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

131–140 of 307 posts

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#131

Post by city41 »

Proziam wrote: post #50
ggambetta wrote: post #44

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…

I also think fighting games are a good example. Most beginners gravitate towards the special moves and supers. But basic moves and understanding positioning can elevate your game much more.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#132

Post by ksdale »

ErikAugust wrote: post #130
oblio wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I played a lot of American football growing up and so heard the quote "Defense wins championships" very regularly and I always disagreed.

Teams lose games all the time while holding the other team to a very low score, but almost no one ever loses if they put up 50 points.

But then again, I played offense...

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#133

Post by colonCapitalDee »

jimduk wrote: post #119
colonCapitalDee wrote: post #112

I see a lot of debate over what "meta" means, and I'd like to throw my own hat in the ring. I would argue that a playing a game at the base level (i.e. playing without meta) consists of (a) finding different strategies to use, (b) figuring when is appropriate to use each strategy, and (c) executing strategies optimally. When the game is first being played, most strategies haven't been discovered. At this stage strate…

A build on this, is as a soft-core participant in a game, often it is more enjoyable to participate in a game where the meta is not known, and everyone is in the 'finding different strategies' mode - bit like early days starcraft. Now the Internet exists, everyone jumps to semi-optimal strategies by copying, not putting in their own thinking time. While I admire high level play, at mid/low level it is more fun if the…

Totally agree! Overwatch is often criticized for the pro meta "infecting" regular play, because low/mid level players will find themselves pressured by their teammates to play heroes that are meta at the pro level, even though pro strategies are only meta when they're being executed at the highest level of play.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#134

Post by KaoruAoiShiho »

libertine wrote: post #105
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…

Totally disagree. First principle thinking is a clearer formulation of what the author wanted to achieve with the meta concept. For example in the marketing example where the meta dictates movement from adsense to xyz platforms you can also get there by first principles, which is finding the most cost effective way to reach the audience.

When you're thinking from first principles you are not disregarding the current conditions, including constraints, you are just not allowing yourself to be a lazy and are constantly reevaluating the situation from base. Many people love to talk meta but they end up with a hazy understanding of fundamentals and end up behind the curve, very detrimental. First principle thinking just avoids these issues.

BTW. Games are not perfectly analogous to IRL. Games can sometimes be (imo poorly) designed to function completely based on a fluctuating rps system that forces a meta, where if everyone goes rock you'll have the highest percentages going paper. IRL doesn't really work that way. Pikemen beats cavalry, cavalry beats swordsmen and swordsmen beats pikemen, but guns beat all 3 and it's completely OP.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#135

Post by kingkongjaffa »

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…

This rung true for competetive Halo. The novice was focused on aiming good and getting accurate with the bread and butter weapon (magnum or battle rifle depending on which halo you played)

The top players were great at the standard weapon, and a the power weapons, and the meta became:

- instead of individual kils - teamwork to double team a single opponent

- map positioning to control where the enemy would respawn when killed,

- timing when the power weapons on the map would regenerate.

key skills became teamwork, coordination and communication when everyone is a good aim.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#136

Post by madhadron »

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…

Similar advice in music. Record your practice sessions. Listen. Wince. Pick out targeted things to fix. Drill. Record again. Comfort yourself that at least that targeted thing is less painful. Repeat.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#137

Post by clairity »

ska wrote: post #107
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?

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…

> "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."

still, that's just a matter of definition and perspective. even at a pro level, if you don't win, you made at least one mistake relative to your opponent. so to win, make fewer mistakes, right?

i don't play video games anymore (and never played more than recreationally), but i've played pro-am basketball, and from my observation, being a pro doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. it usually means that, besides having highly honed skills, you have more tricks in the bag to recover from your mistakes (and conversely, to induce mistakes in opponents).

so the contention is that everyone can benefit from a strategy of reducing mistakes (aka active practice), pro or not, and the prior anecdote isn't really super-useful.

--devli's advocate

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#138

Post by screye »

pretendscholar wrote: post #129

When did meta come to mean strategy? It can't really be 'meta' if its about one specific game or implementation.

MetaGame is not strategy. The metagame is often the behind-the-scene variables that enable a certain set of strategies to flourish.

For example, in Dota, changes to armor or magic resistance scaling can change the metagame to be magic or physical focused, but the strategies and trends themselves develop in ways that take the meta-game into account.

During one meta game, it is common to see various different strategies flourish. IMO, as it is one level of abstraction higher, it is fair to call it meta-strategy and by extension the meta-game.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#140

Post by clairity »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #109
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?

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 m…

that's a good point--players should practice acively, rather than passively (like shooting lots of baskets but never working on improving your shooting form).

but i'd still contend you never get to a point where you don't make mistakes and then turn to the meta-game. folks tend to start thinking about, and honing, the meta-game at different levels of experience.

Post reply on HN