Boards›Gameplay

They say that necessity is the mother of invention

manbearswine·6/29/2016, 10:56:59 AM·6 votes·1,406 views

And yet we nerf volibear and blitzcrank over winrates? What happened to pressuring people to adapt? Are people below masters/challenger some boosted animals that we can't expect anything of? Why can competitive/higher tier players manage these champions but we aren't expected to? Hell, people weren't even perceiving them as much of a problem but before they could either cement their status as such or drop it as people adapted, they were nerfed because their winrates were too high?

I thought this was supposed to be a competitive game, I thought if you struggle against something you were supposed to learn how to work around it, and only ban it as a last resort, not get it nerfed the moment it seems to be doing too well on an average case, of course people won't adapt if you reduce pressure from things before they are even perceived as a problem, why would they? It's just not worth the effort.

I guess all the dynamo que complaints were right, competitive integrity is dead, we filthy casuals now.

75 Comments

Quepha6/29/2016, 6:36:38 PM4 votes

Do you think Volibear and Blitz dominating in solo queue is some new thing that people just aren't used to? They've been crazy strong for years and they have extremely simple kits that everyone immediately understands.

Mandang06/29/2016, 7:09:09 PM3 votes

So, I'll ask the obvious question: What's the difference between these champs getting nerfed when owning high winrates and the Zed/Kindred/etc getting nerfed when they do? You call people bad for not being able to deal with Blitz or Voli, but they're not bad for not respecting Kindred ult or failing to avoid getting picked off by Zed?

...or is this assuming the world revolves around LCS?

CerealBoxOfDoom6/29/2016, 11:29:34 AM2 votes

{quoted}

Are people below masters/challenger some boosted animals that we can't expect anything of?

more or less, I mean there is a safety net once you reach a certain rank anyways

but more importantly, voli and blitz weren't just nerfed off winrates. Its a design thing. If you add 10 seconds to the blitz hook cooldown blitz will still be balanced but it will be a slower paced game. If you make voli jungle slower then he will not be doing crazy ganks as fast.

The Yetii Rider6/29/2016, 1:25:43 PM2 votes

Win rates are certainly a reason to nerf a champion. Remember when Warwick had a 60% win rate? People weren't able to adapt to him because all he did was Smite ult and you were suppressed losing 75% of your max health from someone building full tank. Sometimes champions are just too damn powerful.

In Blitzcrank's case, his hook pulling someone right on top of him made it too easy to get people directly under tower and keep them there. It discourages players from shoving the wave, and then Blitz's ult pushes the wave, and then people just get dived. People were adapting to Blitz's power by just not sieging, and sieging is how you win the game.

thekingofnido6/29/2016, 8:48:45 PM2 votes

voli 100% needed a nerf he has had a 55%+ win rate since preseason and has dominated the jungle for a very long time.

BloodyTompon6/30/2016, 9:35:09 AM1 votes

Why can competitive/higher tier players manage these champions but we aren't expected to?

Precisely because they are higher tier. There is a truism that different champions will be strong at different play levels. Amumu is terrible in LCS, great in Bronze. In general it is Plat + that the game is balanced around and these nerfs were not an exception.

not get it nerfed the moment it seems to be doing too well on an average case

Voli and Blitz have been over-performing for a long time now. This is not by any means the first moment they appear to be doing well.

Hell, people weren't even perceiving them as much of a problem but before they could either cement their status as such or drop it as people adapted, they were nerfed because their winrates were too high?

Perception is not reliable. This is best seen via bans. People in general do not ban what is most likely to win them the game, but instead what is frustrating or perceived to be powerful. E.g., Zed was seen as OP and still maintains an absurd ban rate even though his ability to win games is not great. Similarly (and perhaps more pertinently), Aur Sol was not seen as too powerful, but the data suggested he was ludicrously overpowered and thus received nerfs.

Your entire argument is 'I didn't view them as a problem, therefore why nerf?'