Influence of Metas

Within multiplayer games, it is common to see certain metas become more prolific than others. This can happen for a multitude of reasons with each reason relatable to the game. MOBA genres may have a champion whose abilities are more versatile than anyone in the roster. Or a new item that gives a heavy power spike. For this blog post, I’ll be focusing on Call of Duty: Warzone and the influence of popular content creators on meta shifts in a game.

It’s important to realise that no game can be perfectly balanced. To achieve balance in a  game would take a lot of time when dealing with many items in a game as complex as Warzone. Damage, fire rate, and more labels on many different guns means that some will lead the pack whilst some fall behind in performance. 

Social Constructionism

So we know that not all weapons are viable and some will become powerful, but what leads to players beginning to pick these weapons in the first place? It’s important to understand social constructionism. This refers to the construction of shared views that are common within communities. As such, a common theme is individuals accepting a group held view to better their own look within a group and to stay current in social norms. For example, when the DMR rose to popularity, why use anything else when the DMR allows for easy kills. In turn this boosts a players individual stats, making them appear better. 

Psychologist Kelman identified 3 different types of conformity that individuals adopt within groups. These include:

• Compliance: this involves individuals agreeing to group ideas in public but privately disagree. Through compliance, a person’s core beliefs and personality aren’t affected. For example, using the MG82 during its initial release but knowing the weapon is unbalanced would fall into compliance. People adopt this behaviour with the hope of gaining specific rewards or approval.
• Internalisation: when an individual agrees both publicly and privately to group beliefs. A person adopts this because it is consistent with their value system. For example, using the MG82 whilst believing it was fair to implement as the developers wouldn’t have done so if it wasn’t ready
• Identification: Individuals accept influence to maintain a self defining relationship to another group. This applies more to social roles and the relationship between content creator and fan.

Reasons for Social Constructionism

By knowing the types of conformity we can establish reasons why. Both normative and informational reasons fit into how content creation shapes metas. Normative conformity revolves around fitting into a wider group and not becoming an outsider. This involves compliance as players accept what they’re using without privately accepting them. Informational conformity refers to players who lack knowledge to make their own decisions. Thus, they rely on their peers for guidance. This uses internalisation as a player accepts the views of the group and adopts them as an individual.

Normative and informational conformity are both strong indicators for meta shifts. Especially through the medium of content creation. Social media and video sharing platforms allow for information to be widespread on usability of new weapons. Players who don’t understand the changes made become internalised to these content creators when it comes to these new weapons. Normally this educational content isn’t a problem, but coupled with monetisation can be a way for companies to monetise more.

Combining Social Influence with Metas

The release of the MG82, C58 and the nail gun at the start of Season 4 is one such example. Whether it was intentional design to make these weapons perform better then expected, the influence of content creators cannot be ignored. Through both normative and informative explanations, players look to use these weapons so they aren’t left out of the group whilst others look for information on the best builds. As these weapons are locked through the season pass, the only way to get these weapons are to grind XP for the weapons. Or, purchase the weapon with real money through tier skips or the store. 

Conformity doesn’t always work. There are always factors that mean players don’t conform to these new metas. Either through internalised moral codes not to use ‘cheap’ weapons or finding comfort in a single weapon. But, Deindividualisation may be a reason why we see more people conforming to using powerful weapons. Deindividualization implies a reduction in social responsibility when in a group and anonymous. If the player base doesn’t know who you are, then using these weapons does not cause any negative penalty towards you. 

It is common knowledge that Cold War weapons in Warzone are more powerful than their modern warfare counterparts. Through the use of conformity and deindividualisation, out of the top 10 weapons being picked, only 1 is from Modern Warfare. 56.7% of weapon picks are cold war weapons all from the top 10. Recent videos on other guns relating to modern warfare don’t have the same effect. The recent buffs to the Scar on Modern Warfare becomes obsolete once weapons with a similar profile become obtainable. The C58 is one such weapon.

Impacts on Gameplay with Social Influence

So we can see the influence that content creators have on affecting meta changes. What effect does this have on the designers to make changes? In some regards, this works in a positive way. Developers immediately see the effects of their implementations when multiple players use it. Allowing more refined changes to happen at a quicker pace. It also allows developers to tweak guns that may not have been picked, increasing their pick rate and adding diversity to what is viable. All this however, is at the cost of reputation and closing established skill ceilings. If less skilled players can use the weapon to give them a definitive edge, then the game becomes more of a grind for the best attachments, rather than implementing a strategy for what weapon to use when. An LMG usable point blank and at range disassembles the established classes and use cases for weapons. Strategic play such as shotguns up close and snipers afar leads to a boring experience if overshadowed by one gun.

The importance of content creators and their place for creating new metas is a tricky one. Whilst everyone looks for every advantage they can get by conforming to standards set by social media, It leads to a repetitive cycle of chasing the next weapon until it is unusable. That said, finding these weapons through means of conformity gives the weapon the developers direct attention. Patches for these weapons can be made quicker and overall become more balanced. 

Changes for these weapons lie within the designers choice of parameters. Is it important to leave a weapon as meta to influence sales through the store? Does a popular pick of a weapon deem it to be overpowered? If a weapon does need changing, how long should it take for it to be patched in? Content creators may influence weapons that are chosen, but the designers have the final say on viability in the current setting.

I intend to post more social psychology content given how games are meant to be enjoyed together. The next post may explore more of this, or a look into teaching using games as a medium!