[papeda]

I have heard about "competitive meta" before. What I don't understand is how it's any different than "responding to changes in how a game works"? All of the examples in the link are like this (Magic has new cards, let's figure out how to use them; judo has new rules, let's figure out how to adapt to them; our Ultimate opponent is using a certain strategy, let's try to counter it).

[GreedCtrl]

Here's a different example:

Super Smash Bros Melee is almost 20 years old and still sees competitive play. There's a technique in the game called pivoting, which is a one-frame input used to unlock more movement options. It's been known for a while, but top players didn't make much use of it, as such a demanding mechanic seemed beyond the reach of consistent human performance.

A new(ish) player, Zain, has become one of the best in the world, and he makes frequent use of pivots, among many well-known but underused techniques.

The rules haven't changed. The tools have always been there. But now someone is picking them up. This layer of the game, once thought to be "not worth it," has now entered the metagame.

(There's actually an upcoming documentary about Melee called Metagame. To be released... eventually)

[gregallan]

I think the difference is that in this context it’s at least as much about what the other players are doing as the way the game actually works. Learning how to operate within the new rules is still just part of the game. Learning how to counter those strategies when your opponents adopt then would be considered the metagame. And sometimes the meta changes not due to changes in the rules, but simply because someone has an innovation in strategy or tactics which starts to be adopted en masse. Then someone figures out how to counter that and the cycle continues.

[jaggirs]

Yes, that's what it is. Although the 'competitive' meta would be limitied to the adaptations of the top players.

The concept is common enough in gaming culture that they popularized a name for it.