20 ms·

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 in

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.

rifung 7y ago
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.
- Spellman 7y ago
  Perhaps the best use of the meta, as noted in the article, is to help guide you to understanding what are the fundamentals to learn, and they help filter down what fundamentals you need to learn. Zeus is never picked? Great! Don't need to learn that kit. Or perhaps digging into why Zeus isn't picked can help inform why another character is more useful especially in conjunction with others in a team.
Crazometer 7y ago
The assumption I work with is that mmr is a function of both fundamentals and meta. Fundamentals act as the floor, and meta as the ceiling. Team interactions make this all the more interesting - some examples: A player with no understanding of the meta but good fundamentals can easily be directed by their team and have the same output as a high(mmr, meta) player. However, direction will not always be available and this will result in some losses. A team full of players with high meta knowledge but low fundamentals will lose the fundamental game too hard and lose most matches. Also experience the "too many chefs in the kitchen" effect. A team full of players with high fundamentals but poor meta knowledge will perform reasonably well, but be outshined by a more balanced team. The team that won the largest DOTA championship 2 years in a row was clearly one that on balance had medium fundamentals (at a pro level), and outstanding meta.

rifung 7y ago

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.

Spellman 7y ago
Perhaps the best use of the meta, as noted in the article, is to help guide you to understanding what are the fundamentals to learn, and they help filter down what fundamentals you need to learn. Zeus is never picked? Great! Don't need to learn that kit. Or perhaps digging into why Zeus isn't picked can help inform why another character is more useful especially in conjunction with others in a team.

Crazometer 7y ago

The assumption I work with is that mmr is a function of both fundamentals and meta. Fundamentals act as the floor, and meta as the ceiling. Team interactions make this all the more interesting - some examples: A player with no understanding of the meta but good fundamentals can easily be directed by their team and have the same output as a high(mmr, meta) player. However, direction will not always be available and this will result in some losses. A team full of players with high meta knowledge but low fundamentals will lose the fundamental game too hard and lose most matches. Also experience the "too many chefs in the kitchen" effect. A team full of players with high fundamentals but poor meta knowledge will perform reasonably well, but be outshined by a more balanced team. The team that won the largest DOTA championship 2 years in a row was clearly one that on balance had medium fundamentals (at a pro level), and outstanding meta.