Settle A Debate: Meta

BretonMage · June 4

rhythmsuji wrote: »

Someone claiming that "the meta" does not include a build which lacks buffs the community has determined that build/roles job to bring to a dungeon or raid. But to me, that is one of the most clear examples of the word. And I think its because "meta" has become somewhat of a dirty word for many, so they don't want it used or applying even when it does and should be fine to use. Sometimes meta is provably good, like when a raid group uses a "meta setup" or "meta tactics" during a trial, it's typically because over many years so much trial and error has occurred that the community has defaulted to it being the most ideal way to enter or tackle the situation.

I don't follow the meta that closely tbh, but I think "the meta" being community-determined or community-accepted means that the onus is on the individual to prove to the community that their approach is the best, doesn't it? It's a bit like a trend to me, something may be good and meta-worthy, but it's the community-acceptance and adoption that makes it meta.

Gabriel_H · June 4

BretonMage wrote: »

rhythmsuji wrote: »

Someone claiming that "the meta" does not include a build which lacks buffs the community has determined that build/roles job to bring to a dungeon or raid. But to me, that is one of the most clear examples of the word. And I think its because "meta" has become somewhat of a dirty word for many, so they don't want it used or applying even when it does and should be fine to use. Sometimes meta is provably good, like when a raid group uses a "meta setup" or "meta tactics" during a trial, it's typically because over many years so much trial and error has occurred that the community has defaulted to it being the most ideal way to enter or tackle the situation.

I don't follow the meta that closely tbh, but I think "the meta" being community-determined or community-accepted means that the onus is on the individual to prove to the community that their approach is the best, doesn't it? It's a bit like a trend to me, something may be good and meta-worthy, but it's the community-acceptance and adoption that makes it meta.

Which is part of the problem. A whole lot of RLs (and players) won't even entertain the idea of someone turning up "off-meta" let alone allow someone to try it in content. No show -> no proof -> no acceptance.

The reason for that is largely down to the "community-determined" being a handful of content creators. They present what is a spread-sheeted maximum potential, and players think that must be the only way. They disregard efficiency, which comes from the player themselves.

Someone only 90% efficient on the 100% potential will still get a spot over someone who is 95% efficient on a 95% potential, because the latter is deemed "off-meta" and only noobs play off-meta, not serious gamers who treat this like a full time job.

BretonMage · June 4

Gabriel_H wrote: »

BretonMage wrote: »

rhythmsuji wrote: »

Someone claiming that "the meta" does not include a build which lacks buffs the community has determined that build/roles job to bring to a dungeon or raid. But to me, that is one of the most clear examples of the word. And I think its because "meta" has become somewhat of a dirty word for many, so they don't want it used or applying even when it does and should be fine to use. Sometimes meta is provably good, like when a raid group uses a "meta setup" or "meta tactics" during a trial, it's typically because over many years so much trial and error has occurred that the community has defaulted to it being the most ideal way to enter or tackle the situation.

I don't follow the meta that closely tbh, but I think "the meta" being community-determined or community-accepted means that the onus is on the individual to prove to the community that their approach is the best, doesn't it? It's a bit like a trend to me, something may be good and meta-worthy, but it's the community-acceptance and adoption that makes it meta.

Which is part of the problem. A whole lot of RLs (and players) won't even entertain the idea of someone turning up "off-meta" let alone allow someone to try it in content. No show -> no proof -> no acceptance.

The reason for that is largely down to the "community-determined" being a handful of content creators. They present what is a spread-sheeted maximum potential, and players think that must be the only way. They disregard efficiency, which comes from the player themselves.

Someone only 90% efficient on the 100% potential will still get a spot over someone who is 95% efficient on a 95% potential, because the latter is deemed "off-meta" and only noobs play off-meta, not serious gamers who treat this like a full time job.

Yeah, I do think that there should in general be more openness to things beyond an accepted trend or meta. Too much homogeneity can be stifling. I can understand though if people resort to the meta because it's a short and simple way to determine effectiveness.

BardokRedSnow · June 4

PvP meta and PvE meta is a different conversation. PvP meta is a soft meta basically, its a suggestion and it adjusts because people adapt.

PvE is way more hardlined, you're either wearing the established best gear for the content or you're not, and while skill can overcome not wearing the meta gear, that player would be doing a lot better or in the case of tanking aiding the team a lot more etc if they were. Its why I don't really like PvE as much, until the Night Market came out anyway, and IA before.

DoofusMax · June 5

In one of those "funny you should mention it..." moments, today's episode of "Think" from KERA (Dallas' NPR station) included a rather interesting segment on "satisficing" and "maximizing" and some of the things which go into and along with those considerations. If anyone is interested, you can find "Think" on KERA Radio's homepage (kera.org/radio) and the relevant part of today's episode starts around 37:00. But the first thing that came to mind after they got into that discussion was "there's a thread on the ESO forums dealing with this. How timely."