[deleted]
To get good, go after the metagame
51–60 of 307 posts
Re: To get good, go after the metagame
#52Earlier 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.
This is “meta” as in Most Effective Tactic Available, as opposed to the normal use of the word “meta” (“referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.”)
But the former is the latter because the most effective tactic available depends on what all of the other player in the game are going to do. The most effective tactic available is only the most effective given that other players are also going to choose the most effective tactic available.
Re: To get good, go after the metagame
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I would not call 1 metaprogramming. Meta means something like "outside of". Metaprogramming usually means higher order programming (programs that produce programs, such as source generation, lisp macros or templates).
Okay. It’s outside my area of expertise, so maybe I didn’t pick the best example. The internet seems to imply that there is a lot of debate as to what is meta programming.
Re: To get good, go after the metagame
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
would you guys mind giving examples of what you are calling fundamentals?
My biggest improvement in chess came after comprehending The Theory of Steinitz [1]: 1. At the beginning of the game the forces stand in equilibrium. 2. Correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads to a drawn game. 3. Therefore a player can win only as a consequence of an error made by the opponent. (There is no such thing as a winning move.) 4. As long as the equilibrium is maintained, an attack,…
> 2. Correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads to a drawn game.
Note that this is still not actually proven! But it is generally accepted.
Re: To get good, go after the metagame
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 separ…
That’s exactly my point. Nobody calls a peloton meta racing. A peloton is just strategy. Always has been.
Re: To get good, go after the metagame
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Not quite.
In FPS, aiming moving and ducking are like learning how to move the pieces in chess. And sure, those are the basics to even play.
But when people talk about "fundamentals" they are talking about the emergent things that come from those skills and are usually unique to the game. In chess, this is stuff like don't hang your pieces, tactics like spotting skewers or forks, understanding endgames, and later general strategic goals like controlling the center or develop your pieces to "good" squares.
In FPS games, this often deals with understanding the flow of a map (choke points vs open areas, cover and sniper locations), proper navigation (efficient pathing!), role synergy, and how a match develops (at about 30 seconds I should expect an opponent, if they went straight path A, to show up around this corner).
MOBA games moving and attacking and using a skill are the language. Fundamentals involve map awareness, ganking, vision control, wave management, etc.
Fighting games move, jump, attack, block is the language. Understanding zone control, the Rock-Paper-Scissors of strike/block/grapple, how to manage your health and special meters, character movesets/matchups are the fundamentals. Picking character X against player Y is the meta.
Once you have all of that squared away, you can start doing "meta." That is figuring out optimal picks vs particularly optimal setups, researching your opponent to build a specific toolkit against them, etc.
Re: To get good, go after the metagame
#57Earlier 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…
>Take his final example where he says that adjusting tactics in response to your opponent in ultimate frisbee is meta. No, that just strategy. Choice of strategy can be "meta", though. It depends on the context. For example in ultimate frisbee the current meta is to play Vertical offense, and so you see a lot of teams training for how to run it and how to defend against it. Back in 2004 ish, the dominant teams played…
Eh, it’s all semantics. What you are calling meta has been called strategy for thousands of years.
No big deal - words change. I’ll get used to it.
Re: To get good, go after the metagame
#58Getting 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…
Agreed. Since a bunch of people seem to be responding to you about competitive games/experiences, my friend left me with the following pointer when he gave me a lengthy rundown on 2D fighters (cleaned up a bit for HN posting): "Tech and meta aren't things to chase after because they're things that come with learning fundamentals. You practice fundamentals until you die". It was like that when I was playing Quake, when I was playing Team Fortress 2, CounterStrike, etc., and it was like that when I was playing Starcraft.
Re: To get good, go after the metagame
#59Getting 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…
I sometimes entertain myself watching "knowing the rules" sport videos on YouTube, for example https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=football+knowin...
Not to mention when organizations have to write new rules to prevent someone exploiting unintended consequences of the existing ruleset. It's fairly common not only in sports but source of many regulations and laws in any sector.
Re: To get good, go after the metagame
#60Does 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.
He defines it when talking about Magic, where there's the two games. The match "game", once you sit down with your decks and draw 7. And the metagame, where you choose which decks to bring, what sideboard to pick, etc.
If there's a really popular rush deck, do you drop some cards which shut down blue control and put in some anti rush cards? That will help when you match against the rush deck, but if everyone does it, then when you reach the finals you might be against the control deck.
That's the metagame, at least how it's used in those circles.