Players don't want meta game, they want a session based game.

I want meta-game. Most of the 30+ players I'm with when I play want meta-game.

Im confused. Are you trying to remove metagame or add more? Last time i checked you were a player, same as me and everyone in PS2 .
Does that mean you/i dont care about metagame?

I guess its proven by my/your actions. Nvm

Hi to all.

I kind of agree with both ways seeing the game and I can't stop think if developer wants they actually could make good game, but it appears they have different agenda. So, with all respect to all players who still like the game, I have found perfect solution for my self. Yestarday I found uninstall button for Planetside2 in my steam aplication. It was hard, cous I like the concept, but I realized it was best action I took with this game. Mainly due to infestation with exploits and cheaters, then due to their pacific time where they show they could not care less for CET users and then due to obviously forced mantra: "Game it's FREE, buy SC" game concept.

I must point out once more, I really like the base concept, though in more then 25 years of gaming I have never come across of something so frustrating and so obviously flawed so I plan to drop by on forums with hope things become better in terms of gameplay. Hack I would pay easy for SC as many other players but all these cheaters and then nerfing of equipment...ouch, that hurts to much, much more then being surrounded with only CERT grinding players whoo could not care less for any tactics.

Ummm, messed up with a missing negative ...... corrected in the above.

In PS1 BR20 was the highest rank, yet I played for years after I reached that goal. Then the highest rank was raised to BR25 and I played for years after having reached that goal...... then it was raised to br40 and I continued playing after having reached that goal.

In PS1 you weren't rewarded by 'playing the metagame' with certs or points or anything.

The goal was winning and you won by capturing territory and advancing your empire across the world. The overall aim was to eliminate your enemies and often the greatest incentive was to stop being eliminated yourself. And to do that you cooperated and employed tactics and strategies - which sometimes worked and sometimes didn't because you were anticipated and out-thought by your opponents.

The more I think about things the more credit I give to creating the good things that happened to the much maligned CR5 channel, the leader channel is a poor relation in comparison.

What we need is for continent bonuses to give +25% XP for each one you control ....
Now THAT would get those XP farmers off their farm spots and try to cap the continents.

Wouldn't that get the 4th empire switching to the winning side , instead of the OP side ?
The devs are supposed to be working on the meta game , lets hope for some depth and success .

It's safe to say that players do want a meta game , after all there are countless session based games out there already .

So it's the waiting game , or those who prefer can play forumside 2 .

The actions of players under a system that does not have a meta-game is not proper cause to assume their actions WITH meta-game would be the same. My outfit, for one, doesn't bother with any grand strategy because there isn't a meta game that matters. If there were, we'd probably approach the game a lot differently.

On planet Auraxis, 3 factions battle out for supremacy...

Obviously, the main objective of the game is (should be?) to control more territory than the enemy.

People want Certs ?

MAKE PLAYERS GAIN CERTS DEPENDING ON HOW WELL THEIR FACTION IS DOING ON THE WHOLE PLANET !!!

It's a team game. Rewards should be team wide.

Individual 'performance' doesn't matter as long as the job is done.

Toons are soldiers, right ? Not football players with incentives based on their stats...

Yup adding lattice would be a step in the right direction, amp station = vehicle shield capacity, tech plant = MBT (and Libs?), towers = vehicle and proximity radar, etc. Doing ANT runs in PS1 felt like something was being done to restore bases rather than just repairing turrets and generators then leaving to the next base (and to have that last base taken away in 20 minutes). Last night on Esamir we were trading a single tech plant base back and forth a few times, we'd take it, then they'd take it then we'd take it again, I said in /yell "this is boring" and logged after the 4th attempt.

This is exactly the point! You've actually exposed yourself as one of the people Deladin was referring to. You don't actually want a "metagame"; you just want something else with an ever bigger reward. You want that reward attached to something other than killing the enemy and blowing up vehicles, and you've chosen to call that thing, vaguely and incorrectly, "metagame".

I'm curious: what does "metagame" mean to you? Because the lattice system wasn't "metagame"; it was just an arbitrary rule set that encouraged a certain battle flow.

Many people do want something, and they've chosen to call it "metagame". I really don't think most people know what that means, though. While some of the ideas presented under the guise of "metagame" are certainly good ones, in my opinion, they're all, in essence, just ways of taking the emphasis off of killing each other as the primary means of reward and making something else the primary means of reward.

Yes , I get that , a common misuse of an expression becomes the norm .

But... I want a meta game.....

so ummmm.....

FALSE?

Greetings,

I agree that, in general, people pay too much attention to gathering experience to get those delicious certs. A game with so many people requires a different approach than your regular FPS. To actually make people feel like they should work together, you have to give them a common goal. Certs are everything but that.



Whatever the hell it means.

Edit:

Tie is fabulous.

If that was true then players in this game wouldn't be playing this game. They'd be playing any hundreds of other free online FPS games that fit that bill.

I do. If I wanted a Cod-like game I would be playing CoD.

Maybe a revised and more active system of resources collection would do the job.

Here's the thing. Everytime people use a class or weapon in a non traditional way - you have droves of whiners flying to the forms and twitter to beg SOE to nerf the crap out of it because because because "it's not supposed to be played that way!"

What do you think a freaking metagame is?

Then they gripe and groan that there's no meta.
Here's the thing about meta. If it's defined within the game - it is no longer meta.

I have argued for this as well. It wouldn't dictate the gameplay, it would dictate meaning for fighting.

Bases generating generic resources hardly makes them seem valuable.

1. Every base should grant unique benefits. And not just slight buffs to things, but honestly unique tactical stuff such as:
- Satellite uplinks that provide your faction improved battlefield data on the map
- Weather control stations that allow a team to change battlefield conditions (which also should be added)
- Jamming stations that mess with enemy factions minimap/lock-ons in nearby hexes

Granted many of these things require other parts of the game be completed. This would require SOE stop making AV and AA weapons for a patch and get back to making interesting content.

2. Bases shouldn't immediately grant bonuses upon capture, they should have to be held for a period of time as things come online. Charging toward another warpgate at breakneck speed should leave the attacking force over-extended. It is way too common now to zerg to an opposing warpgate, spawn a bunch of armor and anti-air, and just hang out there. This completely laughs in the face of any idea of meta-game - unless the metagame is griefing.

3. Vehicles should cost fewer resources at warpgate, and more the further one gets from it. Holding supply routes over time could lower that cost difference. Capping a base and then spamming vehicles from it contributes to spam and contributes to the constant zerg blitz. Air rearm times at recently converted bases might be useful to be slower as well. Anything to force holding and consolidating territory would be helpful, especially on continents this small. It is hard to have meaningful frontlines on a 6 mile wide island so something has to be done to slow the ebb and flow of the zergs.

4. Give vehicles back some of their teeth. Who cares about resources when those resources don't really gain you that much advantage any longer. Also, if it is made harder to spam vehicles as you press into virgin territory (with increasing resource costs and delays before captured spawns come online) then keeping vehicles alive will become more critical, and killing vehicles will have more meaning. Right now blowing up vehicles is trivial. It should not be.

5. Spawns (especially infantry spawns) really need to operate on some kind of nanite ticket system that can be drained. The idea that a sundie is some kind of clown car that can spew out bodies infinitely... seems a bit off. I get that death has no meaning in this world, but it should have a cost. Sundies (and possibly even spawn points in bases) should operate on tickets. Spawning consumes one, and certs and other outside factors (such as parking near resource nodes or controlling certain facilities) should contribute to its regeneration of tickets over time. Currently there is no attrition in this game. Either you destroy the enemies sundies and SCUs or you are stuck in an infinite zerg standoff. Some form of ticket system for spawns would allow tactics to develop to rob your enemy of tickets as well as increase your own. Also, galaxies may once again be able to act as infantry spawns (with a much more limited number of tickets) once they work out the hex system. If they did this, they would also need to give sundy/galaxy owners control over who may spawn there, as their tickets become much more valuable.

6. Population differences in hexes should affect XP. If you are 5 guys holding off 30 - that should be rewarded. Zerging currently pays too well - so zerging is what we get.

7. Make battlefield intelligence meaningful. Once you remove the clown cars from the game, and make troop movements meaningful, knowing where your enemy is becomes more critical. Infiltrators should be able to hack nodes and give false information about sundy locations and ticket counts. Intelligence doesn't exist now because the battlefield has no meaningful supply lines. One infiltrator can currently roll into a hex and in 30 seconds it can go from 0 enemy to platoons. That negates the value of intelligence. Hexes you control should have proximity radar that broadcasts enemy vehicle locations in a hex. No information should be given about hexes where no friendly units or surveillance equipment exists (unless you control satellite uplinks). Once you inject intelligence and counter-intel, another layer of metagame can emerge.

8. More meaningful command tools and structure. For example give Platoon leaders extra abilities when in a command sundie or galaxy. Platoon leader and squad leaders should get extra map information as well as tools to communicate specific orders to individuals and post waypoints and objectives and such when in these command vehicles. Protecting and taking out command vehicles would have meaning as well, as a platoon leader without one should be as blind as everyone else.

I haven't played PS1 so I am sure there are all kinds of other ideas on how to add weight, meaning and metagame to PS2... but those are some of mine off the top of my head.

"Players don't want meta game, they want a session based game."


Those players are already playing something else. Sandbox nature is the main attraction of PS2. Otherwise I would play something that runs more than 25 FPS/.