Community and the Metagame

[Shuuda]

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.