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

171–180 of 307 posts

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#171

Post by Fnoord »

mercer wrote: post #121
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…

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 fro…

Do you recall these rules? I'm rather curious about them.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#172

Post by thereare5lights »

novok wrote: post #161
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 think it depends on the game too. In Dota 2 (and probably LoL) the balance between heros can change significantly per patch, and a lot of winning is having good hero picks compared to the other team. If you don't keep up with the meta, then your win rate will go down, and this is true for amateurs and the pros.

I don't agree with that. It goes back to

> It's not until you reach a level where everyone around you has a mastery of the fundamentals, that the meta comes into play.

At any given MMR bracket, everyone around you has a similar mastery of the fundamentals so the meta is relevant.

However, put someone with the fundamentals of a 6k+ MMR player into a 3 or even 4k match and they'll demolish everyone else even with a disadvantage relative to the metagame.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#173

Post by TulliusCicero »

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?

In Starcraft, the one that gets hammered on the most for lower-level/newer players is "constantly make workers and spend all your money". The most basic rule of thumb is to not stop making workers until you hit 70 or so.

If you do that in silver league, you're going to stomp 99% of your opponents even if your scouting and strategizing and unit compositions are all awful. You could do nothing but make a single unit type and still win.

Of course, if you do this at least somewhat well you'll rapidly "level up" in the ranking system to the point where you'll need to actually start scouting and reacting.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#174

Post by _pastel »

Playing a game immediately after learning the rules is my favorite challenge - especially when the other players are all new too.

At this stage, tactics are mostly about keeping all the rules in your head and thinking hard before each move. But strategy is really interesting. Everyone is guessing blindly, and you can often win by guessing slightly less blindly.

I have two meta-strategies:

(1) Game phases

While learning the rules, whenever possible, mentally categorize game mechanics as opening-related or endgame-related. For example, a lot of board games have some engine-building in the opening and some point maximization in the end.

During the game, constantly estimate the distance to the end of the game. On the first playthrough, most people transition to endgame too late.

(2) Mechanics comparison

Whenever a game has different types of mechanics or resources, search for reference points that compare them. For example, in Dominion, you must choose between buying treasure and action cards. So on the first playthrough, you should deduce that 1 silver is similar to an action with (+2 treasure, +1 action).

The article talks about the metagame transition in Splendor, when players realize that a strategy with minimal engine-building is viable. I deduced that on the first playthrough by trying very hard to estimate the value of a 2-cost card vs taking resources.

Of course, you need to continuously re-evaluate as you understand the game better. By I have a very high winrate on first playthroughs relative to my general ability.

Does anyone else have meta-strategies for this situation?

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#175

Post by chrchang523 »

seniorsassycat wrote: post #142

Donkeyspace is my favorite idea derived from metagames, but I can't find any good descriptions online. As any given meta becomes dominant, other playstyles become viable that would not be viable in a game against players unaware of the meta, or in a different meta. A counter-meta. Sometimes there's counter-counter-meta and then you're really in Donkeyspace.

http://gamedesignadvance.com/?p=2346

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#176

Post by jeremysalwen »

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?

I tried to find the original comment on HN, it was very informative, but some chess master (grandmaster?) commented on here that until you are highly rated (say 2200), the only thing you should focus on to improve at chess is to improve your ability to notice tactics in games. He went into more detail but I can't find the post :(

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#177

Post by 317070 »

_pastel wrote: post #174

Playing a game immediately after learning the rules is my favorite challenge - especially when the other players are all new too. At this stage, tactics are mostly about keeping all the rules in your head and thinking hard before each move. But strategy is really interesting. Everyone is guessing blindly, and you can often win by guessing slightly less blindly. I have two meta-strategies: (1) Game phases While learni…

Yes. I am like you, I love playing first games. My playbook is usually:

1) create chaos. Everybody plays the same game where they pick a boring strategy, which makes the best calculator at the table win. Instead of trying to maximize my points, I try to increase the chaos around the table, increasing the complexity for everyone and pushing them to make mistakes.

2) in games where this is possible, I will try to sprint to trigger the end condition. As you say, people underestimate how soon the end comes.

3) be unexpected. A bad but unexpected move can be better than the good move in the first game. Try to identify which moves would have an excessive impact on the complexity and which makes everyone go back to the drawing board on their calculations.

In general, chaos and havoc around the board have helped me usually.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#178

Post by jstanley »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #141
jstanley wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It assumes both players are of equal skill I guess.

It assumes both players are as highly skilled as it is possible to be (e.g. they can see right to the bottom of the decision tree in every variation).

If the players are less skilled than this, i.e. they aren't going to play the best move every time, then any analysis you want to make about whether the starting position is a theoretical draw becomes moot because they aren't going to play the theoretical best moves anyway.

But if you assume the game is a theoretical draw from the starting position, then any game you lose is ultimately down to you playing at least one suboptimal move (otherwise you would have been able to force a draw), and any game you win is ultimately down to your opponent playing at least one suboptimal move (otherwise he would have been able to force a draw).

As it happens, I've just got home from playing a chess match in the local league. I lost, which means I made at least one suboptimal move, although I'm quite confident I made many!

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#179

Post by rifung »

thereare5lights wrote: post #172
novok wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it depends on the game too. In Dota 2 (and probably LoL) the balance between heros can change significantly per patch, and a lot of winning is having good hero picks compared to the other team. If you don't keep up with the meta, then your win rate will go down, and this is true for amateurs and the pros.

I don't agree with that. It goes back to > It's not until you reach a level where everyone around you has a mastery of the fundamentals, that the meta comes into play. At any given MMR bracket, everyone around you has a similar mastery of the fundamentals so the meta is relevant. However, put someone with the fundamentals of a 6k+ MMR player into a 3 or even 4k match and they'll demolish everyone else even with a dis…

I believe you're in agreement.

The original comment said

> It's not until you reach a level where everyone around you has a mastery of the fundamentals, that the meta comes into play.

and you said

> At any given MMR bracket, everyone around you has a similar mastery of the fundamentals so the meta is relevant.

which refutes the original comment.

> However, put someone with the fundamentals of a 6k+ MMR player into a 3 or even 4k match and they'll demolish everyone else even with a disadvantage relative to the metagame.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this; I think the issue I (and the person you're responding to) have is the idea that you should ignore understanding the meta until you're 6k MMR as you say.

Both are important and you should develop both at the same time if you want to improve.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#180

Post by chubbyrabbit »

laughingbovine wrote: post #123
jpxw wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the author lack the context of META being the acronym for "most effective tactics available", as most of the gaming world is using it.
Post reply on HN