4 ms·

When I read stories like this I always wonder how much of this is groupthink. Speaking as someone who has played a ton of different, complex games over many yea

by cletus 5y ago

When I read stories like this I always wonder how much of this is groupthink. Speaking as someone who has played a ton of different, complex games over many years, groupthink can be really pervasive and often explains why someone swears a particular strategy is dominant. I don’t play Risk so can’t speak this specific example. I suspect if you took your strategy elsewhere your get far more boxed results however.

sdenton4 5y ago
In the ever evolving online game world (eg, hearthstone), group think is basically 'the meta.' Lots of people get the same common advice, or learn a new trick, so suddenly it becomes advantageous to use strategies which defend against the trick or take advantage of some weakness which opens up due to a trade-off... And then repeat. Afaict, being really good at these games requires a good grasp of the fundamentals, knowing the game itself inside and out, and also having really up to date knowledge of the current meta. The same phenomenon happens with Diplomacy (board game) as well... Probably any sufficiently complex game with a community ends up with a meta.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  When a game is "evolving" in the sense that the rules (or some element of the game which in effect alters the rules, such as player classes or unit compositions and their statistics) are changed periodically, the meta can influence that, mostly in an unfortunate way. If the general perception is that Bears are too powerful while Geese aren't powerful enough, developers may subsequently alter the game to reduce the power of a Bear's attack, or allow Geese to fly further. These are often called "balance tweaks" but it's almost unavoidable that they'll focus on the meta, rather than addressing a proven flaw in the game itself because most of these games aren't subject to any theoretical underpinning. As a result the meta may change even as the game itself is being changed as a result of influence from the meta. If you announce on Tuesday that from next weekend the overpowered Bear gets reduced damage, and then on Wednesday a renowned player demonstrates that (with the existing damage) Bears are easily overcome by a previously unseen strategy using Geese, the developers look foolish. Cue outcry when the damage reduction takes effect on schedule while at the same time players who favour Bears are now being swarmed by Goose players who've learned the new strategy. If they stop balance patching the game obviously there's a risk that a degenerate strategy is discovered. Perhaps Bears are in fact just so good that Geese always lose against equally skilled players, and people lose interest in the game. But it's also possible that the meta continues to evolve, Bears dominate Geese, then with a new style of play Geese are destroying Bears, and later the Bears are back on top, even though the rules never changed. This is the case with Chess for example, styles wax and wave in popularity as top players show off one way or another way to play the game and win. StarCraft: Brood War (by now a very old game) is still played competitively although its meta doesn't evolve as quickly as it did twenty years ago.
  - LudwigNagasena 5y ago
    > If the general perception is that Bears are too powerful while Geese aren't powerful enough, developers may subsequently alter the game to reduce the power of a Bear's attack, or allow Geese to fly further. These are often called "balance tweaks" but it's almost unavoidable that they'll focus on the meta, rather than addressing a proven flaw in the game itself because most of these games aren't subject to any theoretical underpinning. This is easily solved with data analysis of actual games. The only problem is if there are strategies and play styles that weren’t discovered by players.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      This only happens for games that are popular online (or for games that are just wildly popular, like Chess.)
paulluuk 5y ago
Well I've played hundreds of games of Risk, against many different people IRL and also a lot online. IRL you'll see that people tend to be "nice", don't want to push you too far. And they're also willing to accept deals like "hey, you want to agree that neither of us ever crosses this border here?" rules, because there's a good chance that you'll play again together, so being trustworthy pays off. Online, the game is played very differently, and it's all about maximizing the results of every single turn, and completely ignoring any metagame or personalities. You might as well be playing against bots. I tend to do a bit better offline, because I'm a bit of a charmer and people want to make deals with me. But online, I feel like I can try many more strategies without worrying about people thinking I'm "mean" afterwards.

by cletus 5y ago

sdenton4 5y ago

In the ever evolving online game world (eg, hearthstone), group think is basically 'the meta.' Lots of people get the same common advice, or learn a new trick, so suddenly it becomes advantageous to use strategies which defend against the trick or take advantage of some weakness which opens up due to a trade-off... And then repeat. Afaict, being really good at these games requires a good grasp of the fundamentals, knowing the game itself inside and out, and also having really up to date knowledge of the current meta. The same phenomenon happens with Diplomacy (board game) as well... Probably any sufficiently complex game with a community ends up with a meta.

tialaramex 5y ago
When a game is "evolving" in the sense that the rules (or some element of the game which in effect alters the rules, such as player classes or unit compositions and their statistics) are changed periodically, the meta can influence that, mostly in an unfortunate way. If the general perception is that Bears are too powerful while Geese aren't powerful enough, developers may subsequently alter the game to reduce the power of a Bear's attack, or allow Geese to fly further. These are often called "balance tweaks" but it's almost unavoidable that they'll focus on the meta, rather than addressing a proven flaw in the game itself because most of these games aren't subject to any theoretical underpinning. As a result the meta may change even as the game itself is being changed as a result of influence from the meta. If you announce on Tuesday that from next weekend the overpowered Bear gets reduced damage, and then on Wednesday a renowned player demonstrates that (with the existing damage) Bears are easily overcome by a previously unseen strategy using Geese, the developers look foolish. Cue outcry when the damage reduction takes effect on schedule while at the same time players who favour Bears are now being swarmed by Goose players who've learned the new strategy. If they stop balance patching the game obviously there's a risk that a degenerate strategy is discovered. Perhaps Bears are in fact just so good that Geese always lose against equally skilled players, and people lose interest in the game. But it's also possible that the meta continues to evolve, Bears dominate Geese, then with a new style of play Geese are destroying Bears, and later the Bears are back on top, even though the rules never changed. This is the case with Chess for example, styles wax and wave in popularity as top players show off one way or another way to play the game and win. StarCraft: Brood War (by now a very old game) is still played competitively although its meta doesn't evolve as quickly as it did twenty years ago.
- LudwigNagasena 5y ago
  > If the general perception is that Bears are too powerful while Geese aren't powerful enough, developers may subsequently alter the game to reduce the power of a Bear's attack, or allow Geese to fly further. These are often called "balance tweaks" but it's almost unavoidable that they'll focus on the meta, rather than addressing a proven flaw in the game itself because most of these games aren't subject to any theoretical underpinning. This is easily solved with data analysis of actual games. The only problem is if there are strategies and play styles that weren’t discovered by players.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    This only happens for games that are popular online (or for games that are just wildly popular, like Chess.)

paulluuk 5y ago

Well I've played hundreds of games of Risk, against many different people IRL and also a lot online. IRL you'll see that people tend to be "nice", don't want to push you too far. And they're also willing to accept deals like "hey, you want to agree that neither of us ever crosses this border here?" rules, because there's a good chance that you'll play again together, so being trustworthy pays off. Online, the game is played very differently, and it's all about maximizing the results of every single turn, and completely ignoring any metagame or personalities. You might as well be playing against bots. I tend to do a bit better offline, because I'm a bit of a charmer and people want to make deals with me. But online, I feel like I can try many more strategies without worrying about people thinking I'm "mean" afterwards.