What do Stats really mean?

Competitive Discussion
Prev 1 2 3 6 Next
Shoe, you're arguing with a wall here.
I mostly agree with OP that stat farming is a bit of misconception. Damage does lead to elims which leans to winning team fights which results in winning.

Nevertheless, people who misconceptualise the idea of getting good stats in a game are going to develop the wrong kind of play styles to maximise their values in games.

There are actually many examples, where adopting this kind of playstyle is detrimental to the effectiveness of the hero and the team in general.
Eg.: Tracer/dva doing poke damage at range instead of closing in.
Soldiers spreading damage instead of focus firing.
Pharah spamming rockets at clumps instead of bursting down singles.
Mcree spamming on tanks and not preventing flanks.
Etc etc.

Dealing damage is good. Focusing targets down is better.
Have you ever played chess with a very young or inexperienced opponent?

You can almost always trick them into gobbling up all of your power pieces while luring the king into an indefensible position.

That is one reason that chess competitions do not consider in-game actions, brilliant or otherwise, as part of scoring a match. Only wins and losses.
04/24/2017 10:36 AMPosted by ShiroKabocha
Have you ever played chess with a very young or inexperienced opponent?

You can almost always trick them into gobbling up all of your power pieces while luring the king into an indefensible position.

That is one reason that chess competitions do not consider in-game actions, brilliant or otherwise, as part of scoring a match. Only wins and losses.


Yep, because any player at 1800+ can trick someone into a mate by sacking his queenside.

Also, chess competitions have 1 player vs another player. THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T CONSIDER IN-GAME ACTIONS.
"Stats don't matter" is just nonsense blizzard spreads in an attempt to reduce toxicity.

Stats don't matter yet blizzard balances the game all based on stats.

Zzzz, they should add more comprehensive stats and allow us to export them.
04/24/2017 10:52 AMPosted by Nêgro
04/24/2017 10:36 AMPosted by ShiroKabocha
Have you ever played chess with a very young or inexperienced opponent?

You can almost always trick them into gobbling up all of your power pieces while luring the king into an indefensible position.

That is one reason that chess competitions do not consider in-game actions, brilliant or otherwise, as part of scoring a match. Only wins and losses.


Yep, because any player at 1800+ can trick someone into a mate by sacking his queenside.

Also, chess competitions have 1 player vs another player. THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T CONSIDER IN-GAME ACTIONS.


I have no idea what you're trying to say there.

Why not give a player more points for winning a game in under fifteen moves? Why not give a player more points for getting a mate, and capturing more pieces? Why not give a losing player a break because he captured more pieces?

Because the point is to trap the king.

Similarly, the point in OW is not to get all the kills or do the most healing or spend the most time on the payload. It's to win the match.
04/24/2017 08:20 AMPosted by shoe
04/24/2017 08:16 AMPosted by Keystone1
Comes down to communication and working as a team. If whole team focus is to break rein shield then good strategy. If team is dive comp flanking characters and you're soldier shooting Rein shield by yourself at the choke then yeah probably not the most effective play.

Trash dmg is same concept. Yeah junkrat just feeding support ults not getting kills, but he is also feeding his ult, so then it comes down to which uses their ult more effectively, junk or supports. If junk kills mercy with his ult then hey probably works out well. If junk gets 4 then Mercy rez the junkrat was indeed just doing trash dmg and it hurt the team in a bad way.


Junkrat above GM is a joke.

Junkrats below GM are dangerous. People have little to no awareness as to where the tire's coming from and especially below diamond, the second you hear the tire the fight's basically over.


Dangerous? I haven't died to a junket tire in ages. I just assume they are after me and get in the best position to take it out.
04/24/2017 08:20 AMPosted by shoe


Junkrat above GM is a joke.

Junkrats below GM are dangerous. People have little to no awareness as to where the tire's coming from and especially below diamond, the second you hear the tire the fight's basically over.


I watch some streamers going junkrat in GM. Seem to be doing just fine, one of them was top 500 at some point, Junkrat main (Chro). It's about skill, not hero pick.

Anyway top 1% of players experience is almost irrelevant to the rest.
04/24/2017 11:15 AMPosted by ShiroKabocha


I have no idea what you're trying to say there.


Ofcourse you don't, because after you said this, you refused to acknowledge the fact that it's a 1v1 game vs a 6v6 game.

In a 6v6 game, there are more variables than there are in chess, in which variables such as pieces lost do not contribute to the win. Like you even said, you can sack your whole board to get a mate.

04/24/2017 11:15 AMPosted by ShiroKabocha
Why not give a player more points for winning a game in under fifteen moves?


The entire point of the OW elo system is to judge your skill rating. In order to do so, it must see where you are individually in a random queue of players. What you are advocating is similar to if a team of chess players should get awarded together, regardless of loss, which is farcical. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TEAM GAME AND A SOLO GAME.

04/24/2017 11:15 AMPosted by ShiroKabocha
Why not give a player more points for getting a mate, and capturing more pieces?


Again, because gambits are common in Chess. You don't even understand the entire concepts of gambits, or its terminology, yet you talk about Chess brazenly as if the analogy fits your narrative.

04/24/2017 11:15 AMPosted by ShiroKabocha
Why not give a losing player a break because he captured more pieces?


Again, you literally said it yourself earlier. "You can feed your entire board to the enemy and trick them into a mate".

Because the point is to trap the king.

"Trap the king". Did you just learn how to play chess? Is the Knight called the horse now too?


Yes, the point in Chess is to "trap the king". In Chess and OW, the entire point is to figure out where you belong. The two are not synonymous at all BECAUSE CHESS IS A SINGLE PLAYER GAME, AND OW IS A 6 PLAYERED ONE WITH PLAYERS OF DIFFERENT CALIBRE AND MORE VARIABLES THAN THERE ARE IN CHESS. HOW DOES THIS CONCEPT NOT OCCUR TO YOU?

04/24/2017 11:15 AMPosted by ShiroKabocha
Similarly, the point in OW is not to get all the kills or do the most healing or spend the most time on the payload. It's to win the match.


Except kills, more healing, more time on payload, more damage, and etc are all linked to winning. How do you not understand this? You think you can snake away a game by doing less damage, killing less players, and winning less teamfights?

Like I said before, we're talking about the elo system here. The elo system SHOULD value players based on their performance. Stronger players will be more adjusted at their correct elo, and players that perform poorly won't get carried up to an elo they don't belong. Like I said before, you wouldn't want a chess club getting carried by 1 or 2 players that win for them, and carry them into something they don't belong in, and vice versa.
04/24/2017 12:00 PMPosted by Porkypine
04/24/2017 08:20 AMPosted by shoe


Junkrat above GM is a joke.

Junkrats below GM are dangerous. People have little to no awareness as to where the tire's coming from and especially below diamond, the second you hear the tire the fight's basically over.


I watch some streamers going junkrat in GM. Seem to be doing just fine, one of them was top 500 at some point, Junkrat main (Chro). It's about skill, not hero pick.

Anyway top 1% of players experience is almost irrelevant to the rest.


Actually, it's incredibly relevant.

Top players weren't born top, they had to get there from the bottom like everyone else.

The difference between top players and low level players are how well they recognize mistakes. Top players know the mistakes that low level players make. They've lived through them, corrected them, and became better. Low level players still play with those mistakes.

In reality, the fact that you haven't lived past your mistakes should make your views irrelevant. Starting a conversation about a subject in which you don't even have a quarter of the understanding in should invalidate whatever you have to say, but on these forums, it doesn't.
04/24/2017 12:09 PMPosted by shoe
04/24/2017 12:00 PMPosted by Porkypine
...

I watch some streamers going junkrat in GM. Seem to be doing just fine, one of them was top 500 at some point, Junkrat main (Chro). It's about skill, not hero pick.

Anyway top 1% of players experience is almost irrelevant to the rest.


Actually, it's incredibly relevant.

Top players weren't born top, they had to get there from the bottom like everyone else.

The difference between top players and low level players are how well they recognize mistakes. Top players know the mistakes that low level players make. They've lived through them, corrected them, and became better. Low level players still play with those mistakes.

In reality, the fact that you haven't lived past your mistakes should make your views irrelevant. Starting a conversation about a subject in which you don't even have a quarter of the understanding in should invalidate whatever you have to say, but on these forums, it doesn't.


That's pretty interesting considering how many posts here say "I smurfed from bronze to GM on three accounts; git gud."
04/24/2017 07:32 AMPosted by shoe
I'm sorry to tell you, but every form of damage adds value to the game,
Even discounting the mei walls, it's perfectly possible to deal damage that does not contribute to a win, kill, or any benefit to your team at all. Ex: shooting a winston/orisa barrier, failing to break it, and then having it time out/get replaced. Believe me, I understand that wailing on a Reinhardt/Zarya barrier provides value (it's a core part of maining bastion), but it's disingenuous to say that trash damage "doesn't exist".

04/24/2017 07:32 AMPosted by shoe
Any piece of damage that goes into a team fight results in Eliminations, even if it's damage being dealt to barriers, as players behind the barrier become exposed.
I think it's telling that you specify that this is only true of team fights, because a lot of the time players pad their stats (intentionally or unintentionally) by fighting at the wrong time, resulting in damage or even elims that do not contribute to taking the objective. For example, consider the 2nd point on volskya: if a player routinely engages too late they may be able to get 2 or 3 elims, but because when they die they have no teammates who can take advantage of their enemy's weakened state, they make no progress toward the objective, and both teams have fully respawned before the next fight, thus breaking the "damage -> elims -> fight wins -> game wins" chain.
04/24/2017 12:14 PMPosted by ShiroKabocha
04/24/2017 12:09 PMPosted by shoe
...

Actually, it's incredibly relevant.

Top players weren't born top, they had to get there from the bottom like everyone else.

The difference between top players and low level players are how well they recognize mistakes. Top players know the mistakes that low level players make. They've lived through them, corrected them, and became better. Low level players still play with those mistakes.

In reality, the fact that you haven't lived past your mistakes should make your views irrelevant. Starting a conversation about a subject in which you don't even have a quarter of the understanding in should invalidate whatever you have to say, but on these forums, it doesn't.


That's pretty interesting considering how many posts here say "I smurfed from bronze to GM on three accounts; git gud."


I love how that has anything to do with what I said.

Next time I debate Neil Degrasse Tyson, I'll just point out that he has a mustache and I too should be able to ignore everything he said and look like a tool.
04/24/2017 12:30 PMPosted by shoe
Next time I debate Neil Degrasse Tyson, I'll just point out that he has a mustache and I too should be able to ignore everything he said and look like a tool.

https://twitter.com/Thesixler/status/704331510036299776
You may want to reconsider using NDT as your metric for "smart".
Even discounting the mei walls, it's perfectly possible to deal damage that does not contribute to a win, kill, or any benefit to your team at all.


Can't wait to see what examples you provide.

Ex: shooting a winston/orisa barrier,


Shooting Winston Barrier: Breaks dive instantly, ability to kill the Winston that probably has 3-4 seconds left on his CD after diving

Shooting Orisa Barrier: Just like Rein's shield, it protects what's behind it. Break the barrier, and it exposes what's behind it.

failing to break it,


So if you can't break it, you shouldn't try to? Got it.

and then having it time out/get replaced.


Again, don't shoot barriers because in the end, you can't break them. Got it!

Believe me,


I don't. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, and that's demonstrably true.

I understand that wailing on a Reinhardt/Zarya barrier provides value (it's a core part of maining bastion), but it's disingenuous to say that trash damage "doesn't exist".


I gave an outlier example of "trash damage", which is literally the definition of saying that trash damage exists, sometimes. However, THE MAJORITY OF DAMAGE YOU DO IS NOT TRASH.

You literally provided two instances of "trash damage" which are indeed not trash damage. How do you not understand this? Your argument is literally, "don't do anything, it'll never break anyways".

04/24/2017 12:27 PMPosted by DoomGuy
I think it's telling that you specify that this is only true of team fights,


I think it's telling how you don't understand simple game mechanics. Every fight in the game, regardless of time and position, is a team fight. A genji in the backline peppering supports is still a part of the teamfight. Like I said before, the only time someone is not a part of the team fight is I they're trying to burst down a mei wall somewhere in the corner while the fight's 5v6.

04/24/2017 12:27 PMPosted by DoomGuy
because a lot of the time players pad their stats (intentionally or unintentionally) by fighting at the wrong time,


People fighting at the wrong time doesn't make it trash damage by trying to "pad their stats". It's because lower ranked people have less levels of gamesense. If you even understood the first sentence, you'd see how this counters the point that people pad their stats by doing "trash damage", when in reality, it's not trash damage at all.

04/24/2017 12:27 PMPosted by DoomGuy
resulting in damage or even elims that do not contribute to taking the objective.


What? How does getting elims not contribute to taking the objective? Even elims gotten in 1v6 scenarios on anywhere except last on 2cp maps serve the purpose of delaying spawn and making the next fight an easier one to win.

04/24/2017 12:27 PMPosted by DoomGuy
For example, consider the 2nd point on volskya: if a player routinely engages too late they may be able to get 2 or 3 elims,


That's not a case against "trash damage" or "trash elims". That's a case against failed engagement times.

You're not talking about but because when they die they have no teammates who can take advantage of their enemy's weakened state, they make no progress toward the objective, and both teams have fully respawned before the next fight, thus breaking the "damage -> elims -> fight wins -> game wins" chain.


It's funny that you take outlier cases and apply them to a general formula that's true for the population. Just because there are a few outlier cases of damage > elims > fight wins > game wins, doesn't mean the equation isn't true. Notice how I said HIGHER LIKELYHOOD OF TEAMFIGHT WIN. Continue to never talk about the cases in which this equation IS true.

Of all the maps and gametypes in the game, the cases of a faster respawning defending team are the minority when it comes to the majority of games, especially factoring in games that don't have respawn advantages built in at all. The fact that you don't understand simple concepts like this is appalling.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post, because you've proven time and again that you'll happily nitpick sentence fragments so that you can avoid actually addressing the points made (and then ironically claiming that other people "didn't read your sentences"), which should be obvious to anyone reading; instead, I'm just going to tackle the last few (that actually resemble points):

04/24/2017 12:46 PMPosted by shoe
You literally provided two instances of "trash damage" which are indeed not trash damage. How do you not understand this? Your argument is literally, "don't do anything, it'll never break anyways".
No, but it's easier for you to imagine that that's my claim than to actually refute what I said, so you do you. Maybe re-read (the whole sentence at once) if you genuinely misunderstood (which I doubt).

04/24/2017 12:46 PMPosted by shoe
That's not a case against "trash damage" or "trash elims". That's a case against failed engagement times.
So what I'm hearing is "trash damage doesn't exist, because I'm using a definition of 'trash damage' that a priori asserts its non-existence, even if the damage does nothing to help secure a win it's not 'trash'." If not, then please explain why "damage to a barrier that does not break" is not trash damage, and by what definition of "trash damage" that is true, because to me, damage dealt during an "trash engagement" is "trash damage".

04/24/2017 12:46 PMPosted by shoe
It's funny that you take outlier cases and apply them to a general formula that's true for the population.
You can't make the claim that:
04/24/2017 07:32 AMPosted by shoe
I'm sorry to tell you, but every form of damage adds value to the game
and then ignore people pointing out the exceptions. Your claim was that all damage is worthwhile, it's proven wrong if any damage demonstrably has none, then sorry, but you're wrong. For all your talk about statistics, you sure have a shaky grasp of propositional logic. If you had claimed that "most", or even "the overwhelming majority of" damage thought to be trash wasn't, then we could discuss whether or not the "trash damage" is significant enough to consider. However, you assert that is does not exist at all, and when presented with evidence to the contrary, plug your ears and say "outliers" while (obviously) lacking any statistics to back up the claim.

04/24/2017 12:46 PMPosted by shoe
Continue to never talk about the cases in which this equation IS true.
If you're going to claim that it's always true, of course I'm going to point out the ones where it isn't instead of just chanting "shoe is always right, praise shoe". Quit making (false) absolute assertions and I'll quit pointing out that they're wrong as presented.

04/24/2017 12:46 PMPosted by shoe
Of all the maps and gametypes in the game, the cases of a faster respawning defending team are the minority when it comes to the majority of games, especially factoring in games that don't have respawn advantages built in at all. The fact that you don't understand simple concepts like this is appalling.
Your arrogance is astounding, and your grasp of math is even worse. 11/14 maps in overwatch are attack/defend (of one type or the other), and in all of them, even with the longer respawn timers for defenders, they will still make it back to the final point at least as quickly as the attackers will (because of the long walk) after a death.
Hi Shoe - I see you play a lot of Zenyatta on KR. You seem to know a lot about stats. Do me a favor and analyze mine? <3
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post, because you've proven time and again that you'll happily nitpick sentence fragments so that you can avoid actually addressing the points made (and then ironically claiming that other people "didn't read your sentences"), which should be obvious to anyone reading; instead, I'm just going to tackle the last few (that actually resemble points):.


So when I respond to EVERYONE OF YOUR SENTENCES line by line, that's nitpicking, but when you literally say you're only going to respond to the last few of my sentences, that's NOT nitpicking? And you talk about irony?

So what I'm hearing is "trash damage doesn't exist, because I'm using a definition of 'trash damage' that a priori asserts its non-existence,.


Again, you've shown how little you've read of my post and how much you're the one "nitpicking". I clearly said before that trash damage does exist, and I gave an example, yet you've ignored that.

even if the damage does nothing to help secure a win it's not 'trash'." .


When was that even said?

If not, then please explain why "damage to a barrier that does not break" is not trash damage, .


I've explained this multiple times, yet you have to ask this idiotic question again? This was in part of the statements that you unironically skipped!

Because you can only break a barrier with damage. If your mentality is "I'm not going to shoot it because it won't break", then you're making the team fight win harder. Again, this was explained multiple times, but you ironically quotemined and ignored the parts of the argument that stated this.

and by what definition of "trash damage" that is true, because to me, damage dealt during an "trash engagement" is "trash damage"..


Damage not dealt during a team fight is considered "trash damage". However, due to the nature of team fights, "trash damage" happen less than 5% of the time in an actual game, and if you actually had reading comprehension skills, you'd realize that outliers do not explain the general population.

and then ignore people pointing out the exceptions. .


Exceptions are not the norm. Again, outliers do not describe the mean.

Your claim was that all damage is worthwhile, it's proven wrong if any damage demonstrably has none, then sorry, but you're wrong..


What? You've literally concocted a strawman in which I said there's no such thing as trash damage, when I literally gave you an example of trash damage IN MY ORIGINAL POST.

For all your talk about statistics, you sure have a shaky grasp of propositional logic..


Again, how so? You just admittd to using "exceptions", yet you want to talk about statistics and logic? Not to mention how illogical it is to clam in your first paragraph that I'm nictpicking you (despite responding to every one of your sentences), yet a sentence later unironically say you're going to only respond to my last few sentences.

If you had claimed that "most", or even "the overwhelming majority of" damage thought to be trash wasn't, then we could discuss whether or not the "trash damage" is significant enough to consider. .


That's the case I made. Again, it's literally in the original post.

However, you assert that is does not exist at all, .


Not true, probably the 8th time I've pointed this out.

and when presented with evidence to the contrary, .


You gave two instances of "trash damage" which were demonstrably proven to not be "trash damage".

plug your ears and say "outliers" while (obviously) lacking any statistics to back up the claim..


Wh...at? That's so overwhelmingly fallible that I actually cannot believe someone like you can be so arrogant in his ignorance. Outliers, for the 6th time, are by definition, not statistical. They do not describe the general population. How can you unironically, and without shame, say that someone is plugging their ears when you are demonstrably doing the same? An argument was made against your assertions, and instead of arguing against the case presented to you, you ignored that and went on to talk about how you're still correct?

If you're going to claim that it's always true, of course I'm going to point out the ones where it isn't instead of just chanting "shoe is always right, praise shoe"..


Again, for the 9th time, nobody said it's ALWAYS TRUE. For example, having a high chance to winning sub-GM games while I'm smurfing doesn't mean I'll always win those games. (I've lost bronze games before)

It's funny how you claim that nobody should blindly believe me, when you're blindly making fallible arguments and not being able to logically argue for them.

Quit making (false) absolute assertions and I'll quit pointing out that they're wrong as presented..


YOU MADE THOSE ASSERTIONS. FOR THE 10TH TIME, THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT EVEN GIVES YOU A CASE OF ACTUAL TRASH DAMAGE, SO IT IS BY DEFINITION NOT ABSOLUTE. ARE YOU INSANE?

Your arrogance is astounding, .


How ironic.

and your grasp of math is even worse. .


How so?

11/14 maps in overwatch are attack/defend (of one type or the other),.


You can't even get that right. Attack and defend by definition means that both teams get a crack at defense. When you take out defense as a variable, due to it being not influential to the equation due to both teams having equal variance, what you are left with is the attack.

There are 4 control maps, which do not give any spawn advantage.

4 hybrid, which only favor the defense on the last point.

There are 3 pure payload maps, which all only favor the defense on the last point.

There are 3 assault maps, all of which only favor the defenders on the last point.

and in all of them, even with the longer respawn timers for defenders, .


The last point defense advantage is only apparent on the last point of each gametype, and often times it's not even reached, making it even less of a variable.

You mean how they will still make it back to the final point at least as quickly as the attackers will (because of the long walk) after a death..


BECAUSE THE LAST POINT IS A NULL VARIABLE DUE TO BOTH TEAMS HAVING DEFENSE. OFTEN TIMES, TEAMS DON'T EVEN REACH THE LAST POINT, HOW DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THESE SIMPLE CONCEPTS?

When you account for controllable variables, there is no such thing as trash damage, due to the statistical chance of your cases of "trash damage/elims" being committed on either side. Especially now due to the percentage ticks on last, 2 players dumping ults on last actually has more merit than it did.

But again, if your logic extends to "you're nitpicking me even though you're not, so I'm going to call you a hypocrite while I nitpick you", then I really don't understand how you can function
04/24/2017 01:25 PMPosted by zhenzhen
Hi Shoe - I see you play a lot of Zenyatta on KR. You seem to know a lot about stats. Do me a favor and analyze mine? <3


Idk why I have KR stat when I never played on the server, but I guess I could go over a demo with you. Add me on Bnet.
04/24/2017 01:46 PMPosted by shoe
However, due to the nature of team fights, "trash damage" happen less than 5% of the time in an actual game

Mr. Statistics.
Source for these 5% please?

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum