| Blogs > MannerMan |
|
MannerMan
371 Posts
Here I ask you to give your definition in one sentence or less. Do not disagree with another person; either quote them if you agree or post your own definition. If you post a definition feel free to expound upon it below, but make sure the definition can stand alone. Here is mine (and it is the right one :p) Anytime you do something that would normally be considered sub-optimal because your opponent knows it would be sub-optimal and is therefore not considering it, you are metagaming.    | ||
Empyrean
17082 Posts
In any case, I think the wikipedia article gives a good one sentence definition: "it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions." As an aside, I saw the thread on the forum sidebar and was secretly hoping it was "What is your dream?" because I like reading people's aspirations. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46620 Posts
EDIT: Empyrean's is even more general, which I totally buy. | ||
|
G_G
Canada178 Posts
On December 30 2011 16:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I thought meta-gaming was using your knowledge of StarCraft strategies to gain an advantage in some way. For example, playing a way that counters some typical build that you feel your opponent is going, or building Unit X to force your opponent to build Unit Y as a counter... which means you're already getting the tech set up for Unit Z, which counters Unit Y, which will ultimately put you at an advantage. EDIT: Empyrean's is even more general, which I totally buy. That is not metagame. That's using in-game experience and in-game information to make a decision. Not metagame: Putting down a Spire making your opponent build anti-air defense when really youdon't plan on building any Muta. That is mental deception for sure, but not metagame at all. His decision is based on in-game information he gained from scouting. Metagame: Taking loudly to your friend at a tournament before a match about how you love Muta harassment and do it every game. Your next opponent hears it and get blind anti-air defense without seeing any in-game indication that you will go muta. You don't build a a single Muta or even a Spire. Or maybe I'm dumb. Everyone seems to have their own perception of the word. | ||
|
Empyrean
17082 Posts
To use an example from Pokemon (of all things): Pokemon are limited to four moves only. Often times, you can't have "type coverage." Let's say you need to check two very specific threats, a Pokemon who is 4x weak to fighting moves, and a Pokemon who is 4x weak to fire moves, but you only have one moveslot left. Do you choose a fire move to deal with the second Pokemon, or do you choose a fighting move to deal with the first one? Your choice would be based on the current metagame - that is, the current proportion of Pokemon A vs. Pokemon B. This relies on information outside of the game itself. EDIT: To put in a Starcraft example (although from BW because I'm not familiar with SC2 at all), in PvZ, standard builds for Zerg call for very specific times at which the Zerg has to add drones. Certain Protoss players may come up with a novel build that sacrifices mid game economy to make a crippling attack on the Zerg during this "standard" build. Check out Movie's Dragoon attack on Jaedong in their game on Heartbreak Ridge. | ||
|
G_G
Canada178 Posts
| ||
|
Empyrean
17082 Posts
I think the example of the user you quoted is a fine example. | ||
|
sh4w
United States713 Posts
If I had to sum it up in one line, in my own words, and in a Starcraft sense I suppose I would say: "Using current trends and other outside information to make assumptions and gain an advantage in game." | ||
|
Juliette
United States6003 Posts
Trends in how the game is played, is that an accurate statement to describe metagame? edit - that ninja | ||
|
Empyrean
17082 Posts
On December 30 2011 17:30 Juliette wrote: Fuck yes pokemon examples. I'm disappointed there was no garchomp reference though. Trends in how the game is played, is that an accurate statement to describe metagame? edit - that ninja I thought choosing HP for coverage would have been easier to understand. Think HP Grass vs. HP Ice. That one comes up pretty common, actually. Or at least it did in third gen ._. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States626 Posts
New strategy > Surprising strategy > Good strategy > Popular strategy > Predictable strategy > Bad strategy. Then the cycle repeats. | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On December 30 2011 17:48 kidcrash wrote: Ill put this as simply as possible: New strategy > Surprising strategy > Good strategy > Popular strategy > Predictable strategy > Bad strategy. Then the cycle repeats. This has zero to do with meta game though. In any case, I think the wikipedia article gives a good one sentence definition: "it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions." | ||
|
ohokurwrong
Brazil283 Posts
i lose TONS of games by attempting to counter the counter to what i am doing. i assume the next logical step and then counter that logical decision. the problem is people even in top 8 masters are just terrible and do not play with what they see. if they see me throw a roach warren down for a roach rush they SHOULD make a bunker if they are going reactor helion. i will cancel the warren and drone hard and it turns out they didnt even change a THING about the build they were doing. i watch replay and he never makes any bunker and just acts like this is normal. another example is if i go DTs and a zerg holds it but doesnt die and its lets say an even trade. i assume he cant possibly be going muta i have blink already and shrine for archons. lo and behold he does anyway and i didnt have cannons bubye min line. things like this really bother me about sc2. because in BW transitions were rather slow compared to sc2 and the control was never perfect a cheese or dumb play never cost me a game but in sc2 i can lose because of 1 decision that isnt even bad and yeh wiki has it right. knowing that an opener of reactor helion is standard in zvt you metagame him by going roach but since HE knows the counter to the popular style is roach he does marauder marine and so on and so on | ||
|
kidcrash
United States626 Posts
On December 30 2011 17:53 zatic wrote: This has zero to do with meta game though. In any case, I think the wikipedia article gives a good one sentence definition: "it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions." I thought what I described was along the same lines as this..... One particular example of smaller scale metagame shifts is the PvZ record on Destination. For a time Protoss enjoyed a sizable win percentage, but then Zerg suddenly figured out a new build that more than adequately countered the Protoss standard and consequently won 13 games in a row. Then once Protoss figured out a counter to that build and won 11 out of the next 15, and so on. While the overall record eventually solidifed at an even 50%, PvZ history on that map was dominated by different streaks built from strategical advantages and disadvantages. | ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
| ||
|
gn0m
Sweden302 Posts
On December 30 2011 16:30 Empyrean wrote: What's the point of stifling discussion? In any case, I think the wikipedia article gives a good one sentence definition: "it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions." This is pretty much it. I disagree with some parts of the Liquipedia definition though, or at least how the word is used. There is no such thing as a “metagame shift”, what does that even mean? Given the fact that some build are considered standard and therefore more likely to occur, one can exploit that by designing a build that counters the current one(s). Thus, a shift in strategy trends can occur. The metagame however remains constant, it can be applied on the new strategy but the process will be the same – using out-of-game information to gain an adventage. Most people seem to think that metagame is a word for the current standardized way of playing which is wrong. | ||
|
MCDayC
United Kingdom14464 Posts
| ||
|
iamke55
United States2806 Posts
I prefer not to acknowledge the other meaning in the context of video games such as SC2 (nothing annoys me more than people who use metagame as a verb) , just as I do not use "cheese" as a dairy product, "all-in" to literally mean instant loss if failed like in poker, or "gay" to mean "happy". | ||
|
Divinek
Canada4045 Posts
On December 30 2011 16:27 MannerMan wrote: We all know the debate that rages, whole threads full of disagreement and anger. Here I ask you to give your definition in one sentence or less. Do not disagree with another person; either quote them if you agree or post your own definition. If you post a definition feel free to expound upon it below, but make sure the definition can stand alone. Here is mine (and it is the right one :p) Anytime you do something that would normally be considered sub-optimal because your opponent knows it would be sub-optimal and is therefore not considering it, you are metagaming. take it literally it means game beyond the game. IE, It's when someone does a 6 pool on map that's terrible for 6 pool, but he does it anyway because the zerg KNOWS that his opponent KNOWS that 6 pool is terrible on this map and is more likely to do a build that would die to 6 pool. Mind games = meta game, mostly | ||
|
LastWish
2015 Posts
This is the application of meta-game knowledge. Meta-game refers to common play in a certain population(for example your class, population of town, whole country, whole world). If you are considering a common play of a certain player you would refer to it as to his "style". | ||
| ||
|
|
IntoTheTV X SOOP
SHIN vs GuMiho
Clem vs Classic
OSC
OSC
GSL
Epic.LAN
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Epic.LAN
AI Arena Tournament
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
