|
On April 16 2010 08:21 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 08:12 Funchucks wrote:
I think that focus on the metagame is actually very important to helping Blizzard fix the imbalances.
For instance, build order rock-paper-scissors is a big part of Starcraft. When you've got "good old rock - can't go wrong with that!" players, this is something you should recognize and take advantage of. You can't make an "always rock" strategy look bad unless you play paper more than one third of the time.
There are huge advantages to specializing in only one strategy, and the only disadvantage is its vulnerability to metagaming (i.e. predicting the predictable). An "always rock" player's rock will generally beat a random player's rock, and give him a 60+% win rate.
By refusing to metagame, you make bad players and bad strategies look good. Well it's all about inventing a 4th option that is outside of the rock-paper-scissors dynamic.
"RPS" as a game design concept shouldn't be taken to imply there are only three options. In an asymmetrical game, you can have RPS with only two options per player. In a symmetrical game, you can have RPS with any number of three or more options (although if it is an even number, one of the options must be practically equivalent to another).
It shouldn't be taken to imply that winning the first round of strategic RPS wins you the game, either. Just that it gives you some amount of advantage, which can (and should) be small and variable according to match-up.
The only alternative to strategic RPS is "one best strategy", which is design failure (i.e. mass mammoth tanks). It's important to look for "fourth options" that beat all strategies previously considered viable (or are at least strictly superior to one of them), but it's disrepectful to assume they exist.
Build-order RPS implies an interesting metagame. In real RPS (the actual game with your hands), there is nothing but metagame: you only gain advantage by recognizing patterns from past games, otherwise your best efforts will only make the result random.
If there's any build-order RPS element (and there should be), then metagaming is an indispensible part of play and can't be ignored in testing. You have to punish people for being predictable, or they get an advantage for being consistent. Metagaming is an integral part of the sport, and if you balance the game without it, it will be broken with it.
|
Pre-FE PvZ was fucking retarded. Watch pre FE PvZ replays or vods... guys like Garimto, Intotherain etc. Watch how they typically started with two gate pressure in an attempt to prevent too much drone whoring, a tech to temps, and then use of temps + cannons to expand... meanwhile the zerg typically had built up hydra/lurker containment and 5+ bases... This was the standard situation for protoss; difficulty in establishing an expansion, ZERO scouting, containment. Everyone who played protoss or zerg through that period can easily attest to that.
The funny thing was in 1.07 the match up was already a fucking prick to play and yet 1.08 saw further nerfs to protoss via the goon build time increase and the psi storm nerf which prevented storms from 1-shotting lurkers (don't bother bringing up the increased pool and upgrade costs for zerg... oh no, 50 more minerals, 5 extra seconds of mining time... once. IMBA!). I admit... at the time I remember thinking... what the fuck? Are they retarded? My concern, however, would prove to be short sighted.
Sound familiar to a certain post by Nony? If you answered yes, 10 pts for you! Because, guess what? Following those nerfs blizzard did nothing to further assist protoss players in their plight. Along comes the intelligent FE and corsair use and suddenly protoss players had a bloody chance!
That was not a metagame shift... that was a strategical shift borne as a result of players seeking a means to fix the deficiencies that existed as a result of the way that everyone played the match up prior... I can't emphasize that enough. It wasn't a deficiency in the match up but a deficiency in the way that we protoss played the match up. Blizzard didn't touch the game, remember? That strategical shift would not happen in an environment where Blizzard was patching every 2 months. It would not happen if Protoss were purely concerned with attempting 8/9 proxy gating, or speedlot/reaver all-ins to squeeze out wins against zergs while laddering. It happened because, as Nony puts it they found a "4th option that is outside of the rock-paper-scissors dynamic".
|
Metagame its not a part of the game whatsoever, you people are so used to SC1 being balanced and set up, that you forgot that actually 1 base play and rush'es were the standard for many years at the begining.
You are just trying to accelerate things, you just want the uber super macro phase SC1 is now going thru and believe me, that WILL NOT happen soon in SC2, not when a lot of retired, low-apm, micro-focused players are and will be playing for at least the first year.
It will take time before the macro-oriented phase starts, It will take time before the macro-oriented players to finally find a way to be able to make fast expand builds into safe/standard builds.
Most players complaining about how the game is 1-base standard, are mostly the mechanical players who know they would excel at long macro games. Still, its not their turn, in time they will reign but untill then just adapt your game...
|
I agree with this in every context except for desert oasis, where I personally try to make every one as miserable playing on as I am my self in hopes that low popularity and showcasing highly exploitable terrain features will get that map pulled or heavily modified. 
|
On April 16 2010 09:00 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Your argument only works if this type of play isn't possible in SC2. But this type of play should be sought after by pretty much everyone -- players who want to be the best players, designers who want their game to be the best and spectators who want to see a robust strategical competition. If this type of play isn't possible, we have bigger problems. There's no reason to think it can't work though. It takes a ton of experience and brilliance from a whole community of players to hammer out all the nuances that enable it. I'm urging people to actually join in this effort because their commitment to winning via metagame is virtually opting out of it.
I think that if you want to hammer a piece of hot metal, you can't just have a hammer, you also need an anvil.
Those who are simply trying to play the meta game can act as that anvil. Because they will tend to present the same 2-3 strategies over and over, they give those who want to be more creative a set of guidelines to work with.
If every one is always trying to be dynamic then there is very little basis for comparison. Did you win because your build is all around solid, or because the other guy's build is just bad? If every one does something different, how can you even judge?
The mass of players aren't really capable of much innovation, so let them play the meta game and choose the trendy strategy over and over, so that you and I have an anvil to hammer against as we try to forge an all around solid strategy.
|
On April 16 2010 06:09 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 06:05 CagedMind wrote:
I honestly never heard of this kind of metagame lol. I don't think it should be used the other type is the commonly referred one and you'll just make things confusing.
Pvp plays stupid and that's how it's gonna stay till we see patch/expansion. There's only one type. Whatever definition you invented for yourself is incorrect.
Million of people using the definition I know of is not inventing it for myself.
|
python was a shitty map. was it designed badly? not particularly. did it have any glaring imbalances? not any that i knew of. so why is it no one particularly liked python (barring crazy insane people)?
python was a map with essentially a set of predetermined openings and long, drawn out eco games. metagame does not apply simply in BO series it can apply in overall player trends and expected strategies on certain maps. metagame tells you that statistically players are predisposed to open with more conservative eco builds on python which generally ends up being true.
metagame tells you last week so-and-so won ABC tourney with X strategy and now the general player trend for Y race is to do the X opening or unit combo. as a player with ability to analyze things outside the game, when you are loading up the map for your next game and you see your opponent with Y race you are already using trends or statistics that lie entirely outside the game to formulate your strategy, opening, unit composition, etc.
so instead of having players adjust to a certain builds, gaining valuable sample size (making it possible to make conclusions on said build), and refining and learning the intricacies of of counters and reactions for those builds you are telling players to go into games with a blind eye towards all their prior experience? wat.
i can understand that some players will use X build to counter Y build but to me that seems a natural occurrence of the process. you find a build to counter a build, test the build to cut corners as best as possible while still achieving whatever purpose you wanted to achieve, and determine whether the build is a viable long term standard or simply a viable counter to another build.
|
If the game is balanced, then I will have a way to defend both the optimal Spire build and the sub-optimal Hydra Den build simultaneously without incurring a disadvantage.
That's not necessarily balanced. If there is an option that can solve all possible alternatives at a given venue with no apparent sacrifice, that'd be boring. In order to force diversity, you must implement pros and cons to every decision.
|
Nony, keep up the good work, hope to see you soon in tourneys 
|
This post shows my confusion ok.
On April 16 2010 09:00 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 08:33 Wintermute wrote: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 People can use all sorts of definitions for the word "Giraffe," but that's their ignorance. Meta game means "game outside of (or beyond) the game." That's what it means. If you use it to mean something else that's your ignorance, and failure to make proper use of language. In regard to the OP: I disagree. Ultimately, the very definition of standard play or "all around strong" builds rest on a certain degree of weighted reasoning or inductive logic based on what you can realistically expect to see. If you are on Steppes of War and you open up 13 pool in ZvZ, you will lose very often to a 6 or 7 pool, yet strong players consistently open up 13, 14, even occasionally 15 pool, based on the knowledge that other strong players will rarely risk such an all in strategy. Yet if every one did 6 or 7 pool, then 6 or 7 pool would not be risky, and it would also not be especially effective. Knowing that 6 and 7 pool strategies are common, the best opening would be an 8, 9 or 10 pool strategy. Yet the best strategy against 8-10 pool would indeed be 12 or 13 pool. Therefore, any analysis of a "best" or "strongest" strategy must include some analysis of what is likely to occur, and that requires understanding the meta game and basing your decisions upon it. Perhaps a better point to make would be: Don't mistake the meta game for the game itself. The meta game is an important element of being a good player, but it is a very unsteady basis for long term success, because it shifts around a lot over time. It is better to look for ways to buck the trend than simply to depend on ways to exploit them. That way you are not caught flat footed when your assumptions turn out to be incorrect or trends change. Strong enough builds don't exist in SC2 yet, but I can honestly say that many of my builds in SC:BW were ready for anything. There were no assumptions about anything. The information I gather about my opponent in that particular game is all that's needed to determine every one of my decisions. My past games make up the rules and policies for how I respond to things, but every new game is a clean slate that follows my latest flow chart of decision making. This type of play is legitimate all the way to the top -- I mean, beyond even me, up to S-Class Koreans. Your argument only works if this type of play isn't possible in SC2. But this type of play should be sought after by pretty much everyone -- players who want to be the best players, designers who want their game to be the best and spectators who want to see a robust strategical competition. If this type of play isn't possible, we have bigger problems. There's no reason to think it can't work though. It takes a ton of experience and brilliance from a whole community of players to hammer out all the nuances that enable it. I'm urging people to actually join in this effort because their commitment to winning via metagame is virtually opting out of it.
In your OP you are using imbalanced and already patched example.
This is important and isn't limited to one MU. Can you please use something more up to date, unless you don't want to do it before TL vs EG showmatch?
You are saying people should refrain from doing things like this but using the same example of Marine SCV rush or Marauder one before slow effect had to be researched, isn't imbalance more visible and patched faster if people abuse those?
I mean look at ICCUP low rank cheesefest. People do it because it works but it's not dominant overall because the higher you get, the more experienced players are - they know how to counter this.
What has happened to this?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=112629
Noob School / Eye on Esports
By Hot_Bid and Waxangel
"Welcome to Noob School. Here you will be learning how to abuse a mechanic for wins until Blizzard fixes it. The first thing I'm going to do is download, install, and go 1-Hatch Queen/Hydra rush someone to see if Blizzard nerfed the larvae injection mechanism. If they did, I'm going to hunt for the second most abusive mechanic and abuse that to as many wins as possible. If they didnt... well class will be very repetitive."
--Professor HotBid
You can dissect anything that isn't an all-around build and use the perfect tool that is TL and Livestream to popularize your results but here you are as good as saying to D players not to cheese in my opinion.
Trends and imbalance are different things and you wrote that Blizzard is trying to patch trends too?
+ Show Spoiler +Blizzard can not balance the game by reacting strongly to trends. Trends are strong because of metagame. It would be absolutely delightful for Blizzard if everyone tried to truly solve their losses rather than patching them up with metagame. Blizzard must be patient and wait for people to innovate before reacting too strongly to lopsided win rates among the races. If Blizzard reacts too strongly to what metagame-heavy players are doing, then they're guaranteeing themselves a never-ending cycle of "balancing" the game in response to trends.
Isn't Blizzard just making more units viable so far? Are we seeing fine tuning yet or is it still finishing the game?
If you are using Liquipedia's metagame definition than someone that is widely recognized staff there has to be legitimate.
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=94829#6
On June 06 2009 11:50 Ver wrote:
Metagame is a standard term that goes beyond starcraft, but yeah it is misused a lot in SC for whatever reason.
Metagame is the current favored strategies in a matchup.
i,e in 2007 the TvP metagame was 1 fact fe -> 4 fact -> 3rd base.
After Flash tore up Bacchus, Gom S4, and GSI with his 'Flash build,' the tvp metagame slowly shifted towards his build and the 4 fact -> 3rd build died out.
That was a metagame shift. There really isn't anything more to it.
Current favored strategies in a matchup.
What is the point of this:
An example of strategic decisions designed specifically to exploit a player's reaction or weakened mental state in the future:
Mental state in the future? That's important in tournaments but you don't practice playing only tournaments. Even if you play mainly with your buddies this has limited use - why would you want to weaken mental state of your practice partner when the main point in practice games is to get stronger by playing someone strong, the stronger he is the faster you improve in most cases?
Majority of people play random guys so this doesn't apply at all in this thread but is the most elaborated thing in your OP.
I don't even understand why mind games and preparation aren't separate issues. How do you call part of metagame without this fucking shit?
|
|
|
Calgary25962 Posts
On April 16 2010 10:19 CagedMind wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 06:09 Chill wrote:On April 16 2010 06:05 CagedMind wrote:
I honestly never heard of this kind of metagame lol. I don't think it should be used the other type is the commonly referred one and you'll just make things confusing.
Pvp plays stupid and that's how it's gonna stay till we see patch/expansion. There's only one type. Whatever definition you invented for yourself is incorrect. Million of people using the definition I know of is not inventing it for myself.
LOL [citation needed]
|
I totally agree with the OP.
Most of the high level games that I have seen come from tournaments with cash prizes. I think this is a big contributing factor to the metagame exploitation.
Like, if there is money involved and you haven't had enough time (since it is beta, obviously) to develop solid gameplay that can handle a variety of cheeses/rushes, then it makes total sense to exploit current gameplay trends.
For example, you know protoss like to go for immortal rushes in 75%(totally made that up, just a theoretical example) of their games vT so you do a banshee rush, since at this point you are more likely to guess correctly that he is going immortals and win rather than come up with a solid build order.
I almost wish there were more tournaments that didn't involve money (but still attracted top players) because I feel like the players would try to guess their opponent's strategy less often and try to develop actually solid builds. Could be totally wrong, but just a thought.
|
I can agree with this... most builds are currently centered around a 10 minute game. Either executing or preventing the "cheese" of the day. When it was Reapers, or Roaches, or Banelings or Warp Gates... You were either doing it or preventing it. As the game keeps going, you should notice themes in stopping all of these sorts of trash. (Ex: 3 rax to expand... in some form... seems to be able to hold most anything with good scouting.)
So basically, if you can create a build that can be easily modified for different forms of "cheese" or "early aggression", but still remain true to creating a strong Mid-Late game around 15 minutes... you now have like 90% of players beat. Its basically just surviving all the "tricks" they have learned. You basically aim for this endgame setup, multiple bases, and if you can execute it... at least until upper echelons of Platinum, no one is ready to take it that far.
I have a certain friend who plays, who is always focused on macro and always the endgame composition- while integrating interesting things into his build like Baneling drops into Mineral lines and aggressive expanding... he's a pleasure to watch and also happens to be by far the best out of the 10 or so people I play with regularly. Basically, if you go past 15 minutes with him... at least in our circle... you know the game is probably over already. You can GG. Of course we aim to beat him, but he is the closest to playing "correctly" now and we all know it.
|
On April 16 2010 09:21 Brett wrote:
The funny thing was in 1.07 the match up was already a fucking prick to play and yet 1.08 saw further nerfs to protoss via the goon build time increase and the psi storm nerf which prevented storms from 1-shotting lurkers (don't bother bringing up the increased pool and upgrade costs for zerg... oh no, 50 more minerals, 5 extra seconds of mining time... once. IMBA!). I admit... at the time I remember thinking... what the fuck? Are they retarded? My concern, however, would prove to be short sighted.
Your forgetting a critical protoss buff in 1.08 though, that zealots hp changed from 80/80 to 60/100. Then greatly increased their durability against hydra, allowing mass zealots to be a much stronger opening.
I will disagree with the OP on a key point, there is nothing wrong in any sport, e or otherwise, with playing the player as well as the game.
Learning the tendencies of your opponent can be a major advantage in a game, and should never be frowned upon. The game should be more than simple build X and APM Y, it should be about strategy, and strategy involves not just optimum play....but play that is optimum against the player they are facing.
|
On April 16 2010 05:58 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 05:45 jtype wrote:On April 16 2010 05:41 Cloak wrote:
What you're arguing is that you shouldn't be predictable, which is a metagame strategy in it of itself. Hmmm.. Not really. Part of what he's arguing is that you shouldn't blindly counter builds because they are a current trend. Or in other words, you shouldn't let other player's predictability cause you to be lazy about improving all aspects of your game. That's right. Here's an example that might help explain myself to Cloak If I completely scout a Zerg at one point and see a Spire building but no Hydra Den, and going Spire is a really popular strategy at the time, I could use metagame and think "ok I'm just going to counter Mutas." If I don't use metagame, I think of all the possibilities. I think, if he's going Hydras, they're going to be delayed X amount of time because he didn't build the Hydra Den as fast as possible because he used a Drone and some resources to start that Spire. He could also just be doing the optimal build for going straight to Spire. (There are of course a million other things he could be doing, but let's just stick to these two. Let's also assume it was a completely even game when I first scouted, that it was really easy for me to get that first scout in, but it would not be cost-efficient for me to get any more scouting done in any situation because now he can deny scouting really well.) If the game is balanced, then I will have a way to defend both the optimal Spire build and the sub-optimal Hydra Den build simultaneously without incurring a disadvantage. So I'm saying that everything should be taken at face value. One thing doesn't automatically lead to another. One thing might be optimal for only one follow up, but ignoring the other (sub-optimal) follow ups is using metagame. Being unpredictable... it doesn't really come into question here. If you have options that are equally effective, then I suppose yeah it's best to use them all unpredictably, and yes that'd might technically be using metagame. But that's not the point here.
Yeah, that's why if I scout a spire I adjust my build to fit my needs and continue what I'm trying to do; my original plan. + Show Spoiler + I did lose a game though because someone rushed spire.  I forgot to scout expo's nooby mistake hidden spire.
|
SOOOOO glad that there is an official verdict on the misuse of this word...
Thank you Nony! ^^
|
On April 16 2010 14:57 Karas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 09:21 Brett wrote:
The funny thing was in 1.07 the match up was already a fucking prick to play and yet 1.08 saw further nerfs to protoss via the goon build time increase and the psi storm nerf which prevented storms from 1-shotting lurkers (don't bother bringing up the increased pool and upgrade costs for zerg... oh no, 50 more minerals, 5 extra seconds of mining time... once. IMBA!). I admit... at the time I remember thinking... what the fuck? Are they retarded? My concern, however, would prove to be short sighted.
Your forgetting a critical protoss buff in 1.08 though, that zealots hp changed from 80/80 to 60/100. Then greatly increased their durability against hydra, allowing mass zealots to be a much stronger opening. I will disagree with the OP on a key point, there is nothing wrong in any sport, e or otherwise, with playing the player as well as the game. Learning the tendencies of your opponent can be a major advantage in a game, and should never be frowned upon. The game should be more than simple build X and APM Y, it should be about strategy, and strategy involves not just optimum play....but play that is optimum against the player they are facing.
Firstly, I wasn't forgetting that change, it just didn't make much of a difference. Your zealot openings in those days simply resulted in a response that included making an amount of zerglings proportional to the information your opponent gleamed from his ability to scout you perfectly, ie, he would simply pump lings because his overlord showed you pumping zlots, adding drones and hatches where available, knowing, the whole time, that at some point you have to stop zlots and tech/expand or simply be beaten down by the easy ability of a zerg to continue slowly taking territory, adding hatches and powering his economy while you are choked out of one base.
The only time zealot openings actually had a large effect on your ability to dictate in the match up was when you managed to obtain an advantage from a) earlier zealot timing proportionate to his pool, thus putting him on the back foot from the start b) being a better mechanical player than the opponent, or c) poor play/scouting/micro from the zerg player putting himself at a disadvantage.
In relation to the other matter, you're right; there is no problem with 'playing the player' so to speak. Certainly not in a well developed game such as BW. Certainly not if there is something on the line (eg. money). However, I think what Nony is getting at, despite the fact that he uses 'playing the player' situation as an example of metagaming, is that laddering (and thus a large, possibly predominant, proportion of SC2 beta play) at present is not about 'playing the player' at all. You are not playing Bo5 OSL finals against one opponent. People are playing the ladder to get high placements, they are seeing these trends in how most people play and thus they are simply trying to play high % counter-starcraft to ensure wins, rather than playing to improve themselves/their game. It's more about ego-feeding than lifting the person's own level of play or lifting the level of play that currently exists in SC2. Do people who are currently complaining about all-ins or the bland strategical landscape seriously want to have to wait 6 years for the FE PvZ, or pure Metal TvP type strats of SC2 to come out?
|
nony OPs...baller
thanks dude; good point but this will mostly fall on deaf ears
|
On April 16 2010 06:20 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 06:14 MorroW wrote:
if u leave it imbalanced without patching it ppl simply stop playing
take me for example, i lost motivation ever since i realized it was imbalanced and after each patch i play games until i realize its imbalanced again
i dont enjoy playing if i know its not balanced, i dont enjoy winning if i know i didnt win because of me. and i also dont find it inspiring to lose if i know it wasnt my fault.
i think they should keep up the rate of patches as they r not or even faster, in my eyes its very obvious to me the problems r. and after each patch they nerf everything we have talked about should be nerfed, so its not like us at TL dont jump to conclusions. if 90% agree on a change then it should be done imo How do you explain StarCraft after 1.08 going through several waves of imbalance despite never being patched? Are people really silly enough to thing "It's so simple just fix it"? Making the right fixes is exceedingly difficult. Don't kid yourself - you wouldn't be able to balance the game better than it's being done.
ur forgetting the fact that ppl werent used to playing rts games back then
sc1 actually required really really high apm to play
in sc2 the ppl on the top have played 4+ years of rts of wc3 or bw (both really hard games) and now sc2 comes. we know how to create bos, we know everything. the only thing new are the units and mechanics but i think its safe to say were used to that now.
sc2 should evolve 10 times faster than sc did because of these reasons. each time the community gathered and said "marauder too strong" they nerfed them or "roach too strong" they nerfed them. we said "static def too bad" and they buffed it. sure we might miss out on some perfected bos in specific, i guess we could learn that but in general we r seeing X unit being really strong, then its recomended to nerf it because the toss player is just as bad as the terran player at using optimal bos atm. so if u say terran didnt learn to optimize his bo yet then thats not true, its not the reason because the toss player also dont know this yet.
i can say pretty black and white which units needed nerf and which need buff and for about 90% of the cases ive been right so far. and i bet the rest of the community lies around that % too.
its bad idea too patch too fast but its a worse idea to not patch at all imo, not when its so clear as it is now whats imba and what should be changed
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
