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

181–190 of 307 posts

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#181

Post by bsder »

Fnoord wrote: post #171
mercer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are zillions of them, but it's normally some combination of:

1) Initially develop your pieces in the center rather than threaten or capture the opponent's pieces (this avoids most traps where opponents pull you out of position).

2) Castle by move 8-10

3) Don't leave your king where it can be checked

4) Don't hang pieces

Executing these, however, is the problem. Number 4, in particular, is just something that requires a lot of practice. Most games below 2000 rating seem to be lost because somebody hangs a piece.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#182

Post by proc0 »

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.

It doesn't mean strategy. It's basically the strategy of the strategy (or the game of the game, hence the term Meta). It's about finding the new strategy before your opponent. It becomes a game unto itself.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#183

Post by reddickulous »

rasz wrote: post #158
majos wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

its pure bullshido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-KX99T5r3A

I agree and it's interesting that he also went on to become a black belt in jiu jitsu which is mostly not bullshido.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#184

Post by Paddywack »

Would I be correct in the following examples of Meta-game:

US Politics: - Stacking the supreme court Vs the court case strategy itself - Gerrymandering Vs Winning votes on merit - How you play the Caucus nominations Vs policy

Business (internal to large companies): - Gaming how funding flows vs Getting funding on merits

Business (external market) - Finding the grey area in policy (e.g. Uber/ Airbnb) - Lobbying

Would this be a correct understanding?

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#185

Post by meta-definition »

richk449 wrote: post #108
meta-definition wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 you…

Feels like you're starting to argue in bad faith with the only purpose of rejecting the concept of "meta" as it's being presented.

If you'd like, you can think of "meta" as short for "meta-strategy", with the distinction between "meta-strategy" and "strategy" as similar to the distinction to "meta-physics" and "physics". People who claim that "meta-physics" is just "physics" would probably be regarded as "pedants".

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#186

Post by Spellman »

munchbunny wrote: post #152
rc-1140 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Since a bunch of people seem to be responding to you about competitive games/experiences, my friend left me with the following pointer when he gave me a lengthy rundown on 2D fighters (cleaned up a bit for HN posting): "Tech and meta aren't things to chase after because they're things that come with learning fundamentals. You practice fundamentals until you die". It was like that when I was playing Quake, whe…

In my experience, there's a sort of hierarchy of skills relevant to the game or competition. There are basic skills (like being fast and accurate with aiming, or predicting the opponent's movement), and then there are skills that are dependent on basic skills (leading targets), skills that are only possible once basic skills become automatic (map awareness), or skills that are situational. The "fundamentals" are usua…

I break the tiers down into 3 categories.

1) Literacy. Can you move and shoot in the FPS? Know how pieces move in chess? Basics of the how to play. You must master these and make them reflexive to move forward.

2) Fundamentals. The emergent gameplay that arises from those basic rules. But importantly these are all contained within the game. I usually break these up into Tactics and Strategy. Tactics are the moment-to-moment events. Strategy are longer-term goals that help guide you towards victory, and understanding how overlapping or even conflicting strategies can work in synergy and in trade-offs.

For example, in chess tactics are things like recognizing forks and skewers. Strategy involves "controlling the center" or "develop your pieces to good squares."

In MOBAs, last hitting, skill combos, space control are the tactics. Strategy can involve knowing when to push, when to group to gank vs split push, or farm vs gank decisions.

Interestingly some game types have more tactics/strategy components. Twitch FPS games tend to be almost all tactics with a bit of strategy (gun X better in situation Y). Starcraft rewards strategy more heavily (do better macro!).

These are, as you mention, skills that will apply to the vast majority of games because they are baked into the rules of the game.

3) The Meta. Once you are near the Fundamentals skill cap, you can use information outside of the game to get an edge against similar opponents. I'm about to play player X, and they usually like to do Y, so I should prepare a counter strategy Z. A lot of players seem to really like character A because of these advantages, perhaps I should learn A and how to counter the most common tactics using my character's skillset.

Note knowing the Meta also helps prune what information (Fundamentals) you need to learn and maintain. If no one plays character Foo, then you (probably) don't need to understand their kit as intimately. But then someone could use it as an off-meta pick to surprise you! So you should be at least familiar enough to refute it just in case.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#187

Post by csallen »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #159
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 disagree slightly. The metagame is relevant whenever you're facing opponents of similar skill. If you're way better than your opponent, you can use highly sub-optimal, non-meta strategies and win through sheer experience and skill. For instance, I could kill 50% of Starcraft opponents lower than me by building only one unit and even announcing which unit I'll mass up. However, if you're making a similar number of e…

This is a good point. I played semi-high level StarCraft for a while (high masters, low grandmasters), and strategic decisions based on the metagame certainly won and lost me many games. That said, the GP has a point, too. I probably would've been better served working on my mechanics and fundamentals if I wanted to advance to the next level.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#188

Post by smogcutter »

Paddywack wrote: post #184

Would I be correct in the following examples of Meta-game: US Politics: - Stacking the supreme court Vs the court case strategy itself - Gerrymandering Vs Winning votes on merit - How you play the Caucus nominations Vs policy Business (internal to large companies): - Gaming how funding flows vs Getting funding on merits Business (external market) - Finding the grey area in policy (e.g. Uber/ Airbnb) - Lobbying Would…

Meta gaming isn’t the same thing as cheating (or exploiting a rules grey area). It’s not gaming the system vs playing it honestly.

As far as I understand, the metagame is understanding how the rules reward certain strategies and over others, and how those strategies interact with each other. The reason the idea has so much currency in video games is that rules are constantly evolving as the game is updated and patched.

So like for gerrymandering, the metagame aspect is understanding that under the current rules, gerrymandering is a winning strategy. Actually executing that strategy and gerrymandering a district is the playing the game-game part, not the meta-game.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#189

Post by roel_v »

Thriptic wrote: post #147
dfxm12 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's more complicated than that. Largely, it just seems that way because most people never bother to understand the rules past a cursory Google whereas big companies have teams of very experienced regulatory professionals from the agencies themselves who are all about it and therefore know every way to tweak inputs so that they trigger certain regulations rather than others. I was working on a regulatory compliance p…

This is so true. I got a law degree as a hobby while working as a software developer. The actual substantive knowledge I got from that hasn't been very useful so far (apart from the occasional online flex...), but the skills I learned to do what you describe have been a real USP for me. Now law school didn't explicitly teach me those skills; there was never a course where someone taught 'how to go deep on any subject'. It was more learned through osmosis, and maybe some aspect of seeing the meta as well. Seeing a few times how rules are never what they seem at first, and that you need to understand the full landscape to really understand, apply and abuse them is the underlying experience/skill. (come to think of it, maybe this is exactly the meta but just looking at it from another side... hmm...)
Post reply on HN