The reason a slower meta will always be better for viewership over a fast meta

WoonStruck·Oct 1, 2019·37 votes·13,288 views

In a fast-paced (proactive) meta , pro players are forced to play safe to avoid letting the enemy team snowball out of control, which is boring to watch. Either that or one is steam-rolling the other for 25-30 mins, which also is boring to watch.

In a slow (reactive) meta (minus mage afk waveclear), pro players are forced to make higher risk plays to get a lead, and even retain it, in order to meet their win-conditions, which usually revolve around having priority for objectives to play around forced positioning.

Proactive plays being low-risk is boring because the one making the play almost always wins.

Reactive plays are always interesting because they are always high-risk, especially since both teams are usually relatively even in slower metas.

68 Comments

Jennifer420Oct 1, 201912 votes

i mean season 5 or 6(?) was it where the average game length was 40min. and people complained about boring games and boring esports. so riot changed it.

now people complain about games that are basically decided at the 10min mark where it usually comes down to 1 person on each team + 4 ppl that do nothing but feed.

i prefered the slow meta honestly. and i hope we go back to it. but that wont happen. they'd need to nerf pretty much every bruiser and assassin and buff every tank. which is just too much lol

WoonStruckOct 1, 20193 votes

That's because Riot allowed mages to afk waveclear for so long.

Meanwhile top lane was all safe picks that traded waves, jungles afk farmed, and bot lane afk farmed.

MooooooooreDakkaOct 2, 20191 votes

I think you're wrong on the junglers afk farming part since iirc, part of why devourer/sated was left unchecked for so long was it not showing up in pro play very much due to ganking junglers being favored. I'm assuming you're still talking about season 5/6.

KovorixOct 2, 20191 votes

Maybe it is because the community isn't a hivemind. Nobody will come and say "hey so awesome nices changey yoloswag" but people come to complain.

RagnaveilOct 2, 20191 votes

{quoted} i prefered the slow meta honestly. and i hope we go back to it. but that wont happen. they'd need to nerf pretty much every ~~bruiser~~ mage and ~~assassin~~ fighter and buff every tank. which is just too much lol

Fixed the the comment to what should have been accurate.

Dorans PantsOct 2, 20195 votes

I don´t believe Riot will ever slow down the game at this point.

it´s more appealing to players who can´t perform consistently
it´s more appealing to viewers with low attention spans
it´s more appealing to players with less time
you can always sell mobility as skill-intensive even in cases where it isn´t
mobility always looks flashy and entertaining ( the allure of dangling keys )
hypermobil cancer ---> popularity ---> skin sales ---> ensured viability

In the end, the few players that would prefer slower metas are just severely outnumbered and I don´t think the pro-scene viewership is much different in that regard.

JonesybonesOct 24, 20191 votes

Right? and the OP and other trolls just downvoted the crap out of me for saying the same thing lol.

JonesybonesOct 1, 20194 votes

then explain why league has more views then dota on twitch.

WoonStruckOct 1, 201916 votes

Yes, it has nothing to do with the streamers people have been watching for years for their personalities. You're right.

Meanwhile DotA's I9 tourney had more global viewership everywhere outside of China (and I think KR), IIRC.

VerxintOct 1, 201915 votes

Not to mention DotA's competitive scene has more pick diversity, more strategy variation, and less of a skill gap between regions

JonesybonesOct 1, 20193 votes

No it doesn't. LCS always has more views then dota's competitive twitch broadcasts. Thats why i said explain dota's numbers compared to league.

JonesybonesOct 1, 20193 votes

Also looking at twitch right now, League has 114k viewers. Dota has 50k. Thats a huge and significant difference. Even Fifa is beating dota.

WoonStruckOct 1, 20197 votes

Go take a look. FIFA isn't beating DotA, for starters. Also, DotA doesn't promote itself outside of its client. It gets by by word of mouth only. DotA IS its competitive scene. It isn't really a casual game like League can be. Things have too much power and you must utilize counters.

JonesybonesOct 24, 20191 votes

actually FiFA was beating dota. I'll screenshot next time. You trogladyte. Use some logic. Apex, overwatch and TFt are all higher then DOTA in numbers right now. Like I'm not dissing DOTA as a game but the logic that slower gameplay is more attractive for streams is backwards logic. Like come on bruh, Grand theft auto 5 is beating dota right now. Fifa's viewers viewers right now is 17k while dota is only 22k.

So go ahead and downvote all you want. It makes no difference. League is more popular then dota when it comes streaming. It doesn't have to do with personality especially when you are comparing the top 5 percent of streaming.

Theres whole conversation we can have about streaming but when it comes down to viewer numbers the only reason league has more is because ppl enjoy league more. And that is just straight facts. Ok now go ahead and downvote this post kids because you think it does something lol.

FSREROct 3, 20193 votes

{quoted}

then explain why league has more views then dota on twitch.

Because Dota has done nothing to advertise themselves nor improve the quality of the game. Riot has done some very awful balancing decisions but LoL keeps changing and adding more content and has done a very good job of advertising themselves over the internet

JonesybonesOct 24, 20191 votes

I agree. 100 percent. mean while OP along with other troll kids disagree and down vote me lol.

Handy Sandy Oct 2, 20193 votes

In a slow (reactive) meta (minus mage afk waveclear), pro players are forced to make higher risk plays to get a lead, and even retain it, in order to meet their win-conditions, which usually revolve around having priority for objectives to play around forced positioning.

AFK farming until 30 minutes only to have 1 teamfight break out and then the winner just ends the game within the next 2 minutes is kinda boring.

7thHeavenOct 3, 20191 votes

Wait, the game used to be 30 mins ? Not 50 mins farming and one team lose in 1 minutes because single team fight ??

Handy Sandy Oct 3, 20191 votes

games never lasted 50 minutes, and if they did it would be really rare

KeiagaOct 1, 20192 votes

Lol that doesn't make any sense.

Do you know what a meta is and what makes it a thing in the first place?

A meta is the most efficient way of winning. If a fast-paced meta is, you know, FAST, then that means pro players(which are the people forging and discovering the meta in the first place) are forced to play in a FAST pace. That would imply doing the exact opposite you think they would do for some reason.

If the meta is slow-paced, then that means the best thing to do to win is to play safe and stall out games for 50 minutes. It would imply that early game snowballs aren't efficient for winning and every pro player would be aware of this fact and follow the SLOW META and PLAY SLOW, because THEY DEVELOP THE META IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Lmfao.

WoonStruckOct 1, 201912 votes

Do you not realize that meta is a derivative of balance, and right now the overabundant mobility, utility, and damage in the game is whats pushing this fast meta?

Its not exciting. Its watching the same shit-show over and over again. One team messes up once early and basically loses a 25 minute match over it. The only exception is when one teams draft is significantly better than the others and can win later just because they drafted better, which also isnt exciting.

Pros dont develop the meta, Riot does. The days of pros developing anything is over. Balance is too far gone for that.

Instead of giving the option of slow methodological games, Riot deleted it. Pros didnt find a better way. They had their other options removed.

The only way to play is high mobility 1 shot, and its Riot that decided that.

KeiagaOct 1, 20193 votes

Meta is not derivative of "Balance".

Meta is the Most Efficient Tactic Available.

If Riot balanced the game to make a certain type of champion the best type to pick, then the pros are going to pick it.

It has nothing to do with what's exciting. It has nothing to do with whether or not Riot did it intentionally. It has nothing to do with what other options are or are not available.

If high mobility one shot happens to be the meta, that's because pros are using it because they realized it's the most efficient tactic available to win. They're not going to just decide to do the exact opposite of what a meta entails lmao

WoonStruckOct 1, 20197 votes

{quoted}

Meta is not derivative of "Balance".

It quite literally is. The best things will always get the most attention.

Placebo buffs and nerfs wouldnt happen if this wasnt the case.

Meta is the Most Efficient Tactic Available.

No, the only idiots that think this are the ones that dont know the term "metagame".

Metagaming is using outside or prior knowledge to affect the outcome of a game.

The term was coined in D&D and other tabletops before videogames exploded, IIRC. Using knowledge your character would never naturally have, for instance.

THAT term is derived from the prefix "meta" which means beyond or transcends.

Yets4240Oct 1, 20193 votes

Meta in English means self referential, and the term META is actually an acronym that does indeed stand for Most Effective Tactic Available.

The term from ancient Greek meant denoting a position behind, after, or beyond, in one usage, or denoting something of a higher or second-order kind, in the other.

Metagaming is an example of the English usage, where it refers to trying to game a game: "The Metagame, or game about the game, is any approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game."

WoonStruckOct 2, 20193 votes

No, literally the only people that thought meta was an acronym are the people that didn't know what metagaming was. They made up the acronym because when people said "meta", they understood it though context, due to seeing and hearing it repeatedly used, but not actual meaning. They made an incorrect guess that, nonetheless, was actually applicable. While it pretty much means 'most effective tactic available', since that's what meta often turns into, that's NEVER been what it "stands" for.

It caught on because that many people are wholly unaware of the English language due to how convoluted it is as a latin, german, french, etc frankenstein language, even many native speakers. Most people involved probably have English as their second language or hadn't finished school yet.

Yets4240Oct 2, 20193 votes

META =/= Metagaming, nor are the terms actually related. If something is metagaming, its not actually possible in the game by following the rules, read the definition copied and pasted above. Its in tabletop board games where you use troll logic, or head canon shit into existence, or warp the rules to benefit you.

"The Metagame, or game about the game, is any approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game."

WoonStruckOct 2, 20193 votes

{quoted}

META =/= Metagaming, nor are the terms actually related. If something is metagaming, its not actually possible in the game by following the rules, read the definition copied and pasted above. Its in tabletop board games where you use troll logic, or head canon shit into existence, or warp the rules to benefit you.

"The Metagame, or game about the game, is any approach to a game that transcends or operates outside of the prescribed rules of the game, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game."

This is incorrect.

They're basically just talking about using outside knowledge to gain an advantage that, realistically, your character shouldn't have, considering you're roleplaying. Its an unfair advantage.

In what way does "game about the game" say "cheating" to you? It essentially just means using knowledge of the game to have an advantage. Knowledge that YOU might have, but your character doesn't, thus you shouldn't use, at least in the context of tabletops.

You're trying too hard to take it literally using select words of your choosing while ignoring what they state off the bat that makes it clear what the meaning is.

#"Game about the game" means ** all the potential strategy surrounding the game. ** Not cheating, like you're trying to make it sound.

Its like playing chess. If a pro plays against a casual, the pro is going to know so many traps that he can win in as few as five turns, which makes it unfair for the other player. But its not cheating.

The basic game as defined by "the prescribed rules of the game" is a HELL of a lot different than the game pros play.

######They aren't trying to use convoluted ways to say "cheating".

Like, you literally googled "metagaming" and ignored the first two links that clearly state exactly what it means in roleplaying context, while providing the absolutely incorrect statement of "Its in tabletop board games where you use troll logic, or head canon shit into existence, or warp the rules to benefit you. " when it was literally defined for you twice before you saw the generalized copy-paste definition you gave from wikipedia.

THEY EVEN GIVE YOU AN IMAGE THAT CLEARLY EXPLAINS ITS MEANING AND USE IF YOU WERE LAZY AND DIDN'T SCROLL DOWN TO SEE IT DEFINED MULTIPLE TIMES.

Yets4240Oct 3, 20191 votes

Firstly your reading comprehension is abysmal, secondly you are clearly illustrating that you don't understand what these terms mean.

For starters, check through my replies, you are the first person to mention cheating, and are going off on a strawman from failing to comprehend what I was saying before running your mouth/fingers.

Secondly, your chess example is rather poor, as that's simply using established strategy. That is quite clearly NOT metagaming. That is simply playing from experience, a completely unrelated and entirely separate matter.

Metagaming in chess would be playing a crazyhouse, or super king variant, but only switching to it after the game had started and with your opponent operating under the assumption that it was going to be a standard game following the official rules, before you amended them.

FioraWillCarryOct 2, 20192 votes

{quoted}

No, the only idiots that think this are the ones that dont know the term "metagame".

Metagaming is using outside or prior knowledge to affect the outcome of a game.

The term was coined in D&D and other tabletops before videogames exploded, IIRC. Using knowledge your character would never naturally have, for instance.

THAT term is derived from the prefix "meta" which means beyond or transcends.

Wow. It's nice that someone actually knows this. It's so cringey when people state that acronym for the meaning of meta. That acronym is more of a backronym if anything. People came up with that shit very late in online gaming culture.

A commonly cited definition of meta-game in the StarCraft community back in the day was "game within the game", some people even stated it as "game outside the game". Like, knowing what buildings built what units and what abilities which units had was the game, but Terran going MM vs Zerg and Mech vs Protoss was the game played within the game. You had to know the game within the game or the meta-game to play at even the most amateur competitive level.

Pika FoxOct 1, 20195 votes

{quoted}

Meta is not derivative of "Balance".

Meta is the Most Efficient Tactic Available.

If Riot balanced the game to make a certain type of champion the best type to pick, then the pros are going to pick it.

It has nothing to do with what's exciting. It has nothing to do with whether or not Riot did it intentionally. It has nothing to do with what other options are or are not available.

If high mobility one shot happens to be the meta, that's because pros are using it because they realized it's the most efficient tactic available to win. They're not going to just decide to do the exact opposite of what a meta entails lmao

While technically right, its important to note that what people think are the most effective tactics isnt always (read almost never) actually the most effective.

KeiagaOct 1, 20193 votes

I'm not referring to "just people". I'm referring to the opinions of what the best players in the world. And if the best players in the world happen to think that something is the most efficient tactic available, who can disagree? (Unless you're arguing from a point of subjective skill level)

1.) Pro players discover META 2.) META spreads and becomes established throughout game community 3.) Riot makes update 4.) Repeat.

Pika FoxOct 1, 20193 votes

{quoted}

I'm not referring to "just people". I'm referring to the opinions of what the best players in the world. And if the best players in the world happen to think that something is the most efficient tactic available, who can disagree unless you're arguing from a point of subjective skill level.

1.) Pro players discover META 2.) META spreads and becomes established throughout game community 3.) Rio makes update 4.) Repoeat.

Again, META might mean "Most effective tactics available", but that doesnt mean it actually is the "most effective tactic". It means people think it is. It is almost never actually the most effective, especially in a game like LoL which can be counter pick dependent and skill dependent. Even the standard "RADC Support bot" isnt META anymore, as you can run APC bot lanes or Juggernaut botlanes to similar success, or even support a non bot lane.

Its safe to say that the acronym no longer holds the meaning it is an acronym for, and is more accurately now just "What most people do"

KeiagaOct 1, 20192 votes

"Most effective" is not the same as "perfectly and eternally omnipotent"

Also, I already said

{quoted}

(Unless you're arguing from a point of subjective skill level)

Pika FoxOct 1, 20192 votes

{quoted}

"Most effective" is not the same as "perfectly and eternally omnipotent"

Also, I already said (Unless you're arguing from a point of subjective skill level)

It cant be the most effective in a game like LoL where there are multiple different options available.

Again, its no longer used to mean "Most effective...", its just "What most people do".

KeiagaOct 2, 20192 votes

If you're looking for some sort of binary situation in which the outcome is 100% certain based on stats then I have to tell you the world doesn't work like that. "9 out of 10 doctors say this" etc.

It's not 1:1 but there is a correlation that exists in which popular champions tend to also be good champions.

The meta(especially in ranked games where the priority is to win instead of having fun) IS what most people do, because it's what's most effective.

Pika FoxOct 2, 20191 votes

{quoted}

If you're looking for some sort of binary situation in which the outcome is 100% certain based on stats then I have to tell you the world doesn't work like that. "9 out of 10 doctors say this" etc.

It's not 1:1 but there is a correlation that exists in which popular champions tend to also be good champions.

The meta(especially in ranked games where the priority is to win instead of having fun) IS what most people do, because it's what's most effective.

Riot already released a statement stating there is no observable correlation between champion power and champion playrate (the most popular champions remain popular even after nerfs, or even if their winrate is low)

And again, the META is what most people do, not what is most effective. Teemo support mid is extremely effective. Only a handful of people do it. Yuumi is most effective with a non RADC bot. Players dont play something different to match that.

KeiagaOct 2, 20191 votes

Data is muddied up by countless things - exceptions, outliers, people playing for fun over winning, tradition, etc. Lee Sin is a champ that is one of the most played in all elos even though his winrate is below-average currently. I don't have any numbers to support this claim, but it can be assumed that his reputation of being "powerful" is a longlasting perceived trait he still has from the time when he actually was overpowered.

Most effective becomes most played, and things that are most played keep popularity because people tend to perceive it as most effective.

Pika FoxOct 2, 20191 votes

{quoted}

Data is muddied up by countless things - exceptions, outliers, people playing for fun over winning, tradition, etc. Lee Sin is a champ that is one of the most played in all elos even though his winrate is below-average currently. I don't have any numbers to support this claim, but it can be assumed that his reputation of being "powerful" is a longlasting perceived trait he still has from the time when he actually was overpowered.

Most effective becomes most played, and things that are most played keep popularity because people tend to perceive it as most effective.

OR... Now hear me out.... People play... What they enjoy... Regardless of power.

I know, its a foreign concept this ..... Fun.... Thing.

KeiagaOct 2, 20192 votes

Sure. You get those types in ranked. I won't say the vast majority but I'm willing to bet most people playing ranked prioritize winning over shits n' giggles. But we're getting into territory that has no definitive proof either way, and we've gotten off track from the original point a while ago.

Linna ExcelOct 2, 20192 votes

Yeah, it's kind of like baseball or football. Even though scoring is up in those two sports, viewership is down.

MasterDCloneOct 2, 20191 votes

as oppose to which sport are you talking about lol. Soccer doesn't count in a viewership comparison as it is played world wide. Are u comparing it to golf or basketball, or what... im so confused to the point of you're comment

mack9112Oct 2, 20192 votes

I don’t understand how there can be a ‘ fast ‘ meta or a ‘ slow ‘ meta.

Team compositions are what dictate a games pace be it lane dominating bullies or strong hypercarries that require scaling.

Both exist and work in the current league of legends format.

KarunamonOct 2, 20193 votes

{quoted}

I don’t understand how there can be a ‘ fast ‘ meta or a ‘ slow ‘ meta.

Go watch the seasons 1-4 championship games.

LTK KoRoOct 2, 20191 votes

and try to not fall asleep

KarunamonOct 2, 20193 votes

Huh, can't say I ever had that problem considering I watched all of those live.

Kids these days smh

mack9112Oct 3, 20191 votes

{quoted}

Go watch the seasons 1-4 championship games.

I literally played this video game in season 4 and it is exactly the same now to then.

KarunamonOct 3, 20193 votes

That's memory filtered through slowly changing perception. Go watch the S4 worlds final, then go watch the one from last year, one right after the other. The pace change is unmistakable.

mack9112Oct 3, 20191 votes

{quoted}

That's memory filtered through slowly changing perception. Go watch the S4 worlds final, then go watch the one from last year, one right after the other. The pace change is unmistakable.

Well ya the players are way better now compared to then.

From cs to skill shots hit to correct rotations players are simply far better meaning games are decided faster.

BigFBearOct 2, 20191 votes

"Proactive plays having the advantage is boring because the one making the play almost always wins."

First you said that no one makes a move because its too risky and then you said the one who makes the move almost always win??

WoonStruckOct 2, 20192 votes

Gee, its almost like even pro players make mistakes and the other team snowballs off of that and starts making proactive play after proactive play because they're practically guaranteed to work with a lead due to the amount of agency the meta champs have and the amount of damage in the game.