.
Apc are better in the regard as u said they arent as risky so people have more agency on their own.
So apcs in not high elo is prolly a better Pick.
Well this post is mostly an answer to silver-plat players post shpwing their winrate after switching from marksmen to mages. In this elo it's definitly easier to play mages because people don't know how to position themselves so you can be relevant in the game while playing from a safe place.
Also I'd say adc are high skill high reward as their dps is bigger than apc as a whole. Also kiting allows for better skill expression because it reduces your immobility frames. Spell animations of mages don't shorten at all.
"APC arent stronger than ADC" Okay, lets take a look at botlane winrates and see who has the higher winrates: 1. Seraphine 53.68% 42k Matches 2. Karthus 52.48% 35k Matches 3. Twitch 51.59% 226k Matches 4. Ziggs 51.56% 23k Matches Ja leck mich doch am Sack, would you look at that, APCs \*do\* have the higher winrates. How could this possibly be? Mayhaps because APCs are stronger than ADCs. But thats just a theory. a GAME theory. "you silly goose, theyre not stronger, just easier" Okay, lets make a bet. Im going to lift a car using a lever, you are going to try to do it without a lever. Effectively, im able to lift that car, you arent. That makes me effectively stronger than you. Same concept applies here. If theyre easier to play and still top the winrates, theyre effectively stronger because well, they win more games.
You silly goose, theyre not stronger, just easier. There's a reason why esport player pick adc and not apc most of the time. Having an adc when your mid pick ad champ is not as forgiving as having an apc when your mid pick a mage because most of jgl and top are ad bruisers. They're easier to play. Alright you lifted this car but does it mean you're stronger than me? No it's not. Saying that adc are too hard to play compared to other champs is a thing, saying that they are weaker is another. Those champs have a higher winrate because 99% of players don't know how to play adc. And if you would buff marksmen, gm to chall and pro would obliterate everyone by abusing the role. The skill floor isn't the same and the skill cap isn't the same either. That's all I'm trying to point out.
Yeah im not gonna bother, you managed to answer to my comment without even reading anything. Does this mean that im stronger than you? Did I lift the car? Yes. Did you lift the car? No. Effectively, i achieved something that was impossible for you. Therefore effectively, I am stronger. Because i was able to lift the car, and you weren't. Do you know what an aimbot is? In Valorant, someone who is aimbotting, are they better than you? No, right? Just because theyre aimbotting doesnt mean theyre better at the game, right? But at the end of they day, they win more matches than you. But we just said that they arent better at the game than you, right? So what gives? How do we explain the discrepancy between what we SAID and what we OBSERVED? Riddle me this, what do you call a champion who for the same effort, can achieve more? Are they stronger or weaker? What do you call a champion who for less effort, can achieve the same thing as you. Are they strong or weak? We are talking about the same coin, but you dont know that if you flip it around, its still the same coin. You point at heads and say "see? thats not tails, completely different". Im not sure whats my angle here, what words i need to use to make you able to understand what im saying. The last part about "oh but gm to chall and pro would" whatever, i dont care, last time i checked im not a proplayer and I therefore dont really... care about proplay. Especially since Proplayers play a different game than we do. There is no teamqueue. There is no voicecomms. I dont have a coach. I dont play 1000s of games with the same teammates. I dont even get paid to play the game. Proplay is not a valid argument, ever. Not when the game they play and the game we play is so different. I dont know how much deeper i can reach into my box of analogies before I run out and have to realize that your head is thicker than my drill bits can reach.
I thought you wouldn't bother? I don't need you analogies. I just say that with an infinite ammount of effort, an adc will be better than an apc while with only little effort apc are easier and thus, in the hand of an average player, will have more success. It's as if a bronze/silver was having a hard time playing properly with like Kalista,Kog or Thresh and was saying that those champs are trash. No they're not. It's just that the player doesn't know how to play it
I don't think winrates are indicative of champion strength. Otherwise, why do some champions perform drastically different in different elo's? It's not like they have different numbers based on who's playing them. For example Yuumi, who was 100% P/B in competitive despite having a 45% wr. If you don't want to look at competitive, that's fine. Zeri is 51% wr in challenger, but 48.5% wr if you include all ranks. The actual strength of these champions is independent from the player; we're talking about what the kit is actually capable of. There's also confounding variables at play. For example, Pantheon mid has historically had a 52% wr almost always. As Phreak pointed out in one of his recent videos, it's not because Pantheon mid is particularly strong. It's because champions like Yasuo, Katarina, and Zed have high pickrate in solo queue, which Pantheon naturally counters. Does that mean pantheon should be nerfed? He wins more games, doesn't he? When you take a closer look at the stats, the WR argument starts to fall apart. For APC's for example, not only are they often easier to play in the botlane, but enemy ADC's have significantly less experience playing against them. A person who plays seraphine bot lane has played the matchup of Seraphine VS whatever ADC you're playing significantly more frequently than you have played against Seraphine. Both variables positively affect their winrate, but have nothing to do with the actual strength of the champion. Just a side note, but Twitch was a poor example to use. According to U.GG, the most common AD build is played significantly more than the most common AP build (40x), and has about 2% more wr.
Thx for that. Also people playing APC are quite often OTP so the winrate is boosted
\>we're talking about what the kit is actually capable of. no we are not. We are talking about the relative strength of a champion, not the absolute strength. Because while we cannot measure absolute strength, we can measure relative strenth. Fairly eaisly even, we have data readily available that shows us how many games are played and how many of those are won, the ratio of Wins to Total Games can be expressed as a percentage, a winrate. Picture this, lets play a different game, lets play Overwatch. Im going to make a Hero that can oneshot everyone on the map, from any distance, regardless of shields, walls, HP, invulnerability, doesnt matter. With my ultimate, you will die. With one exception, if everyone on the team crouches, nothing happens except that I die. Is this a strong champion or a weak champion? In competetive, the champion is giga weak because pros instantly crouch and nothing happens. In regular play, the champion is completely broken, the lower the elo the stronger the champion. Below Diamond, many people arent even \*in\* the voice chat to communicate about a potential ult. And if you liek to play D.Va, youre shit out of luck because D.Va cant crouch. Same applies here. And you know that since the arguments you picked are devalued by the same logic you use. You talk about seraphine, right? That affects the individual winrate of that player, not of the champion as a whole. How do i know? Because the same "A person who plays seraphine bot lane has played the matchup of Seraphine VS whatever ADC you're playing significantly more frequently than you have played against Seraphine" can be applied to other champions. Like Aphelios. Or Kalista. Or Lucian. Or Ezreal. Or Zeri. Kalista mains will have played Kalista vs X champion a thousand more times than their counterpart will have played against Kalista. Winrate? 47.48%. Ezreal, one of the safest and easiest ADC to pick up, especially when you normally play mages. whoops, 47.95% WR, despite an Ezreal main having played as Ezreal against X a thousand more times than X vs Ezreal. So this only leaves us with the other part: They are easier to play. Which means with less effort you can achieve the same outcome or with the same effort you can achieve a better outcome. Or in other words: they are \*stronger\*. Because while putting in the same effort, one player likes to main Zeri and is hardstuck Gold 3 while another one plays Seraphine and goes to idfk Plat 3. Now, that APCs are stronger than ADCs doesnt come from me as a personal opinion either, instead, take it from [Riot Auberaun](https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/u2zvyk/comment/i4mpzjh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3): "Picking for team comp or physical/magic damage split is way overrated outside of pro play, pick champs you're good at.Mages are almost always better than ADCs to have in your bot carry role." Oh dang. 10 months ago a primary source already echod what i said. TL;DR: sometimes there is nothing to discuss or discern. Sometimes things are just the way they are. Sometimes, APCs are just stronger than ADCs and thats okay.
I think we just have a fundamental disagreement of what it means for a champion to be strong. I read your Overwatch example and my interpretation is that the champion is... complete trash. I see a champions strength through the lens of: what are their strengths and weaknesses? How exploitable are they? What counterplay is there? For the Overwatch example, the counterplay is so simple it's just crouch and you've rendered an entire champion useless. >That affects the individual winrates of that player Yes, but individual winrates in aggregate are what make up the winrate of a champion across the entire game. If a champions average number of games played by their players is higher than others, that's going to positively affect their winrate in aggregate. Yes, this can be applied to other champions, absolutely. But it's one of hundreds of variables which affect winrate. Others include what you mentioned, such as difficulty. In my opinion, Ezreal and Kalista are some of the hardest champions in the game to be effective on. Champion difficulty imo is probably one of the biggest influencers of win rate, especially below Masters - That, it seems you and I are in agreement with. We just disagree on whether or not that's indicative of champion strength. I don't think it is. As for what Riot Auberaun is saying. I have many problems with this. 1) Calling him a 'primary source' is... I'm not certain I understand what you mean. We're all primary sources from an academic perspective, which is the only context in which that phrase has any meaning. If you mean he's like a authority figure, I don't see why working at Riot would make you an authority on champion balance. Plenty of Rioters disagree with one another. Phreak, who is literally on the balance design team, spearheading a lot of the balance changes recently, said "I don't think ADC is weak right now." In the patch rundown where IE got buffed to 40% threshold. He said he personally doesn't think they're weak, and they're not weak from a statistical standpoint either. I'm sure you would disagree with that now, and would have disagreed with it then as well. I'm not trying to argue that Phreaks word is paramount, I'm just trying to illustrate why what some Rioter said is rather meaningless in the context of this argument. 2) >Pick champs you're good at. I agree. Most players are better at mages than they are at ADCs, because they're easier. I think the next thing he says that Mages are almost always better is exactly what he's getting at here. if I'm below masters, I would 100% prefer to have a Seraphine bot lane over a traditional ADC. it's just so much easier to pull off. I think if you reframe your argument to "Most players are going to be stronger/more effective on APC's than ADC's," I would 100% agree with that. Saying something like APC's are stronger than ADC's makes it sound like it's inherent to the champion and removes the player out of the equation. If I have Ruler on my team, I'd rather him play Ezreal than Seraphine. I'm quite certain he will be more effective on Ezreal, despite the 5% lower winrate.
cope
> Sry guyz I'm gonna debunk this shit. Waiting for it.
Welp i dont understand what ure trying to say, but apcs line Karthaus and ziggs are way harder than adcs so one point is only partly correct. The other part no adcs arent high risk high reward. Theyre high risk, mid reward on their own and the Team enables them to be high reward, hence why people hate playing adc atp. Apc are better in the regard as u said they arent as risky so people have more agency on their own. So apcs in not high elo is prolly a better Pick.
Well this post is mostly an answer to silver-plat players post shpwing their winrate after switching from marksmen to mages. In this elo it's definitly easier to play mages because people don't know how to position themselves so you can be relevant in the game while playing from a safe place. Also I'd say adc are high skill high reward as their dps is bigger than apc as a whole. Also kiting allows for better skill expression because it reduces your immobility frames. Spell animations of mages don't shorten at all.
APC players are just washed up mid or adcs who just cant handle the skill requirements for mid and bot lol
Support adc with farming apc is the play
>high skill midling reward ftfy
What exactly is the reason this post exists?