Metagame
Arkanti
pub baddie Join Date: 2011-07-22 Member: 111781Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
pub baddie Join Date: 2011-07-22 Member: 111781Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
<div class="IPBDescription">"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think </div><center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G2y8Sx4B2Sk"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G2y8Sx4B2Sk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
Sorry, this is somewhat off topic but people (developers included) need to stop using that word for game mechanic changes. Slight pet peeve :D
<!--quoteo(post=1926328:date=Apr 17 2012, 09:29 PM:name=Rise)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rise @ Apr 17 2012, 09:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1926328"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Strategy is what you know you can do based on the game mechanics.
Tactics is what you choose to do based on the situation.
Metagame is when you make decisions that are not a factor of either purely game mechanics or the situation, but are based on external influences (such as having knowledge of a particular player's preferences, which will lead you to play against them in a way you otherwise would not against an unknown opponent).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Re-Edit: Ok so I'm going to presume that Elodea's issue with my description is the limited scope I offered in how the word is used, here's some more examples.
1. Tailoring your play specifically for different teams and players, exploiting their weaknesses and bracing for their strengths.
2. Doing things to try and impact your enemy's emotional state, weakening them in the long term. Example might be starting off a series of matches with an all out non stop rush and trying to rattle them mentally as they go into the next game.
Sorry, this is somewhat off topic but people (developers included) need to stop using that word for game mechanic changes. Slight pet peeve :D
<!--quoteo(post=1926328:date=Apr 17 2012, 09:29 PM:name=Rise)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rise @ Apr 17 2012, 09:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1926328"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Strategy is what you know you can do based on the game mechanics.
Tactics is what you choose to do based on the situation.
Metagame is when you make decisions that are not a factor of either purely game mechanics or the situation, but are based on external influences (such as having knowledge of a particular player's preferences, which will lead you to play against them in a way you otherwise would not against an unknown opponent).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Re-Edit: Ok so I'm going to presume that Elodea's issue with my description is the limited scope I offered in how the word is used, here's some more examples.
1. Tailoring your play specifically for different teams and players, exploiting their weaknesses and bracing for their strengths.
2. Doing things to try and impact your enemy's emotional state, weakening them in the long term. Example might be starting off a series of matches with an all out non stop rush and trying to rattle them mentally as they go into the next game.
Comments
No really.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>
<a href="http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Metagame" target="_blank">Teamliquid</a>
<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=metagame" target="_blank">UrbanDictionary</a>
As a metaphor from the old Urban Dead days: Gaming was when you or some other zombie beat down the doors of a safehouse and gnawed on a survivor or two. Metagaming was when a conversation in an IRC channel caused A HUNDRED ###### ZOMBIES to beat down the doors and gnaw on EVERYTHING FOREVER. It was also when that group of survivors logged in before the time they knew you'd be getting together to talk on IRC and promptly got the hell out of dodge to somewhere you hadn't scouted yet, maybe coming in an hour after your raid to blow your brains out and dump your corpses.
Meta = above or on a higher plane. Metagamers are playing around with the act of playing the game. Changing the game may change the metagame, but only as an indirect response. Adjusting balance and values is changing the game; what players do about it is meta. Sending all your Marines with an ARC along one path so that nobody checks the other, less-infested path for your much much larger ARC train is metagaming, since you're not trying to use the mechanics to win, you're using things outside the game (your opponent's predisposition to ignore the map in the face of ARC-like threats) to win.
Meta-game refers to "I think you think that I think" type of play. Or it can be thought of as playing the game, or part of a game, in your head before picking a strategy. Basically, any time a player chooses a strategy based upon what they think an opponent's preferences are then they are meta-gaming. Meta-gaming can go several layers deep, but is redundant after n-player levels. (I think? Little rusty on my game theory.)
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame_analysis" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame_analysis</a>
Examples:
Going fade because fade is strong is not meta-game.
Going fade because you think your opponent is skipping shotguns for a fast GL rush is meta-gaming.
- Predicting opponent movement/strategy/build order
- Psychological components (i.e. using game elements to affect opponent aggresiveness, defensiveness, or moral)
In-game elements can have a huge effect on these concepts, though its not easy to predict how changes in the game will affect the metagame beforehand.
Inputs = what you believe your opponent is going to do
Outputs = Relevant decisions
What you believe your opponent is going to do = f(game mechanic x, game mechanic y, game mechanic z) = Inputs
There you go Arkanti.
Let me quote <i>"Metagame comes into play in any game where no single strategy is dominant and opposing sides are aware of multiple strategies that can succeed dependent upon opponents' actions."</i>
To explain why Charlie was correct in his use - The alien commander changes affect ability and power timings as well as providing many different strategies. These affect the higher level decision making of both teams obviously.
Metagaming is most commonly used to refer to strategies that factor in opponent disposition and choice, but as a word it has much broader applications than just your opponent. It's any decision or action that relies on data that is not entirely contained within the game.
From an 'english language' point of view, when someone says the new alien mechanics are to "change the metagame", that's not actually possible. You're not changing what's "beyond the game" (at least not directly) - you're changing what the game <i>itself </i>is.
A different way to put it is to say that every change the developers make will affect the metagame, but almost none of it is deliberate. Otherwise we wouldn't be stuck with garbage like overpowered onos, overpowered bile bomb, overpowered mines (the first patch with them), and so many other mechanics that blow up 2 days after they reach the playerbase and get figured out.
Metagaming is most commonly used to refer to strategies that factor in opponent disposition and choice, but as a word it has much broader applications than just your opponent. It's any decision or action that relies on data that is not entirely contained within the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ofcourse. Ally or enemy, the point is this. It doesnt really matter what another players disposition is <b>if</b> he mechanically cannot do something in game due to game mechanic changes.
Player 1 is disposed to strategy x because it was dominant. Game mechanic changes make this strategy no longer dominant. This changes metagame. Player 2 may think player 1 will still do strategy x. Player 2 knows this and can now do strategy y which is no longer the dominated option due to the changes to game mechanics.
<!--QuoteBegin-Arkanti+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Arkanti)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Re-Edit: Ok so I'm going to presume that Elodea's issue with my description is the limited scope I offered in how the word is used, here's some more examples.
1. Tailoring your play specifically for different teams and players, exploiting their weaknesses and bracing for their strengths.
2. Doing things to try and impact your enemy's emotional state, weakening them in the long term. Example might be starting off a series of matches with an all out non stop rush and trying to rattle them mentally for they go into the next game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. You metagame your opponent. Your opponent metagames you. See my above example and how opening up alien commanding has created this.
2. Everything is bounded by game mechanics. If the game did not allow you to non stop rush or was designed so that nonstop rushing as not so effective, this affects the metagame decisions considered and made.
Metagaming is most commonly used to refer to strategies that factor in opponent disposition and choice, but as a word it has much broader applications than just your opponent. It's any decision or action that relies on data that is not entirely contained within the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It depends entirely on the players in a game. You can view the entire team as one player or you can view individuals as players in certain situations. I think that as an overall strategy, you'll be looking at a team as one player. Though in a specific game-theory-game within an NS2 game there can definitely be room for a player to meta-game his allies. IE 2 players covering a room. Spot A is the best place to cover. As player 2, I think that my teammate player 1 will pick that spot so I go to spot B. Yay, I just meta-gamed.
It's a pretty simple notion. Unfortunately, the word is often used without acknowledging or understanding that a player is choosing a strategy not based on the strength of the strategy, but on the strength of the strategy as a response to what he believes his opponent's preferences(strategy) are.
Ignorance is bliss.
I really didn't expect this to get such a bristled response lol, it all comes down to semantics which really isn't the end of the world.
-Game
Game mechanic changes make this strategy no longer dominant.
-Game
This changes metagame.
-Indirectly true
Player 2 may think player 1 will still do strategy x.
-Potentially, or potentially not
Player 2 knows this and can now do strategy y which is no longer the dominated option due to the changes to game mechanics.
-Strategy 2 is not Meta, but the fact that Player 2 is picking his strategy based around what was feasible before the change is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In that instance, a fundamental change in the game provides an indirect change in the metagame (closing/opening options, shuffling around likelyhoods...etc.), but does not operate directly on it. It's the same way that changing a dial on a stove causes steam.
It would be improper to describe balance changes simply as altering the meta game, just as it would be improper to describe turning on a stove as "making steam"* because while they do have that effect, it is only due to the fundamental direct change that the balance had on the game that the metagame is impacted. The much more correct way to describe the changes would be as alterations to the game; the additional potential metagame impacts of this can safely be assumed by the reader, or discussed on their own if they merit such attention.
*what you do in a conversation is between you and Shakespeare, and abbreviations/slang such as these have become increasingly common in casual English, but "proper" in this context refers to official tone and grammatical correctness of its components.
Metagame is involved, yes, and it is altered indirectly. You did in fact "do it" correctly by mentioning the game changes first and referring to the metagame as involved with the game changes.
Were you to say that you planned to alter the metagame by changing some balances or mechanics, you would most likely be incorrect, as the standard intent of altering those is to alter the game, not the metagame. If you were changing them for the sole reason of making other people think differently about their opponents, though, you would be quite correct then.
Were you to say that you planned to alter the metagame by changing some balances or mechanics, you would most likely be incorrect, as the standard intent of altering those is to alter the game, not the metagame. If you were changing them for the sole reason of making other people think differently about their opponents, though, you would be quite correct then.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aye, that is how I feel it is used, psychological especially.. btw.... err tweet > here <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/NS2/status/191983913986572290" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/#!/NS2/status/191983913986572290</a>
But.. Yea.. Flayra is referring to meta-game correctly... I believe... your thinking does change a lot! Made my 'meta-game' thinking change, more more psychological play now with alien commander 2.0
This is very true! I agree that the metagame as a concept is technically limitless and unconstrained. However once you place it in an environment that has rulesets it must conform and it is only useful to think of metagame in this sense by taking that 'leap' and drawing causality between the ruleset and the decision making process. Human beings are (for the most part) rational to some degree..
It isn't incorrect to say that turning on the stove makes steam. Sure you could go down to the very smallest causality e.g. gaseous water condensing in cold air temperature causes the visual appearance of steam but you would still at the very core need to make an assumption that there isn't a smaller operator.
It isn't incorrect to say that turning on the stove makes steam. Sure you could go down to the very smallest causality e.g. gaseous water condensing in cold air temperature causes the visual appearance of steam but you would still at the very core need to make an assumption that there isn't a smaller operator.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course, and it's also not incorrect to say that changing mechanics alters the metagame. Simply referring to the act of turning on the stove as "making steam" is about as proper as referring to the act of balancing/redefining game mechanics as "altering the metagame". While both former may accomplish the latter, the latter is unlikely to be the true intended result, and the actual intended result (boiling/heated water, more balanced and enjoyable gameplay) is skipped over.
It's not an insurmountable language barrier by any means, but it is bad form, and it does hurt a little to read in a serious context. If someone did either of those to my face, I would most likely wince and correct them (or scowl and correct them, situation permitting).
But.. Yea.. Flayra is referring to meta-game correctly... I believe... your thinking does change a lot! Made my 'meta-game' thinking change, more more psychological play now with alien commander 2.0<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quite. Flayra is extremely unlikely to be testing the way the NS2 community reacts to the changes and to each other as they become accustomed to the new build, especially considering the relatively small size of the early playtest group and the impracticality of actually trying to anticipate what odd strategies people may come up with as commanders. It is far more likely that he is simply testing the game at the moment of the tweat; figuring out how the balance is shifted by tiny alterations and looking for what mechanics make fair and enjoyable gameplay.
If Flayra actually is actually spending his time trying to guess how we will try to predict each other after the new strategies come out, his grammar is spot on. If that is the case though, I should wonder why he's spending so much time worrying about which one of us will pick a winning strategy instead of actually furthering the mechanics that will allow for new strategies to arise, and would like to point out the instability of trying to model an entire community's reactions with a subset of playtesters.
Metagame abuse is a serious problem.
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, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.</i>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming</a>
Magic: The Gathering, is a good example of what metagaming looks like.
Metagaming is not the same as pure strategy. Pure strategy considers the best cards to build a deck with out of what is available and what the new rules are, as though in a vaccum.
Metagaming is when you realize that certain strategies are dominating the battlefield this season, so you build your deck strategy primarily with those in mind.
Metagaming can get even smaller scale though. For instance, if you're playing with a group of people you know, and you know what to expect from them particularly, then you will be able to build your deck to anticipate what you expect from them on a level that is even more specific.
Your metagame strategy will change with who you are facing, even if the game itself hasn't changed.
p.s Anybody want a peanut?
How players react to game changes is not metagame.
How players react to other players is metagame.
That's where people are confusing metagame when they equate it with any change in strategy/tactics/behavior. If those changes arei a result of gameplay tweaks then it's not metagaming, because it's a change in tactics that is a direct response to the game's changes rather than a response to the players themselves (who are an external factor, hence metagame).
It's used correctly in Starcraft.
Strategy is what you know you can do based on the game mechanics.
Tactics is what you choose to do based on the situation.
Metagame is when you make decisions that are not a factor of either purely game mechanics or the situation, but are based on external influences (such as having knowledge of a particular player's preferences, which will lead you to play against them in a way you otherwise would not against an unknown opponent).
How is this not the metagame?
How is this not the metagame?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about what I've already explained are you not understanding?
Changes to strategy that come as the result of game mechanic changes are, by definition, not metagame.
Changes to strategy that come as a result of the players changing - That's metagame.