Finally read the roadmap - no meta game?

[psychobilly]

I just spent some time going through the 6 month roadmap. Did I miss something? No meta game planned in the next 6 months? I see in June that a contributing outfit will 'own' a base but no plans for what that even means.

There were a lot of interesting fixes and little additions, to be sure. After reading the roadmap though, I am really not motivated to get back in game.

[james]

there is little here and htere but nothing major

[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.

[MrBloodworth]

Except for all the stuff that's part of the meta game, sure. No meta game stuff in the list :huh:

[Mietz]

I would wish people would stop using the term Metagame when they actually mean "strategy elements and tactical/strategic depth".

[MrBloodworth]

Meta game is less typing.

[Mietz]

Meta game is less typing.

It's also a word that has a perfectly fine functional definition.

[MrBloodworth]

Yes it does!

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

[Timealude]

ya continent locking isnt major at all :D

[Rolfski]

I suggest you watch the dev meeting organized by Azure Twilight, which was only about meta game and proposals to improve it. It's an interesting insight in how they look at it.
Long story short: Their upcoming overhaul of the resource system will have a huge impact on meta game.

[OldAeon]

I suggest you watch the dev meeting organized by Azure Twilight, which was only about meta game and proposals to improve it. It's an interesting insight in how they look at it.
Long story short: Their upcoming overhaul of the resource system will have a huge impact on meta game.
I hope they implement this asap, cause they're running out of time.
The F2P system may be more of an obstancle to this if they try to milk people for server switches once their homeserver is constantly on low pop.

[Vashyo]

I read the roadmap and was tad dissapointed myself too, lot of the things seem to be bandaids than real changes to the game. Biggest change will be maybe continent locking, but I doubt that makes the game any less boring. Atleast u get to fight big battles elsewhere than Indar too, that's a plus.

I hope player generated missions reward you generously and not every wanna-be leader can use them to pull people off from interesting fights.

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

[T-Ray]

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.

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

[LoliLoveFart]

As said before you can't just "put in meta"
A lot of the things on the roadmap will accommodate the development of a larger metagame.

[bpostal]

I read continent locking as the major driving 'meta game' issue. With that in place and the removal of continental footholds it finally gives us (hopefully with better lock incentives) something to strive for.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

GIT-R-DONE!

[ctmojo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Malorn]

The important takeaway is that "metagame" is too ambiguous. Even the community can't agree on what it means, as evidenced by the wide variety of ideas on the metagame design idea project from Reddit (I read all of those, btw, thanks to all who contributed!). If you want inter-continental warfare, say that instead of "metagame." Just be more specific.

[Tatwi]

The important takeaway is that "metagame" is too ambiguous. Even the community can't agree on what it means, as evidenced by the wide variety of ideas on the metagame design idea project from Reddit (I read all of those, btw, thanks to all who contributed!). If you want inter-continental warfare, say that instead of "metagame." Just be more specific.

Personally, I want buggy racing on Amerish, Tommi Makinen style.

http://rallye-info.com/images/photos/general/2003australia/daniel/tommi_2.jpg

[Stanis]

The important takeaway is that "metagame" is too ambiguous. Even the community can't agree on what it means, as evidenced by the wide variety of ideas on the metagame design idea project from Reddit (I read all of those, btw, thanks to all who contributed!). If you want inter-continental warfare, say that instead of "metagame." Just be more specific.


I'd like a continental warfare where we can reinvigorate the Amerish-Solsar-Searhus strategy.
I'd like seamless immersion in the game world: Warpgate traversal.
I'd like continental conflict to reward the player as much for achieving territorial dominance as kills. (Currently its K/D for certs)
I'd like those battles to stay 'won' based on the intercontinental warfare, without a cheese lockout timer.
I'd like conflict to have meaning - a circular fights over 3 bases that is finally broken after hours or days are the epic firefights of PS1. Currently they are an hourly circle over allatum/hvar/quartz for example and far from epic in scale.
I'd like viable objectives for single squads to hold, defend, take and divert. Right now where the zerg turns up is about the only place to fight. There is no benefit, link or consequence to losing any individual territory with the exception of tech plants .. and that feels 'meh'.


In short .. the spirit of PS1 that made for great battles sometimes lasting days to fight for you empire and territory rather than a KD cert fest.
This is where a metagame unique to PS2 will develop from.

[NapalmEnima]

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


Err, wha?! So dropping gens to sever links doesn't count? Draining the NTUs from a base in the back field to make it cappable doesn't count? Deciding which lattice link to follow next and why doesn't count?

Plus that whole caves/overworld interaction thing. Modules and such. Continent lock benefits. Moar facility benefits, though the tech plant took the cake in the Good Old Days too.

Admittedly, PS2 has some of the "decide which adjacent thing to attack next", but with hex adjacency rather than lattice links.

[Soothsayer]

The concept I want that gets folded into the term metagame is the concept of persistence.

I want a build up over time to an event (not in the sense of a PR event) that has significance in the history of PS2. I want a moment that can be pointed at, saying, "This happened and we all recognize that it was important. We all took part and we all had a role to play in making that moment something that was really cool and worth our efforts in achieving it."

[Rockit]

The important takeaway is that "metagame" is too ambiguous. Even the community can't agree on what it means, as evidenced by the wide variety of ideas on the metagame design idea project from Reddit (I read all of those, btw, thanks to all who contributed!). If you want inter-continental warfare, say that instead of "metagame." Just be more specific.

Well my friend you know from early beta and even prior, before you were SOE what we are referring to. Metagame to me is giving meaning to the game beyond just the moment to moment shooting each other. Basically an answer to this question "What the hell are we fighting for?". Planeside mantra dictates... "For Land, For Power, Forever". Facilitate that and we will get somewhere.

[moosepoop]

The important takeaway is that "metagame" is too ambiguous. Even the community can't agree on what it means, as evidenced by the wide variety of ideas on the metagame design idea project from Reddit (I read all of those, btw, thanks to all who contributed!). If you want inter-continental warfare, say that instead of "metagame." Just be more specific.

anything that adds depth to mindless shooting, and adds planning and strategy to taking bases.

[EVILoHOMER]

I just feel like by the time the content that should have been there at launch has been added in I wont care. I mean with the PS4 probably coming this year, the mass of games like Bioshock, GTA5, probably some sort of Battlefield, Dayz SA, ArmA 3, Tomb Raider, The Last of Us.... I could go on and on and on, it's going to be a busy year! I'm busy with Ni No Kuni already and that will last me a month and there will be like 20 other amazing games launched by March by the looks of it I'd probably have forgotten all about Planetside 2.

It doesn't help that all my friends tried the game, some played Planetside, some haven't and none of them liked it for reasons that are constantly brought up and many on the 6 month road map. However none of my friends mention the game any more, most people never give a game a second chance and this is something SOE never learn. I loved Planetside to bits, I'll never forget my time with it until everyone quit around the time BFRs were released. However If I never played Planetside 2 again, I wouldn't feel much of a loss. That is the exact opposite of how I feel about say waiting for Dayz SA right now, I'm dead excited for that and the fixes it'll bring. With Planetside 2 however, even if the fixes come in that I wanted from beta... I don't think I'm going to care too much.

I feel like SOE had their chance to hook me in with Planetside 2 during the fall of last year where there wasn't really much exciting going on as it all got delayed till 2013. I dunno what the servers are like now but they died down dramatically to the point where you didn't find the massive battles there once was at launch. Most of the time the servers were empty and you could only play during a certain time of day for big battles. A game like Planetside 2 you need big battles or you might as well play something else because that is what you login to Planetside 2 for. Planetside suffered from the same issue and I don't understand why they didn't make the game serverless on the player side so the population was always focused.

+ I'm still waiting for the underslung MCG to get on the store and for SOE to realize you don't take cover with a MCG, you run and gun. There are lots of other generic bland weapons in game to take cover with, I don't want to, I want the proper MCG back and not the shit that is in there now.

[Rivenshield]

It doesn't help that all my friends tried the game, some played Planetside, some haven't and none of them liked it for reasons that are constantly brought up and many on the 6 month road map.

:(

Yeah. I know that feel. None of the RL or Internet friends I've induced to try are still playing. Not interested.

I just logged in for the first time in a week and dropped into the middle of a biolab fight. It was next to a buncha TR hexes, so I figured I could meet up with *somebody* there... but no, it was the smurfs and barneys hammering each other. I died on impact.

After five minutes worth of clicking and running, I finally found the Terran zerg parked outside an enemy base. There were a few minutes of ducking through the gate shields and trying to get to the gens and dying randomly to people I couldn't see, then apparently someone blew it up. The tanks poured in. The usual complete slaughter of the defenders took place. They were boxed into the spawn room and farmed mercilessly until the base flipped. I didn't quite muster the patience to sit around and wait. I logged. Frig it.

Where are the hackers? Where is the derring-do with boomers, trying to sneak in and *blow* the gen? Where's the minefields you have to creep around? Where is the fierce joy of gunning the defenders in their tubes? Where's the menu of defensive and offensive options that besieger and besieged can fence with? Why, nine times in ten that I can recall, is the only freaking fight on Connery in or around The Crown -- and why does it get less fun once it moves away (like tonight?) Why is Planetside 2 an arid desert of gameplay where you either run and gun or join a vehicle zerg? (And where's the music by Don Ferrone? Boy did we get gypped on that one.)

I recall bridge battles on Cyssor better than my ten-fifteen minutes of pointless gameplay tonight. Tunnels -- multiple egresses from spawn-outhouses that are invulnerable on the one hand and death traps on the other, and which never should have been placed outside to begin with -- aren't going to fix any of this. They aren't even a palliative.

The ebb and flow of battle in this game simply isn't *fun*. Much less memorable.

Malorn.... save us.

/slumps

[Roark]

theres not much of a personal investment into your empire and its progress.

why would i bother going to amerish to stop vanu from conquering it, when i know that im first of all greatly outpopped (a separate issue but connected), and second that i will not be penalized for failing to prevent the conquest.

its odd that there is actually NO incentive at all, i mean think about basic human emotion. what really drives people to achieve things. are you going to be able to make people love their empire through and through? i hope not haha, but even just tallying up the conquests will tap into peoples pride enough for them to say "f**k this i am not losing amerish again to those vanu scumbags."

ideally though conquest should be very difficult, and the reward of managing to finally wrestle a continent under your empires control should be memorable and leave the player feeling like they played a distinct role and like they contributed to something larger than himself (is that not the point of empires?). it should take days and weeks to consolidate a continent... not a nighttime zerg-fest.

plus if factions could be driven entirely off continents. fighting for survival is a great motivator... id probably take a day off work if i knew my empire was facing near extinction

fix the resource management so that territories are hard to conquer, mean a lot to an empire, and take a LOT longer to cap. leave the quicker capping for auxiliary hexes. honestly i believe that the majority of issues players have with this game stem from the resource system, and that by fixing the system, a whole bunch of seemingly non-associated issues will be resolved.

ie. fixing resource management = less vehicle zerg = prolonged sieges/more distinct front lines = less spawn camping = more gratification for successful missions = happier players = higher pop = more money

woo

[EVILoHOMER]

Lots of text.




Yeah in Planetside it's easy to tell where the forces were and where your team was because base capture was more linear. In Planetside 2 you can go round capturing anything and I find the map lacks the information to tell you what is happening on each hex. You can see a coloured in part of the map saying you own it and no indication there is an enemy zerg there what so ever. I often go to them towers that are on my colour faction hexes to find out they're owned by the enemy but nothing on the map gives you any indication of that.

The gameplay just isn't fun in the end though, mostly down to the poor level design though, especially the bases which look huge at first but feel so small because there is no infantry area to them, they're all mostly outside. Like why did they need to build this big of a building and not have any indoors to it?