Using Metagaming and Metagame analysis: To predict Metagame Shifts

[Shad0w]

This is part of a a part of message I shared with the play test community about predicting  Metagame Shifts and I wanted to see what you the MW community thinks.


Meta comes in many levels it can be as small as a playgroup of 2 or more players or it can be worldwide. Metagaming and Metagame analysis both have roots in the work of Nigel Howard who developed Metagame theory  in the 1960s ( The link following this is an 8 page review of  DRAMA THEORY AND METAGAME ANALYSIS is a good starting point for how player mentality fits into this process. ) 

So if we take these same ideas and move them to Mage Wars.


Analysis of options

1: Structure the problem by identifying the issues to be decided.
We have a problem that players must solve "How do I kill the other mage"

2: Identify the stakeholders who control the issues, either directly or indirectly.
The Stake holders the the current players in the match

3: Make an inventory of policy options by means of which the stakeholders control the issues.
The players spellbook

4: Determine the dependencies between the policy options.
" "option X can only be implemented if option Y is also implemented", or "options Y and Z are mutually exclusive" "
This is what we the MW community often refer to meta cards. (Disolve, Dispel, Obelisk are some examples)
Our meta may not be as be has deep as some other games but it still does exist.

Metagame Shifts

The reason they can be predicted is because of the games smaller fan base. In games with larger followings the top end "pro players" can design, play test, optimize or kill a deck in a matter of a few weeks.  Those games have players that as a full time job do this. MW by contrast has a much slower growth rate. Our time to do this same process is months not weeks. Thus the meta shifts are far easier to predict.

[Myrddin]

Interesting post. It seems odd to me to call the spellbook 'policy options', though. Usually a 'policy' would be a particular strategy, and obviously many strategies can be available with a single book. In principle every possible sequence of plays would be an 'option', but obviously in practice you'd distinguish at a higher level and ignore some options (e.g. Turn 1, summon grizzly, cast bear strength on it face down. Turn 2, reveal bear strength, attack mage with grizzly. Summon fox and cast rouse the beast. Attack mage with that too)

[Shad0w]

Interesting post. It seems odd to me to call the spellbook 'policy options', though. Usually a 'policy' would be a particular strategy, and obviously many strategies can be available with a single book. In principle every possible sequence of plays would be an 'option', but obviously in practice you'd distinguish at a higher level and ignore some options (e.g. Turn 1, summon grizzly, cast bear strength on it face down. Turn 2, reveal bear strength, attack mage with grizzly. Summon fox and cast rouse the beast. Attack mage with that too)

You are correct in that it could also refer to lines of play (aka a strategy, or tactic used when given certain choices) but this is what I get when doing it as a quick one off at 4am. The core remains the same can we determine the MW meta 6+ weeks in advance after a set has been released to the public. Do to our smaller community we have a much slower evolution process. I say yes we can we can figure out what the future meta of MW will then look like.