the metagame cycle

[debaser]

during one of the recent ken matches from KoC, one of the commentators brought up a mango interview where mango talks about how in some situations the old metagame beats the new--the cyclical nature of the melee metagame.

i found this to be an utterly captivating concept. does anyone know the link for this interview? i'd like to hear some thoughts on this if you guys don't mind indulging. has anyone else had a similar thought independently?

i don't think it's really a perfect cycle, where the metagame is just doomed to bounce between two styles. there has definitely been a percievable linear advance in my opinion since the beginning with an overall tightening of tech skill and execution. and with those mechanical improvements a sort of blooming of realization of all the punishment and defensive and recovery (etc...) options available during gameplay. there will be no reverting backwards from these advancements.

though this development i think puts us on a sort of plateau where a cyclical pattern could emerge. the commentator talking about this mentioned something about a shifting of the timings, which seems to be kind of a hint. what do you guys think?

 

[Landry]

I think it's either here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo_FsqamK7g&feature=relmfu) or here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqHx_Inq-Dw&feature=relmfu). I know it was from somewhere in the that long interview.

Basically what Mango says is that he just keeps changing his timing to keep people off guard and eventually he finds himself going back to '07 timings because people eventually forget how to defend against it or something like that.

Interesting stuff to think about.

 

[-Jumpman-]

To reply to the theoretical aspect, a metagame switching between two styles isn't a possibility, as they wouldn't counter each other (in which case it's static, because there's an optimal choice between the two). So it might not be cyclical, but there are at least three different styles in any pattern that is claimed to exist.

 

[Massive]

The fact that there is inequity between characters means the metagame will always be changing. By definition, certain attack/defense trends will become common and the counters will be brought back, invented, or rediscovered.

In this way characters get re-examined constantly, creating new and unique playstyles to counter current metagame and adding depth to the possible list of gameplay concepts.

Interestingly enough, it could be argued that this trend is only possible because of inequity in the tier lists that makes some characters better than others in certain situations. If everyone was evenly matched, the metagame would either stagnate and die off completely, or the game would evolve a long starting script of calculated moves that both sides would have to incur in order to not lose up until a certain point (sort of like chess or starcraft).

 

[KrIsP!]

The current metagame is just based on doing whatever is most optimal and dictated by what commonly works. the old meta game beats it sometimes because its a dynamic game, it can work as a mix up or something unexpected, I don't think it just means we've come full circle. As Ken said "It can always go both ways".

 

[joejoe22802]

Holy crap there is so many quotes taken out of context that this is a huge mess.

With all this said, the metagame is generally linear. What might be understood as a cycle would be what adaptations happen in individual matches.

The big shifts only happen in one direction. If you have only A and B is introduced, then for a while people will abuse B. But this can only occur until B becomes common at which point A and B must reach some equilibrium. This phenomenon can't occur is reverse. You can't unknow stuff.

 

[TaFoKiNtS]

I was the commentator, and I feel timings especially in shield pressure can in some aspects be seen as Rock Paper Scissors. Ideally the meta game should evolve in some linear fashion with people improving on spacing and finesse and optimizing punishes. However, assuming you have a couple high tier players that have refined spacing, the edge will somewhat come in countering the common meta techniques. The street fighter community refers to this rps in terms of yomi, look it up on sirlins website. I'll write more comprehensively and coherently when I am on a computer

 

[ElloEddy]

for the most part old metagame beats new. if you think about it who is really a top player,..that very new? like been on the scene for 2-3 years. most that are on top learned in the old ages and from playing this older pro in nyc it shows old things should be learned before new things to get you better. which explain (mango, pp, m2k) being on that elite level

 

[Tee ay eye]

cant i play like a noob in one set without people questioning the metagame

 

[TaFoKiNtS]

I guess here's the article

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html

To simplify a bit and explain some semantics. I'd make any competitive game akin to some variation of rock-paper-scissors. Certain options beat others and you make choices to beat out options you expect from your opponent.

Our metagame evolves, which will increase the effectiveness of the tools given to you in terms of lower risk and greater punishments.

A "rock" in 2012 would deal significantly more damage and lose less damage/position if wrong as opposed to a "rock" option in 2007. However, we also have some semblance of meta-cycles.

In our particular case, Ken may be winning a significant amount of the r-p-s games with his opponents, but because his movesets and punishes are outdated, they score him less points when he wins and lose him a significant amount of points when he loses.

Hope that makes sense to some degree.

 

[KirbyKaze]

cant i play like a noob in one set without people questioning the metagame

Not when 2012 Ken is involved.

 

[Theftz22]

Say option A is being used in the current metagame. Then the metagame advances as option B is found to counter option A. Next C is found to counter B. That in no way entails that C also counters A. Just because B counters A, and C counters B, does not mean that C counters. The relationship of one option countering another just is not transitive in that way. Therefore it is quite possible for option A to be reintroduced into the metagame to combat the effectiveness of C. Thus we could see a cyclical reversion of the metagame.

 

[KirbyKaze]

Yeah but if option A ****ing sucks but people used it 'cuz they didn't know better then reintroducing it probably won't shake things up much.

 

[Shadic]

People are always going to have certain expectations from their opponent. It's part of the mindgames that go into a Melee match.

As the metagame progresses, certain actions drop off the radar because they're not used so frequently. This can be for a variety of reasons: generally less rewarding, easier to punish, covers less options, etc. When somebody goes against that grain and does a less-popular move in a situation, it can be unexpected by the foe, thus provide greater reward. The opponent expecting a different move may DI the wrong direction, shield-drop at an awkward time, or simply run into a move because it's so rarely thrown out and wasn't seen.

It doesn't necessarily mean that things are cyclical. I doubt we're going to see a renaissance of 2006-esque Melee play, by any means. But can thinking outside the "2012 Metagame" box prove rewarding? Sure.

 

[TaFoKiNtS]

People are always going to have certain expectations from their opponent. It's part of the mindgames that go into a Melee match.

As the metagame progresses, certain actions drop off the radar because they're not used so frequently. This can be for a variety of reasons: generally less rewarding, easier to punish, covers less options, etc. When somebody goes against that grain and does a less-popular move in a situation, it can be unexpected by the foe, thus provide greater reward. The opponent expecting a different move may DI the wrong direction, shield-drop at an awkward time, or simply run into a move because it's so rarely thrown out and wasn't seen.

It doesn't necessarily mean that things are cyclical. I doubt we're going to see a renaissance of 2006-esque Melee play, by any means. But can thinking outside the "2012 Metagame" box prove rewarding? Sure.

Thanks for articulating what's in my brain but in a 100x more coherent way

 

[KrIsP!]

for the most part old metagame beats new. if you think about it who is really a top player,..that very new? like been on the scene for 2-3 years. most that are on top learned in the old ages and from playing this older pro in nyc it shows old things should be learned before new things to get you better. which explain (mango, pp, m2k) being on that elite level

This confuses improvement with having been around for an older metagame. No one is going to start out and be a top player in a year, you need practice which takes time, being around since 2006 just makes you more experienced.

The fact remains that in 2006 higher Falco players didn't optimize punishments the same way lower level falcos do today. It's not like we discard the old metagame we just improve upon it, there was nothing back then that we need to learn first, depending on how far back you go wavedashing wasn't used but shffling was. We kept shffling and added wave dashing, this being just a general example.

 

[Deleted member]

I have never seen so much misinformation in one thread.

And that Sirlin article is gold. Comedic gold.

 

[debaser]

ok, i understand a bit better now i think. there's no hard reverting back to old styles of play. i guess sometimes in certain situations a very high level player could find himself performing a maneouvre that was used commonly a few years ago, that ends up being effective because it's simply unexpected. (i.e. ken's forward smashes). but is there an example of this that isn't so gimmicky?

i can still see a back and forth kind of cycle arising in certain situations. take falco's reverse bair. we see players now using the weak hit to combo people towards the edge for a follow up dair or whatever. this works because the opponent assumes the falco will be traditional and go for the strongest hit to maximise knockback so he di's in. this di sets up for weak reverse bair combos. so now wise players di away in situations where falco can reverse bair to avoid the weak dair combos. we saw this happening in the mango v pp sets at impulse. so when this di becomes the norm, won't it be optimal to go back to the older style of going for the most knockback thus capitalizing on the di away?

i suppose that kind of thing is very dependent on player habits. or maybe that's just another example of the di games that can go on within a match, like ic grab combos or repeated ftilt combos from sheik.

 

[KirbyKaze]

I have never seen so much misinformation in one thread.

And that Sirlin article is gold. Comedic gold.

Oh, you've been avoiding the tier list thread?

 

[Kink-Link5]

ok, i understand a bit better now i think. there's no hard reverting back to old styles of play. i guess sometimes in certain situations a very high level player could find himself performing a maneouvre that was used commonly a few years ago, that ends up being effective because it's simply unexpected. (i.e. ken's forward smashes). but is there an example of this that isn't so gimmicky?

By what you're calling gimmicky, no. Anything unexpected will always be a "gimmick" because it is seen as suboptimal and relies on the shock factor of the maneuver.

As the late great Insane man would say, "Irs jus a needs tp ut th e resprct in yors opoints head"

 

[Deleted member]

Oh, you've been avoiding the tier list thread?

check and mate lol