Curse

Cebe · Jun 06, 2007, 02:14 PM // 14:14

So one phrase has been bugging me over the last month...it's not a term I'm familiar with so I figured I'd ty to find out myself...and pretty much drew blanks. It is simply: "Meta-Game" - What is it?

I'm having issues actually understanding what the term Meta-Game refers to to start off with. From what I've read, and what I understand it is a "game within a game"...it is a way of playing a game that is in itself...a game. If this is true, does the "Meta-Game" change as new cookie-cutter builds are devised?...which means...the "Meta-Game" is the most efficient way of playing a game at any one time?

Does anyone understand my confusion over this term? I was also mainly wondering how many people actually fully understand this term and how many people bat it around because others do...

If someone could be good enough to enlighten me on the use of this word in relation to Guild Wars I'd be very grateful.

lacasner · Jun 06, 2007, 02:18 PM // 14:18

It's something that Guild Wars should have never had, but does because of poor balancing.

Bryant Again · Jun 06, 2007, 02:22 PM // 14:22

It's the most successful build, be it for a single person or team, that takes the least effort. That'd be mine.

Sophitia Leafblade · Jun 06, 2007, 02:33 PM // 14:33

According to the Urban dictonary, the Oxford dictonary and wikipedia no such thing exists

Bryant Again · Jun 06, 2007, 02:35 PM // 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sophitia Leafblade

According to the Urban dictonary, the Oxford dictonary and wikipedia no such thing exists

Maybe that's why she asked?

It's in define:Google, though.

dark · Jun 06, 2007, 02:37 PM // 14:37

i suppose it's a magic the gathering legacy... in mtg you use the world metagame to address the average build played...

ie : when all guilds play an hex-heavy build the metagame is obviously and hex-heavy meta... so you have 2 simple choices...

1) adapt to the metagame ad use a build that fit the meta (note that i didn't said an hex heavy build... but a build that would work good in that context)

2) "pierce" the meta... playing a build that would win every single game with every hex heavy build but have diminished possibility with slightly different builds (ie : you go on with a team with at least 6 anti-hex skills and a runner which doesn't cry loud when snared (ie : deny hexes runner))...

arcanemacabre · Jun 06, 2007, 02:38 PM // 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celestial Beaver

If this is true, does the "Meta-Game" change as new cookie-cutter builds are devised?...which means...the "Meta-Game" is the most efficient way of playing a game at any one time?

To be honest, I don't PvP in any area that would be said to have a "metagame" (which I would assume HA, GvG, and maybe a lesser extent TA), but I do know a little about what it is from CCGs. Basically, it's not necessarily the most efficient, just what people have deemed the most efficient. Generally speaking, the most common builds run by the more successful players, not necessarily the best builds, but the most common. This means when you go to make a new build, you would look at the "metagame" for ideas on what you would encounter on a regular basis. I would assume, of course.

It's really a by-product of games like this, competitive and bound by specific rule sets (like 8 skills for each player, 8 players per team, etc.), yet with enough customization to allow freedom of expression and ideas - there's bound to be only a handful of types of builds that really are the most efficient above all others. The quest to find those builds and get settled into what you feel is the best (thus becoming "cookie-cutter") gives rise to the inevitable "metagame". I don't really see it as a balance problem, but really the only way to fix it without screwing with the basic ruleset and mechanics is what Anet already does - frequent skill changes. It shakes things up enough to make people rethink their "metagame".

Cebe · Jun 06, 2007, 02:40 PM // 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It's the most successful build, be it for a single person or team, that takes the least effort. That'd be mine.

So you're saying it would be what I'm assuming it to be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celestial Beaver

the "Meta-Game" is the most efficient way of playing a game at any one time?

-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sophitia Leafblade, Slayer of Dragons

According to the Urban dictonary, the Oxford dictonary and wikipedia no such thing exists

This is true, also searching google normally comes up with precious little...

-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

It's in define:Google, though.

Yes it is...but it makes very little sense.

Quozz · Jun 06, 2007, 02:46 PM // 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacasner

It's something that Guild Wars should have never had, but does because of poor balancing.

QFT

Organized PVP will only truly succeed when there is no longer a "meta-game".

Aerials · Jun 06, 2007, 02:48 PM // 14:48

In terms of Guild Wars, its the current average trend of builds that are being run. To use gvg as an example, if one season, most of the teams playing are using eurospike as their team build, then that would be considered the metagame of gvg for that season. Now at the end of the season, eurospike gets nerfed, a bunch of weak hexes are buffed into usefulness, and most teams now start running hex builds, then that would mean that the metagame has shifted toward hex builds.

Gimme Money Plzkthx · Jun 06, 2007, 02:56 PM // 14:56

Meta-game generally refers to what builds (team or single) are common or currently being run. Basically, it's what you need to counter, and is usually due to some skills being grossly overpowered. It is NOT necessarily the most efficient, but often has the least amount of skill required to obtain the desired result.

lyra_song · Jun 06, 2007, 03:05 PM // 15:05

In the literal sense "Metagame" means "After the game" or perhaps "Beyond the game"

ie: Metaphysical.

The way i see it, Metagame is the "mind-game" you play before the actual match, deciding what build to bring, in expectancy of what the other players have.

"Im bringing Anti-skill A because I expect you to bring Skill B, but you expect me to bring Anti-skill A, as such, you bring Skill C which counters Anti-skill A.

I expect you to bring Skill C to counter Anti-skill A, as such i bring Anti-skill D."

And so on. You're basically playing the match in your head before it even starts.

You can look at how the term is applied in Guild Wars.

You're going into HA, and you look around at what builds are popular. Based on forum chatter, in game chatter, and personal observation, you can determine what builds are popular.

You see what builds are running around and have some expectation of what to run into.

And you build yourself accordingly to be successful.

The problem with Guild Wars is that it is not balanced, and some skills and builds overpower others to the point that theres no counters to it.

When this happens, the metagame becomes very boring. You know whats coming, theres nothing to properly counter it.

Theres no variety, and the builds dont change or evolve naturally and cyclically on their own as they should.

Instead we get pushes into build directions by the partial skill balances.

We metagame all the time, most of the time you dont really think about it.

*shrug*

but what do i know. im a noob.

Lord Mendes · Jun 06, 2007, 03:07 PM // 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacasner

It's something that Guild Wars should have never had, but does because of poor balancing.

Games like guildwars and M:tG will always have a meta, because there will always be types of builds that work better than others. Even if the skills are completely balanced the meta would be a "balanced" meta, with balanced builds being the most common and effective builds.
Don't assume meta builds are all skill-less, even though they have been for a year. Good metas exist.

The meta is pretty much the type of builds being played.
Spike meta = there are spike builds that are being run succesfully, hex meta = people are winning with hexes, etc.

Epinephrine · Jun 06, 2007, 03:22 PM // 15:22

The game theorist Nigel Howard was the first to use the word metagame, and it was the concept of making a choice of strategy based on what you think the opponent will decide. Rather than playing the optimal overall strategy (a balanced 8v8 build for example) if one knows that most teams are running strong splits one will determine that one is likely to need a split response and play a strategy contingent on your expectations of your opponent's plans. This is the first level metagame, playing based on what you think your opponent will play.

When a typical GvG is played the opponent is unknown, so the "decision" of what to run by the opponent is in fact really the sampling distribution of the GvG teams out there, based on your rank and such. The metagame in this case consists of your guess of what you are likely to draw from the environment, rather than the decisions of an individual, and thus you are limited to a 1st level analysis, but in a tournement it can be more complex, since the opponents are known.

bamm bamm bamm · Jun 06, 2007, 03:23 PM // 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by lacasner

It's something that Guild Wars should have never had, but does because of poor balancing.

So if guild wars was perfectly balanced, people would suddenly start making their own builds and stop borrowing? Of course not. In case you hadn't noticed, People ain't all that. Builds should all have an equal maximum effectiveness, but that doesn't mean all builds are equal by default. For example, one of the current favored builds is likely to be better than the crappy build Joe Warrior just came up with, and he knows this, so he joins the metagame. Doesn't mean the borrowed build is imbalanced, just that Joe Warrior's build sucks, and he sucks at putting them together. That's not to say imbalance doesn't play a part, but to say that the metagame would vanish with perfect balance is to ignore human nature.

If you could throw together 64 completely random skills and be as relationally effective as a well thought-out build, you would be right. Since you can't do that, you're not.

arcanemacabre · Jun 06, 2007, 03:32 PM // 15:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Mendes

Games like guildwars and M:tG will always have a meta, because there will always be types of builds that work better than others. Even if the skills are completely balanced the meta would be a "balanced" meta, with balanced builds being the most common and effective builds.
Don't assume meta builds are all skill-less, even though they have been for a year. Good metas exist.

The meta is pretty much the type of builds being played.
Spike meta = there are spike builds that are being run succesfully, hex meta = people are winning with hexes, etc.

I pretty much agree with this. Though when I've heard of strategies used in the metagame, it was usually "Spike heavy meta" rather than just "Spike meta" - meaning the metagame encompasses all common and successful builds, but can become more heavily weighted toward one type of build or another.

I honestly think the only way to remove the occurance of any type of metagame would be to basically run PvP like the Dragon Arena, where everyone has the exact same skills, and is relied entirely on player ability than unique skills/attributes/classes/equipment. Otherwise, if there are choices, and those choices can have either good or bad results, people are going to shoot for the best results as possible, creating a metagame.

Mournblade · Jun 06, 2007, 03:45 PM // 15:45

I think to put it simply = metagaming is focusing on the stats so much that it becomes a game in and of itself - 'beyond the game'.

I used the term a lot when I was playing Neverwinter Nights, where simply put the object was to immerse yourself and role-play. In 'the game' you wielded a magic flaming sword. in 'the metagame' you wielded a +5 sword that does +4 fire damage per hit.

So for Guildwars, 'the game' would be two teams going head to head and using skill to prevail over the other. 'The metagame' would be two teams poring over every skill and coming up with the right attack skills, defence, etc. that would give them the best chances of winning.

=P

MSecorsky · Jun 06, 2007, 03:52 PM // 15:52

Think of it this way... the meta-game is the parameters that define what's going on in the game. It's the "big picture" without the specifics. You use the current meta-game (if you wish) to give you insight into what/how is within the game. If you know the current meta is for BoA mending assassins using shatter hex, then you would either follow the same trend or devise a counter measure to it and build specifically to counter the meta.

Nekretaal · Jun 06, 2007, 04:10 PM // 16:10

Its what you think your opponants are going to play:

What skills are they likely to bring, what strategies are they going to use.

Once you know what your opponants are going to do, you can plan your own strategy to appropriatly beat them.

If all of the skills in Guild wars were balanced (against each other on an approximate level), knowing the metagame and planning (not just builds but tactics) would be very crucial to victory. If the skills are imbalanced (against each other) and few skills are better than most skills, then knowing the metagame isnt very important as there are few viable strategies anyways. In such a case, stuff like twitch reflexes and having the best ping is more important to victory.

FoxBat · Jun 06, 2007, 04:17 PM // 16:17

I'm getting a bit tired of this.

If Guild Wars is not supposed to have any metagame or "build wars", There Would Not Be Ten Classes and Thousands of Skills!!!!

GW wasn't meant to be a game consisting solely of gale warriors, boon prots, esurge mesmers, prodigy runners, and nothing else. Even if thats what you had the most fun with. Get over it!!!