|
On June 11 2010 08:51 alexpnd wrote:
To me meta-game can mean two things:
1) Meta-game Strategy: Human strategy, beyond the hardcoded possibilities of the game itself. This is something like Nony was describing in his post, on choosing particular builds considering the psychological state of the opponent, even if technically it may be unsound considering a different (moderate) psychological state. eg. Exacerbate the opponent through chat, "dirty play", etc.
2) Meta-game tactics: Using the game in ways not designed. A marine was design to kill something. A supply depot to have supply (at least in SC1). When a supply depot is used to wall off enemies I consider it a meta game tactic.
I just imagined green humanoid with long teeth and spiky ears.
Muta stacking is another classic tactic that I consider meta-game.
That's abusing game's engine.
Gas steal, etc.
Cheesing.
No one has to agree with me, but this is the way I see it.
No one will understamd what you post too, in my opinion.
|
Good thread. I think Chill's main point is that metagame != standard strategy. I found this wikipedia example to be the most helpful towards understanding the relationship between metagame and standard play:
There is a special set of moves in chess which allows a player to win in four moves. Competitor A has been watching Competitor B play chess, and the past five games in a row Competitor B has attempted to use this four-move win. When Competitor A sits down to play against Competitor B, Competitor A will be metagaming if he/she plays in a way that will easily thwart the four-move checkmate before Competitor B makes it obvious that this is what he/she is doing. A more complex version of this was used by Derren Brown in episode 4 of "Trick of the Mind", where he simultaneously 'beat' a selection of grand masters by acting as a proxy, playing them against each other.
The adjustment player A makes represents a player's strategic knowledge about their opponents expected build (4 move checkmate). Where everyone gets confused is that most players just copy what they see high level players doing in replays. Often this means low level players are copying the metagaming of high level players without knowing what is really going on. It is then not surprising that players think the metagame is standard play.
|
So educational :D
Actually I had no idea what metagame was O_O
Just avoided sounding like a stupid idiot by not saying the word
|
On June 11 2010 09:04 Chill wrote:
It's a compound word from two defined words, meaning the definition is clear.
Edit: Excuse me, a prefix and a word. The word "nervous" (word+sufix) used to only mean "sinewy" or "containing nerves," yet the newer usage of the word "nervous" is much more common. So the definition doesn't necessarily have to be clear just because the two words are defined seperately.
Yet even following "meta"s strict meaning of "after", "beyond", "with", "adjacent", "self" I don't see how the OP's "wrong" example of is actually wrong:
Oov was, until now, the player with greatest win percentage ever. And his active manipulations of the metagame brought an entirely new dynamic to Starcraft.
Metagame could mean "beyond"+game in that context. So "that which is beyond the game" to make it a noun.
"Oov was, until now, the player with greatest win percentage ever. And with his active manipulations of what is beyond the game he brought an entirely new dynamic to Starcraft."
That sentence is describing what Oov manipulated beyond just the context of the game itself. Basically, it is saying, doing X was popular, Oov was the first to do Y because it was effective against X, now Y is the most popular. The popularization of Y due to Oov could bring a "new dynamic to Starcraft."
|
On June 11 2010 09:08 beetlelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 08:51 alexpnd wrote:
To me meta-game can mean two things:
1) Meta-game Strategy: Human strategy, beyond the hardcoded possibilities of the game itself. This is something like Nony was describing in his post, on choosing particular builds considering the psychological state of the opponent, even if technically it may be unsound considering a different (moderate) psychological state. eg. Exacerbate the opponent through chat, "dirty play", etc.
2) Meta-game tactics: Using the game in ways not designed. A marine was design to kill something. A supply depot to have supply (at least in SC1). When a supply depot is used to wall off enemies I consider it a meta game tactic. I just imagined green humanoid with long teeth and spiky ears. That's abusing game's engine. Cheesing. No one will understamd what you post too, in my opinion.
it's for people like this that this thread needed to be created!
It's like oh im just going to apply random events to some concept and that's how i want to use the word i dont care if you agree with me, i dont get how people can go through life being so ignorant about something in which they are so obviously wrong.
I mean you understood it for the very first example why did a good thing have to be ruined 
(here im obviously talking to the original quote not the quoter)
|
On June 11 2010 10:26 Divinek wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 09:08 beetlelisk wrote:On June 11 2010 08:51 alexpnd wrote:
To me meta-game can mean two things:
1) Meta-game Strategy: Human strategy, beyond the hardcoded possibilities of the game itself. This is something like Nony was describing in his post, on choosing particular builds considering the psychological state of the opponent, even if technically it may be unsound considering a different (moderate) psychological state. eg. Exacerbate the opponent through chat, "dirty play", etc.
2) Meta-game tactics: Using the game in ways not designed. A marine was design to kill something. A supply depot to have supply (at least in SC1). When a supply depot is used to wall off enemies I consider it a meta game tactic. I just imagined green humanoid with long teeth and spiky ears. Muta stacking is another classic tactic that I consider meta-game. That's abusing game's engine. Gas steal, etc. Cheesing. No one has to agree with me, but this is the way I see it. No one will understamd what you post too, in my opinion. it's for people like this that this thread needed to be created! It's like oh im just going to apply random events to some concept and that's how i want to use the word i dont care if you agree with me, i dont get how people can go through life being so ignorant about something in which they are so obviously wrong. I mean you understood it for the very first example why did a good thing have to be ruined (here im obviously talking to the original quote not the quoter)
Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame
What is the prescribed ruleset? Physical game limitations only? Where does it stop. Notice how it says "supposed limits". These limits may be different for you and I.The OP gives examples such as, creating laggy conditions, verbal abuse etc. Makes sense. I believe that the meta-game concept only works if there is a goal attached however, a reason for meta-game, which then I can assume is to win the SC2 match. Again it's logical for me to say, you won't agree with me, because the lack of necessity for understanding the definition of meta-game gives everyone elbow room to define their own understanding. I hope this resonates with someone.
|
I never really cared to argue the semantics of the term Metagame as it related to Starcraft or video games in general.
What I would like to see however is people just plain use the word less. Every other sentence in some of the casts we have now contain the word "metagame" for really no reason. Just to say the word like it instantly makes you knowledgeable about Starcraft.
I will also take this moment to coin the phrase Gretorping for the act of latching onto a word and overusing it
|
I studied game theory in math, where for each player, various strategies are available, and where obviously some strategies would counter some opponents strategies, and some others would be countered. Most of the time you can find an equilibrium (the famous Nash equilibrium), that defines how to mix your strategies to be the most efficient as possible (pool 5 once in a while can be great, but if you pool 5 everygame it clearly sucks. on a side note, only horang2 can cheese every pvp and still win haha. his last in base proxy gate was briliant). The equilibrium for a PvP could be 10% of the games fast dt, 30% 1gate FE, 10% proxy 2 gates, and 40% 2 gates reaver, and 10% 4gates goon all-in (just an example) Because each of these strategies can counter each other, but some are more viable, that's why they have 40%. But if you ALWAYS use the same strategy, even if its viable, the opponent will choose the best counter. To make it simple, we often have A > B > C > D > A, if you always choose C, your opponent will choose B. So if recently you used C a lot, it would be smart to use A.
This is what I could call the metagame. It's not very easy to explain, I think some people here who have studied game theory, or even poker players know exactly what I am talking about.
For example, in PvZ, the "Nony build" (FE 2 gates zeal push then double stargate), would not be viable during the period every zerg would 2 hatch mutad since you dont cannon much with this build, and your stargates are built too late to defend 2 hatch mutas. But because it was during a period a lost of zergs would go 3 hatch spire into 5 hatch hydra, this made Nony's build extremely powerful.
I would call it metagame, since this strategy is not the most efficient PvZ, but is very powerful, within the context it was used.
Yeah playing according the context could be a good way to summarize what I call metagame, and here what I call context is the period that covered at least the last few months. Effort made great ZvT games with 3hatch before pool. Everyone would have found it totally retarded if we were in 2001. What I mean is a lot of people who hate the word metagame, would just say it was adaptation according to the opponent, but in my opinion it is not, it is adaption to the last 6 months in its entirety.
Edit :I totally disagree with OP defining metagame as using bugs, or lag, or insults. I mean it could be semantially correct, but when we talk about Starcraft, the metagame we are talking about is a lot more like the metagame in chess or poker.
|
The word metagame in competitive video games actually has two meanings that are very close to one another which can sometimes be confusing if you don't know the history.
The first is "the game within the game" which is predicting what your opponent might do based on the current most popular strategies and preparing for it beforehand in order to gain an advantage. It was first concieved as a play on the word metadata and its definition of "data about data." 
The second is a portmanteau of the words "metamorphisis" and "game" used to describe how the state of the game is currently changing with respect to how it is being played.
|
So, it's my understanding that there are currently two definitions/meanings of the term metagame. One being that it's "the current standart strategy" and the other one is "to use out of game resources to get an ingame advantage". The second one being the original definition.
There are some things that fit the second definition. Them being:
- mind games (some not all)
- cheating
- studing build A to create a build B to counter build A
For example if you try ro distract your opponent via chat, so he doesn't focus on the game that much and you can get an advantage. Is playing the metagame.
If you use a maphack you get an advantage.
If you create a build countering a build which is used 80% of the time in ladder (anti-Maurader/Roach in the early beta days), you get an advantage.
You get these advantages ingame, from things not existing there normaly. Therefore this is the metagame. Also this should show that the metagame does not change, it's just the strategys that change due to things like the metagame.
But because there is such a huge discussion about the term metagame we should just avoid this word.
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
Smart move taking this nick so nobody else could. Nice blog 
|
Perfect OP Chill.
The use of metagame for "current standart strategy" seems to me like these abominations internet has created over these years. It became so poorly used by the masses that the poor use try to be the right use.
"Say a lie enough and it will become the truth"
|
yeah ive been reading these forums for a while now and its always annoyed me whenever i saw metagame used in that way... i really dont understand why people use the word 'metagame' when they could just use the word 'game' and still have pretty much the exact same meaning
|
On June 11 2010 12:22 endy wrote:
I studied game theory in math, where for each player, various strategies are available, and where obviously some strategies would counter some opponents strategies, and some others would be countered. Most of the time you can find an equilibrium (the famous Nash equilibrium), that defines how to mix your strategies to be the most efficient as possible (pool 5 once in a while can be great, but if you pool 5 everygame it clearly sucks. on a side note, only horang2 can cheese every pvp and still win haha. his last in base proxy gate was briliant). The equilibrium for a PvP could be 10% of the games fast dt, 30% 1gate FE, 10% proxy 2 gates, and 40% 2 gates reaver, and 10% 4gates goon all-in (just an example) Because each of these strategies can counter each other, but some are more viable, that's why they have 40%. But if you ALWAYS use the same strategy, even if its viable, the opponent will choose the best counter. To make it simple, we often have A > B > C > D > A, if you always choose C, your opponent will choose B. So if recently you used C a lot, it would be smart to use A.
This is what I could call the metagame. It's not very easy to explain, I think some people here who have studied game theory, or even poker players know exactly what I am talking about.
For example, in PvZ, the "Nony build" (FE 2 gates zeal push then double stargate), would not be viable during the period every zerg would 2 hatch mutad since you dont cannon much with this build, and your stargates are built too late to defend 2 hatch mutas. But because it was during a period a lost of zergs would go 3 hatch spire into 5 hatch hydra, this made Nony's build extremely powerful.
I would call it metagame, since this strategy is not the most efficient PvZ, but is very powerful, within the context it was used.
Yeah playing according the context could be a good way to summarize what I call metagame, and here what I call context is the period that covered at least the last few months. Effort made great ZvT games with 3hatch before pool. Everyone would have found it totally retarded if we were in 2001. What I mean is a lot of people who hate the word metagame, would just say it was adaptation according to the opponent, but in my opinion it is not, it is adaption to the last 6 months in its entirety.
Edit :I totally disagree with OP defining metagame as using bugs, or lag, or insults. I mean it could be semantially correct, but when we talk about Starcraft, the metagame we are talking about is a lot more like the metagame in chess or poker.
I've never heard it used for bugs,lag, or insults in RTS before now that you mention it.
You're spot on about defining the metagame in terms of game theory; this is the most appropriate context for Starcraft and I've always used it in this context (as have many others i.e. Tasteless). I think Chill is trying to clamp down on those who equate the metagame with standard play. Sure there is a relationship between the two (your post summarizes this more or less) but they're not the same thing.
|
Speaking of words' definitions, this thread is the definition of the irony. We have people, who use word macro to describe process of microing your base, complaining about misuse of some term ;PPP
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9934 Posts
On June 11 2010 19:44 InRaged wrote:
Speaking of words' definitions, this thread is the definition of the irony. We have people, who use word macro to describe process of microing your base, complaining about misuse of some term ;PPP
microing your base = ?
|
If I am playing BO5 and I use same same strategy for the first 4 game, then i change my strategy in the last game. Would that call i use metagame?
|
On June 11 2010 19:44 InRaged wrote:
Speaking of words' definitions, this thread is the definition of the irony. We have people, who use word macro to describe process of microing your base, complaining about misuse of some term ;PPP
Yeah you're gonna have to explain what you think is 'microing your base' and why it's not correct to refer to that as macro so that we can fully appreciate this lesson in irony
|
On June 11 2010 09:04 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 08:57 Shatter wrote:On June 11 2010 08:38 Chill wrote:On June 11 2010 08:19 Shatter wrote:
If wikipedia is your only citation for the definition of metagame... It's not a real word so what else would you like me to cite outside of the etymology? So my friends and I start using the word "xyz (some made up word)" as a substitute for the word "gigantic." But then some other group of people overhear us and start using "xyz" to mean "anything larger than average." I perfectly understand them when they use the word "xyz" and a lot of people are using the word "xyz" as "anything larger than average" instead of "gigantic." Can I really claim the authority to say that this way is right, you guys aren't using it correctly? Without any standardized definition, I don't think you can override popular use. Even if the basic definition at one point or another meant something slightly different, there is no official definition for the word. The OP gave some "correct" definitions of the word "metagame" that I would not use the word for but I can't definitively say it is wrong, just not a way I would use the word. I say use the word in accordance to what you think it means. People will understand what you mean when you use the word, even if it's "wrong" according to the OP. It's a compound word from two defined words, meaning the definition is clear. Edit: Excuse me, a prefix and a word.
lol, just because it's a compound word does not mean the meaning is specifically derived from each individual word's meaning.
cupboard is a word that has two words in it, but it does not take on the definition of cup and board. It is a place in which you store cups.
just like metagame does not take it's definition from your flimsy wikipedia definition that you cited. The definitions of the words within the word are good to get a background of where it came from or it's possible meaning, but that does not mean the definition is strictly defined from the two word's definitions that make up the word.
On June 11 2010 08:34 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I've always thought of metagame as something like, if in a game of rock paper scissors, I threw rock two times in a row and won, whether or not my opponent thinks I will throw rock the third time as well. A synonym would be "leveling." I've never though of metagame as any of the stuff about lag or things outside of standard gameplay. I just call those things extraneous factors.
You would be correct metagame has to do with the theoretically best ways to play the game as well as trends within the game or gaming community.
Chill mis-interpreted the "outside the game" parts of his own definition and literally applied it to things outside of the game.
But what is meant by "outside the game" is really "outside [knowledge] of the game." In other words, in your example if you are playing rock paper scissors, you both know the rules of the game, and with no other information each player would make choices based off of the rules on how to win.
But the "outside [knowledge] of the game" part comes in where previous encounters or games played have occurred where an opponent or player has done an efficient strategy or tactic, and you have that knowledge of gameplay there, aka you have an inkling into the metagame.
You use that "outside [knowledge] of the game" to make decisions and choices that normally you would have no information to base your decision off of, but you know how the game is played and what people will do.
This is the glaring omission in Chill's original definition as he is taking "outside the game" very literally to mean things outside of the game that can be categorized under "gamesmanship" or other concepts.
Whereas, the original author of even the wikipedia definition, within the context of a gaming environment really means "outside [knowledge] of the game."
|
Hello TL,
this is my first post on here and this raised my interest. English isn't my first language, just pointing it out, I may have missed something due to a failure to translate properly in my head.
So please help me out with that one :
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.
This one along with the following fucks me up ;
Statistics are statistics, it's within the ruleset : Not metagaming. I follow you on that one.
Although, you're saying that it's agreed upon (players) that the composition of unit A is used and considered overpowered. Wether it's overpowered overall or against unit A, B, C does not matter. it's overpowered and used to "counter" most strategies.
Then, in your following, you say :
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.
This one says that, like in the preceding example, unit A is considered overpowered by (players), which is countered by a rush to B. Knowing this, player with unit A does unit C to counter the rush to B.
These two are so close to eachother it's confusing ; they both suggest the same "definition", only the second suggest a player developed a strategy to counter the counter. Only adding a "depth" of strategy to the picture. Unit statistic of unit C is used to counter unit statistic of unit A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
