Would you be more motivated to play PS2 if it had a meta game?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Obscura, Aug 4, 2013.

  1. Stew360

    I bother read it because i was aknowlege it was going to be a useless rant about misunderstanding of what METAGAMING is ... this is the only reason why i bother replying to it

    ps2 is imcompleate , you can call the game a Glorified Beta ;) , if you follow the devs and know what they are going for , you migth revisit your opinions , game mechanics take time to code polish and implements , planetside 2 as been ( launch ) to basically found the rest of the game that is going to follow up , planetside 2 is a f2p model so exactly like the game firefall , it as been open to microtransaction early in the developpement process , ps2 state is quiet ok in term of gameplay etc.. not perfect , but still enjoyable, as much as black ligth retribution and some others game and much better than combat arms and so on ...

    So yeah the game isnt what it should be but it will reach this glory one day the Ps2 devs arent lazy by any mean
  2. Degenatron

    The EXACT same authority you used when you decided to create another thread instead of contributing to one of these existing 100 threads.

    Quote: "I hesitate to log in, instead waiting till theres some new content or a patch to keep me interested for a few hours."
    Paraphrased: I'm not going to play anymore until you do what I want.

    Absolutely. You original post makes it sound like a meta game doesn't already exist, nor would it ever.

    That's a fig leaf.

    I see nothing new in your original post. What did I miss?

    What gave you the authority to to come onto the forums and put your post above all of the others covering the exact same topic?

    You could have easily recognized my comments for exact what they are, a valid criticism of forum spamming with repeat topics. Instead, you decided to come over the top of my post and act like I was out of line for pointing out your mistake.

    No, I don't because it comes off as a troll post.

    Something OTHER than what the devs are already working on? I guess that's what bugs me. Your post comes off acting like the devs aren't already hard at work doing exactly what you're talking about.

    See above. I'm incredulous at the idea that fellow PS1 vets are impatient for the metagame when they waited 6 years for any kind of update at all, and now the game is receiving almost monthly updates that are nudging in that very direction.

    "Simple survival" is hardly the metagame it sounds like you're talking about. A:WL has some territory control aspects, but how is that any different than PS2?

    They're not, but I'd hardly call them "long term goal oriented" either. They're instanced.

    Ok, I'm done. If you'd had called it a "constant conquest", then at least you would have retained some credibility, but calling it "death match"? Sorry, wrong answer.

    Again, you mean something OTHER than what the devs are already working on?

    Hypocrite much?

    The point, since you missed it, is that it is unfair and unrealistic to hold Planetside 2, or anything for that matter, to a standard to which it should "never lose it's shine." And it is ridiculous to treat it otherwise.

    Absolutely, when the subject is worthy. You're starting to think wrong. If you are able to post up something genuinely new, I will gladly discuss it - pro or con - with civility.

    That whole statement comes off as nothing but a dig at the devs for not producing fast enough for your liking.

    I know what the point of a discussion forum is. What I DON'T understand is the point of THIS discussion. Unless it's just to needle the devs for not working hard enough, which is exactly what it reads as. And for someone who's so sensitive to condescension, you sure do like to throw it around yourself plenty.

    Actually I'm hear discussing the bad habit of posters on this forum of re-creating unneeded threads which adress topics that have already been discussed to death. Especially when those posts are thinly veiled needles at the devs.

    I am. I'm just not disagreeing with your "topic at hand". I actually agreed with you that I have little doubt that there are plenty of people who feel exactly like you do. What I am disagreeing about is the usefulness of this thread as a whole. I find the very act of creating such a thread as distasteful and demeaning to the community as a whole. This is NOT a constructive thread no matter how much you wish to pretend it is, and I question your true motives for creating it in the first place. Now, I'm sorry you have a hard time hearing that, but frankly there is no "nice" way to say it.

    Now I will leave this topic to you and those like you who simply want to sit around and bash the devs for not delivering what you want fast enough, because that IS the obvious purpose of this thread whether you acknowledge it or not.
  3. Degenatron

    I will agree with you on this point. People in this thread quibbling over the meaning of "metagame" are being intentionally obtuse for the sole purpose of trolling. The term Meta-Game has been tossed around these forums since they were the beta forums, and your use of the term is the generally accepted nomenclature of the word in this context.

    Next, they'll be correcting people over the use of the word "zerg", or telling people it's pronounces "tur-rets", not "tur-rents".
  4. Major

    Well, we used to have a game where it was possible to cap continents, gate the enemy, deny resources, out think, out strat the enemy, area denial squads holding back armour and air while they tried to re-group, cap the continent, move to the next continent, and some how this could happen in about 3 hours. But now you only need to cap 75% of a continent, because that metagame has been changed so much, because of some kind of absurd obsession with "ghost cappers". Which BTW the majority of the community said they had no issue with as their small outfit would go and get them, or the large tactical outfits had squads who's job it is to respond to this most of the time not a threat, because honestly, in the original definition of the term it has been fixed way before launch, and many of the other definitions don't apply for the same reasons, or are stupid and silly.
  5. IamDH

    I agree but it isnt exactly a CTF
    Even with cont locking you'll still feel the same
    I'd prefer short term goals
  6. Kiddneey

    In a word, yes.
  7. Purg

    Not really. Been playing fps since there's been fps - used to no 'meta game'. Alerts have somewhat of a meta game, played in one yesterday where we had an Indar Tech Plant alert. Held Tawrich and Hvar. TR was slamming us at Tawrich while the TROL zerg was marching towards Hvar largely uncontested. Both places we were outnumbered. We held on at Tawrich and I can only assume some valiant work at the base just short of Hvar where NC kept flipping it back to us prevented VS from capping it quick enough to take Hvar in time.
  8. Alizona

    This game is pretty much a half-hour or a one hour enjoyment and that's it. When I first started playing, yeah I thought I'd play 24 hours a day every day, it seemed so awesome. But after a bunch of months playing, the game just seems like a non-stop tug of war without any real goal or beginning or end. And that's disappointing.
    • Up x 1
  9. ent|ty

    I dont give a crap about how YOU define a word you pompous goofball.

    YOu're wrong, and thats it. end of story. Oh by the way, I might as well put you on ignore because you are an ignorant noob.

    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.
  10. maxx

    I believe they are putting some it's just a matter of not having the right mechanisms in place to make it entertaining
  11. Obscura

    And I don't give a crap about some mediocre troll pointing out a typo I made, the points I made and the questions I put forth remain as they are with or without "metagame" in the thread title. As I said, EVERYONE else in the thread understands this except you, who seems to not be able to muster up the brainpower to contribute anything except "U GOT THE WORD WRONG". and please do ignore me, it will save me from having to reply to your pointless nonsense.
  12. ExarRazor

    copy/paste ps2's shooting mechanics and graphics into ps1's everything else and bam, perfect game that has a good chance at going as long as ps1 did.

    currently, SoE will be lucky if this game makes it to summer 2014
  13. Crashmatusow

    the intelligent gamers committee kindly requests you stop misusing the term "metagame"

    cycling squad leaders to spam spawn beacons is meta-gaming

    having an overarching objective is called having an overarching objective.
  14. Midnightmare

    was more metagame play in PS1 10 years ago and i miss it.
  15. DJPenguin

    Making base captures meaningful and devoid of instant recapturing would be enough of a meta for me. Ghost capping a small outpost, winning after a 2 hour long fight at a facility, the only difference is how many people are present. The sense of accomplishment from PS1 when taking bases just isn't there. I'm blaming it on the amount of things that can be captured.
    • Up x 1
  16. BermudaOne

    I think this is interesting and true. I haven't invested largely into the squad/leader side of the cert tree and so as a lowly grunt I am missing out on a large portion of this tactical metagame and I dont think I'm the only one. Having access to the command chat channel is a nice boon and it shows info on what tactical plans platoon leaders are making.

    It would be nice being able to see this information to get a general idea of what and where the flow is heading towards for an empire. Sadly, the only way to gain access is to spend certs and be a squad leader. Certs aside, I think having to be squad leader to see this chat channel is quite restrictive. If this is where the metagame is currently then its no wonder a large majority of people are complaining.

    It would be nice to be able to at least view command chat but not be able to talk in it if you aren't in a squad/platoon leader position. Give us more transparency of command chat channels without actually disrupting those channels. The negatives of this however are that it doesnt stop those broadcasting in command being spam telled to death about people who think they know better and that not all tactical communication happens over command chat. But come on, if this is where the metagame lies then rough averages would say that 1/12 people have access to it.

    tl;dr if metagame lies in platoon/outfit tactical movements then give EVERYONE access but no comms for more metagame transparency
  17. Maidere

    I want an end game, maybe like GW2's leaderboard or something like this. There should be some kind of meaningful goal instead of just "zergcap the cont for teh lulz".
  18. BermudaOne

    my bad
  19. Syphers

    Not that the open world matter much more anymore with the lattice but yeah it would. It's hard to conceptualize though because the game is built around a cash shop.
  20. Giggily

    The end game/meta game of PS2 is going into the official forums and typing in your outfit's tag and seeing people accusing you of hacking.

    Uh, there are official leaderboards for players and unofficial leaderboards for outfits.


    Using this you can track your outfit's statistics like SPM and K/D.