OmG gUyS rEaPeR hAs A 100% wIn RaTe In Gm!

That like means he’s like OP right guys?

Win rate = Good means meta right guys?

I know this is an extreme, but still this should be a lesson as to why we shouldn’t use win rate to determine whether a hero is good or bad.

(For context, Reaper has like a 0.03% pickrate in GM.)

Edit: maybe there are some practical uses for win rate, but they depend on so many other metrics that better represent what’s meta.

2 Likes

Blizzard would seem to agree if their reasoning behind Symmetra’s Beta treatment is any indication.

Also, what’s this weird random caps thing you’re doing? I’ve honestly never seen anyone post that way outside of mockery.

Quit trolling. Win rate is a good metric to use that literally lets you know how often a character is winning. Statistics don’t mean anything when there’s only 1 game played because it’s a new season and you intentionally pick the shortest time interval to get the least games represented as possible. I suggest you take a course on statistics before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

Win rate determines how often a character wins, I agree, but people make it as if win rate determines whether a hero is good or bad by itself without taking into consideration things like pickrate and nicheness.

Reaper is not OP in GM because he was played once and he won once.

2 Likes

Yes and OP is talking about the less tangible metrics, like game-tree evaluation (power level), fun-factor, zeitgeist (meta).

I could show you lines of chess that are just stronger at depth d but no human plays them. Even in GM chess there is a fotm or meta, based on human factors like current impression of strength (not raw evaluation of it), as well as entertainment - style, hype, relevance with/against peers, etc.

In short it is very easy to decouple winrate statistics from what is at all capable and from what is objectively strong/weak. Especially when they don’t use good AI to model it out. They use moody humans - who brodude eachother into locally reinforced behaviour, and globally less valid.

Statistics can say whatever you want them to.