Talk:Rumble/@comment-66.189.212.47-20130126044339/@comment-68.109.110.108-20130202004956

1:  Just because it's been explained a lot, doesn't make the explaination true. A response to the previous explaination was "Keep in mind the sample size isn't THAT small". For reference, last month he was played 91,500 games, in over 5% of all ranked games. How many games must you have for the statistics to be considered accurate? 100,000? 1,000,000? The number of rumble games is sufficent.

2: "This title is incredibly sensationalist and a bit of a kneejerk reaction."

"This is an obvious nerf as far as need goes - the winrate data on LoLKing makes him look balanced in comparison to the internal global one "

It was all based on that ONE quote, stating:


 * 1: "it depends on the sample size" as I said before, 91,000+ is a fairly high sample size.


 * 2: "We obviously do have better access to the raw data, but it's not too far off in several places." Morello acknowledging lolking works.

Also his win rate is always above 55%, constantly, and always in the top 2 for monthly, let alone top 10, for the past several months. I follow rumble's win rate very carefully, as I main him. He's just stronger than everyone else right now. It fuctuated A BIT on the DAILY stats (Which suck, I have no idea why idiots choose to use the smallest sample size they can), but is still is in the top 10, always.