Eh, it’s all semantics. What you are calling meta has been called strategy for thousands of years.
No big deal - words change. I’ll get used to it.
No big deal - words change. I’ll get used to it.
E.g. saying "foo is meta right now" means most players consider foo to be stronger than the alternatives, and if a player uses a strategy other than foo one might say they were playing off-meta, etc. But the term is wholly distinct from strategy itself.
Here's a concrete example:
Soccer fundamentals: passing, dribbling, etc.
Soccer strategies: formation, player roles, etc.
Soccer meta: viable formations, player roles, etc.
No one is out there playing a 8-2-1 formation because it's not a viable strategy, i.e. it's not part of the current meta. The current meta in soccer is largely 4-4-2 and 4-4-3.
3 in the back is relatively rare, because it's weak to the player roles that we currently see being employed by competitors. It's not part of the meta because it's a weak strategy against the currently common strategies in the meta.
High level strategy: wear down opponent, exploit endurance advantage
Low level strategy: aggressive midgame, long passes, high tempo, rotate attackers
Tactics: 4 4 2 formation, joe and Jean on wings, etc. force opponent mike to run side to side to wear out, then focus on scoring in final third of game.
Fundamentals: passing, communication, give and go, etc.
Meta: realizing that you can make more from your Instagram account than from playing the game.
Disclaimer: I don’t know anything about soccer (football)
If you'd like, you can think of "meta" as short for "meta-strategy", with the distinction between "meta-strategy" and "strategy" as similar to the distinction to "meta-physics" and "physics". People who claim that "meta-physics" is just "physics" would probably be regarded as "pedants".