Metas are Never Good- The Problem with the Premise of Metas

General Discussion
1

Despite the hate and controversy over her… Brig is not seen for not only the average plaver, but even her supposed area of expertise of lower tiers. In the views of the forums, Brig- somehow- is bad despite being so OP that she defines an entire meta. She is so strong, she has the lowest pickrate among healers. She is so easy for OP value, that even Ana has a higher pickrate in lower tiers.

Despite being hated, each meta in general, seems to have a fall off of Diamond. Be it Dive, GOATS, Quad tank, or any other meta. But why? And moreover, why do we even care? Why favor a meta at all?

Let’s discuss.

Starting with the basic- Metas on Balance

There is the matter of metas regarding balance. And it’s the most obvious fix. Clearly, a mini trans on cooldown with Ana nade and lucio Amp will be incredibly strong. A fast hitscan with mid and sniping range would make Mccree not only outperform Widow but also soldier. It comes with the leeway of power in burst succession.

Balance, defining a meta is not often a hard complaint. Here, even basic Mercy players on launch Valk can get value because Mercy herself is so strong.

And the problem isn’t in wins or losses. But a confinement to the restricted hero that must be played. Valk Mercy had a 50 ish win rate, because you are forced to have both sides use her. It’s not an “unfair advantage” to have lucio and ana on your team wasn’t an unfair advantage when the enemy team also had a lucio and ana. What was unfair, was restricting the use of heroes due to the imbalance of power to other heroes. Why have a zen over Ana, when Ana gave you trans faster, did as much damage, and was less vulnerable?

The Meta of Structural Problems- GOATs by any other Name

Something I like to point out is that we have had other incarnations of GOATs before Brig even was a blip on the radar. The matter with GOATS isn’t a balance issue, for we see that outside of it, Brig herself is fairly lackluster. Rein, has been fairly unchanged since the launch of the game. And Lucio has gone through multiple changes since the idea of GOATs was even a thing. No, Goats isn’t a power issue, or else it would have spawned when Brig was released. And it wasn’t.

GOATS is the stacking of abilities to cover what roles lack. In this case, DPS.

And we have seen this before.

Way back in the way back, there was a particularly stunning meta of pure Winstons and Lucio. Not Winston and Lucio on a team… the whole team would be either Winston or lucio. And This was before Lucio’s power rework, and when Winston himself, was significantly weaker with a much larger crit box, and a much longer cooldown on his shield. Despite these less powerful versions of Winston or Lucio, the meta was to have them.

And that wasn’t fixed with minor balance changes. Lucio stacking AOEs didn’t eliminate the problem that existed with simply stacking lucios. And that’s because the problem was in stacking abilities and not simple numbers.

Winston and Lucio was the original version of GOATs.

And we see this kind of thing extend even to the short lived metas of old like Quad Tanks. Here, Hog was required because of his ability to stack his own healing and eliminate both the dps and support slot needed in traditional GOATS.

GOATS by some other names was Quad Tank, and Winston Lucio.

But these metas don’t really acknowledge the more disjointed aspect of a meta. That is, what pros “know” and what ranked experiences.

Safe, Secure Bets= The Pros aren’t Paid to Play but to Win

There has been the argument presented that Ranked experiences the game differently largely due to the simple aspect of teamwork. Players in ranked are forced into trying to find what works and doesn’t on the fly and pros can pre-set their roles and plays beforehand. Streamers such as Seagull have expressed their dismay when returning to ranked to realize the completely different manner in which balance affects the normal casual player.

I do not think this is wrong. But I do think this focus tends to exclude a large aspect of the two versions of play and that is: motivation.

There is a large difference between what motivates a pro versus the casual player. What might be a fun risky play with casual players, is a risk that has monetary value to a pro.

This is seen in other aspects of sports or art. Where the common person is freer to do as they please. It might be unconventional to allow your Center to shoot a 3 point shot, but it is fine in your high school game. It might be risky to put on a play about the LGBT experience in the Bible Belt, but it could be allowed in the safety of your local school production. This, isn’t the same for professionals where money is the object of desire.

For professional athletes, to allow a center guard shoot a far shot when his point guard was available was unnecessary. And if he misses, that’s actual money being lost. For a large film company, social controversy can lead to a decrease in sales. The product of the play isn’t the focus. The loss of potential revenue and effort is.

Pros are not here to play the game as they see fit. They play it safely and securely. GOATs has been seen to have holes should your team have a good enough Sombra or Reaper. But it isn’t secure. It is not guaranteed. And even then, metas are established slowly and over time. Brig, was out for a while with no one noticing her presence, and even thinking she was underpowered because the meta she was released in was Mercy’s. Brig, and therefore, GOATS, was irrelevant to even mention.

What does it matter that she had a strong armor ult when Mercy could rez her team so effortlessly?

Exploring Brig, was a welcome addition upon creation because it stopped the moth that was Mercy.

Metas, by pros, will never equate to what the ranked player experiences because the casual player is looking to win however optimal in that moment with the tools available. The Pros, are looking to what’s optimal in the most general of sense, with less risk, and more reward. A win for a pro is a win flat. A win for a ranked player can reward more or less depending on how the match goes.

Pros, take the structural or balance issues of the game, and exploit it to the fullest extent that they can to the point of being unrecognizable to the average player.

For example, say you had a class in which editing a simple aspect of code in your submitted document, could change how the online editor read your paper and glitched it to default to “A” no matter what. Well, this kind of exploit only is available to those who can- edit code, are in the applicable class, and have the ability to complete such tasks.

So someone with an A, and perfect marks via this exploit, would not have the same experiences as someone who had to study in order to achieve similar marks. Even if getting this glitch to work was difficult, and demonstrates a level of skill that might even be applicable to the class (say if it were computer science, or programming), the experiences aren’t equal.

In the case of Overwatch, the experience given to pros are far distant to the average player on even the basic level of what is being premised. What is the goal? To Get an A or to learn? To win and get better with the heroes, or to win and earn money?

The fact that there are metas by any measure or reason shows the flaws in the game. There is no “Quarterback meta” or “Rook/Pawn Meta” or “Restrained pacing no Sprint meta” for other fields of gaming. While conservative play is to be expected for pros, there being an “optimal way to play 100% of the time” is not only unheard of, but it is ridiculous in even the foundational concept. You cannot line up your entire set to be full of Hitters. You cannot line up your set with only Bishops and exclude pawns.

Structural, and Balance issues are rigid and secure in these games. You play with optimal teamwork, but the foundational aspect of the game is the same. This, doesn’t translate with the metas as defined in overwatch. The fact that there is an optimal level of play, is an indication of a problem that should demand inherent fixes.

2 Likes
2

This seems to be the crux of your post, but I don’t see any way around it.

Perfect balance cannot exist in a game like Overwatch. There will always be a few heroes who are a bit stronger or a bit weaker, and these differences are more pronounced at the highest levels of play where even the smallest mistakes are exploited.

Personally, I think the game is more balanced than it has been in a while right now. There aren’t any must-pick heroes, and there aren’t any throw-pick heroes. For the vast majority of the playerbase, there are way more viable heroes and comps, and GOATs is not nearly as big of an issue for the average OW player as some forum members and redditors might have you believe.

3 Likes
3

I still think the crux of the GOATS meta is AoE heal stacking. This creates an environment where sustained DPS cannot outstrip the healing. Only burst damage and CC can kill, and this puts a premium on heroes that can better withstand burst damage, and output CC: thus the heavy reliance on tanks.

There are other factors going on, such as reinforcing and countering ult combinations that exacerbate this underlying phenomenon. But I think, ultimately, the most direct approach to weakening GOATs and similar stack-it-up-and-swing-at-each-other-until-ults play will be to put diminishing returns on simultaneous sources of healing.

4

This was addressed in my post: removing Lucio stack didn’t eliminate multi Lucio Metas.
Additionally, Moira existed to quad tank, and this didn’t result in a mercy, Moira and Lucio meta. Nor did brig herself trigger an Aoe battle. Only the fall of mercy.

To blame aoe, is to not address the core issues we see repeated with Metas from stacked abilities at all. And ignores how these heroes work for the casual player.

I disagree. Lucio is not considered better than Zen flat or vice versa. They have consistently been equals. Same as a rook and a bishop. Very strong for what they bring. This should exist for all ow heroes.

Here, I agree. But in part.
I think the design of the game is better which makes balance better. Universally viable heroes equates inherently to a more fluid game.
However, just because a problem doesn’t affect many, doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem. At the very least, it creates strain where there shouldn’t be for average players. Despite a 2% pick rate, brig is still largely hated and requested for nerfs, and blamed for a meta that doesn’t affect 99% of the players. This kind of discontent affects finding true balance and better design for other heroes from fear of more backlash not only on the sides of devs, but even other casual players. Where brig has been balanced fairly oddly for casual players to think she’s bad out of goats, but op should she manage a win.

5

Meta stands for most effective tactic available.

There will ALWAYS be a meta.

4 Likes
6

Is there a meta in chess? Basketball? Hide and seek?
Metas in my thread, shouldn’t exist. If there is, there is a balance or structural problem that needs to be addressed. – the Crux of my thread

7

For hide and seek probably…it mostly is all about knowing the seeker

8

As someone who plays chess- there absolutely is.

9

Metas as a concept are not a problem, they’re inevitable

Something will always be the best, and the only way to prevent that is to make everything the same fundamentally

1 Like
10

Goats doesn’t use aoe heal stack unless you mean the original Moira goats. Zen goats uses Zen for single target heals, Brig for aoe heals and armor pack burst heals, and Lucio for speed. Goats can’t handle sustained damage which is why Lucio is used for speed. The combination of speed with decent heals and tons of shields with dm is why goats is good. Hence why the goats nerf only touched Lucio’s speed since Lucio doesn’t actually heal much in goats

1 Like
11

When you limmet a team to six players but offer 7 heros, ther will always be a lineup that is better then others.
We coud work around this by either only offering 6 heros or by making them all the same.
But non of these ideas woudnt make this game boring to play.

Sincerly Hamen
~Happy Labor Day Commrads~

12

Exactly there has to be a meta an as the game changes through buffs and nerfs and new character and maps the meta will change which keeps the game fluid and fun (imo) a static game would be so boring to me

13

I don’t much care for meta tactics personally, but I accept that they exist naturally and that people will use them as much as they can.

Just gotta be creative in countering it for me, that’s where my fun comes from

14

True also the meta does still require some execution which is why goats in gold usually gets rolled…

1 Like
15

Yeah, I’ve actually enjoyed goats as a meta more than some others just because people arent used to running such a weird comp

Even in masters, I can just run over a goats comp with Hammond lol

Either way though, as long as we don’t get a resurgence of grav dragon meta, I’ll be happy. Truly, that was the worst meta

16

Perhaps, but I think it would also be a more boring game. The fact that some heroes are better on some maps and in some compositions isn’t a bad thing, IMO.

Overwatch is all about teamwork, synergy, and coordination. When someone picks Bastion and the rest of the team sees it as throwing and don’t pick complementary heroes, you’re probably going to lose. When someone picks Bastion and another teammate picks Rein or Orisa, your chances of success increase dramatically. This doesn’t mean Bastion needs buffs or a rework, it just means that some heroes are more team dependent and require more coordination and teamwork.

For example, I’m a Zen main. I can still occasionally frag out even when I’m getting no support from my team, but when I have a solid tank making space and a co-support watching my back, I become much more effective.

The fact that there are tanks, supports, and damage dealers already means that “perfect” balance can’t be accomplished because you’ll always need a little bit of all three to succeed (yes, I know GOATs doesn’t run any DPS, but Zarya in particular becomes a beast when she’s on full charge). One hero might be weak in a vacuum, but perfectly balanced with the proper composition around it.

17

The fact that Overwatch has a meta is not the failure.

Meta stands for Most Effective Tactic Available. Something will always be meta.

The real failure is that the level design does a very poor job of making the meta on each map different. The Overwatch Universe is suspiciously heavy on doors that are the exact size of Reinhardt’s shield and open spaces not much bigger than 20m across. Add in that every single one of the “Objectives” in competitive require standing on one particular patch of ~15 square meters… yeah, leads to a really stale meta because the same thing pretty much works on every map in the entire game.

18

Actually, a meta exists in every sport. There’s an accepted best way to play every sport at any given time. For many sports, that meta is just so ingrained that you wouldn’t even think of it as a meta. To you, it’d just be the way to play the game. Rules of sports games aren’t actually that detailed, generally. There’s nothing in the rules of basketball saying you should have a point guard, shooting guard, small forward, power forward, and a center, and nothing defining what the different roles of those positions are. There’s nothing in the rules of American football that sets out all the various roles and jobs of the different positions on the field. There’s nothing in the rules of baseball that dictates exactly where the fielders should stand. I could go on. These are things that are all basically just the “meta” of those games and have been for so long that no one would think of them that way.

Ultimately, the meta in normal sports can change a bit, though. For instance, decades ago teams did not pass in American football nearly as much as they do now. This is largely due to changes in rules regarding pass interference and roughing the passer, which have made passing harder to defend against. Similarly, decades ago, the meta in basketball did not involve nearly as much shooting from long-range. But the introduction of the three-point line, combined with the passage of a few decades so that the NBA was populated by people who grew up shooting threes, and with rule changes that make it much harder to guard someone incredibly close at the perimeter has led to an extremely three-point heavy meta.

The difference between Overwatch and these other sports in this regard is just that changes in the “meta” of those games happens way more slowly, because the underlying rules of the game do not change nearly so often or so much as the rules of Overwatch do. So the “meta” of those sports just becomes ingrained as the way the game should be played (subject to infrequent shifts that occur over decades), whereas the Overwatch meta is seen by the playerbase as more temporary; GOATS wasn’t just the way Overwatch should be played, but rather was seen as a passing thing because we knew substantial rule changes would be made that would render it no longer the optimal way to play.

1 Like
19
  1. This is a stupid analogy
  2. There are, in fact, a “meta” for all of these
1 Like