Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

GO TO BOARDS


You DON'T need the current game meta to win

123
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TrueSkillz

Recruiter

02-07-2013

i was playing a team ranked 5v5 we had a legit comp and they all went mid and tried to push for a fast tower. we defended 3v5 mid and let top and bot farm and we even got first blood in mid. we ended up destroying them.

Winning Team
38 Kills
57 Assists
49.4k Gold
523 Minions
18 Wards
8 Structures

Losing Team
10 Kills
17 Assists
33.9k Gold
423 Minions
11 Wards
5 Structures


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Cynical Rain

Member

02-07-2013

Quote:
TrueSkillz:
there are alot of factors that go into winning and losing.

the meta is there for a reason because that is the best way to play.

Pro's spend more time then anyone playing this game and they have sound logic why you play this way.

you have to take into account the skill gap between players that your playing with. the pros pretty close to skill level and are really the only people that can test out new things for a meta. just because i can stomp my friend in a game with a dumb pick does not make it a good pick. just mean im a better player

not trying to dis you but you are in bronze league and i know from experience they are really bad people down there.


You, like most other people fail to realize a very important fact.

The "meta" is the most efficient way of playing possible for "pros".

This assumes you play like "pros" - ie. very high cs, mid-lane ganking a lot, bot-lane going for dragon a lot, both sides of the teams having equal "skill" meaning that there will never be a situation where you'll go in for a kill 1v1 etc.

Most of these things don't occur for most players, and as such, at different levels of skill, different "metas" should be used. This is why "metas" which don't fit the current "meta" work. It works best at that particular skill-level.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Míley Dyrus

Senior Member

02-07-2013

You don't "need" anything, but there is an optimal setup, and most people don't want to go into a game with a lower chance of winnin


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

OriginalJack

Senior Member

02-07-2013

Quote:
Cynical Rain:
Most of these things don't occur for most players, and as such, at different levels of skill, different "metas" should be used. This is why "metas" which don't fit the current "meta" work. It works best at that particular skill-level.

So what you're saying is that to beat bads you should use sub-optimal strats? That doesn't make sense. Why can't i just beat them using the optimal strat?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Panzerfaust

Emissary of the League

02-08-2013

Okay guys, let's just settle down, shall we? >.>

Using the meta is fine, good even. Forcing the meta is where things fall short. You shouldn't be playing X just to fit the meta when you have no idea how to use them.

The meta exists to give a semblance of coordination to strangers, or when you don't feel like doing massive strategizing beforehand. The meta is what it is because it works. It won't necessarily be optimal in every situation, but it will never be straight out bad. On the other hand, things like multi-jungle (which while can be fun in a premade, isn't something to do with randoms) tend to flop rather hard. The problem lies with the fact that while there are benefits to be gained from them, they require coordination from those who understand how to make the best use of the strategy, something you can't rely on randomly queued players to have.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Cynical Rain

Member

02-08-2013

Quote:
OriginalJack:
So what you're saying is that to beat bads you should use sub-optimal strats? That doesn't make sense. Why can't i just beat them using the optimal strat?


Sub-Optimal? Optimal?

Explain to me clearly why the current "meta" (The role distribution aspect of it - ignoring itemization and other things) exists the way it does.

1. Why "should" a "bruiser" top-lane and not mid or bot?
2. Why is top-lane a solo lane?
3. Why "should" an AP carry (bruisers nowadays) be mid-lane and not top or bot?
4. Why is mid-lane a solo lane?
5. Why is there a support role?
6. Why is support/AD carry bot-lane and not top or mid?
7. Why is bot a duo lane?
8. Why is there only 1 carry?

Most players would have an (at-least somewhat articulate) answer to this.

If you're one of them - talking about "optimal", then explain to me the reasons for these things and then tell me sincerely how many times these reasons have actually impacted your games. Many times people don't take advantage of the "meta" since they simply can't.

As for what was said by the official looking post, 2 jungles may not work well with random groups, but 2 top works just fine. A party with duo top and a party with a jungler would be relatively equal at most peoples' skill levels. At higher levels of play, sure the jungler team would be at an advantage.

Blind obedience to a "meta" is idiotic. It may be the "best possible _x _y_z", however that only applies when every single freakin' person playing understands it perfectly, and can play perfectly, and WILL never face a situation where he can even think of taking down the opponent 1v1. Each person will have incredibly high cs. Midlane will take every single advantage of midlane, bot with bot and top with top.

THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN MOST GAMES.

It doesn't in mine, and seeing so many QQ threads about peoples' ranks, I'm sure it doesn't in theirs either. I'm not a very good league player, but "meta-games" are all theory-craft, so what I say has merit. If you understand this "meta", then you'll clearly see that the advantages it provides WILL NOT be used effectively in most games, as such, if people can come up with their own "Metas" which they can use most effectively, its for the best.

Edit: I didn't answer the question I quoted.

Yes, to beat "bads", you should use what you think is a "sub optimal" strategy. This is because - against "bads", using a supposedly "optimal" strategy simply wastes time. Its as if you delay a chess game for hours against an opponent who would lose to Scholar's mate. CLEARLY, against a "bad", Scholar's mate is THE MOST "OPTIMAL" strategy. "Optimal" changes depending on peoples' skill levels. You should stop over-estimating/under-estimating your own/others' ability. If you think you're using this "meta" to its full extent (optimal condition), then you're saying you play like "pros" - Over-estimation. Conversely, if you're facing "bads", why would you intentionally over-estimate them and play as you usually would? Why not decimate with a strategy which would be sub-optimal against good players but optimal against "bad" ones?

The relativity in the word "optimal" should be kept in mind, and people should understand that what the "pros" do isn't what everyone can/should do.

The funny thing is, when a "pro" uses a build or a character which is strange in accordance to the "meta", people post messages saying "Omg Just saw a player doing ______. He saw ("pro" player) do it, and now he's trying it. STOP TRYING IT".

So people agree that what "pros" can do isn't what the average gamer can do. Yet they disagree on "meta" issues. This is completely contradictory and hilarious.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ZioticX

Senior Member

02-08-2013

Atleast Cynical and Panzerfaust see where I'm getting at.

This "meta" was developed my the pro's and once everyone see's something done by the pro's they decide to follow it (usually correct) and don't know how to adapt.

The second they see something out of the meta they panick and usually fall easily. There is a big level in skill deference from the pro's and to us. Only cynical seems to get that though. I guess you don't get much intelligence from the forums after all.

I'm not saying the meta is a BAD thing to do. I'm saying it's not the ONLY thing to do for maximum pressure on lanes and or being able to push turrets etc etc.

Quote:
Panzerfaust:
Okay guys, let's just settle down, shall we? >.>

Using the meta is fine, good even. Forcing the meta is where things fall short. You shouldn't be playing X just to fit the meta when you have no idea how to use them.


Exactly! Just like being a jungler prior to Lv. 30 without tier 3 runes. If you don't know how to do it correctly you will just make your team fall behind. Why are only 2/50 people getting this?

Quote:
Panzerfaust:
On the other hand, things like multi-jungle (which while can be fun in a premade, isn't something to do with randoms) tend to flop rather hard. The problem lies with the fact that while there are benefits to be gained from them, they require coordination from those who understand how to make the best use of the strategy, something you can't rely on randomly queued players to have.


Funny thing is this was with randoms haha. We had a mix-up in champion selection but we decided to let it go through anyway.

In the end all solo lanes got a ton of farm easily and the ganks left and right led us to victory. This wasn't the usual meta but it worked flawlessly.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Maleke

Member

02-08-2013

In the end, any organized strategy will work. If you get a group of guys together and agree on a game plan you can usually pull it off. In fact I believe that is the process by which the meta game came about. At first everyone was just trying stuff. Then, slowly, the most efficient, effective method came into being. This is the standard 2-1-1-J Meta.

-Maleke


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

ZioticX

Senior Member

02-08-2013

Quote:
Maleke:
In the end, any organized strategy will work. If you get a group of guys together and agree on a game plan you can usually pull it off. In fact I believe that is the process by which the meta game came about. At first everyone was just trying stuff. Then, slowly, the most efficient, effective method came into being. This is the standard 2-1-1-J Meta.

-Maleke


Yup. You are correct. And who knows maybe soon a new meta will arise.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

OhBoyItsaMegaman

Senior Member

02-08-2013

Quote:
ZioticX:
Atleast Cynical and Panzerfaust see where I'm getting at.

This "meta" was developed my the pro's and once everyone see's something done by the pro's they decide to follow it (usually correct) and don't know how to adapt.

The second they see something out of the meta they panick and usually fall easily. There is a big level in skill deference from the pro's and to us. Only cynical seems to get that though. I guess you don't get much intelligence from the forums after all.


"People who disagree with me must have misunderstood my point" is one of the most obnoxious arguments you can make. "People who disagree with me must be stupid" is another. Please how to participate in a mature discussion.

What is it about League of Legends that makes people "panick and usually fall easily" once they see something out of the meta? Why can't you do the same thing at a local Smash Bros tournament, or Magic the Gathering, or Scrabble, or basketball? Or do you honestly believe that amateurs across multiple kinds of games are all easily beatable as long as you surprise them?


123