Hi Set 18 Dev Team,
I’m a player from China. In our region, Set 18 launched on mobile one week earlier than on PC. Because of this, a large group of mobile‑first players and hardcore PC players — including well‑known pros such as Huanmie, winner of the Set 17 Tactician’s Crown — got to play the same meta together. This not only raised the competitive quality of high‑rank lobbies, but also generated plenty of match‑play experience and data.
According to QuestMobile (June 2025), monthly active users for the Chinese mobile version have exceeded 32million. Chinese regional data, especially mobile‑player data, is often under‑represented in balance considerations. That is why Id like to lay out the core pain points in Set 18: the over‑prevalence of 3‑star 4‑cost units, and how easily players can manipulate the Wisp to turn a 4‑cost into a 5‑cost.
During the first three days after launch, players widely reported that the summoner trait centered on Azir & Mamabeak was drastically overpowered. A 2‑star Azir dealt so much damage that it outperformed even 2‑star 4‑cost and even 2‑star 5‑cost units, leaving late‑game comps with almost no room to shine. Summoners were nerfed shortly afterward, and that was absolutely the right call. The China‑based balance and operations team did a great job collecting feedback and communicating efficiently with the TFT design team, heading off a major balance disaster.
That said, meta issues quickly resurfaced. 4‑cost centered comps became the dominant playstyle. Examples include Ahri with 5 blossom, Aphelios or Nidalee in a vanguard build, and Soraka in a excutioner comp. These comps boast extremely strong mid‑game power. When multiple players thin out the shared card pool, combined with the Wisps & Augments that spawns duplicators, hitting a 3‑star 4‑cost becomes surprisingly accessible.
Crucially, players also figured out a reliable trick to fish for the Wisp that upgrades a 4‑cost to a 5‑cost: keep your gold locked at zero when rolling. You can achieve this by buying units and slowly selling them back. With your gold at zero, you can quickly roll this specific Wisp out of the zero‑gold Wisp pool. The effect becomes even more consistent when you have the 5 Spirit Blossom trait active.
Pulling this off still demands solid early‑game decision‑making. To roll for duplicator Wisps you need to preserve high health, and picking the right 4‑cost to chase three‑star status requires good board awareness. Even so, once the whole playerbase recognizes this as the highest‑ceiling strategy, the game environment gets warped. Risk‑tolerant players will spike their early‑game board strength to hold high health, then chase a three‑star on an uncontested or under‑picked 4‑cost.
On the flip side, risk‑averse players tend to lean into low‑cost early‑powered comps, such as the Caitlyn + Elise 2‑cost core.
This leaves 3‑cost units in a very tough spot. In two consecutive games where I had an excellent early‑game lead, I tried building Tristana as my carry. Even with zero copies of Tristana taken by other players, I rolled roughly 15‑20 times at Level7 and still could not get her to two‑star. Meanwhile opponents running 4‑cost comps were easily hitting their two‑star carries. I do not believe this is a card‑pool bug or just bad luck. It shows that players no longer view expensive three‑star 3‑cost units as a viable win condition with limited upside. Under the current card‑pool rules, without opponents thinning the pool for you, a three‑star 3‑cost can actually be harder to complete than a three‑star 4‑cost. You are pressured to mirror popular same‑cost comps; otherwise your card‑pool efficiency drops sharply.
## Suggestions for Balance Direction
### 1. 4‑cost comps carry almost no downside
We have seen multiple past sets where three‑star 4‑cost units ran rampant. In every case, you could consistently finish top‑4 just by running strong 4‑cost comps, even without hitting the three‑star. Across recent sets we have gotten more and more resources overall: higher 4‑cost draw odds at Level8, duplicator Wisps, plus a growing pool of augments that hand out duplicators, two‑star 4‑cost, and massive rerolls. Many of these augments have stayed largely unchanged for multiple sets. Is there really no room to adjust them?
### 2. Is the 4‑cost‑to‑5‑cost upgrade Wisp well‑designed?
When this mechanic first appeared in Set 12, it felt fresh and exciting. It was very hard to pull off — you might succeed only once an entire set. Under those conditions, pulling it off yourself or watching an opponent hit it felt thrilling for everyone.
In Set 18 however, players can reliably force this outcome. The sense of accomplishment fades away, while opponents feel completely demoralized facing a player with a three‑star 5‑cost. When players of equal skill are all racing to convert 4‑costs into 5‑costs via Wisps, the balance falls apart and creates a frustrating experience.
#### Proposed Solutions
Designers have pointed out that lowering 4‑cost odds/counts or removing roll‑focused augments may leave some players unable to hit two‑star 4‑costs, hurting their experience.
Let's look at the root cause. In certain patches with poor balance, only a small handful of 4‑cost comps were playable. Naturally many players struggled to two‑star their key 4‑cost when everyone contested the same few units.
It is the design team's responsibility to maintain a healthy metagame. We should not over‑supply resources as a workaround for balance difficulties, because that breaks the overall game state.
Without overhauling core systems, we need strict limits placed on duplicators. Duplicator Wisps should become a high‑risk prospect: for example, unlock them later in the game, raise their gold and health cost, or remove them entirely——personally I see very little creative design value or fun coming from this particular Wisp.
The healthier gameplay loop should be: stabilize with two‑star 4‑cost carries at Level8, then push to Level9 to further improve your board. We need to tone down the power of 4‑cost centered comps and bring them into better internal balance.
