"We look at 4 different tiers of play when approaching champion balance:
Majority (most players fit here)
The sample size here is massive and the main things we look at are win-rate, play rate, and ban rate.
High skilled (roughly plat+ MMR)
Same as Majority but slightly stricter on criteria
Elite (really high, like Grandmaster+)
Winrate starts to fall apart up here due to sample size, so mainly look at perception and ban rate
Pro play
Look heavily at the overall systems and presence% of picks"
"If a champion is “OP” in ANY of the 4 tiers, they should be nerfed"
Apareantly, this didn't apply to Riven back then, so she wasn't nerfed for a while (even tho there were nerfs for champions that weren't "op" in all 4 tiers either).
So how come Rammus fits into "If a champion is “OP” in ANY of the 4 tiers, they should be nerfed" now? Rammus is stomping low elo, but on a low playrate. He also does great in Diamond and Masters, but at that point his PR is below 2,5%.
Im just asking, how did Riot went from not wanting to nerf a hard to play champion like riven that had an playrate from a global 50 to 53% plat and above on a 9 to 14% playrate, yet now Rammus is getting nerfed for having a 54% wr on a 3% playrate in low elo?
Sure, there's more low elo games than high elos, but on that same logic, then Darius should be getting nerfed first, since he's doing good on ALL elos, ranging from 57% wr on a 7% pr in challenger, to a 51% wr global on a 12% pr in silver.
Also: "she was specifically too strong in NA (if we include other regions she was fine)"
The post coincidentally doesn't specify Riven's winrate in other servers nor throughout all elos, but states that in NA she has a winrate of 53% against a globan average of 52%... That isn't much of a difference to justify saying it was exclusively a NA problem.
devtrackers.gg