The Path To Improved PVP

[ForzaProiettile]

23 minutes ago, DeHammer said:

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.

Meta in gaming generally refers to the best current way to do things, the most efficient, the most effective or a combination of both. Occasionally someone will find a new method of doing something that is better but for obvious reasons will not to make it public because someone else finds out it goes viral and then the meta changes. That now becomes the thing everyone does.

To give you an example of how the meta works and changes, the Bemouth gates in ARK were in the early days not  hardly ever seen as walls. Then around late 2015/early 2016 people worked out that it was much cheaper to use a gate then it is to build a wall that high made of regular panels. I saw this phenonium first hand on my own server. We were the first tribe on our server to encase our base in giant metal bemouth gates. Then within about 2 weeks all the other big tribes had done similar.

[Pipinghot]

17 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

Meta in gaming generally refers to the best current way to do things, the most efficient, the most effective or a combination of both. Occasionally someone will find a new method of doing something that is better but for obvious reasons will not to make it public because someone else finds out it goes viral and then the meta changes. That now becomes the thing everyone does.

To give you an example of how the meta works and changes, the Bemouth gates in ARK were in the early days not  hardly ever seen as walls. Then around late 2015/early 2016 people worked out that it was much cheaper to use a gate then it is to build a wall that high made of regular panels. I saw this phenonium first hand on my own server. We were the first tribe on our server to encase our base in giant metal bemouth gates. Then within about 2 weeks all the other big tribes had done similar.

Agreed, but the important takeaway from this is that players don't create the meta, they don't "innovate new metas", they discover tactics and strats based on what the current meta in the game will support.

Having said that, sometimes players discover tactics and tricks that the dev's didn't envision, but that's still not players creating anything, discovering and creating are two different things. Devs create the meta (albeit sometimes unintentinally) and players then discover it.

[DeHammer]

18 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

Meta in gaming generally refers to the best current way to do things, the most efficient, the most effective or a combination of both. Occasionally someone will find a new method of doing something that is better but for obvious reasons will not to make it public because someone else finds out it goes viral and then the meta changes. That now becomes the thing everyone does.

To give you an example of how the meta works and changes, the Bemouth gates in ARK were in the early days not  hardly ever seen as walls. Then around late 2015/early 2016 people worked out that it was much cheaper to use a gate then it is to build a wall that high made of regular panels. I saw this phenonium first hand on my own server. We were the first tribe on our server to encase our base in giant metal bemouth gates. Then within about 2 weeks all the other big tribes had done similar.

Yup, that's one interpretation & use of meta with respect to gaming. It's not the only one however. That's what I meant by "one interpretation is that 'meta' refers to the overall grand scheme of the game". But what you mention is really only side of the coin. The meta, and changes in the meta,  are also driven by the developers, as they alter the game for balance issues, responding to player's work arounds, cheats, shortcuts, etc. Example: nerfing wyverns changed the meta of ark.

[DeHammer]

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

Agreed, but the important takeaway from this is that players don't create the meta, they don't "innovate new metas", they discover tactics and strats based on what the current meta in the game will support.

Having said that, sometimes players discover tactics and tricks that the dev's didn't envision, but that's still not players creating anything, discovering and creating are two different things. Devs create the meta (albeit sometimes unintentinally) and players then discover it.

I would say that players do have a part in establishing the meta, though they ultimately don't have control of the meta, developers do. It's a dynamic environment where players respond to the 'proposed' meta with their own strategies, and then developers respond in kind. So I would say everyone involved with the game can impact the meta. Though player's impact on the meta is subject to the control developer's have. 

[Pipinghot]

5 hours ago, DeHammer said:

I would say that players do have a part in establishing the meta, though they ultimately don't have control of the meta, developers do. It's a dynamic environment where players respond to the 'proposed' meta with their own strategies, and then developers respond in kind. So I would say everyone involved with the game can impact the meta. Though player's impact on the meta is subject to the control developer's have. 

Well yes, players do have an impact on the meta, but via the forums much more than via game play. The main contribution of players during game play is to find bugs, glitches, bad game mechanics and cheats which the devs can then get rid of or fix. But players certainly don't create anything new in the meta while player, they simply discover things that already exist and are already available. No player has ever created a new boss fight strategy that wasn't already possible in the game, the game mechanics and the tools have to already exist in order for players to use them. If one finds a hammer on the ground and the figures out how to use that hammer to build something, no one would argue that this person has invented a new hammer meta, they have simply discovered an ability that already existed.

Suggestions and discussion are a much more effective way to convince/persuade/sway the dev's towards doing one thing or another than anything the players do in the game. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but basically everything in the game other than the PvP Large Cluster is the result of player discussions, suggestion and feedback. The forums are where the real player innovation takes place, not in the game play.

[DeHammer]

7 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Well yes, players do have an impact on the meta, but via the forums much more than via game play. The main contribution of players during game play is to find bugs, glitches, bad game mechanics and cheats which the devs can then get rid of or fix. But players certainly don't create anything new in the meta while player, they simply discover things that already exist and are already available. No player has ever created a new boss fight strategy that wasn't already possible in the game, the game mechanics and the tools have to already exist in order for players to use them. If one finds a hammer on the ground and the figures out how to use that hammer to build something, no one would argue that this person has invented a new hammer meta, they have simply discovered an ability that already existed.

Suggestions and discussion are a much more effective way to convince/persuade/sway the dev's towards doing one thing or another than anything the players do in the game. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but basically everything in the game other than the PvP Large Cluster is the result of player discussions, suggestion and feedback. The forums are where the real player innovation takes place, not in the game play.

Don't forget that the meta is essentially the way the game is played. So although the meta is controlled by the developers, with no actual gamers playing the game, there is no meta at all, regardless of the options the developers have built into the game to control the flow of the meta. It really is like two sides of a coin.

[Pipinghot]

8 hours ago, DeHammer said:

Don't forget that the meta is essentially the way the game is played. So although the meta is controlled by the developers, with no actual gamers playing the game, there is no meta at all, regardless of the options the developers have built into the game to control the flow of the meta. It really is like two sides of a coin.

Agree, and I haven't forgotten (or ignored) that fact at all, which is why I've repeatedly talked about the fact that playing the game is how the players discover things.

The same thing is true of Chess, Backgammon, Monopoly and every other game, a game has to be played in order for the meta- to matter. The point I have been making all along is that the players don't create the meta-, they discover it during the course of game play. There is no meta- for a game of Monopoly sitting on a shelf in the closet, that's just a box full of parts and pieces, the meta-game may exist in theory but it's not until people play the game that a meta- has any meaning.

That's it, it was never intended to be earth shattering. There was a claim made earlier in the thread that it's better to allow the players to create the meta- than to have the devs control the meta-, and my response was that the players don't create a meta-, they discover the meta- that already exists based on what the devs have created.

This was never intended to be long, grueling pseudo-philosophical discussion, just a simple point that the meta- is waiting for the player to discover it through game play, but the players don't create the meta-, they just find what works best under the current rule set.

Mind you, nothing in that is intended to be an insult to any players, obviously people have discovered a lot of cool stuff over the years. And to be fair sometimes they discover possibilities that the devs didn't realize their ruleset would allow to happen, at which point the devs have to either change the ruleset or allow it to continue, but even in that scenario the players aren't inventing anything, but are discovering it.

[DeHammer]

27 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

 The point I have been making all along is that the players don't create the meta-, they discover it during the course of game play. There is no meta- for a game of Monopoly sitting on a shelf in the closet, that's just a box full of parts and pieces, the meta-game may exist in theory but it's not until people play the game that a meta- has any meaning.

I think you and I are largely in agreement. I'm just saying that games like Ark aren't Monopoly where a fixed set of rules is shipped with the game and they never change. The developers control the meta, but 'create' is a little more iffy, for two reasons:

1) Players can influence the developers to create a new meta, even something specific the players push for, and in thus doing are really co-creators in a sense. They can also provide the catalyst for a new meta that they may not necessarily want. 

2) The developers can only guess at the path the meta will take when they develop the game. That's why they have to play test it. Playing defines the meta. Then they make adjustments to control the meta more to their liking. Some competitive games have very little developer input with regard to the meta, because they want the players to define the meta - it's part of the game. I work with a fellow who does competition gaming (tournaments) and the games he plays have little to no dev meta control. Think 'rock-paper-scissors'. The meta trends as players react to other players tactics.

[d1nk]

On 9/23/2019 at 3:20 PM, ForzaProiettile said:

Meta in gaming generally refers to the best current way to do things, the most efficient, the most effective or a combination of both. Occasionally someone will find a new method of doing something that is better but for obvious reasons will not to make it public because someone else finds out it goes viral and then the meta changes. That now becomes the thing everyone does.

To give you an example of how the meta works and changes, the Bemouth gates in ARK were in the early days not  hardly ever seen as walls. Then around late 2015/early 2016 people worked out that it was much cheaper to use a gate then it is to build a wall that high made of regular panels. I saw this phenonium first hand on my own server. We were the first tribe on our server to encase our base in giant metal bemouth gates. Then within about 2 weeks all the other big tribes had done similar.

Well this was before the rebalance of gates. Behe gates used to be WAY cheaper than they are now. WC tried to force the meta away but people still didn't care and kept building with gates because of ease. It was MUCH easier to place a bunch of gates then dozens of walls. Still is. Even if they 2x the behe gates cost currently people would still build with gates because its mindless. 

It was all around Reddit. Most likely your tribe saw it on Reddit and thought 'hey! Thats a good idea' I wouldnt even begin to pretend you were the originators of that (Yes I realize you said your server not all ARK) - The problem with META in any game.. is that people will blindly follow the 'meta' without giving any original thought into it. 

[Pipinghot]

1 hour ago, DeHammer said:

I think you and I are largely in agreement. I'm just saying that games like Ark aren't Monopoly where a fixed set of rules is shipped with the game and they never change. The developers control the meta, but 'create' is a little more iffy, for two reasons:

For what it's worth, I chose Monopoly deliberately because it is a game that many possible rules variations. If you look at the way people play Monopoly they don't use "a fixed set of rules" that "never change". It's true that the printed rules inside the box don't change, but the rules that people actually use when they play vary widely. If you look at 10 different groups of people playing Monopoly with 10 different sets of "house rules" you'll see that the meta-game changes for every set of house rules, and sometimes it changes significantly.

The biggest example is the rule for "Buying Property". Here's what the instructions that come with the game say:

**********

BUYING PROPERTY...Whenever you land on an unowned property you may buy that property from the Bank at its printed price. You receive the Title Deed card showing ownership; place it face up in front of you.

If you do not wish to buy the property, the Banker sells it at auction to the highest bidder. The buyer pays the Bank the amount of the bid in cash and receives the Title Deed card for that property. Any player,including the one who declined the option to buy it at the printed price, may bid. Bidding may start at any price.

**********

The second paragraph in those instructions is extremely important, and yet many, many (many) people never use it. One of the most common complaints about Monopoly is that it takes too long, a game can drag out for hours before there's finally a winner. And that "problem" is specifically because so many people never actually read the rules and understand that properties are supposed to be auctioned off no matter who lands on them, most people play the game so that only the person who lands on the property has the option of buying it, and making the mistake of ignoring just that one rule changes Monopoly from a 1-hour game to a multi-hour game and it changes player strategies and tactics. In other words, it's a whole different meta-game when you add or remove that rule from game play.

That one single rule, three sentences in a single paragraph, makes a huge difference in how you play the game. Even if you completely ignore the psychological aspect of the meta-game, even if you don't take into account that the concept of the meta-game includes trying to out-think the other players, all you have to do is add or remove that one, single rule and the meta-game for Monopoly is massively different.

1 hour ago, DeHammer said:

1) Players can influence the developers to create a new meta, even something specific the players push for, and in thus doing are really co-creators in a sense.

Yes, agreed. But as I've said previously almost all of that influence exists via the forums, not inside the game during game play. Players and devs don't interact during game play, players don't make suggestions inside the game and devs don't watch players to see what they're discovering. Almost all of that interaction takes place here on the forums (or Discord, or Twitter, or whatever, the point being that it takes place outside of game play).

The players in ARK have influenced the developers to create a new meta- (multiple new metas in fact) but they didn't exert that influence by inventing anything new inside the game. They communicated concepts during their time outside of the game that influenced the devs to make changes.

It all comes back to the same basic idea, players do not create new meta- inside the game, during the course of game play. Instead, they communicate ideas for new metas while outside the game and then the devs decide which whether to implement those ideas.

1 hour ago, DeHammer said:

2) The developers can only guess at the path the meta will take when they develop the game. That's why they have to play test it. Playing defines the meta. Then they make adjustments to control the meta more to their liking. Some competitive games have very little developer input with regard to the meta, because they want the players to define the meta - it's part of the game. I work with a fellow who does competition gaming (tournaments) and the games he plays have little to no dev meta control. Think 'rock-paper-scissors'. The meta trends as players react to other players tactics.

The act of playing a game is how you discover the meta-game, playing does not define it or create the meta-.

If you've never played Monopoly before in your life, and someone explains the rules to you, you then play the game and discover the meta- that is best for winning. If the rules are changed, you then have to discover the new meta- based on the new set of rules. At no time are you inventing or creating a new meta- while playing the game. First you change the meta- by changing the rules, and then you discover what that new meta- is during the course of game play.

 

[DeHammer]

35 minutes ago, Pipinghot said:

playing does not define it or create the meta-

 The meta doesn't exist until the game is actually played. Who decides the meta of 'rock-paper-scissors'? The meta is not the rules, nor is it the possible pathways to winning. The meta is the way the game is played, that is.. If your opponent has a bias to pick rock and you discern that bias, then you pick paper. That's the meta. 

An illustration: The developers design and create the river bed, forming it as they see fit, knowing the river will generally follow the path of the river bed. But the meta is the actual flow of the water (the river itself). The devs control the flow of the river, by setting the river bed in place and making changes as needed, but they can easily make incorrect predictions about the exact path the river (meta) will take. 

[ForzaProiettile]

1 hour ago, d1nk said:

Well this was before the rebalance of gates. Behe gates used to be WAY cheaper than they are now. WC tried to force the meta away but people still didn't care and kept building with gates because of ease. It was MUCH easier to place a bunch of gates then dozens of walls. Still is. Even if they 2x the behe gates cost currently people would still build with gates because its mindless. 

It was all around Reddit. Most likely your tribe saw it on Reddit and thought 'hey! Thats a good idea' I wouldnt even begin to pretend you were the originators of that (Yes I realize you said your server not all ARK) - The problem with META in any game.. is that people will blindly follow the 'meta' without giving any original thought into it. 

That is true, its very easy to just follow the meta without questioning it and to be fair for the most part following the meta will tend to return positive results as to fairly bad ones if you go off and do your own thing, especially if you are new to the game.

That said the problem with metas in game is repetition and similarity. A meta will tend to prioritize a very small amount of the game's content over the rest. In ARK this can be clearly seen in the selective choice of dinos most veteran players tend to use. There are for instance not to many folks running about on Gallimuses as opposed to just flying over the trees on some kind of flyer.

I think a large part of the cause of this in ARK is unbalance, the meta will always favour the most OP creatures and weapons. The best bang for your buck. The unequal nature of many of the dinos is something the devs have never properly addressed. The devs are good at dumping more and more creatures into the game but not so great at giving us valid reasons  to use many of them. Many older creatures more or less become irrelevant and entirely pointless with successive creature additions, with of the new creatures eclipsing the older ones.

[DeHammer]

6 minutes ago, ForzaProiettile said:

The devs are good at dumping more and more creatures into the game but not so great at giving us valid reasons  to use many of them. Many older creatures more or less become irrelevant and entirely pointless with successive creature additions, with of the new creatures eclipsing the older ones.

Less irrelevant from a specific player perspective. The trike is pretty irrelevant to my survivor on Ragnarok (though they make great bait when luring Gigas), but my new survivor on Valguero wishes he could tame and saddle one.

I also kind of like the idea of some dinos just being around for the sake of existing and making the world seem populated. The game would be less realistic, and thus less immersive,  if the only things we ever saw were things we needed in that moment.  

[ForzaProiettile]

7 minutes ago, DeHammer said:

Less irrelevant from a specific player perspective. The trike is pretty irrelevant to my survivor on Ragnarok (though they make great bait when luring Gigas), but my new survivor on Valguero wishes he could tame and saddle one.

I also kind of like the idea of some dinos just being around for the sake of existing and making the world seem populated. The game would be less realistic, and thus less immersive,  if the only things we ever saw were things we needed in that moment.  

I am not saying they should delete them from the maps but they make them worthy of using. It would be nice if they added a kind of counter system, where each dino say deals a certain kind of damage and each dino say has a resistance to one specific type of dino damage but is vulnerable to the others.

They could also give dinos more niche rules as well as add items to the game that would make encourage players to use other dinos. For instance I would love to either new form of turret called the anti air turret that would huge damage to flyers across a large range or simply a buff to existing turrets that give them bonus vs flyers (like it used to). 

Presently on an air dino you can zip around the map without much thought, you don't need to worry about obstacles or cliffs. There are also very few aerial threats and the one that do exists can easily bypassed and ignored. If suddenly flying became a lot more dangerous then I think the meta would change and we'd see new opportunities open for under used dinos.

[Pipinghot]

On 9/25/2019 at 2:27 PM, DeHammer said:

 The meta doesn't exist until the game is actually played.

Well, I suppose we can have a philosophical debate about the chicken-and-the-egg forever if you want, but it's pretty clear we're not going to agree here.

As far as I'm concerned, the meta- already exists the moment the rule set is created, and then during the course of play the players discover that meta. Just as a physical river exists even if no one has discovered it yet this meta-physical object exists even if no one has discovered yet.

The act of creation takes place in the process of creating the game, creating the rules, that is the act of creation. If we need to agree to disagree that's okay too. You can't have a meta- for something that doesn't exist in the first place.

[ForzaProiettile]

9 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Well, I suppose we can have a philosophical debate about the chicken-and-the-egg forever if you want, but it's pretty clear we're not going to agree here.

As far as I'm concerned, the meta- already exists the moment the rule set is created, and then during the course of play the players discover that meta. Just as a physical river exists even if no one has discovered it yet this meta-physical object exists even if no one has discovered yet.

The act of creation takes place in the process of creating the game, creating the rules, that is the act of creation. If we need to agree to disagree that's okay too. You can't have a meta- for something that doesn't exist in the first place.

Once a game is created and the players populate it, the players then naturally will try various tactics, use different items. Soon enough it becomes pretty clear what are the good items, what are the bad ones, what are the best/most cost efficient/most time efficient strategies to do something. Once this become public knowledge it becomes the standard way of doing something and thus it becomes the meta.

[Pipinghot]

5 hours ago, ForzaProiettile said:

Once a game is created and the players populate it, the players then naturally will try various tactics, use different items. Soon enough it becomes pretty clear what are the good items, what are the bad ones, what are the best/most cost efficient/most time efficient strategies to do something. Once this become public knowledge it becomes the standard way of doing something and thus it becomes the meta.

Right, which is what I've been saying all along. Players discover the meta- via game play, but they don't create it.

[Owataday]

Improvements for official PVP?

So after a short trailer and the usual rush to pre order, what balance changes are on the horizon. All I can see is another shiny carrot on a stick for everyone to try and catch. Meshing is still rampant which has made friends of mine leave. Please let's not have another wildly unbalance creature like the mana introduced. It messed everything up and I know damn well it was done on purpose to sell the dlc. Does everyone remember how stronge those creature were? It ruined the game for months and months. 

[DeHammer]

2 hours ago, Pipinghot said:

Right, which is what I've been saying all along. Players discover the meta- via game play, but they don't create it.

No, it's not what you've been saying all along. Take another look at what he said...

"Once this become public knowledge it becomes the standard way of doing something and thus it becomes the meta."

He's saying that when something BECOMES the standard way of doing something, it BECOMES the meta. You fail to recognize that the term 'becomes' implies the point something exists, the point of its creation. The players do something (i.e. discover something & act on that discovery) - then the meta 'becomes' = 'is created'.

You then make a statement that completely contradicts the point he's made, and that you've just essentially agreed to in word.

To take the concept of meta a step further, we have each been following our own cognitive 'meta' in this discussion. My own meta is 'ferrum ferro acitur'. I am always willing to see both side of the coin and welcome an argument based on logic that forces me to reprocess my perspective. Iron sharpens iron. I see being incorrect as an opportunity to grow/sharpen, and I welcome it. But when someone begins to ignore logic presented, and ignore their own flaws in logic, they are selecting to argue 'ad infinitum'. At that point there's no further point in discussing.

[shadowkyuubi]

and the nerfs done to it have ruined the mana for PVE use

[yekrucifixion187]

The Mana was barely even showcased in the trailers.

They showcased the Meks, Owls, and Titans more than anything else.

Titans were the DLC's selling point. I don't think they had any idea how OP Mana's were gonna end up being. Which didn't happen anyway, until they fixed its targeting. 

It's not very strong anymore. It's mostly just super mobile which highlights its attack ability. 

Players have found easy ways to counter it now so I think it's finally at a good place for PvP, even if it's still an annoyance.

[Pipinghot]

On 9/27/2019 at 7:03 AM, DeHammer said:

No, it's not what you've been saying all along. Take another look at what he said...

"Once this become public knowledge it becomes the standard way of doing something and thus it becomes the meta."

He's saying that when something BECOMES the standard way of doing something, it BECOMES the meta. You fail to recognize that the term 'becomes' implies the point something exists, the point of its creation. The players do something (i.e. discover something & act on that discovery) - then the meta 'becomes' = 'is created'.

You then make a statement that completely contradicts the point he's made, and that you've just essentially agreed to in word.

It becomes the meta after players discover the best way of doing things through game play, that best way of doing things was already built in to the structure of the game before it became known and diseminated.

When you discover a rock by digging it out of the ground, it doesn't magically come into existence at the moment you discover it. The rock was already there, built into the structure of the earth, waiting to be discovered. The act of digging doesn't create the rock. The act of digging doesn't cause the rock to come into being, it already exists, completely independent of the person doing the digging. Likewise the meta- already exists, built into the structure of the game, waiting to be discovered.

It's quite strange that you two seem so married to he idea that players have to be credited with creating something, as if you think the act of discovering cool things is somehow not a worthwhile pursuit. Why is it so important to you to feel like you're creating something when discovering an existing creation is still  noteworthy? The devs do a great deal of work to create a game, why do you have such a problem with the idea that you are discovering cool things that are built into their creation? If you want credit for creating something new, then go create a game of you own, but if you're playing someone else's game it's pretty reasonable to understand that you're discovering interesting things inside of their creation.

On 9/27/2019 at 7:03 AM, DeHammer said:

To take the concept of meta a step further, we have each been following our own cognitive 'meta' in this discussion. My own meta is 'ferrum ferro acitur'. I am always willing to see both side of the coin and welcome an argument based on logic that forces me to reprocess my perspective. Iron sharpens iron. I see being incorrect as an opportunity to grow/sharpen, and I welcome it. But when someone begins to ignore logic presented, and ignore their own flaws in logic, they are selecting to argue 'ad infinitum'. At that point there's no further point in discussing.

You're more than welcome to scroll up and see that I've already stated we can agree to disagree. I'm not forcing you to post anything. Your own criticism applies just as much to yourself it does to me, try looking in a mirror before you start making accusations about 'ad infinitum' arguments.