So I'm listening to the SHNN at work today (I wasn't on last night, I had a date), and Jim brings up a comment that a player at his regional said. Specifically he was talking about how much variety there is in the types of squads that are not just being played at regionals but WINNING regionals (he starts talking about it just after the 1:18:00 mark). In the past there have just been a few "good" or "best" squad types, but now it looks like there are tons of 'em. There was concern, though, that there are actually too many.

At first, I thought "How could this be bad? More variety is great! Parity between the factions is what we strive for!", but there is an interesting thought process behind this. It makes meta gaming (which is very important for trying to win a big tournament like a regional or Gencon) very difficult. It's really kind of a pain in the butt to try to figure out what other people are going to play, much more so than in the past.

Before I continue, lets define "meta gaming" for this conversation. I generally consider it the thought process behind squad design and strategies based on what you expect other people's squad designs and strategies are. Playing an Evade-heavy team because you know many of your opponents are playing shooter-heavy teams is meta gaming. Not playing commander-heavy squads because you know you'll have to play against a lot of Disruptive or Bastila squads is meta gaming.

Sometimes meta gaming can be easy. If the only things that are getting played a lot are Lancer, Solo Charge, and Yobuck, it's a lot easier to figure out how to counter those things. But this regional season LOTS of different stuff has been played. An OR squad won in Kentucky, but no OR squads were even played in PA! This makes meta gaming much harder; possibly frustratingly difficult. I know that I've put a lot of thought into the meta, and I couldn't tell you what you're most likely to see at a regional. I'd say that Bastila is a good bet, but I'd be totally wrong in PA, so what do I know?

Do people think this is a problem? Yeah, it's really annoying, and it's a pain that you can meta game and just be totally wrong when you get to a regional, but is that really a bad thing? I'm not totally sure what my answer is. I think that it definitely has good parts; you can play any kind of squad and at least have a chance it seems. That's awesome! But like I said, it can be frustrating because it means you can get totally blindsided by seeing something you'd never dream of playing against. The counter to that, though, is that the best players are less likely to be blindsided like that, because they'll see more options. This might just be making a bigger gap between the best players and the rest.


What do you guys think? Is this a problem? Does this create a larger barrier for entry into the competitive scene, making it harder for new players to get involved? I don't really know, so tell me what you guys think. I'll probably talk about this a little more on the SHNN next week (Thursdays at 10:30 EST) but I wanted to get some other views on it before hand.

I'm glad that was your takeaway.

As a mediocre player, I don't see a problem. I think it's all relative. If it is really a struggle to peg the meta, then there just isn't a "meta" to speak of. The variety of maps is also a factor. The game is fresh again!

The focus has shifted away from trying to plan in great detail for specific squad match ups to finding something solid (and maybe a bit unusual) and learning how to wring every last drop out of it.

With less variety in good squads, the stronger players probably have more of an advantage, not the other way around.

There is no substitute for well-executed tactics. I doubt my regional squad could have held out against the squads I faced, but in hindsight, I'm sure that those games could have been pretty close if I had played smarter. I'll just have to learn to play smarter.

It's good that we have variety, lots of different things can be played competitively, this does make it more complicated and frustrating to figure out what squads will do good however. I will say though that a majority of what it comes down to right now is the players skill/match ups/map roll. It's closer to rock-paper-scissors then I'd personally like it to be but I do like that somethings can be played and win that we would've never seen or expected before rather then having the same old stuff every single time. It does make the game more interesting and fun, frustrating at times yes, but still fun. :) and kind of like Kez said, building squads around your own personal play style is great, much better then just building what you know will do well IMO.

See, I don't see it as a problem. Attempting to find the balance is nearly impossible. With the open endness, it makes meta calls and playskill more important. I would rather have this than original GOWK era boringness.

And I don't see the paper,scissor,rock as too bad. There are very few autolosses in this game. Yes, there is tough matchups, but that's where the good players shine.