Which Maps to Retire?

[Harti]

There is no exact metagame in terms of units because you'll always have to keep building units that are useful against your opponent's formation. There are formations of units that tend to be metagame-ish though because we see them daily and have a hard time countering them.

Like a blob of three or four 4HP Soldiers, for instance. I guess they pretty much decide a fair share of games on Glitch, Sweetie Plains, Peekaboo and Sharkfood Island once the unit count is down to just a few units.

But I don't want to derail the topic even further, I guess the metagame discussion should take place in another thread and not in the one to vote maps out... just saying.

[CombatEX]

(02-06-2013 08:00 AM)Necrocat219 Wrote:  I forgot about the mobi rush, however in that case thats a 'bad' metagame. In a turn based game, unlike a RTS game you have a 50:50 chance of correctly countering your opponent, if you fail to counter one, they are guaranteed a win, fail the other you wasted one wit with your runner and are slightly behind, making it the map with the largest luck element involved. I still think it should be modified

I really feel that this game would suffer and does not need a metagame like all those real time strategy games, much like other board games such as chess and hero academy don't have metagames but instead different openings with similar themes (although having to learn the openings off by heart is a pain). In LoL, DotA and HoN they are designed to have RPS formats, they all have team selection in order to have mind games in order to see who can choose the better set up and to suit each players strengths and the laning and jungle setup allows for a lot of variables to create a (successful?) metagame (League of Legends is the only one I've played and half of champions are unplayable in top level play).

I don't much like the idea of a metagame either, but in a game with limited information like Outwitters, it is unavoidable. Chess and Hero Academy provide complete vision so it is different. That being said, I do agree with you that we don't "need" one and also that I don't particularly like it. But it's not as though we are deciding on whether or not Outwitters should have one, rather, it's something that is inherent due to FoW. The longer we play on the same maps and the more they are "figured out", the more we will approach RTS-like metagaming. I guess that's an argument against keeping maps for a long time and a reason to switch them out more frequently.

[Necrocat219]

I'm not sure it is so different from chess, sure there are uncertainties but with each opening you know exactly what each uncertainty is and so can play accordingly. Nice to know that you wouldn't want one to - but wait- wouldn't switching maps out encourage a metagame to develop? Isn't metagaming adapting your strategies to game and player attitude changes?

[worldfamous]

Maybe one of us is misunderstanding "meta game". I see it as inherent in a game like this and it's a good thing. Evolving strategies and players are what keeps it interesting. When the meta game stops progressing, the game gets stale. The recent rule change acted as sort of a reset of the meta game, and renewed my interest in the process. The same thing occurs with the addition of new teams and maps.

[The RawkHawk]

Personally I would be more interested in making modifications to maps rather than removing them entirely. The more maps the better.
Reaper - for instance - could use an update to improve variety of play.

[GreatGonzales]

Interesting to compare the results of this poll to this one. Not sure it tells us much of anything, but still interesting.

[Jacrdr]

I want to keep foundry. It's a pretty fun level.

[HollowKisame]

Idea! Why not make a different version of the maps. For example, by adding modifications like many want on reaper, then calling it reaper 2?

---

I will not vote until the time comes for it to be needed. Nd nd bout my idea, still switch it out if ppl want.

[ImperialSun]

I really think the part about retired maps still being available for friendlies should be in bold for people who don't like reading (which seems to be most people online... Just look at the winter World Cup registration for example). Also the poll option should have been "Don't remove any maps from league play."

---

(02-06-2013 01:26 PM)worldfamous Wrote:  Maybe one of us is misunderstanding "meta game". I see it as inherent in a game like this and it's a good thing. Evolving strategies and players are what keeps it interesting. When the meta game stops progressing, the game gets stale. The recent rule change acted as sort of a reset of the meta game, and renewed my interest in the process. The same thing occurs with the addition of new teams and maps.

Yes this is what CombatEX was saying, its not a choice of having a metagame, it is inherent in this game since there is fog unlike chess. Also, about disliking it and necrocats "bad metagame" I do agree with them that things like the reaper rush is annoying having to predict. Falsely doing so will either put you behind from the start or cause a loss. But there is good metagame too. If you know a particular team always tries a certain strategy midgame (or a defensive early game strategy) because it is strong you can try to use that to your advantage like worldfamous says. I don't know if this is actually viable, but on CCM for example a scally and adorable team will almost always spend the first few turns to put a bombshell in front of the middle base unless they are rushing. Maybe you can just forgo your own and rush a mobi to attack the top instead. Again, this particular case might not work, but this kind of thing surely exists elsewhere and will happen more often as people figure out good strategies and then counter strategies.

[nawtyd0g]

How about a vote for the 2v2 maps... Some could use rework