This is a very difficult answer for me to nail down, personally. Meta is meta; it is what it is. To that point, we can all sit around pondering the best responses to trends and FoTM decks, but the deeper problem is just that - responses; reactive gameplay. “Use more dispels, use more provoke,” and while that may help win a few games in the short term, we are left with fewer chances to expand deck variance.
There are certainly smarter folks than I who have devoted a lot more time to the study of gaming, but I believe a core problem here is proactive vs. reactive, especially in a game where turns are strictly divided between two players. Inherently, this separation is not in and of itself the cause of inequality, but I see disturbing trends in this game. The meta itself is being pushed and influenced more by card/faction design and less by player creativity. Now, that is likely because the game is still relatively young and the card pool is still small. I can certainly understand this not the only reason, but it is a pretty significant one right now. And that’s where we are; right now.
This game has become more fun for some and less fun for many others, depending on whether you want to run the more competitive “proactive” meta netdecks or the less fun “reactive” decks. Of course, that is not necessarily always the case; anti-meta or anti-FoTM decks can have an element of gratification when played against the intended target decks. However good it may make the player feel when winning with reactive decks is not really outweighed by the fact that the contents of said “anti” decks are almost always going to prove ineffective in the larger game. So, we are given the option to build highly tuned faction decks with a few neutrals sprinkled throughout. In this particular season, Songhai seems to have the upper hand in the proactive meta. Every faction is supposed to have an Achilles Heel; that is indeed the whole point in having factions is the first place. Also, every faction is supposed to have a chance to win with a highly tuned deck of its own. This is where RNG factors in with the draw and, of course, RNG effects with certain cards. But when a game is as concentrated on winning and rewarding winners as this one seems to be, the lack in balance becomes glaring. How exactly does a player have fun using all of his or her card pool when it will only net them a 15% win rate when non-standard, non-meta cards are used. What is the point in having a card pool at all? Just give everyone the same deck and pray to the RNGod of the Draw. The current flavor Songhai deck (Double or Triple Baconator…love that name!) is the epitome of proactive. There is very little concern for moves and counter moves when the combo is that lethal and that consistent. And as I stated before, the only answer given by most seems to be “more provoke, more heal, more dispel.” Or, I as I would put it, be more reactive. A deck of only answers provides no questions.
Ugh, how much more can I say about this? Oh, right…back to disturbing trends.
Certain faction synergies are being tuned so hard that it becomes impracticable (near impossible) to use any other cards if you want to win more games than you lose. In the same vein, synergies are being made to quicken the pace of the game, which is one of the main selling points of the game, as we all know. This ain’t family game night with Monopoly or Risk. In the current state of Duelyst, you play meta if you want to win because there aren’t any other game modes that offer any alternative, creative, and diverse playstyles besides Gauntlet, and I would argue that Gauntlet barely qualifies right now because of the small card pool.
I’m sorry about the wall of text, but I’m tired. It’s not much and I guess I could type more - flesh out these thoughts better - but I think I’ve given enough to at least start some other discussions. If you read all of this, you are to be commended.
