| Blogs > Metagame |
|
pedduck
Thailand468 Posts
For example, Is it correct to use the word "Expo"? as the meaning of this word (in Wiki) has nothing to do with base expansion. What about the word "Gosu". For me, Nony is gosu, but if you ask KT coach, Nony is probably not isn't he? I think the answer is as long as people in the community understand it in the same manner, it is correct to use it. | ||
|
Kyo Yuy
United States1286 Posts
On June 16 2010 16:24 pedduck wrote: I agree with OP that there is some misusing the word. However, giving the exact definition of a word in a language that is not dead is going to be hard. We should be little bit open-mind on this issue. For example, Is it correct to use the word "Expo"? as the meaning of this word (in Wiki) has nothing to do with base expansion. What about the word "Gosu". For me, Nony is gosu, but if you ask KT coach, Nony is probably not isn't he? I think the answer is as long as people in the community understand it in the same manner, it is correct to use it. The problem is that then people get into really long winded debates about certain words that we use, especially in this community. I'm sure you've seen the many-page long discussions about different progamers in relation to the b-word... if you've been around TL long enough you should know what word I'm talking about XD. It all depends I guess. If enough people can reach a consensus on a definition I guess it's okay, but if there's too much conflict and discrepancy it's best to just stick with "what's established." | ||
|
Typhon
United States387 Posts
On June 16 2010 16:24 pedduck wrote: I agree with OP that there is some misusing the word. However, giving the exact definition of a word in a language that is not dead is going to be hard. We should be little bit open-mind on this issue. The *problem* is that incorrectly using the (completely pretentious) term "metagame" to describe "strategy" is that you forget what "strategy" means. As day9 put it in a recent cast, strategy is not "oh, I'm going to drop a tank on this ledge. woohoo I AM A STRATEGIST ba dum mch mch mch" it's completely the concern of big-picture understanding of timing, builds, the flow of attack and defense. etc. Anyone who uses the term metagame for that has forgotten what strategy means. Newflash: This isn't real-time metagaming, this is real-time strategy. | ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
On June 12 2010 19:37 Gustav_Wind wrote: In case you guys didn't want to read EatThePath's excellent post because it was long, I'll quote the part that I feel needs to be answered. In both the Smash and especially the MTG community the word metagame as a noun is unanimously used in the ways you call incorrect. I'll come out and agree with this as well. The word has been around in CCGs, in the more general sense, for longer than sc has existed. Of course, the usage might sound weird or pretentious to you, but it's pretty well established in other contexts. (It shows up all over the place in Guild Wars, too, which makes sense, since that draws so heavily on CCGs.) It would be like trying to tell the fighting game community to stop using hype as an adjective because it's clearly only a noun and a verb. Not gonna happen. Words don't always make etymological sense. A good example is livid, which started out meaning pale, but now more commonly means the opposite, flushed. (My guess is it got associated with anger—people going white with anger—and then being flushed was a natural extension for a lot of people, especially more contemporary speakers.) Edit: Another example! proof: This used to mean test, and is actually separate, etymologically, from the word prove. The notion of a printer's or artist's proof makes more sense given this usage, as do the notions of proofing dough and proofing yeast. I imagine that this is also where the saying "The exception that proves the rule" comes from, with proof/prove quickly coming together, but I'm not certain of that. Edit again: Basically, I think railing against this is as sensible as railing against the role of who expanding to cover the role of whom. "Who did you give it to?" is incorrect!!! Except these days, it's clearly not. See also: "That's her" is incorrect!!! Except these days, it's clearly not. | ||
|
ROOTCatZ
Peru1226 Posts
 and by silly i mean Meta-Silly.I wouldn't mind if there was a correct definition for metagame, just arguing over a term that someone came up with not long ago seems useless. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
All that truly matters in communication is you understand what concept, object or idea it is that they're putting forth. HOW they communicate is so much less relevant it blows my mind that people will argue to the death over it. Whether they're using the term metagame to describe strategy trends, or influences outside of the game, the CONTEXT in which they use the word determines which one they're talking about and you instantly know what they're trying to say. Deflating someone's point by saying they misused a word is the height of banality. | ||
|
mg
88 Posts
For example, with region-locked battle.net servers, the way SC2 is going to be played is going to be slightly different between each server. Based upon these games, future strategies are going to react and change to the current strategies on the each server and will evolve differently. I see this in fighting games a lot where there's a different style of play based upon location. For example, east coast players tend to be more turtle-y because that's the way the game there evolved. What's the word for that? | ||
|
c.Deadly
United States545 Posts
On June 18 2010 07:03 mg wrote: I have a question then. For example, with region-locked battle.net servers, the way SC2 is going to be played is going to be slightly different between each server. Based upon these games, future strategies are going to react and change to the current strategies on the each server and will evolve differently. I see this in fighting games a lot where there's a different style of play based upon location. For example, east coast players tend to be more turtle-y because that's the way the game there evolved. What's the word for that? I think you answered your own question - I would call that "evolution". As for "meta-game", I agree with Chill. I first heard the word from trading card games such as Magic: The Gathering, and it has grown to have a much looser definition there, where it is also widely misinterpreted. In the case of trading card games, the "meta-game" is not the pool of popular deck builds but rather how you react to those builds while creating your own deck. For Example: You're playing in a local weekly tournament - last week most of the contending players, including the winner of the tournament, used a popular deck they found on an online card list. You construct your deck with the intention of countering those popular deck builds. You have effectively "meta-gamed". It is an important distinction to make, as it would be very easy to misinterpret "meta-game" to mean the pool of currently popular strategies in a game such as MTG. This has no doubt bled over into Starcraft. The big difference between a turn-based card game and Starcraft is that because SC is in real-time, a great deal of meta-gaming happens as the actual game occurs. I would agree that the meta-game includes preparation for a popular or expected strategy, and also the mind games that you use to influence your opponent's decisions in-game. Examples of those have been beaten to death, I just wanted to get the point across that Chill's definition is universally correct. | ||
|
Mooga
United States575 Posts
On June 14 2010 22:09 Subversive wrote: This just sounds like passive aggression. While I agree that angering anyone in a position of authority is best avoided if possible, you're not going to win Chill or anyone elses respect by remaining silent - nor will you be banned for a simple criticism. This is not accurate. | ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
On June 18 2010 09:53 c.Deadly wrote: I think you answered your own question - I would call that "evolution". He's not asking for a word to describe the process. He's asking for a word to describe the current state of the game. On June 18 2010 09:53 c.Deadly wrote: As for "meta-game", I agree with Chill. I first heard the word from trading card games such as Magic: The Gathering, and it has grown to have a much looser definition there, where it is also widely misinterpreted. In the case of trading card games, the "meta-game" is not the pool of popular deck builds but rather how you react to those builds while creating your own deck. This is simply not true as a matter of lexicography. It is used to talk about the pool of popular decks. You might not want it to be, but it is. Since I love parfait (the deck), I'll use this article from a couple years ago as an example: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eiGqKFR-UL0J:www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/16515.html starcitygames parfait&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us There are three occurrences of the word "metagame" on that page. "I believe a new vista has opened up for white in the Vintage metagame." That is, there's a new opportunity for white given the current (at the time) common decks and strategies. "It attacks the metagame from a unique angle, and is very difficult to combat. Let me walk you through the deck’s major components:" This is followed by a discussion of the components of the deck and how they shut down popular (at the time) decks and strategies. In short, how parfait attacks the metagame. "2010 Nats Qualifier Metagame Summary" This is a link to a list of the decks played in the 2010 Nats. A summary of the metagame is a list of decks played. I don't know how much clearer you can get. I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that one use of the word is better or more sensible than the other. But it is wrong to think that the usage in the article above is incorrect in the sense that "Her walks the store" is incorrect as a sentence of English; again, this would be like complaining that using "hype" as an adjective is incorrect in the fighting game community. It's not. That's just how the word is used. "This is so hype" is a perfectly good sentence there (but don't go writing it anywhere else; people will look at you funny). Of course, you might not like it. You might try to fight its adoption in this community on pragmatic grounds, such as that it's a confusing use, or that there are better ways to say the same thing, or that it sounds stupid, or whatever. You might try to get people in that community to stop using the word the way they use it. But those issues are all different from how the term is actually, currently used, which is simply a lexicographical matter. | ||
|
Gustav_Wind
United States646 Posts
On June 18 2010 09:53 c.Deadly wrote: As for "meta-game", I agree with Chill. I first heard the word from trading card games such as Magic: The Gathering, and it has grown to have a much looser definition there, where it is also widely misinterpreted. In the case of trading card games, the "meta-game" is not the pool of popular deck builds but rather how you react to those builds while creating your own deck. As someone who reads magic articles on all of the premier strategy sites every day, I can assure you that this is wrong. (The claim that it has a loose definition in MTG that is widely misinterpreted). There is no ambiguity when a writer uses the term metagame as a noun. He means the composition of deck types at that point in time. | ||
|
c.Deadly
United States545 Posts
On June 18 2010 12:55 Pyrthas wrote: He's not asking for a word to describe the process. He's asking for a word to describe the current state of the game. I think a word to describe the current state of the game would be situational. However, using "meta-game" as a word meaning "the state of the game" is incorrect. Popular strategies vary from region to region, so players make meta-game adjustments to account for regional preferences. On June 18 2010 12:55 Pyrthas wrote: I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that one use of the word is better or more sensible than the other. But it is wrong to think that the usage in the article above is incorrect in the sense that "Her walks the store" is incorrect as a sentence of English; again, this would be like complaining that using "hype" as an adjective is incorrect in the fighting game community. It's not. That's just how the word is used. "This is so hype" is a perfectly good sentence there (but don't go writing it anywhere else; people will look at you funny). Of course, you might not like it. You might try to fight its adoption in this community on pragmatic grounds, such as that it's a confusing use, or that there are better ways to say the same thing, or that it sounds stupid, or whatever. You might try to get people in that community to stop using the word the way they use it. But those issues are all different from how the term is actually, currently used, which is simply a lexicographical matter I think I wasn't very clear with that MTG reference (I'm by no means a competitive player). The fact that a deck is very potent or popular isn't "metagame", the actual composition of the deck itself is. So, I agree with you, you're definitely right. It would feel weird using the word metagame with that syntax in Starcraft, but it is still the same concept. Rather than a looser "definition", I should have said it is used more frequently, which results in some people misinterpreting the term (I know I did) or not having a full understanding of it. I'd compare building a deck to preparing a build order in SC. You account for popular strategies, trends, flavor-of-the-month type of stuff. You are influenced by factors beyond the game, specifically the individual player's preferences. Proxy-rax or bunker rush isn't a great strategy 100% of the time, but it's pretty good if you know your opponent loves to 12-hatch every game. This is exactly the same thought process that goes into building a deck in a trading card game. In Starcraft the pool of all viable opening builds is a result of the meta-game, whereas in MTG the composition of decks is called "the metagame". What is important is that the concept is the same. Where everything goes wrong is when "metagame" is used to describe stuff that isn't metagame at all. How you utilize the cards you draw in MTG is not "metagame", that's just strategy. Likewise, 3hatch muta into 5 hatch hydra isn't "the current metagame" in Starcraft, it's just a popular strategy. I'm not as concerned about the semantics of the word "metagame" in other communities as I am about losing its true meaning altogether when talking about SC. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
The OP is alright but a bit confused. There are much simpler ways of explaining it. I think a simpler explanation to understand is "playing a game, that affects the game". Once a game of SC starts the metagame is already over. You've already been influenced by a metagame and now are just playing the game. So the most common application of the metagame is tricking your opponent into opening with the wrong build order. That is a game of itself, of sorts. If your opponent opens 3hatch before pool and you duel proxy gated you won(past tense) the metagame. Outside of the immediate game something transpired to make you pick a build order that made the game itself easy for you. In a best of 5 metagaming becomes very important. As the series is 5 seperate games it is possible to play a metagame during one of the games, in order to affect the next game/s. You're doing things which don't affect the game itself, but which might affect your opponent during the next game, such as making a pylon heart. The pylon heart does not affect the outcome of the current game but might contribute to a metagame that sees your opponent act foolishly in the next game. For me the most common mis-uses of the word is "he's using his knowledge of the metgame" | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
On June 11 2010 04:27 Metagame wrote: I think this is the reason why metagame is used as equivalent to "current standard game" (I cannot emphasize "current" enough), because there's actually no fixed "standard" game, and it's always more or less the current trend / rumor / tradition / spirit, if you like. So people call that thing "metagame", since nowhere in the rulebook it says that there is any standard way of playing.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. I have a question - what about maps? We accept some set of maps as the "standard" set, and it actually affects all strategies immensely. Are maps part of the main game or the metagame? I think the latter, because it would still be Stacraft (or Starcraft 2), if completely different set of maps was used. Nowhere in the main rules it says how much minerals and gas per base there is, or that the initial spawning positions are near minerals, or that maps should be symmetric, and the game shouldn't involve clearly inferior/superior starting locations to be even out through more matches, or that there have to be ramps and choke-points allowing to wall off etc. IMHO all this is part of the metagame. What do you think? | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
| ||
|
SleepSheep
Canada344 Posts
On June 18 2010 02:38 CatZ.root wrote: lol you're all hillarious, i got a good idea, don't use the word, no need to be fancy to play a game boys, it won't make you a better player or anything of that sort, if you're a caster and you're trying to get everyone to understand what you mean to say at a given instance by applying the word, cool!... otherwise i dont see the point of this thread other than people trying to show off their dictionary skillz by correcting other people and telling them they're dumb for not knowing how to properly use this term, you're not being smart fellas, you lookin mad silly and by silly i mean Meta-Silly.I wouldn't mind if there was a correct definition for metagame, just arguing over a term that someone came up with not long ago seems useless. I understand what you're trying to do, but in this instance it's inappropriate, so you're being condescending by calling everyone "hilarious" and silly. it's not useless if the arguing will lead to a ,'correct definition'. also, it shouldn't matter whether you're a caster or not. in any case, even if it's just casters your concerned about, how do you think they'll learn how to use the word better? they will learn how to use the word better through discussions like these. arguments are good and in no way silly as long as they are conducted properly. What do you think school is for? It's to learn how to think and argue better. You could say part of the reason why this thread is useful is that it's teaching people how to think and argue better, to figure out what works and what doesn't. And what works is logically sound reasoning backed by relevant evidence. | ||
|
nast3rrr
Canada5 Posts
| ||
|
TheAwesomeAll
Netherlands1609 Posts
On April 28 2011 22:25 nast3rrr wrote: good read that made me lol | ||
|
Hamster1800
United States175 Posts
it - generic third person pronoun -'s - possessive suffix Therefore, it's is the possessive form of the word it. Of course, those of you who used it as ``it is'' are also right, since we also have the definition -'s - contraction for ``- is'' Obviously this got a wrong result. You can't always combine roots straightforwardly, and so it is completely possible in my mind that meta can mean ``self'', ``beyond'', ``X about X'', et cetera, but metagame means the standard strategy. Of course, that is not how I use it and I don't think that that is how most people intend to use it. The way I use it, and the way that MTG players use it, is to refer to the current composition of builds/strategies. When people say that ``the metagame is evolving'', they mean that one particular build is falling out of favor and another one is replacing it, which is completely consistent with this definition. When they say that ``the X metagame is Y build'', they actually mean that the vast majority of X players play Y, so when they meet up with an X player without any other information about them, they will expect Y. In this case it happens that they could have also said that ``standard X play is Y build'', but that doesn't make it any less correct to say metagame. However, if I said that ``the X metagame is mostly Y with a little bit of Z, and my build W counters Y really well but is completely destroyed by Z'', here you can see that it doesn't make as much sense with ``standard'' instead, because how can standard be composed of two different builds? Metagaming, as you use it, then, is really the same as the way I use it. If you play against a random person on the ladder, you will use your view of the metagame for their race. However, if you have more information about them, then you'll use your view of the metagame for that particular person. This is still a metagame in the sense above, since that person has some composition of builds that they might do, and you are playing based on that information. For instance, I think we can agree that the ``Jaedong in a finals'' metagame contains a nontrivial amount of 4-pooling, but I think we can also agree that we would not call this standard ``Jaedong in a finals'' play. The other examples given can be reconciled with this also. If you happen to have information that your opponent is on tilt (be it caused by yourself or not), then you have a different idea of what strategies they are likely to be playing. All you are really doing is conditioning the large metagame on the fact that your opponent is on tilt. In any case, whether Chill agrees with my above definition or not, I fundamentally disagree with the premise of the OP, which is based on the idea that it is possible for the public to be using a word widely and have built up an understanding of what each other mean by it, and yet for all of them to be using it wrong. The fundamental reason of words is to communicate, so if the word metagame successfully conveys the meaning of the currently popular standard play, then it means that for all intents and purposes, and that usage is correct. | ||
|
Asjo
Denmark664 Posts
1) General language: The meta-prefix is one used in many contexts, and therefore a completely different use will confuse people, possibly even cause a conflict for them even after they are immersed in the Starcraft scene and have adopted the new meaning of the word. 2) Overuse: Because "metagame" is very general, it can quickly spread to cover many aspects of the game. Unlike other word trends, where people will talk about "imbalance" or "gosu", there will not be a clear context for the use of the "metagame". Therefore the word becomes more empty and more easily ends up as simply a buzzword. That said, I think Chill, in some ways, has increased the confusion about the word, which others have explained to some extent so far in this topic. That is, because of the following claims:
| ||
| ||
|
|
Korean StarCraft League
SOOP
sOs vs Percival
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs MaNa
MaxPax vs Solar
Reynor vs Creator
Gerald vs Spirit
Cheesadelphia
CSO Cup
BSL: ProLeague
Hawk vs UltrA
Sziky vs spx
TerrOr vs JDConan
GSL Code S
Rogue vs herO
Classic vs GuMiho
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL: ProLeague
Bonyth vs Dewalt
Cross vs Doodle
MadiNho vs Dragon
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
