I meant that when you are stuck with an AI from the beginning of the game it isn't uncommon for the enemy AI to be Erebus, in my experience at least.
And yes, I'm aware that the AI was recently taken out of Pantheon, but I stress the term recently. The AI haven't been out long enough to make a significant change in the stats.
Personal experiences represent too small of a sample to support a claim that one Demigod is played by the AI more than another. As said by BeardKing:
...the law of large numbers holds that there will always be regression towards the mean, the stats hold unless they have been tampered with...
In this case, we can assume that the distribution of games played fully or partially by AI will be roughly the same for each demigod.
Back to JagerJack:
I think we should wait until later in the current pantheon before we use stats to prove a point.
Ouchy Dathurts made an excellent response here, and I have one to add. The point here is that balancing changes should be justified by objective information, not by expert (or inexpert) subjective opinions. The OP shouldnt have to bring up statistics at the 11th hour, they should have been the foundation of this debate from the beginning!
Moving on: Busdude says
Pantheon stats don't matter, they're probably broken, and for all we know, it might even include AI in it. I'm pretty sure AI is still in pantheon because I just played a pantheon match with 2v2 with 1 team having an AI. I also got a 2v1 before that. Not to mention the abundance of bad players who probably decided to play him after hearing he's overpowered.
No stats to back the nerf up? Bite is an ability with a low cost, low recharge, no cast time that did 300 life drain + snare + armor debuff at level 1 allowing your next few attacks to hit for more damage. 600 points of damage+heal+2 other effects, does way more than other level 1 skills of other demigods.
Erebus is already powerful enough even after the nerf, as he has 2 ways to escape otherwise certain death, and an effective stun.
I edited the first paragraph of your post with underlines to bring attention to how many assumptions you are making here, and that you did not give us any support for them. In the second paragraph I italicised sections and words that you need to support. For example, define "low", lower than other abilites? which abilites? "way more than other level 1 skills", how much more is "way more"? which skills? how do they relate to bite? It is your responsibility to inform these claims, and please be less vague in the future.
Finally: from Gorgeras
Pantheon statistics do not tell you which DGs are the most efficient. If they did, then it would mean Hunters in World of Warcraft were kings of everything for the first two years and Shaman never had any advantage in the early days of PvP, but it's widely accepted that Hunters were over-used by gold-farmers and Shaman was a problem until the autumn of 2005. The context is important.
"The context is important" applies to your own post as well, in which you compare an MMORPG that features PvE and PvP with a persistant world; to a non-persistant, deathmatch style game that features no PvE play. Class distribution in WoW reflects more than just players interested in PvP, at least that is what i'll assume from the link you gave supporting your arguement (there was none).
edit: formatting issues