Jump to content

The Path To Improved PVP


ForzaProiettile

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

I am not saying they don't fight here and there but for the most part there is not a whole lot of action going on most days. My point was that there is more beneficial for them to not fight and therefore not risk anything since they already have everything they could possibly need.

Well I wont pretend to know how much action there currently is going on right now nor what it was in the past to understand some sort of trend. But, I can tell you servers are being slot capped right as we speak for the purpose of war. I can also tell you, that I do know many players in these mega tribes who don't want to fight on pvp servers. They want to breed, farm, and build. And in my opinion the reasons that are the most stated to me is not so much the cost of combat but rather server stability.

The fact that servers crash every 5 minutes when big megas go to war is not only a huge hassle but also a major risk for lost characters that WC support staff might or might not restore. A tribe mate recently lost is character because he transferred to a server to fight and it went down before its save point. He submitted a ticket, waited for his appointment for a few days and when he was on his alt the gm comes in and starts leveling that character. He says stop its not this character this is an alt and then he logs to get the one that needs to be leveled up. In the time it takes to exit the game and relog in (3 minutes) the GM grew impatient and left. He had to make another appointment. The GM comes back in a few days he levels up the right character but then forgets to give him his tek engrams. And leaves. To this day the GM never came back to give him his tek engrams....

If we don't see a MAJOR upgrade in reliability of servers and some sort of a back up system where we dont' have to rely on the many unprofessional, rude, and immature GMs that WC employs then we will never see an increase of attacks as defending is safer in terms of character loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 9/19/2019 at 1:46 PM, johnm81 said:

No I have expressed interest in the dev maintaining the influence of a variety of meta selected by players and sometimes innovatived by players that devs never contemplated.

Which is exactly what the OP has proposed, a player innovated meta that the devs never contemplated.

So on the one hand you say you support player innovated metas, then on the other hand you say you don't like that player innovated meta because might require enforcement. The problem with that argument is that every meta except for one can only be sustained with dev involvement and enforcement. The only meta that can be sustained without devs enforcing any rules is the "no rules meta" which has always been the default meta for the PvP large cluster. Every other meta, including those innovated by players, can only exist with dev participation.

For example, the small tribes servers are a player innovation but, because there will always be people who want to cheat, that meta can only be maintained by dev involvement and enforcement. The fundamental concept of the small tribes servers can only survive assaults by cheaters and be sustained if there is an external, third party body that judges infractions of the meta, and that external body is the devs.

So which is it, do you only ever want on single meta (the "no rules" meta) or do you want "the dev maintaining the influence of a variety of meta selected by players and sometimes innovatived by players" like the small tribe meta and the meta that the OP has proposed. Either you want the devs to support multiple metas or you only ever want to see the "no rules" meta, you can't take both positions in the same discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Which is exactly what the OP has proposed, a player innovated meta that the devs never contemplated.

No. The difference is where a meta is created by players and is enforced by nothing except the merits of it and victory in combat it produces. Now juxtaposed that with a meta from devs that just put in a hard cap to tribe size. Enforced by the coding in the game.

One is player freedom the other is the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, johnm81 said:

No. The difference is where a meta is created by players and is enforced by nothing except the merits of it and victory in combat it produces.

Which means the only meta you support is the PvP large cluster meta - which is best summed up by the description "no rules". That's not supporting any kind of "innovation", not from players or anyone else. There's no "innovation" of any sort on the PvP large cluster, there is only rule by force of arms, self-interest and a smidge of diplomacy, that's the opposite of innovation.

You could just be honest and say that the only meta you like is the PvP large cluster meta. All of your other talk about player "innovation" is just smoke and mirrors trying to cover up the fact that the only meta you support is pure force of arms with no restrictions.

1 hour ago, johnm81 said:

One is player freedom the other is the opposite.

What you're trying to describe as "player freedom" really means a small group of powerful players oppressing all other players that they can without recourse or respite. It's a bunch of tiny tyrants trying to rule the world in a video game, there's nothing "innovative" about that, especially not from the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many good ideas and interesting opinions here.
That being said, I believe, like many others, that certain key aspects of the game are also the cause of its gradual downfall.

Mega-tribes:

I have no trouble admitting it, I have very little sympathy for this style of play, but respects and understands the benefits for the players who enjoys it.

Indeed, one can find a certain level of tranquility as one can quite easily specialize in a very specific area, such as breeding, or farming resources. A player with limited experience will undoubtedly find a rich source of information and game tips to improve his own.

On the other hand, this style of play tends, in my opinion, to make players lazy, arrogant and possibly too cautious. As mentioned by others, there is little or no benefit for the various protagonists to engage in battle. Most already have vaults filled with high quality engrams, not to mention the essentially unlimited resources at this stage of the game. I will not even talk about creatures whose mutations count is just ridiculous...

I believe that the number of players per server is correct at 70, but that a limit of 5 players per tribe should be considered. In addition, the alliance system should be completely removed, at least for the PvP mode. I would push the idea further and disable the global chat too, a question of minimizing the temptation to create informal alliances and the unneeded drama seen too often.


 
Distinctions in veterans and beginners:

As much as I agree with the definition of PvP described by Forza, I do believe that for the sake of the game, some elements must be put in place to attract new players and keep them playing the game in the long run.

I do not think I'm wrong in saying that most players take a certain level of pride in the number of hours they play, but also in their seniority in general.

With this in mind, it may be possible to have a player status icon based on the date of purchase of the game on Steam, but also on its total hours played. It could be a colorful icon (The Ark “A” for example) according to a specific number of hours of play.

- White (500 hours or less)
- Green (501 to 750 hours)

- Blue (751 to 1250 hours)

- Purple (1251 to 2000 hours)

- Yellow (2001 to 4000 hours)

- Red (4001+ hours)

With a system of this kind, any player could at a glance, identify which player rating he / she is dealing with.
This would not prevent players with multiple accounts like me from hiding their real hours account, however.

To counter such problems, incentives should be given to play an "advanced" account.
For example, it could be to give the Steam account a 1-5% bonus to the stats of a tamed creature when mounted by the player in question, like the bonus of an imprinted creature.

In the same idea, I think that some penalties should also be applied to veteran players to try to reduce the crucial advantage they have on beginners, the experience.

Despite the plethora of information available on the web about the different aspects of the game, nothing will ever beat the actual experience in the game.
Thus, I believe that the more a player accumulates playing time, the slower his/her character should be gaining experience and/or also reduce the amount of resources he/she collects.

Structures:

As everyone knows, the amount of structures scattered around has been a recurring problem of the game. Not only in a context of PvP, but also at the level of the servers which frankly does have a hard time saving their backups.

Let’s not even talk about the latency induced by the huge bases of certain groups that can for all practical purpose cause game crashes for players with machines less powerful.

I believe that the idea of the structure count should not be limited to a particular area, but rather to the entire server for said tribe.
Just so, people might stop making bases everywhere and focus on 1-2 places and reduces the amount of defensive spam.
I also believe that caves should become areas where it is impossible to build. 

Creatures:

In my opinion, the new kibble system is a step in the right direction. That being said, I think it might be wise to redo the entire breeding system and make it less advantageous.

Currently, with enough time, it is possible to obtain creatures that for all practical purposes have hardly any equal in the game, apart from those of a rival tribe.
When a rex with multiple mutations and a proper saddle is able to kill a giga, there are questions to be asked.

I am absolutely for the reward of the effort invested, but to have a bred/imprinted/mutated creature that is essentially multiple times more powerful than his parents,
it’s simply ridiculous. At maximum (mutations included), a creature should be 50% more powerful than its ancestors, to make them manageable in a PvP context.

I think that going back to creature levels (120 instead of 150) could also help in the longer run.
Among other things, it could help alleviate some issues with turret soakers and the current meta of setting shop in caves rather than on the surface.

The creature weight system should also be redone in its entirety. It should be based on the drag-weight of the creature, but also on its category. 
Flyers shouldn’t be able to carry thousands of metal at once, as they rely on being lightweight in order to fly…

With strong legs, it is only logical that a rex for example can carry more weight than a simple argentavis.

This would give a breath of life to some creatures such as bronto, without the need to dedicate them a TLC.

Those are simply small ideas as I have plenty more in reserve.
** Apologies ahead for mistakes in the text as english is not my first language. **

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

I am not saying they don't fight here and there but for the most part there is not a whole lot of action going on most days. My point was that there is more beneficial for them to not fight and therefore not risk anything since they already have everything they could possibly need.

Well so, it seems like the problem is that the competition for the powerful tribes is lacking.  You already said that, of course!  But what I'll add is that crushing the hell out of anyone who is in a stone base with 4 turrets could be part of the issue?  I'm thinking out loud Forza, you seem honest and at least open to reasonable ideas, regardless of if I disagree with your playstyle.

Why do I think its part of the issue?  Because no one on any server that you and your Chinese friends have a presence represents any REAL viable threat.  They are crushed or coerced into joining, it seems like.  And when you and your ilk crush them, you really CRUSH them.  So...  It kinda seems like you (and the overly-aggressive playstyle of "kill every-raptoring-thing-that-moves") are causing the issue.

Now...  Why is this significant?  Because it is not going to change.  You have zero intention in changing the way you play.  Neither does JohnM, or any other notable PvP'er that frequents the forums.  Sooooooo...  There is no solution.  You are dead-eyed correct:  It IS an open-world game.  People can fight, or not fight.  If they are playing PvP and trying to get started, they won't be raiding every base around.  They'll be hunkering down and trying to tame a few utility tames, gather stuff, and get leveled up.  That doesn't mean that they "chose the wrong game-mode," or that they should "leave for a PvE server," it just means they are too green to come at you properly.  Meanwhile you show up with C4 and foundation-wipe them, and then they leave.  Seems counter-productive to the whole, "I want competition" discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Darkholis said:

With this in mind, it may be possible to have a player status icon based on the date of purchase of the game on Steam, but also on its total hours played. It could be a colorful icon (The Ark “A” for example) according to a specific number of hours of play.

 


- White (500 hours or less)
- Green (501 to 750 hours)

 

- Blue (751 to 1250 hours)

 

- Purple (1251 to 2000 hours)

 

- Yellow (2001 to 4000 hours)

 

- Red (4001+ hours)

 


With a system of this kind, any player could at a glance, identify which player rating he / she is dealing with.
This would not prevent players with multiple accounts like me from hiding their real hours account, however.

This is a terrible idea, Dark.  In the indistinguishably identical way that the "GearScore" Add-On for Blizzard's MMO World of Warcraft tells you absolutely raptoring nothing about how good a raider is, "Hours Played" is an absolutely terrible metric to judge the calibre of opponent they are facing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheDonn said:

This is a terrible idea, Dark.  In the indistinguishably identical way that the "GearScore" Add-On for Blizzard's MMO World of Warcraft tells you absolutely raptoring nothing about how good a raider is, "Hours Played" is an absolutely terrible metric to judge the calibre of opponent they are facing.

I agree it won't tell you how good/bad the player is, especially if the hours are clocked on the main screen.
How about a fame "title" based on the number of kills you did in PvP (as seen in MMOs such as Everquest 2) :

Fame - 0 to 99
Title - None

Fame - 100 to 199
Title - Hunter

Fame - 200 to 299
Title - Slayer

Fame - 300 to 399
Title - Destroyer

Fame - 400 to 499
Title - Champion

Fame - 500 to 599
Title - Dreadnaught

Fame - 600 - 699
Title - General

Fame - 700 to 799
Title - Master

Fame - 800 to 999
Title - Overseer

Fame - 1000 to 2999
Title - Overlord

Fame - 3000
Title - Warlord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Darkholis said:

I agree it won't tell you how good/bad the player is, especially if the hours are clocked on the main screen.
How about a fame "title" based on the number of kills you did in PvP (as seen in MMOs such as Everquest 2) :

Fame - 0 to 99
Title - None

Fame - 100 to 199
Title - Hunter
 

Open second account farm kills till you get max rank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Darkholis said:

Can always lower the fame gained per kill as you progress the ranks to counter such a move.

Besides, with the current respawn mechanics, if you bypass the PvP respawn cooldown, you are basicly exploiting....

That seems true.  But I think the point here is, there is no way a system could reliably work to tell you what enemy you are facing.  At least not one past the current system of "Bob Level 65 in Tribe of Bob".  It just isn't feasible to do correctly.  Alot of things aren't feasible either, even though the community would like them to be.  Like Wyvern breeding.  I don't think I wanna play on an ARK where 1500% melee Lightning Wyverns exist.  If we are still only talking about Official, that isn't happening.  Wyvern breeding has a lot of internet points right now, which mean absolutely nothing because of the upset it would cause in balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Darkholis said:

I agree it won't tell you how good/bad the player is, especially if the hours are clocked on the main screen.
How about a fame "title" based on the number of kills you did in PvP (as seen in MMOs such as Everquest 2) :

Fame - 0 to 99
Title - None

Fame - 100 to 199
Title - Hunter

Fame - 200 to 299
Title - Slayer

Fame - 300 to 399
Title - Destroyer

Fame - 400 to 499
Title - Champion

Fame - 500 to 599
Title - Dreadnaught

Fame - 600 - 699
Title - General

Fame - 700 to 799
Title - Master

Fame - 800 to 999
Title - Overseer

Fame - 1000 to 2999
Title - Overlord

Fame - 3000
Title - Warlord

I am firmly against any system that would inhibit the ability of players to mix in and assimilate on servers.  It's already hard enough if you have a high rank to avoid being seen as a threat which is what your first suggestion to create an icon based on hours played would do. Your second suggestion for a system based on kills is even worse, it would basically put a red flag above my head everywhere I went.

All this would do is make it easier for the large alpha and mega tribes to control servers by effectively giving them an ingame player filter.

That said it would be nice to have a private stats page for each player so that they can so measure how many players and tames they have killed during their career, how much thatch farmed and so forth. From a developer perspective it wouldn't be hard to implement either. If they are worried about the extra data they would need to store in their databases they could just store it locally on each player's machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Which means the only meta you support is the PvP large cluster meta - which is best summed up by the description "no rules".

Not at all many small group raiders can be very successful against large Megas. Personal experience talking here. There are dozens of metas in ark that work for group sizes solo to mega. And some of them work really well.

18 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

You could just be honest and say that the only meta you like is the PvP large cluster meta. All of your other talk about player "innovation" is just smoke and mirrors trying to cover up the fact that the only meta you support is pure force of arms with no restrictions.

The only lie would be if I said whatever dribble you just wrote. Just because you lack the creativity to see many metas that work well exist doesn’t mean they don’t.

 

19 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

What you're trying to describe as "player freedom" really means a small group of powerful players oppressing all other players that they can without recourse or respite. It's a bunch of tiny tyrants trying to rule the world in a video game, there's nothing "innovative" about that, especially not from the players.

If a tyrannical meta becomes dominate then let the rebel insurgency meta rise from the ashes.

The only input devs should have is ensure that a game is deep enough for many metas so rebellion of oppression can take place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, johnm81 said:

Not at all many small group raiders can be very successful against large Megas. Personal experience talking here. There are dozens of metas in ark that work for group sizes solo to mega. And some of them work really well.

I see the issue here, you think that every tribe size is it's own meta, and it's not. The PvP large cluster has one meta and one meta only, people are able to enjoy the game in a variety of tribe sizes under that meta, but it is still a single meta.

2 hours ago, johnm81 said:

Just because you lack the creativity to see many metas that work well exist doesn’t mean they don’t.

Just because you can't tell the difference between "a meta" and "a tribe size" doesn't mean that multiple metas actually exist, and it definitely doesn't mean that there are multiple metas "innovated by players". There is a single meta in the PvP large cluster and it is exactly the meta envisioned by the creators and devs of ARK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

I am firmly against any system that would inhibit the ability of players to mix in and assimilate on servers.

I can relate to your arguments but as of now, the fact that new comers and veterans can blend in as easily in just about any game mode is killing the game, at least in my opinion. Newcomers needs to play away from exeperienced players for some time before entering the fray. Otherwise, they quickly get destroyed repeatadly and quit the game, thus hurting it long term.

The idea behind beginner servers was interesting but there are no possible way to prevent experienced players such as myself to enter said servers, and as others mentionned, the hours count is pretty much meaningless.

Another idea could be to force every new account made into a set of specific "trial" servers which can only be accessed during a set period of time. After that period of time, you could no longer access these servers and are forced into the regular ones. The only way for someone to stay established on there would be to constantly create and thus pay for new accounts.

5 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

Your second suggestion for a system based on kills is even worse, it would basically put a red flag above my head everywhere I went.

Yup and I crave the idea. I love being hunted down where I go as it makes PvP far less boring, especially against mega tribes. A sizeable chunk of players from these large entities are essentially farmers/breeders with next to 0 PvP experience. Add in the fear factor of a "hot" target running around and they are bound for mistakes => thus more engaging/fun PvP.

5 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

All this would do is make it easier for the large alpha and mega tribes to control servers by effectively giving them an ingame player filter.

Large tribes already have access to countless tools to monitor who is entering their realms and track their whereabouts. With minimal knowledge in networking, you can track just about anyone anywhere.

------------------------------------------------------------

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

I see the issue here, you think that every tribe size is it's own meta, and it's not. The PvP large cluster has one meta and one meta only, people are able to enjoy the game in a variety of tribe sizes under that meta, but it is still a single meta.

Just because you can't tell the difference between "a meta" and "a tribe size" doesn't mean that multiple metas actually exist, and it definitely doesn't mean that there are multiple metas "innovated by players". There is a single meta in the PvP large cluster and it is exactly the meta envisioned by the creators and devs of ARK.

You fail to see the forest for the trees are in the way....

Of course a tribe size is not a meta try not to propose so many straw man arguments. However there are many metas that are very effective and lend themselves to small tribes or big tribes. For example dispersed small bases meta lends its self well to small tribes whose members are high level but have no breed lines. 

Megas tend to go for a more Zerg gather rush base with turrets then bring in or make new breed line meta build.

Another meta for small tribes or even solo that I favor is the boat fleet meta that lends itself well to hyper aggressive servers.

And there are many more options out there that I don’t know about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Darkholis said:

I can relate to your arguments but as of now, the fact that new comers and veterans can blend in as easily in just about any game mode is killing the game, at least in my opinion. Newcomers needs to play away from exeperienced players for some time before entering the fray. Otherwise, they quickly get destroyed repeatadly and quit the game, thus hurting it long term.

The idea behind beginner servers was interesting but there are no possible way to prevent experienced players such as myself to enter said servers, and as others mentionned, the hours count is pretty much meaningless.

Another idea could be to force every new account made into a set of specific "trial" servers which can only be accessed during a set period of time. After that period of time, you could no longer access these servers and are forced into the regular ones. The only way for someone to stay established on there would be to constantly create and thus pay for new accounts.

Yup and I crave the idea. I love being hunted down where I go as it makes PvP far less boring, especially against mega tribes. A sizeable chunk of players from these large entities are essentially farmers/breeders with next to 0 PvP experience. Add in the fear factor of a "hot" target running around and they are bound for mistakes => thus more engaging/fun PvP.

Large tribes already have access to countless tools to monitor who is entering their realms and track their whereabouts. With minimal knowledge in networking, you can track just about anyone anywhere.

------------------------------------------------------------

Regards.

I am well aware of the tools that large tribes use to monitor servers having helped work on one myself, but even those still have limitations. The API for instance cannot give you their Steam id which means you have to go by their player name but if players are using '123' it gets a lot more complicated. The suggestions you made however would give these powerful tribes a far easier way to filter their servers from threats, something that not even the best ARK tracker can currently do.

As for new players as you pointed out they have beginners servers and sure I guess veteran players could go on there and kill them but it doesn't really strike me as much of an issue, since those are designed to get players familiar with the game. If they really wanted to they could easily implement a filter based on Steam id's to only allow each account to play on that server once.

As for the thrill of the hunt, that is indeed one of the most fun and exciting parts of ARK, causing such chaos on a server that everyone ends up trying to search and hunt you down. That said its nice to be able to switch that off when you transfer to a fresh server, where you don't have such a reputation. It allows you to setup in peace to begin your work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, johnm81 said:

However there are many metas that are very effective and lend themselves to small tribes or big tribes. For example dispersed small bases meta lends its self well to small tribes whose members are high level but have no breed lines.

Megas tend to go for a more Zerg gather rush base with turrets then bring in or make new breed line meta build.

Another meta for small tribes or even solo that I favor is the boat fleet meta that lends itself well to hyper aggressive servers.

And there are many more options out there that I don’t know about.

You're using the term "meta" incorrectly. The meta is the environment, including the game mechanics, including the maps and including any rules that the devs put in place but not including the various ways that players respond to environment. Differences between player tactics or tribe strategies are not different metas, they are not 'metas innovated by the players', they are the tactics and strategies that players devise in response to the single meta that they are all playing under.

Most games only have 2 metas, PvP and PvE. World of Warcraft, for example, has bunches of PvE servers and PvP servers, with no variations or different types of clusters. All of WoW, no matter how many servers they have is composed entirely of two metas, PvE and PvP.

ARK, on the other hand, has multiple metas, multiple environments designed with significant variations in their environmental rule sets.

* The PvP large cluster is a meta, one, singular, that covers all of the servers in the cluster.

* The PvE large cluster is a meta, one, singular, that covers all of the servers in the cluster.

* The Small Tribe, 6-man servers are a meta.

* The PvP small clusters are a meta.

* The PvE small clusters are a meta.

Whether tribes have "dispersed small bases" or one large base is meaningless, if those tribes are on the PvP large cluster they are all playing under the same meta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2019 at 10:36 PM, Darkholis said:

I believe that the number of players per server is correct at 70, but that a limit of 5 players per tribe should be considered. In addition, the alliance system should be completely removed, at least for the PvP mode. I would push the idea further and disable the global chat too, a question of minimizing the temptation to create informal alliances and the unneeded drama seen too often.

This already exists, ARK has small tribe servers, with a 6-person per tribe limit and no alliances allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

You're using the term "meta" incorrectly. The meta is the environment, including the game mechanics, including the maps and including any rules that the devs put in place but not including the various ways that players respond to environment. Differences between player tactics or tribe strategies are not different metas, they are not 'metas innovated by the players', they are the tactics and strategies that players devise in response to the single meta that they are all playing under.

Most games only have 2 metas, PvP and PvE. World of Warcraft, for example, has bunches of PvE servers and PvP servers, with no variations or different types of clusters. All of WoW, no matter how many servers they have is composed entirely of two metas, PvE and PvP.

ARK, on the other hand, has multiple metas, multiple environments designed with significant variations in their environmental rule sets.

* The PvP large cluster is a meta, one, singular, that covers all of the servers in the cluster.

* The PvE large cluster is a meta, one, singular, that covers all of the servers in the cluster.

* The Small Tribe, 6-man servers are a meta.

* The PvP small clusters are a meta.

* The PvE small clusters are a meta.

Whether tribes have "dispersed small bases" or one large base is meaningless, if those tribes are on the PvP large cluster they are all playing under the same meta.

META = Most Effective Tactics Available

Google it if you don't believe me. Perhaps this odd definition of META you are using is the source of your confusion from the beginning... So no, meta is a method for achieving a desired outcome in its most common gamer vernacular rather than a server rule set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2019 at 7:54 PM, johnm81 said:

META = Most Effective Tactics Available

Sorry but no, meta is not an acronym, that is incorrect. It is a prefix with Greek origins. The commonly used form "meta" is a shortened version of the term "metagame" or "meta-game".

We both know there has been some hostility in this conversation, but please understand that I'm trying to help you clear up a misunderstanding. I'm not trying to make fun of you or make you feel bad, at this point I'm simply trying to help you understand that someone gave you an incorrect explanation for what meta- means.

In fairness to you, I didn't give a very good description previously. Also in fairness to you, your description of the meta is also partially correct.

It's not only the environment, you're right that the meta-game also includes player tactics and strategies in response to the environment. With that said, the environment both drives and confines the player decisions. That is true of even he most wide-open, sandbox environment that you can imagine, even in a sandbox game players are still confined to tactics and strats that will work under the current meta. Players can't develop new tactics and strategies that don't work with the current environment, which is why there has never been a strategy for the Dragon boss involving 18 dimorphodons, there has never been a meta- in ARK that would support that strategy.

The metagame in ARK today is different from the metagame during Early Access, because the environment has changed. For example, under the original meta- the best tames for the Dragon boss fight were rexes, but under the current meta- there are multiple mixtures of tames that are viable for beating the Dragon boss. Players have figured out various strategies involving Rexes, Yuty's, Daeodons, Therizino's, Megaloceros, and probably others that I don't know about, but each of those various strategies are not each their own meta, they are multiple strats that all work in the single current meta that exists for all players.

Those new player strategies would not have been possible without those animals being added to the game, it was the changes made by the devs that lead to the new meta- of being able to use different kinds of tames for the Dragon boss. Those various player strategies are not multiple meta's, they are multiple strategies in response to the meta- that currently exists in the game today.

On 9/22/2019 at 7:54 PM, johnm81 said:

Google it if you don't believe me.

It would have helped if you had taken your own advice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meta-#Etymology_1

https://www.etymonline.com/word/meta-

On 9/22/2019 at 7:54 PM, johnm81 said:

Perhaps this odd definition of META you are using is the source of your confusion from the beginning... So no, meta is a method for achieving a desired outcome in its most common gamer vernacular rather than a server rule set.

On the contrary, someone has given you bad information, your sources are under informed and are not aware of the true origins of meta- so they have invented a false "backronym" to explain something they don't understand. Meta- is not an acronym, and it never has been. I'm not sure what sources of information you're using, but they are not good and they are giving you the wrong answer.

Even something as recent and current as Urban Dictionary gives the correct explanation, so it should be pretty pretty obvious to you that the fake explanation someone gave to you is not the "common gamer vernacular" that you think it is.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=metagame

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People should have to graduate to play on PvP servers after having spent some time on PvE servers. That would mean newbies would get a sense of the game mechanics before being dropping into some hell of non-stop pummeling by other far more experienced players. Currently, so many noobs drop into PvP servers as their first experience, then get completely turned off the game.  

In keeping with that idea, the entire PvP aspect of the game should be formed around some sort of tiered system that promotes tribal competition.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of the word 'Meta' goes way beyond gaming. It's been used for ages in all kind of disciplines, including computer science, but not limited to it. Meta refers to 'a higher level of'. For instance, during the early days of search engines, meta-search engines became a thing. They essentially were all search engines, but 'meta' search engines used other search engines, thus enhancing their search power. Psychologist refer to 'meta cognition', which is essentially 'thinking about thinking'. With respect to gaming, one interpretation is that 'meta' refers to the overall grand scheme of the game. But conceivably, it could also refer to a game that includes sub-games. 

In case anyone hasn't noticed, if you check most dictionaries its very common for there to be multiple ways to define any word or expression, and its very rare that a word or expression would only have one meaning.  Also, language evolves over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, DeHammer said:

People should have to graduate to play on PvP servers after having spent some time on PvE servers. That would mean newbies would get a sense of the game mechanics before being dropping into some hell of non-stop pummeling by other far more experienced players. Currently, so many noobs drop into PvP servers as their first experience, then get completely turned off the game.  

In keeping with that idea, the entire PvP aspect of the game should be formed around some sort of tiered system that promotes tribal competition.  

No trust me that would make things a lot worse for them. The way you play PVE and PVP in this game are very different, if they were to get the idea that what they learn in PVE will work when they transfer to PVP then it will only end in tears and heartbreak.

You see this phenonium a lot with players that have played PVE for a while then try and switch to PVP and apply their PVE skills to things like base building, what to tame and generally how to approach the game. They just get slaughtered and never return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...