Forgot password
Enter the email address you used when you joined and we'll send you instructions to reset your password.
If you used Apple or Google to create your account, this process will create a password for your existing account.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Reset password instructions sent. If you have an account with us, you will receive an email within a few minutes.
Something went wrong. Try again or contact support if the problem persists.

Damage type distribution

Today, I will look at team damage type and compare it with win rate.
This article is over 9 years old and may contain outdated information

Today, I will look at team damage type and compare it with win rate. I will basically provide numbers, it’s difficult to draw any strong conclusion because there is so many different team compositions in terms of damage distribution: AP/AD toplaner, AP/AD jungler, … Still, I think the stats are worth sharing.

Recommended Videos

Datas are from Summer Split, regular season to regional qualifiers for LCS and LCK. LMS playoffs and Regional Qualifiers and also International Wildcard tournament. Sadly, LPL datas are not available. It’s a total of 545 games, 1090 team compositions.

Global stats

 

We can see in average, teams do more magic damage. Maybe because of the summer split meta, poke champions doing a large amount of damage. We can notice slightly more physical damage for winning team, I can think of two reasons for this: 1. It’s easier for the AD carry to dps if his team had an advantage. 2. Winning team are more focus on making their AD carry snowball.


Next I will look at each damage type, provide win rate distribution, and some example of extreme case.

 

Magic Damage

Teams Magic Damage % Win Rate
85 > 75% 40%
457 60-75% 46.4%
432 45-60% 53.5%
132 30-45% 53.8%
15 < 30% 53.3%

Well, it’s pretty clear, too much Magic Damage is not good. Under 60%, the win rate is pretty stable, even below 30%.

Let’s look at the extreme case, the team with the highest magic damage share was JinAir in CJ Entus vs JinAir :

87% Magic Damage !! It’s pretty obvious when we look at the champions, even the ad carry mainly deals magic damage (Corki deals around 52% magic damage).

But it was a defeat, let’s look at the winning team with the highest magic damage share. It was TSM during Enemy eSports vs TSM :

83.9% magic damage, mainly due to an insane amount of damage from Bjergsen’s Kog’Maw:

Physical Damage

Teams Physical Damage % Win Rate
50 > 60% 48%
237 45-60% 56.5%
476 30-45% 52.1%
327 < 30% 42.5%

Unlike magic damage, you need a minimum of physical damage to maintain a good win rate. Between 30 and 60% seems the good range.

The team with the highest physical damage share was Gambit Gaming: Gambit vs CW

Sivir, Jayce, AD Fizz (with Trinity Force + Blade of the Ruined King + Tiamat), and Janna’s Shield for more AD.

 

True Damage

Teams True Damage % Win Rate
53 > 10% 37.7%
214 5-10% 48.6%
575 2-5% 53.2%
248 < 2% 46.4%

Looking at win rate, true damage doesn’t look that determinant.

The team with the highest true damage share was Enemy eSports in Enemy eSports vs Gravity

22% true damage only from Irelia and Ahri (with ignite) but it was a defeat.

The winning team with the highest true damage share was Najin E-mFire in Koo Tigers vs Najin

 

Final note

As a final note, here is the damage distribution for teams qualified for Worlds Championship:

Remember champion pool have a big part in damage type distribution. For example, SKT T1 has a lot of magic damage, not only because of mid lane, but also because of MaRin playing a lot of Maokai/Rumble, Bengi a lot of Evelynn, and also Bang playing Corki.


I hope you enjoy reading this article, you can contact me on twitter @bynjee, any feedback are welcome. Datas comes from www.gamesoflegends.com, feel free to ask me if you want any specific stats.


Dot Esports is supported by our audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about our Affiliate Policy
Author