Disclaimer: I do agree that this patch is very lacking in terms of balance changes, and I am not defending Rito for holding back on the changes.
It's no secret by now that people are, to say the least, unhappy with the latest patch. Many have said they want to see big and meaningful changes to all sorts of cards. And while I would also like to see it happening, I believe that this would not guarantee a healthier meta.
I've seen another post here compare this patch's balance changes to those in patch 1.4. To me, it seems people have this idea that more changes will make for a better and more diverse metagame, but I'm afraid this is not the case. In fact, it can lead to an even worse meta.
Let's take patch 1.4 and have a little trip down memory lane. Before this patch, the meta was comprised mostly of champless aggro (both the Ionia variant with elusives, and the PnZ variant with burn), Endure aggro and Heimer Vi. Enter 1.4: We've seen 13 cards buffed, 5 cards nerfed, 2 cards reworked/changed and the nab package "nerfed" (changing nab to draw from the bottom instead of the top). What followed was a meta comprised of 3 decks dominating the game: Darrowing, Braum-Anivia and Heimer Vi. If you wanted to play with other decks, you'd have to hop through the raw overwhelm aggro and burn power of Darrowing, skip across the swarm of elusives from Heimer Vi, and finally, jump over the late game powerhouse that was Braum-Anivia. If your deck couldn't do any of the 3 tasks listed above, you were in for a bad, bad time. This was considered by many (myself included) to be the worst meta the game had at the time.
So if you think a lot of card changes would automatically make the meta more diverse, I hate to break it for you, they don't.
TL;DR: Big balance changes don't necessarily make the metagame better or more diverse. They can even make it worse than it already was.External link →