Finally read the roadmap - no meta game?

[Cyridius]

Metagame items are...
- resource overhaul
- cont locking
- no deploy zones
- missions
- respawn changes
- experience incentives

[Malorn]

Metagame is a rather loose definition on our end. It includes things like player motivation, battle flow, spawn/deploy mechanics, capture mechanics, rewards, strategic depth, continental flow, map UI, outfit tools, resources, and a lot of other stuff. Its about creating depth, fun, and longevity.

There's a few purely metagame items in the roadmap, like resource overhaul, missions, and cont locking. There's a lot of stuff that affects it, like no deploy zones, spawn changes, and experience incentive changes, which will change player motivations and battle flow. Even something like Buggies could be considered metagame because it will create new styles of play and add more strategic depth.

[J Baley]

Originally Posted by Malorn

There's a few purely metagame items in the roadmap, like resource overhaul, missions, and cont locking. There's a lot of stuff that affects it, like no deploy zones, spawn changes, and experience incentive changes, which will change player motivations and battle flow. Even something like Buggies could be considered metagame because it will create new styles of play and add more strategic depth.

Yes! Really looking forward to how this plays out. And yay Buggies!

[McFeeble]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Metagame is a rather loose definition on our end. It includes things like player motivation, battle flow, spawn/deploy mechanics, capture mechanics, rewards, strategic depth, continental flow, map UI, outfit tools, resources, and a lot of other stuff. Its about creating depth, fun, and longevity.

There's a few purely metagame items in the roadmap, like resource overhaul, missions, and cont locking. There's a lot of stuff that affects it, like no deploy zones, spawn changes, and experience incentive changes, which will change player motivations and battle flow. Even something like Buggies could be considered metagame because it will create new styles of play and add more strategic depth.

I suggest that definition is tightened up? I'm an ex 1 ps1/techtest who didnt bother playing when the game went live, as I knew there was no way this games lack of depth was going to keep me interested long.

I was hoping some spec ops (read small outfit activity please) would have been on the cards, with base benefit denial, but now I am just resigned to hoping that more conts will help. Surely, there must be a big drop off on players by now due to this issue. I dont know if there is, I didnt make it past BR1 and looking at the lack of changes in the final release candidate, so others will have to comment if this is true or not.

I will keep checking in every now and then on this forum, but I have to admit its becoming less regular. The 6 month road map, was most welcome though! Dayz SA looks very promising (sorry fickle gamers will be fickle).

[WSNeo]

Originally Posted by McFeeble

I suggest that definition is tightened up?

Hahaha. They'll get right to altering that definition.

What's been said time and time again is the playerbase don't know (or can't agree on) what the exact definition of metagame is, they just throw it around loosely because the term has been skewed so hard (another example of this is the use of the word "noob" and how much it's use in the last 15 years has changed).

Some people want a motivation to lock a continent, some (me included) want a lattice system that affects other bases's benefits and players on the continent, causing players to shift their playstyle thought patterns when progressing from base to base(this personally is my definition of a metagame from PS1). Some just want an shift from the monotony of running in circles capping bases with no sense of end or impactful reward.

If you look through almost every post that mentions metagame, everyone wants more than what's currently in the game, but whenever the word metagame is mentioned, there's no common specific explanation as to what metagame is other than something that's more than what's currently in the game.

I hope that makes sense, I'm at work currently so my mind is being fried and some of that may sound like gibberish :P

[Assist]

Originally Posted by Malorn

There's a few purely metagame items in the roadmap, like resource overhaul

GIT-R-DONE!

[ctmojo]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Metagame is a rather loose definition on our end. It includes things like player motivation, battle flow, spawn/deploy mechanics, capture mechanics, rewards, strategic depth, continental flow, map UI, outfit tools, resources, and a lot of other stuff. Its about creating depth, fun, and longevity.

There's a few purely metagame items in the roadmap, like resource overhaul, missions, and cont locking. There's a lot of stuff that affects it, like no deploy zones, spawn changes, and experience incentive changes, which will change player motivations and battle flow. Even something like Buggies could be considered metagame because it will create new styles of play and add more strategic depth.

It is painfully obvious it is a loose definition for you and yours, but for the rest of us it is very simple. It is the strategical game within the game. It is the element which add purpose to different playstyles for outfits and players. In other words, it is the sandbox game the players create for themselves. You are a Planetside 1 veteran and you should know this. Planetside 2 is utterly devoid of any strategy or purpose or sandbox. It has become nothing more than zerg versus zerg. You and BCP championed for this zerg deathmatch because that's what YOU like, so congratulations you got it. Too bad neither the servers nor the clients can handle it. SOE screwed up their only major selling point.

Motivation? What? You guys couldn't even come up with a reason to level Battle Rank. How could SOE screw up the easiest, most fundamental motivational factor in a game? If you kept certifications and removed BR tomorrow, not a single thing in the game would change. If we had home continents (Indar TR, Amerish VS, Esamir NC) we would be motivated to defend our lands and invade other continents. That would be motivational metagame.

Battle flow has already been dictated by terrain regardless of hex adjacency. Neutral zones will just make the direction of attack more predictable. In essence, more zerging. This is not metagame.

Spawn/Deploy is a mechanic just as you said, it is not metagame.

Capture mechanics, again just another mechanic. Without backhacking or draining it's irrelevant. Adding some LLU's might barely qualify as metagame, barely. Battle of attrition and ANTS are definitive metagame, so where are they? Just slap some beetle wings on a baby sundy and blam you have instant metagame. So hard.

Rewards are not metagame, neither are achievements. These are just distractions to keep people occupied when the game offers nothing else.

Strategic depth sure sounds promising, but nothing on the 6 month road map remotely offers it, so why even mention it? Spec Ops that cripple useful facility benefits sounds like strategic depth and metagame! Funny, sounds like Planetside 1. Gasp!

Continental flow is determined by roads. So, now we are calling roads metagame? I know you may have designed some Amerish outpost with MS Paint, but that doesn't make you a battle flow tactical genius. Look at Amerish again, after capping a base you just follow the road to the next base. Literally, no other choice for vehicles, and half the game is based around vehicles. Yup, everyone flows down these metagame roads...

Map UI is not even in the same universe as metagame.

Outfit tools. C'mon, man. Something as simple as getting the people you want to be in Bravo squad is a super pain. I think you guys should focus on making things simple before taking on more "tools". If you have to go hunt down the guy that made raid frames for WoW, do it. Drag and drop, easy. Also, too vague to be metagame.

Resources could be metagame, but you have too many active flaws to make this viable. As long as population is not balanced, one FoTM faction will steam roll the others. They will get unlimited resources, while the lower population factions stuck in their gate will get nothing. Seems fair, right? And that is exactly the reason they took Auraxium out of the game. Because people log off when they can't fight back.

And by the way, buggies are not metagame.

I'll give you credit though - fun is metagame, in the purest sense.

I hope you have some contract to MS Paint some villages in Everquest Next (which I will not play), because the PS2 dam is about to bust, and everyone propping it up will get washed away. Except for $med ofc.

[KodanBlack]

Originally Posted by Vashyo

If u get barely more XP than what u get with farming, majority of people will continue farming...

You hit the nail right on the head.

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by robocpf1

Meta game isn't something they can just "put in". The meta game is a combination of several factors that, together, give the game more of a goal to play for.

I see several factors of the meta game on the roadmap, such as additional continents, experience incentives, redesigning parts of bases to help defenders, the Regional Empire Priority System, Continent Locking, Player Generated Missions...the list continues.

Each topic individually may be a small piece of the puzzle, but taken together, I would say this vastly improves the meta game.

All this.

[mrmrmrj]

Recert option, please. And it should not cost $10.

[GuyShep]

Metagame has become a buzzword in the Planetside community. That being said, as far as I know, there is no such thing as "no metagame", but rather game-winning strategy being as simple as "Make Marine".

At the very least, metagame isn't an object or variable that you add in that magically changes things, and it isn't the buggy itself or the spawn timer. Rather, I think it's what we do with said buggy and spawn timer. That being said, the devs don't add in the metagame(it being strategy), we do. However, what the devs add in is fuel(working mechanics that support various strategies) for the metagame to exist and function beyond "Make Marine".

Unfortunately, combat and winning in PS2 is about the same as "Make Marine", and that's mainly due to the fact that brawn beats brains, and more brawn beats less brawn. Simply adding more content and features alone won't do. What SOE needs to do is allow players to create a strategy or tactic, dictate to others, and execute it, without it being instantly shut down because the opposition "Made more Marines".

[MuNrOe]

Originally Posted by T-Ray

what are you talking about,... "Add Meta Game" is on the list... lolz

Can you add to your to do list.

Allow squad leaders to draw stuff on the map. (Like the paint application from PS1)

Oh how I miss drawing a purple stick man/woman getting bent over with the TR stick man/woman standing behind them and the NC Stick man/woman shaking their head. As an art director im sure you would appreciate this.

The paint app not the stick man/woman thing.

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by GuyShep

Metagame has become a buzzword in the Planetside community. That being said, as far as I know, there is no such thing as "no metagame", but rather game-winning strategy being as simple as "Make Marine".

At the very least, metagame isn't an object or variable that you add in that magically changes things, and it isn't the buggy itself or the spawn timer. Rather, I think it's what we do with said buggy and spawn timer. That being said, the devs don't add in the metagame(it being strategy), we do. However, what the devs add in is fuel(working mechanics that support various strategies) for the metagame to exist and function beyond "Make Marine".

Unfortunately, combat and winning in PS2 is about the same as "Make Marine", and that's mainly due to the fact that brawn beats brains, and more brawn beats less brawn. Simply adding more content and features alone won't do. What SOE needs to do is allow players to create a strategy or tactic, dictate to others, and execute it, without it being instantly shut down because the opposition "Made more Marines".

Implement "Make Spectre"

[Mox]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Metagame is a rather loose definition on our end. It includes things like player motivation, battle flow, spawn/deploy mechanics, capture mechanics, rewards, strategic depth, continental flow, map UI, outfit tools, resources, and a lot of other stuff. Its about creating depth, fun, and longevity.

There's a few purely metagame items in the roadmap, like resource overhaul, missions, and cont locking. There's a lot of stuff that affects it, like no deploy zones, spawn changes, and experience incentive changes, which will change player motivations and battle flow. Even something like Buggies could be considered metagame because it will create new styles of play and add more strategic depth.

Intercontinental Warfare is the metagame in planetside. Everything else are simple game mechanics.
There is no icw on the roadmap. Therefore it sucks!

[Rockit]

Originally Posted by Mox

Intercontinental Warfare is the metagame in planetside. Everything else are simple game mechanics.
There is no icw on the roadmap. Therefore it sucks!

Yeah I found it hilarious when Matt (yet again) tried to explain SOE's definition of metagame. Skewing it to where it favors ambiguity and confusion where clearly there is no doubt the community sees it. They seem to have their own dictionary we must abide by it because they cannot provide what we are seeking. Face it, the uber cont pop limit and size is failing this game hard. If they want to continue down this path then please instance the regions and get a clear cut win scenario for them.