Will we all ever be happy with one meta?
1 Like
XD it’s like choosing the lesser evil.
Some are way better then others, that’s the best we will get
yeah but…there will always be a meta
The only meta that I think most people would be okay with if its map based (play a map with a lot of vertical height, dive. Lots of chokes, deathball. Point presence, bunker). That said, the game would have to be balanced on a pin head. And even then, not everyone would like it.
1 Like
yeah, and then you will have people whine about one meta not working on other maps…even though they aren’t meant to
1 Like
Nope, literally every meta has been called the worst meta ever by vocal outcriers. You can’t find a single meta where this wasn’t the case.
2 Likes
I don’t think it’s any one meta that is the problem but it’s the fact that they always end up in stale mirror matches with little to no switching. That pattern doesn’t seem like it will be going away unless OW’s fundamental core rules get changed. That’s why people want hero bans to be a thing.
Nope. That’s why we need hero bans. It’s the only way to give the game a diverse meta.
Will people ever be happy or satisfied? Sure you’ll find individuals who are, but you’ll find many who aren’t. I don’t think everyone or even most of the people will be happy with any meta
No.
I know it’s the meme to refer to everyone as one opinionated group, but it isn’t worth it to even bother. I personally enjoyed the metas pre-ana, post-ana (beyblade but not 3tank), and dive around season 5-6. I wouldn’t have minded them sticking around. The rest were pretty meh. I can’t speak for the royal we though.
The meta isn’t the problem, it’s how Blizzard reacts to the meta.
Look at all those Reapers in OWL destroying GOATS. OH WAIT, no, they just made Reaper abysmal to play against in lower ELOS but did nothing to help him in higher elos.
Or look at McRightClick.
Nerf everything I listed above, and GOATS will still be a meta, but a meta that can be countered.
Beyblade.
Why?
Was quite short compared to other metas imho.
I know 1 patch or hero release and we have a new meta but still some of the same problems.
Reminds me back to my time as secondary guild leader and right hand of the leader in wow…
You need a lot of players online on a regular 2-3 days a week basis. To run guild internal raids. And they all have different ideas and wishes.
We literally tried to please all of the raid members with our organization and preparation. Resulting only in a bunch of issues for everyone.
In the best case, you make more than 50% really happy and find new players enjoying it the way it is. Giving you the opportunity to increase your efficiency and success.
no!
because people want to make a hero work in unlikely situations and a meta composition existing means that they can’t pick torb on attack or one trick mercy because that composition is dominant
and one thing that makes watching games fun is games being high variance people want to see innovative comps and they want to see outlandish plays
these things rarely ever happen in overwatch
even if there’s a meta we enjoy, we’ll eventually get bored of it. meta needs to change to keep the game interesting
The idea of metas actually exists to make games more diverse. Sounds counter intuitive but it’s how perfect imbalance works. Imagine a perfectly balanced game, like Thanos snapped and made the perfect game. Strats would be discovered and analysed by the fans, to a point nee strats would only develop very rarely. There would be hardly any deviation in strats and the game would mostly be about execution of those strats. Chess is an example, the game is symmetrical, as balanced as balanced can be, so the strats were once developed, now are just being executed, a new strat only appear once in a lifetime. In the case of most video games, perfect balance is actually a bad thing.
Most video games are balanced with “perfect imbalance” in mind. Devs create, intentionally, slightly deviations of balance that are overtuned to expose a certain strat over another. Of course this ought to be done carefully, the imbalance needs to be slight, and the dominant strat shouldn’t be fully predominant.
So in the short term metas seem like a disaster of balance but the idea is to keep the game so diverging in the long term that players keep find ways to play. Most metas are very much intentional and forced, regardless of the PR BS one might hear about it.
Occasionally accidents happen though. Players have endless creativity and devs have only so much resource, so sometimes the strats break the game. That’s the short coming of that design philosophy.