I disagree, I just won a few games with her, and tripled everyone’s damage in my last Shrines game. Went 19-2 even after someone flamed me for my Kerrigan pick.
I don’t understand how you think this hero is weak. Learn to land combos I guess.
Actually yes. It changes that fact completely. A hero picked in 5 games out of 100 is hardly problematic. I mean, by that logic, Probius should be nerfed. And Medhiv should be buffed.
1 Like
It really isn’t. Pickrates vary wildly, and don’t necessarily reflect how good a hero is. Again, just because people might not like playing a hero does not mean they are bad. Otherwise, Probius, the highest winrate hero in the game right now, would be “trash tier,” which is completely backwards.
If high skill players aren’t picking her often, it might mean she doesn’t fit into their comps as well as some other heroes. That still does not mean she’s bad.
And again, I never said she was really good. My point was that she is far from “bad,” as you and OP are fallaciously claiming.
Objectively, between pickrate and winrate, winrate is the most reliable way to judge how well a hero is doing, and pickrate is the least reliable. Otherwise, Li Ming, who has a 20.1% pickrate, would be considered “overpowered,” which is an absurd assertion considering that her winrate is literally the 2nd lowest in the game.
This doesn’t mean the hero is “weak” at all. It means they are either niche or played by a handful of people who are really good with them. If you want to change that, you give them a rework or some targeted nerf/buffs to adjust the weight of their kit.
Either way, you do not give a hero with a 56.3% winrate buffs.
First, it should be pretty obvious to anyone paying even loose attention to the balance state of this game that Chen and Tass have both low winrates and low pickrates, the latter because of the former. This is common knowledge, so I didn’t feel the need to spell this out unnecessarily.
Second, “non-pro play” now includes everyone playing HotS. Literally. There is no more HGC, so they just have low pickrates in general.
Third, nothing there contradicts or undermines anything I’ve said so far.
Genji was only good in HGC (which no longer exists). He has been consistently underpowered at best at all other levels of play, and since HGC is now gone, we can accurately say that Genji, who currently has the lowest winrate in the game, is trash tier across the board.
But if you really think popularity is all that matters, then feel free to advocate for more of those “horrid nerfs” for Genji.
Careful with that strawman fallacy. You can’t honestly claim that playing 5 games ever with Maiev is anywhere close to the hundreds of games a week that Probius is seeing.
Except you seem to be the one ignore the relevant statistics in order to prove your bias. I never excluded pickrate from my position, I just didn’t focus on it because it is far less relevant to a hero’s balance state than winrate.
Pickrate is really just a measure of the reliability and consistency of a hero’s winrate, but so is how long they’ve been at that winrate. Samuro and Cho’Gall were at the top of the charts for months before their nerfs, which indicates that, despite their low pickrates, their high winrate was consistent.
You cannot judge how well a hero is doing simply based on pickrate. Otherwise, Muradin, with his 46.4% winrate, would need nerfs because of his 25.5% pickrate, but a hero like Probius would need buffs.
1 Like
No, it doesn’t. You don’t buff heroes just because their pickrates are low.
Do you want to see 60%+ winrate Probius, Gazlowe, Malthae, and Murky in every game? Because if it does “change that fact completely,” that’s what you’d get.
Again, I never said she was too strong. I said she was not weak. Ya’ll need to stop putting words in my mouth.
By that logic, Probius needs some changes, not necessarily nerfs.
I would not object to small buffs to Medivh. It’s not a priority, but a winrate below 48% is outside the “balanced” range.
1 Like
Ok sure.
People in competitive games pick heroes because they like them, not because they want to win.
Except it doesn’t match what actually happens. Pretty much every SC fan likes Raynor. Pre-rework, he was never picked. Post-rework he was. People pick what wins.
A LOT of people like Butcher. But he was/is never picked at high rank.
What can you even buff on her anyway? Let me preface this by saying I think she’s fine, but I wouldn’t pick her over Alarak for a few reasons which I’ll get into later.
TLDR: I think she’s pretty ok although her downsides vs Alarak are pretty major. Worth picking for the few things she brings over Alarak but otherwise well… Alarak.
Moving on.
Her Combo is still an extremely potent CC, and her in combat mobility is ok (not great but it’s Diablo), and her damage is pretty good.
Her weaknesses are mainly most people know how to dodge her combo and people use it before it’s a sure thing. Meaning enemies will walk towards her or to the sides in order to just dodge her stun so it’s not a threat.
Second weakness is lack of range, since diving in as an assassin means you better either murder everything or have a way out. Kerrigan lacks that way out and if she could murder everything with her AOE CC she’d be too strong.
Compared to Alarak who has longer range CC, ranged poke, sustain that doesn’t require him to all in, and a psuedo escape so long as he hasn’t engaged within the last 12 seconds, well… Let’s not also forget that if Alarak misses it’s his fault, not you dodging. He’s at minimum burning someone’s cooldown if he hits that combo right.
Her benefits are there, she has harder CC (stun(s) vs a silence), and better all in sustain once she gets rolling due to how her shields scale.
However that lack of range and her combo being dodge able by the enemy, her damage doesn’t scale as hard once Alarak gets going and she lacks the defensive tools that Alarak has (range and Counter Strike being better than her chrysalis most of the time) outside of her shield snowballing individual fights.
Again, I think she’s worth picking for the PvE and the harder lockdown alone, but she needs a team and/or a map that can support her playstyle about as much as melee assassins tend to need. Her main damage being dodgeable by the enemy is the main thing that hurts her though.
They made it a bit easier on her now that her combo damage is split into a burst that happens hit or miss though.
So what is there to buff? If her damage gets too high then she’ll snowball too hard, maybe her health or shield gain or something?
1 Like
it does when the people refusing to play the hero are the BEST PLAYERS IN THE GAME.
Probius IS bad. his winrate means nothing because he is used so infrequently that it doesn’t matter. again, if the best players in the game refuse to use a hero, they are likely a bad hero.
no, if the best players in the game refuse to pick or ban a hero, it means the hero isn’t actually good. I never claimed Kerrigan specifically is bad but your logic is 100% flawed and makes no sense.
This is provably false. pre rework raynor and chen during the same time frame had winrates in the upper 50s (57-59%) in Masters. we know those characters were garbage at the time, therefore your argument collapses immediately.
Pickrate is a good measure of a hero being good or bad but judging if a hero is overpowered is more complicated. maybe I was a bit unclear in my wording but I do not believe pickrate nor winrate are great measures in regards to a character being broken or OP. those are complicated tasks that require a lot more thought due to the fact a hero can be extremely popular but balanced, or have a high winrate yet be terrible.
This is intentionally misleading because the winrate means nothing when characters have 1% popularity in Master League. when people are only using a hero in games they know they will likely win anyway, even the worst heroes can have positive winrates, in some cases, amazing winrates. Again, pre rework Raynor and Chen often had high winrates in master league precisely due to this effect.
Chen has had high winrates in master league despite low pickrates which immediately invalidates your ENTIRE premise because Chen is known to be garbage. Let’s use an example. Chen has a 54% winrate in masters over the past month. does this alone mean he is balanced? of course not. he still stinks. Winrate on its own means nothing and is a bad measure of how strong a hero is.
He has been repeatedly nerfed, making playing him very difficult in non pro play. this is obviously a fact we all know by now. However he is still a strong hero, just one that takes an exceptional amount of skill just to play decently. it’s not good design and I don’t like it either. However requiring an extreme amount of skill to do well with and being straight up bad aren’t the same thing.
good strawman. I never said high popularity heroes deserve a nerf. just that popularity is a good gauge of whether a hero is good or bad. being overpowered is a much more complicated matter that requires wayyyyyy more than just looking at pickrate or winrate. a hero being good or strong doesn’t mean they are overpowered. a hero having a high winrate doesn’t immediately mean they are overpowered. a hero being picked or banned often doesn’t mean they are overpowered. Lots of heroes have existed in HOTS that are banned and played often yet are balanced quite well.
a strawman is attacking an argument you didn’t make. I am attacking your argument’s logic, which is " winrate determines hero strength, even if the number of games played is low or the hero is picked in situations that the players know they’ll win anyway". You’re trying to misrepresent Probius by saying “oh yea well it’s not comparable to HUNDREDS OF GAMES!”, ignoring that in the grand scheme of matches in each league, Probius’ popularity is horrid. therefore the hundreds of games means nothing as they still represent a pathetic number of overall games played.
again, we can prove this false. many bad heroes have had good winrates in master league exclusively because they are picked in situations that the person will more than likely win.
Reliability and consistency are core parts of hero strength. if a hero is literally only useful in a match that I am likely going to win anyway, they aren’t good.
This is an appeal to authority as it assumes the nerfs were justified and that the devs actually know anything about balance, something forums members have repeatedly debunked for years. I called out Matt (former lead hero designer) like a year ago for claiming that Murky was strong due to winrate (consider chen had a similar master league winrate and similarly low pickrate) and he straight up refused to respond on the topic anymore.
This is because you (wrongly) assume that if a winrate is too high for your personal taste, a hero is strong (or even overpowered) and are strawmanning me by thinking I have the same opinion but with pickrate. I do not. I don’t think having a high pickrate means a character is OP.
Its impossible to balance a game where all characters are around 50% pick rate.
Not all characters are made for everyone.
For the same reasons we dont all main the same heroes. Probius might cater to 1% of the player base and there is nothing wrong with that as long his performance is balanced.
Pupularity has very little to do with performance .
The other thing with character woth lownpick rate simply mean more people dont know how to play that hero or lack the skills to do so. Different heroes, different difficulties .
If we take your 10%/50% exemple it would read as such.
10% of the player base play her on average , and from that 10% , 50% know how to play her.
Heres probius again for fun.
1% of the player base plays probius and 56% of them have a good performance with him .
3 Likes
I would pick Probius or Anub’arak or Malthael almost exclusively right now if I just wanted to win.
Can you seriously tell me you don’t care at all about the heroes you pick beyond how likely you are to win with them? If that is the depth of your enjoyment of this game, then I must say I pity you.
And people in HGC or Diamond/Masters usually pick the heroes they do based not only on whether the hero is good themselves, but how well those heroes synergize with their teammates or counter opponents. Heroes like Johanna and KT synergize super hard, which is why they’re fairly common at higher levels. Kerrigan is a solid loner hero, but she doesn’t synergize all that well with other heroes, and she really isn’t all that good a counter to heroes who don’t already have tons of other counters.
Kerrigan is not bad, she just isn’t as desirable as other heroes for any given situation, which is why her winrate is good but her pickrate is low.
Raynor’s pre-rework winrate was consistently within the 49-52% range. He was never picked because he was boring and because he didn’t bring anything special to the table. Why pick Raynor when Tychus can melt Tanks faster, Valla is more mobile and has more AoE, and Zul’jin has more burst and chase potential?
Now, Raynor’s winrate is back down at 52.2%, but his pickrate is still pretty high. This is because he is fun now. His new special addition to the table is his CC, zoning potential, and self-sustain, so of course he’s now a popular pick.
Butcher is never picked at high levels because he is not fun to play. Nobody (well, almost nobody) wants to be a feeder or feel useless, and Butch is exactly that at high levels. He’s not just bad, he’s so bad he’s a troll pick.
Kerrigan is not like that at all. Kerrigan’s winrate stays 2-3% above average across all levels of play. She just isn’t fun enough for tons of people to pick her.
No one is refusing to play her. They’re just choosing an option that fits their situation better.
You’ve heard it here first, Probius, the highest winrate hero in the game with a 56.3% winrate, needs buffs.
Again, no one is refusing to play her.
Also again, I’m not saying she’s all that good. I’m saying she is not bad, and therefore not in need of buffs.
If a hero has a winrate over 52%, then they do not need buffs. This is simple logic, and completely sound.
…
Wait, that’s it? You didn’t even explain your thought process, you just threw out some random (and, I’m fairly certain, false) statistics.
Let’s humor you and assume that those very, ah… questionable, shall we say? numbers are indeed accurate. Are you saying that these two heroes previous, one of whom has been reworked since then and the other of whom is currently still sitting at the very bottom of the winrate keg (where he has been for a long time), somehow show that pickrate is more important than winrate when determining how good a hero is, simply by having had a high winrate in the past?
This seems to me like it is either some very convoluted logic, or it is not logic at all.
I will agree with this. While Probius is obviously overperforming, whether he is overpowered or not is very much up for debate. He is much like Samuro, and will probably need a targeted nerf/buff tradeoff(s) to normalize his pickrate and winrate.
You had me until that very last part there. Then you blew it.
A hero with a high winrate cannot be “terrible.” That’s simply not how winrates work.
This is intentionally misleading because I never mentioned Masters.
So how do you separate those games out from all the other games?
Apparently by assuming that whatever heroes you happen to want buffed are the only ones like that. /s
Oof. I could write a whole 5 page essay with everything wrong with this paragraph. I’ll try to limit myself to just 2 major points and leave out the more intensive nitpicking (like the problem with citing Masters alone as a data set).
A) Chen is currently at a 52.5% winrate. The average winrate in Masters is about 57-59%. He’s 5-7% below average right now, and even at that 54% winrate you claimed he had he would still be 3-5% below average.
B) Chen has been significantly more successful at higher level play than at lower level play in the past. That was the entire reason he was nerfed so much. So of course he’d be better at higher level play than at lower level play (albeit only slightly).
Genji can be strong. That is very different from being strong. Armwrestlers are very good at armwrestling, but don’t expect them all (or even most of them) to be able to bench-press twice or thrice their own weight.
Genji has a 25%+ pickrate. Which means he’s pretty strong, according to your claims about pickrate equaling strenght. Which apparently means he needs nerfs, right?
See this is not a strawman, this is called “reductio ad absurdum,” Latin for “reduced to absurdity.” I just took your train of “logic” (using that word loosely) and extrapolated it to its natural conclusion in a given situation to show how flawed your “logic” was.
Considering that my position is that “winrate matters much more than pickrate,” not “pickrate does not matter” as you very strongly implied, yes, you did strawman my position.
And with that paradox showing up for the umpteenth time, I think I’m done wasting my time and patience trying to help you understand basic game balance by reexplaining the same basic concepts over and over and over again.
Have a goodnight.
She’s not weak or bad but certainly is overshadowed… Maiev, Thrall, and mbe even Zeratul… They kinda all overshadow her, that being said she’s probably still better at blowing up a squish backline than all those 3 overall
when a character is consistently a bad option in high level play, they aren’t good. although again, this isn’t aimed specifically at Kerrigan, just your really awful logic.
winrate alone doesn’t matter. again, this isn’t up for debate. it is fact. objectively bad heroes have had good winrates even in Master league due to a low population of people playing them, often in games they’d be winning anyway.
I don’t care about Kerrigan. I care about the fact you think winrate can automatically tell us if a hero is good or not because this is the same horrid logic that leads to horrid nerfs to the cast and has slowly tanked game.
it isn’t sound as it instantly collapses as soon as you see bad heroes with good winrates in master league.
[quote=“Maximus-12995, post:29, topic:13106”]
…
Wait, that’s it? You didn’t even explain your thought process, you just threw out some random (and, I’m fairly certain, false) statistics.
[/quote] nothing I said was complicated. your entire argument is predicated on the idea that winrate determines how good or bad a hero is. this falls apart when you see heroes we know are bad (like chen, pre-rework raynor, etc) with good winrates in master league. Either you are forced to admit your entire argument is wrong or you have to try arguing that Chen isn’t garbage. Either way you lose.
you’d already be wrong considering Master league comprises the best players currently in the game now that the pro scene is gone.
You can’t argue that winrate determines hero strength and then claim “oh well the winrate is good but it’s below the winrate of other heroes”. you’re already admitting that winrate on its own is meaningless
The point is that someone as bad as Chen can have impressive looking winrates even in master league, so someone with an equally bad pickrate but similar/higher winrate is not automatically good.
not the best analogy. Genji’s nerfs have increased his skill floor while keeping his skill ceiling about the same. he’s still strong but nerfs have definitely made him approach the borderline.
yet another strawman. I’ve clarified twice that you can’t just determine a hero being OP based JUST on popularity or winrate. a hero can be popular but balanced or have a high winrate yet be terrible.
it’s… not? you’re literally just attacking an argument that was never made. that’s it. you’ve had it explained several times now which means you’re being purposefully obtuse.
your point was proven false with several examples. no strawman there.
it is because winrates just tell us the % of wins vs losses in the amount of games played. they don’t tell us context like who theses games are normally played against (such as masters using probius or chen against obvious diamond players that they know they will crush).
if I played against nothing but bronze players and used nothing but chen, I’d have a 100% winrate chen. that doesn’t mean chen is good, it just means the people I played against were bad. the same applies to this whole discussion. Probius might have a high winrate but it can be almost entirely due to people ONLY picking him in situations they know they’ll win, such as player against lower skill players ( or when they play with a very coordinated group vs an uncoordinated team).
then irony is that the HOTS dev team DOES use your method of thinking which is why the game has been in such a bad state. Many of the devs look at winrate as the deciding factor of nerfs and buffs instead of all factors and wind up dishing out nerfs that cripple heroes.
You simply cannot balance a game by looking at just winrates.
1 Like
why is kerrigan ‘weak’ now? Cuz math.
pre-rework, the typical build was what? sharpened blades, fury of the swarm, bladed momentum, double-strike, aggressive defense.
a q, aa, w, aa, e, aa combo might run something like
210 + (120+90) + 114 + (120+90) + 326 + (120+90) for ~ 1280 dmg (using lvl 0/1 numbers)
current kerrigan actually runs a slightly different combo:
q, aa, w, aa, e, aa, q, aa, e
130 + 115 + 165 + 115 + 25 + 115 + 130 + 115 + 180
for ~ 1090 damage
… but that’s not counting for talents like i did on the first set.
lvl 4 talent choice adds 125-180 extra damage, lvl 16 adds ~190 - 420 damage.
So the whole combo has a higher yield but… the damage is spread out over a longer period of time. The time from e starting and its pulse going off (intended to combo off q) is a few extra seconds an enemy is alive, and while the damage from painful spikes is comparable to the damage double-strike provided, its damage added on after the stun combo, and not during, so that’s more time after the initial set for kerrigan’s attack damage potential to be realized.
as she is right now, she is arguably a bit overnerfed from the backlash patch from her fury one trick, when well, really, part of the biggest issue of that set was how much was stuffed into one talent. Kinda a telling issue when q procs Fury for aoe attack damage where I single attack could match the shield generation of the Siphoning impact talent, which doesn’t include the attack potential from aoe hits.
If anything, the fury talent should have kept up the aoe attacks either baseline, multicharged on the q (two attacks) but reduced the assimilation from shields to compensate for aoe damage. Instead of one over-performing build determining her balance, it should have been reigned in, and then the rest of the options rebalance around that instead.
anyway, tl;dr, kerri is ‘weak’ because her combo dynamics shifted to demand more keystrokes and a few extra seconds of time to see it realized. The extra time allows more room for error or adjustment by the enemy team, so players that don’t pick up kerrigan’s new combo timing could find themselves doing ~50% less damage than they would be before.
3 Likes
HOTS isn’t a well designed game. Her hero blueprint (a dive melee assassin with NO escapes) isn’t viable. But at this point, the game is on its way out. No grand reworkings of old heroes will ever take place to make them viable. She’s obsolete, has been for a long time, and that will never change.
1 Like
If you think this kerrigan is “weak”, that’s purely l2p issue. She’s actually one of the strongest heroes atm. And she’s also extremely fun to play (if tactical high aggression with little escape is your cup of tea), fits a lot of comps, and has no real hard counters, apart from varian’s shattered throw (but a lot of soft counters).
Kerrigan is currently sitting at 65% wr in master btw (over 4 weeks), tied with jaina for 1st place. The low pick rate is just a result of her being a really hard hero and also a melee mage, who need adjustments in other picks (which ppl don’t like doing). Also ppl are tunnelvisioning into the W build, which is OK sometimes, but is also a very niche build = another reason for her low pickrate.
The Q build is also very strong (imo the strongest atm) and fits much more comps (but doesn’t fit games where you risk losing early, since it has big ramp up time for quest completion).
The rework made kerrigan much much less niche, gave her 2nd ultimate (I actually almost always play ultralisk now) and at least 3 different viable builds (Q, W, double pulse, defined by lvl4 talent choice; also 2 very different ultimates; so technically 3x2=6 builds).
I give 10/10 for the rework (and subsequent balancing of talents) - made her harder to play (+), gave her more builds (big +), but she still feels exactly the same when you play her (and that’s the most important part; I really hated valla’s or tyrande’s reworks since they made them feel like completely different heroes). She may need a small nerf here and there still, but overall she feels close to being balanced on all builds.
P.S. My kerrigan stats in HL: 17-4 last season (pre-nerf), 34-11 this season. Played mostly double pulse build last season and mostly Q build this season with ultralisk.
So that makes for 51-15 total in HL after rework (77% wr) (in diamond-master ranks).
I’ve used her pre-rework on and off too, but she did feel a bit more meta-dependent and not fitting every draft (mostly because of lack of 2nd more universal ultimate), but she was still playable in every game; e.g. I did that in 2017s3 for an OK result in HL (28-14, 67%).
The fact that she CAN be picked in every single game without giving much credit to opponent draft and still maintain over 70% winrate means she’s not as niche as you may think her to be - just need to learn how to play her in different situations.
P.P.S. After lvl16, the Q build still allows the QQQQQQQQQQQ clear of infernal shrines skeletons. So even this small, but insane niche has been retained for her with the rework.
1 Like
The success of the rework can be seen from her talent diversity too: I can see only 3 talents that should never be picked atm:
lvl1 assimilation mastery (smells like a talent to make kerrigan into solo laner, but is not best even for that)
lvl7 queen of blades (could probably work as pure dps talent for double pulse build, but doesn’t seem to practical - this one I will have to test still tho)
lvl13 psionic barrier (most of the 4 seconds would be wasted to your opponents being stunned and you also need to grab 3+ heroes to even compete with spell shields of other heroes (which are also very niche talents))
lvl7+lvl13 could make a build tho, but the gameplay would be weird - you would use E outside of combo most of the time and then often not even have it up when you have a possibility to combo. But I guess with some numbers buff to the 2 talents, it could give a yet another different playstyle for kerrigan - not a bad thing, if this was kept a niche build. This would be a build vs multiple mage comps, but I can’t imagine you would be able to grab multiple heroes consistently vs opponents like that - heavy mage teams tend to be more ranged and play a more spread out game.
All of the other talents are used and good (although lvl13 chrysalis is very niche too, since the double shield talent is just so powerful).
Well the ultralisk lvl20 uphgrade is not really too useful, since most value comes from initial stun. Feels like a dps talent too, but for that the aa talent is probably better.
1 Like
I would say there are a few very important things on the way to becoming great kerrigan player, that is not limited to just some niche combo-kill situations:
1)learn to use W and E outside of combo (not randomly of course; butshould happen pretty often) - get good at W stun timing (it’s similar to tyrande’s stun, but timing is still slightly different)
2)always remember to apply pulse damage, which often means you need to save a Q to reach your target for that (or 2 Q’s if you play double pulse build)
3) use low hp minions/summons/buildings/heroes as means of travel as often as possible (also as free sources of shield)
4) climb “ladders” relatively often (long Q-chains to travel long distances very quickly): get a good understanding of Q range and damage so that you can see “ladders” in advance and reach far-away targets very quickly consistently and not get stuck on a minion that refused to die even after Q-aa
5) learn ultralisk timings well, since that’s a very effective and pretty much the only long-reach stun ability (skillshot) to catch running targets, where there are no “ladders” to climb; it’s easy to hit a melee ultralisk after combo, but if that’s the only way you use it, you’re losing a lot of value and flexibility
That’s not a single target build combo, so migh as well add a few more heroes into the mix if you want some truer numbers. Also, add an ultimate.
A typical single target combo would be with Q build (talents: 1121x1x) and ultralisk:
Q-Q-Q-W-E-aa-R-aa(+ultralisk aa+pulse from E)
That’s the minimum almost unavoidable damage combo.
Assuming 0 lvl16 Q stacks prior to engagement, it’s 3654 dmg at lvl20 (100->0 hammer, samuro or anyone with less hp (almost half hero roster)).
With full 8 stacks (e.g., coming from clearing 2 minion waves): 4420 dmg (@20) (100->0 rehgar and lower, ~2/3 of hero roster).
[counting lvl20 values makes more sense, since that’s where it matters and not all damage scales with level (lvl4 quest doesn’t)]
P.S. At 8 stacks, even the super simple Q-aa-Q-aa-Q-aa “combo” (2.5k dmg) is very dangerous for all squishies (e.g. that’s over 95% of ming/tracer/valla’s hp and glass cannon ming just dies after QaaQaaQ).
1 Like
Math is a from of ‘proof’ that can intentionally use fallacies (wrong steps or incorrect application of techniques) as part of the teaching/learning process.
the point of the numbers I used was to demonstrate from where the perception of kerrigan being ‘weak’ might have come by establishing that familiar combinations can yield lower results.
My hypothesis for where the OP’s assertion derives wouldn’t be from lvl 20 stats (not all games reach 20,) so the format of what numbers I used is intentionally skewed to indulge the idea that kerrigan might be “weaker” by constricting lower common denominators as a point of comparison between their perception of old vs new.
Its kinda why I also left out aoe plugs on the ‘old’ set-up as the fury + double-strike procs just convolutes the comparison for the audience.
2 Likes
Thank you for bring back the point of the conversation. I wanted to talk about stuff like this. Pick rates doesn’t mean anything, no do win rates, since there are a ton of heroes and flavors to choose from.
I think I see now that perhaps her style changed from burst to …slowly kill something. Does that still count as all in if you’re kinda of squishy and time to kill takes 5+ seconds?
People are also more likely to choose heroes that they consider strong. You’re completely ignoring a basic part of why people play video games.