The Meta Game Discussion - Page 2

Xyntech · 2012-07-16, 12:31 PM

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 · 2012-07-16, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

You nailed it right there.

**Malorn** · 2012-07-16, 12:57 PM

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 · 2012-07-16, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

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 · 2012-07-16, 01:12 PM

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 · 2012-07-16, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by WildVS

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 · 2012-07-16, 01:35 PM

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 · 2012-07-16, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

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** · 2012-07-16, 01:41 PM

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 · 2012-07-16, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by WildVS

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 · 2012-07-16, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by WildVS

Resource as a currency model.

Specific mentions of Nullsec were made.

Sephirex · 2012-07-16, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Sephirex

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

Originally Posted by WildVS

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 · 2012-07-16, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Malorn

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** · 2012-07-16, 01:57 PM

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 · 2012-07-16, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by WildVS

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.