I wondered before and it just came back to my mind when I saw that: https://www.reddit.com/r/aoe2/comments/iw2x3j/the_effect_of_stacking_kamayuk_vs_jags/
How much is our meta really the meta as in "the best way to play the game" and how much is it based on our skills and experiences as in "the best way we are able to play the game" ?
When you think about how much hours and hours active players spend on perfect playing Archers or Cavalry with the underlying decisions, micro, macro & transitions, then it's obvious that those strategies are not only good, they are also very well played.
So when there are alternative strategies, how much time would you need to actually master them in order to find out if they're competitive or not?
Thinking about alternative units which have unusual abilities (Kamayuk, Lancers, Teutonic Knights, Genoese, Genitours), also alternative Eco approaches (Malay, Cumans, Fast Imp, Feitoria) and just different strategies in general (Hoang Rush, Inca Rush, Douche, Stone Wall Defense, alternative army comps or transitions). With Hoang you can see an example of how a strategy might be in general not seen dangerous but when you actually master it, it becomes powerful even on top-level and with a non-top-player.
Also the balance between eco and army: I guess there are more moments in the game where you would come out better when you idle your TC(s) in order to create army-powerspikes. (That is actually also one important part of the Hoang-Rush, right?) It's just so complex and difficult that it's hard to figure out, so we simplify it to ourselves a bit. It's also tough to discuss because it's temporarily and hard to observe, different than to One-TC-Push or Castle Drop for example.
Viper for example is famous for trying out those new things and we kinda assume that he's doing it close-to-perfect from the scratch & when he doesn't stick to it in tournaments, then it's not good. I think those top players have in general a good sense of judging how strong a strategy is. Sometimes, as with the Feitoria, it's also kinda obvious that it's just bad but there are cases that are less obvious (Inca rush to name one).
Also, even someone like Viper has surely more mastery in standard meta which he played hundreds of times against top players and in tournaments and that's the difference to any masterpiece-strategy he tried. Which does not only mean that the alternative strategy might be worse in execution but also that a player might feel more comfortable with choosing a standard strat just bc you have so much more experience with it, therefore you feel more able to react on different situations (eco damage, different maps, opponent reactions to your strat, etc) which might outweigh the advantages of a new strat.
I assume that especially on lower levels, there should be room for alternative strats. I recently had success on 1500-level with a Slavs Late-Feudal mass-M@A for example (with no experience or build order for it, so how strong can it be with more experience?). The Malay-Elephant-Rush would be another one. I would love if people were more creative and adventurous with things like that. TC-Rush with Lithuanians or Mass-TCs with Malians? Mongols 23-pop-FC into CA? Late-Feudal/Early-Castle Mass-Towers with Koreans? Something might be actually strong.
Just wanted to share that thought to get your opinions on it. Can we assume that the Meta is fully figured out? How long does it take to master a strat to the level of your well-known Strats? How close are the top-players to it when they just try a strategy a few times?
How much is our meta really the meta as in "the best way to play the game" and how much is it based on our skills and experiences as in "the best way we are able to play the game" ?
When you think about how much hours and hours active players spend on perfect playing Archers or Cavalry with the underlying decisions, micro, macro & transitions, then it's obvious that those strategies are not only good, they are also very well played.
So when there are alternative strategies, how much time would you need to actually master them in order to find out if they're competitive or not?
Thinking about alternative units which have unusual abilities (Kamayuk, Lancers, Teutonic Knights, Genoese, Genitours), also alternative Eco approaches (Malay, Cumans, Fast Imp, Feitoria) and just different strategies in general (Hoang Rush, Inca Rush, Douche, Stone Wall Defense, alternative army comps or transitions). With Hoang you can see an example of how a strategy might be in general not seen dangerous but when you actually master it, it becomes powerful even on top-level and with a non-top-player.
Also the balance between eco and army: I guess there are more moments in the game where you would come out better when you idle your TC(s) in order to create army-powerspikes. (That is actually also one important part of the Hoang-Rush, right?) It's just so complex and difficult that it's hard to figure out, so we simplify it to ourselves a bit. It's also tough to discuss because it's temporarily and hard to observe, different than to One-TC-Push or Castle Drop for example.
Viper for example is famous for trying out those new things and we kinda assume that he's doing it close-to-perfect from the scratch & when he doesn't stick to it in tournaments, then it's not good. I think those top players have in general a good sense of judging how strong a strategy is. Sometimes, as with the Feitoria, it's also kinda obvious that it's just bad but there are cases that are less obvious (Inca rush to name one).
Also, even someone like Viper has surely more mastery in standard meta which he played hundreds of times against top players and in tournaments and that's the difference to any masterpiece-strategy he tried. Which does not only mean that the alternative strategy might be worse in execution but also that a player might feel more comfortable with choosing a standard strat just bc you have so much more experience with it, therefore you feel more able to react on different situations (eco damage, different maps, opponent reactions to your strat, etc) which might outweigh the advantages of a new strat.
I assume that especially on lower levels, there should be room for alternative strats. I recently had success on 1500-level with a Slavs Late-Feudal mass-M@A for example (with no experience or build order for it, so how strong can it be with more experience?). The Malay-Elephant-Rush would be another one. I would love if people were more creative and adventurous with things like that. TC-Rush with Lithuanians or Mass-TCs with Malians? Mongols 23-pop-FC into CA? Late-Feudal/Early-Castle Mass-Towers with Koreans? Something might be actually strong.
Just wanted to share that thought to get your opinions on it. Can we assume that the Meta is fully figured out? How long does it take to master a strat to the level of your well-known Strats? How close are the top-players to it when they just try a strategy a few times?