What do people prefer? Nerfs to the strong, or Buffs to the weak?

AmenPerson·Jul 15, 2017·3 votes·604 views

Just seems like a lot of people are divided on what they want. A nerf to a strong champ pushes them off of #1, but then just has someone else take there place, while a buff to a weak champ pushes people up to compete to be #1, instead of just giving the #2 champ in that role the honor of #1.

But people just don't like some champs getting buffed. Ekko as an example, people don't want him buffed for some reason, even though buffing him doesn't toss the #1 off that spot, but instead lets him compete for #1.

And yes, as Miguel and Tulio say, "Both? Both. Both. Both is good.", people don't seem to really think of that as an option.

18 Comments

archerno1Jul 15, 20176 votes

Both.

The DeckownerJul 15, 20175 votes

Nerf is usually better. You can see the tier rankong as a pyramid, the lower the tier the the larger the number of champions. if you nerf the 1~~3 S tier champions, you open up all of the 5~~7ish A tier champions to be played. If you just buff an A tier to S, the playable pool just gets extended by 1.

ZT XperimentorJul 15, 20173 votes

Depends on the champions involved; some just have innately unhealthy kit mechanics, others are overloaded, while others never feel satisfying to use.

Dominick DestineJul 15, 20173 votes

The classic philosophy would indicate that the ones that need to be adjusted are the group that is smaller numbers.

If 20 characters out of 100 are overpowered, that means 20 characters are viable and therefore, those 20 need to be nerfed. If 20 characters out of 100 are underpowered, that means 80 characters are viable and therefore, those 20 need to be buffed. etc.

Anyone that answers with just "nerf/buff" is wrong. Context must be taken into consideration.

Big LincolnJul 15, 20172 votes

slay the strong

trample the weak

AmazoXJul 15, 20171 votes

and murder lincoln

JedditeFTWJul 15, 20172 votes

Balanced champions, and fewer overloaded kits.

Randal da VandalJul 15, 20171 votes

lol idk why but read kits with a t the first time I read it

hhaavviikkJul 15, 20172 votes

nerfs are better, because if you buff everyone to be as strong then eventually some champions will be OP again so you will have to buff all champions again with insane powercreep

Sp33d Zer0Jul 15, 20172 votes

Small, incremental nerfs to the strong or even just rebalancing of numbers, and quality of life/ a couple number buffs to the weak.

Sire HippingtonJul 15, 20172 votes

Since i feel that the game is quite a bit power creeped, i prefer nerfs to bring the general powerlevel a bit down.

La BarbotteJul 15, 20172 votes

buffing the weak does what league has done, damage creep, they need to stop buffing for the next two seasons tbh, nerf everything down, teamfights last 5-6 seconds people die in less than one rotation from DPS champions which open less skill in fights and more of who will blowup the other on first.

Darkdemon653Jul 15, 20172 votes

It needs to be both. There has to be a set amount of strength that acts as the baseline. Otherwise, every single aspect of the game has to constantly be changed.

deadlychuckJul 15, 20172 votes

I'd prefer to see mechanical nerfs to strong champions.

Most of the game's power creep and balance issues comes from increasingly complex kits which are really no harder to play than simplistic counterparts, because so many of the mechanics are often handled naturally in the champion's abilities or just occur beyond the scope of player input. Things like yasuo's double crit and armor pen, malzahar's reworked W, ekko's W passive execution, or a plethora of other secondary effects or passives attached to abilities which also have actives.

For example, on the PBE, Mundo was given this on his E

Passive: When Dr. Mundo suffers magic damage, his magic resist is increased by 2% for 2 seconds, up to a maximum of 6/12/18/24/30%

which changes nothing about the complexity of the champion or the player input, but does act to increase the champion's power and range of situations which the champion handles for the player inherently.

These kind of handicap mechanics are the kinds of things i'd like to see nerfed out of champion kits. Make players learn to make their champion strong against different types of enemies, not just hand out free power and countering.

Now i understand that a good number of these effects are added to make the champions feel unique, but if they want their champions to feel unique, then they should treat these secondary effects of an ability as the primary aspects and give players a degree of mechanical accountability for making them powerful.

SääsMannJul 15, 20171 votes

In general, nerfs are better. I'm gonna let Pawnce speak on my behalf ( even though it's an older video ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai6oMY4U0Yw

AmazoXJul 15, 20171 votes

Balance, I like the way the game is, Not 50-40 minutes matches like in season 5 where you know your gonna lose no matter what, No comeback, but the way the game was, It was a slow painful tortured loss.

AwesomeGuyDjJul 15, 20171 votes

Both, nerf the strong overbearing, while buffing the weak.

ZelorxonJul 15, 20171 votes

Unskilled people prefer nerf to the ~~strong~~ normal. Skilled people prefer buff to the weak.

The solution is not to nerf the play, is to buff the counterplay. (And not create immense power creep like riot ALWAYS DOES: for example, warrior enchantment is ridiculously useless, almost every champion that uses it is broken= put together they create a normal champion because it evens all out, change ONE THING about either the item or the champions and you have shattered the balance. )