The Metagame of System Wars

[QUOTE="JPOBS"]Plus, it is in no way unfair to use metagame tactics. Jandurin

It is decietful i suppose but anyone with experience in the metagame themselves can find ways to defeat it. again, i'd have to bring the smash analogy into play, the smash metagame is constantly evolving and changing as players find better and more useful tactics. This is essentially the same thing. im not stopping anyone from using the same tactics against me. And because these tactics are at anyone's disposal, i consider it fair game.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="JPOBS"]Plus, it is in no way unfair to use metagame tactics. JPOBS

Geez, just got off a 3 day ban i've been itching to get in here.

ok as for the post itself, it was pretty good, it just put into words information anyone whould know after being here a few months.

However, i dotn agree with the proposal that the metagame hurts sw. In fact, i agree with everything RPGamer said. the metagame is what makes sw fun.

How is it "dishonest" or 'unacceptable" or "unfair" to use tactics such as baiting, trapping and pwning? I use almost all the tactics frequently. The way i see it, the metagame is a game of wits. I could have lived without all the D&D references, but heres what i know of the term metagame. In Super Smash brothers, "metagame" refers to "the game within the game". It comes to a point where physical skill and human reflex can only go so far in competitive smash, and you have to outthink your opponent to win. that is a metagame. the game within the game.

There is more to sw that facts and opinions. I think the use of metagame tactics comes with experience as rpgamer said. It gets to a point where sw gets boring so i find new ways to get things interesting. What i commonly do is instead of heading straight to a debate, i would bait the user in question into responding to me a second time. If he does, i know he's up for a debate. Sometimes, they fall predicably into my trap which i already knew the answer to, and other times, they surprise me and come with an arguement i wasnt expecting, and so i have to adjust myself to adapt to thier unexpected rebut. It makes things interesting.

Plus, it is in no way unfair to use metagame tactics. People should be able to see them coming a mile away and respond accordingly. A few days ago i tried to use these same tactics in a debate against cakeorrdeath. Being the skilled debater he is, he didnt fall for them so i had to adjust my strategy. that made things very interesting. It was one of the best debates i had been in in a very long time. If someone is defeated by a metagame tactic ( a game of wits) they probably werent worth debating anyway. Which is why i use the metagame almost constantly (except personal attacks and copy&paste). otherwise SW just gets boring.

JPOBS

The best players in tournaments have basically taken it to the point where it's a few seconds of chicken, and then a rock-paper-scissors game to see who lands the first move in what will be a deadly combo.

However, I can agree that metagame is not always bad, it's simply that a great deal of metagame thinking can be corrupt. Paying your friend to disrupt your opponent during an SSMB match, for example, would be an unacceptable metagame tactic. It comes across that way, that metagame thinking is always bad. It isn't, but this type of metagame thinking that I've discussed here is a bad thing.

2. One of the problems with traps is that whatever falls into them tends to decay, and they don't always kill cleanly when they're sprung. You'd think most people would see them a mile away, but they don't - they walk right into them, blindly, often not the people who you intended to trap.

A common thing in SW is simply to react, earlier today I saw a thread where the TC had actually made a clever joke about the Killzone 2 hype, essentially by hyping Red Steel 2 based solely on the lack of information about the game. It was clever - I thought it was pretty obvious that he was mocking the insane amount of hype built around a game we know little about, but the thread quickly degraded into a pointless Halo vs. Killzone 2 discussion, with a couple of jabs at the Wii.

The message was lost.

3. I've said that trapping and probing are questionable, not that they are unacceptable. There's a difference. Pwning is always an unacceptable tactic. What's the point of the constant "/thread" posts - especially when, most of the time, what they've had to say *isn't* the end of the debate. It would be far better for them to have posted "/mind" because the type of poster who puts out their opinion, and doesn't believe that a valid rebuttal exists, has done just that.

4. What I'm really concerned with here, for lack of a better term, is "people who are playing us for chums". Fakeboys are essentially only here to get their kicks by seeing how many feathers they can ruffle, fanboys are only here to espouse propaganda and take potshots - I've listed their tactics, and I feel that a solid debater doesn't need to rely on them.

5. In a debate against someone I respect, like Cake, I wouldn't waste my time playing games, there's no point. Using some kind of "trick" to throw them off is arguing from a position of weakness, and something that comes from a mentality of "winning". If I'm absolutely convinced there is no acceptable alternative to my viewpoint, I'd still rather fight with a dagger than a landmine. However, I come from a mentality of "shaping" - that is, at the end of discussion, my goal is for the other party to have a better view into something they might have misunderstood, or simply something to which they had never been exposed. If I see an opportunity to shape, I'll take it, if I don't, I want to disassemble the opposing viewpoint as quickly and as cleanly as possible.

As I said to RPGamer, it's a matter of taste...

[QUOTE="JPOBS"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="JPOBS"]Plus, it is in no way unfair to use metagame tactics. Jandurin

1. Super Smash Bros Melee has a metagame - and that metagame is all of the strange moves that become possible by exploiting the movement system in the game - I'm sure you're probably aware of them, but anyone who isn't should YouTube or Google "advanced" techniques for playing SSMB. The goal of players using these moves is simply to win, a player who hasn't been exposed to this style of fighting, who is just looking for a fun game, will never get an attack off.

The best players in tournaments have basically taken it to the point where it's a few seconds of chicken, and then a rock-paper-scissors game to see who lands the first move in what will be a deadly combo.

However, I can agree that metagame is not always bad, it's simply that a great deal of metagame thinking can be corrupt. Paying your friend to disrupt your opponent during an SSMB match, for example, would be an unacceptable metagame tactic. It comes across that way, that metagame thinking is always bad. It isn't, but this type of metagame thinking that I've discussed here is a bad thing.

2. One of the problems with traps is that whatever falls into them tends to decay, and they don't always kill cleanly when they're sprung. You'd think most people would see them a mile away, but they don't - they walk right into them, blindly, often not the people who you intended to trap.

A common thing in SW is simply to react, earlier today I saw a thread where the TC had actually made a clever joke about the Killzone 2 hype, essentially by hyping Red Steel 2 based solely on the lack of information about the game. It was clever - I thought it was pretty obvious that he was mocking the insane amount of hype built around a game we know little about, but the thread quickly degraded into a pointless Halo vs. Killzone 2 discussion, with a couple of jabs at the Wii.

The message was lost.

3. I've said that trapping and probing are questionable, not that they are unacceptable. There's a difference. Pwning is always an unacceptable tactic. What's the point of the constant "/thread" posts - especially when, most of the time, what they've had to say *isn't* the end of the debate. It would be far better for them to have posted "/mind" because the type of poster who puts out their opinion, and doesn't believe that a valid rebuttal exists, has done just that.

4. What I'm really concerned with here, for lack of a better term, is "people who are playing us for chums". Fakeboys are essentially only here to get their kicks by seeing how many feathers they can ruffle, fanboys are only here to espouse propaganda and take potshots - I've listed their tactics, and I feel that a solid debater doesn't need to rely on them.

5. In a debate against someone I respect, like Cake, I wouldn't waste my time playing games, there's no point. Using some kind of "trick" to throw them off is arguing from a position of weakness, and something that comes from a mentality of "winning". If I'm absolutely convinced there is no acceptable alternative to my viewpoint, I'd still rather fight with a dagger than a landmine. However, I come from a mentality of "shaping" - that is, at the end of discussion, my goal is for the other party to have a better view into something they might have misunderstood, or simply something to which they had never been exposed. If I see an opportunity to shape, I'll take it, if I don't, I want to disassemble the opposing viewpoint as quickly and as cleanly as possible.

As I said to RPGamer, it's a matter of taste...

subrosian

Those characters are at everyone's disposal. if you choose to bring a knife to a gunfight why should i resist busting your ass? Thats just how i look at it. These tactics are exclsuive to a few.

2. i think that problem comes from people gernerally like you say reacting before thinking. The guy tried to make a joke and people just ran around spouting whatever boulderdash they could come up with.

3. lol probably. sometimes I think pwning is kinda harsh. I do it but most of the time, i only end an arguement where my opponent INSISTS that my opinion is wrong, or that they keep trying to make a futile point. like if someone was to argue the use of gamerankings on sw, seriously, we use gamespot only here in sw and thats the rule. arguement finished. In instances like that, i feel its necessary to completely end an arguement that will go nowhere as its pretty much contributing to spam and nothing else.

4. I'll admit i have fakeboyed once. It was kinda fun but i mean really, the arguements i was making were just so stupid im surprised people fell for them. that one inccedent aside, i think sw would be alot better if people ignored fanboys/fakeboys and realized them for what they really are. I cant tell you how much i despise it when people remeber the likes of yo_foo, ginger, A_girl etc. like in my history thread, people made comments such as "where's *insert random idiot* ?" to me, if SW would grow up and stop acknowledging these types of posters, their names wouldnt live on, and others wouldnt be compelled to gain fame (or infamy) in the same way those they aspire to be like did. i believe you've already mentioned this though.

5. Indeed it depends on the poster. what happened was i think i had initially tried to bait/prob/trap the TC, and cake responded to my post with something substantial so we got into a pretty good debate. With certain users, i cut straight to the chase because i know it would be a waste of time. a few days ago, i was probing Lilac_Benjie. TBH, i think the metagame tactics help inspire debate sometimes. Like i had no real objections to what he was saying(albeit it some of the things he were saying were a little far fetched) so i said something along the lines of "your threads always contain some of the far fetched claims i've ever seen". Again, I didnt really disagree with him, but this lead to him explaining himself a little better, which lead to a discussion which imo was far more worthwhile that what he originally intended.

i guess it is a matter of taste. Im not here to make a fool of anyone because really, i dont think the metagame is as powerful as it may seem judging by this thread.

As I have noticed in all you're post that I've read, they are well thought out, accurate and on point. In a few instances I have fell into the trap of responding too soon to what's been refered to as trolls and my response was one where I felt disrespected and repsoned in kind - wrong thing to do.

All in all I enjoyed the read and appreciate very much the effort you always seem to put into almost every post you have made and I have read.

Great work man and thanks for the great read and I for one, will try to keep all those things you pointed out at the front edge of my mind when posting on GS.

5. In a debate against someone I respect, like Cake, I wouldn't waste my time playing games, there's no point. Using some kind of "trick" to throw them off is arguing from a position of weakness, and something that comes from a mentality of "winning". If I'm absolutely convinced there is no acceptable alternative to my viewpoint, I'd still rather fight with a dagger than a landmine. However, I come from a mentality of "shaping" - that is, at the end of discussion, my goal is for the other party to have a better view into something they might have misunderstood, or simply something to which they had never been exposed. If I see an opportunity to shape, I'll take it, if I don't, I want to disassemble the opposing viewpoint as quickly and as cleanly as possible.

As I said to RPGamer, it's a matter of taste...

subrosian

"There's no point". To whom? You maybe, horrid assumption to make for others here though. Some of the best debates I've entertained were based on the the conversation behind the conversation (the "mind game"). And for there times they were with some of the best forumers this place had to offer (sadly, most of these people are gone). We would pull out as many tricks as possible, call each other out on it and when the argument was said and done we would often say, "it's been a great debate" (or something along those lines).

Guess there are two types of respect I have here. The first being standard forumers I have nice conversations with about the latest game, or old game that we're enjoying/enjoyed. The latter being the forumer I respect basically b/c they can hold their end in a good old clash, despite me not agreeing with them most of the time. It's this second respected group that if I know the forumer enough I'll play the "mind game" with them, b/c in all honesty I expect the same back. I don't really want the standard "well here's facts x, y, and z" debate from them, it's boring and often really short. I would rather them lay some facts and sprinkle a bit of "trickery" in to try and trip me up, then I address two concepts at once rather than one. I don't consider them any weaker, nor would I say that for myself (and I'm not talking about "pwning", or "ending" which are obvious quick releases b/c the user ran out of material).

Also, asI said before it's not about winning. You want quick, some want extended. I like to see where the argument goes, you never know where the conversation will go if you play the game, and sometimes that latter conversation trumps the originals scope.

I'll agree that it is a mater of taste, I just fully disagree that it's a sign of weakness, or some how makes you any less of a debater.

4. I'll admit i have fakeboyed once. It was kinda fun but i mean really, the arguements i was making were just so stupid im surprised people fell for them. that one inccedent aside, i think sw would be alot better if people ignored fanboys/fakeboys and realized them for what they really are. I cant tell you how much i despise it when people remeber the likes of yo_foo, ginger, A_girl etc. like in my history thread, people made comments such as "where's *insert random idiot* ?" to me, if SW would grow up and stop acknowledging these types of posters, their names wouldnt live on, and others wouldnt be compelled to gain fame (or infamy) in the same way those they aspire to be like did. i believe you've already mentioned this though.

JPOBS

JPOBS, I agree with most of what you're saying, save for this. Maybe it's just the older forumer (in respect to being here for a long time) in me, but some of my most memorable arguments came from extreme fanboys (or even fakeboys for that matter). I consider the types an important part of the "mind game" that's established here. Well let me reiterate, I consider the good ones an important part of the "mind game".

I used to have the most in-depth tangent laden, trap filled debates with people like Whipit, NoC, Memnock,and Dankster, and when all was said and done I consider them some of the best forumers this place had for it's time. Hell even Cityboy, an over the top fanboy, pulled some of the biggest logical sheep traps the board had ever seen for their time, and some how got away with putting in catchy one-liners like "the sheep can't debate on my level" all in the same instance.

The "infamy" balances the forum imho, and I'm all for it as long as there still some people around that are good at being infamous.

RPGamer. Basically, if they're creative, humorous, and quick on their feet, they have some place here in SW?

(Mainly humorous, but being laughed AT is not enough, they have to get you laughing WITH them).

Is that right?

RPGamer. Basically, if they're creative, humorous, and quick on their feet, they have some place here in SW?

(Mainly humorous, but being laughed AT is not enough, they have to get you laughing WITH them).

Is that right?

Jandurin

You're responding to my fanboycomments I would assume.

I've seen some pretty serious fanboys debate down some really good forumers, I guess a combo of creative and quick would fill that category. Humorous works too though, even if it's dumb and transparent as all hell, but changes enough (Cityboy went this route... rofl I'll never forget that damn dinosaur avatar he had *shakes head*) to keep people on their toes.

Anyway, fanboy's and fakeboy's to me are an important part of system wars, the "golden age" had some of the best the forum has ever seen, and a large portion of that time charm to me stems from those two categories.

As JPOBS put in his own thread, he considers the overly logical and politically correct views of the manticore to be some what of the down fall the forum has experienced (even referencing me as the initiation of said down fall :P). Despite what he stated in that thread, I do agree in some ways, albeit I blame some other things as well, but I regress.

As JPOBS put in his own thread, he considers the overly logical and politically correct views of the manticore to be some what of the down fall the forum has experienced (even referencing me as the initiation of said down fall :P). Despite what he stated in that thread, I do agree in some ways, albeit I blame some other things as well, but I regress.-RPGamer-

I like some fanboy/fakeboy business. The problem is, it's almost like I feel like I'm USING them for my laughter and pity, as I will never see them as "true" humans. At least, not until they stop, but then their humor stops, and they have to be interesting on their own merit. Which is why just being yourself is better in my eyes.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]As JPOBS put in his own thread, he considers the overly logical and politically correct views of the manticore to be some what of the down fall the forum has experienced (even referencing me as the initiation of said down fall :P). Despite what he stated in that thread, I do agree in some ways, albeit I blame some other things as well, but I regress.Jandurin

I like some fanboy/fakeboy business. The problem is, it's almost like I feel like I'm USING them for my laughter and pity, as I will never see them as "true" humans. At least, not until they stop, but then their humor stops, and they have to be interesting on their own merit. Which is why just being yourself is better in my eyes.

Shortly after Bethany came, there was a swift painful ban of OT threads and many of the "vet" members. The process was such a hard hit that imho it ruined the community that this place had established. Without the "vets" here there seemed to be a heavy influx of new members, and the balance that had been there was then lost. It hasn't been the same since imho.

Some of the fanboys are being themselves though, and some are good contenders in a debate. I like the fanboys that don't really make you laugh all the time, but make you sit back and wonder how to rebuttal their relatively solid concepts. I don't tend to look down on fanboys (as you mentioned you do), to me their gamers just like the rest of us, and like the rest of us they're biased, just a little more so. The fakeboy on the other hand is just funny for the most part.

Oh, no, I guess I just meant fakeboys. People who are being themselves and really believe differently is fine. I guess I don't understand "fanboyism" as ibukininja pointed out.

The h in your imho. Is it humble or honest?

Oh, no, I guess I just meant fakeboys. People who are being themselves and really believe differently is fine. I guess I don't understand "fanboyism" as ibukininja pointed out.

The h in your imho. Is it humble or honest?

Jandurin

Humble, considering what I say on the subject matters very little in the overall scheme of things, especially since it's well in the past. Don't get me wrong it's honest too, simply b/c I'm saying it as how I think it really happened, but I think humble is more fitting in the context (I flop the "h" all the time with little thougt actually lol).

Wow, some people have too much time on their hands. As logical as your post was, the fact is that this so called 'metagaming' has always been and will always be a part of SW and it wouldnt be SW without it. In fact, SW would be quite boring without it. People need n00bs to make fun, it's what makes life worth living.

im confused what was the point? no matter what tactic you use it will change nothing. the fanboy mentallity has been around since man first drew breath it will be around long after we all cease, and no amount of debating about it and looking at the methods of the modern fanboy will change it. WilliamRLBaker

Most of the fakeboys are simply trying to become these people for attention.

What argument can a fanboy put out that fan can't? What distinguishes the fanboy is their diehard (blind) commitment to brand - to the point where they view a brand as a valid reason to defend or purchase something. Branding is nothing more than a marketing tactic - for example, I buy Diet Coke because I like Diet Coke. Valid reasoning. I do not, however, only buy only Coke products, and arbitrarily hate all Pepsi products - *because* they're not Coke products. Same thing.

The type of person who immediatly becomes interested in Ratchet & Clank because Nintendo slapped a seal of approval on it is depressing, and frankly it makes them a worse debater

And, let's face it, you're never going to have the golden age of System Wars again. This isn't a forum in the esoteric heydey of forums, filled entirely with teenagers pounding out l33tsp34k posts, "crusading" for their brand. Where are those posters now? Banned. What are they contributing to my day-to-day enjoyment of SW? Not much.

They simply hyped systems because of brand loyalty...and worse, how many games get hyped simply because of their use as a tool in System Wars? I understand hyping Halo 3 - it's a popular series, and a lot of people are genuinely excited about it - but how many other games get hyped simply because of exclusivity - regardless of merit?

In any case, as I've said, some of it is a matter of taste.