(I posted the same post on reddit but I felt we might have interesting discussions here too !) Hey there ! This post might sound controversial but it is a genuine question. I'm not trying to troll or anything, I just really am confused/curious, since I play the game very differently from most educated players. My question is simple : Why do we (as community)/you (as educated players) get tired of a given meta, and why aren't we/you tired of the superiority of our current top tier units (if we take Bakadata's aggregated tier list, it's Ed, B&J and Dmeta atm) and meta (combo based atm) ? I'm typically thinking of how the heart-cross meta was quite hated at some point (or it's just that maybe heart-cross meta was hated by some very vocal people). So I'll mostly use that as a comparison example. Could we say that back then we/you were also tired of the double/triple TPA meta with Green Zhuge and non-awoken Liu Bei etc ? Or even the row meta even earlier back when the non-awoken non-ult Sonias were all the craze ? Heck, 2/4/2 has also been a thing for some time. Did we hit a "tired of it" point? I think we did get tired of the supremacy of Dark Athena (not sure we can call it a "meta", but she was everywhere, extremely capable and durable, and very accessible) at some point. And if we go back in time, well we also did get tired of the Resolve/Green Odin + autoheal meta. So yeah, I'm trying to understand what you think can cause "meta fatigue", and why I don't feel this "meta fatigue" has settled in our current meta when I think it should have by now. But we did get a very visible "meta fatigue" effect when heart-crosses were a thing. A few points about this question : I distinguish we as community from you as educated players, because while I'm 100% into the community, I absolutely don't include myself in players influenced by the cards that are usually considered meta or optimal. I say "influenced", and not "following" to not upset anyone because I know there are various levels of "following the meta". You might not follow the meta and still keep an eye on tier lists, or read pad.protic.site for reviews or Mantastic blog, or whatever and clues about what cards could be interesting for you. This counts as "influenced" to me. This is not necessarily a bad thing, I ain't judging anyone for anything :> "Meta" is obviously hard word to define. I'm not trying to create a universal definition. If you're not familiar with this word, or you think we understand this term differently, feel free to replace "meta" with "Usually most recommended way to do things or most desired stuff, with efficiency/consistency being one of your goals". It absolutely is not a definition of "meta", but I think it will allow us to discuss the matter. You could also think of "meta" as in simply "usually very relevant or desired". Btw by "educated players" I mean players who know the rules of the game, who know how to build a basic team to tackle a dungeon which isn't the 3p dragon rush thingy, who can establish a basic strategy for a dungeon that poses even a single problem, and who can 6c a board consistently. I picked 6c as a threshold because for a player who doesn't know the reliable way to match combos (starting with 4 horizontal at bottom/top, then 6 vertical) and therefore has a more "random" way of matching, it is hard to consistently hit more than 6c (emphasis on consistency) because 5c is a breaking point : at 5c you've used half of the board to match, so most of the maneuvering space is used. Any additional combo becomes inherently challenging. This is non-issue for educated players. By "Combo based meta" what I mean is that currently (and it's been like this since we've first seen double 7c cards basically) it is efficient/optimal to build around combo for damage and defense, and most recommended/desired leads can take full advantage of the 7c (or 10c with the advent of 7x6). I absolutely am not referring to powercreep. This is an inevitable consequence of running a game with content added every other week. Of course powercreep induces changes in how the meta is perceived. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about "fatigue" of a given meta. When we/you want it to change, or see it gone. Now, with all of that said, I do have a couple ideas of why the heart-cross meta was so despised (our so loudly despised, at least). But I don't understand how it does not apply to our current meta. Powercreep Heart-cross meta came more or less with the release of Myr, which was also a massive powercreep leap. A lead with x7 was just as strong (damage wise) back then as a lead with x16 or more today. → However this would be a weak point, since today we do have powercreep leaps as well. Part of why meta leads are meta is they are strong. Duh x) Time Heart-cross meta did last a for while. I can't say for sure, but Myr, Kaede, Sumire (in a lesser extent) and friends were very relevant for probably 6-9 months. Maybe a year or more. Don't take my word on this though. I'm not sure. → That wouldn't be a fair point since we've been in a "combo" meta for so long now. Way more than a year. Probably close to two by now. Efficiency Heart-cross was just straight up broken : back then all heart-cross leads had 50% shield (not true today, as some heart-crosses have 35% shield), which means that with the same helper you're in a better position (defense wise) than a x4 HP lead. Which made a lot of content trivial. And then there was the power. Kaede had so much damage output, Sumire was very capable and let's not talk about Myr I guess. → That would be a fair-ish point if one of the most popular current top tier lead wasn't Dmeta. And even without her, the Edwards and Yusukes are comparable (efficiency-wise) to the popular heart-cross leads of back then. Spread Heart-crosses were everywhere thanks to Myr being farmable, so even if you didn't have a Kaede you were still part of it. → Fair point. However, again, Dmeta is arguably one of the best lead in the game rn, and is also one of the oldest card in the game so you can expect her to be in a large amount of player's boxes. Ofc not everyone has her. But a good amount of educated players are very likely to have her since a good amount of educated players are just players who've been here for a while ~ Legitimacy Matching a cross is legit a huge commitment since it takes way more effort to do and creates annoying "dead space" in which you can't match stuff, unless cascaded. It just is super far away from the base idea of matching sets of 3. → This would be a fair point. Like, for real. I play crosses on a daily basis and 1000% get why so much people are not willing to play that. I ain't asking anyone to do that x) (but if you're curious, feel free to give it a go :9) So from what I understand, our current combo based meta and the heart-cross meta are comparable in how they perform and how they allow us to tackle content. But to me the biggest difference is that playing purely combo-based is how the game was designed to be played from the beginning. It's way more legitimate and intuitive. So I think it all comes down to this... ? So uh, yeah. That was a way bigger post than I expected and I guess it's kinda controversial but I'm genuinely confused and curious about that. Let me say again that I'm not trying to complain here nor trolling. I just want to discuss this matter (I like this game → I like to talk about it), as I was one of the players who were sad to see people despise the heart-cross meta, and now I'm unhappy about the current meta but there's much less disapproval (or less loud disapproval) while I think we should've hit a "meta fatigue" point months ago. What do you think ? How do you see it ?