Metagames: what is the meta and where did it come from?

There's been a lot of discussion around the DE meta, both on this forum and elsewhere, so I thought I'd make a post discussing:

- what is a meta?

- what is the meta in AOE II: DE right now?

- why should I care?

​

TL:DR answers:

- a meta is a set of favoured strategies that players are pushed towards in current game balance/settings

- walling and booming is more popular, the traditional scout rush is less effective as a result

- do what you want, but understand that the meta exists for a reason and top players will punish you for deviating from it

​

Part 1: What is a meta anyway?

Meta is short for "metagame" which means (literally) the game about the game. In game, people can play different strategies, which perform differently well against one another (in AOE II, for example, a tower rush can punish a fast castle, and being walled is effective against the classic 22 pop scout build).

In game theory, something like the AOE II meta is called a "mixed strategy equilibrium" or "Nash equilibrium" (after mathematician John Nash). This means that, because each strategy is weak against at least 1 other strategy, pursuing 1 strategy at the expense of all others will negatively effect you. If your opponent knows that you will always pursue the same strategy (like fatslob) then you will be at a disadvantage. Or to put it another way, Fatslob would be harder to counter if he tried mixing in different strategies now and then.

In a game like AOE II, there is no strategy which completely dominates all the others but this does not mean that all strategies are equally strong, even if we limit ourselves to pro tournament strategies. If one strategy is less negatively impacted by it's counters, or it's counters are less popular because they themselves are very easily countered, then it will become more popular, because players will be inclined to select it more often.

The strength of strategies is what drives the metagame and the way that the meta moves will be dictated by the discovery of new strategies and balance changes to the game itself. It is also possible for players to shift the metagame by discovering techniques that make specific strategies better/worse.

Part 2: The DE meta, wallin' out of control

The release of AOE II DE has brought with it a whole swathe of changes to the game and it was inevitable (and intentional) that this would shakeup the metagame.

Recently top players have been discussing the rise of walling and the implied fall in the popularity of scouts openings as a result, see this video by Hera discussing the downfall of scouts in DE (his next video, incidentally, was called "walling is meta").

So why has walling become the meta? Is this DE changes, new strats and better micro, or all of the above? In this video Hera says that he sees the rise of walling as being driven partly by the DE game changes, with early eco management being easier in DE, and top players able to achieve a more perfect dark age with the DE feature changes. Having more resources earlier certainly makes walling easier, and makes it less expensive relatively speaking. Hera also points out that the slight buff to infantry of making tracking free (and universal) makes other strategies stronger.

I think that other factors, like the inclusion of an ingame grid, have made effectively walling easier for a larger range of players, although this is less relevant for pros and high level players.

It is possible that the meta will shift towards strategies that are strong vs walled players, like MaA into archers, but I am not good enough at the game to be confident in asserting something like that.

Part 3: I'm not going to play Hera, why should I care?

Ok so the way Elo works means that if you're reading this, you probably aren't going to play against Hera or Mr Yo or TheViper. If you're anything like me, your gameplay might benefit from thinking less about the meta and more about having houses and not losing villagers to boars.

Like a lot of players, I think talking about the meta is interesting, and is more interesting at the top level, where it is being pushed further. But does this apply to my games?

The short answer is yes. Pros are playing the same game as me, and the same factors that make their strategies stronger also impact everyone else. The meta exists for a reason and good players will punish you for deviating from it. Even at my level, players do not go for fast imp strategies on open maps, or 60 vil dark age booms.

​

Ultimately, part of why I made this post is that people tend to discuss the metagame exclusively, or argue ardently that it doesn't matter for them. I would like to present a synthesised veiw: The metagame is not the whole game and understanding it does not make you good at the game. It can still be fun/useful to think about, and a rudimentary understanding will help players of all skill levels. If you want to be a top player, you will need to understand it well.