> It's not until you reach a level where everyone around you has a mastery of the fundamentals, that the meta comes into play.
and you said
> At any given MMR bracket, everyone around you has a similar mastery of the fundamentals so the meta is relevant.
which refutes the original comment.
> However, put someone with the fundamentals of a 6k+ MMR player into a 3 or even 4k match and they'll demolish everyone else even with a disadvantage relative to the metagame.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this; I think the issue I (and the person you're responding to) have is the idea that you should ignore understanding the meta until you're 6k MMR as you say.
Both are important and you should develop both at the same time if you want to improve.
Perhaps the best use of the meta, as noted in the article, is to help guide you to understanding what are the fundamentals to learn, and they help filter down what fundamentals you need to learn.
Zeus is never picked? Great! Don't need to learn that kit. Or perhaps digging into why Zeus isn't picked can help inform why another character is more useful especially in conjunction with others in a team.
The original comment said
> It's not until you reach a level where everyone around you has a mastery of the fundamentals, that the meta comes into play.
and you said
> At any given MMR bracket, everyone around you has a similar mastery of the fundamentals so the meta is relevant.
which refutes the original comment.
> However, put someone with the fundamentals of a 6k+ MMR player into a 3 or even 4k match and they'll demolish everyone else even with a disadvantage relative to the metagame.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this; I think the issue I (and the person you're responding to) have is the idea that you should ignore understanding the meta until you're 6k MMR as you say.
Both are important and you should develop both at the same time if you want to improve.