Why do people keep asking for more meta game concepts within Planetside?

[Catfart]

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame
“Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.
In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.”

Surely what is wanted is more strategic game play to give a reason for the tactical battles.

If they added a lattice system or similar into the game, that would be a strategic game element. Knowing that a Lattice system is being implemented and then capturing bases to give your side an advantage when it happens is a meta game element.

Saving your certs up because you know that buggies are coming out is playing the meta game. Rewarding a faction by allowing them to rezz other faction’s buggies provides a strategic reason to capture a continent.

Going by the definition above, SOE have listened to the demands for meta gameplay by releasing the roadmap. Using that knowledge, external to the game rules, you can, in theory, now play a meta game. No strategic elements in the roadmap? Well, very few people asked for that, everyone was asking for a meta game and that’s what we got.

As far as I can tell, when people say Meta, they actually mean Strategic (Say if I’m wrong), but why?

Does anyone actually want more Meta Game (As per the definition) in Planetside?

[Figment]

From that same wiki page:

Games

Within actual entertainment games, the term metagame is used to describe either a game system layered over the game system, to increase enjoyable complexity, or a game system by which game rules are created, [...]

This is a bit of a stretch of course. Typically people refer to having a grander purpose on a strategic level, more alternative options and having fights on other continents (out of their direct game) influence their own continent (for instance, with links to other continents and knowing what's happening over there).

[Redshift]

What is meant by metagame as far as planetside players is more objectives than just zerg nearest base....

[artifice]

From your link.

Computer games

Recently[citation needed] the term metagame has come to be used[citation needed] by PC Gaming shoutcasters to describe an emergent methodology that is a subset of the basic strategy necessary to play the game at a high level. The definitions of this term are varied but can include "pre-game" theory, behavior prediction, or "ad hoc strategy" depending on the game being played. An example of this would be in StarCraft where a player's previous matches with the same opponent have given them insight into that player's playstyle and may cause them to make certain decisions which would otherwise seem inferior. Another example would be in the multiplayer online battle arena genre or Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne, where the metagame refers to the current playstyle and hero choices being favored by high level teams in recent competitive play.

Metagame revolves around the design of the game played. If the game design favors the zerg, only the zerg will happen.

[yonman]

So this is a thread about the semantics of using the term "meta game" to describe inner game elements or out-of-bound elements that affect the game?

So this is a meta-meta-game thread?

Ye guhds.

[Larington]

Ok, here's my current perspective:

The whole point of the meta game is to give things meaning. So, in Planetside 1, sure we had our rifles and our tanks, and transports and aircraft and ANT's. But all of this, ALL OF IT, was in service of the larger aim of the game for the players.

To take continents, to hold continents. The more the better.

Planetside 2 has all the stuff to build to this, but in general it's very hard for an empire to take a continent and lock it off to the enemy for a while. In Planetside 1, when you pushed the enemy up to their warpgate, that was it. They couldn't just pull more heavy tanks in the warpgate, they'd either have to abandon the continent or they had to go back to sanctuary, organise, mass up, and hit with an entire fresh assault. That extra requirement of effort to push back in meant that pushing the enemy to a warpgate had meaning and purpose.

When you then owned the continent, bearing in mind it was easy to just press M to bring up map, G to bring up global view, then start checking each locked continent for any hacks sitting on the bases. If there were, marked by little capture warning flags over the facilities, you'd first send a scout in a light aircraft to survey enemy resistance. If it was a single guy trying to ghost hack, well you had up to 15 minutes to fix that. If it was a squad, outfit or a full zerg then the call would go out for support and the fight would be on.

See, it doesn't seem like a big deal when you can summarise it like that, but honestly, it's a world of difference from your call of duties, and battlefields, and, I'm saddened to say, Planetside 2 just isn't there yet either. It'll get there I think, maybe in a different way from PS1, but it'll get there, we just need time.

[Catfart]

From that same wiki page:
This is a bit of a stretch of course. Typically people refer to having a grander purpose on a strategic level, more alternative options and having fights on other continents (out of their direct game) influence their own continent (for instance, with links to other continents and knowing what's happening over there).
So you think Meta = Strategic?

What is meant by metagame as far as planetside players is more objectives than just zerg nearest base....
To me that is asking for more strategic elements, very different from a meta game.

From your link.
Metagame revolves around the design of the game played. If the game design favors the zerg, only the zerg will happen.
Interesting, so that would mean there is a difference between strategic and Meta game.

So this is a thread about the semantics of using the term "meta game" to describe inner game elements or out-of-bound elements that affect the game?

So this is a meta-meta-game thread?

Ye guhds.
LOL. Yes, my mind works in odd ways

[Catfart]

Ok, here's my current perspective:

The whole point of the meta game is to give things meaning. So, in Planetside 1, sure we had our rifles and our tanks, and transports and aircraft and ANT's. But all of this, ALL OF IT, was in service of the larger aim of the game for the players.

To take continents, to hold continents. The more the better.

Planetside 2 has all the stuff to build to this, but in general it's very hard for an empire to take a continent and lock it off to the enemy for a while. In Planetside 1, when you pushed the enemy up to their warpgate, that was it. They couldn't just pull more heavy tanks in the warpgate, they'd either have to abandon the continent or they had to go back to sanctuary, organise, mass up, and hit with an entire fresh assault. That extra requirement of effort to push back in meant that pushing the enemy to a warpgate had meaning and purpose.

When you then owned the continent, bearing in mind it was easy to just press M to bring up map, G to bring up global view, then start checking each locked continent for any hacks sitting on the bases. If there were, marked by little capture warning flags over the facilities, you'd first send a scout in a light aircraft to survey enemy resistance. If it was a single guy trying to ghost hack, well you had up to 15 minutes to fix that. If it was a squad, outfit or a full zerg then the call would go out for support and the fight would be on.

See, it doesn't seem like a big deal when you can summarise it like that, but honestly, it's a world of difference from your call of duties, and battlefields, and, I'm saddened to say, Planetside 2 just isn't there yet either. It'll get there I think, maybe in a different way from PS1, but it'll get there, we just need time.

All valid points, I think they are a very big deal and hope we get there too. But that is all strategic game play, not meta.

Adding more pay to play items to the shop would be adding meta game elements as you are using resources outside of the game (Money) to impact on in-game decisions.

Some interesting responces so far.

[Sturmhardt]

What is meant by metagame as far as planetside players is more objectives than just zerg nearest base....

This is true.

Was there any real question in the op?

.sent via phone.

[ringring]

This is true.

Was there any real question in the op?

.sent via phone.
There was no question at all, just someone splitting hairs to try to reach infinity.

[ChipMHazard]

I don't care about splitting hairs, only thing I care about is adding in some actual purpose to the game, besides just farming points/kills.

Also, as if often the case with video game concept definitions, meta gaming and what that is isn't really clearly, and universally, defined and it often comes down to whom you're asking.

[ShadetheDruid]

When people say "metagame", I wish instead they'd just explain what they mean. Every person that uses it has a different definition, so normally it just seems like a nonsense phrase that gets thrown around without any meaning. Hell, even saying "strategic elements" instead would be an improvement, at least you could get what they mean straight away.

Even worse, it's one of those phrases that's been taken and twisted to mean the opposite of what it used to mean - even when the other meaning is still in use. It's annoying for RP'ers, for whom "metagaming" = bad.

[Catfart]

This is true.

Was there any real question in the op?

.sent via phone.

Only to confirm that my understanding was correct. I think two points come out of this tho'


We all bandy around words on the assumption that we are all talking about the same thing, when we are not. This can cause a lot of confusion.
If our understanding of what Meta Game means is very different from SOE's definition, then we are never going to get what we want. Does anyone know what the Devs think the Meta Game is?

[Catfart]

There was no question at all, just someone splitting hairs to try to reach infinity.
Not at all

When people say "metagame", I wish instead they'd just explain what they mean. Every person that uses it has a different definition, so normally it just seems like a nonsense phrase that gets thrown around without any meaning. Hell, even saying "strategic elements" instead would be an improvement, at least you could get what they mean straight away.

Even worse, it's one of those phrases that's been taken and twisted to mean the opposite of what it used to mean - even when the other meaning is still in use. It's annoying for RP'ers, for whom "metagaming" = bad.

Exactly.

[Redshift]

So you think Meta = Strategic?


To me that is asking for more strategic elements, very different from a meta game.



Meta means a concept inside a concept, in our case a game within a game. The game of planetside is at heart a FPS, that's the game, the idea of a meta is the idea that the setting actually matters, it's the idea that these infantry battles actually mean something.

Currently PS2 doesn't have much of a metagame, you could take the crown and the surrounding two bases dump it on a server on it's own and no one would notice. The idea of a metagame is that the FPS battles... the core of the game, have meaning elsewhere, as in a global war.

Currently conquest isn't a part of the game because no one gives a shit about it. Hence no meta.

[Figment]

So you think Meta = Strategic?

Not at all.

From that specific definition, you could argue meta-game strategy is an in-game strategy level not directly felt in physical combat at all times, but overarching the local battle (the smaller battle being a "game within a game"). For instance in PS1, you having an infantry fight indoors, while outdoors there's a threat of siege mechanic NTU base drain (which will end your fight).

I do think Meta-game strategy includes being able to predict what other players will probably do on a strategic level from experience and being aware of what is happening on other continents and having these other continents directly affect the conflict on your own. Either by links, benefits or impending threats or relieve forces. Those are external to the continental fight, after all.

Global strategy would be how you organise around this.

[Catfart]

OK,

So if you are using the word Meta to describe what I would call Strategic and is specifically in-game, what word or phrase would you use to describe the situation where knowledge or resources outside of the game and the game rule set are used to influence in-game decisions and play? What Wikipedia calls Meta?

[Figment]

Also meta.

[Qwan]

Well maybe they can add more content to the game by:

Global bonuses: Giving the discount bonus for continent locks, instead of just making it continent base, they can make it global.

Convoy Event: Said faction has a convoy leaving from said base and going to said base, if the faction defends the convoy from attack ++ certs, or xp. Of course the convoy would have a but load of HP, kind of like a raid boss, and would move at a certain speed, they can scheduel these, for certain days of the week, make global annoucments. I think it would be fun defending or attacking convoys.

Maybe events like these can be added to the game to help with those who need a purpose.

[Sturmhardt]

There was no question at all, just someone splitting hairs to try to reach infinity.

Thanks, just wanted to be sure...
/thread

.sent via phone.

[bpostal]

To me, it's simple. Meta means the 'Why' whereas strategy means the 'What' and tactics is the 'How'
And the Why is what's lacking.

[ChipMHazard]

To me, it's simple. Meta means the 'Why' whereas strategy means the 'What' and tactics is the 'How'
And the Why is what's lacking.

Aye, that's my view as well.