@forgetmenot The Dio one was funnier in my opinion. https://youtu.be/S9oRVRLUm_s

I gotchu bro! https://youtu.be/86BWgOig2dY

https://images.lookhuman.com/render/standard/kvbl7RMw1i9aWkJWGEPURTpdzwZcZrge/3600-black-z1-t-the-whims-of-fate-sae-niijima.jpg I do not own this shirt...YET! People love the woman from Resident Evil Village, but she pales in comparison to the OG Sae Nijima! Cause you'll never see her coming!

Someone should buy me this shirt. Size large preferably. https://images.lookhuman.com/render/standard/6460036904539585/3600-athletic_gray-z1-t-i-m-only-here-to-work-on-my-social-links.jpg https://www.lookhuman.com/design/76797-i-m-only-here-to-work-on-my-social-links/3600-athletic_gray-md

I thank you for taking the time to restate my original question with greater clarity while providing an answer many would agree to. You're not wrong for suggesting a compromise that would ideally let both meta chasers have their fun whilst having sub events that could give focus on less highlighted features of the game. That agreed, I believe this personally an unnecessary compromise. The root problem of meta is being that it alters the state of play by bending the core rules to the point of making the original idea morph into a completely different game. The average player will be disappointed when realizing that what is being explained in tutorials or rule books are actually poor advice and sets them up for instant failure. Further giving false confidence that using the various kits will in turn give them a level field of interactions. It also betrays the core rule of any game by generating contempt towards the idea of playing WITH other players rather than AGAINST. How many debates turn into heated arguments the second the word "fun" drops from a person's lips. Usually being followed up with unsportsmanlike conduct because the egging devil's advocate finds unintentional entertainment in pushing people away from something they've deemed theirs. These are unfortunate side effects of any form of cooperative entertainment, however it's unnecessarily fuled by modern games purposely designing them to inefficiently moderate such behaviors. That aside I would care to return to my former point of addressing "boring" balance. Boring typically suggests a failure of a game to provide variables to the interactions between players. One argument being that if both players use the same pieces then only one path to victory can occur. This is where I use the comparison to chess as my example. Though chess has existed for centuries it remains today unchanged as well as beloved by many across nations and generations. To this day there is a market for competition as well as casual experiences. Never has chess needed a patch or new release for additional pieces that make previous pieces irrelevant. Yet modern entertainment wishes to inundate the market with throw away games along with their parts in an awful attempt to spur additional purchases for the sake of only profit. It prioritizes in exploiting human's weakness for unnecessary change in spite of necessity. To innovate is one thing. Tearing down a whole system to the point of discarding its very foundation is another.

@gabriel_true We rode here on a bullet cat https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/002/232/bullet_cat.jpg

My daughter wanted to see the boogeyman. I dislike horror... the one before was Suzume and I enjoyed every moment of it.