Having a 50% winrate does not mean a champion is balanced

For example, let's say there existed a champion who had only one ability, no scaling, max level 1, melee range, does X damage to targeted enemy champion on Y second cooldown. Obviously, you could adjust X and Y until this hypothetical champion reached a 50% winrate. The champion would still be unbalanced, however. For one, the champion would be extremely situationally overpowered. Against a mostly melee team with little cc? Champion is probably OP. Against a mostly ranged team with a bunch of knockbacks? Champion is probably garbage. There are a lot of champions similar to the one I just described, though obviously not as extreme. {{champion:136}} {{champion:33}} {{champion:3}} are some examples. These champions are fine because of relatively low playrate and not being too ridiculous even in the best case. Another issue with balance is power curves. For my hypothetical champion, early game would be very strong, while lategame would be very weak. It's fine for champions to have polarizing power spikes and dips. The main issue comes when some champions have certain conditions that allow them to avoid their dips. For example, {{champion:51}} and{{champion:157}} are very good early game and lategame, while being relatively weak midgame. However, these champions are able to completely circumvent that weakness by winning lane, while the weakness is amplified by losing lane. As a result, both these champions are snowball champions: they either get an early lead and maintain it, or lose their lead and lose the game. Snowball champions are particularly poorly balanced because they pull the game such that it revolves around them far more. The result of the game becomes more dependent on the snowball champion rather than everyone else, mitigating their actual impact in the game. Is {{champion:54}} 0/5/0? He still can make a big impact in fights. Is {{champion:157}} 0/5/0? You probably lost unless your other lanes are hard winning. Other examples of poor balance that are misleadingly represented by winrates include what ELO it is, what team comp synergies there are, how much mechanical skill is required, whether or not the champion is newly released, etc. You get the idea, so I won't elaborate on these. The main point I'm making is that winrates + playrates should not be the only determining factors into whether a champion is balanced. If there is a well reasoned argument, don't respond with "48% winrate and 3% playrate LUL". Instead consider a more holistic view of the champion based both on empirical data and personal experience.
Report as:
Offensive Spam Harassment Incorrect Board