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
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
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.