Which Maps to Retire?

[ImperialSun]

(02-06-2013 10:45 AM)Necrocat219 Wrote:  I'm not sure it is so different from chess, sure there are uncertainties but with each opening you know exactly what each uncertainty is and so can play accordingly. Nice to know that you wouldn't want one to - but wait- wouldn't switching maps out encourage a metagame to develop? Isn't metagaming adapting your strategies to game and player attitude changes?

My understanding of metagame is when there are common place strategies that many player do to the extent that one can predict with a reasonable certainty what the opponent will do despite having limited visual feedback. This is why rts have metagame a whereas chess isn't really comparable (since you can always see everything). Then meta gaming is using this reasonable chance your opponent will do this strategy to your advantage by countering it despite not actually knowing for sure that they are doing it (and often times with a build which is suboptimal if they end up not employing that strategy). Meta gaming could also include not doing the build your opponent expects (everyone else of your race does it on that map in that matchup) to throw your opponent off. Hopefully your opponent does the counter but you didn't actually do that build and now you have an advantage.

---

Anyway, I think this is interesting like worldfamous even if you and combatex may disagree.

---

But the point is rotating maps more frequently so that people aren't as familiar means less metagaming which is what you want. So I guess you should be in favor of a more rapid turnover if you don't like metagame. If you do like metagame then you should want maps to stick around for longer so strong and more predictable (but then also counterable) strategies develop.