The Meta Game Discussion

[Sardus]

First and foremost: community day on Friday was a blast. The game is incredibly fun and ran really well. The vehicles are absolutely hair raisingly awesome; just wait until you take off in a galaxy for the first time. That thing is a beast.

There's been a lot of discussion lately about the metagame of PS2. I wanted to step in and give a discussion of it.

First off, you may be asking, what the hell is this metagame thing? The metagame is what differentiates planetside 1 from every other FPS and MMO out there. It is the ability for the few to influence the many, for outfits to accomplish the impossible, and for resources to actually have value. Strategy, tactics, player controlled missions, player controlled economy, outfit customization and controls- that kind of stuff. The metagame is the game within in the game, and it is what games like Battlefield and Call of Duty lacked.

The greatest idea behind an MMOFPS is that it allows the players to create the content. You give the players the tools to create the battles, the objectives, and the fun, and you can sit back and watch as they continue to do it for years and years. That's what games like World of Warcraft lack, and why Blizzard constantly has to produce large million dollar investments into new game content.

That said, my impression from when I was there Friday tells me that the PS2 team understands this. The basic game mechanics right now are absolutely solid, and SOE's focus appears to be gradually shifting into fleshing out the metagame and lifting the game to its fullest potential. It may not be immediately clear to the team what is needed, but as beta comes to fruition and as the community becomes more directly involved, I'm confident that the end result is going to be epic.

The devs are definitely listening. Keep up the positive constructive criticism and I doubt anyone here will be disappointed with the end result ;)

[Saifoda]

http://cdn.indulgy.com/VL/tp/np/215680269624146581uTjyN1gyc.jpg


<3

[Malchance]

My favorite part of the metagame so far is Propaganda.

[Sardus]

My favorite part of the metagame so far is Propaganda.

Find me one person who went on Friday and didn't enjoy it and I'd believe it LOL

[Malchance]

Find me one person who went on Friday and didn't enjoy it and I'd believe it LOL

I think one of us is misunderstanding the other. I didn't mean any kind of SOE marketing. I meant the 'My faction rules and the others suck' kind of propaganda. The many well-spirited insults between factions is always good for a laugh, and can serve an actual recruitment purpose.

[Ratstomper]

I think one of us is misunderstanding each other. I mean the 'My faction rules and the others suck' kind of propaganda. The many well-spirited insults between factions is always good for a laugh, and can serve an actual recruitment purpose.

This is one of my favorite aspects. I actually find new people are really interested in it; some even seem pretty intimidated by it. PS1 faction loyalty is definitely a unique thing.

[Sardus]

I think one of us is misunderstanding the other. I didn't mean any kind of SOE marketing. I meant the 'My faction rules and the others suck' kind of propaganda. The many well-spirited insults between factions is always good for a laugh, and can serve an actual recruitment purpose.

I totally agree. And I love the idea of outfit rivalry stuff that people have been kicking around.

Oh... and... :)

http://i.imgur.com/UryDM.png

[Malorn]

I am perhaps one of the most avid fans of the PS1 metagame. I lived and breathed it for a long time and can thin-slice a situation very effectively. I was initially quite disturbed by the apparent lack of metagame, but I've come to think of it differently over the months. Here's my brief thoughts.


Non-Essential
Metagame isn't essential for the game to launch and be successful. I see a lot of opportunity for them to add in metagame elements as time goes on. But before they can do that they need a rock-solid FPS foundation. I do believe it is essential for longevity and to offer more gameplay depth that keep players sucked in for years to come. But it the game can get off to a great start without it. The dev team priorities are correct for this.


Influence & TC Potential
The Influence and territory control system they have is utterly brilliant and leaves a lot of possibilities open. It's a dynamic system to which they can attach many mechanics. To me it is clearly the most significant innovation in PS2. There is tons of potential here for awesome continent-level metagame improvements.


Space Matters
The game has to be ready for a good cross-continent global metagame. The key concept here is space utilization. Having a highly rich metagame involving actual conquest of significant chunks of territory really means that the game must allow for some content to be locked away for periods of time - which means low space utilization. PS1 had 10 continents and could afford low space utilization. Metagame was rich, but it certainly wouldn't have been if there were only 3. In shipping only 3 continents at launch they must have high space utilization on their three continents or we will have some very boring gameplay. It's the right call to suspend global metagame until they can afford the lower space utilization required for it to be successful.


It Isn't Always Good
The metagame of PS1 wasn't always good, and it led to some rather sour gameplay situations. In not having it they're also omitting the bad parts. I'm hoping that as metagame is introduced later if any poor gameplay results it will be more obvious compared to the existing gamplay so it can be noticed and mitigated.


Metagame Shift
I'm not convinced the metagame is absent - it has simply shifted from the the global view to the more local continental view, at least in the short term. By doing so they'll be making the continental game richer so when it expands to be more global later all aspects of the game have depth. We'll see innovations and mechanics at the continental level that will make normal continent conquest interesting and have value at the more micro level before they expand it to a more macro level. Starting small and building up is a good way to go.


It Takes Time
Another interesting part of the metgame is how it evolves over time. It is difficult to assess the impact, even in beta, of what the Metagame will become for PS2. It took several months before key metagame strategies and patterns developed in PS1, and it evolved over years. It isn't easy to predict how it will develop, and chances are we won't even scratch the surface in the beta time frame. It makes sense therefore to take a bit of a wait-and-see approach to it. See how it develops, see which elements would bring the most depth and then add them in.


Given what we know of the game and the priorities of the team they appear to me to be doing exactly what they need to do in order for PS2 to succeed. While I would enjoy a more rich metagame, as they say Rome was not built in a day. It started with a simple city-state with a solid foundation and great values. Conceptually I believe PS2 to have a solid foundation that can blossom into a truly magnificent metagame. But it will develop over time and does not need to be there immediately. Investing in it too much right now could threaten the foundation and be disastrous.


For those curious about the PS1 metagame, the manifesto link in my sig has an entire chapter devoted to it.

[GuyFawkes]

Nice posts OP, and especially Malorns input.

[Saifoda]

Contrary to popular belief, history, science, and common sense, Rome was, in fact, built in a day.



Edit: "And on the 43rd day, God built Rome and said to the Romans 'see those Etruscans? Fuck them and everyone near them.' And it was good."

[KaB]

Interesting words. I hope you're right about PS2. I really hope.

[ringring]

Nice contribution Marlorn .....

one of the good things I heard Higby say quite a while ago was something like they realised that they didn't need to guide every details of the gameplay but what they should do is build a framework and let the players take over from there.

And I agree, players are content.

[cellinaire]

So, it seems like the devs will complete PS2's metagame feature with lots of player feedback on their hands this time, unlike PS1's case where the overall scheme of implementing metagame was mostly decided and created in-house.

[Bolbis]

The key to PS2 vs PS1 is the devs are actually listening to the player bases feedback on different elements. They have done a great job, so far, of keeping the hype up and trickling out information to keep the buzz not only in this fanatic community, but the gaming community on the whole. I am excited to see how the usage of resources, the hexagonal territory map, and terrain are going to complement and complicate strategy and game play. The key to keeping people around in a game after the shiny "new game" smell wears off requires a platform where people feel like their actions matter on a daily basis, and that they aren't just stocking up trophies in their online locker. By the looks of things, PS2 is headed in the right direction with the right people steering the ship.

[Marinealver]

The so called Rock Paper Sicissors Concept untill people get good enough to beat scissors with paper, the it becomes paper paper paper

[Xyntech]

The most important part to remember about the metagame is that it is pretty much impossible for the developers to predict it or create it artificially. All that they can do is create an environment that fosters a rich metagame and then add in features which support it further.

I'm with Malorn on this one. It's most important for them to get a really rock solid shooter first and foremost. Planetside 1 had a lot of longevity from it's depth, but it never had the populations to support that longevity to the fullest. Part of that was infrequent and often detrimental updates, but another part was that some of the shooting aspects could get really dull. Having a F2P game where lots of players will frequently come back to the game because they enjoy the moment to moment gameplay is really a big step in laying the foundation for the game, which will then have the populations to back up the longevity of a deep metagame.

Once a significant number of people get into beta, then we can start seeing what emerges. We already have some exciting possibilities with the current systems they have in place, but it will be up to the playerbase to define the final direction.

Fortunately we have a development team that actually seems to listen to the community, while not making knee jerk reactions to the community either. I believe they will do a good job of following the communities lead on the metagames development, and add systems in that make it more and more deep while never sacrificing the simplicity of jumping into the game and shooting things.

I actually think that the metagame will be pretty strong by launch, although it will still have plenty of time to grow after launch, whether it is robust or still fledgling at that time.

Still, in the meanwhile, feedback is valuable. We don't need to be in beta to kick ideas around, and obviously a lot of those ideas have made the dev team think of things in a new way.

[Sardus]

The most important part to remember about the metagame is that it is pretty much impossible for the developers to predict it or create it artificially. All that they can do is create an environment that fosters a rich metagame and then add in features which support it further.


You nailed it right there.

[Malorn]

Yep, that's what I was getting at with the "it takes time" point. It's not something easily observed and it will only come through when outfits and collections of outfits devise tactics and strategies.

Some things are reasonably predictable and can be put in with the intent of fostering specific gameplay, but only time will tell how that pans out.

[Baneblade]

I am perhaps one of the most avid fans of the PS1 metagame.

But at the end of the day you still crawled back to the Bootlicker Republic, Mr. T. Raitor.

[Xyntech]

While PS1 does have a great metagame (even if a few elements get kind of shitty at times), it's a metagame that is entirely dependent on almost every other aspect of the game, from what types of vehicles there are, to the inventory system, to the base capture machanics, to the pacing, etc etc.

I think that most of us can agree that a reskinning of the first Planetside would not be successful in todays market, so even if some people disagree on some of the ways in which PS2 is modernizing itself, it's clear that it does have to modernize, or it will stagnate and be underpopulated before it even launches.

So if the game changes, the metagame changes. But on the bright side, there are tons of experienced and vocal PS1 fans who are very familiar with PS1's metagame. We'll be able to recreate some of the best elements of PS1 by deliberately finding niches and making suggestions to the devs that support some of the same familiar elements, while the devs will be able to act as a filter to hopefully keep some of the more mediocre PS1 elements out of the sequel.

I feel like the Planetside idea has so much potential, and while it's always unnerving to stray away from what worked previously, I think it's a very good thing that the developers are changing so many things up. Hopefully by the time the game launches, we'll have sorted out which changes are good, and gotten the worst changes either removed, or found a happy compromise. If Planetside was good, Planetside 2 has the potential to be great. But in the process, it's going to have to try and fix a lot of things, even a few things that aren't broken. Hopefully in the end, it results in a game that is fun to play as a 5 minute experience if you only have a short amount of time, as well as a deep metagame rich experience that dwarfs the first Planetside.

Hopefully the dev team for Planetside 2 post launch is extremely robust and well supported, because I'd like to see new continents and vehicles flow out steadily, not once every few years. But more importantly, I want the post launch game to have a development team that understands the game deeply enough to keep up with the community and continue to help support and evolve the metagame in large ways even long after launch.

I'd like to see PS2 launch with a metagame as rich as the first game has by the time it launches if possible, and see it grow twice as deep within the next few years after that.

Hopefully they learn from PS1 in a lot of ways, such as making sure that new territory is more deeply integrated into the game instead of doing the core combat mistake, where it was only loosely connected to everything else.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

It's sad to say but for the vast majority of players they simply don't care about meta game. Don't get me wrong, I am not one of those but I have seen more and more lately that people just want to hop in for a brief session and blow shit up.

Yeah, but it doesn't really "matter", whether they want to contribute or not... They still do, just with their presence they influence events around them. Kind of like Eve, you may not be involved in the NullSec war, but coincidentally, you popped a freighter... That happened to be carrying crucial supplies to a battle there. Because of that freighter, the battle was lost, shifting the war, etc.

Anytime a game world becomes "persistent" people contribute and play a role (even if they aren't roleplayers) just by BEING there. Those who just pop in fifteen minutes and crack a few skulls still contribute to the overall experience of the guy that was there two hours prior and will be there two hours after.

I've not accessed PS2, yet, but I trust Sardus' judgement. If he's this pleased with it, it'll probably turn out pretty well :)

[krakendoom]

I've not played any of PS2 yet, nor did I play PS1, but as I understood it the best tool the devs are putting for the metagame is the mission system, for outfits and others to setup missions, everything from squad leaders commanding take and hold an objective, to Outfit Leaders selecting a target installation and setting missions to gather extra forces.

Sounds like it's going to epic. Even people that don't want to get that involved in the meta side can just jump in and take part in a battle that someone else has orcastrated.

[Xyntech]

Yeah, but it doesn't really "matter", whether they want to contribute or not... They still do, just with their presence they influence events around them. Kind of like Eve, you may not be involved in the NullSec war, but coincidentally, you popped a freighter... That happened to be carrying crucial supplies to a battle there. Because of that freighter, the battle was lost, shifting the war, etc.

Exactly. As long as the basic gameplay is fun and engaging for players who don't care about the metagame, they can enjoy the experience without any deeper thought. But that doesn't mean that they aren't a part of the metagame. In fact, the metagame will still heavily influence the most casual players.

The only difference between a player who pays attention to the metagame versus a player who doesn't, is that the player who pays attention will be able to actively and intelligently influence the metagame, while a more oblivious player will only accidentally influence the metagame. If you don't pay attention, you won't contribute as much to your empire, but just like the zerg in the first Planetside you will still provide a backbone from which more attentive players will be able to heavily influence things.

[Malorn]

The EVE example is a good one. People participate in the metagame whether they want to or realize it or not.

In PS1, the random squads that wanted to go off and hack a base could end up opening an entire continent for hack which a bunch of other random players who just wanted a fight would tend to flock to. This created a core metagame element - how the zerg naturally behaved.

It's actually the behavior of the people not actively participating in the metagame that shaped the metagame itself. Reacting to those people created elements of the metagame. Countering elements were then created in response to that, and it just grew from there. That's why you can't observe the immediate impact of metagame. It's changed by slight things like capture mechanics and how important resources are. The mission system will affect it as well. How auto-generated missions work will shape how the non-participating masses behave and in turn impact those who do participate. In PS1, the anti-metagame folks themselves became a metagame element that had to be managed and dealt with.

It's a complex ecosystem and there are many elements of the metagame that get shaped. Everyone is participating, even if they don't realize it.

[Sephirex]

You compared EVE to a first person shooter? The least complex game genre there is? It's when they try and clutter up the meta game with complexity in a shooter most people get turned off by and simply do not care. Turn the hex regions into a CoD/BF map match with a lockdown timer on win and you'll have something. No need to make it more than that right now. We'll see how it goes.

The developers have stated that they're looking at EVE for inspiration for their post-development meta game. The comparison has already been made.

[Sephirex]

Resource as a currency model.

Specific mentions of Nullsec were made.

[Sephirex]

The developers have stated that they're looking at EVE for inspiration for their post-development meta game.

As far as I have seen and read there is no meta game in PS2 other than resource acquisition and denial on a perma foothold single continental basis

Think we're already on the same page. Run N Gun is perfect for now, and as the game continues to grow should remain the main focus for newer players. But an unlocked metagame for long term players will be necessary at some point for continued growth/sustainability.

[Sardus]

I've not played any of PS2 yet, nor did I play PS1, but as I understood it the best tool the devs are putting for the metagame is the mission system, for outfits and others to setup missions, everything from squad leaders commanding take and hold an objective, to Outfit Leaders selecting a target installation and setting missions to gather extra forces.

Sounds like it's going to epic. Even people that don't want to get that involved in the meta side can just jump in and take part in a battle that someone else has orcastrated.

I think the mission system and how it will be implemented will be KEY for the metagame in planetside 2. I'm very interested to see how it will turn out. Player orchestrated battles is what its all about.


In PS1, the random squads that wanted to go off and hack a base could end up opening an entire continent for hack which a bunch of other random players who just wanted a fight would tend to flock to. This created a core metagame element - how the zerg naturally behaved.


I found that the "currency" for the metagame in planetside 1 was the fun factor. I could influence the zerg by creating fun and meaningful fights and they would listen. The zerg wanted to go where the zerg found the most fun.

Outfits were an entirely different story. That's where the politics, relationships, and negotiation came into play - and it was the outfits that generally started the battles and created the fun fights where the zerg would follow.

[Malorn]

Key things which will likely impact the metagame significantly

* Economics of vehicles (resource costs vs inflow, ease of acquisition, etc)
* Mission system (how the masses are directed)
* Capture Mechanics (how the masses succeed)
* Resource Balance
* Objectives (within a territory/facility)
* Influence (and what all it influences)
* Benefits (facility, continent, territory, etc)

Lots of stuff already in game will influence the metagame and how outfits operate, how territory is gained and the strategies that will lead to domination.

[Sardus]

You compared EVE to a first person shooter? The least complex game genre there is? It's when they try and clutter up the meta game with complexity in a shooter most people get turned off by and simply do not care. Turn the hex regions into a CoD/BF map match with a lockdown timer on win and you'll have something. No need to make it more than that right now. We'll see how it goes.

That kind of game would really disappoint me. It just reminds me too much of Global Agenda - and that game didn't go that far.

Key things which will likely impact the metagame significantly

* Economics of vehicles (resource costs vs inflow, ease of acquisition, etc)
* Mission system (how the masses are directed)
* Capture Mechanics (how the masses succeed)
* Resource Balance
* Objectives (within a territory/facility)
* Influence (and what all it influences)
* Benefits (facility, continent, territory, etc)

Lots of stuff already in game will influence the metagame and how outfits operate, how territory is gained and the strategies that will lead to domination.

One thing that is kind of related is the empire balance/population thing. What happens when one side has 80% of the pop and is banging on the front door of the other's fail-safe. How do they handle the fail-safe? Personally I'd make it a last stand base that is so unbearable to take (like an interlink facility) that the attackers either log into the losing side to stat pad (and people do it), or simply go fight somewhere else.

Generally though, having 3 empires solves majority of that problem. 3 is the perfect number.

[DukeTerror]

I would not be surprised that somewhere on the "Expansion Pack Ideas" whiteboard there is a line that says Player Build-able Bases. It seemed like one of the interviews hinted at the possibility on the long-term plans.

I see a new continent with basic bases (core building only) spread across them, but as factions take control, they (mostly outfits) can use resources customize and expand the bases with more walls, towers, turret placements, shielding, backup generators, etc in fairly general fixed locations (basically the same custom hand-crafted base like the ones they are making now, but you have to buy each component with a few alternative options thrown in the mix). Complaining that bases are too open and not enough walls - grab your outfit's checkbook and problem solved! All these new parts have bomb points that the enemy could destroy forcing you to defend your resources spent, or have the pleasure of destroying others.

It seems like down the road once you buy a lot of the weapons and upgrades you want, you may just end up with surplus resources stockpiling. This would be a great metagame resource sink to coordinate how to spend those resources. There's a whole lot of design gaps that'll have to be worked out well before anything like this could happen however, but I can't be the only one whose spun this off the top of my head.

[Sardus]

Me as well but look at what CoD and BF do and how much they are wanting to attract that crowd.

Also what is that mechanic Matt was referring to with the dynamic weighting of zones as empire incentives? That sounds fun but if it all just stays on a single continent impact then you still have issue of stalemates but just shifting it around temporarily. I hope that isn't something they are banking on as a long term meta game solution. Long term there simply needs to be more of a globally focused meta game and I believe that will happen. But for the first few several months of this game we are just going to have to grin and bear it.

I like the idea of the "heat map" showing you where your needed and giving more exp and rewards for going there - to help break up the zerg. I just hope that it will be player controlled and not AI controlled. Example in point: getting insta actioned to an empty tower because of one hotspot :)

And I believe this game needs to offer more than just COD and BF3 if it wants to be on the next level. That means PS2 needs some sort of metagame, and SOE is aware of this. They're doing everything right as far as I'm concerned.

I would not be surprised that somewhere on the "Expansion Pack Ideas" whiteboard there is a line that says Player Build-able Bases. It seemed like one of the interviews hinted at the possibility on the long-term plans.

I see a new continent with basic bases (core building only) spread across them, but as factions take control, they (mostly outfits) can use resources customize and expand the bases with more walls, towers, turret placements, shielding, backup generators, etc in fairly general fixed locations (basically the same custom hand-crafted base like the ones they are making now, but you have to buy each component with a few alternative options thrown in the mix). Complaining that bases are too open and not enough walls - grab your outfit's checkbook and problem solved! All these new parts have bomb points that the enemy could destroy forcing you to defend your resources spent, or have the pleasure of destroying others.

It seems like down the road once you buy a lot of the weapons and upgrades you want, you may just end up with surplus resources stockpiling. This would be a great metagame resource sink to coordinate how to spend those resources. There's a whole lot of design gaps that'll have to be worked out well before anything like this could happen however, but I can't be the only one whose spun this off the top of my head.

Base building, resource gathering and things of that nature are great ideas for future expansions. That's basically what Global Agenda tried to do. It's a great idea- just takes a lot of time to do it right.

[fvdham]

Long term there simply needs to be more of a globally focused meta game and I believe that will happen. But for the first few several months of this game we are just going to have to grin and bear it.

Indeed.


-----------------------------------------------

"meta game" is used for different things in this tread.

2 links:

grand strategy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_strategy

emergence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

[DviddLeff]

As you guys have said there are multiple changes in PS2 that will enhance the continental strategy - global strategy will have to wait it appears. Higby does keep saying that beta will see a lot changing, we need to make sure that the changes are the right ones.

[Xyntech]

I'm just glad that the developers have finally released enough information where there are no longer as many people saying there will absolutely be no metagame or grand strategy of any kind, whatsoever.

I can't wait to get into beta to experience playing the game for myself, but I understand that it's all about testing the game, especially early on. But at the same time, I know that the beta testers will how front row seats to seeing the earliest elements of Planetside 2's metagame start taking shape, and we'll all have an opportunity to directly help lay that foundation. That's the true privilege of being in beta.

[Malorn]

I'm just glad that the developers have finally released enough information where there are no longer as many people saying there will absolutely be no metagame or grand strategy of any kind, whatsoever.

There won't be in the context of PS1 and as far as grand strategy...not really, no. But there will be depth at the continental level. It will just be confined to the continental level, as opposed to the continental and the global level of PS1.

When it comes down to this discussion the two things people talk about is

1) Ownership

People like the idea of ownership in a persistent world. The idea that we've captured something and it will be ours for a while. Or the idea that we can decide that something is always ours (home continents, for example), and choose to defend those more than anything else. It allows us to be territorial and adds quite an awesome aspect to the game. People like this. It's fun, and it's unique to an MMOFPS - there is no real ownership in a session shooter. It's something distinct to a true MMOFPS.


2) Sense of Conquest

Conquest is another distinct MMOFPS thing. The idea that not only can we capture something and make it ours, but we can build on successes and move across to new territory. It shows visual progress and provides natural achievement. When you have only the continental level the sense of conquest isn't nearly as profound. When all 3 empires are always present, it greatly diminishes conquest.


That's what I've distilled out of the metagame disappointment threads. People like ownership, and people like conquest. Not too surprising, but it is something that they can only get out of PlanetSide 2 and not having it there is a missed opportunity. I'm sure it will eventually make its way back in, and hopefully with clever guidance and careful planning.

It's still a rather large gap in the game. It's a non-essential gap, but a gap nonetheless. And a huge opportunity and product differentiator. I hope to see a return of a more large scale conquest and ownership aspect to PS2. Continents are OK, and territories within continents are OK, but it's just not the same.

[Crator]

Very well said Malorn. Spot on imo, for me!

[p0intman]

ONE TERM:

INTERCONTINENTAL TACTICS

Meaning... BEING ABLE TO FULLY CAPTURE CONTS AND HAVE IT MEAN SOMETHING.
I'm just glad that the developers have finally released enough information where there are no longer as many people saying there will absolutely be no metagame or grand strategy of any kind, whatsoever.

I can't wait to get into beta to experience playing the game for myself, but I understand that it's all about testing the game, especially early on. But at the same time, I know that the beta testers will how front row seats to seeing the earliest elements of Planetside 2's metagame start taking shape, and we'll all have an opportunity to directly help lay that foundation. That's the true privilege of being in beta.

When its continental only, its meaningless and as effective as capturing flags in BF3. Big fucking deal.

[PoisonTaco]

I'd like to have the meta-game tie into the release of new content. For example SOE is working on a new Nanite Systems vehicle. Instead of releasing it in a patch they could tie it into a sort of progression for players.

Capturing and holding x type of facility/resources would net your faction resources which they funnel to NS. After your faction has enough Nanite Systems gives the plans of that vehicle to that empire. The other factions would still be able to get it, but there would be a time where one or two of them have it exclusively. Think about it, you're sitting at your base and you see the enemy rolling up with brand new vehicles, ones you don't have yet. Or better yet, when you have it and it's enough to get a good jump on the enemy.

Then how about when they release new continents? It would be cool if they had an event prior to releasing the continent and the winning faction could get there before the other two. Think of it as them arriving first before everyone else. Like an hour or less of a head start. You'd have a rush of players going in to take as much territory as they can, then once it opens up for the other factions you'd have this massive invasion.

[SixShooter]

ONE TERM:

INTERCONTINENTAL TACTICS

Meaning... BEING ABLE TO FULLY CAPTURE CONTS AND HAVE IT MEAN SOMETHING.


When its continental only, its meaningless and as effective as capturing flags in BF3. Big fucking deal.

It did not mean anything in PS1 until continental benefits were introduced. Those things were not there at launch and the meta game changed greatly over the years as different elements were introduced as will happen with PS2. Since you've obviously made your mind up that it will suck then I won't try to convince you but I know that the meta game will be there and I'm not worried.:groovy:

[Xyntech]

I agree about the intercontinental strategy being lacking at the moment, but I'm not worried just yet. We've been concerned about even just continental level strategy in the past, but it seems to me that their heading down the right path.

Just like with the rest of the metagame discussion, it's important that they build from the ground up. Making sure that the game has good moment to moment gameplay first, with things like improved gunplay and flight physics, then work on making continental strategy more rich and dynamic. As everything takes shape in beta, I think there will be plenty of room to start adding intercontinental strategy. We've already got a lot of good ideas on these forums for simple changes to the game which would add global strategy, some of which would even work with just the initial 3 continents.

In the end, all gameplay is pretty meaningless. Even if you capture the entire world, it's really just one big flag you took. One big round. I understand that psychology is an important part of game design, and that capturing one big global flag really is 1000x more awesome than capturing lesser flags, but as Malorn says, it's really not an essential gameplay element.

The depth of the game, the metagame, and global strategy are much more important to the longevity of the game than they are to the day to day gameplay. I do believe that the game will suffer the longer it has no global strategy, but I just don't see this stage of development as being the time where it's essential that it get finished ASAP. Hopefully the devs aren't paying global strategy zero attention in their current design ideas, but it really is something that can wait until the other core gameplay elements are solidified. Just look at how many PS1 staples were added shortly after launch.

The metagame is mostly up to the community, and the rest is up to the devs to support what emerges from the community. The best we can do is make sure to elevate global strategies importance at the right times during beta.

[Marinealver]

The metagame change between Planetside and Planetside 2 will be as drastic as the metagame change between Starcraft and Starcraft 2. Air units no longer dominate both air and ground battles, wall of towers/cannons are no longer effective defences, more focus on micro of units and less superpowerful units.

Planetside 2, Kills will be faster, travel distances will be greater, terrain will be easier to tranverse, there will be less multi person vehicles, and less spash damage spam. There will be more focus on getting to the battle faster and less on bringing the right tools to the battle.