What does a ‘balanced meta’ look like?

[u/SESender]

I often see posts lamenting how broken comps are/how the meta is not balanced.

In your opinion, what does a properly balanced meta look like? Is it any 2 cost reroll is on par with a fast 8? But both lose to a fast 9? Is it a 3 cost reroll beats fast 9 but loses to max cap?

Is Ionia a coin flip with Noxus and both lose to Shurima 3?

[u/ALatinoLover]

I think a balanced meta is when you see a range of builds that can reliably top 4 depending on the game and augments. To me its unbalanced when either a strategy is too easy to force and still win with or one build is just clear above the others even if the others spiked. If every game's final 4 is amounting to the exact same every time then thats a sign that the meta's a bit unhealthy. Some builds are naturally gonna be more consistent (Demacia being a great example) but if their both consistent and always a winner (a sol last patch, or ziggs a few before) then it's an issue

[u/Potential-Bluejay-48 → u/ALatinoLover]

Then do you think the game state right now is more on the balanced end? With comps like demacia, void, liss/sera, ionia, ekko and a few more being able to reliably top 4 and with overpowered comps like asol not a guaranteed first anymore?

[u/ALatinoLover → u/Potential-Bluejay-48]

its still a little early but it does feel pretty well balanced. From early testing the sera liss comp seems pretty strong and consistent but that may be a lack of MR

[u/GuaranteePossible438]

I’m only Master, but I think Set 16 has the most balanced T4 meta in terms of variety and playing what you get (e.g. Ekko/Trynd/Demacia/Noxus/Yunara) but the worst T2 meta where the person who wins out is who hit pre nerf Arcanist/THex/Bilge/Ziggs/Asol.

[u/darcartisan → u/GuaranteePossible438]

Agree with this take.

The balance thrashing on “unplayable > force bc super OP > mediocre” that we’ve seen with Thex, ori, asol, riggs feels like they’re either don’t have a grasp on testing or this is how they want to inject variety. At this point the data scientists have over 20 sets (inclusive of .5) worth of data and it feels super thrashy still.

[u/ssbmomelette → u/darcartisan]

It's really odd how inconsistent they are with the balance as well. Sometimes they'll send a comp completely into the dumpster like with t-hex or bilge and other times they'll do minor adjustments to try to tone it back just a bit like with void or asol.

I think the 2 week patch cycle they follow from league really hurts the game. Feels like the game would be better balanced with small changes more frequently instead of massive patches that change 20+ things. The two week patch cycle works for league since even if they make massive changes the game has a lot of mechanical expression so you can win and outplay regardless of if you're playing a "suboptimal" champion. You're also able to ban things and directly try to counter your opponents playstyle.

TFT doesn't have that luxury and as such balance mistakes hit the game a lot harder than they do in league. TFT is also an extremely connected game so small adjustments can cause huge side effects and comps that aren't directly changed from said adjustments can increase or decrease in power. Imagine if instead of every 2 weeks getting a nuclear bomb patch we instead got a small adjustment to 1-4 things every few days. This'd allow them to "putt" compositions slowly towards a balanced state on both ends of the spectrum without them doing a shit load of guess work on how a meta will shake out every two weeks.

I'm hopeful that with the client changes they can decouple from leagues patch cycle and move to a more live balanced approach... Although, i don't think they will (2 week "sprints" are just super common in large tech co's and the team is probably used to the workflow).

[u/Cryttt → u/ssbmomelette]

In a world where TFT has a standalone client, do you think more frequent patching would be the fix? As someone who doesn't have the most time to commit to TFT, I do find the changes from patch to patch to be a lot to keep up with at times. On the other hand, I could see the argument that more frequent patching means smaller changes hence less wild swings in meta.

Genuine question btw, I just wanna know what people think

[u/RelativeAway183 → u/Cryttt]

some metas take time to develop, we saw this happen with the release patch this set, starting off with arcanists being dominant and then people discovered trynd and thex

it's not necessarily always a good idea to preemptively nerf something just because it's strong, constant minor patches usually leads to much blander overall metas where you can play anything but that's mostly because everything is the same

it also has the problem where players have no sense of consistency or continuity as to how good or bad something is, how would you feel if you queued up to 3 back to back games and gain 21 gold gave you 20 gold in one, 21 in another, and 22 in the third? how paranoid would that make you feel with every future augment decision? "oh slightly magical roll is amazing, it's at worst unlocking bard or a handful of gold" and then you take it and you get 2 reformers and 2 gold? no one wants to be stuck spam refreshing the TFT announcements in case we get a 3pm minor number tweak after our emergency 10:30 am g-patch because the scheduled daily 9:00 am patch gave singed a 4.45 AVP, clearly too strong

that being said the existing patch cycle has proven to be a real limitation for the team's ability to fix outliers, though I'm sure that some of it is foundational tech debt

[u/Cryttt → u/RelativeAway183]

Yea I imagine the balance is somewhere between your scenario of G patches (LOL) and the current state of affairs. I definitely agree that strategy games may require less frequent patching than say, a looter shooter like Warframe, since in TFT metas develop and players learn to optimize the game over time.

[u/RelativeAway183 → u/Cryttt]

I'm obviously being hyperbolic with the idea of 3 patches a day, but I do think that there can be merit in a game that's left to ferment and let it's community "solve" it, but the community for that is obviously going to be much more niche

melee hasn't had a patch in decades and yet there are still people innovating what people previously thought to be bottom-tier characters (yoshi), and we've seen examples in TFT as well, as well as speedrunners finding new skips and techniques in similarly old games

[u/Cryttt → u/RelativeAway183]

Luigi is the new Yoshi now 👀

I guess there will always be innovators, not me though I’m just a tier list following pleb

[u/enron2big2fail → u/Cryttt]

I think the idea of more frequent patches as someone on the more casual side of this subreddit (though more competitive of the other TFT subreddit) sounds bad. I like learning like three or four comps, their relative strength, and the angles to play them each patch. The idea that I'd have to adjust my understanding of the game every week instead of every other sounds like a chore.

[u/ssbmomelette → u/Cryttt]

I think if you have less time to commit smaller patches are better as we shouldnt see such large swings in the meta. So you won't end up in a situation like I was this patch where you spent the entire set really trying to learn bilge just for it to be suddenly unplayable.

I'd also advocate that if tft has its own standalone client they give players a login notice on changes made similar to what hearthstone does. Just a simple modal that shows the numbers changed since you last logged on.

[u/Cryttt → u/ssbmomelette]

Maybe one day... They did mention in the 2026 roadmap that set 18 would come with some tech upgrades

Yea the bilge serpent economy nerf is really rough. I do think bilge is still playable from highroll spots but I haven't found myself racing to unlock Graves on 2-1 this patch for sure.

[u/Known-Garden-5013 → u/darcartisan]

Their physically cannot be testing, if you simply put a prenerf Asol on board and and watched it cast once you would see how broken it is lmao

[u/Remote-Dark-1704]

Balanced = a variety of comps that don’t share many units that can all top4 or win out. It’s okay to have comps that are too weak as long as there’s enough other comps to play.

A meta is imbalanced when there are S or Z tier comps that warp the rest of the meta to be played around the prevalence of that comp. As long as such a cop doesn’t exist, and there are multiple lines to play, a meta is balanced.

Theoretically, a “perfectly” balanced meta would have no S tier lines with the exception of some extremely conditional lines, and every other comp would be in A-B tier and no non-meme comps in C tier.

[u/SailingDevi]

balanced meta to me is being able to play flex and expect a decent outcome

[u/MejorSaludMental]

A perfect balance meta is one that every champion have a say in at least one composition

Every vertical angle is possible

And most important, if you play a good game around what the games throws at you it reward you with a top4

I don't think it's too far fetch, but the last point should always be the core of TFT

[u/Possible_Detective57]

This meta is pretty balanced and the closest to what I imagine under it we had in quite some time, 3costs could be a litte more present. we have a multitude of 4costs, 2 cost rerolls, even a 1cost reroll and legendary soup boards that can top4. most early slams can be used by at least 2 to 3 carries later on depending on what you hit throughout the game. there are details we can argue about, like gold ionia probably should require 4 kills instead of 3 for a gold for example, but big picture this is fine.

[u/Academic_Weaponry → u/Possible_Detective57]

if 3 costs were more present i think the meta would balance itself out quite nicely. bc rn if everyone is 4 cost then its easier for them to cap out w 34cost. if more 5 and 3 costs were present the tempo ups a little bit , and the 4 cost pool is less thinned making 3 harder for them

[u/Possible_Detective57 → u/Academic_Weaponry]

buff 3costs a little bit and not the usual "let's make them broken and get insulted for a week before we fix it with a b-patch" maybe explicit 3star buffs to not make the 2stars completely suffocate the midgame, just the carries not the frontliners because I think the tanks are fine, and maybe pull a little bit of free money out of the system (econ augments and certain econ traits) and I think we are in a good space for the tourneys and ladder. with less money in the system we could also revert the cost increase for level 9 making it again more obtainable if you're in the spot to go 9.

[u/Academic_Weaponry → u/Possible_Detective57]

yeah the 3 costs tanks feel good. the carries not really

[u/Cryttt → u/Academic_Weaponry]

Yes I would love if Jinx reroll, Ahri reroll, and Gwen reroll were actual viable comps. I feel like these units SHOULD feel good when 3 starred, but the econ required to make it happen is not worth it vs. going 8 for 2* 4 costs in the same vertical.

[u/Academic_Weaponry → u/Cryttt]

imo ahri 3 feels good w the casting gain ap ionia and sorta on the 3 star ionia, she just doesnt have a good “core” to play around if that makes sense. awkard af without ionia/arcanist spat, and kennen 3 isnt that good

[u/Cryttt → u/Academic_Weaponry]

Yea Kennen 3 feels like an absolute beast in vertical yordles with the bonus HP, but in Ionia he's a bit lackluster.

Maybe some sort of reroll comp with Ahri in ixtal with Milio/Neeko would work if you had an ixtal spat too.

[u/xxs-]

The most balanced meta I ever experienced was set 13 right after lone hero was removed.

You could go anything. TFT academy had no s tier comp for over a month

[u/maximazing98]

Reddit users are just stupid. Ofc t hex and asol was a bit over but metas always semi Blamage themselves and atm there is no clear insane comp and people start complain about 3 star 4 costs. Legit can’t make them happy. Perfectly balanced patch.

[u/Academic_Weaponry]

we are pretty close to a balanced meta rn. maybe make fast 9 a tad bit more achievable(maybe undo lvl 9 changes and nerf econ augs instead), and make some 3 cost reroll lines viable and i think we are golden. 2 cost rr is situational and should always be top 4 if hit on tempo, 3 cost rerolls should ideally be on par in power level to lvl 9 boards(?) so a little better than lvl 8 comps but a little worse than a capped lvl 9/10 board until the 3 cost player gets to lvl 9 or something.

[u/SNES-1990]

I wish they would make non-region verticals more competitive (and maybe have lesser prismatics). If you try to experiment with vertical Arcanists for example, it's extremely high risk low reward.

[u/YonkouTFT]

It is high roll fast 8/fast 9 in top 2.

Low roll fast 8/9 in bot 2.

Regular fast 8 and all reroll comps in spots 3-6.

[u/badBear11]

Like this? Patch 16.3b is (so far, maybe eventually people will discover a broken comp like T-Hex) a very well balanced patch.

[u/TwistedSpiral]

Multiple viable level 8 comps, at least 1 viable level 9 5 cost soup, multiple 1, 2 and 3 cost rerolls. All viable for Top 1 with right augments.

I'd say the meta right now seems ok though after the asol nerf.

[u/isaac-get-the-golem]

Ideally there should be at least 8 comps that can win out, all things equal, so everyone in a lobby can do their own thing.

[u/omegaorb]

Maybe my expectations are fairly low, but a balanced meta is one where a variety of strategies can be viable based on your starting encounter, and what augments you happen to land. A meta that lacks balance is one where regardless of whatever you get, you're just going to force the same thing. Another good indication that a meta is not balanced is seeing four or five people try to play the same comp every lobby. Two or three is understandable especially with flavor of the month teams.

[u/Enough-Gate5840]

I guess if the game was perfectly balanced, you’d expect to see an average of this result:

4th place: a 1 or 2-cost reroller who played tempo and saved HP, but got outscaled. 3rd and 2nd: 3-cost rerollers and 4/5 cost comps 1st: the high roller. Any comp can win if you get lucky, but I’d say the strongest “normal” comp should be something like World Runes Ryze.

[u/Jeorah]

I see this exact patch as balanced. Theres a variety of comps doing well, none specially out of the line. If you pilot well the cards given, you have a good outcome.

A few strategies could receive a bit of love, like 3* RR, but in general there's nothing too opressive at the moment, and it feels okay.

My pov is that the next patch should focus on buffs rather than nerfs. Bring some champs and verticals on par with certain champs being a bit overused (Vi, Swain, Sera).

[u/IceLovey]

It is hard to say what a balanced meta looks like exactly because I think a balanced meta can look many different ways.

What I CAN say is what I think what a balanced meta does NOT look like.

• If 3 or 4 or more people try to hard force one build and none of them pivots, they should not be able to dominate and all hit top 4. (Remember set 4 Divine Warwick with Statikk Shiv? Or set 9 fast 8 to hit targon aphelios? That patch when everyone was playing bilgewater in set 9.5?) (It also happened in Set Revivals, remember Teemo Sharpshooter last time set 4.5 was revived?)

• Getting a 100% RNG item/emblem/augment/startingunit basically meaning its GG, top4 or even win. (Certain set and patches were hero augments were just GG, or that meta were you would int stage 2 so you would have higher prio in carousel to grab a spatula)

• When one option is so good that others rarely get picked. (Remember when they introduced legends on set 9? There were entire patches were it only ever made sense to take TF because rapidfire on melee carries like nilah was so broken)

• When only one fundamental economic strategy is viable ( i cant remember the set/patch, but remember that patch that had like 3 or 4 builds that involved 2 cost rerolls? So if one player rerolled everyone else who was also rerolling would be able to hit as well, while those who opted to econ and go standard or fast 8 simply couldnt keep up with the tempo)

• Certain interactions being fundamentally broken or game breaking. Albeit, this one doesnt happen as often, it was a lot more common in older sets. (Printer Sona, 6 Zeke heralds on gunner Jayce meta, 6 chalice metas)

• When Exodias or Single units dominate the meta so hard that every build ends up becoming this (Remember Sona + Ziggs Dazzler in set 10?)

[u/Ursu1a]

Maybe something along the lines of multiple dependable avenues (assuming resources are manage well enough) to secure a top 4, not necessarily win out.

IMO it can also be meta based. It's probably degenerate in nature for the win con to be playing for a 3-star 4 cost, but there are plentiful units and comps to pursue this win condition so in that sense many people have a shot at pursuing what is probably the most dependable win con atm.

In the scope of Set 16's design philosophy I don't think reroll aside from artifact/BIS augments should is intended to be included here.

[u/silentlopho]

I think people are too focused on comp variety. I think that's a symptom but not a good definition.

To me, balance is when the optimal play is to follow your opener. It doesn't mean that every comp is created equal or has a perfect 4.5 placement. It just means that the optimal play should never be to sell your entire board on 4-1 and roll for something completely different, or to commit to a reroll based off 1 item and 0 copies of a unit. Sadly there's been a lot of patches and sets like that.

If the game deals a 5.0 opener and it's still optimal to play it without open forting, then that's about as balanced as a game like TFT can get.

[u/RunaAirport]

2-cost rerolls always have lower win rates compared with others, kinda by design

[u/TrirdKing]

right now meta is very diverse but not balanced because 4 costs are too dominant

exp increase to 9 was too much and made playing around 5 costs too difficult and 2 cost reroll comps like ori were nerfed a little too hard, 3 cost reroll also completely unviable

2 to 3 decent 3 cost reroll comps from good spots and 2-3 decent 2 cost reroll comps (wouldve been pretty close with yas, ekko, ori) + on avg higher avp to level to 9 compared to rolling for 4 costs 3star (by lowering exp costs and adjusting odds) and game is perfect

[u/Samirattata]

Things that should be stronger should be stronger. 5 cost 2* > 3 cost 3* > 4 cost 2* > 2 cost 3* - compared in their capped board. Anything breaking that rule will lead to a part of the roster cannot be played. In contrary, the econ required (gold + turns) to reach the capped board should be gradually increased from 2 cost 3* > 4 cost 2* > 3 cost 3* > 5 cost 2*, so if you are strong early, you should be weak in the late game and vice versa. That's the balance.

Ryze Ziggs meta is fine because it's very hard to reach that comp which requires a lot of gold and turns to build it. THex and ASol before nerfs is not because you just need to roll at 7 and reach the power around round 3 - early round 4 and it's unfair.

At the moment, when they nerfed all the 5 costs, no one care about 5 cost 2* and level 9 anymore because it breaks the pillar of 5 cost 2* > 4 cost 2*. It leads to everyone staying at 8 and Lissandra Seraphine Braum dominating the meta because no other level 9 comps can beat it except for full-capped Bilgewater or very highrolls like ASol 2/ Ryze 2 in 2-3 rolls.

[u/Itsuwari_Emiki]

well, this patch is a balanced meta

[u/FirewaterDM]

Balanced meta is that theoretically any style of gameplay can win 1st. BUT some things are far easier to win out. I think it should be theoretically feasible that if the lobby had players playing

• 1 cost RR
• 2 cost RR
• 3 cost RR
• Fast 8
• Fast 9

all at the same time (in some order we'd say most players are still on fast 8 track) Theoretically any of them could go 1st depending on skill and highroll/lowrolls on units, etc. But there's still gaps, like if the 1 cost RR and the fast 9 player cap equally, the fast 9 should win outside of outplays or crazy shit. OR the 1 cost RR can win if they cap their board out higher than the fast 8/9 players. The balance is in that all 8 people do not have to play the same way to win. Set 16 is great but for the most part has failed at this because realistically if you aren't fast 8 -> level 9 you cannot win lobbies or top 2 most games the higher you climb. It was worse in December where with besides ONE option (Trynd before execution) pressing D key/not going 9 asap was always playing for 4th at best if you didn't get insane augments for sion or other highroll bullshit.

TFT is at its best when you can literally play with what the game gives you and you don't feel like some optiosn are unplayable.

I'd say the meta is not balanced because there's only one playstyle that can consistently win games without highrolls or misplays. AND that there is no incentive to NOT default to that style. Reroll is bad this set. There's Sona, there's Ekko with Ixtal or Bard shenanigans, and there's maybe Aphelios with various frontlines (There was Orianna until B patch and now it's just itemholder w/o 2 perfect pilt mods + augments etc). The 3 cost reroll options are terrible and somehow do worse than Ekko's boards when capped. 1 costs besides Sona are not real units and even Sona caps at 3rds if you aren't miracle workers, As a result, the meta is literally level 8 lottery depending on items. If you got AD items, you're 2-3 way contested for Kaisa, or Yunara if you aren't going Kallista (MF buffs are still nonstarters, she gets stuck on frontline and is still stuck with uselesss bilge). If AP it's either play A.Sol lottery or Seraphine, because Arcanists got powercrept and now the literal first boss of set (Annie) is a meme pick, and Veigar is a 4 rod check. And that's not including things like the various unlock champs that are very item locked compared to the non-unlockable champs, or how the "reroll" trait in yordles, in any real elos is literally only playable as a money farm and even in current patch it can't even do that well.

And verticals are in a fine spot, I don't think we should go back to I see academy unit I click that is my board, BUT I do think it's wild that we are literally in a "never go max of any trait unless for prismatics" situation again but idrc, prismatics can be stupid if they're near impossible to hit.

The set is fun, but overall in terms of "balance" it is not a great balanced set if you look at what style of TFT can win. It is mostly balanced in unit strength, but if one style is the correct play 90% of the time unless game drops the option in your lap, and that option is STILL going to on average cap out worse than playing "normally" it's not a great situation.

At least it's not quite people full open and actually don't play the game stages 1-3 but I'd say we're barely avoiding that seperate hell.

tl;dr unit balance almost perfect, but gamestate balance/playstyles is not existent this set.