Guild Wars 2

I know this will sound like nit-picking, but I find all the talk about “meta” this and “meta” that to be kind of bizarre. People seem to be using this word to refer to “the best strategy” or “most powerful build,” which is not at all what the word means.

Outside of these forums, when people talk about something that’s “meta,” it involves context, subtext, reading between the lines, breaking the fourth wall, self-awareness or a work that comments on itself or its own medium.

This can certainly apply to video games — for example, in Metal Gear Solid when the colonel instructs you on how to climb ladders using “the action button,” or when Psycho Mantis psychically “moves” your controller, that could be considered a piece of meta-game dialogue.

“Meta” can also refer to game mechanics and gaining a competitive advantage, as well. But it goes beyond just recognizing good trait combinations and taking the game at face-value. Often it involves taking advantage of the interface in some way, thinking ahead and considering how other players will behave, or using technical aspects of the game’s infrastructure to maximize efficiency. It’s behaviour that — while operating inside the bounds of the rules — may be unintended.

In GW2, some simple examples of “meta-game” might be:

• Parking an alt in front of a gathering node or chest, just to grab it on server reset
• Back when “daily revives” was part of the achievement cycle, players would intentionally jump off cliffs and rez each other
• If you want unidentified dyes, don’t buy them with Laurels. Instead, buy Heavy Crafting Bags, sell the materials, then buy the dyes off the trading post
• Rather than spending the silver to port to Lion’s Arch, instead enter the PvP zone or WvW, then take the free gate to LA
• Manipulating the trading post market for profit
• Using overlays or fan sites that tell you when world bosses will spawn
• Using an otherwise-unused alt character as a free “bank”
• Crafting rare greatswords just to sell them, only because so many people want to dump them in the Mystic Forge in hopes of a precursor
• In-game roleplaying
• Logging on for a moment just to grab your daily reward chest, then exiting
• Rapidly burning through Personal Story 1-10 to farm keys

Note that “meta” does not necessarily mean “the best move” or “instant win.” It has less to do with in-game success and more to do with the level on which you’re thinking and interacting. It’s something that happens above or around the game, rather than strictly in it.

Of course this is all subjective, and you’re free to use whatever words you want in your posts. But I cringe whenever I see someone talking about “the current meta” of whatever game mode, when what they really mean is a build that players typically find effective. What it seems to boil down to a lot of the time is just playing smartly, picking traits that harmonize with each other, and using weapons or stats that suit your play style and the content type. That is no more the “meta” of Guild Wars 2 than dressing warmly is the “meta” of winter.

You could say this thread is sort of a “meta” post of this forum. Anyway, thanks for reading. I’m sure most of you will go on as you did before — but I wanted to give my two cents, as we all get to do.

TL;DR: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Words evolve, time to stop living in the 80’s. Meta means exactly what everything thinks it means because that has become the common accepted definition.

ZudetGambeous.9573:

Words evolve, time to stop living in the 80’s. Meta means exactly what everything thinks it means because that has become the common accepted definition.

^^

I find it interesting that you say the word “meta” requires context, and then you spend the rest of the time explaining how we should avoid the context meta is typically used in video games, and instead use it in the ways it’s never used.

I applaud you for coming up with all that to say about a single word.

Fyrebrand.4859:

“Meta” can also refer to game mechanics and gaining a competitive advantage, as well. But it goes beyond just recognizing good trait combinations and taking the game at face-value. Often it involves taking advantage of the interface in some way, thinking ahead and considering how other players will behave, or using technical aspects of the game’s infrastructure to maximize efficiency. It’s behaviour that — while operating inside the bounds of the rules — may be unintended.

Doesnt this paragraph describe exactly how it is currently being used in GW2? Completely contradicts the thread title aswell.

Fyrebrand.4859:

TL;DR: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The way I’ve seen it used in gaming circles it pretty much means “most popular at the present time.” I agree that this is not necessarily the same as “best,” but bad gameplay is seldom the most popular. In GW2 the zerker builds are considered meta for dungeon running because they tend to promote faster runs, and that’s what that vast majority of the GW2 population seems to prefer.

niea.7504:

I applaud you for coming up with all that to say about a single word.

:) agreed

Actually from other games, I’ve come to realize that the meta really doesn’t mean most effective. What it often means is the most effective way for people to get something done without coordinating or communicating.

Meta’s evolve because people pug. It’s easier if everyone knows what everyone is going going to do. You’re not on mumble with these people, you’re typing. No one really wants to type and run a dungeon. Not with strangers.

So you have this setup which is efficient and might be the most efficient thing you can do without having voice communication.

You can probably do something more efficient than the meta with a team that’s not random and that’s on voice.

Meta is based partly on effectiveness but also partly on ease of use. It’s easy to tell people they need to stack and use zerker gear. So that’s what becomes the meta.

Does that make it more effective than a speed running team that knows the most effective way to do stuff. Nah. But those things won’t work with a PUG.

Hey,

I see you are tackling this topic from a different perspective. Like with literally every thread about the meta (we just had one over in the Dungeons subforum today!), it’s just beating that poor old horse. Refer to this thread for a discussion about the semantics:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/meta-vs-Meta-A-helpful-guide/first

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

“Any subject can be said to have a meta-theory, a theoretical consideration of its properties, such as its foundations, methods, form and utility, on a higher level of abstraction.”

This definition properly fits for MMO’s.

In GW2, the meta would be the most efficient damage output, if we’re talking about combat in pve or dungeons, but an entirely different meta would occur if we’re talking about pvp.

These metas occur when players go beyond the simple builds and traits in GW2, and start forming different builds that is more efficient.

To expand on this, i use “efficient” because surviving is considered top importance in a combat-focused game, as well as utilizing time to get things done faster.

Efficiency isn’t the only thing that matters though. There are also player-driven events where challenge and entertainment can be considered the “meta” goal, where efficiency isn’t needed.

Fyrebrand.4859:

TL;DR: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

As someone who’s spent way too much time in academia studying linguistics, I appreciate your post. You’re absolutely right, in terms of the definition of the word. Try not to let its misuse rub you the wrong way though, it’ll drive you nuts.

“Meta” within GW2 refers now to “What everyone uses, accepts and works for most, and many are is reluctant to change it because of laziness, greed, peer pressure, or pluralistic ignorance”.

Some used to call that “flavor of the month”, or “cookie cutter” depending on the situation back in the days.

Meta definitions is used in the correct way when discussing sPvP and WvW, when discussing differences between the U.S. meta comps, the Euro meta comps, and the Chinese meta comps and the constant shifts of counterplay and adaptations that continue to evolve even months after a major balance patch.

It was only until recently that slick shoes were recognized for engies for example and only after bunker guardians and reliable sources of stability were slowly getting phased out due to evolving condi pressure from celestial setups that had admirable skirmish capability.

IllegalChocolate.6938:

It was only until recently that slick shoes were recognized for engies for example and only after bunker guardians and reliable sources of stability were slowly getting phased out due to evolving condi pressure from celestial setups that had admirable skirmish capability.

that has more to do with the potent buffs it got in the last balance round

As a master’s in English who wrote their thesis around some game theory concepts, I have Opinions on this.

ETA: I think it’s important to note here that when GW players say “meta” they are usually shortening “meta build”.

The most pressing one is: words change, especially in context-specific situations. In video game culture, “meta” still maintains the root meaning of looking outside the in-game world, it just has the added flavor of prescribing what happens after you gain meta knowledge (use the optimal playstyle). “Metagaming” as a term means a few different things but generally video gamers mean using non-in-character knowledge to play most efficiently. The implication is that you would use this knowledge optimally instead of suboptimally (if a DM tells you your character can swim or take the coach to your quest’s final destination but the water is filled with invading water breathing aliens from another dimension waiting to surprise attack and you will die because you have 0 swimming skills, you’re going to take the coach unless you desire for some reason a suboptimal output which in a weird twist makes suboptimal optimal from your individual perspective – but still not the game as a whole).

I’m not going to get worked up over people using “meta” as a shorthand for “meta builds” which is GW shorthand for “part of a canon of known game elements that harmonize well together or utilize game mechanics optimally” because it’s a lot less wordy and, yes, I believe it still stays true to the spirit of the root term “metagaming”. Everything gets shortened online. Sometimes shortened then expanded then shortened again back to the original word.

eta: also, I usually have dibs on being pedantic, so I like the spirit of your post

insanemaniac.2456:

IllegalChocolate.6938:

It was only until recently that slick shoes were recognized for engies for example and only after bunker guardians and reliable sources of stability were slowly getting phased out due to evolving condi pressure from celestial setups that had admirable skirmish capability.

that has more to do with the potent buffs it got in the last balance round

True enough but its popularity wasn’t instantaneous, people still need to catch on to these things before it gets recognized.

so the OP is arguing sematics about meta with us and then tells us we need to care about context?.. what a joke.

MithranArkanere.8957:

Some used to call that “flavor of the month”, or “cookie cutter” depending on the situation back in the days.

When I played WoW (which was up through WotLK) the min-maxed combination of stuff was 100% of the time called the “cookie cutter build”. It was such a universally used term that it was defined in the forum stickies everywhere and on the most popular wiki.

I feel like that was more descriptive than “meta”.

However, I propose for differentiation that we adopt the term “ticky-tacky” instead.

Little PC’s on the battlefield,
Little PC’s made of ticky-tacky,
Little PC’s on the battlefield,
Little PC’s all the same.
There’s a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they’re all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all play just the same.

And the PC’s were created
To tell their own personal story,
Where they filled in little boxes
But they came out all the same.
Norn Necros, Charr Hunters,
And Sylvari Elementalists,
And they’re all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all play just the same.

Cool poem. ^^

I’ve always wanted to post asking about what the “meta” really was…. now I’m just more confused.

But I think I’ve deduced its basically maximizing dps, wearin zerker gear, and stacking might in a corner, lol

SpiritualAwakening.5347:

Cool poem. ^^

I’ve always wanted to post asking about what the “meta” really was…. now I’m just more confused.

But I think I’ve deduced its basically maximizing dps, wearin zerker gear, and stacking might in a corner, lol

The meta is actually the game you play outside the game. In most games it refers to things outside the game you do to get a competitive edge.

Examples include:
1) Character counter picking in fighting games
2) Knowing what kinds of decks you’re going to fight in LCG’s and CCG’s and building your own deck to compesate
3) In MMO/PVP, knowing what builds are commonly competitive and either adapting the competitive builds or being ready to deal with them.
4) In a broader sense things like Ali taunting his opponents before fights could be considered playing a meta game.

The important part, is that it’s elements that aren’t part of playing the game that you do to do better, usually competitively

The “PVE meta” seems to be a term borrowed from the PvP meta, which is about understanding and fighting builds. It’s really a bit of a misnomer, but that’s what it’s about (There’s some pretty massive pop-psychology meta-analysis you could make about the adoption of the term in the context of GW2, too)

^ The game outside the game, so you also mean theory crafting?

In that case ALL the results of the theory craft are meta…. And I do not consider the meta being 1 build but the selection of the most usefull builds ingame, either for PvE, (world bosses), dungeons, WvW or PvP

Generally builds are made on a playstyle, another concept.
Generally builds include a dps chain… A build isn’t complete without this
Generally builds include traits. A build isn’t complete without this
Generally builds include skills armor and so on. Zerk can be a second choice after another form, (2 or 3 valkyrie pieces with thief, (partial) celestial ele)
Together they form a concept, it is -a- meta , the most accepted version is called -the- meta ingame…

Concept: “Meta” is the most optimized build for for your setup with your playstyle.
Concept: “Zerk” means: “PvE/dungeons users should be wearing zerk armor” It’s debatable though: While intended to force meta build it sometimes fails, in some cases, to create a sustainable maximum dps due to extremely squishy combinations. 3 ele 1 thief 1 guard being a nice example, certainly with all max dps builds…
Keeping these concepts or letting them go really matters, but it is not the only assumption in this game, and the application isn’t strict as either.
Meta is stretchable and moldable, If one cannot adapt it isn’t Meta.

Zerk, Zerk Meta and Meta are 3 different things already as they all have different concepts and scopes. People do not assume this nor think about it.

I assume the proffesion bound concept can be called -Meta-:
0 Warrior the 2nd concept seems to be might stacking through GS and vulnerability (A/M). With or without Phalanx, leaving the 6/5/0/0/3 and the 4/4/0/6/0 for dungeons and PvE.

0 Guardian concept seems about condition utilisation and % stack, so 2(4)/5/0/1+?/1+? how you want to fill in the last 3/5 points is your problem, as it is part of the utility for your guard. But those 3/5 points do make your concept withing the meta…

0 Elementalist concept seems locked into fire field might and fury stacking. 6/2/0/2/4 or variants. making sure you can stack both might and fury. Support (0/2/0/4/4) is mostly dead, according to people, but 6/0/0/4/4 seems to appear now and then. Running celestial instead of zerk is a (meta) concept as well. (partly or full)

0 Ranger concept has LB&GS and LB&S+? builds. mostly leading 6/4(5)/0/4(3)/0
personally I do not consider GS/S&? meta, but it’s also personal. I prefer stacking 20 vulnerability for the 1st 10 seconds… It’s my concept.

0 Necro concept for power seems to be wells/ vampiric, leaving builds mostly focused on vampiric traits and wells 6/2/0/6/0 or variants

Well I play only torment & confusion (interrupt) condi mesmer (Sc+T, Sc+P(or Staff) PU) which seems to be meta, though not accepted in pvE
Also in PvE, as I use my mesmer most for JP’s and Guild missions, and the few times it is in WvW I’m usually trying to get portals working, for roaming groups. I do not care for the shatter and phantasm builds which are “true” meta. (6/2/0/0/6) or (6/4/0/4/0) (from head)

I also play “non-meta/ my-meta” on thief (S+P/P+P) so I do not know the meta builds for D/D.
Thief concepts used to revolve around dagger/stealth/venom 6/2/6/0/0 or 6/2/0/0/6?
Tough I love 1/4/0/3/6 which is a stealing build for conditions or 0/6/0/3/5 which is a basic P/P unload build or 3/6/0/0/5 which is a little more potent variant of the last….
Given the fact Meta means the worked out version, You could say my S+P &P/P are meta as well. Only not in the context used in this game.

Then you have Meta WvW, and Meta PvP

Meta concept WvW seems to be about cooperation. But IMHO that’s a station passed by now. My concept lies different: 50% of the zerg should be support, 50% should be full offense. This will make sure you do have the buffs and you do have powerrrrr…. This also widens the meta for WvW with both Support builds and Power builds.. But it’s my meta, not the games meta.

And I always felt meta means “in between build”, " “next build” or “temporary build” showing it’s the temporary best option… So -a- but also -the- meta is always evolving to the next build. new armor types could brak the present meta, new foods, new traits… and so on.

and I do not play engi,

I don’t really understand why we have this thread. I feel some people in the thread can’t see the forest because of the trees.

The way I see it is like this : communication – that’s the ultimate goal. Transmitting and receiving a message.

If a word is misused but the message transfer is complete and successful does it really matter?

The word means what it means to the community based on context – but if the message is clear then why does it matter if we do or don’t misuse it?

Harper.4173:

If a word is misused but the message transfer is complete and successful does it really matter?

The word means what it means to the community based on context – but if the message is clear then why does it matter if we do or don’t misuse it?

This is a good question and much bigger than this specific case. For example, Microsoft recently announced “HoloLens” and “Windows Holographic,” technologies which (based on name) would appear to be holograms.

They are not holograms.

Does it matter? Many would say “no,” they sort of feel hologram-like, and “augmented reality” is a terrible term, so this is a way to get the public excited about something. Personally, I think it’s a very bad idea for people who know better to willfully mislead the public about important technological breakthroughs. It’d be like Intel creating a “QuantumCPU” that doesn’t actually qualify as a quantum computing device.

But yeah, I think “meta” is okay so long as everybody realizes it’s just short-hand and doesn’t mean precisely what the dictionary definition says in this particular context.

Sorry to be blunt, but it’s called “meta” because the builds that follow the meta are the result of theory-crafting and performance examinations, AKA, meta-thought about the game.

I don’t quite remember the linguistic term, but the word stands as a short-hand for the process.

Words have domain-specific meanings in addition to their dictionary definitions. Ask a scientist, a mathematician, a data analyst, and a NASCAR fan what the word “normal” means and you’ll get 4 different answers.

In the context of gaming, a “meta” build is an optimized build, regardless of what Merriam-Webster says

Fyrebrand.4859:

I know this will sound like nit-picking, but I find all the talk about “meta” this and “meta” that to be kind of bizarre. People seem to be using this word to refer to “the best strategy” or “most powerful build,” which is not at all what the word means.

Outside of these forums, when people talk about something that’s “meta,” it involves context, subtext, reading between the lines, breaking the fourth wall, self-awareness or a work that comments on itself or its own medium.

This can certainly apply to video games — for example, in Metal Gear Solid when the colonel instructs you on how to climb ladders using “the action button,” or when Psycho Mantis psychically “moves” your controller, that could be considered a piece of meta-game dialogue.

“Meta” can also refer to game mechanics and gaining a competitive advantage, as well. But it goes beyond just recognizing good trait combinations and taking the game at face-value. Often it involves taking advantage of the interface in some way, thinking ahead and considering how other players will behave, or using technical aspects of the game’s infrastructure to maximize efficiency. It’s behaviour that — while operating inside the bounds of the rules — may be unintended.

In GW2, some simple examples of “meta-game” might be:

• Parking an alt in front of a gathering node or chest, just to grab it on server reset
• Back when “daily revives” was part of the achievement cycle, players would intentionally jump off cliffs and rez each other
• If you want unidentified dyes, don’t buy them with Laurels. Instead, buy Heavy Crafting Bags, sell the materials, then buy the dyes off the trading post
• Rather than spending the silver to port to Lion’s Arch, instead enter the PvP zone or WvW, then take the free gate to LA
• Manipulating the trading post market for profit
• Using overlays or fan sites that tell you when world bosses will spawn
• Using an otherwise-unused alt character as a free “bank”
• Crafting rare greatswords just to sell them, only because so many people want to dump them in the Mystic Forge in hopes of a precursor
• In-game roleplaying
• Logging on for a moment just to grab your daily reward chest, then exiting
• Rapidly burning through Personal Story 1-10 to farm keys

Note that “meta” does not necessarily mean “the best move” or “instant win.” It has less to do with in-game success and more to do with the level on which you’re thinking and interacting. It’s something that happens above or around the game, rather than strictly in it.

Of course this is all subjective, and you’re free to use whatever words you want in your posts. But I cringe whenever I see someone talking about “the current meta” of whatever game mode, when what they really mean is a build that players typically find effective. What it seems to boil down to a lot of the time is just playing smartly, picking traits that harmonize with each other, and using weapons or stats that suit your play style and the content type. That is no more the “meta” of Guild Wars 2 than dressing warmly is the “meta” of winter.

You could say this thread is sort of a “meta” post of this forum. Anyway, thanks for reading. I’m sure most of you will go on as you did before — but I wanted to give my two cents, as we all get to do.

TL;DR: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

For someone apparently interested in philological issues, you display a baffling ignorance of very basic philological concepts, e.g. evolution of language, social context and polysemy.

Things become the “meta” because they’re, you know… usually so… efficient?

I mean, I might be going out on a limb here, but I don’t really see the difference.

If I say a word, and you instantly understand what idea I am trying to convey with it, you cannot argue in good faith that I am misusing it. Words mean what “we” think they mean, not what Webster or Merriman or any other compiler of words 300 years ago thought they mean.

Vayne.8563:

Actually from other games, I’ve come to realize that the meta really doesn’t mean most effective. What it often means is the most effective way for people to get something done without coordinating or communicating.

Meta’s evolve because people pug. It’s easier if everyone knows what everyone is going going to do. You’re not on mumble with these people, you’re typing. No one really wants to type and run a dungeon. Not with strangers.

So you have this setup which is efficient and might be the most efficient thing you can do without having voice communication.

You can probably do something more efficient than the meta with a team that’s not random and that’s on voice.

Meta is based partly on effectiveness but also partly on ease of use. It’s easy to tell people they need to stack and use zerker gear. So that’s what becomes the meta.

Does that make it more effective than a speed running team that knows the most effective way to do stuff. Nah. But those things won’t work with a PUG.

QFT. Some people think that it means it’s the ‘absolute best possible build for everything’, but the above is how it actually functions. Over time it gets distorted though, and players often take guild leaders/theorycrafters’ words as the ‘indisputable words of God’, so after a while, when some of them started to put it across as ‘best build’ instead of ‘best build for random party setups with no communication’, some meta builds are now believed to be the ‘best for everything’, something a target golem and a stopwatch, or a piece of paper and a calculator would both prove quite easily to be mistaken.

More importantly @OP, words change over time. The words ‘country’, ‘nation’ and ‘state’ used to have distinct definitions, but now they’re all synonyms after decades of misuse and ineffective education. That’s fine. What’s important is that the communication gets through, not to preserve the ‘purity of a language’, since the original definition of a word is arbitrary anyway.

What annoys me more is if misuse of a word inverts its meaning (worst offender: ‘a moot point’), but even so, if everyone uses the inverted (wrong) definition of a word, there’s nothing wrong with also using the wrong definition of it if it gets the point across.

Language is a tool of communication, not a sacrosanct entity – the purity of which has to be defended at all costs.

Words are used to communicate. If using a particular word is getting the message across, despite it not being exactly correct according to a different contextual definition, then we can assume everything is fine. After all we are still getting our meaning across and communicating effectively.

Language is a tool of communication, not a sacrosanct entity – the purity of which has to be defended at all costs.

I really like this quote.

timmyf.1490:

Harper.4173:

If a word is misused but the message transfer is complete and successful does it really matter?

The word means what it means to the community based on context – but if the message is clear then why does it matter if we do or don’t misuse it?

This is a good question and much bigger than this specific case. For example, Microsoft recently announced “HoloLens” and “Windows Holographic,” technologies which (based on name) would appear to be holograms.

They are not holograms.

Does it matter? Many would say “no,” they sort of feel hologram-like, and “augmented reality” is a terrible term, so this is a way to get the public excited about something. Personally, I think it’s a very bad idea for people who know better to willfully mislead the public about important technological breakthroughs. It’d be like Intel creating a “QuantumCPU” that doesn’t actually qualify as a quantum computing device.

But yeah, I think “meta” is okay so long as everybody realizes it’s just short-hand and doesn’t mean precisely what the dictionary definition says in this particular context.

Mislead? I don’t really see what the problem is as long as people associate the concept with the word correctly.

Think about a tank. Why is it called that? Obviously these war machines have little to do with water holding but the name stuck and even though a main battle tank does not hold water ( and was never intended to) the name is still correct.

When it comes to language and being correct I believe all that matters is that a message carries over. Since the majority of people accept a word and associate it with a concept – even if the association is wrong or incorrect – the message can still be sent and received and thus communication can still happen.

I’ll just leave this here.

He’s a great deal ruder in the video than I would prefer, but the idea is there.

Meta is so conceptually disenfranchised that the word can mean whatever the hell people think it means, because the “concept” is totally absurd and lacking of quality. What good is the arbitrary definition of “meta” when a consensus can’t even be reached to put forth a combination of term and hypothetical example. There has never been a consensus in the gaming community on what this word means, so the practicality of the subject dies there.

As far as the whole “language is evolving” thing – it does, but communication still needs to be defended to enough of a degree. Words, and their definitions, are important and do not evolve without enough social consensus. I can’t say “elephant purple grab iPhone blue shark” and expect these words to evolve so that it’s coherent.

Hayashi.3416:

What annoys me more is if misuse of a word inverts its meaning (worst offender: ‘a moot point’

Which word exactly is inverted? A moot point means exactly that, a point that has no practical value.

e.g. You bring up a moot point.

Hayashi.3416:

I’ll just leave this here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovi7uQbtKas

He’s a great deal ruder in the video than I would prefer, but the idea is there.

Thanks for linking this. Not seen it before.

I like how it seems that"meta" is generally accepted to have contextual definitions, but ask about p2w and holy cow……ppl get strict about 1 set definition to rule them all. Kinda odd that’s all.

This came up in the other thread, but there are a few other issues with the use of the term ‘meta’.

1) It has a sense of enforcement. In most formats where meta is a serious discussion it’s required to perform. This is the main way it’s invalid in meaning for GW2 PvE. And before you say it, minimum standards of success here.
2) It has a sense of appropriation. Pvp meta gets respect, pve is just as valid as pvp, so we have a pve meta too.

Agreed. I think the best example is ranger. The meta is bearbow which really sets rangers back. Even though they have good damage and group utility with frost spirit, spotter and sword most rangers stay at range with longbow and use point blank shot ruining the dps of party members like causing 100 blades to miss. I think it’s a good reason why many groups say no rangers and even prefer necros to rangers because the class is played so badly due to terrible meta builds. There are so many guides showing good builds and how to play them but the ranger meta has never shifted to group oriented builds.

Essence Snow.3194:

I like how it seems that"meta" is generally accepted to have contextual definitions, but ask about p2w and holy cow……ppl get strict about 1 set definition to rule them all. Kinda odd that’s all.

That’s because the word “meta” is generally used as a positive term or at worst a neutral term. Most people don’t quibble about compliments. =)

The term “p2w” is almost always used as a negative or a harsh criticism. So when people use that label its helpful to know exactly what they are implying so you can address the criticism, or agree with it.

Meta does mean most effective. Granted it can also mean other things, but a variety of meanings doesn’t negative or take away from any specific meaning. The argument that meta does not refer to most effective because it can also refer to other things is not sensible (and this is exactly the argument you’re making in your title and your tl;dr). Heck that’s not even taking into account the lingua franca

That goes back to the appropriation question; it’s misusing a term to imply an invalid comparison.

Meta is the easiest/most efficient way a random group of players can play without having to communicate.

Granted there are better/more efficient ways of play-style in groups if you can communicate on the fly/in-combat, like you do in a call. But that isn’t always the case when you are playing with pugs, and therefore cannot be the meta.

This is why there are guilds/groups who run faster dungeons/fractals than the meta. Or why some WvW/PvP guilds/teams who just out perform other groups.

Your style of play may perform better than the common “meta” but only really works if your group can communicate and prepare before hand. The common “meta” doesn’t need the additional time it takes to prepare/communicate before hand and therefore more effective when playing with a group of strangers you’ve never met. Its the “strongest” or “most powerful” build/play-style you can play with, when you’re playing with strangers for the first time, a situation you see plenty of in an MMO.

This thread even though it’s from a while back has cleared so much confusion.
Thank you.

Trying to work out the ideal way to speedrun a dungeon rather than merely completing it is metagaming. Playing the entire game with no pants on is also metagaming however. People are just referring to the findings of speedrunners as “the meta” because that kind of metagaming tends to lend itself well to trying to grind out the various accomplishments in the game.

You picked up some singular bits, pieces and terms of linguistics, but you lack a greater understanding of the subject or you do not really understand their context. You are mostly wrong. The sentence “of course this is all subjective…” alone makes my philologist´s heart clench.

Wait, doesn’t meta really just mean theory crafted instead of common sense? I mean, common sense from a new player would tell them that they would want to have balanced stats, where as the meta, having been theory crafted, says no, damage mitigation and self healing mean that the common sense approach is actually a sub optimal way to complete the PvE content, you will finish content far faster if you learn to dodge, maximize your DPS through gear and might stacking, and memorize all the skips and corner stacks. It’s playing games by way of spreadsheets to maximize efficiency and rewards, with no consideration for story or lore.

I imagine it translated in to computer games by way of table top RPGs, as “meta gaming” in that situation was usually about players choosing traits to optimize in game effects rather than choosing them for role playing reasons. ie “No, Tom, I don’t think all your characters were raised as survivalists because you love role playing survivalists, you just want the free +1 to fire arms and first aid.”

“Meta” is some general tactic that works in the current situation. The meta gets stale when Devs have no idea on how to shake things up. It’s like how PvE involves zero tactics, no need for support classes/dmg soaking classes…just pure bash your head on the keyboard and dps. They were trying to think outside the box, too bad they created the most boring PvE in history of all MMOs.

Also, it brings the problem of metakittens. Which are basically sheeps that can’t think for themselves and have no desire to try out something new, or just wait for somebody else to come up with an idea.

back in my country sometimes people use the word Colgate when referring to toothpaste. my point is, certain word does become generally acceptable term whether you like it or not.

same happen to the word “meta”. might means “the most effective”. could as well means “favorite” .

I agree with the OP with one caveat. Any discussion of game strategy on how best to coordinate the game is ALSO meta. That means that even if people are excluding from the definition of meta all the things you listed, they’re not actually misusing the word most of the time.

Uhhh ya it totally means most effective! >_>

META = Most Effective uhhh… Traits… and umm Attributes? ^__^;;;