Is the meta at its worst state ever?

So your "solutuion’ is to release more META teams better than fixing the current META teams?

We don’t plan to introduce more META teams, we are just hoping to introduce more options for players that they enjoy using in the game.


Sometimes it can be very difficult to balance the META teams without making certain troops useless and inevitably another META team will take it’s place so adding a larger amount of possible teams makes it more balanced and make it so there are more team combos to use.


Even if these options/troops create a new horrible META?
I can imagine how a low level player enjoys playing with Wisp, crushing high level players with it.

I was talking about that:

Is it a bad thing or a good one?

1 Like

@Namick nailed it!


As long as each meta team has an Achilles heel, then there is a solution to beat it. We have enough troop variety to build teams to combat specific metas. Obviously it’s harder to do with a mono color team. Just look at each meta team’s strength, then build to exploit it’s weakness. Eg: freeze stops loops, entangle stops skull smashes, impervious stops devour.

To devs, it would nice to have an ability to protect against mana drain :blush:

You have 2 ways to deal with META:

  • release OP troops to create new META teams so on, there will be more META teams so on, more diversity
  • nerf the OP troops so on, the META teams are not META ones anymore and so on, new teams will be in the META. Diversity will depend of the new level of METAness

I believe that the 2nd solution reduces the difference between META and not-META teams.

I agree for the “became useless” Bone Dragon was one of the victim. But for Wisp there are so much possibilities without killing the troop. At least increase his mana cost to 12…

1 Like

I really think it’s impossible to have a competitive ‘construction’ game like this without metas and without power creep. Every game like it has metas which come and go over time as new troops/abilities/cards get released. We just gotta work with it and work around it.


[quote=“Saltypatra, post:18, topic:30848, full:true”]
We are actually seeing more teams in the meta now. In the past we saw less differentiation in the teams faced end game (such as Courage and Bone Dragon, or Justice on console).

We still want to offer more options, so hopefully we see even more teams being used end game in the near future.

If you want to offer more options, stop printing broken cards like wisp. Trolls should be nerfed to the ground, they are a cancer to your arguable policy of ‘more options’. These two cases are so blatantly obvious and you still haven’t done anything tangible about this. There is no way the existence of these troops as they are now can be justified by arguing for not wanting to take something away from the players, because the reality is just the opposite. By allowing them to exist you destroy the fun out of the game for a vast majority of your players. Keep looking at statistics, I’m sure that tells the whole picture of the meta… how about you play like 8 hours a day for 7 days and see how the meta works out for you.

So, by your logic, more obnoxious and frustrating team comps equals a better meta?

Sorry, but “diversity of builds” is a very indirect indicator of “health”. You can have one comp that’s really fun to play and it be healthy while you can also have half a dozen and it be unhealthy. I very much believe we’re in this latter situation, and I’d love to see evidence this isn’t the case. All I see is tons of complaints about how bad the meta is and signs of a dwindling player base. Maybe the two are connected?

Hearthstone is a very clear case of this point by the way. There are a variety of viable decks, and they’ve introduced lots of new mechanics over time, but the general thrust toward speed and 5-turn wins has driven a really big bleed out.

1 Like

I’m not sure I can recall a time when the meta wasn’t described as “boring, griefing, trolling, abusive, uninspired, frustrating, unfair.” People don’t like to lose, and these are the handiest adjectives around when you are staring at the “try again” screen.

1 Like

Puzzled why this thread seems to be using META to mean strong and over-powered troops. I assume that’s not what the OP meant in asking the question.

The meta-game is the rock-paper-scissors strategy element of designing and using different teams. If certain teams are strong (or over-powered) they win more, so get used more, so emerge as dominant in the meta-game. Then counter teams emerge. Meta is the topology of possible teams and how they interact, leading to the variety (or lack of) builds people take into play.

I’m finding the meta more spread than at most times before; previously there’d be one obviously broken combo or troop that was in a huge percentage of my matches. Right now this seems spread across say five or six strong teams that the AI can use mindlessly to wipe you if RNG cascades go the wrong way.

So the meta sees greater variety right now - but I’m not saying it’s more fun. Whatever the grief team I face is, there’s only one or two builds that are really reliable to win without maximising exposure to the FU coin toss. I have no incentive to experiment or even use old builds I used to enjoy. Other teams can win, sure - but few can win with enough speed or control to do so without a risk that one troll or wisp cast sets off a chain you won’t recover from.

The meta now is more rock-paper-handgrenade. If handgrenade appears on defence, you’ve few counter and design options to work with.

TLDR: the ‘meta’ is theoretically in a better state now for variety - but in practice is steadily getting less fun.


I like trolls, at least they’re useful now. People will always complain about something but ridiculous troops like wisp should never have been released in the first place, that’s what I find baffling.

1 Like


There are/were counters to the previous meta’s (or at least it involved harder to get/trait troops so that not EVERYBODY had them).

At the moment you KNOW that if you cant power a troop by turn 2 its all over as the AI will (and does) loop you to death.

In GW you know that if AI matches red/purple on turn 1 your dead as the wisp loop starts. Only counter to this is getting lucky with starting board & filling a couple of troops first - hardly a strategic choice.


What’s worse than that is after the constant complaints about Wisp, it was later unleashed on the console players as well. Knowing full well there’s a problem with the troop.


I was utterly disappointed to see wisp released. I sometimes wonder if these guys actually play their own game anymore.


Wisp was obviously not properly tested before release. It needs just a single red or purple match to start a loop of death that can decimate a team.


I don’t think they play in one sitting as most of us do. If they did they might have a different opinion of what is visually seen and what stats the computer is giving them without the individual perspective.

One of the hard parts about meta is the ‘Stat’ individual verses overall. The more data you have the less of a problem it seems. But the fact remaining 10 people individual screaming is 10 people upset with the product.

I’ve gotten to the point where I actually made a decision last week other than GW and my troops - no more stat gathering here. It like the individual is being ignored.

For example three things the dev/Salty have said over the last month that make me now question the reason for legendary tasks) 1: There is an increase in number of players (okay - that increases amount of gold in the system). 2: There are more guilds now that are functioning (again more guilds that are active means more money in the system) 3: Folks at end game is growing (again more money) - The upper end should be tossed out since they are still a minority affecting the bell curve. More guilds functioning together instead of spending individually on chests… - again, that’s a causality, not a scientific stat.

Right now reminds me of 2005 on World of War Craft …

This will pass… or die… one of the two

1 Like

I just remind that Wisp was nerfed before release: Empowered->Swift.
So devs surely pushed the “Okay” button with the Empowered Wisp :roll_eyes:.

1 Like

When the question was asked of Wisp on the forums (after numerous threads unhappy with the troop) the response was “I’m curious, what is the Wisp team that’s giving you trouble. Happy to investigate that.”

This was three weeks ago. Wisp hasn’t been touched.

They’re out of touch with their own game, which is a shame. Problem is, if they don’t play it nor do they regularly listen to the players concerns where does that leave the game?