Balancing the meta

"hbk1468;c-1197751" wrote:

"ImYourHuckleberry;c-1197455" wrote:
I have no idea what you're talking about. Last I checked, no one team dominates, and almost any team can finish rank 1. Jedi, empire, sith, rebels, even ewoks, and then there's rex and the mixed squads. There's probably 20 top toons that can be mixed and matched. Nothing stands out, and all lose on defense. My point is, there really isn't a true meta. Therefore, no balancing of the meta is required.

I for one want stronger teams that can hold on 'D'.

So you dont find that toons like thrawn, dn, gk are on a much higher power level than others? and the composition of individually great toons that have no synergy making for one of the best arena teams does not concern you in any way? again people seem to misunderstand. this is NOT about pointing out that there is a team that is unbeatable. NOT at all. and yes you have a pretty wide variety of team comps that are viable to semi-viable. They are however held back by the fact you can simply go for the newest powercrept toons, cram them into a team and be top 10 without an incentive to specialize in a specific faction or using unique synergies. this is just not a very interesting state of the game in my opinion and can be improved upon. You should just not be able to use thrawn much outside of an empire team or dn outside of sith. synergy should be king not individual class.

But that's exactly the point. Thrawn, gk, dn are all very beatable. And if beatable then it follows there is no balancing problem. It's not meta when gamers just "copy" each other and inflate swgoh.gg meta report, which is more an assessment of the latest "trends" report than meta report And that is the problem with the long grind and farming. Gamers seldom take risks, on the whole, not that there is a balancing problem.

So no, there isn't a meta, but there is an absolutely abysmal ai, and then gamers tend to be trendy.