7 ms·

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

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 errors as your opponent, then the meta does come into play. Regardless of the raw error rate, where pros make few and amateurs make many, if this rate is similar to your opponent, then it still matters if your opponent has a strategic/meta counter to your strategy.

wongarsu 7y ago
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 same flat as his teammates.
- Proziam 7y ago
  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 as an example), you are approaching that game with a specific strategy in mind. Your chosen strategy should keep the meta in mind but the strategy and the meta are distinct. The meta comes from knowing the various strategies that are effective against other teams/players who utilize the same general pool of strategies. Each strategy in the pool comes about because it works with reasonable reliability against the other strategies in the pool. That's why unexpected plays, 'cheese,' or 'hard-counters' come into play at the strategic level (often saved for specific opponents or situations). The meta is more about knowing what situations you're likely to encounter. You know the meta, then you optimize your strategic approach for your unique situation (such as the skill-set of the various players on your team, specific tendencies of the opponent you're preparing for, or even choosing not to optimize to win your next game to keep a strategy hidden (among other reasons). Ultimately, the strategic evolutions of iterated games is a ridiculously deep and nuanced topic, making it difficult to really get into the meat and potatoes in forums. Maybe I should make a blog post or something, but I don't know how interesting it would be.
  - davmar 7y ago
    I love watching esports but I don't have time to play them. I found your comments really insightful and would love to hear more.
  - __blockcipher__ 7y ago
    > Ultimately, the strategic evolutions of iterated games is a ridiculously deep and nuanced topic, making it difficult to really get into the meat and potatoes in forums. Maybe I should make a blog post or something, but I don't know how interesting it would be. I'm interested, and if you do end up doing so, I would love to give you feedback on it before publishing it, if you want. I played SC2 at a "semi-professional level" (read: good enough to take games/series off of pros, but not good enough to make a living). I find a lot of truth in what you said, and agree that the nuance in strategic evolution of iterated games is super fascinating. I was a young teenager when I played SC2 "seriously", and now that I'm in my early 20's, it really struck me how much more of an advanced mind for strategy I have now. Back in the day, I was a very mechanical player, but also had some really innovative play at times, particular with respect to a "macro aggressive" style (aggressive, but not just going for all-ins). For a short while I received some coaching from my team's coach, and it was incredible how even just an hour of casual coaching drastically improved my understanding of concepts like map control. And mind you, my coach as an actual player was like plat-diamond level (by a pro's standards, total garbage basically), and I always found it fascinating how the best players don't make the best coaches and vice versa.
    - Proziam 7y ago
      I'll think about the topic a bit and see if I can come up with something! If you'd like to give me some feedback we can connect via twitter (@Proziam) and if I can come up with something I'll send it to you for a first pass. [0] Pulse Esports (The organization I founded in 2011/2012) had some great sc2 players, mostly because I was playing starcraft at the time. Running a young org took a lot of time, so I decayed in skill pretty dramatically (down to the diamond/master level). [0] https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Pulse_Esports https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Pulse_Esports
  - deleted 7y ago
csallen 7y ago
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.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
  If you played against grandmasters your fundamentals were likely extremely good relative to most players
  - __blockcipher__ 7y ago
    > 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 could see the fundamental errors that I or my opponents would make. Certainly though, when facing off a player of a similar skill, knowing the meta can be really helpful. Even more important is knowing that specific player's playstyle. When you practice with a certain partner consistently, you start doing things that you would never do against an unknown player, to exploit quirks of their playstyle. The best players had incredible game sense and thus were really good at doing this. (My favorite player for a long time was Stephano, who absolutely excelled at this) -- I'm not sure I had an actual point I was making :P
    - DiabloD3 7y ago
      Good meta helps you capitalize on failures in the execution of fundamentals, and can greatly improve the chance of securing a win.
    - X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
      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 can get. Many StarCraft streamers will do challenges where they only go for a certain, non dominate strategy to see how high they can rise, the one that stuck with me the most was destiny going mass queen. I saw so many people asking "what can counter mass queen" because they saw him winning over and over again. The answer wasn't how should you change your strat to deal with someone going mass queen, they aren't that good, the answer was to be better at macro than that player.
darepublic 7y ago
In chess I can often win with dubious gambits against players of relatively equal skill, but this would not be true in higher levels of play. In this case going 'off-meta' has distinct advantages between opponents of equal but mediocre skill.
neycoda 7y ago
Understanding the metagame implicitly happens from experience and skills. Even if you played simply, you still used your metagame based on your skill and experience with that unit.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jackbravo 7y ago
All this talk about the meta game on war games makes me remember the Ender's Game book, which was heavily based on how Ender was able to adapt quicker than his opponents to new rules and war scenarios. I kind of remember reading that the book was even recommended in the military.

wongarsu 7y ago

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 same flat as his teammates.

Proziam 7y ago
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 as an example), you are approaching that game with a specific strategy in mind. Your chosen strategy should keep the meta in mind but the strategy and the meta are distinct. The meta comes from knowing the various strategies that are effective against other teams/players who utilize the same general pool of strategies. Each strategy in the pool comes about because it works with reasonable reliability against the other strategies in the pool. That's why unexpected plays, 'cheese,' or 'hard-counters' come into play at the strategic level (often saved for specific opponents or situations). The meta is more about knowing what situations you're likely to encounter. You know the meta, then you optimize your strategic approach for your unique situation (such as the skill-set of the various players on your team, specific tendencies of the opponent you're preparing for, or even choosing not to optimize to win your next game to keep a strategy hidden (among other reasons). Ultimately, the strategic evolutions of iterated games is a ridiculously deep and nuanced topic, making it difficult to really get into the meat and potatoes in forums. Maybe I should make a blog post or something, but I don't know how interesting it would be.
- davmar 7y ago
  I love watching esports but I don't have time to play them. I found your comments really insightful and would love to hear more.
- __blockcipher__ 7y ago
  > Ultimately, the strategic evolutions of iterated games is a ridiculously deep and nuanced topic, making it difficult to really get into the meat and potatoes in forums. Maybe I should make a blog post or something, but I don't know how interesting it would be. I'm interested, and if you do end up doing so, I would love to give you feedback on it before publishing it, if you want. I played SC2 at a "semi-professional level" (read: good enough to take games/series off of pros, but not good enough to make a living). I find a lot of truth in what you said, and agree that the nuance in strategic evolution of iterated games is super fascinating. I was a young teenager when I played SC2 "seriously", and now that I'm in my early 20's, it really struck me how much more of an advanced mind for strategy I have now. Back in the day, I was a very mechanical player, but also had some really innovative play at times, particular with respect to a "macro aggressive" style (aggressive, but not just going for all-ins). For a short while I received some coaching from my team's coach, and it was incredible how even just an hour of casual coaching drastically improved my understanding of concepts like map control. And mind you, my coach as an actual player was like plat-diamond level (by a pro's standards, total garbage basically), and I always found it fascinating how the best players don't make the best coaches and vice versa.
  - Proziam 7y ago
    I'll think about the topic a bit and see if I can come up with something! If you'd like to give me some feedback we can connect via twitter (@Proziam) and if I can come up with something I'll send it to you for a first pass. [0] Pulse Esports (The organization I founded in 2011/2012) had some great sc2 players, mostly because I was playing starcraft at the time. Running a young org took a lot of time, so I decayed in skill pretty dramatically (down to the diamond/master level). [0] https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Pulse_Esports https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Pulse_Esports
- deleted 7y ago

csallen 7y ago

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.

X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
If you played against grandmasters your fundamentals were likely extremely good relative to most players
- __blockcipher__ 7y ago
  > 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 could see the fundamental errors that I or my opponents would make. Certainly though, when facing off a player of a similar skill, knowing the meta can be really helpful. Even more important is knowing that specific player's playstyle. When you practice with a certain partner consistently, you start doing things that you would never do against an unknown player, to exploit quirks of their playstyle. The best players had incredible game sense and thus were really good at doing this. (My favorite player for a long time was Stephano, who absolutely excelled at this) -- I'm not sure I had an actual point I was making :P
  - DiabloD3 7y ago
    Good meta helps you capitalize on failures in the execution of fundamentals, and can greatly improve the chance of securing a win.
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
    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 can get. Many StarCraft streamers will do challenges where they only go for a certain, non dominate strategy to see how high they can rise, the one that stuck with me the most was destiny going mass queen. I saw so many people asking "what can counter mass queen" because they saw him winning over and over again. The answer wasn't how should you change your strat to deal with someone going mass queen, they aren't that good, the answer was to be better at macro than that player.

darepublic 7y ago

In chess I can often win with dubious gambits against players of relatively equal skill, but this would not be true in higher levels of play. In this case going 'off-meta' has distinct advantages between opponents of equal but mediocre skill.

neycoda 7y ago

Understanding the metagame implicitly happens from experience and skills. Even if you played simply, you still used your metagame based on your skill and experience with that unit.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jackbravo 7y ago

All this talk about the meta game on war games makes me remember the Ender's Game book, which was heavily based on how Ender was able to adapt quicker than his opponents to new rules and war scenarios. I kind of remember reading that the book was even recommended in the military.