Talk:Lux/@comment-7627698-20130405061820/@comment-7627698-20130407093705

@Guggaburggi

Daily win-rate yesterday, Sion was topping. Low pool of games - high win rate in those few games. That's why statistics don't mean shit.

'''BUT FUCK IT! '''

Most popular champions - Monthly win-rate - Ezreal and Lee Sin are both negative. They are therefore shit and need buffs. Right?

Most popular champions - Platinum tier - Weekly - Zed is negative, he needs buffs, right? Janna has won too many games, she needs to be nerfed, right?

Fizz has a 47% win-rate... Ergo, he's broken. Right?

Fiora's win-rate has been terrible for very long now. She's underpowered as well, I guess.

Statistics do not matter because they don't prove anything -''' what do they show? '''That a champion is bad? Or that the players are bad....? That a champion needs buffs? Or that no one simply plays them?

'''How about this, you prove to me why statistics matter first...? '''

''If one champion loses 90% of its games, It wont matter because statistics are shit and there is still those 10% of players who still do good? ''

EX-FUCKING-ACTLY!!! Finally you understand!

Why?

Because it's not a -  

CONTROLED 

UNIVERSITY - 

OR SCIENTIFIC 

STUDY.

Who is the test group? How do you know whether or not ALL the Karma or Urgot players aren't fucking retards who lose against bots? Did you see the Moscow 5 game, where they went Urgot bot vs a duo bot lane? And he dominated the lane? Well, is Urgot broken? Or are the players just shit with him? What does the low win-rate prove? Nothing.

Just shows that most people can't play a champion. He's either too hard to play, or too situational. BUT HE WORKS JUST FINE - as showcased by the poeple who KNOW how to play him.

'Again, what do statistics prove, why do they mean shit, and what would you do with them? '

EDIT: Mundo, Gragas, and Nunu currently have very low win-rate. If you tell me they're underpowered and need buffs therefore, I'm gonna stop responding to you.