Meta, yo.

[Kherven]

There is no way this conversation will end, ever. So I feel like we might as well give it a place to exist so power rankings/weekly discussions don't get clogged. Chances are if your post has the word "meta" in it, it goes here. Knock yourselves out.

PS: Don't be a **** just cause someone disagrees with you. If you get this thread locked by Cal you're not going to be able to talk about it anymore, so play nice.

 

[Mr.X]

Lol, now its allowed?

隐藏

 

[Kherven]

If its kept here and kept civil, then yes.

 

[Rhade]

There's a reason why most competitive clans don't play Warband and instead opt for CSGO, HoN/Dota and SCII. You can actually see meta shifts and different playstyles rising and falling in popularity and effectiveness.

Warband doesn't have that.

There was the time that BkS did whatever they wanted because they were so much better than everyone, and then the time where everyone else started to catch up and pull influence from Europe and employ tactics from there. That's it.

I read an article the other day on Chinese Dota 2 just from the span of a year and the way that the high-end gameplay and what was popular shifted so many times, it was ridiculous. All of it was chronicled and it was actually interesting to see different clans pushing the envelope and finding weaknesses in the meta and changing it and shaping it. That doesn't happen here because there is one playstyle that works, which is the result of a game that wasn't designed to actually be a very competitive game, a game that is not patched to be competitive (if it were, things like blocking while kicking would have been removed almost instantly), and a development team that doesn't really have a mind to do anything about it, compounded by a lack of experience to make it so even if they wanted to.

 

[Cleric_Johnson]

There's a reason why most competitive clans don't play Warband and instead opt for CSGO, HoN/Dota and SCII. You can actually see meta shifts and different playstyles rising and falling in popularity and effectiveness.

Warband doesn't have that.

There was the time that BkS did whatever they wanted because they were so much better than everyone, and then the time where everyone else started to catch up and pull influence from Europe and employ tactics from there. That's it.

I read an article the other day on Chinese Dota 2 just from the span of a year and the way that the high-end gameplay and what was popular shifted so many times, it was ridiculous. All of it was chronicled and it was actually interesting to see different clans pushing the envelope and finding weaknesses in the meta and changing it and shaping it. That doesn't happen here because there is one playstyle that works, which is the result of a game that wasn't designed to actually be a very competitive game, a game that is not patched to be competitive (if it were, things like blocking while kicking would have been removed almost instantly), and a development team that doesn't really have a mind to do anything about it, compounded by a lack of experience to make it so even if they wanted to.

I dont know whether this is a specifically NA meta discussion (most definitely is), but i feel considering the arguments your making it would be legitimate to bring up EU warband. The reality is Meta shifts continuously in europe and has during the last WNL become outlandishly aggressive. Tons of teams are opting for 2 cav 6 infantry on closed maps and charging into the other team often this has been extremely effective (notably when RNGD defeated AE in our first game during WNL2). The quality of warband teams in general (low), means that actually the limits of any meta are pretty poorly established and if a well organized and high skill team decides to play in a certain way, contrary to the meta, they can and do make it work on a regular basis.

Also i dont think the reason EG and Navi dont play warband is because the meta dont shift but hey.

 

[Rhade]

There's a reason why most competitive clans don't play Warband and instead opt for CSGO, HoN/Dota and SCII. You can actually see meta shifts and different playstyles rising and falling in popularity and effectiveness.

Warband doesn't have that.

There was the time that BkS did whatever they wanted because they were so much better than everyone, and then the time where everyone else started to catch up and pull influence from Europe and employ tactics from there. That's it.

I read an article the other day on Chinese Dota 2 just from the span of a year and the way that the high-end gameplay and what was popular shifted so many times, it was ridiculous. All of it was chronicled and it was actually interesting to see different clans pushing the envelope and finding weaknesses in the meta and changing it and shaping it. That doesn't happen here because there is one playstyle that works, which is the result of a game that wasn't designed to actually be a very competitive game, a game that is not patched to be competitive (if it were, things like blocking while kicking would have been removed almost instantly), and a development team that doesn't really have a mind to do anything about it, compounded by a lack of experience to make it so even if they wanted to.

I dont know whether this is a specifically NA meta discussion, but i feel considering the arguments your making it would be legitimate to bring up EU warband. The reality is Meta shifts continuously in europe and has during the last WNL become outlandishly aggressive. Tons of teams are opting for 2 cav 6 infantry on closed maps and charging into the other team often this has been extremely effective (notably when RNGD defeated AE in our first game during WNL2). The quality of warband teams in general (low, AE included), means that actually the limits of any meta are pretty poorly established and if a well organized and high skill team decides to play in a certain way, contrary to the meta, they can and do make it work on a regular basis.


Also i dont think the reason EG and Navi dont play warband is because the meta dont shift but hey.

It's intended as an NA discussion, but I don't see how your input wouldn't be valued. I see the point you're making and I believe it could be somewhat possible to achieve a certain level of success, but that success is not sustainable, in my opinion, past the initial shock value. We constantly strive to shift the meta away from what it has become, so we're going to look to put that theory to the test as often as we can, because that's what it all comes down to; words only go so far.

The issue I have is that skill is wasted on attempting to do things that mechanics allow other less-skilled teams, in the end, be more effective and efficient and in the end that's all that matters. If a highly skilled, well coordinated, cohesive team runs a very defensive strategy around an armored bumpcav with split range on crossfires, that's almost unbeatable, in my personal opinion, against other highly skilled, well coordinated, cohesive teams trying to run other builds.

Obviously maps play a large role here in what works and what doesn't, but that's another issue entirely and for argument's sake we just assume closed is closed and open is open; although I feel most maps produced favor closed/mixed playstyles, we should keep away from that tangent.

In regards to the comment about EG and Navi -- of course they don't, because Warband also isn't very fun to watch, graphically or gameplay wise. High viewer counts is what esports are all about, and graphics are a part of that, but so is engaging, dynamic, shifting gameplay and Warband frankly doesn't have a lot of that. It's hard for a casual viewer to really appreciate the intricacies of the million things going on in a match because to them it looks like a pretty simple engagement but to a high-level Warband player they can appreciate it, despite the bad graphics. A casual viewer sees bad graphics and slow, boring, defensive gameplay and pass it up. I'm not saying that it's helpless, but there a lot more competitive teams than the very tip-top like EG, Liquid, Fnatic and the like that are worthwhile.

 

[Mr.X]

Pro teams don't play warband because there's no money in it.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Pro teams don't play warband because there's no money in it.

This isn't really the point Rhade is going for. His point is that warband would never have a real pro circuit like these other games because of the aforementioned reasons.

No need to try and nit pick everything in his post for a small flaw when you know what he is really going for. If you don't want to stick to the main points may as well not bother commenting, because this thread will get overflown with tangents and devolve to petty insults like normal.

 

[Mr.X]

Pro teams don't play warband because there's no money in it.

No need to try and nit pick everything in his post for a small flaw when you know what he is really going for. If you don't want to stick to the main points may as well not bother commenting, because this thread will get overflown with tangents and devolve to petty insults like normal.

Nit pick everything? I literally commented on ONE thing. The reason pro teams don't play warband is because there's no money in it. Starcraft is not perfectly balanced. League is not perfectly balanced. Dota is not perfectly balanced. Cod is not perfectly balanced. Pro teams play those games because they can make money playing them. Hence the name pro. I tried to argue the main points in both other threads, but Rhade still thinks that most good teams are completely defensive, and I don't like discussing the meta with RPers who don't know the actual state of the competitive game and assume that something they can't beat is unbeatable. Especially when they try to provoke me ingame as well.

 

[KoA John]

This game isn't popular enough for pro players & eports. It needs a bigger playerbase, more popularity, shiner graphics and a dedicated community & dev team and of course a lot more balancing like Rhade mentioned

I think if we ever want to get to that esports point with this or furture M&B games then that is what would have to happen


http://www.joystiq.com/2013/07/12/pro-league-of-legends-players-are-professional-athletes-says-us/

One day we all can be internet athletes 

 

[Jaime]

Pro teams don't play warband because there's no money in it.

No need to try and nit pick everything in his post for a small flaw when you know what he is really going for. If you don't want to stick to the main points may as well not bother commenting, because this thread will get overflown with tangents and devolve to petty insults like normal.

Nit pick everything? I literally commented on ONE thing. The reason pro teams don't play warband is because there's no money in it. Starcraft is not perfectly balanced. League is not perfectly balanced. Dota is not perfectly balanced. Cod is not perfectly balanced. Pro teams play those games because they can make money playing them. Hence the name pro. I tried to argue the main points in both other threads, but Rhade still thinks that most good teams are completely defensive, and I don't like discussing the meta with RPers who don't know the actual state of the competitive game and assume that something they can't beat is unbeatable. Especially when they try to provoke me ingame as well.

Metaphorically speaking, money is the fire but gameplay and adaptability are the tinder. Yes, there isn't any money; yet that will never change because Warband doesn't have these things at a high level, not to mention dev encouragement or support. The lack of money potential in this game is not a cause yo, it's a symptom.

Secondly, we all understand nothing is perfect and you implying that we don't understand that is insulting. This obviously being understood, most peasants understand perfectly balanced games exist only in theory. However, I think it's fair to say games like Starcraft are some of THE most balanced games out there, period. The fact that you're comparing this game to the pinnacle of competitiveness is comical and I feel you should probably get a little perspective.

Thirdly and unsurprisingly, I agree with Rhade that defensive postures and thinking in this game are superior in almost every aspect to aggression and risk-taking. Proclivity to set up crossfires and stare at each other, using near unkillable (and quite maneuverable) HH while holding w to nullify enemy foot while eating Cheetos, archers being able to command such respect at large distances via bows while being able to use a shield, ability to block while kicking, chambers easy to block in comparison to their execution, etc etc etc are all examples of this. While I can painfully admit to appreciating there is still a type of skill and thought out strategy here in play, it honestly makes for a boring thing to both watch and participate in.

Lastly/personally, if you're such a virtuoso on Warband strategy and Rhade is so clueless, how did the BkS "roleplayers" soundly dominate everyone for three years straight? We're coming back after not playing for a significant amount of time and juggling roster/depth issues, yes, but don't mistake that for lack of competence or ability. I'll admit we're somewhat finding ourselves again, but frankly you should really show a little more respect.

 

[LeRoux]

Hey!


Personally I wouldn't call the current meta defensive, I feel it's more about timing, teamplay and the place where you want to fight.
As an example whenever flags spawn, most of the time, AE lets the other team get on the flag first, because if we then engage in a wider circle (I guess there's a very small comparisaon to roach concaves in SCII) it spreads them thin, it also puts their archers in fixed positions trying to cover the flags, while ours can move around in order too whichever is at that point required.

Honestly I feel it's about opportunities, AE's play on Sandi's is basicly Graveyard or we go for a timed push on it. Why? Simply because it's the best place in the map to fight. Wouldn't make allot of sense to go fight in the open and run into the enemy at that point in time does not give us an advantage.


Now I wouldn't say this play is defensive and does not takes risks at all. It's about getting a superior position from which we'll then happily engage.
As an example I'll give a match we had with RNGD (another really good EU team). We had a right side push strat on ruins, but they had prepared for it, and thus counterd it perfectly. Our strat was based around taking a good position for two of the flags while forcing the enemy into an akward position in which they had to retreat or being crushed from our push.
It was a high risk strat, because we tried it for 4 rounds, and every round we got countered by RNGD. Although the strat seemed defensive, it was more high-risk high-reward sort of thing.


Last I'd like to say that you play Warband the way you want, whether you go naked GS and smash people up or you only take boots and gloves or whatever the **** you do, it's a game it's the way you (being one individual or a team) enjoy it.
I must admit when WNL began and people where very aggresive and sometimes even a bit cheesy I was pleasantly surprised, it could be another layer to Warband, do you go for an aggresive attack and try to punish the enemy for a split as fast as possible, or do you more go for positioning and timing, and how do does two pan out? Unfortunatly people stopped playing ubar agressive and very tactical at the same time.


TL;DR
Who gives a **** about "the meta", the game is too small and the limit has not been reached, there is not yet a best way to play the game.
Play the game the way you want it.

 

[Kherven]

Personally I wouldn't call the current meta defensive, I feel it's more about timing, teamplay and the place where you want to fight.

Agreed.

Directing the battle into your favor != passivity.

 

[T]

RPers who don't know the actual state of the competitive game and assume that something they can't beat is unbeatable. Especially when they try to provoke me ingame as well.

Not sure it is worth having you a part of this conversation X. It is painfully obvious that this has become personal for you and I am sick of people like you simply making things up. We have never said that things that we cant beat are unbeatable nor have we acted that way...you act like we don't know how to win or what competition is when we led the competitive charge in the NA scene.

Fine we are RPers who dont know anything about this game, and you have been losing to us for years now and we can still keep up despite RPing....So maybe you do have a reason to listen to us.

I tried making actual arguments but you still ignore everything I/we are saying and look for ONE thing to criticize and act like we don't know what we are talking about.

Hopefully everyone else can see how skewed you perspective is.



@LeRoux

隐藏

Hey!


Personally I wouldn't call the current meta defensive, I feel it's more about timing, teamplay and the place where you want to fight.
As an example whenever flags spawn, most of the time, AE lets the other team get on the flag first, because if we then engage in a wider circle (I guess there's a very small comparisaon to roach concaves in SCII) it spreads them thin, it also puts their archers in fixed positions trying to cover the flags, while ours can move around in order too whichever is at that point required.

Honestly I feel it's about opportunities, AE's play on Sandi's is basicly Graveyard or we go for a timed push on it. Why? Simply because it's the best place in the map to fight. Wouldn't make allot of sense to go fight in the open and run into the enemy at that point in time does not give us an advantage.


Now I wouldn't say this play is defensive and does not takes risks at all. It's about getting a superior position from which we'll then happily engage.
As an example I'll give a match we had with RNGD (another really good EU team). We had a right side push strat on ruins, but they had prepared for it, and thus counterd it perfectly. Our strat was based around taking a good position for two of the flags while forcing the enemy into an akward position in which they had to retreat or being crushed from our push.
It was a high risk strat, because we tried it for 4 rounds, and every round we got countered by RNGD. Although the strat seemed defensive, it was more high-risk high-reward sort of thing.


Last I'd like to say that you play Warband the way you want, whether you go naked GS and smash people up or you only take boots and gloves or whatever the **** you do, it's a game it's the way you (being one individual or a team) enjoy it.
I must admit when WNL began and people where very aggresive and sometimes even a bit cheesy I was pleasantly surprised, it could be another layer to Warband, do you go for an aggresive attack and try to punish the enemy for a split as fast as possible, or do you more go for positioning and timing, and how do does two pan out? Unfortunatly people stopped playing ubar agressive and very tactical at the same time.


TL;DR
Who gives a **** about "the meta", the game is too small and the limit has not been reached, there is not yet a best way to play the game.
Play the game the way you want it.

Despite my dislike of what I have termed the EU style of take advantage of everything no matter how broke it is, you are exactly right in the end.

It really is about just having fun and playing however you want. Yes, there are lots of inconsistencies/broken things but that is part of what makes Warband Warband.


@Everyone else again
This discussion is actually less about the game and more between ppl who are playing merely to win and ppl who are playing just to have fun. Contrary to the community's 99.9% unfounded opinion of BkS, we really do just play to have fun, thus the RP title and all the rules we place on ourselves.

I want the game to be fun, and I also want to win but there is no way I am going to sacrifice the fun aspect of the game for the winning, it just isn't that important.

If the community really thinks an archer version of counterstrike or a Heavy Cavalry version of World of Tanks is more fun than what I would say Warband could have been, then that is the community's decision and I will peace out.

 

[LeRoux]

@LeRoux

Despite my dislike of what I have termed the EU style of take advantage of everything no matter how broke it is, you are exactly right in the end.

It really is about just having fun and playing however you want. Yes, there are lots of inconsistencies/broken things but that is part of what makes Warband Warband.

Could you elaborate on what you consider is broken?

 

[Kherven]

@Everyone else again
This discussion is actually less about the game and more between ppl who are playing merely to win and ppl who are playing just to have fun. Contrary to the community's 99.9% unfounded opinion of BkS, we really do just play to have fun, thus the RP title and all the rules we place on ourselves.

I want the game to be fun, and I also want to win but there is no way I am going to sacrifice the fun aspect of the game for the winning, it just isn't that important.

If the community really thinks an archer version of counterstrike or a Heavy Cavalry version of World of Tanks is more fun than what I would say Warband could have been, then that is the community's decision and I will peace out.

I don't really understand. I personally find performing well in a scrim fun. If that means using drops and setting up crossfires, I do find that enjoyable. Most clans find that enjoyable. Its totally okay you place these rules on yourselves. Thats up to you, what I'm confused about is why some BkS get frustrated that others don't place the same arbitrary rules. Just cause you like to collect all the money in the middle when you land on free parking, shouldn't mean that we have to, especially when you aren't even playing in the game.

You seem to think that clans that use the "Euro meta" sacrifice fun for winning. We don't. We enjoy what we do, its why we play.

You say "...is more fun than what I would say Warband coudl have been" but I believe that what you think warband should be, is not what warband is.

In the end, I say BkS should do what BkS thinks is fun. But if some BkS members believe that other clans must play by their arbitrary rules, they're being unrealistic.

 

[T]

LeRoux, There are many things I think should be obvious as not balanced, but I realize it is still only my opinion. I made a post recently saying some things I think make the game less balanced and not likely to become competitive if things didn't change. PM me and I would be glad to elaborate or link you my post.(it is in Rhade's PowerRankings thread.)


Khervan, maybe I wasn't clear but I was trying to say that it would ruin the fun for me/us as in BkS not the rest of the community. I know that people play how they want to have fun. My point would be even though you have fun using certain drops and or game mechanics that doesn't make them balanced.

Concerning BkS getting "frustrated" at ppl who play their own way. I think that is a common misconception of how we feel. Will I make fun of people I think are playing in what I consider "ez mode" yes, do I expect them to stop? No. They can play how they want.

That brings me back to why we place limits on what we do, I realized it is driven by our interpretation of what is fair. But honestly I feel like most of what I say is imbalanced is obvious no matter how clever or tactical. Also, random disclaimer, I think there are many things that would have to be overhauled with combat/mechanics if you took out some of what I suggest...

Maybe I am visioning a game very different than the majority of you guys, but Warband a long while ago was very close to something that could have been great(with alot of polish and money) again, pm me if you want me to explain more, otherwise, keep the thread directed toward balance/meta.

 

[Kherven]

I actually thought you were Vanidar for a moment, reading the post I quoted paired with the one in the power-ranking thread and it makes more sense. I was confused at first cause I thought Van said it. So I understand now ;p

 

[Mr.X]

RPers who don't know the actual state of the competitive game and assume that something they can't beat is unbeatable. Especially when they try to provoke me ingame as well.

Not sure it is worth having you a part of this conversation X. It is painfully obvious that this has become personal for you and I am sick of people like you simply making things up. We have never said that things that we cant beat are unbeatable nor have we acted that way...you act like we don't know how to win or what competition is when we led the competitive charge in the NA scene.

Fine we are RPers who dont know anything about this game, and you have been losing to us for years now and we can still keep up despite RPing....So maybe you do have a reason to listen to us.

I tried making actual arguments but you still ignore everything I/we are saying and look for ONE thing to criticize and act like we don't know what we are talking about.

Hopefully everyone else can see how skewed you perspective is.

Your right, I was really only talking about Rhade, based on these posts:

隐藏

Heavy cav does not take skill.

It all boils down to no real risk.

Light cav risks dying easily for speed.
Heavy cav still has enough speed to be effective and is virtually unkillable unless an entire team can collapse on it; but it still has speed enough so this doesn't happen, and is also supported. What is heavy cav risking? It has all the advantages of light cav plus being a tank, the only real place it struggles is random plains and who plays that anymore?

Kickslashing takes no risk, and is employed in higher level infantry combat to lethal effect. Why not kickslash all the time? You can kick and block at the same time. Totally safe.

Splitting up into key points on the map doesn't take much risk because you can just run away if you get pushed, and solo archers have shields and awlpikes/spears so cav can't cav**** them and infantry will have a hard time catching up before support is there. Not a lot of risk there either.

The issue I have is that skill is wasted on attempting to do things that mechanics allow other less-skilled teams, in the end, be more effective and efficient and in the end that's all that matters. If a highly skilled, well coordinated, cohesive team runs a very defensive strategy around an armored bumpcav with split range on crossfires, that's almost unbeatable, in my personal opinion, against other highly skilled, well coordinated, cohesive teams trying to run other builds.

And for ****s sake, I really don't care how many years you've been beating me. You're all better players than me. K? Great. It's completely irrelevant to the "meta" conversation, unless your using it as proof that BkS is outdated, and that thread got locked because we're not allowed to be mean to each other, even though

隐藏

^I appreciate the BkS post without porno X rage in it.

My biggest problem with the idea behind your post is that I don't think you determining that heavy cav is imbalanced is a good reason not to use it. As you said, ranged is pretty unbalanced even without shields, so why doesn't the same logic apply and why don't you not use ranged? I just don't think players can really determine if obviously intended game mechanics, like weapon pick ups and heavy horses, are against the idea behind the game. To be quite honest, not using clearly intended game mechanics to gain an advantage because of some moral ideal is a very anti-competitive idea.

I hope none of that comes off as an attack against BkS or Tyrain.


It's very difficult for me to accept that heavy horses break the bounds of what was intended in the game. They would be more balanced if we used 1k gold, but that's another discussion :p

But that really applies to everything you had outlined as "broken elements". (There were only 2. Heavy horses, and range.)
Range is not intended as part of the game? That argument makes very little sense to me.


My point about the "meta":
If you're not going to fully utilize every aspect of the game, you're probably not playing it as well as you can.

 

[T]

I give up.


X you are obviously not reading all of what I am saying or are just ignoring chunks of my posts b/c nothing you are repeating back to me is what I said.


I am sorry if I am unclear but I really dont think it is me. I even use outline form so its easy to read lol.





I have thought of one last way maybe to get through. Stop thinking of BkS for a minute. BkS does not exist in Warband. Nobody is putting limitations on anyone. K, There are very imbalanced features of the game that make it not competitive. And there are more than 2, I even put 3 on my list (if you read it) and said I had more.

Period.

you are 100% cought up on the "putting limitations" part that you miss my actual argument.