User blog comment:ClariS/Why Not Buff Instead of Nerf?/@comment-50.53.139.17-20120831081734

The problem with nerfing:

1) It's chasing the dragon. When you spend all of your resources on attempting to find a perfect balance to a game, not only will you never achieve that goal, but you'll end up repeatedly throwing the game out of whack by inadvertently strengthening unforeseen strategies.  This happens so often with LoL it's become comical.  Every patch is a spiral of overnerfing or rebuffs where they realized they nerfed too hard.  It's an endless and pointless cycle.  Nerfs should be saved for where it's undoubtedly and virtually universally needed.  If a champion tends to win 2/3 of the time they're played in a game, that should be looked at.

2) It alienates players. Players purchase a champion, often times with real money, under the assumption that they are paying for what they've been presented.  When Riot comes along and pulls out the rug from under them, it doesn't make them feel too great about their investment, especially when it's a total rehash.  And please, don't use the argument that Riot's allowed to do that because they make it clear they can - just because someone agrees to something doesn't mean it's inherently ethical, it just means they're willing to put up with it.

3) Buffing fixes the problem too.  Take Evelynn, for example.  Yes, she was powerful.  She could stun you while stealthed and had a very powerful ultimate.  So why not just give players more tools to deal with that?  Why not add items that provide true vision?  Or create counter-champions that have stealth-seeing abilities?  Maybe double turret vision for stealthed characters.  The possibilities are as endless as the human imagination.  But it's much easier to just cut something down rather than think outside the box.

4) It dumbs down the game. Riot decides to just pretty much remove mechanics so they don't have to deal with it.  That's been their answer with everything.  Heals are too hard to deal with so let's limit them; hybrids are too hard to deal with so let's remove them; dodge is too hard to deal with so it's gone.  When did removing things from a game become evolution?

5) It wastes resources that could be much better utilized. How often do new items come out?  How many new maps?  New map objects?  How many different styles of gameplay such as 'King of the Hill', 'Capture the Flag', etc.?  The designers spend all their time churning out new champions for an easy buck instead of focusing on opening up the game itself that it pigeon-holes every player into one type of game every time.  The "meta" we speak of is what's accepted because it's so difficult to change because of the lack of wiggle room.  That's a result of inhibited creativity, not the opposite.

6) It severely limits the natural evolution of the game. If you constantly attempt to hedge every attempt every player makes to find a creative niche, you just limit the player.  A good designer watches someone do something unexpected and says "Wow...not bad.  But what if I threw this in?"  A bad designer says "How dare you mess with MY vision of MY game.  You will conform to how I deem this will be played."  In one case, the designer is adding.  In the other, he is restricting.  It's a fundamental difference that makes the meta game extremely narrow and limits the true possibilities this game could have.  Yes, it's a DotA game, but why can't it be an extremely unique DotA game?

I am routinely disappointed by the patches. There are still nerfs that have happened ages ago that I think were completely pointless (Cho'gath's severe ult and innate nerfs come to mind) and only served to hinder their usage. Keep in mind - Riot IS a company first and there IS an incentive for them to make cheaper or earlier champions worse than newer ones. That's not to say that all the champions conform to the standard of being worse or better based on their release date, just that the incentive itself is there.