|
Calgary25951 Posts
On June 11 2010 05:51 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 05:44 Chill wrote:On June 11 2010 05:40 Simplistik wrote:On June 11 2010 05:27 DragoonPK wrote:
So chill did I understand this correctly, is meta game an outside force that influences the game in whatever form? No, an earthquake which kills your opponent in the middle of the game, causing you to win, is not part of the "meta game". I think it's fairly obvious that you have to be the source of the force if you are playing the metagame. If you caused the earthquake, it would, although a terrible example, be playing the metagame. Your metagame definition is way off now if you think causing an earthquake is "playing the metagame." Once again, you can't even "play the metagame." It is a concept, you can't "play it." You can know what the metagame is though. You can play the game, and use your knowledge of the metagame to gain an edge on likely trends and likely things your opponent will do. But no, causing an earthquake is not an example of "playing the metagame," let alone can you even play a metagame. Metagame has nothing to do with "things outside the game." It is really the opposite...it has everything to do with the game and trends of the game and the community of players playing the game. Where are you getting your definition for things outside the game being the metagame?
I'm getting my definition from the definition. Where are you getting your definition?
|
On June 11 2010 05:52 Failsafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 05:37 Chill wrote:On June 11 2010 05:35 Failsafe wrote:
The best definition of metagame is
Metagame: Playing your opponent.
When you say something like "playing the game outside the game" you omit the fact that you can play the game outside the game from within the game. Now we're entering a territory where mindgames and metagame overlap that I don't agree with, unless you want to make the argument that mindgames are a subset of the metagame. Mind games are a subset of metagame, and mind games are the main, pure form of metagame. Whether mind games occur in game or outside of the game (e.g. bragging) is irrelevant. Other forms of metagame are usually pathological in that they suffer from being dishonorable or cheating. ExamplesArguably, maphacking is metagame. But maphacking is also cheating. Arguably, lagging is metagame, but intentionally lagging is cheating, or at least dishonorable. Insults are metagame but they're also dishonorable. Killing your opponent is metagaming but murder is also cheating, dishonorable, etc. Convincing a tournament administrator to award you a win is metagaming but potentially dishonorable.
None of those examples are examples of metagame.
Maphacking is cheating.
Lagging is usually unintentional, but if intentional it is cheating like you said.
Insults are not metagame. Doing that is unsportsmanlike and classified under gamesmanship.
Killing your opponent is not metagaming omg lol, that's murder. It has nothing to do with playing
Starcraft or the best way to play at a given time.
Convincing a tournament admin to award you a win based off of the situation in a game and what is likely to happen is not metagaming, unless in this instance you are using the term "metagaming" to refer to using knowledge of the metagame to infer what would be the likely result of the game had it continued.
ironically, this thread is going to end up with more people using the term incorrectly than had it not been made =/
|
Calgary25951 Posts
On June 11 2010 05:52 Failsafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 05:37 Chill wrote:On June 11 2010 05:35 Failsafe wrote:
The best definition of metagame is
Metagame: Playing your opponent.
When you say something like "playing the game outside the game" you omit the fact that you can play the game outside the game from within the game. Now we're entering a territory where mindgames and metagame overlap that I don't agree with, unless you want to make the argument that mindgames are a subset of the metagame. Mind games are a subset of metagame, and mind games are the main, pure form of metagame. Whether mind games occur in game or outside of the game (e.g. bragging) is irrelevant. Other forms of metagame are usually pathological in that they suffer from being dishonorable or cheating. ExamplesArguably, maphacking is metagame. But maphacking is also cheating. Arguably, lagging is metagame, but intentionally lagging is cheating, or at least dishonorable. Insults are metagame but they're also dishonorable. Killing your opponent is metagaming but murder is also cheating, dishonorable, etc. Convincing a tournament administrator to award you a win is metagaming but potentially dishonorable.
Okay, I think we largely agree. I would like to summary be emphasizing that:
Metagame does not mean "the current standard strategy."
|
Yepp this article has done nothing but further confuse people of what metagame actually is.
My view is that there is no such thing as an official metagame meaning, its interpritated in so many different ways and the gray area is so large you have to struggle to find the content that exemplifies metagame.
All in all i think its an absolute shit term that should just not be mentioned beacuse nobody truly knows what it includes.
|
On June 11 2010 05:55 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 05:51 avilo wrote:On June 11 2010 05:44 Chill wrote:On June 11 2010 05:40 Simplistik wrote:On June 11 2010 05:27 DragoonPK wrote:
So chill did I understand this correctly, is meta game an outside force that influences the game in whatever form? No, an earthquake which kills your opponent in the middle of the game, causing you to win, is not part of the "meta game". I think it's fairly obvious that you have to be the source of the force if you are playing the metagame. If you caused the earthquake, it would, although a terrible example, be playing the metagame. Your metagame definition is way off now if you think causing an earthquake is "playing the metagame." Once again, you can't even "play the metagame." It is a concept, you can't "play it." You can know what the metagame is though. You can play the game, and use your knowledge of the metagame to gain an edge on likely trends and likely things your opponent will do. But no, causing an earthquake is not an example of "playing the metagame," let alone can you even play a metagame. Metagame has nothing to do with "things outside the game." It is really the opposite...it has everything to do with the game and trends of the game and the community of players playing the game. Where are you getting your definition for things outside the game being the metagame? I'm getting my definition from the definition. Where are you getting your definition?
From common sense, gaming communities, and knowing that metagame is not equal to gamesmanship or things outside of the game.
Tasteless, in his casts, uses the word "metagame" more correct than you are here chill.
|
Calgary25951 Posts
On June 11 2010 05:56 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 05:52 Failsafe wrote:On June 11 2010 05:37 Chill wrote:On June 11 2010 05:35 Failsafe wrote:
The best definition of metagame is
Metagame: Playing your opponent.
When you say something like "playing the game outside the game" you omit the fact that you can play the game outside the game from within the game. Now we're entering a territory where mindgames and metagame overlap that I don't agree with, unless you want to make the argument that mindgames are a subset of the metagame. Mind games are a subset of metagame, and mind games are the main, pure form of metagame. Whether mind games occur in game or outside of the game (e.g. bragging) is irrelevant. Other forms of metagame are usually pathological in that they suffer from being dishonorable or cheating. ExamplesArguably, maphacking is metagame. But maphacking is also cheating. Arguably, lagging is metagame, but intentionally lagging is cheating, or at least dishonorable. Insults are metagame but they're also dishonorable. Killing your opponent is metagaming but murder is also cheating, dishonorable, etc. Convincing a tournament administrator to award you a win is metagaming but potentially dishonorable. None of those examples are examples of metagame. Maphacking is cheating. Lagging is usually unintentional, but if intentional it is cheating like you said. Insults are not metagame. Doing that is unsportsmanlike and classified under gamesmanship. Killing your opponent is not metagaming omg lol, that's murder. It has nothing to do with playing Starcraft or the best way to play at a given time. Convincing a tournament admin to award you a win based off of the situation in a game and what is likely to happen is not metagaming, unless in this instance you are using the term "metagaming" to refer to using knowledge of the metagame to infer what would be the likely result of the game had it continued. ironically, this thread is going to end up with more people using the term incorrectly than had it not been made =/
Citation needed.
|
On June 11 2010 05:56 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 05:52 Failsafe wrote:On June 11 2010 05:37 Chill wrote:On June 11 2010 05:35 Failsafe wrote:
The best definition of metagame is
Metagame: Playing your opponent.
When you say something like "playing the game outside the game" you omit the fact that you can play the game outside the game from within the game. Now we're entering a territory where mindgames and metagame overlap that I don't agree with, unless you want to make the argument that mindgames are a subset of the metagame. Mind games are a subset of metagame, and mind games are the main, pure form of metagame. Whether mind games occur in game or outside of the game (e.g. bragging) is irrelevant. Other forms of metagame are usually pathological in that they suffer from being dishonorable or cheating. ExamplesArguably, maphacking is metagame. But maphacking is also cheating. Arguably, lagging is metagame, but intentionally lagging is cheating, or at least dishonorable. Insults are metagame but they're also dishonorable. Killing your opponent is metagaming but murder is also cheating, dishonorable, etc. Convincing a tournament administrator to award you a win is metagaming but potentially dishonorable. Okay, I think we largely agree. I would like to summary be emphasizing that: Metagame does not mean "the current standard strategy."
You are wrong and right. What pokepill said before actually can be what the metagame is. If the current standard strategy is the best way to theoretically play the game at that point in time, then that is the metagame.
But you are also correct in saying "the current standard strategy" is not the metagame, because the metagame is not a static concept or game state - it dynamically changes depending on trends of how players are playing at that point in time and what is most popular and effective.
But...usually it's agreed that "standard play" is one of the most efficient ways to play the game, so standard play may be the best way to theoretically play the game at that time, which would make it relevant to how the metagame is.
|
Calgary25951 Posts
On June 11 2010 05:57 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 05:55 Chill wrote:On June 11 2010 05:51 avilo wrote:On June 11 2010 05:44 Chill wrote:On June 11 2010 05:40 Simplistik wrote:On June 11 2010 05:27 DragoonPK wrote:
So chill did I understand this correctly, is meta game an outside force that influences the game in whatever form? No, an earthquake which kills your opponent in the middle of the game, causing you to win, is not part of the "meta game". I think it's fairly obvious that you have to be the source of the force if you are playing the metagame. If you caused the earthquake, it would, although a terrible example, be playing the metagame. Your metagame definition is way off now if you think causing an earthquake is "playing the metagame." Once again, you can't even "play the metagame." It is a concept, you can't "play it." You can know what the metagame is though. You can play the game, and use your knowledge of the metagame to gain an edge on likely trends and likely things your opponent will do. But no, causing an earthquake is not an example of "playing the metagame," let alone can you even play a metagame. Metagame has nothing to do with "things outside the game." It is really the opposite...it has everything to do with the game and trends of the game and the community of players playing the game. Where are you getting your definition for things outside the game being the metagame? I'm getting my definition from the definition. Where are you getting your definition? From common sense, gaming communities, and knowing that metagame is not equal to gamesmanship or things outside of the game. Tasteless, in his casts, uses the word "metagame" more correct than you are here chill.
Well, unfortunately you are wrong. Tasteless used the word wrong. Your inference goes against the definition of the word and is wrong.
Again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame
Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.
In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions.
|
On June 11 2010 05:32 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 05:27 DragoonPK wrote:
So chill did I understand this correctly, is meta game an outside force that influences the game in whatever form? Yes, metagaming is affecting the outcome of a game with factors, forces and influences outside of the ruleset defined by the game. Alternatively, it is "playing the game outside the game".
By your definition, Savior's match fixing is just part of his metagame.
By your definition, metagame does not neccessary need to respect the idea of fair play.
By your definition, Cheating is part of the metagame.
Chill you need to put a boundary/limit on kind of "outside force that influence the game" so that the term metagame being use is still relevent and in context to the game (sc or sc2 in our case) in question.
Chill you need a better definition for metagame to be used in context of sc1 and sc2 strategies.
Nony's post is in context of sc2 strategies. Your definition contents contexts that is outside of sc2 strategy.
Nony defined metagame in starcraft strategy better than You did.
|
Wouldn't metagaming be like, knowing that 5 hatch hydra is really popular at higher levels and deciding to use a very specific counter to that build based on that fact?
And in stuff like MTG the metagame is basically the most prominent deck strategies at the tournament or within the ruleset that you are playing, and then using that information to determine how you will play.
Stuff like insulting people or lagging doesn't seem like it fits in really.
|
On June 11 2010 06:01 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 05:57 avilo wrote:On June 11 2010 05:55 Chill wrote:On June 11 2010 05:51 avilo wrote:On June 11 2010 05:44 Chill wrote:On June 11 2010 05:40 Simplistik wrote:On June 11 2010 05:27 DragoonPK wrote:
So chill did I understand this correctly, is meta game an outside force that influences the game in whatever form? No, an earthquake which kills your opponent in the middle of the game, causing you to win, is not part of the "meta game". I think it's fairly obvious that you have to be the source of the force if you are playing the metagame. If you caused the earthquake, it would, although a terrible example, be playing the metagame. Your metagame definition is way off now if you think causing an earthquake is "playing the metagame." Once again, you can't even "play the metagame." It is a concept, you can't "play it." You can know what the metagame is though. You can play the game, and use your knowledge of the metagame to gain an edge on likely trends and likely things your opponent will do. But no, causing an earthquake is not an example of "playing the metagame," let alone can you even play a metagame. Metagame has nothing to do with "things outside the game." It is really the opposite...it has everything to do with the game and trends of the game and the community of players playing the game. Where are you getting your definition for things outside the game being the metagame? I'm getting my definition from the definition. Where are you getting your definition? From common sense, gaming communities, and knowing that metagame is not equal to gamesmanship or things outside of the game. Tasteless, in his casts, uses the word "metagame" more correct than you are here chill. Well, unfortunately you are wrong. Tasteless used the word wrong. Your inference goes against the definition of the word and is wrong. Again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetagameMetagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself. In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions.
The wikipedia definition is wrong.
|
I disapprove of the word gamesmanship and will never adopt it. Not only does it sound stupid, it's a misnomer (it sounds like it should mean sportsmanship, just applied to video games, but it apparently means the opposite?).
|
On June 11 2010 05:51 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 05:44 Chill wrote:On June 11 2010 05:40 Simplistik wrote:On June 11 2010 05:27 DragoonPK wrote:
So chill did I understand this correctly, is meta game an outside force that influences the game in whatever form? No, an earthquake which kills your opponent in the middle of the game, causing you to win, is not part of the "meta game". I think it's fairly obvious that you have to be the source of the force if you are playing the metagame. If you caused the earthquake, it would, although a terrible example, be playing the metagame. Your metagame definition is way off now if you think causing an earthquake is "playing the metagame." Once again, you can't even "play the metagame." It is a concept, you can't "play it." You can know what the metagame is though. You can play the game, and use your knowledge of the metagame to gain an edge on likely trends and likely things your opponent will do. But no, causing an earthquake is not an example of "playing the metagame," let alone can you even play a metagame. Metagame has nothing to do with "things outside the game." It is really the opposite...it has everything to do with the game and trends of the game and the community of players playing the game. Where are you getting your definition for things outside the game being the metagame?
The term metagame in the SC community has been adopted from poker where metagame refers to basically everything that is not the game itself. From a poker perspective, the metagame is the game. Good poker is never played "standard." Good poker is playing your opponent. In a sense, metagame is poker and the cards and the rules of any specific style of poker are of tertiary importance. The main difference is that mastering the mechanics of poker is not nearly as important to being a successful poker player as the mechanics of SCBW/SC2 are to being a strong SC player.
Causing an earthquake with the intention of the earthquake fucking up your opponent is an example of metagame. It's not a great example because it doesn't clearly relate to SC. When we say metagame, we're actually meaning the metagame [of Starcraft] in the same way we mean the metagame [of poker]. Killing and robbing someone might be a great metagame play but I don't think the poker community would generally accept it as being good poker metagame. I suspect this was the distinction you were referring to, and I agree with you. Metagame should be used with limitations as my posts have been trying to describe.
|
Wait, so metagame cannot be used as a noun? Is it strictly a verb?
|
I think you're underestimating the power of slang
it is so powerful it can create new words, or create new meanings for a word
you must continue this fight if you wish to restore the purity to the word "metagame", else it will fall into darkness forever as it adopts it's new form
|
On June 11 2010 06:03 numLoCK wrote:
Wouldn't metagaming be like, knowing that 5 hatch hydra is really popular at higher levels and deciding to use a very specific counter to that build based on that fact?
And in stuff like MTG the metagame is basically the most prominent deck strategies at the tournament or within the ruleset that you are playing.
Stuff like insulting people or lagging doesn't seem like it fits in really.
Yes, that is what it is. You have knowledge of trends and the best ways to play the game and you use that knowledge to counter what is currently popular or considered the theoretically best way to play.
(i'm not a magic expert anymore) but if all current decks are mostly red using some sort of huge mana build up 1 shot kill fireball strategy, you could use this knowledge to make a deck completely based off of counterspells.
Your deck would suddenly be one of the most powerful decks in the scene since so many players are using decks that rely on a 1 hit kill spell.
But your deck itself would suck versus a huge array of other types of decks, or if another player specifically knew you were using that counter deck to counter most of the fireball decks, he could then use that knowledge to specifically prepare a deck that would match well against yours - even though yours is extremely strong against what most people at the time are doing.
|
Metagame does not mean "the current standard strategy."
This is a good simple summary, and hits what I've seen to be by far the most common misuse of the word. If people would just stop using metagame to mean the current standard strategy that would take away a very sizeable portion of the misuse.
I think refering to metagame as something like using outside knowledge or resources to affect in game decisions might be a good definition, since it seems to omit things like killing your opponent or causing an earthquake (killing some isn't really using outside knowledge to affect in game play)
|
On June 11 2010 05:56 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 05:52 Failsafe wrote:On June 11 2010 05:37 Chill wrote:On June 11 2010 05:35 Failsafe wrote:
The best definition of metagame is
Metagame: Playing your opponent.
When you say something like "playing the game outside the game" you omit the fact that you can play the game outside the game from within the game. Now we're entering a territory where mindgames and metagame overlap that I don't agree with, unless you want to make the argument that mindgames are a subset of the metagame. Mind games are a subset of metagame, and mind games are the main, pure form of metagame. Whether mind games occur in game or outside of the game (e.g. bragging) is irrelevant. Other forms of metagame are usually pathological in that they suffer from being dishonorable or cheating. ExamplesArguably, maphacking is metagame. But maphacking is also cheating. Arguably, lagging is metagame, but intentionally lagging is cheating, or at least dishonorable. Insults are metagame but they're also dishonorable. Killing your opponent is metagaming but murder is also cheating, dishonorable, etc. Convincing a tournament administrator to award you a win is metagaming but potentially dishonorable. None of those examples are examples of metagame. Maphacking is cheating. Lagging is usually unintentional, but if intentional it is cheating like you said. Insults are not metagame. Doing that is unsportsmanlike and classified under gamesmanship. Killing your opponent is not metagaming omg lol, that's murder. It has nothing to do with playing Starcraft or the best way to play at a given time. Convincing a tournament admin to award you a win based off of the situation in a game and what is likely to happen is not metagaming, unless in this instance you are using the term "metagaming" to refer to using knowledge of the metagame to infer what would be the likely result of the game had it continued. ironically, this thread is going to end up with more people using the term incorrectly than had it not been made =/
My examples are all correct.
You appear to have failed to notice my use of the word "pure." The reason I gave all those examples was to emphasize what I meant by the word pure. Stuff can be a member of multiple sets. It's possible to be a member of the set "metagame" and a member of the set "murder." When we use the word metagame as it pertains to Starcraft we mean "metagame" that is not also a member of the set "murder" (or "cheating," "dishonorable," etc.). But that doesn't exclude members of those other sets from also being members of the set "metagame." However, of the many inhabitants of the set "metagame," I think the best examples are mind games because they don't typically suffer from being members of other pathological sets such as "cheating."
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
well done, chill and failsafe. chill, i think a simple picture/illustration would help a lot. perhaps a venn diagram? a flow chart?
|
Lol, Chill you're a fucking rock star :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
