Talk:Yasuo/@comment-24198515-20141102155543/@comment-24198515-20141104121853

Okok, my point wasnt realy that Yasuo is a bad champ, what i was trying to say is that i dont realy believe in the meta. The point of the meta is that there are ALWAYS 20-30 champions who are better than the rest, who are "viable", while the others not realy. And then if you wanna be serious about the game, you MUST pick these meta champs. I dislike this mentality, i mean there must be some thruth in it, but its just one factor that can make a player good. Picking the right champion is important, but picking the champion YOU like, and you having a lot of experience is IMO much more important.

I have seen people beating others to the ground with unortodox champs a lot of times. You can argue that its becaouse im in low elo, but look at the s4 worlds. Samsung White totally dominated everyone with pretty much any champions they chosed (Akali top for instance). So if the skill differences can be SOOO big in that level of gaming, than is it sure that the meta is that important?

And there is also the dilemma of practice vs meta. Becaouse of the meta is always changing (slowly but surely), it means you have to change your own champion pool constantly, while if you dont realy care about the meta, you can play whoever you want for as long as you want it. That bit of mental freedom and the fact you can ALWAYS play your best champion (becaouse you are so good with it that even if he got some smaller nerfs, you will still be godlike with it) can count a lot too. Pro players are maximalists, and they play a LOT, so its understandable for them to pick the theorically best champs, but i still think this whole meta thing is overrated. The suprisingly low winrates of a super popular champs made me think about all of this, even if it doesnt mean much. Wow. Anyone who bothered reading this, what you think? :D