Boards›Gameplay

@Riot Out of curiosity, why aren't nerfs reverted?

Cupkek·11/30/2015, 5:26:41 AM·129 votes·15,463 views

I ask this question because I don't feel like the player base has really gotten a clear answer regarding the matter.

Frequently, we often see a champion get its numbers cut based on the existence of an item said champion synergizes really well with. However, the issue is that once the item inevitably gets nerfed, the champion nerf is not reverted.

Prime examples of this would be:

Warwick 's relationship with item 1415 during preseason 5. His ultimate's base damage was nerfed by 100 and his W's duration was cut by 40%. Sejuani 's relationship with item 1401 during the introduction of Cinderhulk in season 5. Her W's % max HP damage was nerfed TWICE in a row from 12% @ max rank down to 6%. In addition her ultimate's 'consolation prize' slow was nerfed from 90% to 30%.

The items that were determined to be the direct cause of these champion's popularity have been nerfed or balanced repeatedly to the point where they're much more in line with their counterparts. That said, both of these champions are still hampered by their pre-item balancing nerfs.

Out of curiosity: Why is this?

220 Comments

RiotAD Yuumi11/30/2015, 9:14:03 PM69 votes

Short Answer: We don’t revert a lot of nerfs because oftentimes we actively try to put in changes that shift a champion’s gameplay pattern in a positive direction (thus we wouldn’t want to revert it).

Long answer: When we nerf champs we generally try to make changes that are good directionally for the champion. A litmus test we use for many changes is, “Are we happy with the shift this is creating in the champion’s pattern? If this champion was weak in the future, would we revert this nerf or would we look elsewhere on the kit?”

I’ll use Warwick’s W as an example since I directly worked on those changes. I felt that the W duration at 10 seconds was severely lacking in any sort of decision making. Was it up? Press the button and get the steroid. With CDR it would be back up by the time the buff fell off. Lowering the duration meant Warwick had to think a bit more about that button press because there were now times in a late game fight where the buff wouldn’t be up.

In the future, should Warwick ever need to be buffed, we’re unlikely to revert the W change because we feel the champion’s pattern is overall better with the buff duration being lower. We’d prefer to power him up in another place.

Note that we don’t do this for every change. Different changes have different goals and there are a number of nerfs we’d be totally fine reverting in the future should the need arise. Take the recent nerf to Vayne’s base AD. That was a targeted change to reduce her power in lane, it didn’t really affect her play pattern, it just made her weaker in the early game. Should there come a time where we feel Vayne’s early game is too weak, but we still generally like what her play pattern is doing, we may very well give her that AD back.

Lady Hammerlock11/30/2015, 8:12:37 AM57 votes

I'm quite sure someone said that a red said "she was in the spotlight for awhile so we are going to put other champs in the spotlight" and somehow Riven Zed lose spotlight on 1 single 1 SINGLE FREAKING PATCH and they get a few compensation buffs

MunchCrunchLunch11/30/2015, 6:00:00 AM31 votes

because they never want to admit that they did something wrong. its all "improvements".

HowPlayGAEM11/30/2015, 1:41:58 PM22 votes

[deleted]

ZT Xperimentor11/30/2015, 10:40:05 AM5 votes

I'm betting it's some combination of; ignorance, idiocy, pride, and spite.