Firstly, for anyone not familiar with me, I'm a full-on casual player on PC. I generally don't take the game too seriously, and I've never said that I'm a great player. However, that doesn't mean I don't want to do my best, no matter if it's an unbalanced solo-queue Assault match, or a Conquest match with clan-mates (which, by the way, includes SF regulars such as DucksRock, ThePerfectPrism, Zilby, GameGeekFan, Bullfrog323, and others). If you're curious, you can view my records on SmiteGuru, here.
Part of doing my best is trying to be aware, and of playing intelligently (e.g. not diving when I know it's unlikely to end in my favor). This is extremely variable, as it is affected by things such as the quality of teammates' and enemy's plays and skill level, the composition of gods, etc. In a way, I have little control over some of these things.
The other part of doing my best is the effort I've put into understanding the game and mechanics as much as possible. Some of the things I've learned here, I've tried to share in my guides. They include not only general knowledge and strategy, but also of practice and familiarity with gods and items, how items synergize together and with specific gods, etc. These are all things I absolutely have control over, though some of these (becoming intimately familiar with gods, for example) only come with time.
The Meta
And that sort of leads into the main topic...the Meta. The following definition is taken from Smite Academy:
Meta. Metagame. The game’s current conventions or playstyle, pertaining to such aspects as lane setup and jungling, starting positions and openings, character choice and team composition, itemization and build order.
More than anything, the Meta is determined by the preferences and tendencies of the pros. And why not? They play way more than us, probably research things way more than us, and their skill levels blow us (or at least me) away. In many ways, tailoring your game after the Meta is a good way to give yourself a solid base from multiple standpoints.
From my perspective, the problem the community has with the Meta stems from those who blindly follow the Meta, without really understanding the details behind the builds, or the compositions, or whatever. Those are the people that just look at builds, and if you're not building like they know you should, then you suck, or you know $#!+, and it gives them full rights to BM you even if they're doing worse themselves. You love those people, don't you?
| And this leads to people who hear the word "Meta" and do this: |
|
In these cases, people sometimes take it to the other extreme, by feeling the need to deviate from the Meta, BECAUSE. If the individual building or writing a guide has a good understanding of the game and mechanics, it can sometimes lead to a functional, viable build, at least in situational circumstances. Other times, it can turn into a horrible mess (and then we hear about it on Reddit, lol).
This aversion to the Meta isn't really a logical thing...my guess is that it likely stems from an individual's need to be unique, or from their bitterness toward those blind Meta followers. And that's where we really should think about 2 things:
- The Meta can teach us or otherwise help us understand some fundamentals.
- We don't always have to follow the Meta, but changes still should be based on a solid understanding of said fundamentals.
Variables
In the end, the mechanics of this game are set in code. The players, and the many choices we are given, create the variability within each match. And that is one of the fundamental things we need to remember.
- What may work in one match isn't guaranteed to work in the next. Even if it works 5 times in a row, it doesn't mean it's an OMGl33t build. Same goes the other way. Sometimes, you need to learn the strengths of a specific build, and tailor your game to take advantage of that. It can take time.
- Casual matches generally allow for much more experimentation, with a higher potential level of success.
- The PC platform has a longer history with MOBA games. It also provides a higher potential level of gameplay, due to precision controls (mouse) and a quicker, more flexible method of concise communication/purchasing/etc. (keyboard). The influx of console players has lead to a shift in the community, and from what we're finding, you can get away with a LOT more on console than PC. With regard to builds, this has also lead to a greater amount of sometimes questionable builds that would have a harder time working on PC. (This isn't meant to be a knock on console players.) And who knows? Maybe in some cases, builds considered solid on PC might lose out to a unique build on console.
What's my point here? Well, I'm not really sure, but I'd rehash that it's best to keep an open mind, as there is always something else we can learn, and not everything we think is right is ALWAYS that way. We also want to keep this community going, so being positive when we can, and avoiding toxicity when possible, is the best way to create the best experience we possibly can.
Thoughts, comments, and sharing personal viewpoints is welcomed!
Game on.
the big problem in Smite is first of all, the diffrence in game modes. for example, the difference in game modes.
the problem with that statement is that it's hard to know what your talking about. are you talking about the way
or are you talking about
i feel like the second example is a better one for this, because
this is a good statememnt, ii'l be fine if you pick
You and Zilby and others show that, at least in casuals, you can make anyone work, if you play them well. So I guess I should be more specific...as in other responses in this blog, I'm clarifying that I'm talking about builds and whatnot, more than other things. Though, besides a few select gods, most gods are somewhat viable, meaning they won't automatically lose if you pick them.
Secondly, I have to disagree with somethings you say.
I may be REALLY Specific with this, but there are SOME gods in which you can't deviate from a "This build is blessed by every god that has ever existed and it works just amazingly it would only be better if we had a 7th item".
Actually, scratch that.
ALL the gods HAVE A "THIS IS BLESSED AND NEEDS TO BE REPRODUCED EVERY GAME EVER". It's what ALL OF US GUIDE MAKERS DO. It's called "CORE ITEMS".
Core Items are items in which you cannot deny, must be in a build in order for that particular god to work in the particular you want. E.g. :
When you think about it, you might get items to diverse and adapt to the matches, but you always have a core, a preference you always want it to be the same, ideally. Therefore, it is impossible to build completely differently from a match to the other.
I think a good example for this are mastery X players. They always build the same items until like the 5th and THEN they start to rotate a bit on "What do I really need". Which is considerably late in the game, but they're so used to the god they already know how it's the best way to play him/her.
But yeah, this was just a really weird rant/take on the First Topic in the Variables section -q
I do want to clarify, though, that I'm not talking about absolutely completely different builds than standard. For example I don't mean for someone to build CDR Artemis. What I am referring to is a deviation of some type from a standard build that is at least somewhat different.
First you talk about the meta, and how some people follow it blindly and others deviate from it that much they make "bad" builds.
Then you proceed with talking about how Console and PC builds aren't alike due to controls and accessibility of the 2.
And lastly you talk about the community and avoiding toxicity.
Sooo, can you quickly summarize the points you're trying to get across here for me?
Not to be mean, you know that while you love to talk alot, I usually enjoy simpler explanations. :P
Regarding that Meta, part was a rant on those that just blindly follow without any further thought. The other part was more what I wanted to get across. Basically, I love that people want to write guides, want to help others, etc., whether it's here, or on Reddit, or wherever. But in trying to help people, it's also important to have a basic understanding of WHY you want to build a certain way...whether you follow the Meta or not, we don't want to lead newer players astray. If you deviate from the Meta (which is perfectly fine! that's not the point), don't just throw out
Same idea goes toward basic attackers vs. ability-reliant gods...not saying it's always bad to build
With regard to toxicity and whatnot, it's just something where, in game, on this site, whatever, I always appreciate when people give feedback without saying horribly mean things "this build sucks" or when people get comments criticizing the build, that they also lash out. Constructive criticism is great, promotes discussion and learning, etc. And explaining your point of view rather than just "this isn't a good build" can really help increase understanding, as long as people are willing to listen. I mean, just look at some of my guides, and the comments there...I've had to learn a lot, I'm still learning a lot, but I always try to respond and learn from different points of view.
In the end, it's just stream of consciousness, and if you had anything to say on any of it, I wanted to hear your own thoughts. Sorry that it wasn't a more concise post. Too long, again? =P
"Bad" builds not only make new players get astray and with wrong builds, it also "pollutes" the reputation of sites like these.
Unfortunately I doubt that many of the people that make these builds will read your obviously correct statement(s), let alone follow them.
Really the only way to "teach" these people their builds are bad is to simply remove their posts/prevent them from making those posts in the first place, but that's just mean, and youknow, freedom of speech and all.
Just know that I'm 100% with you on this one.