Tell me how bad I am. 
Frosty po! 12:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good start. A better current metagame section would be hawt, though. -
12:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I couldn't think of that to call the current metagame, because really, it is just massive domages, should I link to GvG/HA meta builds?
Frosty po! 13:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- tbh I was just thinking the thing would be an article about what the current meta is, how it's changed from the last meta, and why. Comments on like how PRage is in for Eviscerate and R/Mo midliners have been kicked for R/Ws with big pewpew domages. I like the part where you touched upon boon monks seeing less play, for instance. You can probably just link to the GW or GWW article on what "metagame" means for the rest. (one of those two has a good article and I forget which it is). -
13:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Then you've also got stuff like the D/Mos in TA (are people still running that?) and whatever happens to be in fashion in HB. - 13:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- D/Mo's!!!!! They are my favorite. Mostly only seen in RA though. Not so much TA -- 13:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- They were fairly popular for a little while in TA. They might still be, tbh, but I havent done TA recently enough to know. - 13:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Adding 2 monk backline to PvP Metagame, There have been 2 monk backlines for as long as i can remember
- They were fairly popular for a little while in TA. They might still be, tbh, but I havent done TA recently enough to know. -
- D/Mo's!!!!! They are my favorite. Mostly only seen in RA though. Not so much TA --
- Then you've also got stuff like the D/Mos in TA (are people still running that?) and whatever happens to be in fashion in HB. -
- tbh I was just thinking the thing would be an article about what the current meta is, how it's changed from the last meta, and why. Comments on like how PRage is in for Eviscerate and R/Mo midliners have been kicked for R/Ws with big pewpew domages. I like the part where you touched upon boon monks seeing less play, for instance. You can probably just link to the GW or GWW article on what "metagame" means for the rest. (one of those two has a good article and I forget which it is). -
- I couldn't think of that to call the current metagame, because really, it is just massive domages, should I link to GvG/HA meta builds?
getting in the enemy’s head[]
Don’t discount the idea of thinking outside the builds and reacting to the enemy choices… Exploiting weaknesses in the enemys strategy on all levels… Lets use Jade Quarry for example where any number of builds can be used… If you find their team swarms yellow, let em have it and hit their undefended backline as they pat themselves on the back… Tie them up in drawn out fights away from the real action… Try to get in their heads as quickly as possible, people tend to get simple at times and get drawn into “see the enemy and kill it” mentality they forget the real goal of the Quarry is to “capture 10 jade”. Again this was just an example, in other PvP situations its more of a case of Builds Vs Builds as you state or effectively changing the target based on how they are defending… --MrPaladin 13:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- ...? - 13:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Metagame to me is any aspect in the game that is not nessarily in the rules of the game... for example, the taunting that happens in a baseball game. Or knowing in a game of chess that you opponent likes to lead with certain openings... use any aspect of the enemy that you can identify to win... I used the example above of Jade Quarry PvP games where you can sometimes lead the enemy into PvP fights making them forget the goal of your team is to cap the 10 jade... Does that help ya out? --MrPaladin 13:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It helps me understand why your random comment wasn't totally random. This is more geared towards the Build Wars style of the GW metagame. I dont think we were planning on putting in general strategies like that since this is a builds site. - 14:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was about to say, those are more statagies and tactics, metagame refers to builds used. Frosty po! 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well... technically using anything that doesnt have to do with the actual rules of the game is what the metagame is. For instance, pumping tons of minions to lag the fuck out of your opponents in HA is a good example of a metagame strategy. It's probably best to stick to Build vs Build stuff though unless it's specific to a build like the lichway example I gave there. - 14:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- You could just argue thats a feature of a meta build too, like teaseway having fucking gay rupts or generally every meta build having fuck loads of damage. Frosty po! 14:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's what I mean. If there's some feature like your Teaser being able to interrupt their infuse then you could make note , but general stuff you can do with any build would probably best be left out. - 14:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- (EC)PvXwiki is concerned with builds, so I reckon we should be talking about the build metagame and leave other forms of metagaming to be defined on Guildwiki and GWW. Perhaps build warsing people should be mentioned here (like when EW specced Mistral Edge beautifully with anti-hexway and saw them resign inside 2 minutes, ups). - Misery Says Moo 14:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yep no problem at all... I like the article as is... I was just using the common definition of metagaing as listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming just food for thought --MrPaladin 14:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, Guild Wars players use a bastardised definition because people on the internet are retarded. - Misery Says Moo 14:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- No Problamo, tho it is fun to mess with the enemy in Jade Quarry hehe --MrPaladin 14:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Amusingly, the second example on that page is Build Wars :> Although it seems to be a carefully worded example referencing MTG or Yugioh or some shit. - 14:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Amusingly, the second example on that page is Build Wars :> Although it seems to be a carefully worded example referencing MTG or Yugioh or some shit. -
- No Problamo, tho it is fun to mess with the enemy in Jade Quarry hehe --MrPaladin 14:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, Guild Wars players use a bastardised definition because people on the internet are retarded. -
- Yep no problem at all... I like the article as is... I was just using the common definition of metagaing as listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming just food for thought --MrPaladin 14:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's what I mean. If there's some feature like your Teaser being able to interrupt their infuse then you could make note , but general stuff you can do with any build would probably best be left out. -
- You could just argue thats a feature of a meta build too, like teaseway having fucking gay rupts or generally every meta build having fuck loads of damage.
- Well... technically using anything that doesnt have to do with the actual rules of the game is what the metagame is. For instance, pumping tons of minions to lag the fuck out of your opponents in HA is a good example of a metagame strategy. It's probably best to stick to Build vs Build stuff though unless it's specific to a build like the lichway example I gave there. -
- It helps me understand why your random comment wasn't totally random. This is more geared towards the Build Wars style of the GW metagame. I dont think we were planning on putting in general strategies like that since this is a builds site. -
- Metagame to me is any aspect in the game that is not nessarily in the rules of the game... for example, the taunting that happens in a baseball game. Or knowing in a game of chess that you opponent likes to lead with certain openings... use any aspect of the enemy that you can identify to win... I used the example above of Jade Quarry PvP games where you can sometimes lead the enemy into PvP fights making them forget the goal of your team is to cap the 10 jade... Does that help ya out? --MrPaladin 13:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
metagame is what ever crow says it is tbh--Relyk 16:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- as opposed to the rest of the world? hehe --MrPaladin 16:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Tab Ownz[]
Btw this will need to be updated every skill update lol, I bet the next skill update will be huge now we have wrote this. Frosty po! 17:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- just pointing out that pretty much all i do in gw now is pve/ab, so some of it might be slightly outdated/wrong Tab 17:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- PvX causes nerfs in metagame -- 17:54, 23 February 2009
- No I meant that it would be ironic that we just write this up, then Izzy nerfs/buffs like a madman and everything changes lol Frosty po! 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. The everyone on GWGuru would QQ at us, as usual. -- 17:59, 23 February 2009
- I didn't mean it as in, we made him change it, but as in, he changed it at a bad time. Or did you get me there? Frosty po! 18:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I got you. You're saying it would be funny, since we just wrote this, if Izzy decided to nerf the meta, because it would be ironic. But what I'm saying is that people at GWGuru always seem to try and connect PvX with nerfs. -- 18:04, 23 February 2009
- Yes I got you. You're saying it would be funny, since we just wrote this, if Izzy decided to nerf the meta, because it would be ironic. But what I'm saying is that people at GWGuru always seem to try and connect PvX with nerfs. --
- I didn't mean it as in, we made him change it, but as in, he changed it at a bad time. Or did you get me there?
- Yes. The everyone on GWGuru would QQ at us, as usual. --
- No I meant that it would be ironic that we just write this up, then Izzy nerfs/buffs like a madman and everything changes lol
- PvX causes nerfs in metagame --
on template[]
Stick a link in that links the word Meta to this tbh ..LJ.. 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also note PvE Meta, but the author knows this. --MrPaladin 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
History[]
We need some GW pro to make a chronological list of meta builds that existed ever since the beginning of GW and why metas were the way they were and why they changed :-D Rickyvantof 18:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- dont see why its needed really, but i could probably remember the stuff from around GWFC until now if i bothered thinking about it Tab 18:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- because it's interesting to see how shit has changed it is much like real life history, but... really not important D: Rickyvantof 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- [1] if you want to see old stuff, iirc we decided ages ago not to bother keeping a record of what the meta was apart from archived builds Tab 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- OIC, well if it can be found elsewhere we shouldn't bother Rickyvantof 18:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- [1] if you want to see old stuff, iirc we decided ages ago not to bother keeping a record of what the meta was apart from archived builds
- because it's interesting to see how shit has changed it is much like real life history, but... really not important D: Rickyvantof 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
WHY THE FUCK DO YOU GUYS PASS THESE POINTLESS FUCKING TAGS. skakid9090 00:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- We didn't pass it, someone just did it for no fucking reason. There was no discussion. - Misery Says Moo 00:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Don't deny you like it mis >: -- 00:45, 24 February 2009
- I like the concept, not the implementation. What I would actually like is to replace real vetting with this because we are all such bad theory crafters. - Misery Says Moo 00:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe, but that would be a bit extreme tbh -- 00:54, 24 February 2009
- Maybe, but that would be a bit extreme tbh --
- I like the concept, not the implementation. What I would actually like is to replace real vetting with this because we are all such bad theory crafters. -
- Don't deny you like it mis >: --
errrr.[]
You missed hero battles and JQ (and FA and ab... and ra... actually they suck. forget them) so where are theys? :0 — LukeJohnson 
17:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe TA and HB, but honestly the HB meta never changes significantly, it's always going to by monk capway and sinspike as the most popular builds, with the ocassional snareway or trip packer. All that really changes and adjusts are the skills that capway and sinspike bring, not the overall style of play--Goldenstar 18:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- well TA definately needs a meta guide. and for HB, write the guide and then it won't need much updating — LukeJohnson 18:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- well TA definately needs a meta guide. and for HB, write the guide and then it won't need much updating — LukeJohnson
this needs[]
an update, no? or should we wait like a week to see where the meta goes or what --
11:09, 9 March 2009
- You really have to wait till the next mAT, no one even runs serious builds till then, that is why you are seeing such shitty builds on obs at the moment. Misery Says Moo 12:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- give it atleast a week or so, as ive said on pretty much every meta-related page Tab 15:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Soooooo, it's been about, oh, six weeks now. :P--69.106.133.3 02:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
==UPDATE ==
UPDATE Exo Oo 21:03, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Maybe... Clear TA meta? --GothicNeko 21:11, November 5, 2009 (UTC)