Talk:Metagame

From Liquipedia StarCraft Brood War Wiki

I think a lot in this article is either wrong, or mislabeled.

Metagame, meta-game and meta game are synonymous. They all me "beyond the game" or "the game outside the game". There are three concepts which I believe should be described in the article (2 of which are present, 1 is missing). I also believe these three sections should be brought together under subheadings, instead of trying to label them "meta game" and "meta-game". I believe the three concepts are:

1) History / Trend - This was covered in the original article as "meta game", and it's the assumptions you make based on the current state of the game. These were assumptions like Terran always opening 2 Barracks in 2005, whereas now a Zerg would not be surprised to deal with Vultures, Wraith and Valkries. I think the 'revolutions' section can be expanded a little bit to give further examples. The Bisu build, 1 rax FE, 3 Hatch Mutas, and 3 Hatch Spire into 5 Hatch are all builds that revolutionized the metagame by affecting history's trend at the time.

I think it's important to get across the point that the metagame cuts both ways. It allows players to tailor their builds based on the expectation of how a normal player will play, but it also allows players to take advantage by countering the norm. Although standard builds often boil down to builds that have a fair chance against the other standard builds while being safe from strange builds, innovative players find weakness in the builds and counter them.

2) Opponent - I think this is the purest form of metagaming. It doesn't need to be explained that much, but it's build preparation for a specific opponent. Thinking that Kwanro likes 2 Hatch Mutas and countering with 2 Stargates without scouting is an example of using the metagame.

3) Mind Games/Mixups - This was listed as Meta-game in the article. It's standard things that are found in any game - setting a player's weakness up later by using a specific style now. I think the current explanation is fine but of course there's always room to expand it.

-Chill 16:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Chill's draft of the article[edit]

Talk:Meta_game/Chill_draft

Riptide 17:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Good thing I read the talk page before editing. Chill said exactly what I wanted to say. Definitely switch to his version.

One important point that should be added is the small changes that continually go on are the ones that really factor in the metagame. Big strategy improvements like 1 rax CC TvZ, Forge FE PvZ, etc completely change the matchup but happen so infrequently that once everyone realizes the strength of the new build they all just mass shift to it and wait until the opposing race figures out how to counter it. However, smaller shifts like the everlasting 2008 PvZ battle or 2008/9 TvZ struggle which underwent at least 3 strategy changes are really the core of the metagame.

--Ver 09:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting Info with 3base Spire into 5Hatch article[edit]

Meta game says

The 3 Hatch Scourge into Hydra had a weakness to stronger timing rushes that Protoss were not slow in exploiting. 
From the necessity of countering this build the +1 Zealot/Archon timing attack arose, often ending games with the one decisive blow.

whereas 3 Base Spire into 5 Hatch Hydra (vs. Protoss) says this:

Counter To
    * Zealot/Archon Attack 

This is clearly conflicting information. I'm thinking that the meta game article is the one that's wrong here, since +1 zealot/archon is supposed to counter lings, not hydras, but I could be wrong. Either way, one of these articles needs to be fixed. Kei-clone 23:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Good find. Should be homogenized. --Aesop 08:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Grammar Fix[edit]

I replaced the word "redundant" with "useless." Redundancy implies the initial presence of a condition which renders further instances of that condition "useless." Since in this case, obviously, Best had not adequately prepared for the psychological effects... no such initial condition of preparedness existed and thus "useless" better highlights the situation..

Good explanation, approved! --Aesop 07:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

the "popularized by" thing in the box in the top right seems a bit out of place--Crunchums 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Late Mechanic[edit]

Does that count as a big or small metagame event?