Guild Wars 2

This is really weird to me, the use regarding it now seems to be “the consensus of the optimal build”. That’s not what Meta(metagame strategy/thinking) originally meant.

Metagame(as far back as when I know it) used to mean making build considerations, not primarily based on game rules(in this case, mechanics and stats), but rather, based on what you think your opponents are going to do. You make decisions “outside” the game(hence meta). How I’m familiar with it is from the tabletop/strategy scene, where a large part about winning the tournament wasn’t about building your deck or army to win individual games, but making considerations based on what your opponents are going to bring to the tournaments. Other kind of video games bases do use it appropriately, like mobas and RTS trying to predict what your opponents are going for. Although some other genres bases also don’t use it correctly, like Fighting games reaching a consensus about fighter tiers; but the use I noticed for it in this game is extremely bizarre, you aren’t even using it to make choices about competition. It’s just what people use against the environment, based on observation

Now to note, this is used correctly as regards to PVP, since you are going into it with a set build, and you make that build based on what you expect your opponents to be using.

Did people just confuse general build crafting to be “Meta” regardless of whether or not metagame thinking was involved in it because PVP became really popular in MMOs?

I think, to the people who use the phrase with regard to PvE, the idea isn’t that players are playing the meta(game) against each other as a layer on top of the game, but that there’s an outside awareness of what the larger pattern is in how people play the game.

In that sense, the “meta” isn’t “What strategy will my opponent be using, and how can I counter that?” but the entire expanded culture of people discussing on forums, writing guides, streaming their strategies, etc.

“Meta” and “meta-gaming” are new enough, loose enough terms that I would hesitate to argue with anyone about what they mean, but it doesn’t bother me to see “What/how everyone else is playing” used as a basic explanation for it. Indeed, you could argue that “What everyone else is playing” is the metagame, and trying to counter that is you playing (against) the metagame.

No, they are just using a mental shortcut. Sure, the builds themselves aren’t technically “meta”. They are just a product of a metagame activity that is the build crafting. What you are calling a meta is just a subset of that (it doesn’t need to be restricted to pvp and predicting opponent’s choices).

So, the people were once saying that a build is a “part of meta” (meaning, accepted as good by the buildcrafting community). Nowadays we don’t bother with the first part, and just shorten it to meta.

So, is Meta the decision of what is the most effective build?

That’s bizarre, why don’t people just use the word “consensus”?

It’s not so bizarre. It’s just a broader use of the word than you’re accustomed to.

After all, words can have multiple, related definitions without needing one to be wrong.

I just think that it’s weird in that it makes a really specific and helpful term archaic in favor of a nebulous and redundant meaning.

For instance, if I wanted to coach someone, I used to be able to say “well your play-by-play game is superb but I’m going to help you on your metagame strategy”.

From wiki:

Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself. Metagaming differs from strategy in that metagaming is making decisions based upon out of game knowledge, whereas strategies are decisions made based upon in-game actions and knowledge.

In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one’s in-game decisions.

end quote.

the wiki says it really well… not much more to add but in our case the out-of-game information is the fact that people know that the optimal group is full dps groups with some stealth, missile reflection and might stacking. this makes that setup meta.

This conversation happens like once a week and once a week somebody has to explain meta again and how it is relevant in PvE. The community use information from the game and outside the game in outside manners like spreadsheets to determine their build and gear. They are by definition metagaming and people who use that information are also metagaming.

meta is just a way of saying the game played outside of the actual game. While I sort of agree that builds are not meta game, people are starting to use meta as the overall way the game is played.

Metagame is more typically used in cases of politics, which often happen on forums and not in the game as an actual game mechanic provided by the devs.

Really I would call metagaming basically going above and beyond the in game mechanics provided by the devs. If people want to call that picking a different build then so be it….figuring out the “builds” is a form of metagaming as such.

People stretch definitions in gaming all the time. It came from PvP games but PvE players adopted the word because it was the easiest way to create a term that defines what the accepted best team comp is.

It’s really that simple.

“meta” commonly references the optimal strategy for a given problem relative to its opposition. In competitive games the “meta” is an optimal strategy against other optimal “meta” strategies.

In a cooperative PvE environment “meta” is a commonly agreed upon optimal strategy against a static environment defined by the core math of player builds and the core behavior of the content.

meta shifts when its opposition shifts, so when talking about “a well designed meta” you have something designed to shift organically, which happens far easier when both sides of the meta-conflict are malleable.

In “meta” against pve content, only one side is malleable, the player side, wheras the static PvE content does not shift unless adjusted through a patch. In this case the “meta” does in fact shift, in the same manner as it would shift against a prevalent opposing player strategy in a competitive environment.

The wiki definition actually supports my definition though.

Even though the discussion for the meta is taking place outside the game, the environment is completely dictated by the game rules(and therefore not metagaming, because there are no external factors), based entirely on in-game knowledge. Which is generally static.

The discussion of the factors of the game does not factor into the effectiveness of the strategy discussed.

Now, if the discussion were based say, on announcements of changes to the game(or even more clearly, advocating specific changes in the game to developers), that would become metagaming, because data would be based on the perception of what the changes could be.

Ticky.5831:

That actually supports my definition though.

Even though the discussion for the meta is taking place outside the game, the environment is completely dictated by the game rules(and therefore not metagaming, because there are no external factors), based entirely on in-game knowledge. Which is generally static.

Now, if the discussion were based say, on announcements of changes to the game, that would become metagaming, because data would be based on the perception of what the changes could be.

Simpler answer then:

because people don’t really care all that much about the technical definition of “metagaming” and “meta” is an easy to type 4 letter word that expresses a specific concept that everyone understands.

No best build system within the game itself, people have to go outside it to look up pre-done maths and theory work.

Hence, meta-gaming.

The game is complex for new folks. I know when i first started, I scoured the forums to learn everything i could about the synergies between traits/skills that I may have missed. To that end, its easier to start with the ‘meta’ build, and then tweak it to your playstyle as you gain experience.

do you prefer the term “Flavor of the Month” ?

I alluded to preferring the term “consensus”.

Meh. Let’s invent a new work for it: I propose “fluzzom”.

It’s not Flavor of the months. Flavor of the months usually don’t last. Meta build usually last until a big update and even then, it’s usually the same build with some modification.

Flavor of the month we have that in the game in PvP. Power ranger was one. A popular powerful one side build that never was viewed as a meta build. Same with Power necro at some point.

The right name is meta. Not the perfect term, but it’s the one that the community use.

Thaddeus.4891:

It’s not Flavor of the months. Flavor of the months usually don’t last. Meta build usually last until a big update and even then, it’s usually the same build with some modification.

Flavor of the month we have that in the game in PvP. Power ranger was one. A popular powerful one side build that never was viewed as a meta build. Same with Power necro at some point.

The right name is meta. Not the perfect term, but it’s the one that the community use.

That’s extremely ironic to me that “meta” is a term that denotes stability relative to a similar descriptor, since that’s basically saying the Meta build is one that makes “Meta discussion” obsolete.

Meta in the context of the game is the optimal state of play. It is optimal because of the meta-gaming done outside of the game.

It has little to do with anything else. Granted that term shifts meaning depending on which community you use it in and the context its used in, much like any word.

Zoltar MacRoth.7146:

Meh. Let’s invent a new work for it: I propose “fluzzom”.

Nah we should take a perfectly good existing word and misconstrue the meaning.

@OP at this point in the game you should just accept its improper use and move on. Its been used to describe the same thing for years. People get stuck in their ways. At this point I could care less when I see people talk about the dungeon meta.

The meta game often evolves because of pugging. In an environment where everyone is in the same guild, using voice chat, you can talk in detail about what you’re going to do and try new and sometimes more difficult combinations, or strategies that involve more planning and communication.

But pugs want stuff done fast so they can get on with other stuff. Many pugs, not necessarily most but many, will have nothing vested in any individual run. They want everyone to know their role so that they don’t have to explain stuff and they can just get their loot as quickly as possible. This is why metas evolve in PvE.

I think this link might be useful here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

In this case, metagame is more referring to the abstraction of the game. You are making a “theoretical consideration of its properties”, in this case the game’s rules and design, as opposed to just playing the game and running around attacking monsters and playing through the story. It’s not an incorrect usage, it’s just not what you’re used to.

In fact, I believe using meta to refer to the game’s rules and design happens in the competitive game genres you mentioned as well. Part of responding to what your opponents bring is having a deep understanding of the rules and design of the game you’re playing. I would actually argue that the “meta” in RTSes and MOBAs refers as much to this understanding of the game as it does to responses to what your opponents do. A “metagame strategy” is how you use your knowledge of the game to make strategic decisions; what your opponent does is just one part of that knowledge (e.g. knowing to grab some +armor items in LoL is as much about understanding how armor and AD interact as it is about noticing that your opponents are stacking AD).

My first encounter with the term “metagame” was in pen-n-paper roleplaying games, over a decade ago, and there it absolutely referred to considering the game’s rules and mechanics when making builds and decisions, instead of doing things with only the knowledge your character would have.

tl;dr: “metagame” is an abstraction of the game; using it to refer to considerations of what your opponent will do and using it to refer to considerations of the rules and design of the game are both correct usage.

Hmm, I never heard of it used like that in P&P. When I heard it used in P&P, it was trying to predict the situations the GM would put you in. An example: there is no way this GM would trap us in a room without some sort of lever or device to find a way out, as opposed to acting in character like someone saying “WERE ALL GONNA DIE TRAPPED HERE!!!!”

• “There’s no way the GM would trap us in a room without some way out.”
• You encounter a monster for the first time that you as a player read about in some source book so you know its weaknesses and strengths, even though your character has never heard/read about them.
• You need to send someone to scout ahead, and instead of asking “who’s good at sneaking?” you ask for everyone’s stealth skill so you can send the person with the biggest number.
• Heck, even min-maxing a character is a form of meta-gaming.

All of these represent knowledge you have about the game as a player that your character does not have.

I think maybe the most applicable part of the wiki link I gave is the “About (its own category)” bit. At it’s core, the meta-game is “about the game”. In roleplaying games, it’s taken on an additional context of using knowledge your character doesn’t have because your character isn’t supposed to know that they’re in a game. Conversely, in games like GW2, it’s taken on a context of finding the optimal builds because that is a very common thing for people to do with their knowledge about the game. In competitive games, it takes on a context of reacting to your opponents in an optimal way because that’s the goal of those games.

What they all have in common is that you are, in essence, playing the game a level of abstraction above the actual game.

Ticky.5831:

So, is Meta the decision of what is the most effective build?

No, trying to work out which builds are good, which are bad, and why is a metagame activity.

Ticky.5831:

Hmm, I never heard of it used like that in P&P. When I heard it used in P&P, it was trying to predict the situations the GM would put you in. An example: there is no way this GM would trap us in a room without some sort of lever or device to find a way out, as opposed to acting in character like someone saying “WERE ALL GONNA DIE TRAPPED HERE!!!!”

As mentioned before, it’s not just this. For example, a common P&P metagaming activity is minmaxing your character build (which often has you pursuing paths of advancement that do not have much sense from the ingame point of view).

Ticky.5831:

So, is Meta the decision of what is the most effective build?

That’s bizarre, why don’t people just use the word “consensus”?

So obviously we prefer that expression or we would have picked another word along the way, but the majority use it so i find it more bizzarre that you join in now and tell us to change it because YOU think it is wrong. Not to mention it is just a word so why put down so much effort and thoughts to it and then even more efforts in trying to change something that is working as intended for us?

I’m not telling you to do anything.

Meta’s refer to all aspects of the game, it is not limited to one area.

People try to combine the best equipment, stats, runes/sigils, consumables, traits, weapons, rotations, utilities. Then try to create a rotation that results in max “x” like DPS or conditions on a Golem. Do the math, check the results and tweak, retweak, rethink and mull over things like what synergies with X rune and x trait using this equipment.

I find it fascinating, however it is not my thing to do. That’s why I am subbed to the best You tubers out there that do all the work and dedication of creating the meta, along with guides. Hats off to them.

Also keep in mind the slightest change to a particular profession by Anet via a nerf or even maybe a buff can throw a wrench in your entire build and then you have to re adjust things. Sometimes minor tweaks, other times scarp the entire build

Because in MMOs it’s a common usage dating back several years and not limited to GW2. Given that GW2 isn’t a MOBA, RTS or tabletop game, its use is appropriate.

While there’s nothing wrong with questioning that, challenging it as if it were something wrong is no less silly than an MMO player lecturing WH40K tabletop gamers for not using MMO terminology in their matches.

But it’s legal to be silly in MMOs, so do what thou wilt.

Because a lot of people either
A) have one set of equipment
B) don’t feel like changing builds every time they hop content type
C) feel like that meta build is automatically the best thing for all content.

Simplest reason. I don’t want to haul around lots of armor. I don’t have the space ankitten ot interested is spending the coin on multiple sets.