|
8748 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.
|
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.
|
Calgary25980 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.
|
8748 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...
|
we just have to hope blizzard doesn't go all "warcraft"-patching (wc3 or wow) on us because there is too much whining about "flavor of the moment" tactics...
the best thing blizzard could do balance wise is to just absolutly freeze balance patching with the release version. let player and mappers figure it out. blizzard will still have 2 more shots (the 2 addons) to make some changes.
|
What you basically are saying is, that people should start playing "standart" to improve their play. If you are about to actually go pro or to get really good in this game, this is a good advice. However we are in beta, so most of those gimmicky strategies are not even discovered yet. Thus, it is harmful for the players to play blindly standart. Imagine if all the sudden some progamers in Korea discovered something as strong as the marine-scv-rush vs. protoss, this is what is going to happen to SC2 if everyone switches to economical builds and those cheese builds come up when patches do not some out on weekly basis.
Also, since most players do not aim to become progamers or something, they do whatever is fun and allins are.
This might have little to do with the term metagame, but the more different strategies the players discover, the better Blizzard's chances are to prevent a dominant strategy that kills every RTS.
|
Do what you think will make you win and the game will evolve.
|
I have been thinking along these lines. Finding a "good" build that has few weakpoints that becomes standardized will help create more dynamic and longer games that require more skill then silly all in builds and rock paper scissor builds.
|
That is something to definitely take to heart when playing, especially while SC2 is in beta still. I'll keep it in mind while playing in the near future and see how it turns out...
|
8748 Posts
On April 16 2010 04:46 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
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?
Yeah. I think that people feel safer and more solid than they actually are. They dismiss their losses instead of learning from them. And when they do learn from their losses and change their game, they tend to sacrifice the strength of whatever they were doing before the changes.
Or they might just be content with how often they're winning at the time and they don't know how to improve. They win 60% of the time with their shaky strategy and they stick with it until it drops below 50%. Then they react to that new thing and hit 60% again. They have no idea how to win 70% or more of the time. And cycling back through older strategies can always threaten their 60% win rate.
Basically, instead of focusing on moving forward with strategies, they're moving sideways. But because one thing came first and the other thing came second, they feel like they've made progress. Metagame is the culprit.
|
I mostly agree.... I agree on your opinion that the strategies used by the player shouldn't be heavily based on the current metagame, but that doesn't make the information from the current metagame meaningless.
The metagame always has underlying causative. Their are factors that caused it to form. Analyzing what those causative are a hugely important process, when trying to independently determine balance information. The causative is most likely due to external factors independent of the game, like player skill, lack of experience, insufficient growth, etc, but they can also reflect internal causative that may detriment the ability of the metagame to grow.
Its important to analyze the metagame to determine whether the cause is something that can be changed, or if it is internal to the game itself (Imbalance/poor design)
|
Calgary25980 Posts
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.
You cannot just make up terms. Metagame does not mean the winningest strategy nor does it mean the most standard way to play. I think Tasteless started using the word like this on GOM and everyone now believes that's what it means.
|
I mostly agree.... I agree on your opinion that the strategies used by the player shouldn't be heavily based on the current metagame, but that doesn't make the information from the current metagame meaningless.
The metagame always has underlying causatives. Their are factors that caused it to form. Analyzing what those causitives are a hugely important process, when trying to independently determine balance information. The causative is most likely due to external factors independent of the game, like player skill, lack of experience, unsufficient growth, etc, but they can also reflect internal causative that may detriment the ability of the metagame to grow.
Its important to analyze the metagame to determine whether the cause is something that can be changed, or if it is internal to the game itself (Imbalance/poor design)
I know you're trying to put on the big boy facade because you're talking to someone halfway intelligent, but you would evoke MORE of a conversation if you spoke like a human being and stuck only to words in the dictionary. (i.e unsufficient)
|
hahah, dont tell them!
i'm still enjpying me free wins from protoss players who blindly send 3 super fast immortals and 4 zealots blindly at my 48 zerglings
|
I disagree with this liquipedia's definition of 'metagame' as it puts way too much emphasis on preparation. I believe that once we are aware of the metagame that we can begin to prepare or alter our play as a consequence of having knowledge of the concept. The metagame is not preparation itself. I prefer the definition from urban dictionary: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=metagame
This is just nitpicking though and I think this was a good post. You do not need to get into imaginary psychological battles with your opponents and should just focus on playing solid.
|
So pretty much to sum up in a couple sentences:
Stop doing risky strategies simply to win based on hoping that your opponent does something weak to it.
Try to find the best compromise and most flexible build which provides the greatest balance of strength vs a variety of builds.
Or in 2 words: Don't cheese.
You also are saying that it promotes a better development for the game as a whole when people focus more on finding universally strong strategies than risky cheeses and luck based play. I can't agree more. I've been saying this stuff since day 1 and often get dismissed by players who legitimately think their cheese is good play. It's very troubling because I think people are so much more inclined to win rather than explore.
Great post, much needed, and well put.
|
On April 16 2010 04:20 lolaloc wrote:
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.
No he doesn't: tricking another player in a game isn't "metagame". If he announced to you that we was going mutas before the game, or knew that you personally always scanned in a certain spot and took advantage of that... that's metagame
|
On April 16 2010 05:07 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +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. You cannot just make up terms. Metagame does not mean the winningest strategy nor does it mean the most standard way to play. I think Tasteless started using the word like this on GOM and everyone now believes that's what it means.
You could say Tasteless exploited a timing window to forever alter the metaposting of TLnet
|
On April 16 2010 05:01 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 04:46 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
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? Yeah. I think that people feel safer and more solid than they actually are. They dismiss their losses instead of learning from them. And when they do learn from their losses and change their game, they tend to sacrifice the strength of whatever they were doing before the changes. Or they might just be content with how often they're winning at the time and they don't know how to improve. They win 60% of the time with their shaky strategy and they stick with it until it drops below 50%. Then they react to that new thing and hit 60% again. They have no idea how to win 70% or more of the time. And cycling back through older strategies can always threaten their 60% win rate. Basically, instead of focusing on moving forward with strategies, they're moving sideways. But because one thing came first and the other thing came second, they feel like they've made progress. Metagame is the culprit.
The thing is, some matchups are so broken that metagame cannot possibly evolve without further patches/game fixes. Look at PvT and PvP (from a protoss standpoint). I don't mind losing my games if I know how to fix it in further games, but when it comes to the early game immortal imbalance in PvT or the eventual mass colossi vs mass colossi in PvP, if you don't abuse/act upon those factors, the other player will. (Granted, PvP isn't that bad - I personally don't understand early game but that's just me and I suck at PvP)
And to ignore what's been working for 90% of the top players on the server and experiment is very difficult, even if you find a partner willing to do this with you. Fact is, it's a beta and things are broken. The only matchup where I find strategies and choices can vary from game to game is PvZ (again, as a protoss player).
And my god, all those posts have really confused me so if I'm going off topic, sorry but this is how I feel right now.
|
This thread is going to go in circles if people don't understand the difference and relationship between the metagame and playing mindgames.
The metagame is the current field. If you're playing against europeans and europeans cheese 90% of the time, you need to prepare for a cheesy metagame by developing some safe builds that would put you behind against a greedier bunch of players. If you decide to play safe a few games in a row, then toss out a ballsy greedy play in the face of a cheesy metagame, you'd be playing a mindgame.
The two are related; the metagame builds incentives to play a certain way inside a particular group of players and mindgames use those presumptions to gain an advantage.
|
On April 16 2010 05:07 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +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. You cannot just make up terms. Metagame does not mean the winningest strategy nor does it mean the most standard way to play. I think Tasteless started using the word like this on GOM and everyone now believes that's what it means.
I think we're all getting too bogged down in semantics here, but it actually can mean those things, 'standard play' and 'best strategy' are both metagame concepts.
I do, however, agree that the term is largely misunderstood and has been overused in some cases. (edit: ) And I do agree with Nony's overall point; the fact that you should focus on improving your play with regards to every possible variable, not just the current trend.
|
On April 16 2010 05:07 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +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. You cannot just make up terms. Metagame does not mean the winningest strategy nor does it mean the most standard way to play. I think Tasteless started using the word like this on GOM and everyone now believes that's what it means.
People knew what it meant way b4 gom.
|
8748 Posts
yomi: I happen to disagree with your claim but the issue of "what kind of play is most helpful for balancing?" isn't the issue in this thread so realize that we are going off topic here.
How often certain races are put in situations of imperfect information, how often certain races are able to put their opponents in situations of imperfect information, and how well certain races can come out of these kinds of situations -- all these things are relevant to balance. That's independent of metagame. Metagame doesn't change what is possible; it only changes what is probable. Metagame affects player decisions but player decisions don't affect balance. Metagame limits innovation because it only works by looking backwards. It helps you decide between your current options rather than inventing a new one. To balance a game, you have to know what all the possibilities are.
Let's say Terran is winning 60% of its games against Protoss. 1% of Protoss have figured out a way to defeat the thing that Terrans are doing to win 60% of their games. Blizzard is aware of what this 1% are doing. Blizzard should not (and would not) make a balance change to instantly get TvP back to 50/50. They'd let that 1% of Protoss players reap the benefit of their knowledge and wait until that knowledge spreads and see if it tips the balance the other way. If it does, then they'll wait to see if it's reasonable for Terran to come up with a counter or not. If Terran players probably can't, then Blizzard might have to in fact buff Terran, when at the start of the scenario (in the same patch) it was Terran winning 60% of the time.
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.
|
On April 16 2010 05:12 BADSMCGEE wrote:Show nested quote +I mostly agree.... I agree on your opinion that the strategies used by the player shouldn't be heavily based on the current metagame, but that doesn't make the information from the current metagame meaningless.
The metagame always has underlying causatives. Their are factors that caused it to form. Analyzing what those causitives are a hugely important process, when trying to independently determine balance information. The causative is most likely due to external factors independent of the game, like player skill, lack of experience, unsufficient growth, etc, but they can also reflect internal causative that may detriment the ability of the metagame to grow.
Its important to analyze the metagame to determine whether the cause is something that can be changed, or if it is internal to the game itself (Imbalance/poor design) I know you're trying to put on the big boy facade because you're talking to someone halfway intelligent, but you would evoke MORE of a conversation if you spoke like a human being and stuck only to words in the dictionary. (i.e unsufficient)
I know you're trying to troll, but writing a paragraph to point out one typo (u is right next to i broski) is a very low troll to effort ratio.
nice try tho.
|
On April 16 2010 05:35 Liquid`NonY wrote:
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.
Entirely agree.
I've seen far too many games run into the dust because of the aforementioned reasons.
|
Metagame is super important. Situational strategies are not. Metagame does also spill over into player psychology within the game too. You can't guess what they're doing without involving metagame, so it's a no win situation. Metagame is essential to success. What you're arguing is that you shouldn't be predictable, which is a metagame strategy in it of itself.
|
I will say while I agree with your principles Nony, there is one metagame aspect I believe that should be followed EVERY PvT..
ALWAYS make sure to rush for a fast stalker to fend off the first Reaper. You never know when/if that first reaper will come, and its better being safe than sorry. I get core before 2nd pylon every PvT even though economically it is not as solid, just incase they did some kind of 8rax proxy, and it has saved me a few times.
(obv unless you are doing some kind of proxy 2gate all-in, but every other situation I feel a fast stalker is required when facing terran)
|
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.
|
8748 Posts
I'd just like to put this on record too... Metagame is awesome. I used it a ton in TSL. But it's kinda just a cherry on top. I spend all my effort coming up with the best strategies I can. Then as a match comes up, if I see an opportunity for metagame, I might use that too for a boost.
This is where the definition Smuft linked from urbandictionary starts to feel appropriate. I think the problem is that the metagame isn't such a beautiful thing in a developing game (SC2) where, to be honest, nobody is really playing it at a high level. In SC:BW and Poker, it's a beautiful thing.
|
if everyone was trying to develop solid gameplay where u scout and respond blizzard would probably find it easier to balance. altho if everyone was doing like this it would be impossible to figure out what is safe and works, the best way to create a good and solid build is in an environment filled with ppl who r cheesing. once ppl stop cheese u or punish u, u will get greedy and become an abusive gamer rather than a safe player
|
On April 16 2010 05:45 jtype wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Well the only way you can blindly counter established builds is to be predictable in response. The problem is predictability. If predictability is too high, strategic growth gets stagnant. I agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments. I advocate a lot more ambiguity with soft counters, since ambiguity and diversity of unit composition is the key to gameplay diversity. I guess I'm arguing that metagame isn't entirely memorizing builds from Liquipedia, but involves more active prediction of your opponent's behavior, which usually boils down to GateRoboGate or whatever. Anything that involves human beings within the game necessarily involves rules above and beyond the game, hence metagame.
|
you can't "use metagame." you can have knowledge of the metagame, and use that to your advantage, but you cannot use something that does not physically exist. It's a game state.
|
On April 16 2010 05:35 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Let's say Terran is winning 60% of its games against Protoss. 1% of Protoss have figured out a way to defeat the thing that Terrans are doing to win 60% of their games. Blizzard is aware of what this 1% are doing. Blizzard should not (and would not) make a balance change to instantly get TvP back to 50/50. They'd let that 1% of Protoss players reap the benefit of their knowledge and wait until that knowledge spreads and see if it tips the balance the other way. If it does, then they'll wait to see if it's reasonable for Terran to come up with a counter or not. If Terran players probably can't, then Blizzard might have to in fact buff Terran, when at the start of the scenario (in the same patch) it was Terran winning 60% of the time.
I really like this example.
Also, learn your terms, people!
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On April 16 2010 05:24 Antimage wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 05:01 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 16 2010 04:46 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
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? Yeah. I think that people feel safer and more solid than they actually are. They dismiss their losses instead of learning from them. And when they do learn from their losses and change their game, they tend to sacrifice the strength of whatever they were doing before the changes. Or they might just be content with how often they're winning at the time and they don't know how to improve. They win 60% of the time with their shaky strategy and they stick with it until it drops below 50%. Then they react to that new thing and hit 60% again. They have no idea how to win 70% or more of the time. And cycling back through older strategies can always threaten their 60% win rate. Basically, instead of focusing on moving forward with strategies, they're moving sideways. But because one thing came first and the other thing came second, they feel like they've made progress. Metagame is the culprit. The thing is, some matchups are so broken that metagame cannot possibly evolve without further patches/game fixes. Look at PvT and PvP (from a protoss standpoint). I don't mind losing my games if I know how to fix it in further games, but when it comes to the early game immortal imbalance in PvT or the eventual mass colossi vs mass colossi in PvP, if you don't abuse/act upon those factors, the other player will. (Granted, PvP isn't that bad - I personally don't understand early game but that's just me and I suck at PvP) And to ignore what's been working for 90% of the top players on the server and experiment is very difficult, even if you find a partner willing to do this with you. Fact is, it's a beta and things are broken. The only matchup where I find strategies and choices can vary from game to game is PvZ (again, as a protoss player). And my god, all those posts have really confused me so if I'm going off topic, sorry but this is how I feel right now.
This is so short-sighted. Remember when PvZ was unplayable from 1998 to around 2004? It is impossible to say that the matchups are broken after playing them for a month. I'm actually getting a little tired of people at the top of the ladder acting like they have some level of understanding of the game that is seven times deeper than the rest of us.
|
On April 16 2010 05:53 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 05:24 Antimage wrote:On April 16 2010 05:01 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 16 2010 04:46 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
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? Yeah. I think that people feel safer and more solid than they actually are. They dismiss their losses instead of learning from them. And when they do learn from their losses and change their game, they tend to sacrifice the strength of whatever they were doing before the changes. Or they might just be content with how often they're winning at the time and they don't know how to improve. They win 60% of the time with their shaky strategy and they stick with it until it drops below 50%. Then they react to that new thing and hit 60% again. They have no idea how to win 70% or more of the time. And cycling back through older strategies can always threaten their 60% win rate. Basically, instead of focusing on moving forward with strategies, they're moving sideways. But because one thing came first and the other thing came second, they feel like they've made progress. Metagame is the culprit. The thing is, some matchups are so broken that metagame cannot possibly evolve without further patches/game fixes. Look at PvT and PvP (from a protoss standpoint). I don't mind losing my games if I know how to fix it in further games, but when it comes to the early game immortal imbalance in PvT or the eventual mass colossi vs mass colossi in PvP, if you don't abuse/act upon those factors, the other player will. (Granted, PvP isn't that bad - I personally don't understand early game but that's just me and I suck at PvP) And to ignore what's been working for 90% of the top players on the server and experiment is very difficult, even if you find a partner willing to do this with you. Fact is, it's a beta and things are broken. The only matchup where I find strategies and choices can vary from game to game is PvZ (again, as a protoss player). And my god, all those posts have really confused me so if I'm going off topic, sorry but this is how I feel right now. This is so short-sighted. Remember when PvZ was unplayable from 1998 to around 2004? It is impossible to say that the matchups are broken after playing them for a month. I'm actually getting a little tired of people at the top of the ladder acting like they have some level of understanding of the game that is seven times deeper than the rest of us.
haha, qft, well tbh, everyone technically is bad at SC2, even "top players," because no one's play is near optimal. and the days of, "omg ultraling is insta win" were entertaining.
|
8748 Posts
On April 16 2010 05:45 jtype wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 16 2010 05:53 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 05:24 Antimage wrote:On April 16 2010 05:01 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 16 2010 04:46 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
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? Yeah. I think that people feel safer and more solid than they actually are. They dismiss their losses instead of learning from them. And when they do learn from their losses and change their game, they tend to sacrifice the strength of whatever they were doing before the changes. Or they might just be content with how often they're winning at the time and they don't know how to improve. They win 60% of the time with their shaky strategy and they stick with it until it drops below 50%. Then they react to that new thing and hit 60% again. They have no idea how to win 70% or more of the time. And cycling back through older strategies can always threaten their 60% win rate. Basically, instead of focusing on moving forward with strategies, they're moving sideways. But because one thing came first and the other thing came second, they feel like they've made progress. Metagame is the culprit. The thing is, some matchups are so broken that metagame cannot possibly evolve without further patches/game fixes. Look at PvT and PvP (from a protoss standpoint). I don't mind losing my games if I know how to fix it in further games, but when it comes to the early game immortal imbalance in PvT or the eventual mass colossi vs mass colossi in PvP, if you don't abuse/act upon those factors, the other player will. (Granted, PvP isn't that bad - I personally don't understand early game but that's just me and I suck at PvP) And to ignore what's been working for 90% of the top players on the server and experiment is very difficult, even if you find a partner willing to do this with you. Fact is, it's a beta and things are broken. The only matchup where I find strategies and choices can vary from game to game is PvZ (again, as a protoss player). And my god, all those posts have really confused me so if I'm going off topic, sorry but this is how I feel right now. This is so short-sighted. Remember when PvZ was unplayable from 1998 to around 2004? It is impossible to say that the matchups are broken after playing them for a month. I'm actually getting a little tired of people at the top of the ladder acting like they have some level of understanding of the game that is seven times deeper than the rest of us.
From 1998 to 2004 there was a very small pro scene in Starcraft 1. SC 2 hasn't even come out yet and there is a huge market already developing for it. And you want to wait around for strategy development?
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On April 16 2010 05:58 Antimage wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 05:53 Chill wrote:On April 16 2010 05:24 Antimage wrote:On April 16 2010 05:01 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 16 2010 04:46 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
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? Yeah. I think that people feel safer and more solid than they actually are. They dismiss their losses instead of learning from them. And when they do learn from their losses and change their game, they tend to sacrifice the strength of whatever they were doing before the changes. Or they might just be content with how often they're winning at the time and they don't know how to improve. They win 60% of the time with their shaky strategy and they stick with it until it drops below 50%. Then they react to that new thing and hit 60% again. They have no idea how to win 70% or more of the time. And cycling back through older strategies can always threaten their 60% win rate. Basically, instead of focusing on moving forward with strategies, they're moving sideways. But because one thing came first and the other thing came second, they feel like they've made progress. Metagame is the culprit. The thing is, some matchups are so broken that metagame cannot possibly evolve without further patches/game fixes. Look at PvT and PvP (from a protoss standpoint). I don't mind losing my games if I know how to fix it in further games, but when it comes to the early game immortal imbalance in PvT or the eventual mass colossi vs mass colossi in PvP, if you don't abuse/act upon those factors, the other player will. (Granted, PvP isn't that bad - I personally don't understand early game but that's just me and I suck at PvP) And to ignore what's been working for 90% of the top players on the server and experiment is very difficult, even if you find a partner willing to do this with you. Fact is, it's a beta and things are broken. The only matchup where I find strategies and choices can vary from game to game is PvZ (again, as a protoss player). And my god, all those posts have really confused me so if I'm going off topic, sorry but this is how I feel right now. This is so short-sighted. Remember when PvZ was unplayable from 1998 to around 2004? It is impossible to say that the matchups are broken after playing them for a month. I'm actually getting a little tired of people at the top of the ladder acting like they have some level of understanding of the game that is seven times deeper than the rest of us. From 1998 to 2004 there was a very small pro scene in Starcraft 1. SC 2 hasn't even come out yet and there is a huge market already developing for it. And you want to wait around for strategy development?
I don't see your point. Having a more competitive scene somehow solved the game 100 times more quickly? Clearly this isn't true and is ridiculous.
I don't want to wait for anything, but I certainly don't want to force it. People are short-sighted to the point of ignorance by suggesting radical band-aid solutions. I want the opposite - let's leave the game imbalanced (if it is) until we're sure and then make small tweaks since it's possible that the players' styles will solve the problem.
|
On April 16 2010 05:58 Antimage wrote:
From 1998 to 2004 there was a very small pro scene in Starcraft 1. SC 2 hasn't even come out yet and there is a huge market already developing for it. And you want to wait around for strategy development?
you made me lol
LOL
also, only protosses that could sometimes kill zerg while being Terran destroyers could succed at that time
|
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.
|
On April 16 2010 06:03 Chill wrote:u want to wait around for strategy development?
I don't see your point. Having a more competitive scene somehow solved the game 100 times more quickly? Clearly this isn't true and is ridiculous.
Of course it would evolve more quickly. For two reasons. First of all, the bigger a competitive scene is the more people are able to contribute, and second, the bigger a competitive scene is, the more money is on the line, and hence, more competition. Competition leads to innovation.
That being said the statement was kind of lulzy. SC1 pro scene before 2004 was still pretty influential and sizable. Just not as influential or sizable as it was in 2005 lol.
I don't want to wait for anything, but I certainly don't want to force it. People are short-sighted to the point of ignorance by suggesting radical band-aid solutions. I want the opposite - let's leave the game imbalanced (if it is) until we're sure and then make small tweaks since it's possible that the players' styles will solve the problem.
I definitely agree, and I think some of the knee jerk changes blizzard sometimes make can be counterproductive. For instance, removing the Pheonix's overload, reaper grenades, and low hp high regen roaches because it wasn't immediately balanced, despite the fact that many things in SC1 wasn't originally balanced either, all abilities that promoted interesting play and micro.
However, the metagame does reflect the actual game in some way, and if you properly analyze the metagame, you can find causative for its current state. Many of them may be based on lack of player skill or incomplete development. But if you can logically show how its the result of an underlying problem, change is warranted assuming you can sufficiently prove it to blizzard and the community as a large.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
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.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
[QUOTE]On April 16 2010 05:58 Antimage wrote:
From 1998 to 2004 there was a very small pro scene in Starcraft 1./QUOTE]
Who are you? Were you around in 2004 and i just don't recognize you? Joined 3-4-2010 13:00:24
Oh no nevermind, he's talking shit.
|
tl;dr version:
Everything you do should be rationalized within the context of the match.
|
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
|
On April 16 2010 06:05 St3MoR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 05:58 Antimage wrote:
From 1998 to 2004 there was a very small pro scene in Starcraft 1. SC 2 hasn't even come out yet and there is a huge market already developing for it. And you want to wait around for strategy development? you made me lol LOL
made me think of the number of people at the gillette finals and then made me rage
|
i'm afraid that the metagame is going to cause blizzard to wreck the game in future beta patches.
please don't nerf flavour of the month just because 'too many people are using it'. this is what killed off world of snoreshaft pvp and really damaged guildwars back in the day.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
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.
|
Okay, I think I can summarize this in another way.
Basically, what Nony is saying is that - look, if we view playing SC 2 as a learning process, then most people are learning the wrong things. To be really solid as a SC 2 player and as a RTS player in general, you need to improve your mechanics, your game sense, and your ability to operate under pressure. Right now, however, the vast majority of SC 2 players aren't doing that. Instead, they're improving their execution of a very narrow set of strategies that just happen to work well under the current meta-game.
This has three undesirable consequences:
1. It's detrimental to the ranking system, because you get a bunch of people at the top of platinum who are actually terrible because they got there by virtue of knowing how to execute one or two strategies really well, simply because they work under the current meta-game.
2. It's detrimental to the evolution of SC 2 gameplay, because you fail to explore most of the strategic possibilities available and are instead constrained to a small set of cookie-cutter strategies and counter-strategies until you lose more games than you win, at which point you switch to another small set of cookie-cutter strategies and counter-strategies.
3. It's detrimental to the development of you as a player, because learning how to execute one or two strategies really well doesn't actually make you a great player in general. A truly solid player is versatile and can respond effectively to any situation. By doing these meta-game-optimal strategies over and over again, you are only improving your ability to perform these strategies, and not to play SC 2 overall.
For those who saw Day9's 100th cast, it's basically what he talked about when he referred to his progression from doing a muta all-in on The Small Divide, to doing a strategy that actually has a follow-up, to becoming aware of his opponents' strategies and responding appropriately, and then ultimately to doing just very solid strategies that could work regardless of whether his opponents knew they were coming.
|
Yeah, the amount of undiscovered depth that people stumbled upon is why brood war was good. If they'd messed about with balance after 1.08 we wouldn't even have been playing the same game, for all we know it could've ended up stupidly imbalanced and died after a year. The way Brood War played out it truly is the luckiest game in history, though.
People are still finding new abusable things every single day with this game, you really have to give it some time. Apart from tvp I think the game is in a pretty good state right now balance wise and is miles, absolutely miles ahead of any other RTS thats only been in beta for 2 months.
|
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
You don't actually know if there is an imbalance and that's the whole point that some people are trying to make. Sure you might be correct that there is an imbalance but you can't have the presumptuous attitude that you're winning because of balance or losing because of balance.
It's one thing to suggest imbalances and talk about them, get feedback, have games played, get more feedback, talk about them, and get more data from games played, repeat, to see if there is really is an imbalance. This is an incredibly long process if you want things done right. But when a lot of people play a couple hundred ladder games (this is a very small amount) and claim some clear imbalance that is so obvious and Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing then it's just egotistical.
|
I try... and fail 80% of the time T_T...
Maybe if I was 15 and didn't have a life, I'd have time to develop, investigate, experiment, etc, etc, etc... but when you come home every night after a long day at work, tired as a mutha... you just really wanna play some games, drink a couple of beers and hope your girl/wife doesn't start bitching about some shit....... lol
Speaking of which... personal question...
How do you do it?!?! Being married and all... I feel like SC2/Girlfriend/Work/School just CANNOT co-exist... "/
|
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 it doesn't
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming
|
this is not a game like chess contains very deep and different strategies. one year later there will be only a couple of proven and working strategies which players stick to.
|
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.
Could you clarify these periods of imbalance after 1.08? It is only a personal opinion, and I only know from 1999 to 2003 as that was when my brother and myself were "decent", but I do not recall ever feeling something was imbalanced. I always placed top 64 or higher in USA tournaments, and my younger brother went so far as to take 2nd at the WCG USA finals in 2002 (qualifying for the grand finals). I've seen PvZ mentioned during this time period - yet we were both statistically slightly worse against Terran (often resorting to cheese) and found PvZ to be an even matchup (albeit with few strategic possibilities at the time).
Basically.... do you have specific examples of a majority of top players saying "X unit or strat" is imbalanced post 1.08? Yes, there are those who argued X matchup was broken, but I do not recall instances of top players universally agreeing what units needed to be changed or adjusted. In some cases, there has been fairly universal agreement on a specific unit or strat in SC2, and so was wondering if you could point me to the same thing occurring in Starcraft?
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On April 16 2010 06:51 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 06:20 Chill wrote: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. Could you clarify these periods of imbalance after 1.08? It is only a personal opinion, and I only know from 1999 to 2003 as that was when my brother and myself were "decent", but I do not recall ever feeling something was imbalanced. I always placed top 64 or higher in USA tournaments, and my younger brother went so far as to take 2nd at the WCG USA finals in 2002 (qualifying for the grand finals). I've seen PvZ mentioned during this time period - yet we were both statistically slightly worse against Terran (often resorting to cheese) and found PvZ to be an even matchup (albeit with few strategic possibilities at the time). Basically.... do you have specific examples of a majority of top players saying "X unit or strat" is imbalanced post 1.08? Yes, there are those who argued X matchup was broken, but I do not recall instances of top players universally agreeing what units needed to be changed or adjusted. In some cases, there has been fairly universal agreement on a specific unit or strat in SC2, and so was wondering if you could point me to the same thing occurring in Starcraft?
Pre-FE PvZ was impossible. Zerg had a very hard time against Terran as well without Defilers and Muta micro. As for your request of me researching the majority of top players saying something is imbalance, I'm quite frankly not going to do that.
|
Well i just read the whole thing and i gotta say that it was damn worth it.
|
Also, for those who know a bit of game theory, there is a little algorithm called mini-max which calculates a strategy that is optimal regardless of what your opponent does. This is sort of like what "standard" means in this context, in the ideal sense.
|
On April 16 2010 04:10 Terrakin wrote:
so thats what metagame ment..
already forgot it...
forgot what?
+ Show Spoiler +but seriously, great post! Aren't you like one of the founding fathers (or THE founding father) of TLnet? I remember that from somewhere and either way, totally respect u and will do this when beta ends just to prove that even though beta ended, its still beta.
|
8748 Posts
On April 16 2010 07:04 3FFA wrote:
but seriously, great post! Aren't you like one of the founding fathers (or THE founding father) of TLnet? I remember that from somewhere and either way, totally respect u and will do this when beta ends just to prove that even though beta ended, its still beta.
That honor goes to Liquid`Nazgul and Liquid`Meat. I haven't contributed much to the site teamliquid.net but I am on the actual playing team Team Liquid. My main claims to fame are playing on a professional team in Korea and winning TSL2. Thanks =]
|
I think a few things to note about balance that I've thought of recently (not really new):
1 - Brood War probably ISN'T 'balanced' with the 1.08 patch. HOWEVER, players of the respective races have pushed themselves and evolved the potential of each race to achieve balance.
2 - Map design will evolve to complement racial balance. This is one of the biggest strengths of RTS games and SC in particular IMO. The nature of them allows for maps to significantly influence balance, compared to, say, a fighting game.
|
great post nony, thx.
experimenting and adapting to a game situation on the way, figuring out how to come ahead is the key to success in long term game.
regards!
|
On April 16 2010 07:10 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2010 07:04 3FFA wrote:
but seriously, great post! Aren't you like one of the founding fathers (or THE founding father) of TLnet? I remember that from somewhere and either way, totally respect u and will do this when beta ends just to prove that even though beta ended, its still beta. That honor goes to Liquid`Nazgul and Liquid`Meat. I haven't contributed much to the site teamliquid.net but I am on the actual playing team Team Liquid. My main claims to fame are playing on a professional team in Korea and winning TSL2. Thanks =]
Your welcome, I soooo wish I had beta though lol... just gotta wait a little bit longer...
+ Show Spoiler +and a little bit longer...
+ Show Spoiler +a little bit longer.........
+ Show Spoiler +
edit: O and, Nony ur awesome
edit2:nevermine about the thread thing I totally messed up names (again)-.-
|
|
|
On April 16 2010 07:10 0neder wrote:
I think a few things to note about balance that I've thought of recently (not really new):
1 - Brood War probably ISN'T 'balanced' with the 1.08 patch. HOWEVER, players of the respective races have pushed themselves and evolved the potential of each race to achieve balance.
2 - Map design will evolve to complement racial balance. This is one of the biggest strengths of RTS games and SC in particular IMO. The nature of them allows for maps to significantly influence balance, compared to, say, a fighting game.
umm... this is SCII...
|
I know exactly what you mean!
Its honestly hard for a new player like me to adjust to things so I get absorbed into the meta game and i lose every time because people adjust to my cookie cutter builds.
I'll keep this in mind, thanks!!!
|
This is an absolutely great post, but I think the people who aren't doing the same 1 base all in builds every game are the ones that already try new builds / timings / ideas at the cost of win percentage.
|
a cry for a better gaming world
<3 very well written
|
Setting aside the whole issue of people not using words correctly, I think this raises a good point: this is the beta, and the main goal of all beta testers should be to help Blizzard finish the game.
If you find something that you think is overpowered and breaks the game, then don't whine about it, just use it. Switch races if you have to. If you think it can be countered, then concentrate on countering it. If it can be countered, then people will figure it out pretty quickly. If it can't, then the developers will notice in due time.
Blizzard has stated their intention to balance the game at all levels of skill, not just for top players. So they're going to be trying to eliminate things like "zergling rush" strategies where one player just follows a simple no-skill script, and the other one has to scout properly and react intelligently to stay in the game. That means they're going to change things even when it seems balanced to high-skill players.
From the point of view of a player at a specific skill level, you can't relate to the decision-making process of the developers. My advice is to stop second-guessing the designers, assume the game is imbalanced, and just try to exploit the imbalances as much as possible to win as much as you can.
|
Don't focus on the metagame.... yet
Agree 100%
however at some point not -too- long after release metagame will become an integral part of how the game is played at higher levels. If you're gonna try to teach someone how to play SC:BW you teach em the game, and then the metagame. Theres no point in teaching a player an obsolete build/style. However these things only exist because of an evolution and mastery of breaking the game down to it's most efficient parts.
|
Agreed wholeheartedly Nony! When playing one of my friends I pretty much know what he is going to do (we play so he can practice to be better) yet I still scout, poke in, etc just because I don't want to fall into the lazy metagame mentality trap.
I treat it like I didn't know him and I need to scout properly that way when I play ladder later or one of my far better practice partners I haven't mucked up my mentality.
For a tournament metagame is very useful but in the context of your post ie ladder/balance then it's a distracting waste of mental energy and more often than not a crutch that leads to inferior play down the road.
People try blind hard counters on me all the time (because Im zerg and I MUST be using roaches right!) and with scouting them + burrowing whatever I did happen to build, I just abuse it. Funny enough these failed blind-build players are often the worse mannered about their loss when it happens. I can only assume they are used to easy wins because the metagame currently makes their build a good idea in most scenarios.
|
I would think you could catch what you want to say in the following phrase:
Players who play to win polarize the player base towards the same play style due to imbalances.
If players would play Bo5 or Bo3 sets to count as a single win, imbalance abusive builds can be countered by meta game and could iron out those wrinkles, perhaps?
|
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.
|
8748 Posts
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.
And I think Blizzard's people understand a great deal about this kind of stuff. They aren't going to be deceived by something that just "appears" to be good. Of course they look at statistics that are blind to this kind of stuff, but they also look at real games and can figure out what is going on.
|
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.
|
On April 16 2010 06:51 huun wrote:
this is not a game like chess contains very deep and different strategies. one year later there will be only a couple of proven and working strategies which players stick to.
A year after chess was created, I doubt there was much realization of depth.
Depth is realized when people have time to explore and repeat and find all of the nuances. The depth of SCBW was mainly only realized once Blizzard stopped patching and forced players to solve their own problems, so to speak.
The possible number of game paths on even a single SC2 map dwarfs the entire universe of possibilities in Chess. The depth that potentially exists to be explored is literally beyond the ability of a single generation to comprehend. It is not a question of whether depth exists, only a question of whether balance exists and whether the game is entertaining enough that we will ever bother to explore the depths that exist.
|
haha if u think nony doesnt use metagame then watch his TSL games vs idra
|
He absolutely uses meta-game; his point is that people shouldn't learn SC 2 through meta-gaming.
|
Wow... I played BW for like 2 years and I never even got to metagame part... I just got to the losing part. I was really good at the losing part.
|
|
|
On April 16 2010 08:52 Azarkon wrote:
He absolutely uses meta-game; his point is that people shouldn't learn SC 2 through meta-gaming.
Well that also depends on what it is that you want to learn most or learn first.
If you are trying to sharpen your ability to react on the fly, then you shouldn't use any set build order, or only a skeleton order. On the other hand, if you are trying to up your technical ability (APM, scouting, building placement, etc) then the opposite may be true. You may wish to dogmatically use only a single build order or a very small sub set of build orders, so that you can evaluate yourself and grow without the distraction of so many other variables.
|
8748 Posts
On April 16 2010 08:33 Wintermute 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 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.
|
Yea i wish ladder was best of 3
|
You have to remember, with the way SC2 is going right now, im sure by October/late 2010 there will be 2-3 "set strategies" in each matchup, hell its almost to that point right now. The Metagame will be more thought out, and people will start doing the "safe" builds, and the occasional proxy.
BUT remember, theres TWO expansion packs coming within the next 2 years, meaning that Blizzard has time to see what the common trends are in each matchup, and adding diverse options to counter those specific trends, hopefully while maintaining the other viable options, giving each matchup at least 4-5 potentially equal strategies. That is what BW is missing right now in my opinion, and although it has evolved slowly (one new strategy every 2-3 years, such as Savior saron-zerg, then Bisu PvT, then recently with Flash), but if they just introduced afew new units every say 3-5 years, it really changes up the game and if done correctly, will make the game much more enjoyable in the longrun.
If done correctly, SC2 should be very diverse and offer lots of options once it is all said and done. Doing the same 1 strategy everygame for years is what kills off most RTS games in my opinion, such as War3. SC2 has a long process to go before we can confidently label it as a "bust" or "great".
|
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?
|
|
|
Calgary25980 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
|
I am also tired of the inflationary use of the word metagame.
I myselft often described it as a kind of "übergame" (yeah i know just translating it won't solve anything...). Metagame is basically everything related to gamedecisions based on things that aren't "in the game". Counter-countering is one part of it, tendencies, trends, predictions and the preparations you draw out of them as a kind of gameprophylaxis are another. It is a higher form of strategy, it is autonomously and has nothing to do with mechanics and blunt execution. It is playing the opponent and not the units themselves.
Hope that definition goes d'accord with you,
TurboT
|
Brilliant thread.
I used to play a lot of Magic the Gathering. That game is all about metagaming. Most people (myself included) would play the "best" strategy (deck), which is actually just "flavor of the month".
And one lonely day prior to the start of next season, I have decided to come up with my own strategy (deck). I created several ones and tested them with my friend, choosing the best one.
And know what - I have won first two big tournaments of that season. Then the metagame settled and the strategy was not effective anymore.
To sum up, SC2 needs a healthy amount of people that don't focus on metagame to ensure strategy development and easier balance.
But we also need ones who cheese, for example I did SVC all-in at lest 30 times to ensure that Blizz fixes it.
However, bad and mediocre players often have a hard time trying to come up with solid strategies. For example, currently I have no idea how to beat Thor/Marauder/Hellion army as Zerg, and that is what 90% terrans do due to "flavor of the month". So, i use my knowledge of the metagame and do all-in baneling bust every game where I spot supply-based wall.
|
solid play develops out of a massive amount of exploitation
the community goes through this big pressure cooker build order arms race to figure out all these different "all ins" and slowly more solid play develops as people figure out the core of each matchup and what they can get away with offensively and defensively. if a certain build is strong, the first step is figuring out how to counter it 100% -- if my opponent tells me it's coming and doesn't lie, can i beat it? now, if the answer is yes, then the question is how do my opponents other choices effect it, and how accurately can i predict it is coming? sometimes the imbalance of a particular build manifests in the fact not because it's unstoppable, but because the opponent has too many other possibilities that crush the only viable counter, and i can't accurately scout it.
things evolve on their own naturally, they should never involve the cooperative participation of players to ignore their tendencies, that just covers up issues that are really there. the best thing blizzard could do is mandatory replay release every platnium ladder game so the entire community can get their collective exploitation subconscious going.
they should also patch more dramatically more often, in my opinion. there's no law that says patch 9 has to be "more balanced" than patch 8. they should try shit out, back track, take things away, etc. combined with automatic rep posting, people and the game get a lot of experience trying and comparing screwy strategies
|
Agree with OP, the best way to become a really solid player is through practice with builds that are all around solid, not builds that are designed to snipe other specific builds/players/races etc. Those are for tournament situations.
I also agree that it most likely helps the development of the game if the majority of players played this way, as it is what eventually will create the "standard" builds.
In sc1 i think we can all agree that when you practice to become good from a low level, you'll want to practice the standard BO's for each MU, now in SC2 we may not know what the standard BO's might be, but i bet it's not going to be an scv/marine all-in rush or anything similar.
|
To be honest, this isn't going to improve substantially until the map quality becomes a lot better. Maps are what balanced sc1, they're what stagnated wc3 so badly, and currently half of the maps are just terribly painful to play in sc2 as well. It's obvious that even on the more standard-ish maps Blizzard still wanted the more obscure (read: annoying and unsustainable) strategies to be viable. Unfortunately this creates the scenario where 1base openings and mass units are the only safe way to play for most races. There's nothing anywhere similar to a corner-spawn ramped main that has no backdoor, with a natural that isn't cliffable.
I suppose this would be less of a complaint if we could actually choose what maps to ladder on, and hopefully that functionality comes soon. However, the standard sc1 builds we were used to seeing are nowhere near as safe even on LT cross spawns.
|
Having a friend who played in tournaments across Europe (he qualified from Australia, and went overseas) for Magic the Gathering, and my own experience playing Call of Duty/Counter-Strike, I'd agree that metagame means the way wikipedia describes it:
Another game-related use of Metagaming refers to operating on knowledge of the way a game is played within a particular geographic region or tournament circuit. This local or circuit-specific context is often referred to as the metagame. A player who is aware of the metagame for their particular gaming environment may make play choices that are optimized against the play styles of the majority of players they are likely to face in that specific competitive arena.
Sirlin, a famous Street Fighter player in America who runs his own website uses metagame in this fashion as well.
Another aspect of preparing for a tournament is knowing the meta-game that you are facing. That means knowing the prevailing trends of how the game is being played now, and how it will be played at the tournament. In Warcraft, is everyone going to play Night Elves and rush with Huntresses? In Street Fighter, is everyone going to play Chun Li? In Magic: The Gathering is everyone going to play a mono-red Sligh beatdown deck? If you don’t know what you are going to face, you can be really thrown off come tournament day. Having an inkling of the meta-game lets you prepare for the right things. This is unusually important in a game like Magic: The Gathering where everyone brings their own custom-made decks to the tournament. If you know everyone is going to play a certain type of deck, you can make a deck that would ordinarily be bad, but is designed to beat what is popular. Being well-connected with your gaming scene and regularly attending tournaments gives you an advantage over the more isolated players.
In my own fighting game experience, I have seen that at high levels of play, the “meta-game” has an entirely different meaning. Top players usually don’t need to consider the prevailing trends of how the game is played overall, because they can easily crush the mid-tier and below players anyway. But they often do need to consider the “mini-meta-game” composed of the current tricks and techniques of the two or three other players in the tournament who can actually beat them.
Either way, you can see that knowing your enemy is part of preparing for tournaments. Time and time again, I have seen new players who think they are very good claim that they would do well in tournaments, and they basically never do, at least not right away. Part of being good is being plugged into the tournament meta-game, and it’s extremely difficult, and in some games impossible, to simply develop skills in a vacuum then waltz in and win a tournament.
I think that alternative meaning could explain some of the differing opinions in this thread.
|
Comparing the MTG metagame to the BW/SC2 metagame is somewhat ridiculous IMO. In MTG you show up to the tournament in an objectively different state. Your deck is completely different than someone else's (I mean obviously lots of people run the same/similar deck type), whereas in BW/SC2 we already know everything about our opponent at the start. So in MTG, you can show up and immediately be at a disadvantage if 70% of the field is deck A and you run deck B which only wins 30% against deck A with optimal play on both sides. In BW/SC2 there is never a similar situation.
Also, I think we can learn a lot about all-ins and other strategies from poker/game theory. Suppose in PvZ I can play 3 different builds at the start, and they can play 3 different builds. If 1 of my builds is terrible against 2 of theirs, but works well against the 3rd build they can do, then most of the players professing "solid play" would recommend rarely, if ever, playing this build that will fail against 2 of the opponent's builds but crush the 3rd, unless the metagame suggests that nearly all zerg players play this 3rd build. But a truly solid (unexploitable or optimal in a game theory sense) would play a mixed strategy where we play builds 1, 2 and 3 some percentage of the time against any of our zerg opponents who we think are nearly equal to us in skill (against weaker players we will want to try to exploit their tendencies, or just out-mechanic them to death in the long game).
Basically, to become unexploitable, we need to do "cheese" type builds some percentage of the time in order to force the opponent to not exploit us by playing excessively greedy builds.
|
You could argue the other way around. I mean, isnt it the meta game that have kept new BW strategies popping up during the years?
|
Unfortunately people have a natural tendency to play to win... but you're 100% right, that's not the point, ESPECIALLY during a beta.
Edit: Although, I can see my own counterargument that finding the all-in's that work now is good to make sure they get balanced. But... not exclusively.
|
Excellent point. It's about time the all-in builds die out. Lets see some quality games again
|
Here's a good example of meta game courtesy of the Princess Bride.
+ Show Spoiler +
It is my hope that the game remains very dynamic in terms of meta game with many viable strategies. And plenty of opportunities to out think your opponent. I think that any game that can be mathematically solved and played perfectly by a machine is kind of boring. I also like what ilnp said I totally agree.
|
I agree, creativity and flashy new strategies make games far more interesting. It is for that reason that The Little One is liked by so many people.
|
It's like football. A few trick plays are ok here and there but there's a reason almost every team plays 'conventionally'.
|
IMO metagame is just everything occurring outside the actual constraints of the game.
Current trends are the metagame, but not the definition of the word. Blind countering your opponent can also be the metagame.
I also hate the word and never use it since its generally butchered and abused.
Agreed with Nony though, most people only focus on how to win the current game at hand as opposed to developing a way to play that might not win today, but will win tons in the future.
|
On April 18 2010 06:44 ManiacTheZealot wrote:Here's a good example of meta game courtesy of the Princess Bride. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUee1WvtQZU It is my hope that the game remains very dynamic in terms of meta game with many viable strategies. And plenty of opportunities to out think your opponent. I think that any game that can be mathematically solved and played perfectly by a machine is kind of boring. I also like what ilnp said I totally agree.
Ah man that scene fits this thread so well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
