I'm going to go ahead and pour some fuel on a dwindling fire and say...

[WSNeo]

When was the last time a post has come up that someone was bitching about their definition of metagame and how Planetside 2 is lacking it?

It seems that everyone has calmed down after the latti-...errr Hex rework was revealed. :lol:

[Rbstr]

Metagame was just another buzzword of the month like defensible or tactical.

[Obstruction]

i think maybe consensus was also reached about how to refine what they mean since that is a term with a few different ways it can be used.

most of the time those people were just bashing their head into the wall by trying to play a game that doesn't exist yet, or is very shallow (strategic meta).

meanwhile others were arguing that there is plenty of tactical meta and that they should focus on the game that's in front of them because it obviously isn't finished yet.

furthermore if you can't adjust what you're doing from patch to patch then you aren't going to last long anyway. and that's the third definition. as the game changes over time the landscape of dominant tactics and strategies will change.

[Maidere]

Gave up.

[Ghoest9]

"EVE" has a meta game - most all the talk about a "meta-game" for PS2 was people who sisnt know what they were talking about.

Its totally possible that someday PS2 will have a meta-game - but thats not the discussion that its ready for.

[Obstruction]

any game has meta game.

in the case of ps2 it is richer at the level of individual tactics and character development.

people who say there isn't one don't know what they're talking about. it's pretty easy to do a little research and find out what it means.

this isn't the sound of one hand clapping here.

[Hamma]

"EVE" has a meta game - most all the talk about a "meta-game" for PS2 was people who sisnt know what they were talking about.

Its totally possible that someday PS2 will have a meta-game - but thats not the discussion that its ready for.

EVE's metagame is Microsoft Excel. :D

[ringring]

Gave up.

Me too.

[NewSith]

Gave up.

This.

[Ironside]

it's yet to happen, devs talk a positive game but are slow to deliver, unless of course you need a dildo decal or pink camo with matching one shot gun/launcher, i forgot they also deliver bugs by the boat load

[CzuukWaterson]

When was the last time a post has come up that someone was bitching about their definition of metagame and how Planetside 2 is lacking it?

It seems that everyone has calmed down after the latti-...errr Hex rework was revealed. :lol:

Too many people raised on theme park gaming. No NPCs to hold your hand and set way points for you. Or to tell you to go collect 15 snuffelumpotomus hides.

The meta is on twitter, facebook, google+, youtubez, twitch.tv, etc.

[Rothnang]

I haven't given up on it, I've just said what I have to say already, and a lot of other people have made great points as well.

The biggest problem with metagame in Planetside is simply that nothing in this game really affects the whole faction. How well you do comes down pretty much entirely to you and only you, and while that may be the wet dream of every randian psychopathy worshiper, it means that faction wide organization and cooperation isn't really something that comes first in this game. If you're in a great farming spot somewhere who cares if the enemy takes all your land in the meanwhile, you're getting tons of XP.

The other big problem is that the resource system simply sucks. It looks at vehicles like some kind of special treat that you get for doing well. But that design philosophy has proven to be incredibly flawed, because the people that enjoy the hell out of playing infantry don't even want to get a vehicle when they do well, and the people who enjoy using vehicles a lot don't want to be told that they aren't allowed right now. That's why the whole vehicles for resources system just doesn't really mesh with the way people play. To some its of no consequence, to others it's pure frustration, ultimately nobody sees it as a reward.

Instead of resources for the pulling of vehicles there should be an extensive system of logistics for keeping vehicles in the field that creates a lot more battlefield jobs. Let people have their vehicles, don't make it a pain to get them, make it a pain to keep them supplied if your faction is just bellyaching.

Also we need to get away from the idea of restricting thing that people spend certs on when they aren't doing well. The reward for doing well or the penalty for doing badly needs to be something outside of your certs, so that you don't get locked out of the things you invested heavily into.

Maybe holding certain facilities could grant additional infantry classes or vehicles that are the equivalent to a fully certed up standard class in power, but available to everyone regardless of whether they have that class specced out for every day use. That way you can actually promote people trying something new. For example, you capture a certain facility and you can pull a special type of NS Fighter from it, that's as good as a fully certed up ESF. That way if you're a real ESF fanatic you can spec up the ESF your faction has access to and permanently have access to the high end machine, but if you hold the factory that makes the advanced NS type your entire faction can enjoy that, and newer people can play with some top end gear. Similarly there could be special infantry classes or weapons that you can get that are essentially a high end version of an existing class. Like the NS Engineering suit has an AV Mana and a maxed out engineering tool standard, so if you capture the facility that makes that thing and you pull it from that facility you can now play with a fully pimped out engineer, even if you in reality have 0 certs in it.

Something like that might be a lot of work, but I think it makes a lot more sense than trying to restrict what people can pull from the standard lineup. The standard lineup becomes your personal baseline. If you want to have top end gear at all times, regardless of what your faction holds you spec for it, but you can also try out some high end goodies if you grab them from a special factory.

[Juryrig]

. Like the NS Engineering suit has an AV Mana and a maxed out engineering tool standard, so if you capture the facility that makes that thing and you pull it from that facility you can now play with a fully pimped out engineer, even if you in reality have 0 certs in it.



I like the general idea, but make the specials something different and unique. It would completely piss me off to have sunk a couple of thousand certs into my repair tool and ammo pack - because I want to specialise as an Engineer and be good at it - only to find that I could have shoved them all into weapons/explosives/etc and STILL be just as good an engineer so long as someone else has captured a facility I might never have been near.

[Sturmhardt]

I believe many people who were passionate about meta/tactics just stopped caring/playing.

[Rahabib]

When was the last time a post has come up that someone was bitching about their definition of metagame and how Planetside 2 is lacking it?

It seems that everyone has calmed down after the latti-...errr Hex rework was revealed. :lol:

dont worry it will come up again after its introduced. The lattice isnt "metagame," its controls the battle flow.

metagame is just a buzzword. What I gather from people's responses is that they expect metagame to tie together the accomplishments from battles. So each battle is more than win/loss, kills/deaths, it has a meaning to it. Right now the "metagame" is to win a continent and gain a +10% resource bonus - which is meaningless. Add that to the fact that territories are won and lost in a heart beat, so that battle you won, is also meaningless and shallow.

What the game needs is for battles have more meaning - resources that have meaning, consequences that have meaning, etc. The trick is to make them fair (so you dont end up locked out of a continent because someone zerged at 5am), and reward tactics over population but still have meaningful win conditions.

Thats what was debated, and I dont see any of that in the lattice system. I think its a needed addition to keep the battles fun, but its not "metagame." Overhauling the resources system would be adding to the metagame .

[Ghoest9]

EVE's metagame is Microsoft Excel. :D


For some people.

But the real meta game in EVE is corporations (ie. guilds) and alliance interaction and guilds working and planning together to build and maintain fleets and space stations.

All of it depends on combinable and transferable resources.

Thats stuff that PS2 isnt even close to doing.

[Rahabib]

For some people.

But the real meta game in EVE is corporations (ie. guilds) and alliance interaction and guilds working and planning together to build and maintain fleets and space stations.

All of it depends on combinable and transferable resources.

Thats stuff that PS2 isnt even close to doing.
EVE is boring as hell, but the "metagame" is that you can control territories for long periods of time, gain resources and currency by doing so, and essentially owning everything related to it (economy, territory, sovereignty, etc.)

but yea its boring as hell because there is no action.

PS2 has action, but no reward system thats meaningful. Eventually people will unlock everything and just stop playing.

[Rothnang]

Yea, Eve's metagame is basically like having a second job. I played it for 2 years and was part of a huge alliance while I was in college, and I don't have good memories of it. By the time I left I had shifted my sleep cycle to basically being nocturnal to be part of a squad that kept a bunch of Russians from ninjaing our complexes every night and spent about 2 hours every day fueling stations and another 3-4 hours grinding NPC to keep myself rolling in cash. Then our alliance got overrun by another, bigger alliance and half the people quit the game, and the word to the rest was like "It's cool, if we work even harder we'll get it all back" ... yeaaaa no.

I mean you can't argue with the fact that Eve is deep and what you do has consequence, but a game like that ends up dictating your life.

[DirtyBird]

Going to vote with the Gave Up crew.
I think its all taken too long, others who have given up have left imo.
Sad to look at the friends list and see just a few on nowadays.
Not saying they all left just because of that, but I think it may have been a decent part of it.
Maybe they'll come back in time when its finally fixed, maybe something else will have caught their attention by then.

[maradine]

I mean you can't argue with the fact that Eve is deep and what you do has consequence, but a game like that ends up dictating your life.

More or less why I quit EVE. I spent more time running the corp than flying a ship. I have a real job.

But I digress . . .

Lots of people mean different things when they say "metagame". I don't want a massive out-of-game collection of tasks and concerns - that's a bridge too far. What I do want is a reason to drive that spike of purple territory towards the NC/TR gate. PS1 got this right. It has nothing to do with whether it's hexes or a lattice. My hope is that people are still playing once enough continents roll off the line to support that model.

[EVILPIG]

Almost no one who talked about metagame even knew what metagame is.

[onewingedangel]

It doesn't matter what you call it. Putting some sort of continent lock and whatever you call the battle flow improvement is important. They really need to update everyone on that. There was mention of a test server the week after an announcement about the system but then silence.

[CrankyTRex]

I think most of us have just said our peace and are waiting to see what they implement.

Thus far, I haven't seen anything I'm confident will correct the issues I have with the game. I expect the semi-lattice we saw to basically eliminate all non-Zerg action, which means the game will be unplayable for me since going near that stuff chokes my computer, but it's hard to tell without having tried it.


The other big problem is that the resource system simply sucks. It looks at vehicles like some kind of special treat that you get for doing well. But that design philosophy has proven to be incredibly flawed, because the people that enjoy the hell out of playing infantry don't even want to get a vehicle when they do well, and the people who enjoy using vehicles a lot don't want to be told that they aren't allowed right now. That's why the whole vehicles for resources system just doesn't really mesh with the way people play. To some its of no consequence, to others it's pure frustration, ultimately nobody sees it as a reward.

Yeah the timers and resources seem completely arbitrary. If a facility could only spawn so many per time period or something of that sort, it would be easier, but since I'm supposedly spawning my own vehicle, running into a timer or the rare resource restriction gets very frustrating at times, particularly with how long it can take to overcome them. Similarly if I want to do some ground pounding instead, the only time I care about vehicle availability is if I need a Flash.

I know they want this to play into attrition, but attrition doesn't matter a whole lot in this game. You don't get much of a reward for keeping a vehicle alive longer, only that when you die you don't have to wait forever to get another one. Plus, death in this game often has very little to do with personal skill, and that adds another level of irritation to seeing that timer in the way again. (Or worse, the occasional game crash or disconnect.)

[Goldymires]

I think people are just looking for nuance.

I mean...there's just not much to do.

Feels so repetative..

[Canaris]

EVE's metagame is Microsoft Excel. :D

You know my friend once asked me what it would be like if sci-fi accountants ruled the Galaxy, I told him just like EVE. :D

on topic I don't think it's as bad as everyone makes out "those who are waiting on meta game have all fled already"... bah I can still see you all here and on the offical forums still wagging your lips so please, most people have said their piece and are awaiting some of the new combat flow systems to be rolled out before they begin "Metagame bitch fest version 2".

[Mox]

Maybe there is some arguing about some details of how the meta game should work or what it should be.
But the core principles of ps2 meta game are absolutly clear: i. e. a meaningfull system of intercontinental warfare with continent locks.

Just simple like that.

[Rothnang]

I know they want this to play into attrition, but attrition doesn't matter a whole lot in this game. You don't get much of a reward for keeping a vehicle alive longer, only that when you die you don't have to wait forever to get another one. Plus, death in this game often has very little to do with personal skill, and that adds another level of irritation to seeing that timer in the way again. (Or worse, the occasional game crash or disconnect.)

Yea, they get attrition exactly the wrong way in my opinion. The factor of attrition in the world shouldn't be a global thing that hands out free samples of buttfucking to anyone who got overrun by the zerg while in their favourite vehicle.

What attrition should be all about is that the defender has a huge advantage on their home turf, but can't simply hold out for all time in that particular base without logistics support, and also that the attackers may have the initiative in every fight, but they can't keep the same gargantuan zerg rolling across an entire continent without logistics support.

Resources should be more about where you fight than what you can use to fight. Questions like whether you have to fly back to the warpgate to get new bombs or land at a convenient nearby tower should be what makes you care about logistics and resources.

I don't mind the timers too much, because I don't think losing a vehicle should be entirely without consequence. I personally hate infantry gameplay because people behave like immortal jackasses in it, and since I like military simulation and shooters where death matters that just turns me off. In vehicle gameplay people don't act like their life doesn't matter as much, and I like that, because it keeps a psychological element in the game.

[Ruffdog]

It's kinda like a good song. It got played too much. People are loathe now to bring it up because they'll get shouted down because we're sick of it. Even though its good to the ears.

Let them fix battleflow first: we'll see what happens with this:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/q4q5tnh4w8/20130313_514143d6aa56a.jpg

[Mietz]

Ultimately the new lattice will marginally improve metagame.
However there are a badzillion other things to fix before it will become serviceable though.

Tacticians and strategists currently yawn at this game.

[Qwan]

I dont know guys, I think the so called meta rant is dying because new players to the game are starting to see that PS2 is a game constantly in the process of growing. Also that people have definitions of meta game. Some see continent locks as the meta, or additional continents, base changes, and when they look at the scheduel for the up and coming patches they see somthing that makes the meta for them. So over all people who complained about a meta may have looked at the list of things to come and see that the requirement for there vision of a meta is meet or will be in the future. For me I dont really look at PS2 as a game that was designed for a meta, a end game so to say. Granted I think that there should be rewards for certain accomplishments but trying to put a meta or a end game for a game thats constantaly changing doesnt make sence to me. I mean think about it if a faction locks a continent, does that mean they won and they shouldnt play anymore because they meet the requirements for there meta. I can garantee you that when they log on a hour later things will not be the same. So the rant for a meta is going to dye down because as you play the game you see that PS2 has a constant changing enviroment, one second your zerg is taking over the next second its getting beat back by the oposition, and loosing ground. Meta in this game is having fun from the time you log in, have some fun with friends, to the time you log out.

[Punker]

It died down because;
a. SoE hired Malorn to look at this specifically
b. they started to release some info that they were working on it
c. a dead horse can only be flogged for so long before people get sore arms

[typhaon]

I thought a lot about the metagame - then eventually just gave up.



I think a big challenge is that if you make something matter... then it will matter... and there will be winners and losers... and like it or not, that might not be "good for the game ($$$)."

You can't have it both ways. You can't have a super-friendly, everyone can do everything/whenever and however as much as they want and the only rammifactions of winning/losing are colors on a map... AND have an endgame (I prefer this term) with consequences.

[GTGD]

Gave up on this game. As much as I want to believe it will one day be as much fun as PS1 was, I see the same trend happen every month. Devs promise a ton of stuff, only some of it gets done, less than that gets done well, and it increases the amount of problems with the game. For every one issue they fix, it causes 2 or 3 other things that are even worse.

I've given them plenty of chances, but now I'm just chalking it up as a sunk cost. Despite spending money on this game, I feel more fulfilled by NOT playing it.

[CrankyTRex]

Yea, they get attrition exactly the wrong way in my opinion. The factor of attrition in the world shouldn't be a global thing that hands out free samples of buttfucking to anyone who got overrun by the zerg while in their favourite vehicle.

What attrition should be all about is that the defender has a huge advantage on their home turf, but can't simply hold out for all time in that particular base without logistics support, and also that the attackers may have the initiative in every fight, but they can't keep the same gargantuan zerg rolling across an entire continent without logistics support.

Resources should be more about where you fight than what you can use to fight. Questions like whether you have to fly back to the warpgate to get new bombs or land at a convenient nearby tower should be what makes you care about logistics and resources.

I don't mind the timers too much, because I don't think losing a vehicle should be entirely without consequence. I personally hate infantry gameplay because people behave like immortal jackasses in it, and since I like military simulation and shooters where death matters that just turns me off. In vehicle gameplay people don't act like their life doesn't matter as much, and I like that, because it keeps a psychological element in the game.

Yeah I agree. I've always felt that at the very least the resources/timers should be unique to a facility in some way. Like a facility can only generate so many of a vehicle in a time period, such that you can empty that facility of local resources and then get pushed back that way. Or you have separate timers/resources for a given facility.

I also don't necessarily mind a penalty, but the timer just seems like a lame one. It's just a random limitation that isn't tied to anything in particular, and the resources are there too so it's like "why do we need a timer if we have resources?"

[p0intman]

When was the last time a post has come up that someone was bitching about their definition of metagame and how Planetside 2 is lacking it?

It seems that everyone has calmed down after the latti-...errr Hex rework was revealed. :lol:
I'm waiting until I can see it on a test server to give it a fair chance.
Gave up.
I haven't. I am, however, conserving the ammo and energy I still have for the moment. Very close to simply giving up entirely, though. I can only hammer a point home so many times before its worth more to just walk away and stop caring.
I believe many people who were passionate about meta/tactics just stopped caring/playing.
This. I know more people who can actually argue logically about it that have been on the 'Fuck ps2' bandwagon and just don't care enough to bother. Like Evilpig said, a lot of people who argued for keeping the current hex system/layout did so without having a clue what it is.

[Hamma]

I don't think this lattice system is a solution in the longrun. It will focus fights and make things more interesting. But until special ops can go behind enemy lines and deny resources to the enemy by bringing down generators or attacking "resource collectors" (which don't exist yet but I think would be awesome) we still won't get much variation on the classic fights.

[hashish]

Yea I agree man, Also to add to what Hamma is saying, I also believe that once more continents are added and we get sanctuaries back with the ability to lock continents, it would heavily support the whole meta-game development..

[Baneblade]

Until there is a reason for me to give a shit that we are losing Indar while I'm on Esamir, there is no metagame.

[Paperboy]

I don't even play any more, this game to me is a total joke, I've been checking back and back for months, still the same issues going on, and like others have said, I have given up on this game, I will hold on to my great memory of Planetside 1 and pretend Planetside 2 was never made.

[ChipMHazard]

I don't even play any more, this game to me is a total joke, I've been checking back and back for months, still the same issues going on, and like others have said, I have given up on this game, I will hold on to my great memory of Planetside 1 and pretend Planetside 2 was never made.

And yet you made a post in a thread about Planetside 2 in the Planetside 2 section of the forum.:huh:

[SternLX]

Been playing since Beta started. Could care less about a Meta game. I play simply because it's an FPS. And a Sci-Fi one at that. Find a battle and have fun. No set round timers or 'Tickets' to deplete to determine a winner. Lose a place to spawn? Find some were else.

Yes, it has MMO in it's title but thats mainly because of character progression and it's a persistent world. Does every MMO out there made to date have a Meta game? Nope.

[KodanBlack]

What the game needs is for battles have more meaning - resources that have meaning, consequences that have meaning, etc. The trick is to make them fair (so you dont end up locked out of a continent because someone zerged at 5am), and reward tactics over population but still have meaningful win conditions.

That is what we need, but how to do it? That is a question that cannot be answered, nor implemented overnight.

[Paperboy]

And yet you made a post in a thread about Planetside 2 in the Planetside 2 section of the forum.:huh:

Yes, I know, It is totally mind boggling.

[VaderShake]

I kind of chuckle when I see all the people complaining about a F2P game, an excellent benchmark one at that. People seem to hold this game at a different standard than any other game that has come out ever.

I can go back to a multitute of great games FPS & MMO's that took a year at minimum to dial in and get right or on the right track. ON the FPS side the main things that are typical problems are there but some are not like "hit boxes" the hit boxes are really excellent out of the box and gun balance, yea it's not perfect no FPS is but with all the options of weapondry they have done a great job keeping it balanced. Also with vehicles, they are pretty balanced with some preference issues here and there for sure but really for what they have taken on they are ahead of the standard curve.

AS far as the imfamous "metagame" well, they are developing something, is it the same as PS1? No, should it be? Probably not. Also from what I hear about PS1 it seems that game had plenty of issues as well but you were willing to look past them because it was such a new experience. I know the novelty of thinking how great a game was and wondering why they changed the best things about them, Madden 1992 to Madden 1993 or example or the more recentBF2142 to BF3...DICE did flat out lie about BF3 though....but I digress.

PS2 is getting better every update, they have a plan, and it's an excellent game regarless of some peoples hurt feelings. Then again maybe I just have a better understanding of things because I have been gaming for 35 years...

[Maidere]

and it's an excellent game regarless of some peoples hurt feelings. Then again maybe I just have a better understanding of things because I have been gaming for 35 years...
CoD: BO2 is better and I've been playing games for 40 years. See what I did there?

[Hamma]

Been playing since Beta started. Could care less about a Meta game. I play simply because it's an FPS. And a Sci-Fi one at that. Find a battle and have fun. No set round timers or 'Tickets' to deplete to determine a winner. Lose a place to spawn? Find some were else.

Yes, it has MMO in it's title but thats mainly because of character progression and it's a persistent world. Does every MMO out there made to date have a Meta game? Nope.

Yep there are lots of people like this. SOE has to find the mix between you guys and folks who want solid meta game in order to make the game a real success. I'm not sure they can do it personally.

[VaderShake]

Hamma that is their challenge......but the poutyness of some people is nauseating..

[VaderShake]

CoD: BO2 is better and I've been playing games for 40 years. See what I did there?

I ussually stop reading at CoD....

[WSNeo]

CoD: BO2 is better and I've been playing games for 40 years. See what I did there?

I'm glad that someone else understands this.

Just because you've been doing X for Y amount of years does not upcoming statement valid.

[VaderShake]

I'm glad that someone else understands this.

Just because you've been doing X for Y amount of years does not upcoming statement valid.

So your saying experience counts for nothing? Really? So how does one become an expert at anything then? So a baby can be an accountant at age 1? Really....what a ignorant notion.

[WSNeo]

So your saying experience counts for nothing? Really? So how does one become an expert at anything then? So a baby can be an accountant at age 1? Really....what a ignorant notion.

What an ignorant analogy.

I'm saying that just because you've been doing something for 30-40 years doesn't mean that you're right because of that. A prime example is parents back in the eighties saying that heavy metal was not a genre of music because that wasn't what they grew up with.

But don't get mad at me, I didn't make that initial statement lol.

Moving back on topic, I think Sanctuaries need to make a return to give a sense of a base of operations and pride to defend.

[VaderShake]

What an ignorant analogy.

I'm saying that just because you've been doing something for 30-40 years doesn't mean that you're right because of that. A prime example is parents back in the eighties saying that heavy metal was not a genre of music because that wasn't what they grew up with.

But don't get mad at me, I didn't make that initial statement lol.

Moving back on topic, I think Sanctuaries need to make a return to give a sense of a base of operations and pride to defend.

Ignorant analogy for an ingnorant perspective I guess. I'm not saying I am right base on my history I am saying based on my history there are allot of people who can't see the forrest through the trees with PS2 and are really off base with the idea that PS2 is terribly broken, because I have 30+ years of playing games and first hand knowing what a heaping pile of a crap game looks like. I have blown thousands of dollars on crap games over that time and the criticisim PS2 is getting is comparatively unfounded. The people making these comments would not have been able to tollerate even the best games of the 80's because of glaring and frustrating issues they had let alone tolerate the sucky games.

Im not saying it's perfect but amazes me how quick people will abondon it can continue to critique it like a bunch of pouting babies. SOE needs time and constructive feedback not pouting.

Yes, back to topic....ps. Im not mad..

Sanctuaries as I understand them from PS2 would make a welcome addition for sure.