It isn't a metagame that's needed it's a game.

I can't help but notice as I read these fora that so many people are calling for the addition of a meta-game and making suggestions as to what that could be. Well I hate to be the pedant but what you are asking for is a GAME to be added not a meta-game. Meta-game is something totally different and is defined as using out-of-game resources and tactics to gain an in-game advantage.

An example of meta-gaming would be to take an overly long time to make a move when playing against an opponent whom you know to be impatient in order to provoke irritation and thus a lapse in concentration. This is meta-gaming. This is playing the meta-game.

To ask for resource distribution to be changed, for example, in order to allow cutting off of supply routes to deprive the enemy the ability to create vehicles is just a suggestion to actually create or add depth to the game, nothing to do with a meta-game.

People are asking for tactics to matter, for attacking/defending a certain location to be meaningful. Sounds like meta game as you described it.

So basically you just made a thread nitpicking about the usage of terms to prove your superior intellect by being a wikipedia article?

It's well known that the planetside community doesn't use the term correctly. It's just a term used to include something larger that can't really be summed up in a word, even 'game' wouldn't be accurate and also would be just as confusing. Everyone, including soe, knows that more is needed in the game. Their main goal up to this point was getting the gun play mechanics down, which they did, even if there are some slight imbalances which will continue to be worked on. Now they're shifting focus to the rest of the game, which should be obvious.

I've always defined "meta-game" in a video game as emergent gameplay. Tactics and actions that evolve over time as the mechanics of the game are fully explored and exploited. Tactics and actions that were not originally intended by the creators, but add a lot to the game more than take away from it.

Things like stacking players in CS to get to an otherwise unreachable area, rocket jumping from the original Quake, skiing in Starsiege: Tribes, or the entire class of Spy in the original Team Fortress mod. All of these things were unintended; some were actual bugs. But they were so good to the game play, they were left in and eventually turned into features in subsequent games.

I'd like to just be able to play on Amerish and actually fight somebody. Until they make server switching free, or merge servers, I think I'm done. NC on Genudine suck and there's nobody to fight outside of Indar.

That's the thing though, that isn't how language works. We don't really get to take a word and decide for ourselves how we define that word or else very soon all attempts at communication begin to fail miserably. How could anybody know what exactly you were trying to say if you have your own definitions for the words you use. Words actually have meanings. The prefix meta has a specific meaning and modifies the concept it is applied to in a specific way.

The point of my post was that while many gamers may not know what the term meta-game means it doesn't necessarily follow that SOE don't. That brings us to the point whereby we may all ask for the addition of a meta-game and be given exactly that only to find it isn't what we thought we were asking for.

Funny, because that is exactly how language works. It is how you get one word to have multiple, dissimilar meanings.

"Meta-game" has no concrete definition. Just as "Role-Playing Game" doesn't have a definitive definition. Yes, "Meta" has a meaning; but that meaning is very loose, so how the OP defines it, how a vast number of PS2 players define it and how I define it are all "correct." All the prefix "meta" means an abstraction from one concept that adds to the original.

LOL thats how i read it as well.

Cool, weve all read the wiki page on it. The devs use the term metagame so thats what Im going to use.

METAGAME: The highest level of strategy in many complex games, metagame refers to any aspect of strategy that involves thinking about what your opponent is thinking you are thinking. (from urban dictionary)

The game is FPS combat. The meta-game for PS2 is the tactics and strategies that make fighting where, when and with how many important things to consider and act upon. We consider these things outside of the scope of the pure 'twitch' type combat game. Voice is used 'outside of the game' to make commands and discuss tactics and strategies.

Currently, the strategies are so incredibly simplistic there is no need. Only small scale tactics need to be discussed over voice. I can just look at pop percentages and know where enemy empires are going. There is no over-arching meta-game, it is clear what everyone is doing.

PS2 seems very much like any other shooter. The map size doesn't matter since I could have just redeployed into an instance of a smaller map where sides are imbalanced. If resources and other things mattered, this would not be the case. I'd have to consider if my opponent was going to go for a base or try and cut off supplies, etc.

The metagame is already developing. I see large trends in how people play that are very different from launch.

1) Regular MAX crashes
2) Lib bombing the inside of biolabs
3) Dropping on the top of tech plants to clear the turrets/flak and assault the double doors from inside
4) Rallying at the defensible bases rather than whatever outpost is closest
5) Mining directly in front of enemy vehicle pads
6) Patrolling for sunderers

Noobs didn't know where to go or what they can do to be effective. They didn't know about all the weapons that were their disposal. They couldn't find battles in which they would be effective at accomplishing something. Now that is changing. People are starting to counter each other. Its not a massive development, but there are marked differences in how people play now. Regions of conflict are more predictable, but at the same time you can take advantage of that predictability (like mining the hell out of maggie hill, avoiding fighting the zerg up Quartz ridge but going around instead). We are not at the highest level of strategy yet... but SOE can't bring us there... the players eventually will.

Some part of the lack of metagame development is SOE's fault. They don't teach new players things like the layout of the different bases. How and when to hit generators. They don't mark jumppads on the minimap or show where you're going to end up. So it takes months for people collectively to figure out the game and begin developing strategies (assuming they don't play every day... some only play once a week!) .

Having a lack of a reason to hold a base is a different issue. Right now people create their own reasons. For example my outfit takes pride in taking a base that devil dogs is holding. We also like finding relatively even battles and seeing if our "superior" players and coordination will give us the win.

I've always felt the metagame would develop faster if they marked blobs of enemies or battles on the main map for everyone (not just hexes, areas within hexes). That will cause more engagement of battles of all sizes and faster hashing out of effective strategies and tactics.

A metagame develops automatically. Instead of saying the game needs more metagame, say the game needs more depth.

What most people refer to as the metagame in PS2 is probably more correctly termed as the "strategic layer", or the "stategic game". The OP is right in that it is a part of the game, and not a metagame.

Urban dictionary! A source we can all trust. In a way it's correct, in a way not.

I suggest instead you look to wikipedia. Fair enough, it's still not an awesome source, but it's accurate enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming

I agree with the OP. Metagame would actually mean being part of organized outfit, creating your own strategies, contingency plans etc. Planetside 2 already has mechanics which offer possibility of strategizing. It is up to the players to team up and actually start using their brains rather than whine about unfair mechanics or lack of "metagame". Only thing devs can do in this regard is to constantly remind players how important it is to join an outfit ( loading screen ) and create ingame social network where outfits can recruit and coordinate their efforts.

In my opinion the reason people demand "metagame" is because ownership of the bases is changed so quickly that it feels there is no point fighting. Better game mechanics are needed. There are two ways to change this

1) Slow down the combat dynamics by adding timers so that capturing facility actually takes few days. Assaulting force needs to take 1st objective to activate "siege timer". When the timer runs out, they have the opportunity to take the 2nd objective and capture the base. This would actually give defenders time to organize. This organization would make players feel they are part of something bigger and add totally new aspect of the game.

2) Actually focus on uniting players on outfit level rather than faction level. What I mean is this: facilities should give rewards to outfit controlling them rather than entire faction. This mechanic would be rather unfriendly to new players so instead of changing all facilities, devs should add something like new frontiers ( new continents/planets/moons/asteroid facility whatever ) which offer new type of resources. These resources can be used for spawning tier 2 vehicles ( maybe like huge gunships ). Resources would be evenly distributed between members of the outfit which owns the facility. It is important to make these resources scarce and vehicles powerful. This way players would have incentive to control the base in as small numbers as possible, they would have to increase their effectiveness by employing better tactics. This would lead to creation of outfit alliances and politics and in general better metagame.

Note that this could lead to most of the players neglecting the old continents. It is necessary to make standard facilities also important and perhaps add warpgates leading to frontier continents.

In short:
Add siege timers
Add outfit owned facilities
Add incentive for owning those facilities while maintaining smaller numbers ( so we avoid massive zerg outfits )

This is the definition of meta-gaming to me as well.
It can also be called 'the game outside the game" or "the game inside the game", that may include rivalries, drama, irritation, intimidation, allied factions.. its the game we all create besides the main.

Do you guys really need some lame term to tell you how to play a game? This generation of gamers is sad.

I think you missed the point of this thread. Try again.

Not really, people are throwing this term around like dummies.

Well 'meta' stricly speaking means 'beyond'.

However, its used to mean 'about' something. Meta-ethics for example is a study of ethics itself, normally the words involved.

So meta-game strictly speaking could quite happily refer to another level of gameplay. Its the game about the game.

Semantics are funz.

Your sig has my approval