De Res "Meta"

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • De Res "Meta"

      Hello, i am doing this thread after several things have been written and got me thinking.
      forum.conflictnations.com/inde…e-challenge-matches-like/

      If you're new to strategy games, and to competitive games, what is often reffered by "Meta" needs to be defined. A lot of definitions exist, here is mine, for what it's worth :

      Meta is the intellectual quest, through mathematical/statistical/operational studies, of a deep understanding of the systems of the game and its environment. The aim of such quest is to be able to interiorise so deeply those studies that one individual becomes able to formulate, in any given context, viable and sensible options for strategies, behaviours, and conduct, while trying to improve them continuously by trying to "overcome them". Consequently, the role of meta-studies in a community can be narrowed down to "Most optimised ways to win a battle/war/map", and if we go even deeper "How to win against people that use themselves the most optimised way to win".

      ================

      Meta is a living thing, in the meaning that it is fed by a lot of things :

      1°) Updates : When they change anything, be it cost, or damage, or time of production, it's a tremendous occasion because it creates a lot of thing to change in the excels, and to study. Sometimes, even what seems like small changes are a change of paradigm for several contexts.

      2°) Strategical trends : Meta being a living thing, it shouldn't be surprising that it counters itself continuously, one way or another, within a iterative process that is very close to how an AI neural network would work, except it's done by humans, of course.

      3°) Different Situations : A bit like speedruns, you can imagine a meta for nearly anything that is interested in dwelling in it with you. "Winning a X4 map while not logging after 6pm" can be a topic of meta-studies, if it's what rocks your cradle.


      ================

      In the current state of things, meta is mostly studied within alliances for challenges (all types of challenges and maps related to them), because they are the most noticable hubs of active players, that also seek for difficulty (= to get their bottom kicked so they can train harder), and a lot of alliance leaders are, as a result, deeply involved as """""scholars""""" in those pursuits, because they are related to military power, and the ability to leverage decisive action in... well, all maps. If you want a "scale", you can consider that it represents approximately 1 000 active players, from various nationalities, gathered throughout the current ~40 "countries" of the game.

      Public games meta is less studied because a lot of us have a hard time to find long term fun on those maps : There always has been a general problem of inactivity and general incompetence in the community. The consensus is that in public games, you can make nearly everything work, even the most nonsensical things. It's problematic to meta-studies because they require constant refutation on the field.

      The rock beats the scissors.
      The scissors beats the paper
      The paper beats the rock.
      The Electrified rock beats paper.
      The Armored Scissors beats rock
      The quantum paper beats the scissors.
      The electrified densified Rock beats the armored scissors
      The Armored Graviton Scissors beats the Quantum paper
      The Quantum Razor-sharp beats the Electrified Densified Rock.
      And so on...

      Problem is, in public games, you often "fall short" because "rock beats scissors, but due to how rock is badly used by most of player, you'll win anyway with scissors".

      So, there is a bit of a hasty shortcut made when the competitive population (to which i belong too) claims something is "meta" and something isn't.

      Corvette isn't meta because it's difficult to argue the unit is awful for all general roles. In challenges, we tried VERY hard to make it work, and well, just no. The tech line in itself is awful for the cost, and it tends to blow my mind the unit hasn't be overhauled.

      However, in the Nelva (my alliance) wiki aimed at teaching the basics to our young players, it also actually advise to consider the Corvette in the early days of public games for exposed naval countries, to protect efficienctly and cheaply from incredibly common "early rushes from the sea".

      The good example of it being Korea. Early Rush by Japan is so common it nearly has got its own page on tvtropes.org

      Ability to study those kind of behaviours, situations, and implications, are part of what may call meta-studies.

      ================

      There has been some tensions in some channels (be it discord or forums), with people presenting meta, consciously or not, as "well, you play meta or you are not relevant". And of course, the others defending themselves with an equal amount of pride.

      This is what i call "Gatekeeping". The Urban dictionary has a definition i like about it :

      "When someone uses a hobby or interest as a mean of elevating themselves above others to give oneself a sense of being superior transforming their passion or knowledge about a particular subject into an ugly tool of self-inflation."

      Now, of course, i can't speak as a representative of competitive players, nor alliances. I can only express my opinion as an individual, but i do remain the leader of my own alliance, which owns its share of influence and presence within the community :

      Gatekeeping is contradictory to the very concept of an alliance, and more largely, to how we want to act and to introduce newcomers to the competitive world or the healthy fair play and sports values that get conveyed through this kind of practice. I do apologise myself for the topics where, in one way or another, my words were counter-productive in that matter. Even the frustration to be in front of what i know by "thousand-times confirmed" experience to "not work against trained and competent players" isn't an excuse, especially if i lack the patience to calmly explain, and with in-depth reasoning, how one may reach the same conclusions.

      However, if you are not in an alliance and not from the competitive scene, please don't lock yourselves in what you would understand as a "counter meta" to fight against what you would see as a monolithic "meta" imagined by a few fools.
      Meta is a living thing shared collectively, and you can easily make it your own even for public games. After all, "Meta" is just a short word simple enough to use to include every single methodology or effort made by individuals (or groups of individuals) to become more proficient all round at the said game, with an absolute universal rule shared by all proficient players : Analyse, Adapt, and overcome.

      I'll let those who want to disagree to have a brawl :D
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Opulon, with my limited french, I browsed Nelva's website.
      It's all in french, and it had some interesting features.
      "The national guard is a bad unit with interesting features."
      Does that mean interestingly bad or just a bad unit with different features?
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."
    • "Bad" as in "bad in combat".

      Not a "bad" unit as in "useless" unit.

      It's a case of "subtlety lost in translation"


      "La Garde nationale est une mauvaise unité de combat aux utilisations stratégiques très intéressantes" would have the following acceptable translation :

      "The national guard is a poor fighting unit with interesting strategical uses"
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Sorry Opulon. Like I said, my french is limited.
      Oh... D'accord.
      Sooo, I think the main "interesting" feature of the NG is that it has a 50% defense bonus in cities.
      Ironically, "La Garde Nationale" in France is a branch of the police department.
      For some reason, "La Garde Nationale" or National Guard, sounds even more prestigious than the marines.
      When really, it's just a group of Police officers wearing camoflauge.
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."
    • As always, well said. Something you kind of mentioned here but have also said in other threads is that the meta depends on your context. The meta of the alliance challenges won't exactly be the meta of the public games. That was something that opened my eyes, as I was guilty of some of the gatekeeping going on around here :whistling: .

      Maxed moto inf can work wonders in a public match, but never in an elite challenge. So, I think we should consider whether the players we are discussing the game with are trying to sharpen their knowledge, skill, and tactics for the competitive community; or just kill some time in this cool new game they just found.
      but, that's just my 2 cents' worth
    • To summarise in very short terms our wiki article.


      Beginner approach :
      - NG not attractive and it's perfectly normal. It may win defensively against infantry in 1-1 in favorable contexts, but will get mauled by anything outside of those favorable terrains, and by armor and air more generally.
      - NG may be a good thing if you are faced with ultra early rush, as it's technically the single unit that can be produced the quickest and help mitigate the damages made by the infantries trying to rush early day 1. NG acts as cannon fodder to allow your infantries to remain for longer a "damage vector", while exploiting the damage reduction provided by a forests, suburbs, and cities. It's just what you need to get the first 12 hours you need to produce the first efficient anti-infantry unit of Day 1 (recon) and get back on the offensive. When facing a early day 1 rush by 1 or 2 countries, you don't have time to produce armor or air or artilleries.

      Regular Approach :

      - NG is the cheapest unit available if you intend to stick with it as a "conquer infantry and garrisson conquer cities" role. Not less, not more. You don't send them into combat, but you can use them to delay invading forces if the tactical situation requires it. Let's just be aware that those guys will totally get obligaterated by special forces, though, as NG are just "meat stacked somewhere you can reduce a lot the damages"
      - NG lvl 3 is the cheapest "cost per soft HP", and associated to its amazingly short produce time, it means you can produce in one day on a single place the equivalent of one and a half MBT of soft HPs, not using any electronics, and half the components.
      - General trend of a game is to mechanise the army gradually. Beginners are expected to do more infantries, while trained players are expected to do more "hard" units. Budgeting soft-hp cannon fodder can take off guard people specialising themselves in anti-ahrd.


      Competitive approach :

      - The industrial flexibility, it's efficiency as cannon fodder, and the fact we don't care about close combat because in a era where everywone is a 24/24 proficient player, make the national guard ironically the best infantry to produce, if the general strategy implies to produce any.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • MicahWill wrote:

      As always, well said. Something you kind of mentioned here but have also said in other threads is that the meta depends on your context. The meta of the alliance challenges won't exactly be the meta of the public games. That was something that opened my eyes, as I was guilty of some of the gatekeeping going on around here :whistling: .

      Maxed moto inf can work wonders in a public match, but never in an elite challenge. So, I think we should consider whether the players we are discussing the game with are trying to sharpen their knowledge, skill, and tactics for the competitive community; or just kill some time in this cool new game they just found.
      It's actually something i discussed in the discord.

      For a lot of competitive players, the very idea that mortars infantry could be of any relevance was just shocking. It's a unit we never really took care of because when we tried to see what was its place in optimised builds, we quickly saw that well... it hadn't any future if fighting a active opponent, especially in the context of well trained air player or artillery player. It could be useful if the other side relied exclusively on armor and infantry, but even then, we more or less though "it's a lot of effort for very little gain, ultimately".

      But the explanations of people encountering more and more situations of 4X where mortar infantry IS meta because it's the cheapest way to exploit the general inactivity and incompetence of players, a bit like Strike Fighters tend to be in some public games, it just "blew my mind".
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • National guard is a must when playing as a small nation(Austria, Israel, South Korea) that is in a potential warzone.
      Mass producing Nat Guard/Anti tank/Mobile anti airs will let you survive the first 5 days.
      Basically, upgrading your current traffic police, and giving them some guns.
      Police officers are surprisingly good at stopping professional enemies... when the police outnumber the enemy 4 to 1. :D
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."
    • That's true.
      Although most of the experienced players usually have enough respect for you to agree with most of what you say...
      Or they just look the other way if you say something they disagree with ...
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."
    • Hm, not something that really pleases my ears. It's something to be recognised as generally not saying idiotic things, it's a whole other beast to not get into disagreements out of misplaced "imperium". I do hope it's not the way you state it
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Hmm. I meant that because they know that you are almost always right, they usually think twice before criticizing you.
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."
    • ewac123 wrote:

      The Ultimate shield to any kind of Criticism from forum members is an Opulon like :D :D :D
      Is it possible to learn this power?

      Opulon wrote:

      Hm, not something that really pleases my ears. It's something to be recognised as generally not saying idiotic things, it's a whole other beast to not get into disagreements out of misplaced "imperium". I do hope it's not the way you state it
      It's more along the lines that its kinda hard to disagree with you when you write a whole essay elaborating your reasoning :D
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Naval Awacs is so meta we are all involved in a community-wide plot to make it appear as useless.

      Can't beat that
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Opulon wrote:

      Hello, i am doing this thread after several things have been written and got me thinking.
      forum.conflictnations.com/inde…e-challenge-matches-like/

      If you're new to strategy games, and to competitive games, what is often reffered by "Meta" needs to be defined. A lot of definitions exist, here is mine, for what it's worth :

      Meta is the intellectual quest, through mathematical/statistical/operational studies, of a deep understanding of the systems of the game and its environment. The aim of such quest is to be able to interiorise so deeply those studies that one individual becomes able to formulate, in any given context, viable and sensible options for strategies, behaviours, and conduct, while trying to improve them continuously by trying to "overcome them". Consequently, the role of meta-studies in a community can be narrowed down to "Most optimised ways to win a battle/war/map", and if we go even deeper "How to win against people that use themselves the most optimised way to win".

      ================

      Meta is a living thing, in the meaning that it is fed by a lot of things :

      1°) Updates : When they change anything, be it cost, or damage, or time of production, it's a tremendous occasion because it creates a lot of thing to change in the excels, and to study. Sometimes, even what seems like small changes are a change of paradigm for several contexts.

      2°) Strategical trends : Meta being a living thing, it shouldn't be surprising that it counters itself continuously, one way or another, within a iterative process that is very close to how an AI neural network would work, except it's done by humans, of course.

      3°) Different Situations : A bit like speedruns, you can imagine a meta for nearly anything that is interested in dwelling in it with you. "Winning a X4 map while not logging after 6pm" can be a topic of meta-studies, if it's what rocks your cradle.


      ================

      In the current state of things, meta is mostly studied within alliances for challenges (all types of challenges and maps related to them), because they are the most noticable hubs of active players, that also seek for difficulty (= to get their bottom kicked so they can train harder), and a lot of alliance leaders are, as a result, deeply involved as """""scholars""""" in those pursuits, because they are related to military power, and the ability to leverage decisive action in... well, all maps. If you want a "scale", you can consider that it represents approximately 1 000 active players, from various nationalities, gathered throughout the current ~40 "countries" of the game.

      Public games meta is less studied because a lot of us have a hard time to find long term fun on those maps : There always has been a general problem of inactivity and general incompetence in the community. The consensus is that in public games, you can make nearly everything work, even the most nonsensical things. It's problematic to meta-studies because they require constant refutation on the field.

      The rock beats the scissors.
      The scissors beats the paper
      The paper beats the rock.
      The Electrified rock beats paper.
      The Armored Scissors beats rock
      The quantum paper beats the scissors.
      The electrified densified Rock beats the armored scissors
      The Armored Graviton Scissors beats the Quantum paper
      The Quantum Razor-sharp beats the Electrified Densified Rock.
      And so on...

      Problem is, in public games, you often "fall short" because "rock beats scissors, but due to how rock is badly used by most of player, you'll win anyway with scissors".

      So, there is a bit of a hasty shortcut made when the competitive population (to which i belong too) claims something is "meta" and something isn't.

      Corvette isn't meta because it's difficult to argue the unit is awful for all general roles. In challenges, we tried VERY hard to make it work, and well, just no. The tech line in itself is awful for the cost, and it tends to blow my mind the unit hasn't be overhauled.

      However, in the Nelva (my alliance) wiki aimed at teaching the basics to our young players, it also actually advise to consider the Corvette in the early days of public games for exposed naval countries, to protect efficienctly and cheaply from incredibly common "early rushes from the sea".

      The good example of it being Korea. Early Rush by Japan is so common it nearly has got its own page on tvtropes.org

      Ability to study those kind of behaviours, situations, and implications, are part of what may call meta-studies.

      ================

      There has been some tensions in some channels (be it discord or forums), with people presenting meta, consciously or not, as "well, you play meta or you are not relevant". And of course, the others defending themselves with an equal amount of pride.

      This is what i call "Gatekeeping". The Urban dictionary has a definition i like about it :

      "When someone uses a hobby or interest as a mean of elevating themselves above others to give oneself a sense of being superior transforming their passion or knowledge about a particular subject into an ugly tool of self-inflation."

      Now, of course, i can't speak as a representative of competitive players, nor alliances. I can only express my opinion as an individual, but i do remain the leader of my own alliance, which owns its share of influence and presence within the community :

      Gatekeeping is contradictory to the very concept of an alliance, and more largely, to how we want to act and to introduce newcomers to the competitive world or the healthy fair play and sports values that get conveyed through this kind of practice. I do apologise myself for the topics where, in one way or another, my words were counter-productive in that matter. Even the frustration to be in front of what i know by "thousand-times confirmed" experience to "not work against trained and competent players" isn't an excuse, especially if i lack the patience to calmly explain, and with in-depth reasoning, how one may reach the same conclusions.

      However, if you are not in an alliance and not from the competitive scene, please don't lock yourselves in what you would understand as a "counter meta" to fight against what you would see as a monolithic "meta" imagined by a few fools.
      Meta is a living thing shared collectively, and you can easily make it your own even for public games. After all, "Meta" is just a short word simple enough to use to include every single methodology or effort made by individuals (or groups of individuals) to become more proficient all round at the said game, with an absolute universal rule shared by all proficient players : Analyse, Adapt, and overcome.

      I'll let those who want to disagree to have a brawl :D
      100% agree with everything you are saying here. There certainly is a "meta," per se, but not a definitive one, which is the beauty of this game. There isn't a true meta in the sense that one, two, three, or four strategies dominate, but there is a meta deciding if tech is considered good and bad. For example, my thread on airborne infantry vs mobilized infantry is a perfect example of a community agreeing that "X > Y, and in almost every situation, X>Y." But what the math in-game can't predict is human ingenuity, and neither can the idea of "meta" define it.

      Players have the ability to think outside the box and challenge current standing beliefs because the game allows for it. There are probably 1000 ways to position yourself against an opponent, and 1000 different ways to succeed in any attack. But it requires thinking and planning. Even against really good players, you as the player have the perfect opportunity to catch someone with their pants down if you use your tools wisely. So in some cases, if you plan right, "X<Y."

      Meta shouldn't limit the creativity of players. People should always be theory-crafting and pushing certain ideas to the brink. The Uk in WW2 didn't go "well, Blitzkrieg is meta, so we can't beat it." They actively thought out these concepts and challenged beliefs. And as this game continues to add in troops and nerf/buff variables, the meta will continue to evolve to empower the player, not the game.
    • StopThereCowboy wrote:

      Opulon wrote:

      Hello, i am doing this thread after several things have been written and got me thinking.
      forum.conflictnations.com/inde…e-challenge-matches-like/

      If you're new to strategy games, and to competitive games, what is often reffered by "Meta" needs to be defined. A lot of definitions exist, here is mine, for what it's worth :

      Meta is the intellectual quest, through mathematical/statistical/operational studies, of a deep understanding of the systems of the game and its environment. The aim of such quest is to be able to interiorise so deeply those studies that one individual becomes able to formulate, in any given context, viable and sensible options for strategies, behaviours, and conduct, while trying to improve them continuously by trying to "overcome them". Consequently, the role of meta-studies in a community can be narrowed down to "Most optimised ways to win a battle/war/map", and if we go even deeper "How to win against people that use themselves the most optimised way to win".

      ================

      Meta is a living thing, in the meaning that it is fed by a lot of things :

      1°) Updates : When they change anything, be it cost, or damage, or time of production, it's a tremendous occasion because it creates a lot of thing to change in the excels, and to study. Sometimes, even what seems like small changes are a change of paradigm for several contexts.

      2°) Strategical trends : Meta being a living thing, it shouldn't be surprising that it counters itself continuously, one way or another, within a iterative process that is very close to how an AI neural network would work, except it's done by humans, of course.

      3°) Different Situations : A bit like speedruns, you can imagine a meta for nearly anything that is interested in dwelling in it with you. "Winning a X4 map while not logging after 6pm" can be a topic of meta-studies, if it's what rocks your cradle.


      ================

      In the current state of things, meta is mostly studied within alliances for challenges (all types of challenges and maps related to them), because they are the most noticable hubs of active players, that also seek for difficulty (= to get their bottom kicked so they can train harder), and a lot of alliance leaders are, as a result, deeply involved as """""scholars""""" in those pursuits, because they are related to military power, and the ability to leverage decisive action in... well, all maps. If you want a "scale", you can consider that it represents approximately 1 000 active players, from various nationalities, gathered throughout the current ~40 "countries" of the game.

      Public games meta is less studied because a lot of us have a hard time to find long term fun on those maps : There always has been a general problem of inactivity and general incompetence in the community. The consensus is that in public games, you can make nearly everything work, even the most nonsensical things. It's problematic to meta-studies because they require constant refutation on the field.

      The rock beats the scissors.
      The scissors beats the paper
      The paper beats the rock.
      The Electrified rock beats paper.
      The Armored Scissors beats rock
      The quantum paper beats the scissors.
      The electrified densified Rock beats the armored scissors
      The Armored Graviton Scissors beats the Quantum paper
      The Quantum Razor-sharp beats the Electrified Densified Rock.
      And so on...

      Problem is, in public games, you often "fall short" because "rock beats scissors, but due to how rock is badly used by most of player, you'll win anyway with scissors".

      So, there is a bit of a hasty shortcut made when the competitive population (to which i belong too) claims something is "meta" and something isn't.

      Corvette isn't meta because it's difficult to argue the unit is awful for all general roles. In challenges, we tried VERY hard to make it work, and well, just no. The tech line in itself is awful for the cost, and it tends to blow my mind the unit hasn't be overhauled.

      However, in the Nelva (my alliance) wiki aimed at teaching the basics to our young players, it also actually advise to consider the Corvette in the early days of public games for exposed naval countries, to protect efficienctly and cheaply from incredibly common "early rushes from the sea".

      The good example of it being Korea. Early Rush by Japan is so common it nearly has got its own page on tvtropes.org

      Ability to study those kind of behaviours, situations, and implications, are part of what may call meta-studies.

      ================

      There has been some tensions in some channels (be it discord or forums), with people presenting meta, consciously or not, as "well, you play meta or you are not relevant". And of course, the others defending themselves with an equal amount of pride.

      This is what i call "Gatekeeping". The Urban dictionary has a definition i like about it :

      "When someone uses a hobby or interest as a mean of elevating themselves above others to give oneself a sense of being superior transforming their passion or knowledge about a particular subject into an ugly tool of self-inflation."

      Now, of course, i can't speak as a representative of competitive players, nor alliances. I can only express my opinion as an individual, but i do remain the leader of my own alliance, which owns its share of influence and presence within the community :

      Gatekeeping is contradictory to the very concept of an alliance, and more largely, to how we want to act and to introduce newcomers to the competitive world or the healthy fair play and sports values that get conveyed through this kind of practice. I do apologise myself for the topics where, in one way or another, my words were counter-productive in that matter. Even the frustration to be in front of what i know by "thousand-times confirmed" experience to "not work against trained and competent players" isn't an excuse, especially if i lack the patience to calmly explain, and with in-depth reasoning, how one may reach the same conclusions.

      However, if you are not in an alliance and not from the competitive scene, please don't lock yourselves in what you would understand as a "counter meta" to fight against what you would see as a monolithic "meta" imagined by a few fools.
      Meta is a living thing shared collectively, and you can easily make it your own even for public games. After all, "Meta" is just a short word simple enough to use to include every single methodology or effort made by individuals (or groups of individuals) to become more proficient all round at the said game, with an absolute universal rule shared by all proficient players : Analyse, Adapt, and overcome.

      I'll let those who want to disagree to have a brawl :D
      100% agree with everything you are saying here. There certainly is a "meta," per se, but not a definitive one, which is the beauty of this game. There isn't a true meta in the sense that one, two, three, or four strategies dominate, but there is a meta deciding if tech is considered good and bad. For example, my thread on airborne infantry vs mobilized infantry is a perfect example of a community agreeing that "X > Y, and in almost every situation, X>Y." But what the math in-game can't predict is human ingenuity, and neither can the idea of "meta" define it.
      Players have the ability to think outside the box and challenge current standing beliefs because the game allows for it. There are probably 1000 ways to position yourself against an opponent, and 1000 different ways to succeed in any attack. But it requires thinking and planning. Even against really good players, you as the player have the perfect opportunity to catch someone with their pants down if you use your tools wisely. So in some cases, if you plan right, "X<Y."

      Meta shouldn't limit the creativity of players. People should always be theory-crafting and pushing certain ideas to the brink. The Uk in WW2 didn't go "well, Blitzkrieg is meta, so we can't beat it." They actively thought out these concepts and challenged beliefs. And as this game continues to add in troops and nerf/buff variables, the meta will continue to evolve to empower the player, not the game.
      I didn't see your whole post cuz im too lazy to read lol... I agree with you in the second paragraph, there are many different playing styles out there, and we don't know if they will work or not unless we try them out ourselves.

      P.S. (I'm already taken)
      "CoN is a game of 80% skill and 20% luck" - Tifo_14

      "I don't get paid enough to do anything" - Germanico

      Nothing stops the Tifo :thumbup: