Recent searches
Search options
There is this problem in #gamedesign that we sometimes balance out the broken strategies which turns out to be the fun part of the game and players complain.
But broken strategy also means that if you don't play that strategy, you are "doing it wrong". I still feel that balancing is important to allow for more strategies.
Remember Hearthstone "Get in here" meta ? 
So balance is still important ... probably ? 
@ZwodahS Mhhh, I think that in this case, the most important thing when you're doing #Game #Balancing as part of #LiveOps post-playtests/release, and such a type of META has been discovered, it should be considered ?... So, keeping it as a possibility rather than killing it at the root.
This is obviously only viable if the #strategy is not game breaker (e.g. infinite loop engine), where it miiiight need a redesign. Player reaction wise, it's key to consider why people enjoy #gaming sessions.
@RwbyMoon My game is a single player game, so don't directly have the problem of meta.
However some players in my demo already broke the game with a strat that makes other strat less viable for high score chasing, so there are reason why I do want to reduce the strength of that strat and promote other strat for the full release :D
@ZwodahS ofc, but that's what I meant, nerfing it, not killing it. :p
I was talking META as in MostEfficientTacticAvailable, not the Meta-game btw (which can clearly be a thing without multiplayer gameplay ehe), but understandable position !
@RwbyMoon :D I did not know about that "META"