04-10-2020, 05:37 PM
What is, 'The Meta'? To some, it's obvious. The strongest abilities, the strongest combo, the Best. This can vary, based on who is asked. Some would cry that, certain combos, or even just singular spell trees, were over powered, or still are over powered or stay over powered despite valid reasoning not to be... This isn't a salt thread about those, and here's why: In every game, the meta changes. Creators, Designers, Programmers... A Team, all work to create checks and balances to a game. In doing this, the meta of a game will always change. This isn't necessarily a good, or bad thing. Change happens whether it's wanted or not. For some that means having to change your outlook. For others that means a chance to be at the top. That's all there really is to it, for most people.
Now the reason, I don't specifically mention any current or past metas here, is because: In the end, it doesn't matter towards my point. I'm not here to talk about the meta, only to distinguish it for what it is. The Meta is simply, the Strongest current Combo/Ability/Technique what have you. The Most Optimal way to win, reduced to a few words.
With that said, I personally feel, that the game's current Viability is steadily decreasing. Now I use that word carefully here, I distinguish it as it's own thing, for a reason. In this case, I say Viability, as: A means to win, that is not necessarily the Best, but is capable of competing with the meta, without being one itself. It is a combination, that, while strong, is only made strong because of a person using it correctly. To many it might seem weak, either because it is inefficient costs, or an unpopular theme, or it has flaws that many would consider to hindering. And in this sense, the options for viable builds, is being restricted more and more. I notice with more and more change logs, that trees are being nerfed, rather than buffed. I'm here, to argue the opposite. Allow me to explain.
Do I disagree with the changes? Only some what. I believe changes should be made, that certain combinations or singular paths, are simply, too strong, or too weak. This happens, and balancing is needed. But I would argue that instead of weakening certain paths, that others be strengthened to compete. That more combinations be allowed to compete, especially as the overall options themselves, are restricted due to costs. I believe that, in weakening certain paths, but in rarely strengthening most, it creates a situation in which people will attempt to break the game more, in order to be on par with the current meta, as that doesn't feel as though it's truly changed in quite some time.
Do I think all spell trees should be made overpowered? Yes and no. I don't agree with either extreme, of overtuning or undertuning everything to be on the same level. But it should all be on the same level. And if I had the choice of feeling stronger, or weaker, as a result? I feel like many would prefer to feel stronger, even if the end result is the same. Because in the end, people play games for a power fantasy. I know for me personally, I don't play just to roleplay a weak peasant, just because I didn't choose to take the meta route. I roleplay to feel powerful, maybe an underdog who, despite not taking ultra-powerful routes, is capable of competing through sheer skill and proficiency. I prefer to imagine a world where hard work can beat talent, and as it currently stands, that really isn't the case. You may start in a low position, but if you lack 'the meta', there are few viable choices to compete.
Ultimately, my suggestion, is to expand these choices. I honestly can't imagine that as a bad thought, but I can imagine those who'd disagree.
I fully believe this to be a controversial opinion, and it is just that, an opinion. But it is a solid one, and one I've given quite a lot of thought. Seeing the game from the start, and following until where it is now, and even seeing fairly easily, where it is going, given predictability, I want to try and curve things to a hopefully more positive path... As well, as try and vent my mind, without too much salt, as easy as that would be at many times.
Now the reason, I don't specifically mention any current or past metas here, is because: In the end, it doesn't matter towards my point. I'm not here to talk about the meta, only to distinguish it for what it is. The Meta is simply, the Strongest current Combo/Ability/Technique what have you. The Most Optimal way to win, reduced to a few words.
With that said, I personally feel, that the game's current Viability is steadily decreasing. Now I use that word carefully here, I distinguish it as it's own thing, for a reason. In this case, I say Viability, as: A means to win, that is not necessarily the Best, but is capable of competing with the meta, without being one itself. It is a combination, that, while strong, is only made strong because of a person using it correctly. To many it might seem weak, either because it is inefficient costs, or an unpopular theme, or it has flaws that many would consider to hindering. And in this sense, the options for viable builds, is being restricted more and more. I notice with more and more change logs, that trees are being nerfed, rather than buffed. I'm here, to argue the opposite. Allow me to explain.
Do I disagree with the changes? Only some what. I believe changes should be made, that certain combinations or singular paths, are simply, too strong, or too weak. This happens, and balancing is needed. But I would argue that instead of weakening certain paths, that others be strengthened to compete. That more combinations be allowed to compete, especially as the overall options themselves, are restricted due to costs. I believe that, in weakening certain paths, but in rarely strengthening most, it creates a situation in which people will attempt to break the game more, in order to be on par with the current meta, as that doesn't feel as though it's truly changed in quite some time.
Do I think all spell trees should be made overpowered? Yes and no. I don't agree with either extreme, of overtuning or undertuning everything to be on the same level. But it should all be on the same level. And if I had the choice of feeling stronger, or weaker, as a result? I feel like many would prefer to feel stronger, even if the end result is the same. Because in the end, people play games for a power fantasy. I know for me personally, I don't play just to roleplay a weak peasant, just because I didn't choose to take the meta route. I roleplay to feel powerful, maybe an underdog who, despite not taking ultra-powerful routes, is capable of competing through sheer skill and proficiency. I prefer to imagine a world where hard work can beat talent, and as it currently stands, that really isn't the case. You may start in a low position, but if you lack 'the meta', there are few viable choices to compete.
Ultimately, my suggestion, is to expand these choices. I honestly can't imagine that as a bad thought, but I can imagine those who'd disagree.
I fully believe this to be a controversial opinion, and it is just that, an opinion. But it is a solid one, and one I've given quite a lot of thought. Seeing the game from the start, and following until where it is now, and even seeing fairly easily, where it is going, given predictability, I want to try and curve things to a hopefully more positive path... As well, as try and vent my mind, without too much salt, as easy as that would be at many times.
![[Image: trio.png]](https://i.ibb.co/wdYb9Sx/trio.png)
![[Image: DvgXOJU.png]](https://i.imgur.com/DvgXOJU.png)
