|
8751 Posts
Let's get a proper explanation of what metagame is on the table, courtesy of Liquipedia:
The term metagame literally means 'beyond the game' and refers to any planning, preparation, or maneuvering that a player does outside of actual gameplay to gain an advantage. The metagame has three major branches, which contain some overlap:
Preparation done before a match to exploit current trends in Starcraft.
Preparation done specifically to exploit an opponent's or map's style of play.
Strategic decisions designed specifically to exploit a player's reaction or weakened mental state in the future. These are also known as 'mind games' or 'psychological warfare'.
An example of preparation done before a match to exploit current trends in StarCraft:
You are playing ladder. Nearly every Terran is doing an SCV/Marine rush. Rushing to defensive Cannons counters it. Blindly making Cannons against any other Terran build is horrible. Metagame justifies making Cannons without having scouted the SCV/Marine rush.
An example of preparation done specifically to exploit an opponent's or map's style of play:
You have a scheduled match against a specific person. You gather replays of that person. There is a point in your standard strategy where you lack scouting, so you have a choice of doing A, B, or C, where A counters one possibility, B counters another, and C does decently against either. The replays show you that your opponent almost always does the thing that A counters. Metagame justifies choosing A.
An example of strategic decisions designed specifically to exploit a player's reaction or weakened mental state in the future:
You have a scheduled best of 5 match against a specific person. Your worst map is scheduled to be used in game 5, which happens to be your opponent's best map. You cannot come up with a plan for winning game 5. In order to give yourself a chance, you decide to manipulate the metagame. You do the same build in games 1-4, hoping that by game 5 your opponent is justifying his decisions based on metagame and not based on what he's actually scouting in the game, which would give you the opportunity to counter his blind decision with your own blind decision. This might be accomplished by playing very passively in games 1-4 so that your opponent becomes comfortable investing more in econ/tech than in defense. In game 5, you appear to be playing the same way, but you are actually going to be extremely aggressive, which would only work if you've successfully manipulated your opponent's metagame. If your opponent is solid as a rock, not budging his prepared build an inch, then he is immune to these metagame mind games.
---
I hope that, by reading the definition and examples, you guys get an idea of why metagame is a relatively unimportant, and even harmful, aspect of SC2 right now. It inhibits the development of strategy. The development of metagame doesn't exist. Yeah, its variables might change. But the way you use it is pretty damn straightforward and hasn't gotten any more advanced than it was on day one. It is nothing more than statistically-glorified blind countering. It leads to rock-paper-scissors dynamics because it involves purposely doing something that is extra strong against one strategy and extra weak against another.
So I'm asking people to forget about metagame. Every game you play, base every decision and action you make on things you see in that particular game. Create logical and solid strategies that work against anything. If you are having trouble against a particular strategy, do not purposely weaken your build against other strategies in an attempt to counter that particular troubling strategy. Figure out a way to keep yourself in good shape against everything. That is how you will become good. Yes, your precious win rate will drop in the short term. But are you playing SC2 to be a name on a ladder with pretty numbers next to it or are you playing to be the best damn SC2 player you can be?
If everyone would forget about metagame for a while, better strategies would develop. Are you tired of all-in builds working too well? Tired of people refusing to expand? Tired of rock-paper-scissors dynamics? Do your part by making an effort at creating a decent strategy. Forget about metagame.
|
I have a feeling someone took Chill's sig out for dinner last night...
Great post though.
|
Strongly agree, would love to see more creativity in general. 
|
so thats what metagame ment..
already forgot it...
|
THANKS! Lets get creative up in 'ere!
This is really, really good advice and should be heeded by teh masses.
|
United Kingdom1132 Posts
This is a good post but I think the main problem about this is the fact that people run off all sorts of different definitions for the word metagame. There's what your posting about here and a lot of people use metagame as the current optimal style of play - i.e it is the development of strategy. It is the current trends, not just a way to counter them TL is really the only place I've seen metagame used this way, hopefully this clears up a lot of confusion anyway. I think a lot of people do think like this already, they're just using different terminology.
Everything you posted is true though, disregarding what I said. (those things are just labels anyway, doesnt make the point any less clear)
metagame is a stupid buzzword these days anyway, people use it to death and think they're cool for talking about the "metagame", makes them sound like they know what they're talking about.
|
Calgary26003 Posts
|
Nony is just saying this cause he keeps losing to all-ins 
J/k. It's more like the opposite from what I've seen. A lot of ladder players are playing with the intention of exploiting a particular trend and this results in so many holes that it raises a dilemma: do you specifically play the counter-exploit to win, or do you try to get better by playing straight up? If you do the former, you'll win more, but if you do the latter, the overall game will improve. I think that might be the issue that prompted Nony to do this post.
|
8751 Posts
On April 16 2010 04:13 Tropics wrote:
This is a good post but I think the main problem about this is the fact that people run off all sorts of different definitions for the word metagame. There's what your posting about here and a lot of people use metagame as the current optimal style of play - i.e it is the development of strategy. It is the current trends, not just a way to counter them TL is really the only place I've seen metagame used this way, hopefully this clears up a lot of confusion anyway. I think a lot of people do think like this already, they're just using different terminology.
Everything you posted is true though, disregarding what I said. (those things are just labels anyway, doesnt make the point any less clear)
metagame is a stupid buzzword these days anyway, people use it to death and think they're cool for talking about the "metagame", makes them sound like they know what they're talking about.
Yeah, this is a built-in purpose of my post. The way I use metagame is the way people ought to use it.
|
On April 16 2010 04:13 Tropics wrote:
This is a good post but I think the main problem about this is the fact that people run off all sorts of different definitions for the word metagame. There's what your posting about here and a lot of people use metagame as the current optimal style of play - i.e it is the development of strategy. It is the current trends, not just a way to counter them TL is really the only place I've seen metagame used this way, hopefully this clears up a lot of confusion anyway. I think a lot of people do think like this already, they're just using different terminology.
Everything you posted is true though, disregarding what I said. (those things are just labels anyway, doesnt make the point any less clear)
metagame is a stupid buzzword these days anyway, people use it to death and think they're cool for talking about the "metagame", makes them sound like they know what they're talking about.
I have a roommate that knows the true meaning of metagame. I was surprised when he said "Got you with my metagame didn't I?" My scanner sweep drove me nuts each time I scan his base. He did a fake Muta to fake Lurker to fake Hydra to Guardian-Scourge.
|
|
|
Well written post Nony
|
On April 16 2010 04:20 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 04:13 Tropics wrote:
This is a good post but I think the main problem about this is the fact that people run off all sorts of different definitions for the word metagame. There's what your posting about here and a lot of people use metagame as the current optimal style of play - i.e it is the development of strategy. It is the current trends, not just a way to counter them TL is really the only place I've seen metagame used this way, hopefully this clears up a lot of confusion anyway. I think a lot of people do think like this already, they're just using different terminology.
Everything you posted is true though, disregarding what I said. (those things are just labels anyway, doesnt make the point any less clear)
metagame is a stupid buzzword these days anyway, people use it to death and think they're cool for talking about the "metagame", makes them sound like they know what they're talking about. I have a roommate that knows the true meaning of metagame. I was surprised when he said "Got you with my metagame didn't I?" My scanner sweep drove me nuts each time I scan his base. He did a fake Muta to fake Lurker to fake Hydra to Guardian-Scourge.
In the interim between your first scan and his first guardian did he get any REAL units?
On topic: great post, I actually wanted to start doing this, but needed motivation.
|
good post, but metagame is actually just the theoretically best possible way to play the game at a specific point in time.
most of the stuff you mention is exactly what you mention. Preparation is...preparation, studying the game is...studying the game, reading the opponent, is reading the opponent.
when most people say metagame they are describing the best possible way to play the game with current trends at the time. It's just one instance of the game state that is the "best way to play."
although, most of what you describe is how the metagame develops - by doing exactly what you said, preparing for games, preparing for specific opponents, and using all of that knowledge to your advantage.
edit: i agree though, you make a very good point that people focus on it too much to the point of their own detriment. people "assume" something is the strongest thing to do, when they themselves have not tried anything or researched on their own.
so some idiots will 100% always try to go marauder FE tvp if they think it's the "metagame" or best thing to do. so basically...listen to nony lmao and don't fucking do things cause people on the forums and elsewhere perceive it to be the best thing to do.
edit:
On April 16 2010 04:13 Tropics wrote:
This is a good post but I think the main problem about this is the fact that people run off all sorts of different definitions for the word metagame. There's what your posting about here and a lot of people use metagame as the current optimal style of play - i.e it is the development of strategy. It is the current trends, not just a way to counter them TL is really the only place I've seen metagame used this way, hopefully this clears up a lot of confusion anyway. I think a lot of people do think like this already, they're just using different terminology.
Everything you posted is true though, disregarding what I said. (those things are just labels anyway, doesnt make the point any less clear)
metagame is a stupid buzzword these days anyway, people use it to death and think they're cool for talking about the "metagame", makes them sound like they know what they're talking about.
yes, most people usually use that definition of metagame, or a variation of it. pretty much disagree with liquipedia's.
|
Using metagame strategies and trying mindgames doesn't really work out in ladder situations. Also the game is pretty new and undeveloped so its even worse to base decisions on metagame and mindgames.
Really good post by Nony. I completely agree.
|
Wonderful post.. The last point you made is exactly the reason why i dislike the 'omg totally imba' tendency since the start of the beta. One can say that something is slightly imbalanced in some way only if one has played and experienced a ton of games using the particular unit. People loose to something 2 times and go imba and the next day go imba to the thing that stopped the previous imba :D..
|
Very good post. Just wondering, what inspired you to write this? Have you been coming up against a lot of players going for all-in/semi-blind strategies?
|
On April 16 2010 04:32 avilo wrote:
good post, but metagame is actually just the theoretically best possible way to play the game at a specific point in time.
No actually it is not. Give me any credible source that says metagame means that.
Metagame = using out of game information to affect how you play.
|
I don't agree, the game is best tested in as realistic an environment as possible. There can be very subtle imbalances and design flaws that only appear when the game is pushed to its limit.
If Race 1 has:
Build A with an expected utility value of 10
Build B " " 3
Build C " " 3
Is it not rational and part of the development of strategy to develop a build that has a 75% chance to win vs Build A but at the cost of only 20% chance to win vs build B and C? Numbers are not exact but you know what I mean. Part of a certain race's advantage (Zerg) is their ability to manipulate meta game. To have multiple strategies they can branch into very rapidly if left alone for only a couple of minutes. To build as though you have no idea about their actual probability of executing either strat (they are most likely to do build A, the overall strongest build) prevents us from seeing the real balance of the game. Can Zerg win consistently if players are blindly building against their strong build, and gambling against the weaker one? Is Zerg's power to branch to any one of 3-4 army compositions within a couple of minutes overpowered? If we play with a mental block in our heads we will not discover the answers to these questions.
As far as player-specific meta game considerations I suppose this argument is more reasonable than arguing against "current trends". What constitutes a current trend? How do we know if this build is trendy, standard, or overpowered? What if the SCV rush could only be stopped by one possible Protoss build that must be executed blindly, but if Protoss does not lose to this one build he will always win? This imbalance would not be discovered and instead we would believe Protoss to be underpowered as they are refusing to play with knowledge that they do actually have.
Even exploiting player specific tendencies I believe to be a very legitimate strategy that must be explored. Does a Protoss player that is known as a macro player have a stark disadvantage in a BO5 tournament setting? Does it not matter the style the Terran is known for, as there is little way to exploit this known information? This is part of the balance as well. Players cannot always choose their style and it can become an issue in tournament play if a certain style plays very well in ladder against an unknown opponent, but cannot win in a tournament against an expert player that has some vague idea of what is coming.
We find the most balance information about the game if everyone is most of the time trying to win every game they play by any means necessary.
|
welll...i wouldn't mind name on the top of the plat league with big numbers... 
good post regardless...this motivates me to use different units in the game and try different races...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
