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

251–260 of 307 posts

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#251

Post by bukson »

The article is very good, but i dislike the word "meta" for this whole notion as it is simple a Nash Equilibrium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium) for some game. Changes of rules makes other equilibria, some equilibria are probabilistic (that makes the game balanced I think) some are just pure strategies (choose this hero if available). I think naming "meta" as "Nash Equilibrium" would popularize game theory more and add some good tools for balancing games.

It is also very interesting that you can sometimes find Equilibrium by researching "counters" or using best response dynamic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_response)

If someone is interested in this topic becuase of esports commitment or just by curiosity there are some nice youtube videos and papers about using game theory in games:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miu3ldl-nY4

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/h...

I don't want to nitpick the word meta, just maybe someone will find more info if he or she knew how to google it properly.

ps I created account specially to write this comment :)

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#252

Post by empath75 »

ningen wrote: post #250
empath75 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly I played splendor for the first time against some experienced players a couple of weeks ago, and after they explained the rules and how the best strategy is to slowly build up resources, I googled ‘how do you win at splendor’ and everyone said to try and grab the most expensive cards first. So I did that, then they said it was beginners luck after I won. Then I won two more times, and they said ‘wow you…

This strategy is only viable if nobody is blocking you from the tier 2 and especially tier 3 cards either by reserving what you're obviously going for, or shorting the supply of a colour you clearly need - But it works great otherwise. Splendor has clever subtle player interaction here which I think is a real strong part of its design.

Oh sure, the point was more that sometimes just googling is the best meta strategy for an unfamiliar game :)

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#253

Post by derangedHorse »

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…

This kind of remind me of the argument of deliberate practice presented in the book "Talent Is Overrated". The biggest improvements can just be made by deliberately learning and practicing the things that good players take for granted.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#255

Post by ipython »

I may be simplifying but wouldn’t the ultimate “meta” move be to adapt the concepts behind John Boyd’s OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loop[1] in your thinking? Basically you need to always adapt to changes in the game and get inside your opponents own loop.

If you’re able to run your own OODA process faster than your opponent, you’re already acting before they have even realized the game has changed.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#256

Post by imtringued »

hvasilev wrote: post #237

Software development is a really funny example of this. The meta changes constantly and as a result "the technology is changing all the time". The thing is that the underlying principles and rules have barely changed in the last few decades. This is why I've never understood people that are enthusiastic about new programming languages and frameworks (among other things). It is just exploring the potential of a differ…

Because most old tools absolutely suck. People aren't chasing the new stuff. They are escaping from the old stuff.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#257

Post by mark_l_watson »

For me, the good part of the article started in the section “The Meta in Real Life.”

I think President Obama played a meta game using technology to win election. President Trump played a meta game using skills developed as a TV host to win election.

I think, in a way, that Peter Thiel’s thesis in the book “Zero to One” is also about playing a meta game to develop monopoly type businesses.

I have always loved using Lisp languages and in a sense continually extending a language to “meet the problem to be solved” is another form of meta game. Rise above the fray, look at things from high altitude, be a good generalist, and win.

Good article.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#258

Post by navane »

The meta game is like the bike shed. Everyone has an opinion about it. It is abstracted, full of analogies and therefore easy to talk about. It is the only way the experts can talk to the novices about the topic at hand. Note that the novice can't really talk back because they won't know when the analogies end.

How do you distinguish one meta opinion about the other? By looking at the merits of the person behind the opinion, looking at other data that distinguishes the expert from the novice.

If you then use the meta as a vehicle to find out which fundamentals are important, you better skip the meta all together and see what fundamentals the expert has.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#259

Post by falcor84 »

ipython wrote: post #255

I may be simplifying but wouldn’t the ultimate “meta” move be to adapt the concepts behind John Boyd’s OODA (observe, orient, decide, act) loop[1] in your thinking? Basically you need to always adapt to changes in the game and get inside your opponents own loop. If you’re able to run your own OODA process faster than your opponent, you’re already acting before they have even realized the game has changed. [1] https:/…

But then the question becomes on which level of OODA loop you should spend your focus, right?

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#260

Post by hamilyon2 »

Spellman wrote: post #186
munchbunny wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As people noted elsewhere in thread, metagame in starcraft is pretty important, when skill level is equal (which is often on ladder).

When skill level differs even a little bit, metagame becomes non-deciding factor.

Post reply on HN