Guild Wars 2

Is it just me, or is everyone you know and respect using this word/prefix wrong.

As per wikipedia (I can largely agree with this in my own personal experiences with the term)

~*~

Meta (Prefix) – to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

Examples: “Metamorphasis”

Metagaming – Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

Examples (traditional)

From D&D: Your character has never seen a troll. You know Trolls are weak to fire from previous games. Your character, now, intrinsically, knows that trolls are weak to fire (cheating).

From other MMORPGs: You DDOS (denial of service) an opposing guild’s voicecomms. (Technically, voicecomms is a form of Metagaming)

Guild Wars 2: You have an extra account to spy on another server’s activities.

What Meta means in GW2 (near as I can tell) – The current prevailing strategy in both theory and practice.

Example: “The current meta is to use golems to take down towers instead of rams to prevent damage from arrowcarts”

Example: “Hammer warriors and cleric Guardians is the current meta for most guilds”

~*~

For some reason, it’s being used in a context that has nothing to do with meta. Am I the only person noticing this? I feel like im taking crazy pills.

The tl;dr of replies so far (for late joiners to this discussion)

The term meta didnt start with gw2 and isn’t restricted to guild wars 2.

It basically means the most efficient way to play.

For example, the game league of legends is notorious for enforcing a strict, rigid metagame on it’s players, forcing them to play certain characters, is very specialized roles, with similar items, if they want to play them at their maximum potential.

Kashijikito.1864:

The term meta didnt start with gw2 and isn’t restricted to guild wars 2.

It basically means the most efficient way to play.

The point you might have missed, is i think that ‘meta’ comes from ‘metagaming’ which would have started as early as D&D unless i’m missing my mark.

But ‘Metagaming’ is nowhere close to ‘meta’ from GW2 (which is the first time i’ve heard it used in this incorrect context). Unless it’s a short for something else.

“Min/maxing” would be closer to the correct term to use in place of ‘meta’ in context with GW2.

Kashijikito.1864:

For example, the game league of legends is notorious for enforcing a strict, rigid metagame on it’s players, forcing them to play certain characters, is very specialized roles, with similar items, if they want to play them at their maximum potential.

Another example of ‘Metagaming’ would be:

League of Legends: Knowing your opponent’s character preferences and choosing a character with a natural counter to it.

I always thought the metagame meant more like metadata (which is data about the data). In the same way the metagame is data about how the game is played.

Talking about the metagame in Guild Wars 1 was talking about what builds were currently played. It was interesting because it changed and evolved as came but also because people would develop builds to counter the current metagame.

I wouldn’t say it’s the same thing as what’s efficient (there’s no guarantee what’s in style is efficient – though it could be the most efficient). Without knowing anything about big guild tactics, I won’t comment on that but on the smaller scale the meta has definitely changed. Perplexity runes, the rise of warriors, push for more mobility, that’s stuff that wasn’t there months ago.

I think people use the term “metabuild” as a sort of insult in that you’re accusing someone of running the flavour of the month build rather than somethin they developed themselves relying on their smarts and experience but I’m not smart and my preference is to run builds that are proven to work so that I can worry about other aspects of my play (my Guild Wars GvG days exposed me to a lot of talented build makers and I just know my limits, haha).

Ironically, ‘metabuild’ in a more accurate sense would mean

A build developed using a previous build as a guideline or template… which is exactly the opposite of an insult. It would be like people improving upon a previous build.

Metadata, I think, just can’t be right. Metadata would be like the table of contents to a textbook

KrazyFlyinChicken.5936:

Ironically, ‘metabuild’ in a more accurate sense would mean

A build developed using a previous build as a guideline or template… which is exactly the opposite of an insult. It would be like people improving upon a previous build.

Metadata, I think, just can’t be right. Metadata would be like the table of contents to a textbook

Nah, it’s more like if you have a bunch of databases and you store data on how many entries, what type of entries, etc. the databases have. Once worked at a company that had databases that stored info about their metadatabases that stored info about their databases. They called it metametadata.

styx.7294:

Nah, it’s more like if you have a bunch of databases and you store data on how many entries, what type of entries, etc. the databases have. Once worked at a company that had databases that stored info about their metadatabases that stored info about their databases. They called it metametadata.

Exactly right. Still nowhere close to the GW2 meaning of ‘meta’

Metagaming is not the same as the current meta.

Furthermore, I always find these threads silly. There are thousands of expressions defined within gaming that has nothing or very little in common with the same word defined in a dictionary.

OP you’re taking crazy pills…

‘Meta’ in this sense means the overarching standards of what builds/strats are being used most commonly. In short, the convention in builds/strats/etc for what’s proven to work.

It fits exactly with the abstraction prefix because it’s not referring to any specific build or strategy, just what’s being commonly run at the time (which changes over time, for any healthy game).

So for example, counter meta means countering what most people are running (again abstraction since it’s not referring to pattern, not specifics).

With the ‘metagaming’ examples, you’re taking meta to mean unconventional or ‘outside the box’ which is certainly not how it’s normally used.

it always bugged me as well. people mean paradigm and say meta, no clue why.

EFWinters.5421:

Metagaming is not the same as the current meta.

And that’s basically what i’m trying to get at. The word has moved beyond its root cause due to an incorrect interpretation of the original root word (not uncommon in english).

It wouldn’t surprise me, either, if the cause of this disconnect between “Meta” and “metagaming” would come from LoL being that the age of the players in this game tends to be considerably lower than most other games.

Just seems silly that ‘Meta’ in its current meaning, is synonymous with ‘doctrine’ except maybe doctrine would imply an existence of more than one strategy, whereas ‘meta’ would imply the only good way to play.

Maskaganda.2043:

it always bugged me as well. people mean paradigm and say meta, no clue why.

Because they’re using it as a prefix, and correctly so. They actually mean meta-something (usually builds/class).

edit:

Just seems silly that ‘Meta’ in its current meaning, is synonymous with ‘doctrine’ except maybe doctrine would imply an existence of more than one strategy, whereas ‘meta’ would imply the only good way to play.

This is still your misunderstanding of what people mean when they use it.

In gw2 the word meta replaced the old school term cookie cutter build which originally came from diablo 2.

Zephyrus.9680:

Because they’re using it as a prefix, and correctly so. They actually mean meta-something (usually builds/class).

I think you misinterpreted my post. What I’m getting at, is that ‘meta’ as a prefix is almost opposite of ‘the current meta’. To use your example: a ‘metabuild’ would be a build upon a build. Whereas, as a previous user mentioned, “Metabuild” in light of GW2’s interpretation, means a build that everyone uses.

A metaclass (as a prefix) would be a class upon a class (which doesnt even make sense unless there was class mixing).

edit:

This is still your misunderstanding of what people mean when they use it.

I understand what people mean when they use it as outlined in the original post. I just wanted to draw attention to how its changed from its original meaning (not unusual, in the english language.)

I never said it was bad. Just incorrect

Sovereign.1093:

In gw2 the word meta replaced the old school term cookie cutter build which originally came from diablo 2.

I think you’re right. It means the same thing as a ‘cookie cutter’ and it definitely flows off the tongue better.

But I truly believe this word was a mistake—and then perpetuated by an audience who didn’t grasp the original meaning. I can definitely see how ‘Metagaming’ could be shortened to meta. And I can definitely see how a line like:

“The meta[meaning metagaming, read above] choice of [insert LoL character here] perfectly counter’s their opponent!”

Could be read as:

“The meta [meaning meta] choice of [insert LoL character here] perfectly counter’s their opponent!”

And spirals out from there.

I don’t read it that way as I see the definition of “metagame” as an all-encompassing term for a variety of different elements:

• Preferred Class Builds
• Strong Group Compositions
• Prevailing Strategies and Tactics
• Current Beliefs and Opinions about the above
• Perceived intent of how the game is meant to be played

In such a context the word I think works fine. It can still be used incorrectly (as can most of the English language) but it does have an appropriate usage and context here in GW2 WvW.

Rackhir Tanelorn.9123:

In such a context the word I think works fine. It can still be used incorrectly (as can most of the English language) but it does have an appropriate usage and context here in GW2 WvW.

For sure. And to take it one step further, I feel that it was a word that was sorely needed. In trying to think of a synonymous word, it was difficult to place which is likely the cause for ‘meta’ to make it into mainstream usage.

What bothers me (‘bother’ might be too strong a word here), and the main point of this thread, was to outline how I believe the root word was originally ‘metagame’ which is, arguably, almost opposite of the current meaning of ‘meta’.

I think what people are taking issue with is that they cannot see how ‘metagame’ had evolved into ‘meta’. I outlined a situation in which I can see this occurring previously to dispel this.

Taking the argument one step further—I’ve heard people refer to PPT gameplay as ‘metagame’. IE: “That commander is great at open-field fighting, but his metagame [ability to take towers] sucks.” which is, even further, just plain wrong.

If people want to change the meaning of metagaming altogether, then so be it. But let’s not sugarcoat it, the current ‘meta’ was a mistake gone viral.

It didn’t seem like that far of a stretch to me. Meta as a prefix has many connotations including “the big picture, from 100 miles above”, “describing characteristics of” etc. When someone tells me “conditions are the current meta”, I take it to mean “as an overview of what generally works, it’s conditions” or “describing the current state of the game in a nutshell, it’s all conditions”.

KrazyFlyinChicken.5936:

Taking the argument one step further—I’ve heard people refer to PPT gameplay as ‘metagame’. IE: “That commander is great at open-field fighting, but his metagame [ability to take towers] sucks.” which is, even further, just plain wrong.

Actually that doesn’t seem completely wrong. It’s very similar actually to “meta-puzzle”, which in puzzle challenges refers to a solution pieced together from solutions to smaller problems. Winning a ‘war’ via the actual objective of taking keeps, which is a higher level abstraction of winning individual battles.

The use of “meta” to describe the current climate of builds and how they relate to each other(and more importantly, which ones are in favour) mostly comes from the MTG scene, from which GW1 drew it’s philosophy and lingo heavily.

KrazyFlyinChicken.5936:

If people want to change the meaning of metagaming altogether, then so be it. But let’s not sugarcoat it, the current ‘meta’ was a mistake gone viral.

It just “happens” to certain words. Woe is datum – a word most people won’t even recognize due to the total dominance of its pluralized form.

It’s easy to see/trace how the perversion came about though. There are a lot of Commanders who have a “weak meta” (poor understanding of the overall WvW Metagame) and a person will make reference to this, and someone else will ask what they mean, and they will give an example (poor siege utilization, or failing to secure a Tower before tick) and the new person takes the example as an overarching definition.

But let’s be honest, which bugs you more:

• the misuse of the term "meta
• people who use the term “mostly unique”

This just in: Languages evolve and the only “correct” way to speak is the way that the majority of the people speak it.

KrazyFlyinChicken.5936:

Zephyrus.9680:

Because they’re using it as a prefix, and correctly so. They actually mean meta-something (usually builds/class).

I think you misinterpreted my post. What I’m getting at, is that ‘meta’ as a prefix is almost opposite of ‘the current meta’. To use your example: a ‘metabuild’ would be a build upon a build. Whereas, as a previous user mentioned, “Metabuild” in light of GW2’s interpretation, means a build that everyone uses.

A metaclass (as a prefix) would be a class upon a class (which doesnt even make sense unless there was class mixing).

Way too literal. ‘Meta-class’ in the sense you’re getting at would be like heavy, medium, and light. Or could be ranged, melee. Or else support, dps, tank, oh wait this is GW2…

But meta also means ‘beyond’ (e.g. metaphysics). Take for example “Wellomancers + zerker eles are anti meta[game]”. Metagame being trends of players who play the game (going beyond/outside of the game itself).

I don’t know the source for the definitions you quoted for ‘metagame’ in the OP but it’s kind of way off normal uses.

Emissary.3792:

Actually that doesn’t seem completely wrong. It’s very similar actually to “meta-puzzle”, which in puzzle challenges refers to a solution pieced together from solutions to smaller problems. Winning a ‘war’ via the actual objective of taking keeps, which is a higher level abstraction of winning individual battles.

It seems pretty wrong to me. Objective management is really the strategic layer of WvW, and fights are the tactical layer. Should really be calling a duck a duck.

I bet yall twitched when you read this:

As players work towards completing the meta-achievement, they can occasionally use Tassi’s relay golem to check in on her developments.

Most Effective Tactic Available…META see I helped >.>

Meta means “Metaphysical” — in reference to an ideal build (see Plato).

It’s the notion that there is some “ideal” build for each profession which will manifest itself organically from the variables & rules of the game. As the variables and rules of the game change, so will the “Meta”.

Anet are playing with the shadows on the walls of the cave.

Soon.5240:

Meta means “Metaphysical” — in reference to an ideal build (see Plato).

It’s the notion that there is some “ideal” build for each profession which will manifest itself organically from the variables & rules of the game. As the variables and rules of the game change, so will the “Meta”.

Meh. The two distinguishing features are usually easy but effective. If it’s hard it wont be meta because most people can’t run it and if it’s not effective then yea. While eventually some good players/groups will exploit this and run something more difficult or creative that counters the meta in some way.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

The use of “meta” to describe the current climate of builds and how they relate to each other(and more importantly, which ones are in favour) mostly comes from the MTG scene, from which GW1 drew it’s philosophy and lingo heavily.

This was a great suggestion! I had not considered MTG. But I did a quick google, and actually I think that Wizards of the Coast would agree with me. However, given the definition they provided, I can definitely see how people would start using ‘meta’ improperly in this context. I pulled the following from the WoTC website:

Metagame – The composition of deck archetypes in a particular format/tournament.

“The metagame where I live is mostly a lot of combo, with some beatdown thrown in.”

This is also an advanced Magic concept where you build/choose decks based on the expected metagame at a tournament in an attempt to beat them. “Zvi Mowshowitz won Pro Tour Tokyo ’01 by metagaming against red.”

- Source:

I think this is sufficient in properly debunking the following comment:

Zephyrus.9680:

I don’t know the source for the definitions you quoted for ‘metagame’ in the OP but it’s kind of way off normal uses.

Furthermore:

Zephyrus.9680:

But meta also means ‘beyond’ (e.g. metaphysics).

Is not technically correct, see ‘meta-’ prefix from original post.

Joey.2769:

Most Effective Tactic Available…META see I helped >.>

This is by far the most compelling answer I’ve seen so far—and does more to alleviate my dislike for the word more than any argument provided earlier. But I think Joey just made it up…

Soon.5240:

It’s the notion that there is some “ideal” build for each profession which will manifest itself organically from the variables & rules of the game. As the variables and rules of the game change, so will the “Meta”..

Meta is a prefix used to define an abstraction of a subject. So you’d be right in saying that builds and class composition would be a concept of Guild Wars 2. But it’s set within the rules/parameters of the game, which does not make it abstract since it is one in the same thing. A game is a set of rules. I would argue that what you’re really referring to is a strategy.

If you took this same concept and applied it to a simpler game, say the classic boardgame: “Risk” – you wouldn’t say that “Attacking Africa with 20 troops” as opposed to “Attacking South America with 15 troops” would be a form of metagaming. It’s a strategy—because its set within the rules.

If I was going to reach across the table and punch my opponent in the face for taking my (now unoccuppied) Africa and break up my set… That would be metagaming.

Only quoting the first 2 sentences on Wikipedia… Kids these days facepalm
You have to look at the examples listed, and then you will know that the term “metagame” or “metagaming” is used correctly in GW2.

Using some 3rd party information, like move A counters move B; or using some builds, strategies, whatever that will counter a large part of your opponent build, strategie. All of this can be referred to “metagame”, “metagaming”.

Urbandictionary

The highest level of strategy in many complex games, metagame refers to any aspect of strategy that involves thinking about what your opponent is thinking you are thinking.

Metagame comes into play in any game where no single strategy is dominant and opposing sides are aware of multiple strategies that can succeed dependent upon opponents’ actions. In order to perform at the highest level, it then becomes necessary to think about what your opponent thinks you will do (which may depend on what he thinks you think he thinks he will do, etc.) and to make decisions based on clues regarding what level they are thinking on.

This term is most commonly used to refer to poker and other complex card games, but is increasingly being used in relation to video games with complicated player vs player elements and even traditional sports.

Team Liquid Wiki

The term metagame literally means ‘beyond the game’ and refers to any planning, preparation, or maneuvering that a player does outside of actual gameplay to gain an advantage. The metagame has three major branches, which contain some overlap:

• Preparation done before a match to exploit current trends in StarCraft.
• Preparation done specifically to exploit an opponent’s or map’s style of play.
• Strategic decisions designed specifically to exploit a player’s reaction or weakened mental state in the future. These are also known as ‘mind games’ or ‘psychological warfare’.

Team Liquid Wiki

The term metagame literally means ‘beyond the game’ and refers to any planning, preparation, or maneuvering that a player does outside of actual gameplay to gain an advantage. The metagame has three major branches, which contain some overlap:

• Preparation done before a match to exploit current trends in StarCraft.
• Preparation done specifically to exploit an opponent’s or map’s style of play.
• Strategic decisions designed specifically to exploit a player’s reaction or weakened mental state in the future. These are also known as ‘mind games’ or ‘psychological warfare’.

This is exactly reinforcing my point. In no place here does it describe ‘Meta’ as the prevailing strategy, or most effective tactic (as described by your urbandictionary). In fact, all of these examples exactly describe the proper use of the term ‘Metagaming’ which is, as i’ve described: the game outside of the game.

“Meta” as its used in GW2, is referencing strategies used within the game. and would be in line with the urbandictionary’s definition.

Urbandictionary is a dictionary which is inclusive of commonly used slang. The argument here is not that it isn’t a word. It’s that it is a word derrived from a word being improperly interpreted.

It would be like someone saying, “That girl is anorexic!” and everyone who doesn’t know what the word ‘anorexic’ means assumes it means ‘really smart’ so the next time some other guy scores an A on his English test everyone goes “Dude, you’re so anorexic.” And then three more of his buddies adds it to urbandictionary.

Obviously, this is a pretty extreme example. But it helps to illustrate what’s going on with the word ‘Metagame’ or, as its used now, ‘meta’. This happens all the time in english—and this is no different. It’s not bad, it’s just a bit silly how a word like this could come to mean almost the exact opposite (in a manner of speaking) of the original term.

“refers to any planning, preparation, or maneuvering that a player does outside of actual gameplay to gain an advantage”

How does “building character to max effectiveness vs. what you expect to encounter once the fight begins” not fit this definition? The fact that there’s one build/strategy that counters ‘everything’ doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s still building for what you expect to come up against.

Besides, if we take ‘metadata’ as an example, it basically means ‘data about data’. Put that in the context of ‘meta gw2’ or ‘metagame’, and it just means ‘data about the game’.

In fact, I just re-read your original quote:

Meta (Prefix) – to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.
Examples: “Metamorphasis”

Which clearly means, “An abstraction from morphasis”. Added to which, the real word is spelled with an ‘o’ instead of ‘a’.

This illustrates pretty well why ‘definitions’ of prefixes should be taken with a grain of salt. They generally only convey a rough sense of a meaning, and most of its meaning comes from connotations that you derive based on actual words that use the prefix. Then, people are free to define new words using these prefixes, for which only some of the connotations apply that the community using the word will be most familiar with.

KrazyFlyinChicken.5936:

Zephyrus.9680:

But meta also means ‘beyond’ (e.g. metaphysics).

Is not technically correct, see ‘meta-’ prefix from original post.

It certainly is correct… Again, I’m left wondering where you pull this information from. Anyway if you’re going to make up your own special strict definitions, I won’t try to stop you.

KrazyFlyinChicken.5936:

[…]

Metagame – The composition of deck archetypes in a particular format/tournament.

“The metagame where I live is mostly a lot of combo, with some beatdown thrown in.”

This is also an advanced Magic concept where you build/choose decks based on the expected metagame at a tournament in an attempt to beat them. “Zvi Mowshowitz won Pro Tour Tokyo ’01 by metagaming against red.”

- Source:

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/academy/9

I think this is sufficient in properly debunking the following comment:

Zephyrus.9680:

I don’t know the source for the definitions you quoted for ‘metagame’ in the OP but it’s kind of way off normal uses.

Lol this is exactly how the term is used in games. Same meaning as in GW1 like 8-10 years ago. Maybe you just misunderstand the meaning.

So I’m not getting how you think the use above differs from the use in GW2 (and other games).

Metagame= I know that you know that I know that I know what you know.

The way I’ve seen it used over the years is basically the game revolving around expectations of players optimally and said measures to counter other players. If you’re in the loop of what is widely considered the best strategies, then your strategy will revolve around taking advantage of these assumptions. It’s generally strategy that goes beyond the developer’s intentions.

For example, in poker, it’s a fairly standard strategy to raise with weaker hands when you are in position. Playing in position is generally more profitable then not playing in position, plus you get the advantage of the blinds folding and you getting their chips without a fight at times. A metagame example would be 3-betting. If you are facing a good player, then you would expect him to raise more hands in position (usually the button) and you could take advantage of this by rereraising him, and thus putting pressure on them, possibly pushing them out of the pot and stealing their chips. And if they know you are doing that, then there’s 4-bets, etc.

Likewise, bluffing in poker requires your opponent to be aware of the game enough to know that they can beat.

Both tactics are terrible to use against people you don’t know, or bad players because they don’t follow the assumptions of “standard” play. To put in short, standard solid (aka straight up) plays will beat bad players, but against better players you will need this metagame. Bad players will think “meta” counters everything. It does not.

Starcraft is another good example of metagaming developing over so many years so that you wouldn’t be able to intuitively map out strategies just by theorycrafting. In fact most pro strategies involve taking a fast expansion (seems like its sequel is heading this direction too) because good players are able to hold off most early aggression and this causes early aggression to become less popular due to fact that your opponent will hold it off. But making too many assumptions can be fatal and throwing curveballs that exploit player expectations often yields quick victories and tons of crying from angry opponents.

Good games have complex and involved metagames that take a long time to master, forcing people to adapt. Bad games have ones that are shallow and monotonous. However, due to discrepancies in skill as well as the sheer amount of collective experience and knowledge that needs to be figured out, many players will tend to have tunnel vision and make a lot of premature assumptions. Truth is, most players will just not figure it out because they have a preset view of what is true and what is not, thus never improving.

To draw a balance between its official definition and the way people are using it let me say this..

Boil it down and Meta means ‘outside of context’. The closest example of how meta is used in this game is the Meta Discussion. On the interwebs, a meta discussion is a discussion outside the context of the forum its in. For instance if we started talking about the rules of the wvw forum, or how mean magummies are, or how people title their threads, or whatever…that would be a meta-discussion. The context of this forum is discussion about wvw, not the wvw forum itself.

Essentially, like the meta discussion, a gaming ‘meta’ is a self reflection. Its the gaming community talking about itself (preferred tactics, builds, ect) in a way that reflects the current context of the game but the conversation itself is outside the context of the game. “The Meta” is something like saying “The Zeitgeist” of the gaming community. The idea of the ‘community’ is unspoken. What people are really saying is “The (community) meta agrees that hammer guards are essential for zerg busting.”

Strong arguments, all. But a combination of the replies illustrate my point perfectly:

ArchonWing.9480:

To put in short, standard solid (aka straight up) plays will beat bad players, but against better players you will need this metagame. Bad players will think “meta” counters everything. It does not.

Emissary.3792:

The fact that there’s one build/strategy that counters ‘everything’ doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s still building for what you expect to come up against.

I agree with Archon, a proper Metagame would mean guilds were building compositions to counter one another. But this is not how the word is being used.

“The Current Meta” as its used today, is referring to the currently ‘most effective’ strategy.

Example:

A metagame would be, “I think Guild X is doing a Y Build. Our guild should use Z Build.”

Meta, as it’s currently being used, is used like this: “Y Build is the Meta.”

When a new strategy is being developed, it is being used like this: “Z Build is the new Meta.”

KrazyFlyinChicken.5936:

Joey.2769:

Most Effective Tactic Available…META see I helped >.>

This is by far the most compelling answer I’ve seen so far—and does more to alleviate my dislike for the word more than any argument provided earlier. But I think Joey just made it up…

No I didn’t…
<.<
Ok I did

I learned the term meta from children’s card games. In those years of my life, the phrase referred to the current structure and style of the way the games were played. If it was a slow or fast meta, it meant that the strategies were based around fast burst decks, or slow burn decks. A fast meta meant that most strategies revolved around getting your opponent down fast and it meant that the pace of the game was fast. A slow meta was a more slow paced game, usually took longer, but you dealt damage over time, until finally you dealt the final blow.

In other terms meta can refer to the predominant usage of a certain strategy, so in a stun meta, the point is to render your opponent useless. In Gw2 people will use this term for whatever build they run across the most.

Now another thing is meta can refer to the current structure and ruling that is set up, the current meta can be defined by which strategy is most viable atm due to nerfs and buffs. So usually which ever build is most viable and thus played the most, that is how people will play meta. Playing anti-meta, is building around defeating those that use the meta to their favor, exploiting their weakness. Rouge builds are usually builds that most don’t play and can catch others off guard, so they don’t run the ftom build.

Just my 2 cents.

Narsil.6579:

I learned the term meta from children’s card games. In those years of my life, the phrase referred to the current structure and style of the way the games were played. If it was a slow or fast meta, it meant that the strategies were based around fast burst decks, or slow burn decks. A fast meta meant that most strategies revolved around getting your opponent down fast and it meant that the pace of the game was fast. A slow meta was a more slow paced game, usually took longer, but you dealt damage over time, until finally you dealt the final blow.

In other terms meta can refer to the predominant usage of a certain strategy, so in a stun meta, the point is to render your opponent useless. In Gw2 people will use this term for whatever build they run across the most.

Now another thing is meta can refer to the current structure and ruling that is set up, the current meta can be defined by which strategy is most viable atm due to nerfs and buffs. So usually which ever build is most viable and thus played the most, that is how people will play meta. Playing anti-meta, is building around defeating those that use the meta to their favor, exploiting their weakness. Rouge builds are usually builds that most don’t play and can catch others off guard, so they don’t run the ftom build.

Just my 2 cents.

This is a well thought out reply. And the third paragraph outlines why the post was started. If you are referencing a guild’s build as ‘a stun meta’ then the word makes perfect sense. Because this guild would be playing the metagame (as described by Archon in his poker example, quote at end for reference).

Let’s start by taking the starcraft example (Because I don’t fully understand poker):

ArchonWing.9480:

Starcraft is another good example of metagaming developing over so many years so that you wouldn’t be able to intuitively map out strategies just by theorycrafting. In fact most pro strategies involve taking a fast expansion

To take Archon’s Starcraft example:

1. The ‘Meta’ when used in the context of GW2, would then be a ‘Rapid Expansion’.

2. The ‘Metagame’ would be a reference to someone playing a strategy to counter a player using ‘the meta’

3. The ‘Anti-Meta’ is therefore, playing the metagame.

4. Therefore, playing ‘the meta’ would be to avoid playing ‘the metagame.’

To conclude, in the context which people use ‘The Meta’ in Guild Wars 2, is almost the opposite meaning of ‘The Metagame’

Playing ‘The Meta’ would be like always playing the odds in poker, and never minding who you were playing against. Which is, by definition, NOT playing the metagame.

And that’s why I have a problem with the way this word is used There’s nothing wrong with using ‘the meta’ to mean Most Effective Tactic Available. But the fact that it means almost the opposite of its root word would be like making the word ‘hot’ to mean ‘cold’ because a generation didn’t know the meaning of ‘hot’.

(Although hot chicks can be pretty cold)

Poker Reference quote, below:

ArchonWing.9480:

For example, in poker, it’s a fairly standard strategy to raise with weaker hands when you are in position. Playing in position is generally more profitable then not playing in position, plus you get the advantage of the blinds folding and you getting their chips without a fight at times.

I got lost after poker and starcraft, but yes, I guess maybe the word meta and metagaming are used incorrectly, but the concepts are still there. The most viable build is the one that uses the rulings (Patches / buffs/ nerfs) to make the most out of its build. Those builds become known as cheese builds or fotm builds, every runs them and they are easy or very powerful. Those who decide to play against those, will implement mechanisms to negate such tactics. That is how a game works out. Another factor is that fast and slow lose meaning in this game. For example Player B is running a bunker perma regen and retaliation build, Player A can’t seem to burst player B fast enough, player B is deemed a bunker and boring to fight, player A runs away. Condition is supposed to be damage over time, while burst is supposed to be direct massive damage. Problem is that in the end those don’t seem to work well in game much, and thus people only prefer a build useful if it kills something in 15 seconds, otherwise it is a boring fight and not worth it. In a different scenario that would lock the players in combat and neither could leave, the bunker would be preferred over the burst since it can sustain the most. Sadly this game had an awesome concept about two different style forms but in the end, it comes down how to kill your opponent fast enough, there is no reward for slowly hammering your opponent to death. Therefore the system in this game is very much burst oriented. Even if you use conditions, those conditions can kill someone quick. Zerging is a whole other issue, for me pvp can be very messy at times.

Narsil.6579:

I got lost after poker and starcraft,

To put it into context of GW2:

1. Playing ‘The Meta Build’ in Guild Wars 2 means you’re playing the most effective/efficient/fotm build possible.
2. Playing ‘The Metagame’ implies you’ve taken your opponents into consideration when making your build (IE. Not the meta build)

Therefore, by all accounts, these sentences make sense:

“I am playing the metagame, by using a build that is anti-meta [not meta]”
and
“I am playing the meta build. Because I hate the metagame.”

I’m not saying the sentence is wrong. I’m saying the word ‘meta’, in its current context, is silly

KrazyFlyinChicken.5936:

Narsil.6579:

I got lost after poker and starcraft,

To put it into context of GW2:

1. Playing ‘The Meta Build’ in Guild Wars 2 means you’re playing the most effective/efficient/fotm build possible.
2. Playing ‘The Metagame’ implies you’ve taken your opponents into consideration when making your build (IE. Not the meta build)

Therefore, by all accounts, these sentences make sense:

“I am playing the metagame, by using a build that is anti-meta [not meta]”
and
“I am playing the meta build. Because I hate the metagame.”

I’m not saying the sentence is wrong. I’m saying the word ‘meta’, in its current context, is silly

I play rouge, meaning my build uses the current mechanisms of burst and mobility , but i keep anti meta mechanisms, which is almost every build, but I take into count which builds are heaviest atm, and I make a rouge build, meaning a build not many run or know, and so I am able to beat most I come across

@ OP. there is one problem with what your trying to do as it does not take into account the evolving of a langues.

for instant try find a very very old book that is not edited to the current use of words and you will see the difference in the use of the words if your able to decipher it, the only difference is the speed anything we have now evolves a lot faster then before because of the internet so as long as we understand what is meant with what is said that is not a problem.

and you could call a general template for a build a meta for the class and that would still be true as its a build that is build on the current template or out from that

Telephone.

Television.

Telegraph pole.

Only one can be correct right? I mean, a television is nothing like a telegraph pole.

The problem you’re having is attaching the definition of “metagame” to the prefix “meta”. Try looking at it the other way round and you’ll find that both uses of “meta” are perfectly sensible and consistent with the definition of the prefix.

KrazyFlyinChicken.5936:

Narsil.6579:

I got lost after poker and starcraft,

To put it into context of GW2:

1. Playing ‘The Meta Build’ in Guild Wars 2 means you’re playing the most effective/efficient/fotm build possible.
2. Playing ‘The Metagame’ implies you’ve taken your opponents into consideration when making your build (IE. Not the meta build)

Therefore, by all accounts, these sentences make sense:

“I am playing the metagame, by using a build that is anti-meta [not meta]”
and
“I am playing the meta build. Because I hate the metagame.”

I’m not saying the sentence is wrong. I’m saying the word ‘meta’, in its current context, is silly

I wouldn’t completely agree with this interpretation.

If you want to “mince words” then there is a difference between “playing the meta” and “playing meta” and in your above example you are trying to use the former as an incorrect use of the latter.

It is flawed beyond that though because most games and activities have multiple valid “metas” (even if they only have a single prevailing or popular zeitgeist strategy “The Meta”) so it is for example much harder to define when a Chess player is playing “The Meta” as there are many valid strategies, gambits, openings, and approaches.

If we accept that “The Meta” is the prevailing optimal strategy, the utilization of as much knowledge (both in-game and out) as possible for advantage, then discussions of how well one does (or does not) play “The Meta” is about implementation of the prevailing strategy.

How well someone “plays meta” is a completely different discussion (and not necessarily limited in my mind to just “pro” or “anti” meta but rather how skilled the player is at deducing and interpreting all the prevailing factors that make up or change the current zeitgeist and developing strategies and tactics to either enhance or counter it).

For example, “the metagamer” in PnP RPG terms was one who was less interested in “playing their character” than in always using whatever means were available to their character’s advantage, ignoring (or using) “story” or “rules intent” or “group dynamics” to their advantage.

It’s a nuanced difference, but it is a difference

Korsbaek.9803:

@ OP. there is one problem with what your trying to do as it does not take into account the evolving of a langues.

This was addressed in a previous reply which I will include below for your reference.
Again, there is no argument here that English does not evolve. Only that some evolutions are sillier than others.

KrazyFlyinChicken.5936:

It would be like someone saying, “That girl is anorexic!” and everyone who doesn’t know what the word ‘anorexic’ means assumes it means ‘really smart’ so the next time some other guy scores an A on his English test everyone goes “Dude, you’re so anorexic.” And then three more of his buddies adds it to urbandictionary.