Some data on Legion's performance since the Oni update

sigh I'm really hoping the cooldown gets looked at its the number 1 thing that kills legion for me

sad to see nurse went from highest kill rate killer to lowest kill rate killer , no plans for her changes??

Pretty sure she was always at the bottom, given that these statistics are for all platforms, including console.

still she is the most unfun killer to play as

Stop misleading people. Your obsession with insisting Legion is good is just defying logic at this point. The stats say they are 10/16. That is in the bottom 50%. That isn't good.

I also think this is inflated from the rank reset.

This doesn't excuse the fact there still bad

Imo, it is not only the question of viability that matters, it is also the question if something makes sense and if it "feels good".

If I think on frenzy in movies - it supports often the picture of a "unstoppable force".

You see this "effect" by many hero, or villan characters, before they going rampage.

And I would like to have the same picture again by the Legion.

While frenzy itself deals no damage is it itself just a very fundamental ability to feel "unstoppable" as the guys from the movies and as such, some of the restrictions on it need to go.

Frenzy need not just be fast, frenzy need also to give the player the feeling that he is "free" and if we look at the moment at frenzy, you don't feel free.

There are still some restrictions on frenzy that should be go. Imo, that would also not cause real balance issuses. Sure, the Legion would be a bit stronger with more changes by the frenzy ability, but after all - frenzy is a non-damage-dealing-abilitiy.

So the impact of taking more frenzy penaltys away would be little for survivors, while it in return would rise the fun for Legion players on a big level, imo.

That is just my opinion to it.

But thanks for the information @Almo . Personally I hope for 1-2 more small Legion patches that contain at least this.

Look how they butchered nurse.. she has lowest kill rate even in red ranks..

I'm fine with add-ons change, but please revert her basekit change

So you are just twisting things to make a point?

They didn't take a month before and compared it to a month after. They took 1 month of data and compared it to 3 months of data, that includes additional information to understand the data better, and said it shows a net buff.

You keep going into threads saying "most people don't know how to read data" but have proven that not only are you unwilling to talk about the stats directly, but have some sort of superiority complex where you act like you are more intelligent than everyone else, without providing any substantial argument, and that's the end of it.

You sound like someone who looks at percentages, says they prove whatever they say they prove, and ignore the numbers that make up the data.

Here's a semi-quick example to explain what I mean:

A pet adoption center posts the data about the kinds of cats that have had up for adoption over the last 3 months, and the number of each type that was adopted. This includes "In the last three months 38 Calico cats have been adopted. That's about 60% of the Calico cats we've had available for adoption."

Then after some changes they release new data specifically about Calico cats spanning a month saying "100% of Calico cats were adopted this month! They are getting really popular! Amazing!" And they don't mention that they only had 10 Calico cats available this month.

It means literally nothing to just look at the percentage other than that of what was available 60% were adopted over some previous 3 months while 100% were adopted over this other month. It doesn't mean, as they state, they are becoming more popular. And leaving out numbers makes it useless in comparing it to previous data because each "percentage point" may not be equal.

But because the percentage is a higher number then they can state it because people like you don't care about the actual numbers.

If you can actually explain how leaving out numbers, and not providing where you got these numbers, provides usable and acceptable data and how percentages alone are enough to conclude a definitive conclusion then that would be nice.

I guess taking people at their word is good enough for you though.

Edit: I meant to add that you mention "outliers". As if outliers in the 3 months is the only thing that could cause these not to be comparable. Wouldn't it be more likely that there are outliers skewing the data of the provided 1 month data? We have nothing to go on so we can't say either way, but to bring up outliers as only pertaining to the 3 months is, frankly, ridiculous.

Or, you know, whatever.