A response to those who admonish "meta-gamers," "min-maxers," "people who want to progress," etc.
First, I'd like to define what "meta" is with regards to games. "Meta" is some well-defined, well-tested, over-arching strategy in a game, though it is often used whenever a game's mechanics offer a select few, discrete, narrowly-defined viable strategies which stand far above any other strategies (e.g. E
's "shield meta" is brought up often, because it refers to the narrow strategy of tanking shields, boosters, and SCB).
Meta isn't a necessarily problem in games - so long as there are indeed a variety of options for the player. The problem is that each of E's mechanics offer an extremely stringent meta. On top of that, those who do not follow this stringent meta are either put at a disadvantage or run the risk of progressing much more slowly.
For example, consider missiles. Once, they weren't as useless. When FD nerfed them to oblivion, we lost a whole set of "fun" combat builds (of course, you can still use missiles - I have fun with them sometimes, though running back to the station after every fight is not exactly fun for me). This has contributed to the current "shield-heavy," "lasers and maybe rails/MC" combat meta, which IMO is extremely stringent. For PVPers, not following the "meta" (at least in part) can mean death or just a bad fight. For PVEers, not following the "meta" can mean extreme inefficiency, and lack of progression.
Now, there are a number of vocal people on this forum who will bring up the following issues with the above:
- "I like the game where it is right now! Use your imagination if the limited options aren't enough for you!"
- "If you're thinking about progression, you're doing it wrong!"
- "I like puttering around in the same small ship for eternity, doing odd-jobs, etc.!"
It's great if you have fun playing like that! Of course, that will always be an option. However, not everyone wants to play like that. I'd even wager that the majority of players will, at some point, want to progress - simply because once you have exhausted the limited opportunities/environments at one stage, the only way to freshen them up is to experience them in a new ship, or with new modules. These things cost credits. At this point, you are faced with a choice - (1) do I "grind" for credits by doing repetitive things that I don't necessarily like, or (2) do I do "fun" things that make (significantly) less money. If you chose (1), you already following E's very stringent meta for credit-earning. If you picked (2), you might have fun for a bit - but, FD has dis-incentivized anything other than trade-grinding or repetitive combat to the point that you would have to do these "fun" options many, many more times to achieve the same amount of credits that you need for progression. This undoubtedly will end up being much more repetitive. No many how many "odd-jobs" you do, they will eventually start repeating - a lot.
My point is: There is something wrong with the game - not the players - when only a few viable options are given to the player. Min-maxers will always find the "best" options (this is true in any game) - the problem with E is that the "lesser" options that deviate from the meta are universally significantly worse. FD needs to properly balance options across the board (credit-earning, combat, ship builds, etc.) for this stringent meta to be shaken.
First, I'd like to define what "meta" is with regards to games. "Meta" is some well-defined, well-tested, over-arching strategy in a game, though it is often used whenever a game's mechanics offer a select few, discrete, narrowly-defined viable strategies which stand far above any other strategies (e.g. E
's "shield meta" is brought up often, because it refers to the narrow strategy of tanking shields, boosters, and SCB).Meta isn't a necessarily problem in games - so long as there are indeed a variety of options for the player. The problem is that each of E
's mechanics offer an extremely stringent meta. On top of that, those who do not follow this stringent meta are either put at a disadvantage or run the risk of progressing much more slowly.For example, consider missiles. Once, they weren't as useless. When FD nerfed them to oblivion, we lost a whole set of "fun" combat builds (of course, you can still use missiles - I have fun with them sometimes, though running back to the station after every fight is not exactly fun for me). This has contributed to the current "shield-heavy," "lasers and maybe rails/MC" combat meta, which IMO is extremely stringent. For PVPers, not following the "meta" (at least in part) can mean death or just a bad fight. For PVEers, not following the "meta" can mean extreme inefficiency, and lack of progression.
Now, there are a number of vocal people on this forum who will bring up the following issues with the above:
- "I like the game where it is right now! Use your imagination if the limited options aren't enough for you!"
- "If you're thinking about progression, you're doing it wrong!"
- "I like puttering around in the same small ship for eternity, doing odd-jobs, etc.!"
It's great if you have fun playing like that! Of course, that will always be an option. However, not everyone wants to play like that. I'd even wager that the majority of players will, at some point, want to progress - simply because once you have exhausted the limited opportunities/environments at one stage, the only way to freshen them up is to experience them in a new ship, or with new modules. These things cost credits. At this point, you are faced with a choice - (1) do I "grind" for credits by doing repetitive things that I don't necessarily like, or (2) do I do "fun" things that make (significantly) less money. If you chose (1), you already following E
's very stringent meta for credit-earning. If you picked (2), you might have fun for a bit - but, FD has dis-incentivized anything other than trade-grinding or repetitive combat to the point that you would have to do these "fun" options many, many more times to achieve the same amount of credits that you need for progression. This undoubtedly will end up being much more repetitive. No many how many "odd-jobs" you do, they will eventually start repeating - a lot.My point is: There is something wrong with the game - not the players - when only a few viable options are given to the player. Min-maxers will always find the "best" options (this is true in any game) - the problem with E
is that the "lesser" options that deviate from the meta are universally significantly worse. FD needs to properly balance options across the board (credit-earning, combat, ship builds, etc.) for this stringent meta to be shaken.
