|
On June 11 2010 04:56 DragoonPK wrote:
So is metagame an outside force not within the game itself which effects it?
Nope  things like that are usually gamesmanship or other types of things. Yanking an internet cord or causing unbearable lag to "fit your play style" are not forms of "metagaming."
They are forms of "gamesmanship." Which is borderline cheating. Mainly, it is unsportsmanlike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship
|
Example of metagaming: A game crashes. Citing information from previous instances, you are able to convince the administrator to rule in your favour.
I don't think I'd call that meta-game. It's a little too separated from the events. Most of your other examples are okay, I guess.
When I think of meta-game, I just think of JulyZerg. That's pretty much foolproof.
|
On June 11 2010 04:51 Senx wrote:
The metagame discussion makes me wanna puke. Its so disgusting in every way possible.
Wrong. The metagame discussion is virtually the only discussion worth having. It's true that almost no one who posts in the SC2 forums (or the BW strategy forums) understands the term much less the game well enough to meaningfully contribute to the discussion, but don't blame the metagame
|
On June 11 2010 05:04 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +Example of metagaming: A game crashes. Citing information from previous instances, you are able to convince the administrator to rule in your favour. I don't think I'd call that meta-game. It's a little too separated from the events. Most of your other examples are okay, I guess. When I think of meta-game, I just think of JulyZerg. That's pretty much foolproof.
Some of the examples in the OP are examples of gamesmanship.
|
Calgary26004 Posts
Avilo I can't even comment on your criticism because I can't understand it and it's buried in a giant quote.
If you accept that someone can "be gaming" then surely you can accept someone can "be metagaming."
How is citing an article "gamesmanship" accomplishing anything? Gamesmanship is defined as "Pushing the rules to the limit", while my examples are not even contained within the rules.
|
On June 11 2010 04:56 DragoonPK wrote:
So is metagame an outside force not within the game itself which effects it?
metagame is a retarded word with no solid meaning whatsoever. I played and discussed so much bw for well over 10 years and only came across this abomination of a word last year from a noob while trying to explain him a couple of basic ideas. Ever since this word has been haunting everyone's minds and discussions all over the place. I don't know who is responsible for it, but he should be hanged in public view.
JUST DO NOT USE THIS WORD!!
|
Example of metagaming: Players all agree that unit A is too strong. Many players are winning games by only making A. To react, opponents have been rushing for unit B, which is a counter to A. Knowing this, a player has developed a build which is weak against everything but a rush to B.
Why is this metagaming? The rules state the statistics of the units; however, they make no comment on which are overpowered or what should be the standard strategy. By taking information from outside the game, this player is affecting the outcome of the game with information from outside of the ruleset.
By your own definition, metagame can still mean the "standard strategy" because it directly influences the metagame of each and every game played by directly influencing decision making each and every player makes from start to finish from "information outside of the game". People are just not using to refer to a specific game.
|
Austin10833 Posts
On June 11 2010 04:59 UmmTheHobo wrote:
Technically couldn't a pre-planned strategy be considered part of the "metagame"?
But then why not just call it strategy.
The concept of a pre-planned strategy, and motivation for why it's pre-planned, could be considered part of the metagame, but the particular or specific strategy is immaterial and not part of the metagame.
|
Calgary26004 Posts
On June 11 2010 05:04 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +Example of metagaming: A game crashes. Citing information from previous instances, you are able to convince the administrator to rule in your favour. I don't think I'd call that meta-game. It's a little too separated from the events. Most of your other examples are okay, I guess. When I think of meta-game, I just think of JulyZerg. That's pretty much foolproof.
That's fair to say that the disconnect is too great; the point I was trying to make is that you can get more favorable conditions (through admins) by playing the metagame. The example I chose is not the best example of that.
|
United States24805 Posts
I think this is the symptom of a bigger problem you touched upon that most people don't understand what meta means.
Still I got a bit confused when you accused me of metatrolling...
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
EDIT: whoops i totally misunderstood your OP! never mind, effort wasted.
|
Calgary26004 Posts
On June 11 2010 05:08 PokePill wrote:Show nested quote +Example of metagaming: Players all agree that unit A is too strong. Many players are winning games by only making A. To react, opponents have been rushing for unit B, which is a counter to A. Knowing this, a player has developed a build which is weak against everything but a rush to B.
Why is this metagaming? The rules state the statistics of the units; however, they make no comment on which are overpowered or what should be the standard strategy. By taking information from outside the game, this player is affecting the outcome of the game with information from outside of the ruleset. By your own definition, metagame can still mean the "standard strategy" because it directly influences the metagame of each and every game played by directly influencing decision making each and every player makes from start to finish from "information outside of the game". People are just not using to refer to a specific game.
No, actually it can't. I can't fathom how you arrived at this conclusion. Playing the metagame would be studying replays of a player, seeing what they do, and then making a strategy based on that. That has nothing to do with the standard strategy or that player's standard strategy being called the metagame.
|
Calgary26004 Posts
On June 11 2010 05:11 motbob wrote:
EDIT: whoops i totally misunderstood your OP! never mind, effort wasted.
Okay
I don't get how people keep saying I contradicted myself.
Hard-countering an expected strategy based only on the expectation that it is coming is part of playing the metagame.
That does not imply that the expected strategy then somehow gets the label "metagame".
|
I think if there really is an actual meaning to this word it's closer to what Nony describes here more than anything else
|
mindgames are really metagames
it also really irritates me for some reason when people underline words or bold them for meaning, especially when they're inconsistent
|
On June 11 2010 05:07 Chill wrote:
Avilo I can't even comment on your criticism because I can't understand it and it's buried in a giant quote.
If you accept that someone can "be gaming" then surely you can accept someone can "be metagaming."
How is citing an article "gamesmanship" accomplishing anything? Gamesmanship is defined as "Pushing the rules to the limit", while my examples are not even contained within the rules.
On June 11 2010 05:07 Chill wrote:
Avilo I can't even comment on your criticism because I can't understand it and it's buried in a giant quote.
If you accept that someone can "be gaming" then surely you can accept someone can "be metagaming."
How is citing an article "gamesmanship" accomplishing anything? Gamesmanship is defined as "Pushing the rules to the limit", while my examples are not even contained within the rules.
Here is what was buried in the quotes:
you talk about insulting opponent's wife:
eh...this is not an example of "metagaming" (btw, saying "metagaming" is an incorrect use as well, you can't "metagame" someone, nor can you be "metagaming." You can be playing the game though.
Insulting your opponent's wife, etc. to mess up their mental state like that...it's called gamesmanship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship
You talk about lagging the game purposely to fit a player's playstyle to gain an advantage:
same here. another incorrect definition. Probably because you are confused about the definition yourself. But this is also a form of gamesmanship. Or you can even take it to the extreme and call it cheating, but really it is just gamesmanship.
metagame has to do with the gameplay and theoretical gameplay based off of inferences on current popular trends at top level within the game community, not things that occur outside the game. Doing something to cause lag or make internet drop has nothing to do with the concept of metagame, it does have to do with being unethical though or no morals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship
Here you talk about countering strat a with strat b, etc, this is where you were spot on:
[b]
This is where you get back on track. Knowledge of changing game states does have to do with "metagame," as the theoretical best way to play the game always changes depending on what the best players are currently doing and what those trends are.
still, you can't "metagame" something. You can "know the metagame" though.
You talked about a lan situation where the game dropped or disced and a player is trying to convince a ref to give them the win based off of what happened during the game:
[b]This is an example of making inferences based off of what the current metagame is to get a decision in your favor, by knowing the likilihood of the results of the game based off of current trends in the "metagame". In itself though, this is not "metagaming" (once again, you can't "metagame" something).
that's what I had in the quotes for ya.
I cited the gamesmanship definition because you are mis-using the definition of metagame in many places where you are actually showing situations demonstrating gamesmanship by a player of the game they are playing.
And no, you cannot "metagame" something because "metagame" is a concept, not the actual game that a person is playing.
Nony can be playing a game using his knowledge of the metagame to know what his opponent will be most likely to do, and then execute a build he think will net him an advantage, I guess this is just semantics, I say "use knowledge of the metagame," you just shorten it to "metagaming."
 I personally don't like to say someone "metagamed" something because metagame is not something physical that you do to something lol. You can have knowledge of what the current metagame is though...but it always changes.
|
Calgary26004 Posts
On June 11 2010 05:14 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:I think if there really is an actual meaning to this word it's closer to what Nony describes here more than anything else
Great because our definitions completely overlap.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On June 11 2010 05:13 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 05:11 motbob wrote:
EDIT: whoops i totally misunderstood your OP! never mind, effort wasted. Okay I don't get how people keep saying I contradicted myself. Hard-countering an expected strategy based only on the expectation that it is coming is part of playing the metagame. That does not imply that the expected strategy then somehow gets the label "metagame".
This is what I got confused about, I think. Say every zerg 4 pools every game, but your upcoming opponent in a tournament 3 hatch mutas every game. IMO make it more clear in your OP that 8 raxing and bunkering in-base because the opposing player is zerg is not metagaming, but that going 1 rax cc because your opponent is who he is IS metagaming.
EDIT: unless 8 raxing and bunkering in-base because the opposing player is zerg IS metagaming under your definition, in which case i need to make a post about why your definition contradicts itself.
|
On June 11 2010 05:10 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 05:04 Chef wrote:Example of metagaming: A game crashes. Citing information from previous instances, you are able to convince the administrator to rule in your favour. I don't think I'd call that meta-game. It's a little too separated from the events. Most of your other examples are okay, I guess. When I think of meta-game, I just think of JulyZerg. That's pretty much foolproof. That's fair to say that the disconnect is too great; the point I was trying to make is that you can get more favorable conditions (through admins) by playing the metagame. The example I chose is not the best example of that.
Right. I just think a line needs to be drawn at what is too far removed. For example:
I'd call it meta-game if a player knows his opponent has just had a family incident and will probably not be able to react as calmly to cheese (thus he focuses on cheese strategies).
I wouldn't call it meta-game to cause that family incident in the first place. I'd call it something like sabotage, even if it were done with the coming games in mind.
I would call lobby banter meta-game, because it is still within the realm of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
