3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoI'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[deleted]