[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  LS [@LSXYZ9](/creator/twitter/LSXYZ9) on x 324.7K followers Created: 2025-07-09 01:47:16 UTC Kalista - A thread: My belief on why teams continue to pick Kalista is obviously attributed to false beliefs gained through poor information (such as scrims) and feelings of wellness that they get during wins with the champ. Now my confusion comes in when Kalista is different than say a champion like LeBlanc or 20/21' Renekton in that it is not as difficult to discern that clearly the champion is directly related to the problems at hand that you're having. What I mean is - Generally the LeBlanc team won't be able to tell LeBlanc is the reason, for a myriad of reasons. Usually LeBlanc is going to appear well, even in loses. When she loses, it can usually be attributed to other factors. When she wins or is ahead, she also looks good. There is an iconic Humanoid game where he had a hero performance on LeBlanc, but I would argue anyone who is being honest and doing proper analysis at a high level can discern that LeBlanc is one of the primary reasons for the loss, in spite of Humanoid's performance in that game. To spectators, people not doing analysis, and others - LeBlanc was keeping them in that game, not losing them it. Likewise 20/21 Renekton as bad as he was, it was very difficult for clearly even pro players and some analysts and others to really identify just how bad Renekton was. This is probably one of the most iconic analytical arguments I was ever apart of and flamed for the most in my entire tenure in LoL. Renekton was extremely difficult to tell how bad he was to your comp and how much of a poison he was in draft. Fast forward to Kalista, and it's extremely perplexing because it is VERY apparent to EVERYONE of ALL SKILL levels just how bad she is - And yet she continues to be picked. I can't totally understand it, because even if the argument is that she acts/operates as a pseudo neutralizer like some other champs in the game, there exists more versions of that archetype that doesn't require you to pick Kalista. In fact, you could even just do lane swaps to achieve similar results of neutralizing. In an earlier tweet I referred to Kalista as the StarCraft:Broodwar version of the FD Rush, or the "Fake Double". One of the most iconic rush strategies in the Terran vs Protoss matchup. For years it was perceived as a viable and fine opening. In fact it was very powerful vs lower tier pro players and stood for a long time as a viable opening. The problem began when elite level protoss players could control their dragoons well enough that the opening would be dismantled and result in the Terran being behind significantly. The issue is encounters with elite level protoss players was very rare, and sometimes even they too could slip up. So this lead a lot of people to continue doing the FD rush for a long time. Eventually all protoss players got to a point where the rush was no longer really viable. When I have arguments with people about what they call "theory" in league in the sense of "idea", one of the main points to bring up in regards to esports history is introduction of new information. Using history you can see where things are possible clearly within human boundaries and where they are headed. We knew everyone would eventually be capable of a Lee Sin inSec kick, because inSec and others were doing it consistently. This means you can know in S3/S4 when it is first happening, that eventually every Lee Sin will be able to do it. This isn't science lol. You can know that with enough time, it will simply be the standard. This is one of the main basis for a lot of "analysis" I do when seeing clearly humanely possible things happen by select players or in isolation even if it only happens seldomly. Because if it's happening rarely or even on occasion but not by chance or luck, it means it can happen consistently with proper and dedicated practice. Anyway, Kalista is predicated on a lot of very high risk variables that currently her stats, items and pairings don't justify or properly allow. Her winrate historically or her viably historically is almost entirely irrelevant to the fact that her core concepts as a champion are essentially dumb to willingly opt into except in rare cases and by surprise to do something very specific. I will say that she had a lot more viability when her consistency was more achievable through utilization of flex picks in the past, especially when many things were different surrounding not only her, but the game. I hate talking about this stuff man, kills me emotionally inside. XXXXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [champ](/topic/champ) [wellness](/topic/wellness) [Post Link](https://x.com/LSXYZ9/status/1942762445673750949)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
LS @LSXYZ9 on x 324.7K followers
Created: 2025-07-09 01:47:16 UTC
Kalista - A thread:
My belief on why teams continue to pick Kalista is obviously attributed to false beliefs gained through poor information (such as scrims) and feelings of wellness that they get during wins with the champ.
Now my confusion comes in when Kalista is different than say a champion like LeBlanc or 20/21' Renekton in that it is not as difficult to discern that clearly the champion is directly related to the problems at hand that you're having. What I mean is - Generally the LeBlanc team won't be able to tell LeBlanc is the reason, for a myriad of reasons. Usually LeBlanc is going to appear well, even in loses. When she loses, it can usually be attributed to other factors. When she wins or is ahead, she also looks good. There is an iconic Humanoid game where he had a hero performance on LeBlanc, but I would argue anyone who is being honest and doing proper analysis at a high level can discern that LeBlanc is one of the primary reasons for the loss, in spite of Humanoid's performance in that game. To spectators, people not doing analysis, and others - LeBlanc was keeping them in that game, not losing them it.
Likewise 20/21 Renekton as bad as he was, it was very difficult for clearly even pro players and some analysts and others to really identify just how bad Renekton was. This is probably one of the most iconic analytical arguments I was ever apart of and flamed for the most in my entire tenure in LoL. Renekton was extremely difficult to tell how bad he was to your comp and how much of a poison he was in draft.
Fast forward to Kalista, and it's extremely perplexing because it is VERY apparent to EVERYONE of ALL SKILL levels just how bad she is - And yet she continues to be picked. I can't totally understand it, because even if the argument is that she acts/operates as a pseudo neutralizer like some other champs in the game, there exists more versions of that archetype that doesn't require you to pick Kalista. In fact, you could even just do lane swaps to achieve similar results of neutralizing.
In an earlier tweet I referred to Kalista as the StarCraft:Broodwar version of the FD Rush, or the "Fake Double". One of the most iconic rush strategies in the Terran vs Protoss matchup. For years it was perceived as a viable and fine opening. In fact it was very powerful vs lower tier pro players and stood for a long time as a viable opening. The problem began when elite level protoss players could control their dragoons well enough that the opening would be dismantled and result in the Terran being behind significantly. The issue is encounters with elite level protoss players was very rare, and sometimes even they too could slip up. So this lead a lot of people to continue doing the FD rush for a long time. Eventually all protoss players got to a point where the rush was no longer really viable. When I have arguments with people about what they call "theory" in league in the sense of "idea", one of the main points to bring up in regards to esports history is introduction of new information. Using history you can see where things are possible clearly within human boundaries and where they are headed. We knew everyone would eventually be capable of a Lee Sin inSec kick, because inSec and others were doing it consistently. This means you can know in S3/S4 when it is first happening, that eventually every Lee Sin will be able to do it. This isn't science lol. You can know that with enough time, it will simply be the standard. This is one of the main basis for a lot of "analysis" I do when seeing clearly humanely possible things happen by select players or in isolation even if it only happens seldomly. Because if it's happening rarely or even on occasion but not by chance or luck, it means it can happen consistently with proper and dedicated practice.
Anyway, Kalista is predicated on a lot of very high risk variables that currently her stats, items and pairings don't justify or properly allow. Her winrate historically or her viably historically is almost entirely irrelevant to the fact that her core concepts as a champion are essentially dumb to willingly opt into except in rare cases and by surprise to do something very specific. I will say that she had a lot more viability when her consistency was more achievable through utilization of flex picks in the past, especially when many things were different surrounding not only her, but the game.
I hate talking about this stuff man, kills me emotionally inside.
XXXXXXX engagements
