Talk:Viktor/@comment-4677525-20130609173120/@comment-5490997-20130612114249

@The5lacker: So the statement "Both Trundle and Sejuani improved in popularity and performance" is now considered proof? It isn't more proof than me saying they haven't improved much. Proof has to be something more than a statement, like numbers you took from a trustworthy source.

@Megames1: Ok, you want cold hard numbers? Let's talk numbers then. With a 1.2% use rate Karma can't really be called popular these days and Trundle isn't much better with 4.33%. I agree Sejuani improved a lot with 11.42% use rate these days, but it's still far from the likes of Ezreal, Thresh, etc (who have 20% use rates or more). So I wasn't 100% wrong when I said they didn't improve much.

Win rate wise Sejuani is indeed the top these days, that's also why she's getting a pretty significant nerf this patch. 5% above the 50% average IMO isn't huge though, Amumu and quite a few others have had above 50% win rates for ages so IMO win rate doesn't have to mean a champ is OP or anything.

I will admit I don't know the exact win rates for Trundle or Karma pre-rework, but with 49.22% for Trundle and a measly 43.3% for Karma they might have improved, but definitely not enough to bring them up to par with the rest of the league IMO.

So I guess we now agree that Karma didn't improve much, if at all. And I personally still think Trundle hasn't improve much either. I will admit I was wrong about Sejuani, but these numbers are still only general statistics. You can also look at her new abilities compared to her old ones and still say she hasn't improved much.

Those numbers (all of them) are copied from LoLking, so as far as I'm concerned they're facts. Unless you can prove to me why LoLking would be less accurate than another LoL statistics site.

As for defending myself, I wouldn't have defended myself if you wouldn't have "assaulted" me in the first comment you make. And yes, I do consider you calling me a liar an insult. It adds nothing to the point you're trying to make (that I was wrong about Trundle and Sejuani), it's just there to insult me and nothing else.

The reason I said Sejuani didn't improve much is because she lost her passive slow (her E passive doesn't slow afaik, only once you use the active E it slows afaik). She also lost some armor/lvl due to her new passive, which I consider to be a bad trade because you need that armor before an enemy can even land 1 attack on you (which they will often be able to do before you can reach them). The stun duration nerf on her early ranks of R isn't an improvement either, it just means that landing it now will stun more people but it will stun them shorter, which is worse because the early ranks of R will be used mostly for ganking single/few champs, not 5v5 team fighting. I'm pretty sure I've even read a quote somewhere that Riot said they sneaked in some small nerfs to Sejuani in the rework. Personally I still think Sejuani didn't improve much, she just got more popular and now people finally realize she's not a bad champ when she was fine all along. Why does that boost her win rate? I dunno, but the same happened with Ez, Corki, Nautilus and quite a few others. They got popular and with that their win rates went up as well (maybe because more skilled players will pick them up first and then it takes a while before the noobs pick them up as well to bring the win rate back to ~50%).

btw, now you're saying I claim my opinions to be facts (which I still am not doing), the very thing you were denying you said earlier (so I guess I was correct about you implying that without saying it literally). Just because I don't say "I think" or "IMO" every 2 words that doesn't mean I'm claiming my statements to be facts. In fact: ".. ,nor do I think any of them actually improved much." implies that the part of the sentence before that was also a thought (and thoughts are by definition not always facts). Which is further reinforced with the fact that I start the sentence with "I mean if I look at" (which means IMO). If you read anything in there as a fact that's not my fault.