Community and the Metagame

Shuuda · 2013-01-25, 08:17 PM

Good day. I've joined this forum primarily for the purpose of making this thread because it's something that's been on my mind a lot. Worse still, it's causing me to become rather resentful of the Planetside community, so I will not deny that this post is basically a big rant. I just want to get these thoughts off my mind.

~

I would not consider myself a hardcore online gamer, with PS2 being probably the second MMO I've ever really played. However, from my previous experiences in online gaming I have come across the concept of the "metagame" on numerous occasions.

Perhaps among different communities the word metagame means different things. However, one thing that seemed constant was the fact that the metagame was formed by the community.

In my days of playing the original Guild Wars, the term metagame was used to describe what team builds and tactics were considered popular in high end PvP. A healthy metagame was one where many kinds of builds were viable and where winning a battle was a matter of skills. An unhealthy metagame was one where one build dominated or where the popular builds relied less of skillful play. The metagame usually changed whenever the developers buffed or nerfs certain skills.

The important thing is that it was developed by the players. The developers at no point decreed a metagame. I don't believe a developer can or should try to create the metagame themselves. A metagame is ultimately formed by the players deciding on what works best and how the counter their enemies.

One can argue that the problem with PS2 isn't that there is no metagame, but rather the metagame we currently have isn't healthy. That right now the metagame is the zerg, relying on pure numbers rather than organisation and skill. But there is a metagame, people just don't want to acknowledge it's there because it's not one they want. Which is understandable.

I for one, trying to look on the brighter side of things (unlike most MMO players), do see things emerging that I would consider metagaming. For example:

1) NC Maxes are very effective in close quarters.
2) An organised NC platoon can easily defend a biolab using maxes.
3) In theory, the NC could prevent a continent conquest by heavily defending one biolab, either by acting as a road block for the enemy zerg, or simply holding onto the lab, preventing a 100% takeover.
4) It falls on the other empires to decided what they're going to do to try and counter this. So far, I've seen a particularly effective method.

Or

1) Magriders are very effective MBTs.
2) Therefore the Vanu use a lot of them in their offense.
3) The other empires can counter this with an effective airforce.
4) This can be countered with Anti-Air.

(By the way, I'm not trying to suggest either NC maxes or magriders are OP, these are just my observations of faction behaviour.)

Admittedly, those are just tiny examples based off my own lacking knowledge of what a metagame is. Also, I'm in no way suggesting that PS2 currently has a health metagame yet, simply that there are things emerging that aren't just the zerg.

When I see people in the PS community say things like "why don't SoE add a metagame", the response that comes to mind; "for the same reason a shovel making factory don't dig the holes for you". You're basically asking SoE to tell you constantly how the game should be played. I find that laughable, considering that in its arrogance, the PS community always act like they know better than SoE as to what a PS game is.

My concern is that metagame is becoming a buzzword in the PS community, used by people who want to look critical without having to actually think about what they want or what exactly they want SoE to add. It's meaning is becoming vague and misused.

"Lack of metagame" is no longer constructive criticism because there's nothing specific about it. It's like going up to a writer and saying "this story's badly written". It doesn't help.

For me the question is not "why isn't SoE adding a metagame", but rather:

"Why can't the players form a metagame?"

A part of thinks when people talk about SoE not adding a metagame what they're actually saying is that they have not been given enough tools to create a metagame themselves. On the other hand, I sometimes suspect laziness on the part of many players. Bitter veterans could be the part of the problem. Rather than adapt they stomp their feet and declare the game a failure for not being PS1. It feels like there's little attempt is made to tackle PS2 as it's own beast.

"What is the responsibility of SoE, and what is the responsibility of the communty in making a healthier metagame?"

In my opinion, the responsibility of SoE in terms of metagame is to keep the game balanced. Make sure that no one side is better than other. When one faction has access to something that give them too great of an advantage in too many situations then that leads to an unhealthy metagame.

The responsibility of the players in to experiment and learn the game inside out. Perhaps the reason we don't have a strong metagame is because we don't have enough players who have detailed knowledge about the game.

"Would SoE defining the metagame damage the communities power to affect the game?"

Perhaps I'm being melodramatic, but in my opinion getting on your knees to beg SoE for a metagame is worrisome, more so to me than the fact that PS2 lacks a healthy metagame. It shows a willingness to surrender something that makes MMOs different from any other genre of video game. That is the importance of the community. Every genre has people who can whine and criticise, but online players have an actual degree of power in the game.

TL : DR: I believe the idea that PS2 has no metagame is wrong. It has one, it's just not a healthy one, and I believe discussions on the subject need to realise that.

Neutral Calypso · 2013-01-25, 08:30 PM

I did not play Planetside 1, but from reading into the context of this use of "metagame" I believe the players are using it to describe such concepts as continent-locking if one of the factions caps it and so forth, and other related issues that existed in PS1 and are expected to be implemented in the sequel. Not exactly the same thing as what you are getting at.

Crator · 2013-01-25, 08:37 PM

Metagame includes global conquest system. So, continent locking. It also involves strategy produced by how the bases are laid out for capturing (the base itself as well as all bases on a single continent, their relation to the hex system, and the benefits they produce when owned).

A lot of other things such as tools given and how long it takes to kill things are related to the overall metagame as well. Small tweaks here and there... It's complicated... :P

belch · 2013-01-25, 09:08 PM

The guy is on to something actually.

Bobby Shaftoe · 2013-01-25, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by Shuuda

Bitter veterans could be the part of the problem. Rather than adapt they stomp their feet and declare the game a failure for not being PS1. It feels like there's little attempt is made to tackle PS2 as it's own beast.

Yup, totally the Vets fault that the Devs designed PS2 this way and all the newbs run around playing the game the way they want to. IE mindless zerging.

I mean really, do you think people that played PS1 for almost a decade, couldn't use their experience and knowledge of that game's mechanics, look at PS2 and see that almost nothing beyond 'zerg-herding' was transferred to PS2?!

I think you'll find we're all for playing tactically/for the empire, it's everyone else that doesn't give a shit about the 'objectives' and just goes off fighting at the crown and who can blame them, xp/certs is what motivates the vast majority of the players because there is literally no incentive to 'play the objectives' game.

There are so many problems compounded together that have been pointed out since fucking tech-test that haven't been changed that the game is fundamentally fucked.

PS2 sure is a beast and the beast has a name: ZERGING.

Yes I'm mad, especially when people come along with dubious fucking disclaimers 'Hey I never played this game but...' and then go on to say that those that did are wrong, don't know how to play the game and should be residing in a special level of hell reserved for them and people who talk during movies because they have the audacity to call a 3-way-cluster-fuck-grindfest a 3-way-cluster-fuck-grindfest.

belch · 2013-01-25, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

Yup, totally the Vets fault that the Devs designed PS2 this way and all the newbs run around playing the game the way they want to. IE mindless zerging.

I mean really, do you think people that played PS1 for almost a decade, couldn't use their experience and knowledge of that game's mechanics, look at PS2 and see that almost nothing beyond 'zerg-herding' was transferred to PS2?!

I think you'll find we're all for playing tactically/for the empire, it's everyone else that doesn't give a shit about the 'objectives' and just goes off fighting at the crown and who can blame them, xp/certs is what motivates the vast majority of the players because there is literally no incentive to 'play the objectives' game.

There are so many problems compounded together that have been pointed out since fucking tech-test that haven't been changed that the game is fundamentally fucked.

PS2 sure is a beast and the beast has a name: ZERGING.

Yes I'm mad, especially when people come along with dubious fucking disclaimers 'Hey I never played this game but...' and then go on to say that those that did are wrong, don't know how to play the game and should be residing in a special level of hell reserved for them and people who talk during movies because they have the audacity to call a 3-way-cluster-fuck-grindfest a 3-way-cluster-fuck-grindfest.

Whoa...getting that mad isn't going to do anything but blow out a major blood vessel man. I don't think the OP said that PS1 vets are wrong or don't know how to play the game. He doubts that the most vocally bitter have honestly tried tackling PS2 as it's own game. I think we all agree that there is some work to be done...looking at the 6 month plan it looks like the devs also agree.

BlueSkies · 2013-01-25, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by Shuuda

In my days of playing the original Guild Wars, the term metagame was used to describe what team builds and tactics were considered popular in high end PvP. A healthy metagame was one where many kinds of builds were viable and where winning a battle was a matter of skills. An unhealthy metagame was one where one build dominated or where the popular builds relied less of skillful play. The metagame usually changed whenever the developers buffed or nerfs certain skills.

Quoted the important part. You argue that "metagame" is created by the players, but at the same time demonstrate in your own example that "metagame" is effected by the design of the game systems (in the case of GW, buffing/nerfing skills).

That is, apparently, the part of the PS2 arguments that you aren't understanding. Its not that (most) people asking for metagame development want SoE to print a guide book to world domination. We just want SoE to further develop the underlying systems of the game to encourage metagame development.

Adding base benefits was a step in the right direction (even though Tech plant is kind of the only important one, and even then, not that much with WG sancs).

The reason you will see people sitting in fights that have long since been cut off from the WG is that, ultimately, it doesn't matter if you take or lose territory. It effects nothing. I imagine it would be like going into a boss fight in an mmorpg except that they haven't put the boss npcs into the game yet.

Bocheezu · 2013-01-25, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by Shuuda

A part of thinks when people talk about SoE not adding a metagame what they're actually saying is that they have not been given enough tools to create a metagame themselves. On the other hand, I sometimes suspect laziness on the part of many players.

This game lacks some tools. The most basic of which is a timer counting down how long until a base captures. Organized outfits have had to completely guess based on 182371089730198 factors how long it will take a base to cap and what way to best respond to threats. Without a set timer you can send your whole outfit to resecure a base just in the nick of time only to lose influence and lose the base before you ever get there. Conditions for base capture are constantly in flux and it ruins a lot of attempts at strategy. The strategy will better develop over time, people will learn, etc., but overcomplicating something just for the sake of overcomplicating it does not breed strategy. PS1 had set timers; it was simple and it got the job done.

There are some strategies emerging, like defending Scarred Mesa Skydock and holing up there to hold off a cont lock. Certain bases are obviously more defensible than others and outfits are making efforts to make use of them. But really, the loss of continental benefits doesn't really matter; people just do it so they can say they held off faction X till they quit and went away. It's not that deep a game.

Compare it to PS1; Malorn linked his PS1 manifeso on page 2 of the thread below. Scroll down to the meta-game/global strategy section and look at the amount of social psychology/zerg herding and planning involved. That just doesn't exist in this game because there is no need or drive to go through the effort. There is no global strategy.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=51743

ringring · 2013-01-26, 05:19 AM

I think you're close but not quite right in your analysis.

Yes, players create the metagame, it is an invention of different players working together to achieve an overall goal.

However, various game mechanics must support and allow it to exist. These don't exist in PS2, the maps a simply large maps that are essentially stand-alone and don't fit into an overarching scheme.

Actually not many changes are needed to create a meta game. Simply more continents and a lattice between them, the ability to capture whole continents whereby capturing a warpgate provides a link to allow the invasion of the next continent.

Other than that a revamped chat tool to aid coordination.

If I put it like that, not much needs to change. However, those changes signify a lot of work and therefore a lot of elapsed time from where we are now. The proper meta game won't take off for quite a while. I think it's important to note that all of these are on the devs development path.

The main issue is the devs decision to hand-craft continents, we've got some very pretty continents with much considered 'features' but we don't get the 'big game'.

PS2 is only half the game it should be. The shooter part is there but the intercontinental metagame isn't.

Two final points.

We PS1 talk about continent-locking. We do not mean a timer type lock imposed by the game. We mean a lock create by players capturing both ends on a link in the lattice between continents.

Secondly, we know what we mean by meta game. It's a term that has been used in planetside for nigh on ten years. It was much praised by ps1 players before ps2 was thought of, but apparently the current devs didn't know that.

ps TRay is the only dev who worked on both PS1 and PS2. John Ratcliffe was the PS1 developer responsible for the client, he has had involvement in PS2 as a NVidia consultant for Physx. Magaret Crone although she wasn't a dev was a PS1 player before joining SOE and it sounds like was pretty active too.

dorgo · 2013-01-26, 05:43 AM

What us PS1 Vets mean by "Metagame" is that Planetside 2 if fundamentally flawed, there a no real tactical objectives in the game, we all just run around "Zerging". All SOE need to do is add in cont locking and a better system of base capture with a timer for the bases.

I for one have stopped playing the game for the moment as i don't want to zerg i find it boring, lets hope the day comes when a small squad/outfit can go and secure bases or outposts and do there own thing which isn't possible at the moment.

dorgo · 2013-01-26, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

I think you're close but not quite right in your analysis.

Yes, players create the metagame, it is an invention of different players working together to achieve an overall goal.

However, various game mechanics must support and allow it to exist. These don't exist in PS2, the maps a simply large maps that are essentially stand-alone and don't fit into an overarching scheme.

Actually not many changes are needed to create a meta game. Simply more continents and a lattice between them, the ability to capture whole continents whereby capturing a warpgate provides a link to allow the invasion of the next continent.

Other than that a revamped chat tool to aid coordination.

If I put it like that, not much needs to change. However, those changes signify a lot of work and therefore a lot of elapsed time from where we are now. The proper meta game won't take off for quite a while. I think it's important to note that all of these are on the devs development path.

The main issue is the devs decision to hand-craft continents, we've got some very pretty continents with much considered 'features' but we don't get the 'big game'.

PS2 is only half the game it should be. The shooter part is there but the intercontinental metagame isn't.

Two final points.

We PS1 talk about continent-locking. We do not mean a timer type lock imposed by the game. We mean a lock create by players capturing both ends on a link in the lattice between continents.

Secondly, we know what we mean by meta game. It's a term that has been used in planetside for nigh on ten years. It was much praised by ps1 players before ps2 was thought of, but apparently the current devs didn't know that.

ps TRay is the only dev who worked on both PS1 and PS2. John Ratcliffe was the PS1 developer responsible for the client, he has had involvement in PS2 as a NVidia consultant for Physx. Magaret Crone although she wasn't a dev was a PS1 player before joining SOE and it sounds like was pretty active too.

You said it better...

igster · 2013-01-26, 06:13 AM

Can you imagine playing a Battlefield map or a quake arena map that never rotates. Or a capture the flag games that never rotates and one side owns everything but the game just doesn't end. Well the simple analogy is that this is how it feels for a lot of PS1 guys.
The players always had the alternative tactics and tools to work around the stalemates and zergy win conditions. Subvert the enemy Zerg. Pull the opposing populations so they have to react to something a small outfit does. This is something that has to be provided by the game systems and then executed by creative team play.
Honestly the creative teams are still there - they've been trying to subvert the enemy factions for 10 years now. They just get no support from the gameplay systems. There is no point doing a special operation if no one notices that you've done it and there is no reaction from the enemy because they either don't care or just don't know or notice that it has happened.

At the moment the only thing that gets a reaction is if you roll a shit ton of 'stuff' toward the enemy. Then a shit ton of stuff notices and they roll their shit ton of stuff back at you.

This was not ps1. There were big fights but there was lots of scope for insurgency in the side or the back of the enemy.

The mechanics for when stuff hits each other are truly lovely in planet side 2 no doubt.

The PS1 players are the first to notice this stuff since they know what it's like to play a game over the long term and that you need depth in order to keep people fulfilled long term. We don't want ps2 to be a 3 month game after which people get bored and want the map to rotate but find it doesn't.

Enjoy the first few months but don't attack the guys that have had their 3 months + beta + years of active ps1 and are raising and have raised the longevity concerns. They know what kept them playing ps1 for such a long time. And I can tell you it wasn't the massive endless 3 ways that kept anyone playing!