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

291–300 of 307 posts

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#291

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#292

Post by PeterisP »

_hardwaregeek wrote: post #157
scott_s wrote: post #144

A saying I have related to this is "Rules make sports." The skills and strategies that matter in a sport develop around the rules. Change the rules and you change the sport. The judo example the author presented is actually one of my go-to examples as well. Not only did disallowing grabbing the legs take out an entire suite of offensive options, it took out defensive options in judo. In judo, the main way to win is t…

Fencing exhibits this phenomenon nicely. Fencing does not come even close to mimicking a real sword fight. One reason for this is right of way, basically the idea that the person who attacks first gets precedence and the onus is on their opponent to defend against the attack before attacking themselves. However what is defined as an "attack" in fencing is very different from what a layperson would assume. Really, it'…

Many martial-like sports have a fundamental problem caused by this. In essence, there's a sequence:

1. are certain techniques that are likely to cause injury even with proper protective gear, that sucks in a sport;

2. so we make rules to prohibit using such techniques;

3. so the meta changes so that realistic tactics (which obviously need to protect against the dangerous technique) become suboptimal, and the new meta is 'unnatural' as it leaves the fighters vulnerable to something that's prohibited but would be used in any real situation.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#293

Post by [deleted] »

Proziam wrote: post #220
wongarsu wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but applying this isn't always easy: When discussing meta and strategy, it's usually discussed in the context of high level esport play. But the optimal strategy often drastically changes with skill level. For example in a shooter when everyone has bad aim and bad teamwork/communication you need a different strategy then in high level esport in the same game where everyone is great at aiming and lives in the…

The optimal strategy for winning the game you're in is the most-winning strategy that your skill level allows you to execute. The optimal strategy for the game itself requires you to develop your skills to allow you to execute it. One of the problems when you discuss strategy and meta is that most people blur the lines between the two. If you plan something based on opposition research (like at the pro esports level…

[deleted]

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#294

Post by gentleman11 »

Spellman wrote: post #207
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 would argue the meta matters a lot less than you may think even in MOBAs. At most levels, just being very very good at a few characters, even if they're off-meta picks, will do better than someone who picks on-meta and doesn't have a good fundamental skill with the champion. Now, most players keep a pool of champions they have solid (or at least better) fundamentals so that as the meta shifts they can fall back to…

Depends on the patch... sometimes a hero is so broken that your win rate will swing from 40 to 60 depending on which team gets . It’s still best to focus on your fundamentals, but the game can be way easier or harder depending on what happens in the draft.

One pretty weird fundamental is to get good at coaxing your teammates to make a reasonable team comp without causing anybody stress

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#295

Post by DevKoala »

joncrane wrote: post #262
DevKoala wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by “don’t produce nearly as much as I do”? Are you measuring feature completion or business impact? If your managers are happy with your coworkers that “produce less”, then chances are their efforts have the same business impact as yours.

I deliver more results, get assigned more important and complex work, and work more hours. It's a project with a fixed span, and the barrier to entry is very high (government clearance and certain skills) so many people who gain entry exploit the situation because they know we're short on people and won't fire anybody unless they have a negative impact on the business. So the bar is high to get in, but the bar is ver…

Have you had this conversation with your manager? If the difference is truly objective, you can argue for them. The "meta" you are missing here is salary negotiation.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#296

Post by __blockcipher__ »

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #267
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you played against grandmasters your fundamentals were likely extremely good relative to most players Relative to most players, no doubt. To be fair though, even someone in diamond is "extremely good relative to most players". I was a mid+ NA grandmaster zerg, and took games off players like EG demuslim. And even at the level I was at, fundamentals were the most important thing. And even at the level I was at, I…

I was a masters NA Zerg, not quite at your level but we probably could have met in the ladder at some point. I totally agree, I just think it's not great advice to say "if you want to get good go after the meta". Some gaming communities over emphasize the meta and IMO StarCraft is one of them. Meta is just one aspect of ways to get an edge and as you progress in your skill you need to take advantage of every edge you…

> I just think it's not great advice to say "if you want to get good go after the meta".

Right, I totally agree here. If it wasn't clear, I think the vast majority of players should just ignore the meta and focus on fundamentals.

That being said, often specific meta strategies (say, the 2 base sentry/immortal all-in that was so ridiculously powerful back in the day) give players a really hard time, and so IMO the best way to do it is to use learning how to beat the strategy as an example of learning fundamentals. For example, beating that all-in required effective scouting, map control, micro, and stopping drone production at the perfect time.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#297

Post by __blockcipher__ »

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #267
__blockcipher__ wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you played against grandmasters your fundamentals were likely extremely good relative to most players Relative to most players, no doubt. To be fair though, even someone in diamond is "extremely good relative to most players". I was a mid+ NA grandmaster zerg, and took games off players like EG demuslim. And even at the level I was at, fundamentals were the most important thing. And even at the level I was at, I…

I was a masters NA Zerg, not quite at your level but we probably could have met in the ladder at some point. I totally agree, I just think it's not great advice to say "if you want to get good go after the meta". Some gaming communities over emphasize the meta and IMO StarCraft is one of them. Meta is just one aspect of ways to get an edge and as you progress in your skill you need to take advantage of every edge you…

I started in Gold and ended up in GM, so depending on timing, we might have come across each other. I played under the name "sanddbox".

I used to be a huge Destiny fanboy. In fact, my measure of when I'd "made it" was when I could beat Destiny on ladder. (He beat me many times as well, of course).

Side note: Kind of sad that when I checked up him a couple months ago, he mostly just seems to do weird political debate style stuff these days

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#298

Post by woutgaze »

zackmorris wrote: post #272
euix wrote: post #24

There is also the ultimate version of the metagame i.e. your personal human condition. Blindly pursuing your career or chasing money without understanding the finite duration of your own physical existence, the scale of the universe, where you want to be in terms of life goals and family.

I'm struggling with this as well. Most of the qualities I had as a teenager like passion, drive, tenacity - in general a will to master difficult subject matter like science and technology for the betterment of humanity - let me down in the end. Here I am in my 40s, tired, broke, constantly reevaluating if I even want to do this anymore, and I keep reaching the same conclusion. I just don't know. I'm deeply concerned…

I recognize your situation. Reading the book Factfulness nu Hans Rosling helped me somewhat.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#299

Post by ComputerGuru »

zackmorris wrote: post #272
euix wrote: post #24

There is also the ultimate version of the metagame i.e. your personal human condition. Blindly pursuing your career or chasing money without understanding the finite duration of your own physical existence, the scale of the universe, where you want to be in terms of life goals and family.

I'm struggling with this as well. Most of the qualities I had as a teenager like passion, drive, tenacity - in general a will to master difficult subject matter like science and technology for the betterment of humanity - let me down in the end. Here I am in my 40s, tired, broke, constantly reevaluating if I even want to do this anymore, and I keep reaching the same conclusion. I just don't know. I'm deeply concerned…

> Ok back on track to positivity [...]

I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but going down that rabbit hole is the least positive thing you could have done (ok, I exaggerate but the point stands).

There's a saying in Arabic "if only" is the devil's work - it sometimes appears to be a positive or constructive thing but in reality, you're just digging yourself deeper into a depressing world view.

Don't focus on what could have been done differently: a) you can't do anything about it now, b) things rarely work out the way you'd think they would, so who knows how things could have gone wrong in that scenario.

Focus on the here and now. You seem to care tremendously about sustainability and the environment. Find a company working in battery tech or renewable energy (it doesn't have to be revolutionary, evolutionary improvements matter just as much, if not more so; e.g. improved Li-ion (LiFePO₄ or otherwise) today can save more species than NiFe or whatever batteries tomorrow) and apply. There are not just dozens of such opportunities, there are thousands - but you'll need to go out of your way to find them. Maybe you'll have to move (and move your family with you?) and maybe that's good for you.

Just do it.

Re: To get good, go after the metagame

#300

Post by banannaise »

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.

I've played a lot of four-player Splendor, and went two years and three tournaments without losing a game. One of the lessons from that is this: Even if three players are all jockeying for the expensive cards, it is still a losing strategy for the fourth to try to build an engine.

Good players playing against other good players will often grab one or two cheapies in the midgame to deal with resource scarcity. But you simply cannot win by buying cheap cards, building an engine, and picking up nobles. It's just that much slower.

The metagame in Splendor is more subtle, as you say. It's about clever play interaction and depends heavily on the early-game tableau. Does the tableau strongly favor a single color? Then your choice is to jockey for position on that color, or avoid the resource scarcity and go for weaker and/or less-coordinated cards. Does it have a lot of strong cards? Then it's about finding one or two you can get without someone else tying up your resources. Does it have a lot of weak cards? Then it's about finding ways to gain an upper hand for when the stronger cards come out.

Are players holding a lot of chips? Then you need to avoid getting stuck with a poor "hand" of chips - either a full hand that can't buy anything useful, or an empty hand when the chip supply is weak. Are they hoarding the wilds? That's much like the above, but with even more pitfalls.

Unfortunately, there's a skill ceiling to Splendor, and it's fairly low. Once you approach it, improvement is asymptotic, and the luck element of the game spikes tremendously. These days, I don't really like playing without the expansion. But in good news, the expansion refreshes the game wonderfully.

Post reply on HN