Live data from Hacker News

To get good, go after the metagame

commoncog.com

61–70 of 307 posts

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#61
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…

I've noticed this to be true for table tennis and other sports too. When I play against a less experienced player, it's quite frustrating to notice that most of the points I score are clear mistakes on their part, rather than any kind of skilled moves on my part.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#62
Interesting point that one has to master the game first, before mastering the metagame. I am reminded that Warren Buffet & Bill Gates are reputed to enjoy the game of bridge, which comprises at least three games: the trick-taking game; the bidding game which is about how many tricks one thinks one can win; and the communication game which runs over the bids themselves. One could argue that outa-of-band communication is a third, cheating, game. One might also consider multi-table play to be a metagame, although it is a fairly simple one.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#64
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mastering the fundamentals will make you 'good' to a level that very few people ever reach. Can you clarify this? Is this because most people don't care about mastering the fundamentals in the first place? I can't tell whether I'm missing something and the idea is more complex, or that's what you're saying.

In my experience it comes down to two things: 1. People think they already have the fundamentals 'down' 2. Actually mastering the fundamentals can be boring and make a game feel like work (which, if you don't truly enjoy pushing the limits in a game, it is.) A totally random example from League of Legends. 99% of players go into game after game and literally never review their previous games. They will spam games but…

learning so much from you guys lol not even a gamer :) now i think i am going to try to invest into a camera to record my piano practices. i wonder if that would help me get better...

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#65
post #59
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…

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.

It's fairly common not only in sports but source of many regulations and laws in any sector.

Regulation is more of a pay to win game.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#66

One of my favorite books of all times: The Art of Learning by Josh Waitzkin. He was the chess prodigy written about in Searching for Bobby Fisher . He quit chess shortly after and became a world champion in Tai Chi. The book is about learning two very different skills and how they are the same. Thesis that learning one thing deeply helps learn other (unrelated) things makes total sense to me.

If anyone reacts as I did and wonders how it's possible to compete in Tai Chi, the competitive sport [1] is not the slow-movements-in-the-park activity I had in mind.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pushing_hands

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#67
post #61
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…

I've noticed this to be true for table tennis and other sports too. When I play against a less experienced player, it's quite frustrating to notice that most of the points I score are clear mistakes on their part, rather than any kind of skilled moves on my part.

Charles Ellis wrote a book(1) about that. He asserts that any professional sports competition is a winner's game - you win by successfully executing difficult plays and being better than your competition. But amateur sports is usually a loser's game - you win by not making as many mistakes as your competition. The book is about finance but the observation is universal.

1. https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Losers-Game-6th-Strategies/dp...

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#68
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Y…

You are missing an important meta. Those who don't produce as much might produce something that is more valuable than you and thus be more valuable than you despite not producing as much quantity.

I've seen a lot of people fall into that trap and then get bitter when the "less productive" person was promoted.

Of course sometimes the meta is licking your bosses boots not something that makes the company money...

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#69
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 -- let's go back to the fundamentals of fundamentals (cognition)!

Cognition and agency in the real world is often hierarchical in nature. You learn a task by breaking it down into simpler tasks, and if necessary breaking down the simpler tasks into yet simpler. This is due to nothing more than algorithmic efficiency (when at all possible -- it usually is IRL), divide and conquer.

The fundamentals are the basic tasks which higher level tasks rely on. Sometimes (quite common really) the nature of this (inverted) tree is such that the higher level tasks have a sort of soft max-min relationship: your overall skill will only be about as good as your weakest subskill. An example that comes to mind is manual driving. You could be the most brilliant, strategic, high-reflex rally race car drive in the world, if you miss most of your stick shifts you will likely be a mediocre driver, if even competitive. Shifting properly and quickly makes a significant difference. So much that it's almost completely futile to practice those higher skills unless you've nailed down the basics.

When you're just having 'fun', learning something intuitively, without the sharp focus on improving, it's easy to neglect those fundamentals. They are likely areas where you have some natural relative difficulty, which can lead to shying away from them (in larger contexts sometimes this is even wise -- you want to use what you're good at afterall!) -- it could be because they're uncomfortable, painful, repetitive, boring, too difficult (break it down!) and so on. Compensating for weaknesses exists I believe, but in high levels of competition it's something extremely subtle; again risking generalizations almost every high skill individual will have fundamentals mastered.

Most of my activity is academic, and I have some anecdotes in this regard. I feel like I've really evolved when (a) I've focused on learning the basics of my field really well (going down to the math foundations and axioms) (b) focused on improving weaknesses. It wasn't intuitive to me that this attention to fundamentals could yield so much.

edit: It should be noted (as others noted) that identifying what are the fundamentals can be something difficult itself. Common tools here are reviewing your games/production/etc, or asking others (teachers, peers, etc).

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#70
The meta game is a high level arena for people that hammered through the proven advantageous strategies. Once you beat everyone unwilling to do that, you are now in an arena with people that used your exact same strategy.

A short example of this is a fighting game where the majority of people want to play the characters they enjoy playing. Unfortunately, like life, there is no perfect balance, and picking some specific characters will give you an advantage (even if you hate playing them). So long story short, play the character with the advantage, ride it to the top, everyone at the top got there doing the same shit you did —- and voila, the meta game, how do we all with the same strategy compete against each other.

Post reply on HN