13 replies to this topic

[stealthraccoon]

Now I generally don't understand the meaning of the word "Meta", but I assume it involves a bunch of acronyms and things like heat override. Suffice to say I don't subscribe to the practice.

In light of previously mentioned play style, I have to share that I had quite a productive night tearing up mechs much larger and more well armed than my Urbie R63 - and I did so with an AC5, a trio of small lasers and a STD 160 engine (feels good to have the heart of a Locust). Best game was 4 kills and close to 500 damage.

And it wasn't because I was being awesome, it was because no one cared to return fire to the little guy chain firing small lasers at their center torso for 3 minutes straight.

Really - I stood still and plinked a Stalker until I cored him, he hosed me with a few large laser blasts and then turned his attention to an assault 700 meters away?! I chased down a Cauldron Born, but by the time responded and took my leg, it was too late for him. I played peek-a-boo with a Catahract who apparently didn't realize his gorilla arms couldn't shoot me through the hillside my little arms could reach over - I took his ballistic side out and ran off.

I used cover, stayed with my team, and paid attention - my enemies fell because they split from their group, didn't focus fire, and weren't taking me as a threat. My experience is an example that even with a mediocre payload you can have successful games.

P.S. would also like to apologize to the Griffin I TK'd, I really was aiming for the enemy Locust!

Edited by stealthraccoon, 24 July 2015 - 10:20 AM.

[InspectorG]

So you are saying bad play on the opponents part invalidates meta-strategies?

[Luscious Dan]

"The meta" is a term many people don't fully understand or use properly, but for gaming purposes it is a high-level description of how the game is being played, mostly in a competitive (or at least organized) setting. When people are really min-maxing the hell out of the game, you really don't see a huge amount of variety in their mech choices or builds.

What you're describing is mostly pug play, where random people are playing random builds with random teammates against random enemies. Not the same as an organized league match where teams coordinate their builds and strategies ahead of time. You see some crazy stuff in pug-land, and some extremely poor play at times.

Not saying you didn't have some great matches in your Urbie, but in a serious match I don't think any assault mech would let you sit there and core them from point blank

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

stealthraccoon, on 24 July 2015 - 10:15 AM, said:

I used cover, stayed with my team, and paid attention - my enemies fell because they split from their group, didn't focus fire, and weren't taking me as a threat. My experience is an example that even with a mediocre payload you can have successful games.

How does it feel to know you would have done better in a Firestarter or Arctic Cheetah?

[stealthraccoon]

vnlk65n, on 24 July 2015 - 05:48 PM, said:

How does it feel to know you would have done better in a Firestarter or Arctic Cheetah?

Maybe not a Firestarter, but a Locust 1E would have stomped!

Point I wanted to get across is that superior firepower is great and all, but it sure doesn't make up for bad habits.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

stealthraccoon, on 24 July 2015 - 09:03 PM, said:

Point I wanted to get across is that superior firepower is great and all, but it sure doesn't make up for bad habits.

Totally agree. And sometimes it's fun to take "non-meta" mechs just to, you know, have fun!

[Jman5]

I think people often trap themselves into little boxes when it comes to meta builds. Instead of thinking: "Here are some good builds to run", they think: "Here are the only good builds to run."

Make no mistake, meta builds are very well designed. They wouldn't stick around long if they were losing people games. However, just because this is what a small handful of skilled players have decided on as meta, doesn't close the book on competitive builds.

The unfortunate thing about this game is that a small handful of units absolutely dominate everyone else in the group queue. There just isn't enough competition at the top and player skill is highly concentrated here. So it makes whatever they are running seem way better than anything else. Now add to the fact that these people have been running different variations of lasers and Gauss consistently for a year and suddenly it looks head and shoulders above everything else.

People don't stop to think that what if they had decided that Clan Daka was the key to success and had spent the last year honing their skills with those weapons? How would games play out if a team based their strategy around low-heat, high DPS weapons instead of high heat, burst damage of laser/Gauss? Perhaps they would prove superior builds with the right tactics. If they could force a slugfest with a high heat team, they would quickly get the upperhand.

I really wish people would be more open minded about what sort of builds can work in this game. EMP, SJR, 228th, CSJ don't dominate your premade because their builds are OP. They beat you because they are very good and well practiced in their builds.

And to be perfectly honest, I think it's a hell of a lot more fun to build your own mechs and come up with your own play styles to best take advantage of their nuances.

[InspectorG]

stealthraccoon, on 24 July 2015 - 09:03 PM, said:

Point I wanted to get across is that superior firepower is great and all, but it sure doesn't make up for bad habits.

Yeah. I misread your OP.

The thing about Meta is efficiency, aka, min/maxing.

Good play is good play, ive had great games in a Spider-V.

[Void Angel]

stealthraccoon, on 24 July 2015 - 10:15 AM, said:

Now I generally don't understand the meaning of the word "Meta", but I assume it involves a bunch of acronyms and things like heat override.

The "Meta" comes from the term "metastatic gaming," which is the phenomenon of a player base widely adopting a set of tactics/weapons as preferred. Essentially, the builds used by successful players will "metastasize" through the player base, becoming the preferred norm.


Anyway, as Jman says, there's a definite element of the Thomas Theorem about the meta, but it would be wrong to infer that meta builds are simply chosen by top players. Meta builds happen because the strategies used work well - and the people who drive the meta are almost always constantly experimenting for ways around it, because finding such gives them the advantage over others still using the old stategy.

I'm reminded of running 12-mans with my unit in the old days, before CW. There was no matchmaker of course, so we'd periodically run into top units, particularly during their practice times. We saw those units doing the Highlander (and later Victor) Poptart Meta; we also saw them running all sorts of experimental comps: AC/20 Shadowhawk rushes; Shadowhawk rushes backed up by dakka and/or poptarts... the list goes on. These guys experimented, they tried stuff out; but when it came down to playing for marbles, when prestige was on the line - they went back to the meta. Why? Because that was the best way that multiple, highly skilled, extremely competitive people had found to win matches^*. So, while player perceptions and preferences do influence the meta, with few exceptions it is grounded in the mechanics of the game.

(_*:This is why the poptart meta was - and needed to be - nerfed. Not because "people cried" about the specific tactic that top players used to beat them, but because there was no competitive tactic, even amongst the elite.)

[Lily from animove]

meta is the game beyonf the game. basically the thing left when you crossout anything that does not cater to the original games goal in the most beneficial way.

meta means bringing what will work best (erased of any subjective variables, like skill etc...) towards a specific goal. A meta develops when there is a rather small subset of strategies and setups being way better than what the entire rest of the game offers and by this is causing a big part of the playerbase using those meta tactics. Often caused by the non meta not able to keep up in performace. Surely, soem stuff cna exceed the meta, but not reliably often, because if it does, it will develop into the new meta.

metatactics are gettign problematic if they exceed the regular other game features so far that is is too superior and starts to imbalance an entire game or makes it too boring by the monotony the game changes into. Or if they start to entirely turn the game into soemthing it was not supposed to be yb design. Because this is hurting games in general.

Quote

(_*:This is why the poptart meta was - and needed to be - nerfed. Not because "people cried" about the specific tactic that top players used to beat them, but because there was no competitive tactic, even amongst the elite.)

Well, only poptarting was the strategy to counter poptarting. But it had to go, because people didn't wanted to play bunny robots shooting ppc's and gauss, since this is hardly what mechwarrior should be about, nor was this any kind of funny entertainment.

Edited by Lily from animove, 28 July 2015 - 05:10 AM.

[Jman5]

I wish this game had smaller team modes or even 1v1 options. It's a lot harder to shift meta when it's your new build and 11 other guys with different mechs, builds, and skill. It's difficult to see through all that noise. With a 1v1 though, it's a lot easier to recognize when some tactic or build is doing better against another.

[InspectorG]

Jman5, on 29 July 2015 - 01:15 PM, said:

I wish this game had smaller team modes or even 1v1 options. It's a lot harder to shift meta when it's your new build and 11 other guys with different mechs, builds, and skill. It's difficult to see through all that noise. With a 1v1 though, it's a lot easier to recognize when some tactic or build is doing better against another.

Hell, a live practice grounds would be great.

[Heinreich]

Jman5, on 29 July 2015 - 01:15 PM, said:

I wish this game had smaller team modes or even 1v1 options. It's a lot harder to shift meta when it's your new build and 11 other guys with different mechs, builds, and skill. It's difficult to see through all that noise. With a 1v1 though, it's a lot easier to recognize when some tactic or build is doing better against another.

I think what would happen with this is that different metas will evolve for each group size. 8v8 tactics and builds may carry over to 12v12 to some degree and vice versa but i dont think that would be the case for 4v4 and 1v1. I cant imagine dueling builds/tactics would translate well to big group engagements.

[Ano]

Void Angel, on 26 July 2015 - 02:04 PM, said:

The "Meta" comes from the term "metastatic gaming," which is the phenomenon of a player base widely adopting a set of tactics/weapons as preferred. Essentially, the builds used by successful players will "metastasize" through the player base, becoming the preferred norm.

Are you sure?

I thought "meta" was a shortened form of "metagame", following the common usage of the meta- prefix to mean something along the lines of the "game of the game" i.e. an abstracted game about the game, typically meaning the search for the best/optimal way of playing (a given game/character/level/whatever).

Or is someone about to post *whooooooosh* at me?