Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To get good, go after the metagame

commoncog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 307 posts

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#31

Post by gowld »

blackandblue wrote: post #27
Proziam wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I played a lot of chess as a kid. That's actually where I 'discovered' the real value of fundamentals. Quick wins in chess are universally the result of an opponent making a horrific mistake. Of course, that means the opposite is also true! There is no faking it in chess. You either grasp the game or you get soundly defeated over and over. That is also true of esports titles, which is why I fell in love with them.

would you guys mind giving examples of what you are calling fundamentals?

In Chess, you can learn techniques used by players a few hundred points above your rating, but still make game-losing blunders (hanging a piece totally undefended, not knowing how to finish a winning endgame) that are easy to spot (if you are careful). Patiently eliminating blunders will do much more for your rating than learning myriad openings variations and complex combination moves.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#32

Post by [deleted] »

Proziam wrote: post #3

Getting good in almost all games is based on understanding and mastering the fundamentals to the extent that you can make consistently correct (or at least a high degree of 'correctness') decisions based on them. This is true for all esports titles, and probably all games in general. Mastering the fundamentals will make you 'good' to a level that very few people ever reach. It's not until you reach a level where ever…

[deleted]

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#33

Post by blackandblue »

gowld wrote: post #31
blackandblue wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

would you guys mind giving examples of what you are calling fundamentals?

In Chess, you can learn techniques used by players a few hundred points above your rating, but still make game-losing blunders (hanging a piece totally undefended, not knowing how to finish a winning endgame) that are easy to spot (if you are careful). Patiently eliminating blunders will do much more for your rating than learning myriad openings variations and complex combination moves.

ah, i see. so fundamentals is like the basics and in these FPS games it's things like aiming, ducking, moving around, etc?

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#34

Post by richk449 »

wkey wrote: post #12
richk449 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of meta used in the piece doesn't match my understanding. Take his final example where he says that adjusting tactics in response to your opponent in ultimate frisbee is meta. No, that just strategy. Same goes for most of the examples he gives. Looks like I'm getting old, and the word has been redefined from out under me: In video games, however, the metagame has its own meaning—and depending on which…

So what is your definition? :)

I can think of two definitions:

1) a higher level of abstraction. For example, creating a class is programming. Creating a class factory (a class that creates classes) is meta programming.

2) self referential. The movie Adaption is meta, because it is about itself.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#35

Post by nonanonymous »

plinkplonk wrote: post #21

Does the author actually define "metagame" anywhere? He seems to use the term throughout the article to mean multiple subtly different things.

The author's usage of "meta" doesn't match up with how I've seen it used elsewhere. He refers to the "metagame" when really he's just talking about the game itself.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#36

Post by gowld »

richk449 wrote: post #7
shinryuu wrote: post #2

First time I ever understood what "the meta" refers to. Though I've definitely participated in the metagame without realizing it before.

The definition of meta used in the piece doesn't match my understanding. Take his final example where he says that adjusting tactics in response to your opponent in ultimate frisbee is meta. No, that just strategy. Same goes for most of the examples he gives. Looks like I'm getting old, and the word has been redefined from out under me: In video games, however, the metagame has its own meaning—and depending on which…

Meta is anything where the best action depends on something outside the game. Identifying the best weapon to challenge your opponent's defense is not meta. Identifying the best weapon to counter your opponent's predicted defense is meta.

Choosing to use a weapon at all is not meta. Choosing to not use a weapon to lure your opponent into trying to grab it while you wait to snipe them, is meta.

Think about rock-paper-scissor. The game is totally random. There is no in-game strategy that can do better. The only way to do better than half chance is to play meta and predict your opponent's strategy.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#37

Post by Proziam »

blackandblue wrote: post #27
Proziam wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I played a lot of chess as a kid. That's actually where I 'discovered' the real value of fundamentals. Quick wins in chess are universally the result of an opponent making a horrific mistake. Of course, that means the opposite is also true! There is no faking it in chess. You either grasp the game or you get soundly defeated over and over. That is also true of esports titles, which is why I fell in love with them.

would you guys mind giving examples of what you are calling fundamentals?

Fundamentals can be hard to define concretely because they can even underly the principles of how people talk about playing the game. Take, for example, the age-old advice in chess "control the center." To an absolute novice, this is interpreted as 'have your pieces in the center.' To more experienced players control can be more fluid. In some cases, it's as much about protecting a position as it is about occupying it.

To give an example from a game I love dearly: Halo. The number one fundamental isn't aim, or knowing sick trick nades, or masterful timing of power weapons. It's positioning. Positioning controls where your opponents respawn, it controls where your team respawns, and it is the single most impactful part of "map control." Good aim means nothing if you stand in the wrong places at the wrong times. Power weapons are useless if you get yourself back-smacked by opponents getting split-spawned that you weren't aware of.

Fundamentals are (somewhat) unique to a game, and they typically reveal themselves either once you've intuitively started applying them, or through thoughtful analysis.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#38

Post by richk449 »

leetcrew wrote: post #30
ffgddd_gfghvc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah meta in games is used very loosely — the M4 in CoD is meta, meaning the best available. I got the feeling reading this that the author is more familiar with the video game usage and worked backwards to give it some more substance.

I don't think it's that loose actually, at least not the way I see it used. usually the "meta" is about choosing between two or more roughly equipotent strategies/tactics based on what you expect your opponent to do. you predict what your opponent will do by observing current trends in the game. the meta certainly changes after balance updates, but it can also change organically over time as people try different thin…

This interpretation seems to unnecessarily constrain strategy. A strategy is not just something you pick at random. A good strategy is chosen with all context in mind - including your opponents choice of tactics and strategy.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#39

Post by gowld »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #16
richk449 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of meta used in the piece doesn't match my understanding. Take his final example where he says that adjusting tactics in response to your opponent in ultimate frisbee is meta. No, that just strategy. Same goes for most of the examples he gives. Looks like I'm getting old, and the word has been redefined from out under me: In video games, however, the metagame has its own meaning—and depending on which…

I had the same - the "choice of strategies" in Splendor is just that - strategy. The "meta game" would be the level above that.

The Splendor part was a but confusing. The author's point is that the simple strategy has no meta, because players can't interfere with each other. It's just a race. But the strategy of saving up points opens up a metagame because players can now interfere with each other, so the game becomes about guessing opponent strategies and counterstrategies.

Another analogy is a bicycle race. You could have everyone run separately and compare their best times. But by racing together, you get peloton and team effects where players can attack opponentns and support teammates, but expose weakness that could be exploited, and the success of an act, like passing or drafting, depends on how others react.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#40

Post by athenot »

joncrane wrote: post #29
euix wrote: post #24

There is also the ultimate version of the metagame i.e. your personal human condition. Blindly pursuing your career or chasing money without understanding the finite duration of your own physical existence, the scale of the universe, where you want to be in terms of life goals and family.

This is the meta I'm struggling to learn at the moment. I constantly gripe that people making similar salaries in my organization don't produce nearly as much as I do...but they seem happy and I'm constantly stressed out. Which begs the question...who's winning?

The answer probably lies somewhere halfway between you and them. What you are doing is probably good in terms of staying sharp with your skills. But some detachment can help: I am assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that you care very much about what's going on at work and that causes stress.

But I think it's possible to continue to care while not letting the organization's sluggishness affect you in a personal way. You care because you believe it's the right thing to do and/or because it furthers your skills. Good. The others are missing out; even if their pay is the same now, in 5-10 years you will be better positionned than them for whatever opportunities come. At the same time—and this is where that balance comes in—if you're slaving away with no enjoyment of life, it all seems pointless.

Post reply on HN