the issue with a game like League of Legends is that no matter what you do. the game will never be balanced. things like Yasuo, Akali (44% winrate), Darius, all those types is that even if they're bad or let alone okay. they're gameplay makes them feel unfair. so would it be better to nerf them. or make all other characters better at what they do.
Neither. It's a back and forth. If you only buff weak champions, it leads to power creep. If you only nerf strong champions, it leads to everyone being weak.
Additionally, if you have a high outlier you need to buff EVERY champion to match them. If you have an low outlier you need to nerf EVERY champion to match them. It's far more efficient to simply buff the weak champions and nerf the strong ones where appropriate.
Buffing the weak ones so drafting actually matters
Nerfing strong things is better atm. Power creep is a thing that is happening.
Were I an all powerful being, I would use the most OP champions as the benchmark, then buff everyone else accordingly.
Then nerf ITEMS if need be.
I would say buffing weak, but with Riot it's never like that. They are super biased toward certain champs ensuring they are almost always viable/op. The non-favorites are left in the dumpster
Nerfs are better in most sitations midseason. Buffs can be used sparingly during pre-season.
Both have a valid argument.
They have to do both because there are more elements in the game than champions. With the current state of the game, though, all champions need to be nerfed.
Buffing and nerfing most of the time isn't based for sake of buffing or nerfing it's for the sake of doing changes and making new metas to keep the game moving
