Is the metagame bad for the game?

DrNitroman

Very interesting to read your thoughts

Initially, I suspected that devs might want to break the metagame - or at least change for a simpler one - because as the metagame become more and more complex, it may discouradge newer players. In this case, metagame would be bad for the game, froms devs point of view.

But, reading your posts, I recognize that in fact we create metagaming because we seek to optimize our playing knowing the mechanics of the game. Ironically, it seems that most of the mechanics of the game were imagined by devs to keep the game easily accessible to new players, and to allow both casual and hardcore gamers playing together the same events.

My point is that the metagame is the creature of Dr Frankenstein!
The devs created metagame very indirectly but now they don't control it anymore: it's alive!

I suppose the rules will keep evolving. I hope they could ensure for both casual and hardcore players some rewards in proportion to their investment in the game. The competitive part of the game is important for the most involved players but competition has to be fair and rules clear...

Unknown

Impulse wrote:

Not quite. The problem isn't the game mechanics themselves, the problem, if it is one, is that whatever the mechanics are, there will be an optimal way to take advantage of the rules. Metagaming will always give you an advantage. Changing rubberbanding will simply mean the metagame will shift.

Remember too that everything exists in response to a problem. Solutions inevitably cause their own problems. That soesn't necessarily mean you're better off without them. In any case rubberbanding helps casual players without hampering hardcore ones, so it's unlikely to go anywhere. The primary negative is that it easily confuses and upsets people with changing numbers.

Well I missed a just there in the first sentence. I wanted to say that not all comes down to the human factor but the game creates or at least amplifies problems itself.
Take tanking as example. The MMR is there to keep new players separated from the hardcore crowd. But the all the hardcore players know how to tank their rating down. So the casuals fight progressively harder battles, while everybody that knows the system get to select his own difficulty.
The crazy scaling of the last event is the same, designed to help casuals catch up to the grinders. But if you know the system it was crystal clear that only the last 2-3 hours will decide your final ranking and nothing else. I catched up 300 ranks in about an hour, while not even needing half of the available nodes. That's ridiculous, I guess one could have easily made 5-600 ranks in one refresh.

jozier wrote:

This is true in all competitions. I can't think of anything where the response is "play a bit when something starts and then forget it" and expect to win.

Yeah but this PVE was the exact other extreme, forget the first 90% and start when something ends.

Unknown

For PvE, unless you plan on missing the last 2 hours of an event end, it actually matters a lot what you're doing prior to the last refresh. The 'do nothing until last 2 hours' works if your competition is weak, but that's just lucky for having weak competition. Most people don't bother trying that hard because chances of running into more than one guy (top reward usually goes top 2 at least) that actually has enough time to grind everything down is low, but you can't possibly beat a guy who can grind all missions and spent more time than you. It's just these guys are really rare so you probably won't run into 2 of them at once, but even then, at best you're still only 50/50 versus any other guy who are equally strong that went for the same 'wait for the last minute' strategy.

Spoit

Phantron wrote:

For PvE, unless you plan on missing the last 2 hours of an event end, it actually matters a lot what you're doing prior to the last refresh. The 'do nothing until last 2 hours' works if your competition is weak, but that's just lucky for having weak competition. Most people don't bother trying that hard because chances of running into more than one guy (top reward usually goes top 2 at least) that actually has enough time to grind everything down is low, but you can't possibly beat a guy who can grind all missions and spent more time than you. It's just these guys are really rare so you probably won't run into 2 of them at once, but even then, at best you're still only 50/50 versus any other guy who are equally strong that went for the same 'wait for the last minute' strategy.

That only matters if you're going for top 2 though. With the introduction of alliance rewards, 3-50 are essentially the same, and you can get a pretty safe top 50 with pretty darn lazy play. (and consequently, not have to deal with walls of 230s)

DrNitroman

When you play during 6 or 7 successive evenings on an event, it must matter for the final placement even if you can't play the final sprint. The time invested in the game have to pay.
It's a competition and I understand that a guy who plays as much as you and play the 2 final hours is better ranked. What is perceived unfair it's when no playing the final 2 hours forbid to have a good rank.

As a rule of thumb, if an event is fair and if you play regularly and consistently, then your final placement should reflect your average placement during the week even if you don't play the last hours

Unknown

Actually, the meta game is what makes MPQ so interesting. It's a whole other layer of strategy when you have to plan around the game mechanics to win top placements. If you peel away the meta game then all you have is a Marvel themed bejeweled game.

You can play this game casually, but you're not going to get as much out of it as a more hardcore player.

Shadow

DrNitroman wrote:

When you play during 6 or 7 successive evenings on an event, it must matter for the final placement even if you can't play the final sprint. The time invested in the game have to pay.
It's a competition and I understand that a guy who plays as much as you and play the 2 final hours is better ranked. What is perceived unfair it's when no playing the final 2 hours forbid to have a good rank.

As a rule of thumb, if an event is fair and if you play regularly and consistently, then your final placement should reflect your average placement during the week even if you don't play the last hours

Actually, that's the reason they came out with subs. During the hulk event, I was already certain of getting 3 *** covers even though I knew I wasn't going to make the final hours since I was going to be working the night before and the event was going to end at around lunch time. On the other hand, if I had been around for those final hours, I could have got myself a x-force. But the point is, with subs, it is possible to not be around during the final hours and still rank well.

The rerun of unstable iso8 wasn't very good as the developers were mixing old mechanics and new ones without taking into account the interaction between the 2. Not sure if so many progression rewards have been left untouched before but it was bad. If an old chapter is going to be rerun, they have to make sure that the enhancements that came into the game at a later time wouldn't adversely affect that particular chapter or they have to make enhancements on that chapter itself.