the word METAGAME - Page 3

On June 11 2010 05:11 Chill wrote:

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.

On June 11 2010 05:14 avilo wrote:




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.

On June 11 2010 05:17 motbob wrote:

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 05:20 Chill wrote:

Your final definition shows you do not understand what the metagame is. You look at it like a summary of strategy, which it decidedly is not. Unless you are actually implying that you can have knowledge of what things a player will do outside of the game (like bumping the table while you're playing poker to annoy you) and counter it? O_O;;;;;;;

Please stop referencing gamesmanship. It is pushing the rules to the limit. Metagaming is outside of the rules. There is no overlap and what I am talking about isn't within the rules of the game.

On June 11 2010 05:29 avilo wrote:


I am not the one missing the definition here. Metagame is not a summary of strategy.

Metagame is the theoretical best way to play the game at a given point in time in that gaming community. And that always changes as the game evolves and as playes evolve.

On June 11 2010 05:27 DragoonPK wrote:
So chill did I understand this correctly, is meta game an outside force that influences the game in whatever form?

Example of metagaming: Insulting your opponent's wife, mother, family, etc. to affect their mental state while playing a game.

Example of non-metagaming: Often times, using vastly inferior units can affect an opponent's mental state; however, that insult is done within the ruleset of the game.

Example of metagaming: You cause laggy conditions which are favourable to your playstyle.

Example of non-metagaming: Using a unit composition that is agreed upon as being overpowered. Because the unit statistics are within the ruleset, it is not metagaming.

Example of non-metagaming: A player luckily scouts his opponent early and guesses from his buildings that he is making a large amount of X. From this he makes the decision to build only the direct counter to X. This isn't metagaming because all decisions and information were from within the game.

Example of metagaming: A game crashes. Citing information from previous instances, you are able to convince the administrator to rule in your favour.

On June 11 2010 05:32 Failsafe wrote:
This OP is tilting the hell out of me. I'll assume it's an example of metagame being used properly, and is in fact a level designed to tilt everyone who knows what metagame is. Otherwise I have no idea what to say. I'll explain some instances of why the OP is wrong.



This is a bad way to kick off your discussion. Talk about metagame that is directly related to the game [SCBW / SC2]. I understand that you're trying to emphasize metagame as being outside the game, but that's a ridiculously vague criterion. If I come to your house and kill you, that's as much a part of the metagame as insulting your relatives (albeit murder is usually illegal).



This is completely wrong. Deliberately using units that your opponent perceives as weak in order to put your opponent on tilt is an excellent example metagame. You're doing something in game to affect your opponent outside of the game. Anything designed to affect your opponent (the person) rather than his in-game units is the metagame. Using Jigglypuff in Super Smash Brothers and then constantly using its annoying taunt is the pinnacle of metagame.



It is possible to metagame without being a douchebag or becoming a cheater. It would be nice if the first examples in your post displayed clean metagame without implying that it was necessary to be a tool in order to metagame.



Nope. The units' stats are not the metagame, but if you deliberately use units that your opponent perceives to be overpowered (a la Carriers or 12 Nexus; hi Artosis) then that is most definitely metagame. Distinction: using the units is not the metagame -- using the units to affect your opponent is the metagame.



This is not necessarily true. There's always the opportunity for your opponent to deviate from an apparently obvious strategy that you've uncovered. Recognizing that he will or won't deviate is part of the metagame. If you're blindly countering him (a feature SC2 encourages) then it's not metagame, but you can't say there's no metagame involved in counters.



Similar to my first explanations. The metagame [of sc2] should mainly be focused on in-game actions used to affect your opponent's decisions. Or the formation of your beliefs about what your opponent will do. Pretty much any thinking you do about what your opponent is thinking is the metagame. Metagame does not all take place outside of the game.

On June 11 2010 05:35 Failsafe wrote:
The best definition of metagame is

Metagame: Playing your opponent.

When you say something like "playing the game outside the game" you omit the fact that you can play the game outside the game from within the game.

On June 11 2010 05:36 Strayline wrote:
So what should we call what we are now calling the metagame?

I mean, the evolution of standard or expected play clearly happens and people have been happily calling this the "metagame." I suppose we could say "Well Dan, the standard game in ZvP has evolved a lot over the past year as have the other matchups" but I think there is a need to convey "expected gameflow" in a cool-sounding word that commentators can throw out there without thinking...

Also, I think your third example is where the confusion comes from. I do see the distinction but sometimes it's hard to unwind what falls out of the in-game rule set and what comes from outside.

For example, I think the fact that so many D level iCCUP games follow the korean pro-gamer "standard game" has more to do with stuff going on outside of the game (watching proleague) than what is the most effective in-game at that level of play. I would be interested to hear what you think about that example...

On June 11 2010 05:27 DragoonPK wrote:
So chill did I understand this correctly, is meta game an outside force that influences the game in whatever form?

On June 11 2010 05:40 Simplistik wrote:

No, an earthquake which kills your opponent in the middle of the game, causing you to win, is not part of the "meta game".

On June 11 2010 05:44 Chill wrote:

I think it's fairly obvious that you have to be the source of the force if you are playing the metagame.

If you caused the earthquake, it would, although a terrible example, be playing the metagame.

On June 11 2010 05:37 Chill wrote:

Now we're entering a territory where mindgames and metagame overlap that I don't agree with, unless you want to make the argument that mindgames are a subset of the metagame.