meta doesn't mean "most effective tactics available," it literally means "meta" as in the "metagame" is the game around/beyond the game. You play StarCraft by building units and managing supply...
meta doesn't mean "most effective tactics available," it literally means "meta" as in the "metagame" is the game around/beyond the game. You play StarCraft by building units and managing supply and microing, and you play the metagame by knowing that marauders counter stalkers, and stalkers are OP right now, and you're playing as terran in TvP so you'll probably go marauders. (it's been ages since I played SC2 so forgive a possibly-outdated example)
The meta game isn’t knowing that stalkers are OP. It’s knowing that there is a popular strategy involving having lots of stalkers being used by Protoss players right now. In other words it’s using...
and you play the metagame by knowing that marauders counter stalkers, and stalkers are OP right now
The meta game isn’t knowing that stalkers are OP. It’s knowing that there is a popular strategy involving having lots of stalkers being used by Protoss players right now. In other words it’s using your knowledge about how other people are playing the game and what the current trends are in the strategies and build orders.
This is why “off-meta” strategies can be surprisingly effective. Because people make assumptions on what you’re doing based on what they’ve seen from others. So you can operate outside the possibility space your opponent is thinking about when they’re making decisions.
Eh I pretty much disagree. You can get semantic about it but 90% of the time someone is talking(usually complaining) about the meta it’s because they think character/tactic A is too weak and...
Eh I pretty much disagree. You can get semantic about it but 90% of the time someone is talking(usually complaining) about the meta it’s because they think character/tactic A is too weak and tactic B is overpowered and so on.
Sure, but the term meta was never intended to mean "most effective tactics available," maybe someone tried to backronym the actual word "meta" but that's not where the word comes from
Sure, but the term meta was never intended to mean "most effective tactics available," maybe someone tried to backronym the actual word "meta" but that's not where the word comes from
I'd never even heard the acronym until now. I've only ever seen it used as a contraction of 'metagame' as you say. I see it called just 'metagame' sometimes as well.
I'd never even heard the acronym until now. I've only ever seen it used as a contraction of 'metagame' as you say. I see it called just 'metagame' sometimes as well.
What about metadata? I have definitely heard it used more to describe metagame conversations, but metadata is the thing I’ve always held in the back of my mind as a way to illustrate what the word...
What about metadata? I have definitely heard it used more to describe metagame conversations, but metadata is the thing I’ve always held in the back of my mind as a way to illustrate what the word means.
There’s also that company that used to be Facebook and changed their name.
Metadata ("data about data"), metamorphosis, metaballs, metastasis, metabolism, metaprogramming... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaprogramming Colloquial gamer misuse is just that: misuse from...
Metadata ("data about data"), metamorphosis, metaballs, metastasis, metabolism, metaprogramming...
Meta (from the Greek μετά, meta, meaning "after" or "beyond") is an adjective meaning "more comprehensive" or "transcending".[1]
In modern nomenclature, the prefix meta- can also serve as a prefix meaning self-referential, as a field of study or endeavor (metatheory: theory about a theory; metamathematics: mathematical theories about mathematics; meta-axiomatics or meta-axiomaticity: axioms about axiomatic systems; metahumor: joking about the ways humor is expressed; etc.).
I was speaking specifically about the phrase "the meta" in regards to gaming. Thinking more broadly, I'm probably more familiar with the concept of metatext in literary criticism than metadata in...
I was speaking specifically about the phrase "the meta" in regards to gaming.
Thinking more broadly, I'm probably more familiar with the concept of metatext in literary criticism than metadata in computing.
I'm not sure where you're getting what it was intended to mean, but yeah that's been the intention ever since I've heard the word, which predates SC2 by a large margin. The "meta" in MTG are...
I'm not sure where you're getting what it was intended to mean, but yeah that's been the intention ever since I've heard the word, which predates SC2 by a large margin.
The "meta" in MTG are basically your lists of viable decks at a competitive level, with "off meta" being either objectively inferior, a rogue deck that people weren't aware of, or some pile of hate/rogue stuff perfectly tailored for an upcoming tournament.
These are the viable tactics. It's the same for fighting games, RTS, and just about every other competitive game I'm aware of. Openings in chess are a much older "meta" and are literally the viable opening moves vs a long slew of non viable ones in competitive play.
That's what I thought, but she does hedge, and it seems closely related. (How else would you decide which tactics are most effective?) Maybe some gamers think of it that way?
That's what I thought, but she does hedge, and it seems closely related. (How else would you decide which tactics are most effective?) Maybe some gamers think of it that way?
Since the top comment is a semantics argument I figured i'd split this off here. I do think the article has some good points, and in general think modern games offer very untapped modeling...
Since the top comment is a semantics argument I figured i'd split this off here.
I do think the article has some good points, and in general think modern games offer very untapped modeling potential for policy makers. Understanding how a competitive player base adapts to rules and changes is often very similar to how humans adapt and change everywhere else, because it's the same drive/thought process.
Paying attention to what does, and doesn't, work shows a lot of the same pain points. Just telling people "don't do that" or trying to catch every time they do that is often infeasible, so if at all possible you want to making doing "that" less viable, and it's not like this is new. If a bunch of people are stealing you can increase the penalties for stealing and watch things spiral (older london being a good example of how this doesn't work) or you can accept that most people don't want to steal and try to change the conditions that are leading to them doing so.
It is somewhat remarkable that a very powerful tactic, attractive to wrongdoers, could lie undiscovered within the system so long — a meta-lag, if you will. What’s not remarkable is that it was popularized by gamers. Online communities are hyperefficient engines for finding and mining an unexploited meta-lag, processing it into a new meta, and then exporting it globally. And swatting’s not the only incidence of this.
meta doesn't mean "most effective tactics available," it literally means "meta" as in the "metagame" is the game around/beyond the game. You play StarCraft by building units and managing supply and microing, and you play the metagame by knowing that marauders counter stalkers, and stalkers are OP right now, and you're playing as terran in TvP so you'll probably go marauders. (it's been ages since I played SC2 so forgive a possibly-outdated example)
The meta game isn’t knowing that stalkers are OP. It’s knowing that there is a popular strategy involving having lots of stalkers being used by Protoss players right now. In other words it’s using your knowledge about how other people are playing the game and what the current trends are in the strategies and build orders.
This is why “off-meta” strategies can be surprisingly effective. Because people make assumptions on what you’re doing based on what they’ve seen from others. So you can operate outside the possibility space your opponent is thinking about when they’re making decisions.
Eh I pretty much disagree. You can get semantic about it but 90% of the time someone is talking(usually complaining) about the meta it’s because they think character/tactic A is too weak and tactic B is overpowered and so on.
Sure, but the term meta was never intended to mean "most effective tactics available," maybe someone tried to backronym the actual word "meta" but that's not where the word comes from
I'd never even heard the acronym until now. I've only ever seen it used as a contraction of 'metagame' as you say. I see it called just 'metagame' sometimes as well.
What about metadata? I have definitely heard it used more to describe metagame conversations, but metadata is the thing I’ve always held in the back of my mind as a way to illustrate what the word means.
There’s also that company that used to be Facebook and changed their name.
Metadata ("data about data"), metamorphosis, metaballs, metastasis, metabolism, metaprogramming...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaprogramming
Colloquial gamer misuse is just that: misuse from an inappropriate abbreviation of metagame (literally "game about the game").
I was speaking specifically about the phrase "the meta" in regards to gaming.
Thinking more broadly, I'm probably more familiar with the concept of metatext in literary criticism than metadata in computing.
I'm not sure where you're getting what it was intended to mean, but yeah that's been the intention ever since I've heard the word, which predates SC2 by a large margin.
The "meta" in MTG are basically your lists of viable decks at a competitive level, with "off meta" being either objectively inferior, a rogue deck that people weren't aware of, or some pile of hate/rogue stuff perfectly tailored for an upcoming tournament.
These are the viable tactics. It's the same for fighting games, RTS, and just about every other competitive game I'm aware of. Openings in chess are a much older "meta" and are literally the viable opening moves vs a long slew of non viable ones in competitive play.
That's what I thought, but she does hedge, and it seems closely related. (How else would you decide which tactics are most effective?) Maybe some gamers think of it that way?
Since the top comment is a semantics argument I figured i'd split this off here.
I do think the article has some good points, and in general think modern games offer very untapped modeling potential for policy makers. Understanding how a competitive player base adapts to rules and changes is often very similar to how humans adapt and change everywhere else, because it's the same drive/thought process.
Paying attention to what does, and doesn't, work shows a lot of the same pain points. Just telling people "don't do that" or trying to catch every time they do that is often infeasible, so if at all possible you want to making doing "that" less viable, and it's not like this is new. If a bunch of people are stealing you can increase the penalties for stealing and watch things spiral (older london being a good example of how this doesn't work) or you can accept that most people don't want to steal and try to change the conditions that are leading to them doing so.
From the opinion piece: