|
8748 Posts
On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote:
In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules.
What you've described is just trends, or one step beyond trends. Trends are useful for one part of the metagame but they aren't the metagame.
For example, if the trend is for Protoss to fast expand PvT on Terminus, then a Terran would be playing the metagame by doing a blind proxy 2rax, or would be "metagaming him" by doing a blind proxy 2rax. Protoss going fast expand PvT on Terminus is not the metagame.
|
8748 Posts
On February 03 2012 08:13 HardlyNever wrote:
This discussion is pretty pointless, tbh.
First, there are people trying to control language, particularly English, which is dumb. People have tried to do it for centuries, and it doesn't work. Only in places like France, where the government controls the language, and it isn't spoken all that widely outside of the country anymore (yes, I know they speak in in parts of Canada and other places) does something like "controlling language" even begin to work.
Technical language can be controlled pretty well and sees more benefits from such control. Comparing the evolution of the meaning of metagame to the evolution of slang or idioms or language in general is not helpful.
|
Metagame:
"Any strategy, movement, accion or method of/to play a game, that in principle, is/are not inside of the rules and
are external factors that affect the game, setting it outside of the game limits"
Directly translated from spanish from me so sorry if its not that clear in english.
Metagame is anything that you do outside the game to gain an "advantage" in the game. That includes anything, from lucky charms, playing comfortably (sheth's lap keyboarding), to guessing the opponents strategy before the game, guessing the opponents state of mind during the game (fear, caution, recklessness, etc), risking/gambling by making a decision based on information outside the game, etc.
Obv, metagame in card games like yu-gi-oh and magic "seem" different, but are the same, by choosing a standarized set of cards, they are preparing theyre game plan based in other people experience, and not directly into the rules of the game.
|
On February 03 2012 11:02 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote:
In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules. What you've described is just trends, or one step beyond trends. Trends are useful for one part of the metagame but they aren't the metagame. For example, if the trend is for Protoss to fast expand PvT on Terminus, then a Terran would be playing the metagame by doing a blind proxy 2rax, or would be "metagaming him" by doing a blind proxy 2rax. Protoss going fast expand PvT on Terminus is not the metagame.
In MtG it's more complicated than just trends because of all the moving pieces and all the moving targets at any given point in time for competitive constructed formats. Essentially, yes, but at the highest levels the pros are making decisions based on what they think the other pros also know about the metagame, which involves both deck archetypes and some card choices. Sometimes the card choices are just a flavour to account for, or they can turn a matchup on its ear. (I don't know how much you know about the MtG scene but people call this "tech".) But you also have to consider the field at large, which may not be up to date and might not be optimal anyway due to player irrationality and card availability and whatnot. All in all it's enough to warrant its own term... which is why MtG people use metagame.
Of course trend suffices when you use an SC2 example like that; this is one of the honest complaints I see. It's a neat (if noncommittal) solution to use it as a verb so as to reference the idea without attributing all of the noun to simply opening build orders.
|
Hong Kong9152 Posts
On February 03 2012 10:53 EatThePath wrote:
On the other hand, insisting on an outside definition doesn't care about this I suppose, but the rest of us don't really care what it says on wikipedia because we our communicating effectively regardless.
Insisting on an outside, authoritative, definition is essential especially because the community is so small and exists in a space where there is a danger that what we mean say and how it is perceived from without can be significantly different. Accepting the least common denominator for communication as 'good enough' is a cop-out.
Equating the entirety of ESPORTS discourse to an individual's personal constructions of definitions of words and phrases, no matter how nonsensical, is fallacious. You fail to make any headway in answering my argument that it is society and authority, not the self, that defines language and it's effective and proper use by simply saying we aren't having and argument and wondering about having a conversation.
On February 03 2012 10:53 EatThePath wrote:
I'm merely pointing out that you can't control how people use language just by insisting one way or the other. We try to regulate our symbols because it help maintain continuity which is very important when you are communicating about scientific knowledge or the use of violent force or the state of an interpersonal relationship, but there's no such thing as the "wrong meaning" of a word. The best you could say is that someone took a different meaning than what the speaker intended. I brought this up because it relates to the style of your argument against the way most of us use "metagame"; I was trying to point out that waving your arms about the proper meaning doesn't really lead anywhere, regardless of whether it makes sense to use "metagame" one way or the other.
You actually can control how people use language purely by insisting one way or the other. It is done through dominance in education and coercive power. States codify meaning in words and phrases through the establishment of laws, rules, and regulations. The education system exists to mold people with no understanding of language into effective, useful subjects that benefit the State as a whole. In less ominous contexts, insisting on definitions allows for clarity in contracts and discourse.
Speaking of discourse, you dismiss the idea entirely in favor of an elitist view that perhaps people are 'too dull' for ESPORTS and that's somehow okay.
Again personally, I don't really care if we miss out on converts too dull to make it past a word they don't understand at first. If you're seeking mass induction to the church of esports then that's another thing entirely.
I would hope that our community exists to be as welcoming as possible to all entrants; reducing the linguistic barriers of entry in this case is essential.
You criticize the established definitions as being formed by '[myself] and a few other people,' when really it is the weight of the entire world's educational and academic might bearing down upon your niche community construction of what metagame does or doesn't mean. This is the power of linguistic authority.
More broadly, there's no way to escape the degradation and dithering anyway, especially in our culture of memes. I think it's more effective to be a linguistic sheep dog than a linguistic fence builder, too.
Speak for yourself. In my case, I'd rather people communicate effectively and correctly moving forward. I do not believe that our language is inevitability doomed to 'degradation and dithering,' and everything I have said in this thread is in an attempt to prevent that from happening.
On February 03 2012 09:03 EatThePath wrote:
There will always be illiterates who use words improperly (according to the prior usage). You can't tell them they're wrong, they just put together a different meaning than what was intended by the original speakers. You might convince them to revise their understanding and speech, but it's usually a losing battle if you're already that up-in-arms about it.
You can tell people they are wrong. That is the essence of education.
|
On February 03 2012 11:02 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote:
In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules. What you've described is just trends, or one step beyond trends. Trends are useful for one part of the metagame but they aren't the metagame. For example, if the trend is for Protoss to fast expand PvT on Terminus, then a Terran would be playing the metagame by doing a blind proxy 2rax, or would be "metagaming him" by doing a blind proxy 2rax. Protoss going fast expand PvT on Terminus is not the metagame.
Incas reputation of going sneaky builds (especially DTs) to catch the opponent unaware in the early game is well known. In a Bomber vs Inca game, Bomber prepared blindly for such attacks by placing early towers and very safe play and just prepared to enter the mid game without dying (probably thinking his mid-game and late-game will crush Inca without much effort). Inca did something unheard of and build double Nexus. Is this metagame or just mindgames from Inca because double Nexus is just another sneaky/cheesy strategy? I thought it was brilliant metagaming on Incas part, but perhaps this is another incorrect use of the word?
|
The technically correct use of metagaming is to use something outside of the game against your opponent. For example, kochujang's post above mine is a good example of metagaming.
However, metagame elitists should get over it! The word metagame is now used as a synonym for "strategic trends" and I feel that it's too late to curb its spread. Also, note that prominent figures in the community (e.g. Tastosis and Day9) also use the term "incorrectly" and hence it's not possible to "correct" people.
|
Agreed with OP.
Nice write-up. ^_^
|
On February 03 2012 11:04 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 08:13 HardlyNever wrote:
This discussion is pretty pointless, tbh.
First, there are people trying to control language, particularly English, which is dumb. People have tried to do it for centuries, and it doesn't work. Only in places like France, where the government controls the language, and it isn't spoken all that widely outside of the country anymore (yes, I know they speak in in parts of Canada and other places) does something like "controlling language" even begin to work.
Technical language can be controlled pretty well and sees more benefits from such control. Comparing the evolution of the meaning of metagame to the evolution of slang or idioms or language in general is not helpful.
How can it be controlled "pretty well?" Who is doing the controlling? Do you honestly believe this thread or even the TL community will change the way casters/players use the term "metagame?"
|
Should just make a stickied thread with the definition and then make it a warnable offense to use it wrong so people actually educate themselves...
|
On February 03 2012 11:33 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 10:53 EatThePath wrote:
On the other hand, insisting on an outside definition doesn't care about this I suppose, but the rest of us don't really care what it says on wikipedia because we our communicating effectively regardless.
Insisting on an outside, authoritative, definition is essential especially because the community is so small and exists in a space where there is a danger that what we mean say and how it is perceived from without can be significantly different. Accepting the least common denominator for communication as 'good enough' is a cop-out. Equating the entirety of ESPORTS discourse to an individual's personal constructions of definitions of words and phrases, no matter how nonsensical, is fallacious. You fail to make any headway in answering my argument that it is society and authority, not the self, that defines language and it's effective and proper use by simply saying we aren't having and argument and wondering about having a conversation.
Do you know this guy artosis? He's rather self-assured. When he uses the word metagame the way I do in a GSL cast, I'm pretty sure it's because he likes to use the word that way, himself. Why doesn't he use it to mean what wikipedia says it means? More importantly, does it matter what wikipedia says? I still don't understand why you insist it does.
On February 03 2012 11:33 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 10:53 EatThePath wrote:
I'm merely pointing out that you can't control how people use language just by insisting one way or the other. We try to regulate our symbols because it help maintain continuity which is very important when you are communicating about scientific knowledge or the use of violent force or the state of an interpersonal relationship, but there's no such thing as the "wrong meaning" of a word. The best you could say is that someone took a different meaning than what the speaker intended. I brought this up because it relates to the style of your argument against the way most of us use "metagame"; I was trying to point out that waving your arms about the proper meaning doesn't really lead anywhere, regardless of whether it makes sense to use "metagame" one way or the other.
You actually can control how people use language purely by insisting one way or the other. It is done through dominance in education and coercive power. States codify meaning in words and phrases through the establishment of laws, rules, and regulations. The education system exists to mold people with no understanding of language into effective, useful subjects that benefit the State as a whole. In less ominous contexts, insisting on definitions allows for clarity in contracts and discourse.
Language is like everything social, conform or suffer the consequences, there's nothing special about that. Words are codified to be unequivocal as a point of practicality, not to pin down the truth. Words don't contain meaning, they are sounds or letters. If I mean X1 when I say X, and everyone else means X2 when they say X, I may change my mind because it makes no sense to go about being uncommunicative, but no outside sanction will access the actual meaning in my mind. This seems to be where we are hung up, and it is usually construed as a philosophical distinction in a casual discussion. I guess you believe that words are more than just signifier?
On February 03 2012 11:33 itsjustatank wrote:Speaking of discourse, you dismiss the idea entirely in favor of an elitist view that perhaps people are 'too dull' for ESPORTS and that's somehow okay. Show nested quote +Again personally, I don't really care if we miss out on converts too dull to make it past a word they don't understand at first. If you're seeking mass induction to the church of esports then that's another thing entirely. I would hope that our community exists to be as welcoming as possible to all entrants; reducing the linguistic barriers of entry in this case is essential.
I already said I don't consider idiosyncratic word usage undesirable or deleterious. Every sport worth watching is like this. I don't consider it relevant to this extent but for the sake of abstraction, if you alter your identity to accommodate others, have you gained more than you lost? Anyway I'm fine in my castle thank you. Everyone is invited if they have basic faculties like the ability to learn new words.
On February 03 2012 11:33 itsjustatank wrote:
You criticize the established definitions as being formed by '[myself] and a few other people,' when really it is the weight of the entire world's educational and academic might bearing down upon your niche community construction of what metagame does or doesn't mean. This is the power of linguistic authority.
Do you invoke the power of linguistic authority against the misuse of words in hip-hop culture as well?
Jibes aside, how many a) non-SC2ers b) share your "mainstream" knowledge of the word metagame c) come to SC2 and d) are affronted by a different usage, as opposed to saying "oh they use it differently here, ok"? Is every niche community beholden to the mainstream in the way you propose we are, or are we special?
On February 03 2012 11:33 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +More broadly, there's no way to escape the degradation and dithering anyway, especially in our culture of memes. I think it's more effective to be a linguistic sheep dog than a linguistic fence builder, too. Speak for yourself. In my case, I'd rather people communicate effectively and correctly moving forward. I do not believe that our language is inevitability doomed to 'degradation and dithering,' and everything I have said in this thread is in an attempt to prevent that from happening.
Language is constantly evolving in all spheres of life. What is it when the old words and usages (and even grammars) give way to new ones, but degradation of the old?
On February 03 2012 11:33 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 09:03 EatThePath wrote:
There will always be illiterates who use words improperly (according to the prior usage). You can't tell them they're wrong, they just put together a different meaning than what was intended by the original speakers. You might convince them to revise their understanding and speech, but it's usually a losing battle if you're already that up-in-arms about it.
You can tell people they are wrong. That is the essence of education.
I think of education as teaching people new knowledge and new ways to think. Telling people what's wrong seems more like reform. But above I was speaking more about the idea that variations in meaning can't moralistically right or wrong, or even incorrect in a logical sense, because the meaning of words is not rational in a rigorously dependable way.
On the off chance, you might this post of mine from an earlier thread about this topic to be helpful in understanding my point of view.
|
It isn't "wrong" for the meaning of a word to change. It's perfectly natural and happens all the time. See: Etymology
|
On February 03 2012 13:10 FinestHour wrote:
Should just make a stickied thread with the definition and then make it a warnable offense to use it wrong so people actually educate themselves...
What like this? lol I love that guy for that post and taking the hit.
|
On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote:I've seen lots of people get cranky over proper use of this term on TL. I want get a general sense of why this is and how I can avoid ticking people off. I'm not sure why this is such a sticky issue, but let me lay out why I'm confused just in case. The first competitive gaming community I was active in was Magic: The Gathering. In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules. However here on TL, I've seen the word almost always used as a verb. What's more, sometime people get warned for using the word in a manner similar to what I was used to from my previous environment. Please help me out by sharing your thoughts on whether "metagame" applies to the following scenarios: 1: You are playing on a map where Nexus First is a commonly used build for protoss, and so decide to proxy gate/rax or 6pool. You claim this is a "metagame choice". 2: You say "there is a lot of hellion use in the current KR metagame." 3: You remind your opponent that the last time you played, you mopped the floor with his noob self. As this statement is outside the rules of Starcraft 2 as a game, but is intended to give you an advantage, it is "metagaming". Inside, find how I would answer these questions from my experience as a Magic player. + Show Spoiler +
1. Yes. This is a metagame choice, or "metagaming" if you prefer.
2. Yes, this is a proper use of the word metagame.
3. No, this is not a proper use of the word metagame. These are psychological tactics which, rather than being a level above understanding game mechanics, are completely unrelated.
If you disagree with my definitions, please realize that there are gaming communities where they are the common use. The starcraft community did not invent the term "metagame", so if you feel the need to correct them to the standard local usage, please do so politely.
If you want to bring up Magic: The Gathering and the term Metagame, please do so with an understanding on why that term is thrown around a lot in Magic: The Gathering.
You stand opposite, some guy.
He has a deck of 60 or more cards.
You have a deck of 60 or more cards.
The person who plays first either places down a land or plays a card that costs zero mana (although not necessarily "free")
That person then says go, passing the turn onto you.
In a card game, knowledge of the metagame was *essential* to knowing what the hell you were facing. What color? What color combination? Is it aggressive? Is it passive? Is it a combo deck?
Turn one, mountain, go--during Tempest block--what deck is he playing?
I would interpret that as the opponent is playing a CounterPhoenix variant and will save my Wastelands for when he lays down a glaciers.
Turn one, plains, go, a month after Urza's Destiny came out--what deck is he playing?
Marcadian Masques has just come out, turn one plains go--what deck is he playing?
It's been three months since Marcadian Masques came out, turn one plains go--what deck is he playing?
Urza's Saga just came out, you're playing in Extended, he opens with swamp dark ritual--do you counter? A smart player would say that you wait for Dark Ritual to give him mana and counter whatever he uses that mana with.
Except he's actually playing a Memory Jar deck that just got the nuts hand and opened Dark Ritual into Duress swiping your Force of Will followed by you being decked an a Stroke of Genius for infinite.
In trading card games the "metagame" is all you have to know what your opponent is doing. You see 1-2 card out of 60 and are expected to be able to "predict" what the other 58-59 cards in the deck are. Metagaming was essential not to win--but to just play.
In Starcraft you already know what race your opponent is. And when you don't know--upon seeing their first scout/your first scout you see their race and instantly already know *everything* that they can do.
Because going back to my first example where I said
"Turn one, mountain, go--during Tempest block--what deck is he playing?"
And I replied to my own question with
"I would interpret that as the opponent is playing a CounterPhoenix variant and will save my Wastelands for when he lays down a glaciers."
In Magic the Gathering that opening of "turn one, mountain, go" could still be a rush deck with just a slow start. In Starcraft 2 you will never have to worry that scouting a terran in the first 2 minutes of a game suddenly turned out to be a protoss 6 minutes into the game.
As for my opinions about "metagaming," I personally like to keep it simple. Metagame based decisions are the ones I make that don't require me to scout. For example, I open Reactor Hellion Fast Expand in TvZ--because I know he's zerg. I don't need to "find out" that he's Zerg, the game opens with me already knowing that information. I go for an early expansion because I assume that the Zerg player will stop my Hellions from outright killing him. And so on and so forth.
Lots of decisions are made because of metagame knowledge. I build turrets blind in TvZ around 10ish minutes because I suspect that Mutalisks are coming around that time. People use other terms for this type of game sense. They use terms like "timings" or "starsense" or "reads" or even "game sense." No matter the terms used, it all ends up the same in the end. It's not necessarily builds or unit comps, its everything. I know for a fact that if my opponent is Zerg, that the only early game defenses he has against air are queens and spores. Which means that my Medivacs have free reign pre-lair. I don't need to scout him to know that, it's simply a given in the matchup.
People that take Metagame knowledge too far are destined to fail. You don't use metagame knowledge to predict your opponent, you use it to be slightly faster at what you're already doing.
|
On February 03 2012 11:02 Liquid`Tyler wrote: Protoss going fast expand PvT on Terminus is not the metagame.
That isn't true at all. If the terran is going fast expand one way of countering this would be naturally, to FE yourself blindly.
|
It pains me to see people think they are better informed on the meaning of metagame than tyler  SC2 community has brought us so many teenagers ;_;
|
On February 03 2012 14:57 Mohdoo wrote:It pains me to see people think they are better informed on the meaning of metagame than tyler SC2 community has brought us so many teenagers ;_;
Your statement is very wrong on many levels and ended with the implicit assumption that teenagers are the ones disagreeing (another wrong assumption).
Tyler's meaning of the metagame is probably the most technically correct one. However, the modern usage of the metagame, popularised by many popular casters and analysts (e.g. Tastosis and Day9) has evolved to mean "strategic trends" as well.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with pros when there is solid enough reason to do so.
|
On February 03 2012 11:02 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote:
In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules. What you've described is just trends, or one step beyond trends. Trends are useful for one part of the metagame but they aren't the metagame. For example, if the trend is for Protoss to fast expand PvT on Terminus, then a Terran would be playing the metagame by doing a blind proxy 2rax, or would be "metagaming him" by doing a blind proxy 2rax. Protoss going fast expand PvT on Terminus is not the metagame.
Just out of curiosity- would your definition imply a inherent recursion, since some trends are a specific response to previous ones?
|
I feel like this falls under a area with "cheese" and "allin" and "pressure-play"
If I hear another person call the 1/1/1 a cheese and not an allin, I MIGHT pull my eyes out... Or someone telling me that going 7gate allin or opening 4gate vs terran is just a "pressure play" and NOT an allin -.-
I feel like the only people who really understand the simple terminology in SC now'adays is old BW players, I find it hard to talk with someone who calls a 4gate or any form of allin a cheese.
Sorry for the rant/I agree with your statements on metagame.
|
I think people should just chill a little. Even if metagame might not be the correct word for how OP uses it most of us know what he means when using it so its not like it's a conversation breaking mistake.
And secondly I think it's not entirely wrong to.use the word like OP does as if I open safety roaches against a terran these days its not allways because I scouted it but because I anticipated it from the game trend in ZvT which is beyond the game itself and could therefore be called metagame... or 7 pooling against toss on Tal'darim because so many toss go for early expands. Now I still understand toss get angry when 7pooled but nonetheless one could say it is metagaming. Because how can I play a mindgame with an opponent that I cant see or havent played yet... Mindgaming seems to me would be saying stuff to misslead him into doing something that would be beneficial to me like saying 20 minute no attack and then 7 pool him for the win....that example is a bit exagerrated but yoh see were I am coming from ;-)
Thats my point of view and I accept other opinions but I have to say that this theme is not detrimental enough for me to be really feeling the need to consider changing my mind aka its just not important enough to grind on the word definitions ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
