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

101–110 of 307 posts

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#101

Post by Proziam »

floatrock wrote: post #91
Proziam wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How much of this is data-driven? I mean, every shot can (in theory) be digitally logged and analyzed. Is there anyone doing a Moneyball-style player performance data analysis service? I hate to use the term, but an "AI coach"?

Data is getting to be a bigger component, but that was driven primarily by esports betting (another area I've had some experience in, coincidentally). Data, in general, is under-utilized by almost everyone and the few 'real' data folks I've met have the habit of missing the forest for the trees (there's not exactly a tremendous wealth of coaching experience in esports, so the number of folks who could do the coaching and implement/build new tools for that purpose is near-zero).

It's pretty hard to go straight from DATA -> ACTIONABLE COACHING DECISIONS

It's much easier to go from COACHES INTUITION + SUPPORTING DATA -> COACHING DECISION

I'm not aware of any other coach (but there probably is some) that has the technical skills to build the kind of tools that would be required. Bear in mind, most games don't actually give you all the data you'd want to look at. That said, there were a few folks who made a killing in esports betting for a while.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#102

Post by tydok »

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?

The fundamentals are about positional elements and strategic principles.

For example: Relative value of the pieces, Control of the center, Pawn structure, Tactics, Initiative, Tempo, Opposition, Keep the position balanced, Develop multiple ideas/areas (strategy), Control open lines (files/ranks/diagonals) and crossings

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#103

Post by bena »

gowld wrote: post #36
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…

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-s…

Meta is weird.

Say you have a game with various weapons. Each weapon has attack power, attack speed, and weight. If everything is balanced right, there could be no singular optimal weapon.

And let's say that the best considered weapons are all of a certain weight. They do the most damage in the least amount of time available.

Playing the metagame would be recognizing the game everyone is playing is using those weapons as best as possible. And then choosing the knife because it lets you run faster than everyone else. And your strategy becomes knifing people in the back and running away before they can fire back.

Then more people catch on to the knife strategy, because the best players are using it. Now most people are using knives and the game is all about maximizing run speed.

So you start using the pistol. It's a very slight hit to your run speed, but you can still fire back on anyone who knifes you in the back. You start just capping knifers left and right.

More people catch on. Pistols beat knives. As more people become pistol wielders, knifers get worse. The game is all about pistols now.

Until someone realizes that shotguns and rifles are only slightly slower than pistols, but do way more damage. Basically, everything of a certain weight is just good when facing a lot of pistols. So the game comes right back around to the start.

This is different from in-game strategy. In-game strategy would be planning routes and knowing how and when to cover. Meta is out-of-game strategy.

Like, investing in infrastructure, technology, etc is all war meta. It lets you approach the situation in ways your opponent isn't thinking about. You can make their strategies during the war irrelevant.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#104

Post by guntars »

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?

I think the question is wrong so no answer is going to make sense. Parts of life are indeed a competition, like work, but in those limited domains it’s easy to tell who’s winning - it’s who’s making the most money. Happiness doesn’t even factor in there. If you include your whole life, happiness matters big time, but then it’s not a game or a competition anymore.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#105

Post by libertine »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #63

This article is really the same thing as Elon Musk's "think from first principles", except Musk's formulation is much better imo.

In my opinion the byproduct of first principles thinking is precisely the opposite of meta : you wouldn't get a meta, but several metas for the same game, since you built your conceptualization from the fundamentals which are established truths.

Metas seem to be built around constrains, limitations, exploits, or other forms of disruption that are introduced in the game in a cyclical fashion (new rules, new laws, new markets, new medium, new tools, etc).

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#106

Post by cwillu »

mercer wrote: post #61
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…

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.

I routinely tell my teammates "let the other team make the mistakes".

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#107

Post by ska »

clairity wrote: post #93
wilburTheDog wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-6t…

not having read the book, that seems insightful on the surface but isn’t particularly useful or actionable. all it seems to be saying is that to become better, make fewer mistakes, with an implied exhortion to practice. is there more to it than that?

I think the idea is that if you aren't operating at "pro league" level in anything, you should focus mostly on getting the basics right and not making mistakes. But if you are operating at that level, this is table stakes and you need to do more, or your competition will overrun you.

I suspect most people/organizations operating at the highest level understand or have internalized this, but many in the other category have not, to their demise. I've certainly seen organizations get themselves in trouble by trying to execute on something trickier than they were ready for. And others fail at something through an accumulation of clearly (at least, in retrospect) avoidable mistakes.

The corollary being that you are very likely to be in the latter category, like it or not, and it's best to realize it.

I haven't read the book though so could easily be misinterpreting.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#108

Post by richk449 »

meta-definition wrote: post #85
richk449 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Meta is the set of viable strategies GIVEN the strategies that your competitors commonly employ. Here's a concrete example: Soccer fundamentals: passing, dribbling, etc. Soccer strategies: formation, player roles, etc. Soccer meta: viable formations, player roles, etc. No one is out there playing a 8-2-1 formation because it's not a viable strategy, i.e. it's not part of the current meta. The current meta in soccer i…

Goal: to win

High level strategy: wear down opponent, exploit endurance advantage

Low level strategy: aggressive midgame, long passes, high tempo, rotate attackers

Tactics: 4 4 2 formation, joe and Jean on wings, etc. force opponent mike to run side to side to wear out, then focus on scoring in final third of game.

Fundamentals: passing, communication, give and go, etc.

Meta: realizing that you can make more from your Instagram account than from playing the game.

Disclaimer: I don’t know anything about soccer (football)

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#109

Post by ChuckMcM »

clairity wrote: post #93
wilburTheDog wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-6t…

not having read the book, that seems insightful on the surface but isn’t particularly useful or actionable. all it seems to be saying is that to become better, make fewer mistakes, with an implied exhortion to practice. is there more to it than that?

In my experience not everyone is mindful of their mistakes. If you write them off to 'bad luck' or circumstance, you miss the opportunity to understand the root cause of the outcome (the mistake if you will).

As an action plan, I would write that: Engage in the activity and dive deeply into all of the mistakes you make and develop the skill or tactic to avoid that mistake in the future. At the point where you don't make mistakes any more, then you start look at the meta and responding to what your opponent is setting up to do, rather than what they are doing right now.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#110

Post by JRKrause »

FreezerburnV wrote: post #13
Proziam wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you were hoping for but I'm happy to answer questions! On coaching: Coaching is probably the best and worst job in esports, depending on the day. It's also a role that is completely misunderstood by the management of most organizations, to the extent that coaches have had their decision-making hamstrung by management. This is getting better as time goes on, and I expect that it wi…

Can you expand a bit on why you pulled the plug because of there being “no way to make it work like it’s ‘supposed to’”? I’m actively working hard to improve at Overwatch to try and break into the tiered competitive scene, so any reservations about its future are of great interest to me and figuring out whether or not it’s a ship to move from at some point or not.

I am no means an expert but my take was that many people from grass-roots esports backgrounds balk at the numbers set by ATVI for OWL team licensing (20mil for a team iirc?) and associated player salaries (reaching upwards of 200K in some instances). Certainly in it's current state, team merch/tickets sales are nowhere close to recuperating these expenses from an investment standpoint.

I would argue that these complaints aren't understanding the 'meta' of capital investment in the current climate.

Post reply on HN