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

121–130 of 307 posts

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#121

Post by mercer »

wilburTheDog wrote: post #67
mercer wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-6t…

I've noticed this with chess too. As a kid, I briefly developed an obsession with chess. The book I read through argued that if I simply followed a few basic rules religiously, I'd instantly be a 'better' player than many who maybe played a lot more, but didn't know about these rules.

And sure enough, when my obsession quickly waned, and without having played much chess at all, I found myself consistently winning from novices who had a lot more experience than I did. In hindsight, I suspect what happened is that they played a better game but were more likely to make catastrophic mistakes.

Of course, I suspect any player with any training probably applies these basic rules already, and would easily defeat me.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#122

Post by bradlys »

aliswe wrote: post #120

Is management perhaps the "meta" of software development?

The meta of software development is vague. Software development and the job aspects can be completely independent - and tightly coupled.

So, really, the meta of software development as it pertains to your job would likely be more about the meta of your organization. You could try to scale up those ideas to a whole career and across all organizations but it's gonna be hard. What works in one place won't work in another - but if you know how to recognize the meta within each organization, you can find a meta that you think you'll do well in, and then try to work at places that follow that meta. But - honestly - I've found that hard as many organizations aren't very upfront with how they actually operate.

We've all likely found that being really good at software development doesn't end up getting you a reward at your place of employment. You can be exceptionally good at something - the best - but still lose frequently. True of games as it is with life. It could be because the place you're working at is very team oriented - your team does well, you all get rewarded. It could be purely that your manager dictates it and won't recognize you. It could be that you're in an organization that doesn't value software engineers at all. It could be that you're good at the software development but haven't engaged on the more social aspects and that's what's key to getting rewards. I've had talks where the reason I wasn't getting rewarded is because I seemed too carefree about things - they wanted someone who seemed stressed out and really concerned all the time. Is that really related to software development in itself? I don't think so. There's a fuckton of reasons that aren't related to software development in itself that dictate why you won't progress. And I think that varies a lot between organizations/teams.

Therefore, I'd say there is no big meta for a career in software development. I'd say there is a meta for work in different organizations. (As I don't see a lot of these things as specific to software development but specific to just general work culture)

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#123

Post by laughingbovine »

jpxw wrote: post #15
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.

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.”)

I don't know about this acronym... "meta" from the article is certainly not using it. The acronym definition breaks down because technically something can be meta and not be the most effective tactic available. Eg. when the rules of a game are too complex to solve in a short time, you will see players rally around a "meta" strategy until a more optimal one is discovered and vetted.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#124

Post by theremightbe »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #73
blackandblue wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It would! If you can get past how embarrassing it is to watch yourself play, which I've never been able to do. So many mistakes…

And it can be so tempting to delete them immediately because the videos are embarrassing. But you'll be so happy to have them in a few years to look back on how you've improved!

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#125

Post by F_J_H »

Re: playing the meta game, a great article on coyotes being "too clever by half" and missing the meta game to their detriment came up on HN awhile ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17079369

Basic idea - you can be too clever for your own good, and as a result, fail miserably at the meta game, which less clever people don't do.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#126

Post by draw_down »

F_J_H wrote: post #125

Re: playing the meta game, a great article on coyotes being "too clever by half" and missing the meta game to their detriment came up on HN awhile ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17079369 Basic idea - you can be too clever for your own good, and as a result, fail miserably at the meta game, which less clever people don't do.

I think this is a much better treatment of the idea. I had forgotten about this, thanks.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#127

Post by laughingbovine »

bena wrote: post #103
gowld wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 weapon…

I think the "meta" in this case would be your entire post. Ie. "use knives when heavy weapons are popular, use pistols when knives are popular, use highest dps weapon when none are popular" is The Meta... assuming lots of people agree that its the best way to win.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#128

Post by bena »

laughingbovine wrote: post #127
bena wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 weapon…

I think the "meta" in this case would be your entire post. Ie. "use knives when heavy weapons are popular, use pistols when knives are popular, use highest dps weapon when none are popular" is The Meta... assuming lots of people agree that its the best way to win.

Yes. That's why I said it's different from in-game strategy. In what manner did you think I was implying that what I was talking about wasn't talking about an example of the metagame?

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#130

Post by ErikAugust »

oblio wrote: post #113
clairity wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For most sports, if you're defensive you'll beat offensive minded people until you reach a very high level of amateur play. People will constantly make low percentage plays because they're fun and they will misplay while executing them. They will "fall on their own swords". For most games with a net, focus on keeping the ball in play. For team sports, play defense and just keep it simple. Basically, "never interrupt…

I think this is true in professional ball sports in sort of the inverse. Once you reach the highest level, then the focus is once again on defense. Defense wins championships.
Post reply on HN