Best Average Placement TFT Team Compositions
This table ranks TFT team compositions by their average placement finish, showing which comps consistently achieve top placements. Top 8-champion Set 17 compositions: Party Animal (95.2% WR, 2.1 avg), Party Animal (91.3% WR, 2.1 avg), Party Animal (88.6% WR, 2.4 avg). Party Animal/Dark Star leads with 95.18% win rate and 2.08 average placement. Party Animal follows at 91.27% win rate. Analyzing 67 8-comp compositions with real-time performance statistics.
Primary | Champions | Builds | Avg | Top 4 | First | Contested Risk | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2.08 | 95.18% | 37.96% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
2.14 | 91.27% | 49.06% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
2.42 | 88.56% | 37.85% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
2.97 | 79.19% | 25.99% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.25 | 74.65% | 22.49% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.27 | 74.76% | 18.03% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.28 | 76.97% | 15.68% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.43 | 70.45% | 22.98% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.45 | 74.04% | 12.81% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.49 | 73.18% | 9.72% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.57 | 71.77% | 12.55% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.58 | 71.54% | 10.57% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.61 | 67.96% | 14.13% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.62 | 76.03% | 8.22% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.64 | 69.48% | 13.05% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.64 | 67.24% | 15.70% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.65 | 68.63% | 16.35% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.75 | 66.28% | 10.72% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.81 | 66.25% | 16.25% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.85 | 61.63% | 14.74% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.86 | 60.95% | 16.15% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.90 | 62.66% | 11.51% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
3.99 | 63.57% | 7.86% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.02 | 62.96% | 13.39% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.07 | 59.66% | 11.00% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.11 | 58.99% | 14.19% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.12 | 57.50% | 5.36% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.17 | 58.15% | 8.65% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.22 | 57.96% | 5.47% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.49 | 51.66% | 9.67% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.50 | 53.51% | 5.35% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.55 | 44.77% | 13.72% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.67 | 47.69% | 3.09% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.79 | 41.90% | 4.76% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.80 | 43.73% | 7.80% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.87 | 42.44% | 4.99% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
4.90 | 42.72% | 6.50% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.02 | 38.16% | 5.53% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.07 | 36.42% | 4.91% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.08 | 37.14% | 3.44% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.09 | 39.09% | 3.16% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.10 | 37.94% | 4.38% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.14 | 37.78% | 1.51% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.21 | 35.90% | 1.50% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.21 | 29.87% | 2.27% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.28 | 34.51% | 6.26% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.28 | 33.33% | 2.14% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.32 | 31.15% | 4.22% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.39 | 28.76% | 0.57% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.43 | 30.47% | 3.52% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.46 | 28.68% | 2.50% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.65 | 25.15% | 3.18% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.77 | 21.82% | 1.91% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.78 | 25.78% | 1.56% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.78 | 22.14% | 2.26% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.82 | 23.66% | 2.67% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.86 | 23.10% | 2.22% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.88 | 20.56% | 2.70% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.90 | 20.52% | 0.00% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
5.98 | 18.09% | 1.06% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
6.09 | 15.08% | 1.23% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
6.19 | 11.37% | 0.29% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
6.40 | 10.59% | 0.00% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
6.43 | 10.97% | 0.00% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
6.49 | 10.48% | 0.42% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
6.50 | 10.30% | 0.00% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
6.58 | 11.08% | 0.47% | Low Contested Risk | ||||
Help us maintain accuracy! If you notice incorrect stats, missing data, or any issues, your feedback directly improves the quality of our data for the entire community.
TFT Team Comps - Set 17 FAQ
What is the best TFT comp in TFT Set 17?
The best TFT comp in TFT Set 17 is Party Animal/Dark Star with Karma as the primary carry, achieving a 95.2% win rate and 2.08 average placement. This composition is effective for climbing ranked and consistently places in top 4.
How do I play the Party Animal/Dark Star comp?
To play Party Animal/Dark Star, focus on building around Karma as your main carry. Look for Karma and supporting units early, prioritize items that synergize with your carry, and aim to hit your power spike by level 7-8. This comp has a 0.1% pick rate, making it a relatively uncontested option.
What comps are good for climbing in TFT Set 17?
For consistent LP gains in TFT Set 17, Party Animal/Dark Star offers the best average placement at 2.08. Other reliable options include Party Animal/Dark Star (2.14 avg) and Party Animal/Eradicator (2.42 avg). Consistent comps minimize bottom 4 finishes and provide steady climbing.
What is the easiest TFT comp to play?
Party Animal/Dark Star is a great option for players looking for an easier climb. With a 95.2% win rate but only 0.1% pick rate, you're unlikely to be contested, making the game easier to navigate. Low contestation means you can naturally find your units without having to force pivots.
When should I force a comp vs flex in TFT Set 17?
In TFT Set 17, Challenger/N.O.V.A. has a 1.8% pick rate, meaning it's heavily contested. If you see others going for it, consider flexing into alternatives like Party Animal/Dark Star. Force a comp when you hit early units and items, or when it's uncontested. Flex when you see 2+ players competing for the same units.
What is the most consistent TFT comp in TFT Set 17?
Party Animal/Dark Star has the best average placement at 2.08, making it the most consistent comp for climbing. Party Animal/Dark Star follows at 2.14, and Party Animal/Eradicator at 2.42. Lower average placement means fewer bottom 4 finishes.
Is average placement better than win rate for climbing?
For consistent LP gains, average placement is often more reliable than pure win rate. A comp like Party Animal/Dark Star with 2.08 average placement minimizes big LP losses from bottom 4 finishes. High variance comps might win more lobbies but also 8th more often. For climbing, consistency usually beats coinflip strategies.