Can I just say... I absolutely hate the term "meta"... Meta is nothing more than strategy, plain and simple. I play poker and I know Bill bluffs a lot, well my strategy against Bill will be wait until I have a strong hand, slow play him, wait until he bluffs and then drop the hammer. This is called strategy, not meta or any other "super" word people want to attach to a normal thought process.

Receiving intel, fomulating a strategy based on said intel, and then applying it is nothing new and we dont need another term for it. I think some people use the word meta to describe elite builds and such... and if they do, they are using the word incorrectly lol.

I gotta disagree a bit. Playing against Bill isn't meta, it's reading your opponent. Meta is whether or not most players slow play their Aces, or raise under the gun. Meta (in my mind) is prevalent strategy that appears over a large sample size.

Poker meta would be things like 'slow play the straight flush on the turn.'

Different players/groups/stores/living rooms play for different reasons. "Meta" is just a term for the mentality of your play group. If I only play with my son the "meta" will be different than when playing at my local league night, and most likely that will also be different from a "premiere" level tourney. On the interwhatevs and on this forum in particular, the meta is only about winning at the highest level. I am not at all surprised that you see a different meta compared to the one discussed on these boards. My league night is different too. However if I had ignored the results from the 2014 regionals with wave 4 ships, I probably would have suffered due to everyone papering my rock.
So you just need to know what the people that you are/will be playing with and there is you "meta".

Can I just say... I absolutely hate the term "meta"... Meta is nothing more than strategy, plain and simple.

Then you don't understand the term as it's used for these games. Because that's not what the meta means.

It really just means the game about the game. But in miniature games it has come to mean an understanding of what lists are popular, which aren't and why. It's a lot more then just strategy and how to play a given person.

Can I just say... I absolutely hate the term "meta"... Meta is nothing more than strategy, plain and simple. I play poker and I know Bill bluffs a lot, well my strategy against Bill will be wait until I have a strong hand, slow play him, wait until he bluffs and then drop the hammer. This is called strategy, not meta or any other "super" word people want to attach to a normal thought process.

Receiving intel, fomulating a strategy based on said intel, and then applying it is nothing new and we dont need another term for it. I think some people use the word meta to describe elite builds and such... and if they do, they are using the word incorrectly lol.

I gotta disagree a bit. Playing against Bill isn't meta, it's reading your opponent. Meta is whether or not most players slow play their Aces, or raise under the gun. Meta (in my mind) is prevalent strategy that appears over a large sample size.

Poker meta would be things like 'slow play the straight flush on the turn.'

And I can see that to a certain extent; I just don't understand why we need to label things with special terms when a perfectly acceptable word already exists lol... Kids these days........

Kids these days...

The term was brought into use by Richard Garfield when he was working on the very early playtesting of MtG, he was neither a kid, nor was that 'these days'.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, the term is both over used and often missused, it's become a buzz word and often used by people without really understanding what it means.

Kids these days...

The term was brought into use by Richard Garfield when he was working on the very early playtesting of MtG, he was neither a kid, nor was that 'these days'.

Still doesn't change my mind... and I'll be damned if you try to! <---------- American western culture, what can I say.

Kids these days...

The term was brought into use by Richard Garfield when he was working on the very early playtesting of MtG, he was neither a kid, nor was that 'these days'.

Still doesn't change my mind... and I'll be damned if you try to! <---------- American western culture, what can I say.

No no no. WE'LL be damned if we try to. =P

Kids these days...

The term was brought into use by Richard Garfield when he was working on the very early playtesting of MtG, he was neither a kid, nor was that 'these days'.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, the term is both over used and often missused, it's become a buzz word and often used by people without really understanding what it means.

I agree completely, and maybe thats why it rubs my rhubarb the wrong way haha.

Still doesn't change my mind...

If anyone can find the Magic the Gathering pocket book written by Richard, it's a wonderful read, no so much for the rules and card list which are of course out of date by a decade now. But for all the stories he tells about the early days of testing MtG, back when the cards were photocopied at the Uni library, and things like original art was most often a stick figure.

He used used the term Metagame to describe the interactions between the players, when they weren't actually playing the game. The trading, wheeling and dealing, deck building, swapping ideas, ect... Because they were involved in the game of MtG, but weren't actually playing the game itself.

Back then there was a finite number of cards and if someone could somehow manage to collect all of card X, they had all of card X. He tells a story about how Skiff was trying to trade someone else for a couple cards he wanted and Richard offered the guy about 3 times as many cards for the ones Skiff wanted. Skiff said "that card isn't worth anywhere near that much." to which Richard said "It's not a trade for that card, it's a gift to him for refusing to trade it to you."

In a game like X-Wing the meta isn't just what lists people are playing, it's also why they play them, it's us discussing why or how those lists work. It's someone spotting a cool combo and posting it here. It's knowing that the major hawtness right now is Phantoms and Anti-Phantoms, and building your list accordingly.

I think its mostly going to be a problem of information speed at this point.

...

That would be my point against the idea that the meta-game is simply wishful collective wisdom.

As far as we are along in X-wing, I think there are a few (Major Juggler's work) of aggregating sites for X-wing. Not two handfuls or more.

Yes, MajorJuggler and Vorpal Sword have an interesting debate on this. I take it you're coming down on the Major's side, while I'm becoming more Vorpal Sword's ally.

I should clarify, by the way. I am not a culturalist. I do not think people's beliefs (individualist/collectivist, or any other style) play into this. If it did, I think that you would find that 'the meta' would be even more constructed than absolute. What I'm saying is that different communities receive different stimulae and this develops local meta scenes differently.

Now, I do think that the top players do play close attention, and they're good enough to know that the local scene is different than the regional scene. What Major Juggler collects is the higher level. Now, I'm not saying that higher stakes and greater awareness does not allow a community to approach rationality (as in, calculating the greatest efficiency from the ships, pilots, upgrades, etc.), but that rationality happens within a constructed context. Furthermore, a strategy game (as opposed to merely a tactical one) pays attention to people's collective and idiosyncratic tendencies, and attempts to surprise them. Surprising your as well as being adaptive to changing circumstances, means that you have to become less specialized and efficient.

I've been reading (and contributing to) this forum for a while now, and have lapped up the discussions on 'the meta', and MajorJuggler's reports.

However, I'm not actually experienced this Phantom vs. Falcon high that we're all supposed to be on in my local scene. In the past few months, I've played just two games in which there was a Phantom, and two games that had a Falcon (the games at home after I just got my Falcon notwithstanding). One of these games had both - so three games in total, and I was flying the Falcon in response to the Phantom because I heard that that was the thing to do. (It was; I slaughtered the Phantom.)

But, in my local scene I'm seeing a lot of Z-95s and E-Wings, and a few Defenders and Phantoms, but it's not the Phantom vs. Falcon craze that everyone is talking about.

So, do I just live in a peculiar place, or is this 'meta' that everyone speaks of just something that is salient at the highest levels?

The brutal honest truth, is that local events do not reflect top 8 regional tables, or what will be in the top half of gen con. That's like questioning a new offensive/defensive scheme your favorite nfl team wants to try because your kid's pop warner team doesn't use it. And I don't mean to make that sound like "you're a bunch of children and not x-wing professionals (lol)", but what I mean is USUALLY locals are for fun. That's how they should be. Big tourneys are fun as well, but obviously people want to win them and will use more "proven" squads. I'm one of the biggest supporters of the falcon + phantom + maybe tie swarm meta (meaning that I recognize that it exists, not that I'm necessarily fond of it, it is what it is), but at the local this saturday i'd love to break out an ewing. Or a defender. Or a triple 5 ps phantom list. Or an all shuttle list. And I've already played a couple locals with a defender list. A bunch of fun ideas that are maybe solid in their own right, just not in respect of the global meta.

Still doesn't change my mind...

If anyone can find the Magic the Gathering pocket book written by Richard, it's a wonderful read, no so much for the rules and card list which are of course out of date by a decade now. But for all the stories he tells about the early days of testing MtG, back when the cards were photocopied at the Uni library, and things like original art was most often a stick figure.

He used used the term Metagame to describe the interactions between the players, when they weren't actually playing the game. The trading, wheeling and dealing, deck building, swapping ideas, ect... Because they were involved in the game of MtG, but weren't actually playing the game itself.

Back then there was a finite number of cards and if someone could somehow manage to collect all of card X, they had all of card X. He tells a story about how Skiff was trying to trade someone else for a couple cards he wanted and Richard offered the guy about 3 times as many cards for the ones Skiff wanted. Skiff said "that card isn't worth anywhere near that much." to which Richard said "It's not a trade for that card, it's a gift to him for refusing to trade it to you."

In a game like X-Wing the meta isn't just what lists people are playing, it's also why they play them, it's us discussing why or how those lists work. It's someone spotting a cool combo and posting it here. It's knowing that the major hawtness right now is Phantoms and Anti-Phantoms, and building your list accordingly.

And this makes total sense to me in those terms. Back when magic just gave you the cards and said "here you go, now build something out of them". Today's magic in my opinion is a shell of that, now they basically hand you the combos for the most part.

I've been reading (and contributing to) this forum for a while now, and have lapped up the discussions on 'the meta', and MajorJuggler's reports.

However, I'm not actually experienced this Phantom vs. Falcon high that we're all supposed to be on in my local scene. In the past few months, I've played just two games in which there was a Phantom, and two games that had a Falcon (the games at home after I just got my Falcon notwithstanding). One of these games had both - so three games in total, and I was flying the Falcon in response to the Phantom because I heard that that was the thing to do. (It was; I slaughtered the Phantom.)

But, in my local scene I'm seeing a lot of Z-95s and E-Wings, and a few Defenders and Phantoms, but it's not the Phantom vs. Falcon craze that everyone is talking about.

So, do I just live in a peculiar place, or is this 'meta' that everyone speaks of just something that is salient at the highest levels?

The brutal honest truth, is that local events do not reflect top 8 regional tables, or what will be in the top half of gen con. That's like questioning a new offensive/defensive scheme your favorite nfl team wants to try because your kid's pop warner team doesn't use it. And I don't mean to make that sound like "you're a bunch of children and not x-wing professionals (lol)", but what I mean is USUALLY locals are for fun. That's how they should be. Big tourneys are fun as well, but obviously people want to win them and will use more "proven" squads. I'm one of the biggest supporters of the falcon + phantom + maybe tie swarm meta (meaning that I recognize that it exists, not that I'm necessarily fond of it, it is what it is), but at the local this saturday i'd love to break out an ewing. Or a defender. Or a triple 5 ps phantom list. Or an all shuttle list. And I've already played a couple locals with a defender list. A bunch of fun ideas that are maybe solid in their own right, just not in respect of the global meta.

You beat me to the punch a little bit here. At the top of any major competitive anything, be it a game, sport, whatever, you'll find a lot of people with similar tendencies.

Someone suggested poker earlier, and that's a great example. You may win a few hands playing 7-2 off suit, but over the long run, it won't pay out. The meta we most often talk about is the top table stuff, where every player has great situational awareness, spatial reasoning, etc. The major factor in variation is the lists they choose to fly. When we see those starts to culminate in fewer and fewer discrepancies, it's because they're all noting similar factors and planning accordingly.

If player skill is equal, the better list will win.

I think its mostly going to be a problem of information speed at this point.

...

That would be my point against the idea that the meta-game is simply wishful collective wisdom.

As far as we are along in X-wing, I think there are a few (Major Juggler's work) of aggregating sites for X-wing. Not two handfuls or more.

Yes, MajorJuggler and Vorpal Sword have an interesting debate on this. I take it you're coming down on the Major's side, while I'm becoming more Vorpal Sword's ally.

I should clarify, by the way. I am not a culturalist. I do not think people's beliefs (individualist/collectivist, or any other style) play into this. If it did, I think that you would find that 'the meta' would be even more constructed than absolute. What I'm saying is that different communities receive different stimulae and this develops local meta scenes differently.

Now, I do think that the top players do play close attention, and they're good enough to know that the local scene is different than the regional scene. What Major Juggler collects is the higher level. Now, I'm not saying that higher stakes and greater awareness does not allow a community to approach rationality (as in, calculating the greatest efficiency from the ships, pilots, upgrades, etc.), but that rationality happens within a constructed context. Furthermore, a strategy game (as opposed to merely a tactical one) pays attention to people's collective and idiosyncratic tendencies, and attempts to surprise them. Surprising your as well as being adaptive to changing circumstances, means that you have to become less specialized and efficient.

I haven't read it actually. Would love to. Do you know the link?

I do think all three of you are strong, interesting posters though.

Not sure what you mean by constructed vs absolute. I just don't know what meaning of the terms you're implying.

The brutal honest truth, is that local events do not reflect top 8 regional tables, or what will be in the top half of gen con. That's like questioning a new offensive/defensive scheme your favorite nfl team wants to try because your kid's pop warner team doesn't use it. And I don't mean to make that sound like "you're a bunch of children and not x-wing professionals (lol)", but what I mean is USUALLY locals are for fun. That's how they should be. Big tourneys are fun as well, but obviously people want to win them and will use more "proven" squads. I'm one of the biggest supporters of the falcon + phantom + maybe tie swarm meta (meaning that I recognize that it exists, not that I'm necessarily fond of it, it is what it is), but at the local this saturday i'd love to break out an ewing. Or a defender. Or a triple 5 ps phantom list. Or an all shuttle list. And I've already played a couple locals with a defender list. A bunch of fun ideas that are maybe solid in their own right, just not in respect of the global meta.

I would dispute that in theory. (I say 'in theory', because I have no first-hand knowledge. If you do, please enlighten me.)

I have no doubt that the pro-level is different from the local level, and the pro-level pays close attention to the global meta. However, don't the pros also have to think outside of the box in order to beat those who think inside of the box? Or, is the box so rock-solid that deviating from it is a form of suicide?

I've been reading (and contributing to) this forum for a while now, and have lapped up the discussions on 'the meta', and MajorJuggler's reports.

However, I'm not actually experienced this Phantom vs. Falcon high that we're all supposed to be on in my local scene. In the past few months, I've played just two games in which there was a Phantom, and two games that had a Falcon (the games at home after I just got my Falcon notwithstanding). One of these games had both - so three games in total, and I was flying the Falcon in response to the Phantom because I heard that that was the thing to do. (It was; I slaughtered the Phantom.)

But, in my local scene I'm seeing a lot of Z-95s and E-Wings, and a few Defenders and Phantoms, but it's not the Phantom vs. Falcon craze that everyone is talking about.

So, do I just live in a peculiar place, or is this 'meta' that everyone speaks of just something that is salient at the highest levels?

The brutal honest truth, is that local events do not reflect top 8 regional tables, or what will be in the top half of gen con. That's like questioning a new offensive/defensive scheme your favorite nfl team wants to try because your kid's pop warner team doesn't use it. And I don't mean to make that sound like "you're a bunch of children and not x-wing professionals (lol)", but what I mean is USUALLY locals are for fun. That's how they should be. Big tourneys are fun as well, but obviously people want to win them and will use more "proven" squads. I'm one of the biggest supporters of the falcon + phantom + maybe tie swarm meta (meaning that I recognize that it exists, not that I'm necessarily fond of it, it is what it is), but at the local this saturday i'd love to break out an ewing. Or a defender. Or a triple 5 ps phantom list. Or an all shuttle list. And I've already played a couple locals with a defender list. A bunch of fun ideas that are maybe solid in their own right, just not in respect of the global meta.

You beat me to the punch a little bit here. At the top of any major competitive anything, be it a game, sport, whatever, you'll find a lot of people with similar tendencies.

Someone suggested poker earlier, and that's a great example. You may win a few hands playing 7-2 off suit, but over the long run, it won't pay out. The meta we most often talk about is the top table stuff, where every player has great situational awareness, spatial reasoning, etc. The major factor in variation is the lists they choose to fly. When we see those starts to culminate in fewer and fewer discrepancies, it's because they're all noting similar factors and planning accordingly.

If player skill is equal, the better list will win.

exactly. couldnt have said it better.

just like how we all know now that howlrunner is good for her cost, and fel's wrath isn't. Or Winged Gundark.

Actually, kind of funny enough, when i play with new players they LOVE picking Major Rhymer and Winged Gundark and Fel's Wrath.

Should I warn them? I usually do, and let them play what they choose in finality.

The brutal honest truth, is that local events do not reflect top 8 regional tables, or what will be in the top half of gen con. That's like questioning a new offensive/defensive scheme your favorite nfl team wants to try because your kid's pop warner team doesn't use it. And I don't mean to make that sound like "you're a bunch of children and not x-wing professionals (lol)", but what I mean is USUALLY locals are for fun. That's how they should be. Big tourneys are fun as well, but obviously people want to win them and will use more "proven" squads. I'm one of the biggest supporters of the falcon + phantom + maybe tie swarm meta (meaning that I recognize that it exists, not that I'm necessarily fond of it, it is what it is), but at the local this saturday i'd love to break out an ewing. Or a defender. Or a triple 5 ps phantom list. Or an all shuttle list. And I've already played a couple locals with a defender list. A bunch of fun ideas that are maybe solid in their own right, just not in respect of the global meta.

I would dispute that in theory. (I say 'in theory', because I have no first-hand knowledge. If you do, please enlighten me.)

I have no doubt that the pro-level is different from the local level, and the pro-level pays close attention to the global meta. However, don't the pros also have to think outside of the box in order to beat those who think inside of the box? Or, is the box so rock-solid that deviating from it is a form of suicide?

Mikael, it depends on the strength difference between the meta lists and the brew.

Also it depends on the accuracy of the expected matchups. You can have a list that sucks vs Tie Swarm, but great vs Phantom and Falcon and do well if you know and end up not playing against many swarms.

So far thats been my building exercise. Ignoring the swarm, what list can i make that can do well against both the other boogeyman. I leave it to statistical chance that I won't run into the swarm and that my brew has a decent shot against other brews and that other brews will get pounded by meta lists.

And this makes total sense to me in those terms. Back when magic just gave you the cards and said "here you go, now build something out of them". Today's magic in my opinion is a shell of that, now they basically hand you the combos for the most part.

Which is how you end up with cards like the Power 9. Do you really not see the value in set design and playtesting?

The metagame is a conscious decision made by players, not the company.

The brutal honest truth, is that local events do not reflect top 8 regional tables, or what will be in the top half of gen con. That's like questioning a new offensive/defensive scheme your favorite nfl team wants to try because your kid's pop warner team doesn't use it. And I don't mean to make that sound like "you're a bunch of children and not x-wing professionals (lol)", but what I mean is USUALLY locals are for fun. That's how they should be. Big tourneys are fun as well, but obviously people want to win them and will use more "proven" squads. I'm one of the biggest supporters of the falcon + phantom + maybe tie swarm meta (meaning that I recognize that it exists, not that I'm necessarily fond of it, it is what it is), but at the local this saturday i'd love to break out an ewing. Or a defender. Or a triple 5 ps phantom list. Or an all shuttle list. And I've already played a couple locals with a defender list. A bunch of fun ideas that are maybe solid in their own right, just not in respect of the global meta.

I would dispute that in theory. (I say 'in theory', because I have no first-hand knowledge. If you do, please enlighten me.)

I have no doubt that the pro-level is different from the local level, and the pro-level pays close attention to the global meta. However, don't the pros also have to think outside of the box in order to beat those who think inside of the box? Or, is the box so rock-solid that deviating from it is a form of suicide?

Mikael, it depends on the strength difference between the meta lists and the brew.

Also it depends on the accuracy of the expected matchups. You can have a list that sucks vs Tie Swarm, but great vs Phantom and Falcon and do well if you know and end up not playing against many swarms.

So far thats been my building exercise. Ignoring the swarm, what list can i make that can do well against both the other boogeyman. I leave it to statistical chance that I won't run into the swarm and that my brew has a decent shot against other brews and that other brews will get pounded by meta lists.

Yea, I think the goal is to build outside the box, while keeping the meta in mind. If you assume that X and Y are meta, you want a build that can deal with X and Y while having a decent shot against everything else.

So you can be creative, but you have to be responsible to. If you spend 16 points on 4 Exposes, you're doing a disservice to yourself. Your outside the meta, but so far outside it's unlikely to be helpful in the long run.

And this makes total sense to me in those terms. Back when magic just gave you the cards and said "here you go, now build something out of them". Today's magic in my opinion is a shell of that, now they basically hand you the combos for the most part.

Which is how you end up with cards like the Power 9. Do you really not see the value in set design and playtesting?

The metagame is a conscious decision made by players, not the company.

There is nothing wrong with supreme power (Power 9)... Thats why Thanos has always been my favorite Marvel character lol.

So you'd rather have broken, poorly designed cards over ones that have been playtested to see how they interact with the rest of the set/block/format?

Mikael, it depends on the strength difference between the meta lists and the brew.

Also it depends on the accuracy of the expected matchups. You can have a list that sucks vs Tie Swarm, but great vs Phantom and Falcon and do well if you know and end up not playing against many swarms.

So far thats been my building exercise. Ignoring the swarm, what list can i make that can do well against both the other boogeyman. I leave it to statistical chance that I won't run into the swarm and that my brew has a decent shot against other brews and that other brews will get pounded by meta lists.

Right, and here it is: you're trying to use your brew to defeat the established meta. Now, if the established meta is so tight that it can't be defeated by your brew except by out-of-the-norm dice rolling, then maybe there's an argument against the constructedness of the meta, and maybe the meta is given by its material structure (for lack of a better term).

Yea, I think the goal is to build outside the box, while keeping the meta in mind. If you assume that X and Y are meta, you want a build that can deal with X and Y while having a decent shot against everything else.

But if everybody does it....?

I haven't read it actually. Would love to. Do you know the link?

I do think all three of you are strong, interesting posters though.

Not sure what you mean by constructed vs absolute. I just don't know what meaning of the terms you're implying.

It was a short conversation in another thread--unfortunately I don't remember which one, and am feeling too lazy to go looking. Basically it was in the context of me thinking/hoping I had an insight into why some competing philosophical commitments caused me to make an ass of myself when I first came back to this board and jumped all over MJ for what I see as flaws in his modeling.

For me the metagame is fluid, entirely socially constructed, and not necessarily congruent with the fundamental structure of the game itself. I don't think MJ agrees, particularly with the last bit, but of course he can speak for himself.

Anyway, I think what shows up at the top tables of major tournaments is both a product of the metagame and a factor in shaping the metagame, and accordingly it tends to be subject to both positive and negative feedback. (The spike we've recently seen in lists featuring Chewie and Han is potentially an indicator of positive feedback, for instance.) Accordingly, I do think there's at least potential value in setting aside the metagame at least when initially brainstorming your approach to an upcoming tournament--not because doing so proves that you're some kind of brave Gordian-knot individualist but because, in a game as complex as X-wing, there are very likely to be successful strategies (i.e., squads) that have not yet been discovered.

Mikael, it depends on the strength difference between the meta lists and the brew.

Also it depends on the accuracy of the expected matchups. You can have a list that sucks vs Tie Swarm, but great vs Phantom and Falcon and do well if you know and end up not playing against many swarms.

So far thats been my building exercise. Ignoring the swarm, what list can i make that can do well against both the other boogeyman. I leave it to statistical chance that I won't run into the swarm and that my brew has a decent shot against other brews and that other brews will get pounded by meta lists.

Right, and here it is: you're trying to use your brew to defeat the established meta. Now, if the established meta is so tight that it can't be defeated by your brew except by out-of-the-norm dice rolling, then maybe there's an argument against the constructedness of the meta, and maybe the meta is given by its material structure (for lack of a better term).

Yea, I think the goal is to build outside the box, while keeping the meta in mind. If you assume that X and Y are meta, you want a build that can deal with X and Y while having a decent shot against everything else.

But if everybody does it....?

We want a game where minimal changes occur, not one where wild swings are taking place all the time. Minor changes speak to balance, wild swings are the opposite. You get the wild swings when new stuff is released, like a stone in a lake. But after a while things settle out and we get a better sense of how cards and ships interact with plenty of space for people to introduce new ideas and tactics with a trickle up effect. Stuff that proves to be effectively out of the box, makes its way into the box, and the box changes shape. This is good.

FLGSs will always have a larger box than regionals, and regionals will be larger the nationals, etc.

Not sure what you mean by constructed vs absolute. I just don't know what meaning of the terms you're implying.

Sorry, I missed this. You deserve some clarification on my use of the terms.

By absolute I mean that 'objective'. As in, we have a range of ships, pilots and upgrades, as well as rules to the game. These are given and not subject to (too much) interpretation. According to an absolute/objective meta, the probability distributions inherent in the game are what drive the choices people make.

I take a different view. I think the choices people make drive the choices people make. This is what I mean by intersubjectively constructed. Obviously, the ships, pilots, upgrades and rules matter a great deal, but they are not determinative of how the meta plays out.