Should players decide the meta or should Riot?

BluePolarizer··1 votes·380 views

This is not a rant about any particular champion or any particular game change, but rather about the direction of balancing. That is to say:

Should the meta evolve organically?

Or should Riot decide that say, a champion was meant for a role and thus if that champion goes outside the role they were originally meant for, they should be shut down immediately through patch nerfs, rather than allow players to figure it out? Or that a champion was meant for a certain strength level and if they exceed it (even if they're still around a 50% win rate, even due to the meta shifts other than the champ itself) they're OP?

A perfect example is Ekko:

He had a trash win rate mid. However pros figured that he had alot of utility, mobility and base damage, so played him as a jungle tank. His base stats then get nerfed. Now he is trash everywhere.

How about Hecarim?

In patch 5.21 he was balanced. In 5.22 he had an OP win rate that spiked due to the preseason. In patch 5.23 his win rate dropped 2-3% with absolutely no changes happening to him because players figured out how to counter him and the meta shifted around him. In patch 5.24 he was gutted and is one of the worst junglers and tops in the game.

What about Lulu and Janna?

They were originally supports. They were then taken mid even though this represented a tradeoff of damage for utility. A Lulu or Janna mid will almost never solo carry as hard as a Lux, Xerath, Talon, Fizz or Zed in terms of damage output. Instead they were used as safe farmers who could then help the ADC late game.

Instead of allowing players to figure it out, they were nerfed.

Sure, sometimes things are legitimately OP. However, alot of the times they are just annoying and players can figure out how to counter them if they had time. Instead patches make large changes to champions or even the game every 2-4 weeks which leaves players very little time to react.

The player base is also to blame. Many low elos blame OP champs rather than their own play. While most of the time it is their skill limiting them, if blatant nerfs or buffs are seen in patches that come out quickly, who can blame them for thinking that some champs are legit OP?

5 Comments

Bonipherus2 votes

Both. At the start, developers just kind of make things and the players find what is enjoyable and strategic. Then the developer responds (through patching) in regards to the balance/health of that strategy (which thereby influences the meta) and then players adapt with new champions and strategies which creates a new meta again. Riot has made some balance changes that favor/dissuade certain metas or strategies such as: ward limits, nerfing double item 3302, etc. but its always an interesting balance/tug-of-war.

BluePolarizer1 votes

I feel that right now they are literally kneejerk buffing or nerfing things based on player complaints that are ironically caused by them trying to shift the meta forcefully.

Bonipherus1 votes

I agree with Riot on a lot of things (masteries in this sense are much better designed (though still flawed) than before and more strategic) and I think these big changes are often in the right direction towards game health. The thing is that Riot is made up of people and people make mistakes and overlook things and will sometimes have to make kneejerk reactions to fix those mistakes. But the aim for the majority of these changes are still in the right direction. You'll get some things from them that are hit/miss like the juggernauts (2 failures and 1 or 2 successes) but with time I'm hopeful these wrinkles will get ironed out.

weeaboomer1 votes

Why shouldn't it be the players? After all, we are the ones that play the game. But what can you do with riot's favoritism? Remember raka mid lane? Wasn't she nerfed by the next patch? Yet Lebitch and nid didn't get touched after a while.

IcyPepper1 votes

To a degree, both.

Metagaming is a player thing. No, you don't have to play an ADC+support bot lane, although the meta suggests you should (and there exists people who know how to properly "break the meta," to explicitly counter people who play nothing but meta. Complacency gets you nowhere).

From what I've seen, Riot sometimes enforces and sometimes is lax in their balancing in terms of meta. They'll nerf something that is only played because it's bullshit rather than just off-meta (Janna mid was one offender, Alistar jungle I hear was one as well), or an oversight. Supports are one example, they've been nerfed in the past for playing other roles because combining high, reliable utility with decent damage isn't always a good idea, so they often shift bases onto scaling to compensate. Gotta draw the line between utility mage and support, and often times that's difficult.

Sometimes they throw their hands up and decides to go with it. It's why Mage Fortune is still a thing (albeit rare, but the scalings are there), Annie was nerfed a bit to remain a viable support but not a broken support (and still capable of being played as a mage, mind you).

However, sometimes they forcibly break the meta. Trying to make Mordekaiser a bot lane is one such example. Bard, a lighter example, was a more successful example of encouraging alternate gameplay patterns and widely considered to be a lot more balanced and enjoyable than Mordekaiser.

Players should decide how the game should be played, Riot should decide how to react to it. Too much friction is bad for business, so Riot has to know when to put their foot down on certain playstyles and when to throw their hands up and go "Fuck it, we're into it."

More from Gameplay

More by BluePolarizer