And just like that. 2 great builds have vanished. A loss for Build Diversity. - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home WvW

And just like that. 2 great builds have vanished. A loss for Build Diversity.

2

Comments

  • Timelord.8190Timelord.8190 Member ✭✭✭

    Cleanse by just spamming the elite just gives tedious gameplay. Glad Anet helped you when you can't seem to help yourself. :)

    My YT- channel: Toxilo

  • MrForz.1953MrForz.1953 Member ✭✭✭
    edited July 31, 2020

    This is a major blow to build diversity! More in page 11.

    Seriously though, I love kit switching but this was an utter abomination.

    Disgruntled Charr Engineer and Pirate - Jade Quarry

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 31, 2020

    @Absurd.2947 said:
    Looking at your rev gameplay, you're not even running party view.

    @Absurd.2947 said:

    Party target as support , hell , what ,why do you need party window when you can brainlessy spam your elite and call it gameplay on gw2 forum to flex with others about healing and experience

    Do you know how the targeting system works? If you did, you'd realize that Squad view can give you more information about a fight than party view. I could go on and explain why but that would be off-topic.

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    Pfft he had all the necros in his squad all corrupt themselves after the battle so he could mass cleanse to boost his numbers for a screenshot, not fooling anyone around here with them tactics I tell you!

    I've showed people footage of my former guild defeating a 15x25 against another guild using a "spam 1 camp in water" heal tempest, and me solo healing 15 man squads and people will still find a way to reject that it's "real." Somehow, someway they will find an excuse to reject what they see, it's crazy to me, again I've heard it all. It no longer phases me.

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 31, 2020

    @Simo.6819 said:
    the fact you are in Indo squad doesnt really tell much , they guy and his guild are very questionable ,

    Sounds like something personal...

    All i'm pointing at about mentioning that it's Indo, is saying is that this isn't just a "Pug squad"...This is mostly Tempest Wolves Vets in an Open squad...These aren't "just pugs" so trying to dispel that excuse before people even say it.

    The Tempest cleansing build still a valid and decent one , surely , you need people with hands to play it.
    but keep it going the popcorn time its quite nice

    Debatable...but i won't argue about this too much. If people enjoy playing that build i am ALL FOR IT. Like i said, i want more build diversity not less of it. But to use it as a metric for what determines a good player is wrong and if you think it's anywhere near as good as the current meta support scrapper, you'd be denying yourself of objective truth. The only thing that keeps it relevant is how good the fire aura's synergize with condition comps, which you could do on a non-support ele...but hey if you want to be cleansing 200 conditions and feel that's satisfactory next to a meta scrapper cleansing over a thousand in the same fight, be my guest.

    Here, just proof that i'm not jocking you about when i made this engi...i went ingame and /age'd my character
    153 days = This February.

  • Mini Crinny.6190Mini Crinny.6190 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 31, 2020

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    Here, just proof that i'm not jocking you about when i made this engi...i went ingame and /age'd my character
    153 days = This February.

    I mean , it's great to brag about playing 63 hours on scrapper and thinking its difficult to spam an elite with no cooldown

    We're all willing you on!

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited July 31, 2020

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:
    I mean , it's great to brag about playing 63 hours on scrapper and thinking its difficult to spam an elite with no cooldown

    Bragging? Maybe you didn't notice the 2 or 3 people trying to belittle my personal skill level just because i enjoyed making and playing builds with Altruism. But oh, all of a sudden the moment i show you my personal skill using a "real build" to defend myself that's bragging?

    I was told to:
    A ) Go play a real build
    B ) Remarked by someone who constantly harasses me about my "quality of gameplay".
    C ) That Altruism was "stupid, spammy, encouraged gimmicks,etc..."

    Now i show you that i've played your "real builds" (meta scrapper) and show you in this picture how broken they are (so broken that you thought it was anti-toxin lol) and now you have nothing to say? But of course you wouldn't say anything about the current meta scrapper now would you, cause that would mean your skillful build might get nerfed after all.

  • Mini Crinny.6190Mini Crinny.6190 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Mini Crinny.6190 said:
    I mean , it's great to brag about playing 63 hours on scrapper and thinking its difficult to spam an elite with no cooldown

    Bragging? Maybe you didn't notice the 2 or 3 people trying to belittle my personal skill level just because i enjoyed making and playing builds with Altruism. But oh, all of a sudden the moment i show you my personal skill using a "real build" to defend myself that's bragging?

    I was told to:
    A ) Go play a real build
    B ) Remarked by someone who constantly harasses me about my "quality of gameplay".
    C ) That Altruism was "stupid, spammy, encouraged gimmicks,etc..."

    Now i show you that i've played your "real builds" (meta scrapper) and show you in this picture how broken they are (so broken that you thought it was anti-toxin lol) and now you have nothing to say? But of course you wouldn't say anything about the current meta scrapper now would you, cause that would mean your skillful build might get nerfed after all.

    I mean, go ahead, I play multiple classes so it doesn't matter

  • Dahir.4158Dahir.4158 Member ✭✭✭

    That's a big yikes from me sir

    Broski Supreme - Borsk Carry Effect - Condi Ele Pioneer

  • Sleepwalker.1398Sleepwalker.1398 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    I've showed people footage of my former guild defeating a 15x25 against another guild using a "spam 1 camp in water" heal tempest, and me solo healing 15 man squads and people will still find a way to reject that it's "real." Somehow, someway they will find an excuse to reject what they see, it's crazy to me, again I've heard it all. It no longer phases me.

    Sounds like Fastcar 2.0

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2020

    @Sleepwalker.1398 said:

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    I've showed people footage of my former guild defeating a 15x25 against another guild using a "spam 1 camp in water" heal tempest, and me solo healing 15 man squads and people will still find a way to reject that it's "real." Somehow, someway they will find an excuse to reject what they see, it's crazy to me, again I've heard it all. It no longer phases me.

    Sounds like Fastcar 2.0

    Funny you bring up Fastcar. I did my research on him, and you can say he’s not a good player, but you would be mistaken to say he’s not a good theory-crafter.

    I mean have you ever fought the guy? Have you ever listened to what he says in his videos? The dude is normally super secretive but he knows stuff about the game that I found out eventually but I did my own research arrived at similar conclusions and tried to make it common knowledge. I get it...it’s “cool” to hate on Fastcar just like it was cool to hate on Nemosis. But Nemosis was right on so many things and people blew it off cause it was “cool” to hate on him, and years later we still use the philosophies he developed when coming up with necromancer builds and Calculating real, effective DPS.

    For example i could ask you a very simple question...how many targets can you heal with Soothing Mist? Have you ever bothered to wonder?

    I could ask you another... how bout Gaze of Darkness (Glint utility)? Do you actually know how many targets this applies to?

    You see, after my research I think Fastcar knew these things. He just never talked about it, but once you observe most of his videos, you see similarities between the builds he runs and how he plays them. So ya you can talk trash about the guy but then what do YOU really know?

  • Junkpile.7439Junkpile.7439 Member ✭✭✭✭

    People actually heal in this game. Haven't really ever notice it. Sounds lame. B)

    Low quality trolling since launch
    Seafarer's Rest EotM Hero

  • Jugglemonkey.8741Jugglemonkey.8741 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Turkeyspit.3965 said:
    I don't have any views pro or con here, but I have to ask, if a Rune is what makes or breaks a specific build, doesn't that suggest the Rune itself is an issue?

    The first thing is that you see it as an issue to begin with.

    Some mechanics are critical to how a build can function at all in the first place. For example, Smothering Auras and by proxy it’s sister mechanic, Rune of the Trooper (both of which have no ICD btw), allow the current meta ele build to even cleanse conditions at all. Take either one or both of those away and you will effectively and permanently kill Support Ele.

    Likewise Rune of Altruism allows builds like the 0 energy Rev to cleanse enough conditions to be competitive. Take that away and you will like I said earlier, effectively kill the build

    This behavior exists across a number of builds seen not just in gw2 but also in gw1, and the flexibility of such mechanics allow for higher build diversity.

    Again if all you want to play is sneak gyro support scrapper as the only viable support build than be my guest and start nerfing all these seemingly “overpowered mechanics” and give everything in the game a 300 second ICD.

    Dumb question, but the rev legends have a 10s cd on swap right? So either the cooldown is the same duration as the on swap, meaning that the patch changed nothing, or the rune worked on every activation/pulse of the elite, in which case yeah, it was OP. It sucks your build got nerfed because of a change to the meta, but that is very much the risk of running off meta builds, they can be deleted by changes to other stuff with barely a moment's notice.

    Critical Kit, Deadeye.
    “If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.” - John Steinbeck

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2020

    Weird complaint ... builds come and go ... for the last 8 years. Anet is always changing things that affect performance. This particular change isn't exceptional enough to complain about.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2020

    @Jugglemonkey.8741 said:
    Dumb question, but the rev legends have a 10s cd on swap right? So either the cooldown is the same duration as the on swap, meaning that the patch changed nothing, or the rune worked on every activation/pulse of the elite, in which case yeah, it was OP. It sucks your build got nerfed because of a change to the meta, but that is very much the risk of running off meta builds, they can be deleted by changes to other stuff with barely a moment's notice.

    The Rune of Altruism would trigger on the usage of an Elite Skill. In particular for 0 Energy Rev, it was Energy Expulsion. Energy Expulsion would deplete your remaining energy in exchange for some conditions to be cleansed from you and your allies. For 0 Energy Rev, Expulsion would be kept on cool-down, effectively keeping you at 0 energy, in exchange for cleansing conditions. So in total you'd get 1 condition cleansed from you and your allies, plus an additional 1 transfer from your allies to you, for a total of 10 conditions cleansed every 3 seconds.

    Why 3 seconds?

    Because in order to use Expulsion, you had to
    A ) sacrifice your Tablet, and to reanimate took a bit of time and...
    B ) you had to wait for your energy to return to at least 10 before you could use it again.

    Altruism's role in all this is to make this flow of using the elite on zero energy actually worth while. Without the Rune, it's not worth sitting at 0 energy cleansing 15 conditions every 10 seconds,Because we already have a skill that is on a 5 second cooldown that cleanses 15 conditions, and in the case for Revenant, the build was completely balanced in my o pinon...it had a sensible amount of trade-offs for a marginal gain in usefulness that made it possible to at least cleanse conditions on the build. competitively with scrapper. It was on that level where it was a possible contender for being as viable as a scrapper, although without all of scrappers additional utilities like boon botting, Rez power and Stealth...So it wouldn't ever replace Scrapper in Meta, but it opened an option for viable healing alternative.

    With Altruism gone, Sure we nerfed the more potent Alutrism Engi, but this build was also effected by the change and really all that's left for healing is Meta Support Scrapper and Firebrand...and those builds are one nerf away from disappearing as well.

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Weird complaint ... builds come and go ... for the last 8 years. Anet is always changing things that affect performance. This particular change isn't exceptional enough to complain about.

    I don't think it's a weird complaint. I think it's a very valid complaint about Build Diversity, and that it's declining. This change doesn't seem exceptional at all...but just think about it...How many builds actually use Altruism? I think there's literally 0 builds other than what was mentioned (Altruism Scrapper and Altruism Rev)

    You have to wonder why is that, and it's because the mechanic is not like other mechanics...most mechanics actually provide a BENEFIT to it's user or their allies, or an EFFECT to enemies. This one provided to you a NEGATIVE effect to yourself. So in what build would someone use such a mechanic if they didn't have a way to change that negative effect into a positive one like Engi and Rev? Adding this 10 second cool down just removed that as an option for these two classes, and is a change directly targeted at removing those options. In addition most if not all elites in the game already come with their own cool downs, where Rev and Engi are the only ones who have access to Elites with cool downs that could take advantage of the mechanic of this rune.

    So the change was exceptional for these two builds (The only two builds that could in practice actually use this rune effectively), and it was a change intended to remove said builds from the game, which is a Diversity issue...There are now 2 less viable builds now then there was before altruism patch, and there are now so little builds left since last year, that there are only 3, one of which i don't even consider to be viable, and those 2 which are viable have been meta and have been viable for the past...2-3 years....The hope that the meta will change is now FAR out of reach, when before the "reign of CMC" there was options, there was chances that the meta could possibly change....but now? Forget it. There is a ballpark and only Scrapper and Firebrand are in it. Everyone else is so far outside the ballpark we would need a miracle to get anything else into the meta at this point.

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 1, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
    I don't think it's a weird complaint. I think it's a very valid complaint about Build Diversity, and that it's declining.

    Except build diversity has never been about performance ...
    so no, it's not in decline because of the changes ... it's just shifting things around things in the 'space' of performance.

    I'm gonna have to correct you on this. Even though what you said is...basically...somewhat true, it's not a fully realized picture of the problem. Ever since my initial post on arguing for diversity over balance, which you were a part of and had a contribution towards, additional pillars to the problem were required that are beyond the scope of just these two parameters that we were first initially talking about (balance and diversity). There is more to it and it's very in depth and hard to explain without a full background on other sciences to begin with. I have explained it though on other places, like in the PVP forums, but basically, even though Performance and Diversity are mutually exclusive, they are inextricably linked to one another. One aspect of this has to do with whether autonomous agents can actually "achieve" a goal in the first place...like killing a player, or healing someone to prevent them from losing a fight.

    Since the topic is very large and very nuance and complex, i'm just gonna link you this thread, where i've already explained the full range of the problem in great detail. Read until the very end of the thread. You'll find that "performance" is just the same thing as talking about autonomous agents being able to achieve autonomous goals.
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1290608#Comment_1290608

    Besides, as I already said, this cycle of class adjustments has ALWAYS impacted the game in this way so there isn't so constant decline of diversity over time here. If there was, there would be NO diversity at this point because of the number of class changes we have seen ... but that's not the case.

    And i'd argue that diversity has decreased over time...drastically...where firebrand and scrapper are the only healers now left as a viable choice from the available pool of choices available to us, which has technically increased over time, and yet we see the complete opposite of "more diversity"...and there is a reason for that, and that's part of the points of discussion that's missing here, which is that link between performance and diversity. Like i mentioned above, there is more to the issue than what you are referring to here.

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    So let's REALLY call this what it is ... you simply don't like that builds you play got changed.

    Ya, and i'm perfectly in my right to not like changes that destroy builds for the sake of destroying them. so that is exactly what this is. But they weren't just "changed." The builds that worked with that rune were essentially deleted. Because by making something useless, or unable to function, is equivalent to just removing the choice all together.

    It's true that it is a spectrum...not black and white...but by making it 10 seconds was enough to make these two builds useless, and therefor irrelevant in comparison to the other choices available.

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    especially if you have to re-define what diversity means to do so.

    Not really sure what you are talking about here since i haven't defined diversity at all on this post until now really... Diversity is not an easy topic to even discuss in the first place, but i think people have a general intuition about what it is, and sometimes its best to avoid explaining the nuance of it since its a complex subject in detail. Again i'd invite you to read the thread linked above since i'm really not willing to type pages and pages of explanation again.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
    I don't think it's a weird complaint. I think it's a very valid complaint about Build Diversity, and that it's declining.

    Except build diversity has never been about performance ...
    so no, it's not in decline because of the changes ... it's just shifting things around things in the 'space' of performance.

    I'm gonna have to correct you on this. Even though what you said is...basically...somewhat true, it's not a fully realized picture of the problem. Ever since my initial post on arguing for diversity over balance, which you were a part of and had a contribution towards, additional pillars to the problem were required that are beyond the scope of just these two parameters that we were first initially talking about (balance and diversity). There is more to it and it's very in depth and hard to explain without a full background on other sciences to begin with. I have explained it though on other places, like in the PVP forums, but basically, even though Performance and Diversity are mutually exclusive, they are inextricably linked to one another.

    That don't make sense. If they are mutually exclusive, it means they have NO relationship with each other. And don't try to pretend diversity is some enigmatic property that is to complex to explain so we just have to take your word for the truth of what you say ... Diversity is as simple as how many choices you have to build your character and in this game, there are MANY. Furthermore, the number of choices you have has NOTHING to do with what those choices do or what Anet does to them.

    I mean, connecting this complaint to 'decreasing diversity' is not sensible anyways ... what gives you the impression Anet's goal is to give you diversity through balance patches? Certainly not the history of the game ... they give diversity through additions of choices in how you build your character ... that's not done in a balance patch.

    I get the ploy here ... the real reason of your complaint isn't compelling, so tacking on 'diversity' seems more sympathetic ... except it's just not true. If you want to argue the number of high performance builds for a class has decreased because of the change ... fine, do that ... but this has nothing to do with diversity.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Diversity is as simple as how many choices you have to build your character and in this game, there are MANY.

    No this is not true, and I explain this in that thread I linked...but I will explain it here just for your convenience.

    Let’s say you have some pool of finite choices, picking at random some number of these choices to make a build is not enough to say that the system is diverse. The build you create with this random choosing of skills has to be able to achieve some meaningful sense of use...as in it has to be able to achieve some autonomous goal, in an environment that has agents that are also competing with or against you, usually with the same goal...this is the “performance” side of that problem.

    I also prove in that thread mathematically, that you don’t need to increase the number of choices to achieve diversity.

    Again the way you are viewing the problem is not enough to address it. This is what I learned after that big thread months ago, which you took part in.

    So in summary, just because you Increase the selection of choices does not make the game more diverse. It’s the quality of meaningful choices that make it diverse. This is why in evolutionary biology, nature went through this process of random creation (through genetic mutation) and the majority of creatures that live today is a fraction of the overall number of possible genetic mutations, because those that were actually able to achieve goals were selected for. Just because there are zillions of possible combinations in the genome, does not mean that you can have a zillion “viable” creatures on the planet...only a fraction of those actually continue on to live long enough to continue the species. These same principles apply to the build composition selection in gw2.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Diversity is as simple as how many choices you have to build your character and in this game, there are MANY.

    No this is not true, and I explain this in that thread I linked...but I will explain it here just for your convenience.

    Let’s say you have some pool of finite choices, picking at random some number of these choices to make a build is not enough to say that the system is diverse.

    OK ... we aren't talking about how diverse the system is ... the fact is that no matter how much or little diverse the system is, it is NOT affected by Anet changing one of the choices in that diverse system; the number of builds remains the same. You don't need some mathematical proof to understand this.

    if you want to talk about the 'quality of meaningful choices' ... that's a subjective performance claim. Diversity has nothing to do with it because diversity is quantitative ... you can literally count how diverse a class is by all the combinations of choices they have to make a build. Whether those builds are 'meaningful' depends on the context and player that uses them.

    I do find it interesting that you post that link ... I did take part in that and I still believe the things I said in that thread ...

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    There are still lots builds because the variations still exist; THAT is diversity. Diversity says NOTHING about their relative performance. That's what balance is about. Diversity and Balance are NOT related. Diversity is variations, balance is equivalence between and in groups.

    and more relevant to this conversation":

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @Psycoprophet.8107 said:
    Nobody wants to lose their classes identify and unique feel. If all classes were standardized with each other u may as well delete all but one and just allow the player to name it lol the game would be barren ina few days easy.

    Yeah that's exactly the point of this whole thread ... the next step in this theoretical discussion is this:

    Just hypothesizing here but GW2 (and maybe all MMO's) are going to lean more to Diversity than Balance, because people are probably more tolerant of nonequivalent choices than limited choice and with many choices ... there are likely to be a good overlap of equivalent choices ANYWAYS. Players looking for balance can FIND it in SOME of the choices available to them, so more diversity is going to lead to a greater level of overall player satisfaction than forcefully balancing things will do. If it wasn't for those choices, we would all be playing FPS or RTS games, where the focus isn't on the character-building. But we don't, because generally, MMO players value choices to develop their characters how they see fit.

    So really, the fix to balance isn't microscopically examining all these top performing builds and nerfing them ... or bottom builds with a buff. That's a fool's errand. Balancing will NATURALLY occur as the number of builds increases within the range. As long as Anet keeps a check on absolutely ridiculous effects and results ... they don't need to pretend like they they are making meaningful balance changes with a few percent change to this skill or that skill**.

    Bolded the relevant part for this conversation.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK ... we aren't talking about how diverse the system is ... the fact is that no matter how much or little diverse the system is, it is NOT affected by Anet changing one of the choices in that diverse system; the number of builds remains the same. You don't need some mathematical proof to understand this.

    Like I keep saying, the number of combinations is not enough to say the system is diverse. You are missing important and relevant information here.

    It’s like saying that if Company A and Company B, CDE and so on...have a large number of components, that the they should be diverse...but if the components in Company A, CDE...can’t do anything useful, then Company A CDE...will fail to sell products and lose competitively to Company B and eventually close down. Just because the system here has a large number of components doesn’t mean it’s diverse, because Company B will be the only one competitive enough to stick around.

    It’s only when B has other agents that can actually compete (achieve goals) where the system begins to diversify. This behavior indeed requires mathematical analysis, and it is not simple. I’ve been studying it for years and there are many sciences that are based on these diverse selection principles...the most popular being evolutionary biology.

    if you want to talk about the 'quality of meaningful choices' ... that's a subjective performance claim. Diversity has nothing to do with it.

    Again you are pointing out that the two are completely separate. They are indeed different things, but they are linked inextricably. Balance changes effect diversity, and diversification can bring about balance...but the two are not to be confused with each other, because they aren’t the same thing...they are what’s called having complementarity ...in that they are two completely different phenomena that are results of a singular underlying mechanism.

    Edit in response to your edit: Yes you made positive contribution to that thread. There is one thing that was the most important bit that I took a picture of, which is one of the first things to understand on the whole issue:

    but aside from that, since that thread which I did say in the first post needed a more exact formalism. I did more research since then and I had to reevaluate the entire proposition, because there were still missing pieces...those pieces i then reveal in that PVP thread I linked here and now this thread here in speaking with you now.

    This is what analysis is all about...the conclusions we came to in that thread were nice but they were incomplete. It started with the distinction between two types of balance...one being “traditional game balance” and the other being balance found in natural systems that we actually observe to work in nature and other systems in the world. The differences in those two balance approaches lead to two separate ends of a single spectrum, one end being homogenous grouping and the other heterogenous grouping...both lead to a type of balance but one leads to a homogenous system and the other leads to a heterogenous system...

    Anyway I could go on but it’s all in that pvp thread I linked, and to save myself from endless typing I encourage you to read it and look at that mathematical proof.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK ... we aren't talking about how diverse the system is ... the fact is that no matter how much or little diverse the system is, it is NOT affected by Anet changing one of the choices in that diverse system; the number of builds remains the same. You don't need some mathematical proof to understand this.

    Like I keep saying, the number of combinations is not enough to say the system is diverse.

    And Like i said, this isn't a discussion about how diverse the system is; that isn't relevant. Anet making a change to a choice in that system does not affect it's diversity, REGARDLESS of how diverse that system is or is not because it's still a choice different from any other. If I give you 10 different colours and change one of them to a different but unique colour, the diversity is NOT affected. There is the same number of different colours. Again ... maybe you have some weird definition for diversity where 'meaningful quality' enters as a factor ... that would NOT be typical of how diversity is defined. In this case diversity is countable and that count is not affected by a change to one of the elements that gets counted as long as it remains unique to the set.

    The fact is that impact on diversity (whether it exists or not) isn't a reason for Anet to not make class changes anyways ... so whatever academic argument you have, whether it's right or not ... simply doesn't matter. The considerations are practical.

    You still have the EXACT same build you did before the change ... that's how I know diversity is not impacted. It simply works differently.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • @Obtena.7952 said:
    And Like i said, this isn't a discussion about how diverse the system is; that isn't relevant. Anet making a change to a choice in that system does not affect it's diversity, REGARDLESS of how diverse that system is or is not because it's still a choice different from any other. If I give you 10 different colours and change one of them to a different but unique colour, the diversity is NOT affected.

    And yet if you had 10 colors, all a shade of dark brown, would you consider that diverse? of course you wouldn't...those 10 shades of brown are unique aren't they? The number of colors is not enough to define that it is diverse.

    The MORE UNIQUE you make those colors, the MORE diverse the system becomes...that's part of what i explain in that pvp thread in that proof. Because again its not as simple as the number of choices...it's the QUALITY of those choices. One of those qualities happens to be uniqueness, but also USEFULNESS. This is the exact link in the thread where i point this out :
    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1298402#Comment_1298402

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    And Like i said, this isn't a discussion about how diverse the system is; that isn't relevant. Anet making a change to a choice in that system does not affect it's diversity, REGARDLESS of how diverse that system is or is not because it's still a choice different from any other. If I give you 10 different colours and change one of them to a different but unique colour, the diversity is NOT affected.

    And yet if you had 10 colors, all a shade of dark brown, would you consider that diverse?

    The fact is we aren't talking about how much diversity we have ... so the answer to that question is irrelevant to the discussion.This is the third time you continue to try to make it about the amount of diversity ... it's irrelevant. The question here is if a change to a choice affects diversity. The answer is no, unless the change makes the number of choices different than prior the change.

    It's the same for builds ... The rune change, regardless of how it affects performance of the build ... still makes it a unique choice, so diversity is not affected.

    You can't argue your way around the fact that diversity is not defined with some additional quality characteristic based on your opinion of what is similar or not. If the differences exist, it counts, no matter what subjective opinion someone has on on how similar it is to another choice. This whole discussion is absurd ... there is NO argument for redefining diversity to make your complaint more than just "I don't like this so it shouldn't be changed".

    ... and no, usefulness is a subjective property or at least requires context ... so you can't include it in how you determine what is diverse or not. Gimme a break.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You can't argue your way around the fact that diversity is not defined with some additional quality characteristic. If the differences exist, it counts, no matter what your opinion is on how similar it is to another choice.

    It’s because it lies on a spectrum, which in itself is multilayered because you have to factor in competition and complex systems analysis in order to even get an accurate description of gw2. It’s not black and white. and we aren’t making a toy model...we are trying to describe actual behavior seen in the game.

    Just to take the colors example, you can have 10 shades of dark brown, and change one of them to red...but now what? You have to factor in the fact that agents now have to make a choice (introducing a competitive element) to even emulate behavior in the game.

    If Red is the only color people pick because it’s vibrant or whatever, then brown can’t compete when it comes to people choosing. Likewise if brown is the only color people want to pick, then red can’t compete and falls out of favor. In both situations you are siphoning out choices because the diversity is low.

    If the diversity is high, in which all colors are unique...red, blue yellow etc, then the choice that people make becomes qualitatively more rich...because the diversity is higher here.

    In the grand scheme, if autonomous agents have the goal of creating paintings to sell to market (aka viable builds) then qualitatively, autonomous agents will choose the colors that sell more. If the market is nothing but brown paintings and red appears, red will sell more, and people will make more red paintings. Low diversity=bad balance.

    If people have a unique variety of colors...blue, pink, green, orange... and the market is full of all kinds of colors, then no color will have any distinct advantage over any other color in the market. this is high diversity=good balance

    If you change the colors, you will effect the balance...and because it’s a spectrum, as you collapse the choices closer to being homogenous (less diverse), you will create imbalance...like I mentioned earlier the two are different but linked together inextricably, and diversity is not as simple as just number of choices.

    Edit: about usefulness. It’s not subjective. There is a definable metric that determines whether something is useful or not. This is what is called the autonomous goal. If the build you make can’t achieve some meaningful goal, then why would you run it? Meaningful goal is simple like “can you kill an enemy.” But it has to have some meaning in a competitive environment.

    You can’t have an autonomous goal that is useless like “ stand around and look pretty.” Because making a build to fulfill this goal has no meaning in a competitive environment where others are competing with their own autonomous goals.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    You can't argue your way around the fact that diversity is not defined with some additional quality characteristic. If the differences exist, it counts, no matter what your opinion is on how similar it is to another choice.

    It’s because it lies on a spectrum,

    What defines diversity is not a continuous parameter that's on a spectrum regardless of whether the system is complex or not. It's simply a count of distinguishable different things. This is NOT disputable. That is how diversity is defined. If you are going to redefine diversity with these additional complexities to suit your argument, that's just not having an honest discussion.

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    Just to take the colors example, you can have 10 shades of dark brown, and change one of them to red...but now what? You have to factor in the fact that agents now have to make a choice (introducing a competitive element) to even emulate behavior in the game.

    No I don't. I simply count the number of different things I had before and after the change. If they are the same, there is NO impact on diversity. That's exactly the case here with the rune change.

    If Red is the only color people pick because it’s vibrant or whatever, then brown can’t compete when it comes to people choosing. Likewise if brown is the only color people want to pick, then red can’t compete and falls out of favor. In both situations you are siphoning out choices because the diversity is low.

    OK, but the level of diversity didn't change when change one of the colours, even if diversity is low.

    If the diversity is high, in which all colors are unique...red, blue yellow etc, then the choice that people make becomes qualitatively more rich...because the diversity is higher here.

    OK, but again, the diversity doesn't change if we change one of the colours, even if diversity is high.

    Again we are NOT talking about how much diversity we have, we are talking about the impact on the diversity if you change the choices. Even by the examples you outline ... as long as the choice changes don't result in a change in the number of distinguishable different things, the diversity is not affected. This is what we have with the rune change.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Sleepwalker.1398Sleepwalker.1398 Member ✭✭✭✭

    If someone can edit the part he says "game" to "rune".

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    Just gonna put an end to this back and forth already by providing you a scientific paper from IOP (The Institute of Physics)

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1478-3975/ab6754

    As you can see everything they say here agrees with what I’ve said. Explicitly pointing out that it’s a relationship between richness (which in our case is the quality) and evenness (which is in our case balance.) they demonstrate that a system with less components can be more diverse than a system with more components because of these two parameters...and they go onto include there are more parameters and these are fleshed out in the equations below the abstract.

    I’m not pulling this stuff out of thin air, it’s well researched in other sciences

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    That's nice and all but we aren't in a research institute, we aren't physicists and we aren't trying turn a simple concept like diversity into something you need to study to have a discussion about it. In your world or whatever field that is, that 'expansion' of diversity definition makes sense ... this is an MMO ... with average people playing it, with average people making it, with average people discussing it ... they AREN'T taking a deep dive into a scientific journal to reset what the definition of diversity that people are aware of ... because they want to be understood when they have a discussion and not talk over people. You can put away your journal, here is what Webster says:

    the condition of having or being composed of differing elements

    Like I said ... you got a whole different definition going there ... not sure why you can't see it or acknowledge it.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • God.2708God.2708 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    That's nice and all but we aren't in a research institute, we aren't physicists and we aren't trying turn a simple concept like diversity into something you need to study to have a discussion about it. In your world or whatever field that is, that 'expansion' of diversity definition makes sense ... this is an MMO ... with average people playing it, with average people making it, with average people discussing it ... they AREN'T taking a deep dive into a scientific journal to reset what the definition of diversity that people are aware of ... because they want to be understood when they have a discussion and not talk over people.

    Like I said ... you got a whole different definition going there ... not sure why you can't see it or acknowledge it.

    Because his definition is actually useful and meaningful for the discussion of balance.

    What you are describing is variations, not diversity. Just because I CAN choose between some 1.2 billion available combinations before and after doesn't mean I will. Your choices are inherently influenced by your environment and thus you won't choose things that don't work. No one is running around with 14 different stat types in their gear.

    You can't talk about balance without factoring in the environment because what works in raids doesn't work in fractals doesn't work in PvP. So despite there being a slew of different builds for each, the systems have inherently varying levels of diversity.

    Anet adjusted the balance for an outlier by changing the system, and this shrunk the pool of viable choices. When they could have adjusted the outlier. It is a valid complaint, though I question if the rune change was as devastating as Justice claims.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @God.2708 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    That's nice and all but we aren't in a research institute, we aren't physicists and we aren't trying turn a simple concept like diversity into something you need to study to have a discussion about it. In your world or whatever field that is, that 'expansion' of diversity definition makes sense ... this is an MMO ... with average people playing it, with average people making it, with average people discussing it ... they AREN'T taking a deep dive into a scientific journal to reset what the definition of diversity that people are aware of ... because they want to be understood when they have a discussion and not talk over people.

    Like I said ... you got a whole different definition going there ... not sure why you can't see it or acknowledge it.

    Because his definition is actually useful and meaningful for the discussion of balance.

    Except in the history of the game, I've never seen Anet balance something because of diversity ... so the whole complaint is meaningless in the first place. Unless Anet starts reading IoP journals, I'm pretty sure that whatever 'useful' and 'meaningful' definition of diversity you want to argue is the relevant one for balance, it's not going to be the one that requires a deep dive and years of study ... it's going to be Websters.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • God.2708God.2708 Member ✭✭✭

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @God.2708 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    That's nice and all but we aren't in a research institute, we aren't physicists and we aren't trying turn a simple concept like diversity into something you need to study to have a discussion about it. In your world or whatever field that is, that 'expansion' of diversity definition makes sense ... this is an MMO ... with average people playing it, with average people making it, with average people discussing it ... they AREN'T taking a deep dive into a scientific journal to reset what the definition of diversity that people are aware of ... because they want to be understood when they have a discussion and not talk over people.

    Like I said ... you got a whole different definition going there ... not sure why you can't see it or acknowledge it.

    Because his definition is actually useful and meaningful for the discussion of balance.

    Except in the history of the game, I've never seen Anet balance something because of diversity ... so the whole complaint is meaningless in the first place. Unless Anet starts reading IoP journals, I'm pretty sure that whatever 'useful' and 'meaningful' definition of diversity you want to create is irrelevant.

    Well...

    Here is where I go 'just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist'

    CMC at the very least is on record saying he'd like to see at least one build for every core/elite spec be viable. That's... By our definition at least, making it more diverse. The Feb balance patch was intended to lay the groundwork to assist in this endeavor and, here is where I disagree with Justice because, I think diversity has increased greatly since the patch. Though I'll grant that support hasnt changed much yet and it's mostly damage side diversity.

    I don't think Anet is balancing for diversity with as much fervor as Justice would like to see. But they are balancing for diversity's sake at the moment.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @God.2708 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @God.2708 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    That's nice and all but we aren't in a research institute, we aren't physicists and we aren't trying turn a simple concept like diversity into something you need to study to have a discussion about it. In your world or whatever field that is, that 'expansion' of diversity definition makes sense ... this is an MMO ... with average people playing it, with average people making it, with average people discussing it ... they AREN'T taking a deep dive into a scientific journal to reset what the definition of diversity that people are aware of ... because they want to be understood when they have a discussion and not talk over people.

    Like I said ... you got a whole different definition going there ... not sure why you can't see it or acknowledge it.

    Because his definition is actually useful and meaningful for the discussion of balance.

    Except in the history of the game, I've never seen Anet balance something because of diversity ... so the whole complaint is meaningless in the first place. Unless Anet starts reading IoP journals, I'm pretty sure that whatever 'useful' and 'meaningful' definition of diversity you want to create is irrelevant.

    Well...

    Here is where I go 'just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist'

    CMC at the very least is on record saying he'd like to see at least one build for every core/elite spec be viable. That's... By our definition at least, making it more diverse. The Feb balance patch was intended to lay the groundwork to assist in this endeavor and, here is where I disagree with Justice because, I think diversity has increased greatly since the patch. Though I'll grant that support hasnt changed much yet and it's mostly damage side diversity.

    I don't think Anet is balancing for diversity with as much fervor as Justice would like to see. But they are balancing for diversity's sake at the moment.

    I'm going to say we need a significant increase in the number of 'viable' builds to be convinced they are doing so for 'diversity'. I'm of the belief that they aren't going to achieve that with changes on the pool of choices we have, i.e., not through balancing otherwise we would have it. I think they are just going to continue to release new choices until eventually, some acceptable number of viable choices exist simply from the overwhelming number of options available to players.

    To be frank, IF the question of diversity is so complex that we can't talk about it in simple terms, then it's absurd to complain that Anet shouldn't make changes that affect it negatively ... how can anyone possibly quantify diversity to claim a change is a negative impact on it? In otherwords, if measuring the impact on diversity is so complex that it renders it impractical to do so, then it's actually a terrible quality to assess the impact of balance efforts.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • Mokk.2397Mokk.2397 Member ✭✭✭

    Diversification is important but as God,2708 explains it's dependent on environment and how a particular build can fill a niche in that environment. What has unfortunately happened is only a few classes have become dominant because these classes have become to diverse filling to many niches . What Anet has to do is look at how and why these particular dominant classes are filling theses niches . Does the Scourge have to many effective AOE's in one single build ? Do the elementalist have far to much condition cleanse, Does scrapper have to much effective heal and utilities that effect to many people . Is Winds of Disenchantment far to powerful by disallowing the opponent from receiving boons . Is there far to much boon share. Are to few classes able deliver far to many effective boons ,cleanse , crowd control in a single build. Is Coalescence of Ruin still far to powerful effecting to many opponents when you consider the cast time and recharge being so low. Is barrier , resistance , retaliation over used and delivered by to few classes and needs to be cut back and spread out evenly with the other classes . Are similar skills and traits between classes actually balanced with the same ease of use and effect. Many are not .
    The core classes were fairly balanced prior to these releases with only a few exceptions that could have been easily fixed then but were not. The core classes are the foundation and ANET can't fix the problem without fixing the foundation or by weakening it further. The new releases should never have overwhelmed the core .
    If a problem exists in a single skill or trait then fix that skill or trait not the entire environment. You would not fill in a lake to eliminate one dominating invasive species of fish. Are some skills and traits over powered by doing to many things far to long or large that affect to many with to short of cast times and recharges ?
    ANET needs to take a really good look at what was introduced to the game when we consider that most of the problems started after Path of Fire.
    The power creep was a problem that was started with the release of Heart of Thorns and further compounded with Path of Fire and was addressed by lowering the bar for all classes in February. Now it's time to fix the issues that cause one class to dominate over other classes far to easily.

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @God.2708 said:
    Well...

    Here is where I go 'just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist'

    CMC at the very least is on record saying he'd like to see at least one build for every core/elite spec be viable. That's... By our definition at least, making it more diverse. The Feb balance patch was intended to lay the groundwork to assist in this endeavor and, here is where I disagree with Justice because, I think diversity has increased greatly since the patch. Though I'll grant that support hasnt changed much yet and it's mostly damage side diversity.

    I don't think Anet is balancing for diversity with as much fervor as Justice would like to see. But they are balancing for diversity's sake at the moment.

    I'm going to say we need a significant increase in the number of 'viable' builds to be convinced they are doing so for 'diversity'. I'm of the belief that they aren't going to achieve that with changes on the pool of choices we have, i.e., not through balancing otherwise we would have it. I think they are just going to continue to release new choices until eventually, some acceptable number of viable choices exist simply from the overwhelming number of options available to players.

    ...In otherwords, if measuring the impact on diversity is so complex that it renders it impractical to do so, then it's actually a terrible quality to assess the impact of balance efforts.

    My personal view, is that even if Anet has the intention of balancing for diversity, they have no idea how to do it successfully or have some very simplistic view of what it is, which is understandable. Any logical person, myself included would assume at first that increasing the number of choices or trying to equalize those choices via buffs and nerfs should increase diversity, but that is a fallacy.

    The research I've been doing has been to try and understand why the changes that Anet has made, has made little to no impact on the diversity and by proxy balance of the game, and it is enough of a problem that it should warrant investigation. Given that there are probably 1.2 billion combinations for possible build combinations if not more in this game, seeing only 2 or 3 in the meta is a very large discrepancy, that shouldn't be ignored.

    To be frank, IF the question of diversity is so complex that we can't talk about it in simple terms, then it's absurd to complain that Anet shouldn't make changes that affect it negatively ... how can anyone possibly quantify diversity to claim a change is a negative impact on it?

    Diversity is complex...Very much so, and i believe it's one reason why MMO's have such a hard time balancing between classes. It's not so complex that we can't talk about it...we can quantify it and even come down with solutions on how to procure it successfully. I've done a lot of the legwork to get it to a place here, where we can talk about it in English....even if it can be difficult at times.

    But even getting to that point requires understanding the problem and the whole problem to begin with, and i think most don't even know what the problem is. We have frequent post on the forums asking for nerfs to specific classes or builds a l l o f t h e t i m e to the point where it's irritating. But we have to go into the rabbit hole and start asking...why is the build overpowered? Is it because of a mechanic? or is it because there is no sufficient counter measure to it? If it's because of a lack of a countermeasure, does that mean we have to buff other builds? Does buffing and nerfing classes make more overpowered builds or less? Why do we have overpowered builds to begin with? These aren't even right questions to ask yet...because they all lead back to an essential element, that balance and diversity are separate things, that are inextricably linked together, with the other parameters we've discussed (HomovsHeterogenity, Autonomous Agents and Goals, Competition, Differing Balance Mechanisms...) , that in my opinion, seem to not be in the thought process when making balance decisions.

    We could say that none of it matters anyway because Anet doesn't read forums and it's Anets game they can do what they want...but then again why say anything on the forums at all, if none of it really matters anyway? It's sort of a dead-end deal with this line of reasoning no matter how you look at it in this prespective, so why not?

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @God.2708 said:
    Well...

    Here is where I go 'just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist'

    CMC at the very least is on record saying he'd like to see at least one build for every core/elite spec be viable. That's... By our definition at least, making it more diverse. The Feb balance patch was intended to lay the groundwork to assist in this endeavor and, here is where I disagree with Justice because, I think diversity has increased greatly since the patch. Though I'll grant that support hasnt changed much yet and it's mostly damage side diversity.

    I don't think Anet is balancing for diversity with as much fervor as Justice would like to see. But they are balancing for diversity's sake at the moment.

    I'm going to say we need a significant increase in the number of 'viable' builds to be convinced they are doing so for 'diversity'. I'm of the belief that they aren't going to achieve that with changes on the pool of choices we have, i.e., not through balancing otherwise we would have it. I think they are just going to continue to release new choices until eventually, some acceptable number of viable choices exist simply from the overwhelming number of options available to players.

    ...In otherwords, if measuring the impact on diversity is so complex that it renders it impractical to do so, then it's actually a terrible quality to assess the impact of balance efforts.

    My personal view, is that even if Anet has the intention of balancing for diversity, they have no idea how to do it successfully or have some very simplistic view of what it is, which is understandable. Any logical person, myself included would assume at first that increasing the number of choices or trying to equalize those choices via buffs and nerfs should increase diversity, but that is a fallacy.

    The research I've been doing has been to try and understand why the changes that Anet has made, has made little to no impact on the diversity and by proxy balance of the game, and it is enough of a problem that it should warrant investigation. Given that there are probably 1.2 billion combinations for possible build combinations if not more in this game, seeing only 2 or 3 in the meta is a very large discrepancy, that shouldn't be ignored.

    To be frank, IF the question of diversity is so complex that we can't talk about it in simple terms, then it's absurd to complain that Anet shouldn't make changes that affect it negatively ... how can anyone possibly quantify diversity to claim a change is a negative impact on it?

    Diversity is complex...Very much so, and i believe it's one reason why MMO's have such a hard time balancing between classes. It's not so complex that we can't talk about it...we can quantify it and even come down with solutions on how to procure it successfully. I've done a lot of the legwork to get it to a place here, where we can talk about it in English....even if it can be difficult at times.

    But even getting to that point requires understanding the problem and the whole problem to begin with, and i think most don't even know what the problem is. We have frequent post on the forums asking for nerfs to specific classes or builds a l l o f t h e t i m e to the point where it's irritating. But we have to go into the rabbit hole and start asking...why is the build overpowered? Is it because of a mechanic? or is it because there is no sufficient counter measure to it? If it's because of a lack of a countermeasure, does that mean we have to buff other builds? Does buffing and nerfing classes make more overpowered builds or less? Why do we have overpowered builds to begin with? These aren't even right questions to ask yet...because they all lead back to an essential element, that balance and diversity are separate things, that are inextricably linked together, with the other parameters we've discussed (HomovsHeterogenity, Autonomous Agents and Goals, Competition, Differing Balance Mechanisms...) , that in my opinion, seem to not be in the thought process when making balance decisions.

    We could say that none of it matters anyway because Anet doesn't read forums and it's Anets game they can do what they want...but then again why say anything on the forums at all, if none of it really matters anyway? It's sort of a dead-end deal with this line of reasoning no matter how you look at it in this prespective, so why not?

    There isn't a reluctance to talk about it, but to be honest, if you are the only one in the room who understands what you are talking about, no one is going to listen to you. I don't think it's reasonable to claim the changes have a negative impact on diversity, especially if you are going to talk over everyone with how it's quantified and I hasn't seemed relevant to the game anyways.

    if Anet is making changes that negatively impact diversity, what makes us think it's that important to them? I think you are making this too complex to suit your argument and create a platform that only you can have a discussion in; by making diversity complicated, of course the only person in the room that can discuss it is the one that 'proved' it's complication. Honestly, I don't think Anet's criteria for balancing is anything more than Anet going "We don't like how this works ... it's changing". There is no diversity meter they check before making a change. You're just not speaking the language.

    Anyways, GL with your math proofs and complex, abstract theories on diversity to compel Anet to not make changes you don't like.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • @Obtena.7952 said:

    I think you are making this too complex to suit your argument and create a platform that only you can have a discussion in;

    That's a pretty low blow...i mean now your just attacking my integrity.

    Sure, you may not like me, but science is science. Sometimes we want the answers to be simple, but cant always have our cake and eat it. Do i wish that diversity was as simple as you make it out to be? Of course i would...but i would be purposefully remaining blissfully ignorant to how it actually works...We didn't come this far in human history by believing in ghosts powering our CPU's...we had to learn really hard and complicated science to even play this game at all.

    So if you want to be blissfully in the dark then be my guest. You can do the research yourself, its not like i'm anyone doing anything special...i'm just some shmoe putting in my time to do legitimate research...sometimes that research requires you to learn how to do calculus so you can calculate that integral in those probability distribution functions. That's part of it...and if you aren't willing to go that far, that's on you...not me.

  • Voltekka.2375Voltekka.2375 Member ✭✭✭✭

    2 less builds to play equals less diversity. Can't get simpler than that.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    I think you are making this too complex to suit your argument and create a platform that only you can have a discussion in;

    That's a pretty low blow...i mean now your just attacking my integrity.

    It's not a low blow ...we don't need some complex scientific theory to make these discussions because complex scientific theories aren't how these changes are made to begin with ... but you insist that's where we push the discussion. It's not an attack on your integrity ... but I am questioning the motive of claiming this complex version of diversity that you claim has been negatively effected is even true or relevant. If you are going to make a claim that Anet has made some error in game change because of some complicated theory on diversity that few people are going to understand, you might as well be talking to yourself. I think the truth is that it's not really reasonable to select one change, claim diversity took a hit and conclude they shouldn't have done it. If the only person that understands how that claim works is you ... it's pretty meaningless.

    It's not about if I'm willing to apply myself to learn advance math or some ecological theories to enter the discussion. it's about whether or not it's necessary to do even GO to that level. I don't see the relevance of pulling out quotes from IoP and such ... the relevance of going to that level to make a case for Anet to stop making changes we don't like ... is very low. You are talking over LOTS of people here.

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    2 less builds to play equals less diversity. Can't get simpler than that.

    Except these builds can still be played and those aren't the only changes that affect overall 'diversity' so ... /shrug. I mean, again ... if you can't quantify how ALL the changes in this patch affect overall diversity ... there is no claim that we just took some massive hit to diversity that's bad for the game. It's just sensationalism at this point. Maybe these two took a hit ... maybe some other change boost 5 others.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • cgMatt.5162cgMatt.5162 Member ✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    Altruism in that state felt pretty degenerate to play, even with the risk of instant downing when 1 or 2 condi bombs happen. Though there was an elegance to playing it by mixing in the regular healing rotations that I found fun.

    What Arcdps needs though is more advanced sorting options for interrupts and blocks (and other things found in the detail stats window). This is a lot of information so even a buff table style layout where we can list cleanse, strips, interrupts, and blocks in one window.

    Anet also needs to send healing values to the server so Arcdps can pick it up.

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    It's not about if I'm willing to apply myself to learn advance math or some ecological theories to enter the discussion. it's about whether or not it's necessary to do even GO to that level.

    So you are the authority on where that level is supposed to be? That sounds hypocritical.

    I'm sorry but, if i walk into silicone valley, i better know how to at least understand computer programming at a basic level...it's just a courtesy...or should i stand there and berate them about how they don't know anything, and that i know everything there possibly is to know even though I've never done an ounce of research on coding in my life...that they should cater to MY needs rather than theirs?

    Btw the math isn't THAT complicated. Its doable without anything more advanced than basic algebra. We can do it right here, right now if you like.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 3, 2020

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    It's not about if I'm willing to apply myself to learn advance math or some ecological theories to enter the discussion. it's about whether or not it's necessary to do even GO to that level.

    So you are the authority on where that level is supposed to be? That sounds hypocritical.

    If you think it's appropriate to bring math proofs and IoP journal paper quotes into a discussion about diversity in an MMO to make your "I don't like this change" complaint more valid ... then you believe whatever you want.

    I'm sorry but, if i walk into silicone valley, i better know how to at least understand computer programming at a basic level...it's just a courtesy...or should i stand there and berate them about how they don't know anything, and that i know everything there possibly is to know even though I've never done an ounce of research on coding in my life...that they should cater to MY needs rather than theirs?

    So you think you're being COURTEOUS by presenting your math proofs and such? To who? Definitely not the average forum reader. Maybe you think Anet isn't listening to players complaints because we just don't talk at this academic theory level to them and they think it's rude? There is definitely a balance here, but instead of ranting which is one end of the spectrum, you've gone to the other end with this deep academic connection. I don't think Anet is making decisions based on rants ... but I don't think they are making it academic proofs either because neither of those is practical and sensible.

    Btw the math isn't THAT complicated. Its doable without anything more advanced than basic algebra. We can do it right here, right now if you like.

    Go ahead and do the math ... I don't see the relevance of mathematically proving whatever you want to show because a lack of mathematical proof never prevented Anet from making game changes they wanted in the first place. The game isn't an experiment in a university. The people that create and decide how to change the classes aren't reading IoP on their spare time. If they were, it would cost us ALOT more to play it.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 3, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    So before going into the equation, we need to adjust the terminology a little bit, since this is borrowed from biodiversity. So their terminology is things like "species" and "ecosystems," and stuff like that but I'm going to replace those terms with the appropriate and relevant terms.

    One of the more simple ways to quantify diversity is using the Simpson Diversity Index, which is the following equation
    D= 1-(∑ⁿn^2/N^2))

    Where N is the number of Total number of Organisms of all Species (This is the total amount of players in the sample size)
    and n is the number of organisms of a specific species (This is going to be the number people that play a specific build, which for now, we will classify as 1 of a total of 126 possible build combinations.)

    The Equation above, when we plug in numbers, will give us a value that ranges between 0 and 1. 1 Being Infinite Diversity (Complete Heterogeneity) and 0 Being no diversity at all (complete homogeneity).

    I'm going to show you two examples, and both will kinda show you the range at which the values of the equation take on.

    The First Sample -
    Let's say we go into WvW, and join whatever squads we run into to see the composition of their group. Let's say we also run into at least 1 of the total 126 possible build combinations at least once in these groups, but most of these groups are dominated by the 6 builds you can find on meta-battle. Let's now say that our sample size consists of at least 1000 players, where 121 of them are running those non-meta builds, and the other 879 were running some distribution of those meta builds. This is a close representation of what we see in WvW right now.

    With all the details out of the way, we now want to find N^2. which is 1000^2 = 1,000,000.

    Now we want to find n^2, which would look something like this -
    Build A= 186
    Build B= 299
    Build C=128
    Build D=100
    Build E= 96
    Build F= 70
    Build G1,G3....Gⁿ = ∑ⁿ1^2 (These are all the players we ran into that were running at least one of the other possible non meta builds. When you sum over 1^2 with respect to n, you get 121.

    we continue to find little n by summing for Builds A-F.
    186^2 + 299^2 + 128^2 + 100^2 + 96^ + 70^ = 164,497

    Now we just plug in:
    D= 1-(∑ⁿn^2/N^2))
    D= 1-(164,497/1,000,000))
    D= 1-(0.164497)
    D= 0.835503

    D is the diversity index of this distribution. I'm now going to show you another example, that will give this number a sense of comparison, so that we can see the range of how diverse the system actually is.

    The Second Sample -
    Again, we go into WvW and we join squads to see what they are running. This time, let's pretend that instead of 6 meta builds, there are at about 10 times that...60 meta builds that players choose to play. Again we run with the same sample size of 1000 players, and we see at least 1 of the total 126 possible build combinations where 66 of them are running those non-meta builds, and the other 934 running some distribution of the meta builds.

    Again we follow the same procedure with some distribution, To save myself from writing so much im going to do a shortcut
    D= 1-(∑ⁿn^2/N^2))

    Where N^2 = 1000

    Build A= 15
    Build B= 13
    Build C=14
    Build D=17
    Build E= 13
    Build F1...Fⁿ= some number between 2 - 17 (I'm just going to repeat the same sequence of numbers from builds A through E since doing the calculation for 60 of them is a pain in the kitten)
    Build G1,G3....Gⁿ = ∑ⁿ1^2 (These are all the players we ran into that were running at least one of the other possible non meta builds. When you sum over 1^2 with respect to n, you get 66.

    We now continue to find little n by summing for Builds A-Fⁿ.
    15^2 + 13^2 + 14^2 + 17^2 + 13^2 + Fⁿ^2 = Approx 11,496

    Now we just plug in:
    D= 1-(∑ⁿn^2/N^2))
    D= 1-(11496/1,000,000))
    D= 1-(0.011496)
    D= 0.988504

    The Diversity Index, when we increase the range of viable meta builds from 6 to 60, jumps by only 18%. So you can see that qualitatively, the difference between an index of 0.835503 and 0.988504 is drastic. The same behavior happens in the opposite direction as well, when you close in towards homogeneity, where collapsing the builds closer to 1 causes exponentially less and less diversity. The reason it behaves like this here is because the relation is exponential, where as you get closer to either end of this infinite spectrum between 1 and 0, you are gaining exponentially more increases or decreases in diversity. This is one reason, why changes that effect even just one little tiny build can have a HUGE effect on the diversity of the game.

    Remove one meta build and that index of drops 0.835503 to 0.6 something something...remove another and that 0.6 goes to 0.2 something something... Continue removing viable builds and that diversity collapses closer and closer to 0 until we reach a single meta build (complete homogeneity)

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 3, 2020

    So ... this is essentially a quantification of diversity with a weighted count. OK ... so you have a method ... where did you get your data to apply it to the current situation and what difference did you get in your index based on the rune change?

    I mean ... sure, at the extreme ends of this index, there is wild behaviour because of the governing math ... but that doesn't say anything about the rune change and in addition, this index is measuring the diversity of a whole system ... but you're only focused on one change that you assume drives people to builds that already exist to reduce this diversity ... what is the basis for your assumption?

    You know .. it IS possible that the rune change actually maintains diversity or even increases it (according to your definition) you know. Nothing in that method predetermines that when a build changes, the diversity decreases. If I got 10 people using the 'altruism rune' build and it gets nerfed ... nothing says each of those people don't pick up 10 builds no one uses. That would be a diversity increase according to this method.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 3, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    So ... this is essentially a quantification of diversity with a weighted count. OK ... so you have a method ... where did you get your data to apply it to the current situation and what difference did you get in your index based on the rune change?

    Well the above scenarios are entirely fictitious, but they are meant to represent an approximation of the current state of the game (Build A = Meta Firebrand, Build B = Meta Scourge, Build C= Meta Revenant and so on....) and can be done in practice if you want to go into squads and just see what builds people run, you can find the real index at this very moment right now in the game.

    The equation is meant to illustrate the relationship that diversity has with respect to the other parameters. The most important thing to take away is the comparison between two systems, is logarithmic/exponential. It's like the magnitude of earthquakes and how they are classified on the Richter scale. A magnitude of 10 is 10 times more powerful than a magnitude of 9...and a magnitude of 2 is also 10 times more powerful than a magnitude of 1. But we can agree that both a magnitude of 1 and 2 is pretty negligible while the difference between 9 and 10 is catastrophic. The homogeneous end of this spectrum is like looking at the difference between 9 and 10 on that scale... and on the other end in a heterogeneous side the difference between a 1 and 2. where minut changes in a homogeneous pool are just catastrophic, and minut changes in a highly diverse system are near negligible because of the exponential nature of the equation...

    And this makes sense when we talk about diversity. If we killed a species of bug today on the planet we don't really notice at all because the system is so diverse. but if we killed a species when there are only 2 species left on the planet, that's a big deal. Likewise if we added a species in a world with only 2 species...that's a big deal. So looking at guild wars 2, where the meta is only 5 builds, nuking one of them is a big deal.

    For the rune, i could technically calculate that too. But i don't really have to because i know the result is just gonna be a decrease in the diversity index. Like stated above, If you have 6 builds to choose from because they are the only ones that achieve a goal, and one of them gets essentially removed and you don't replace that with anything, then people will only pick between the 5 builds, and we approach closer to the homogeneous side of the spectrum. The less builds there are that people are choosing especially because of balance changes, the more potent the drop in diversity becomes because of that exponential relationship mentioned above.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 3, 2020

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    For the rune, i could technically calculate that too. But i don't really have to because i know the result is just gonna be a decrease in the diversity index.

    Actually you don't ... because you don't know if people moving from a nerfed build adopt established builds (lowering DI) or builds that no one else plays (increasing it). Again, the build isn't REMOVED ... it's simply changed and there are numerous builds out there no one plays; maybe a number of changes make some of those appealing to people. You could even get an INCREASE in the DIndex ... nothing in the math prevents the DI from going up if a build changes. No, I don't think you can conclude that if a build changes, the diversity goes down. That's not a given based on the math.

    To be frank ... if the definition of diversity is based on how many people play whatever builds, how can you even tell if a change in DI is due to a specific effect? If you can't tell us how much ... why are we assuming it's a 'significant' amount or at all? DI can go down AND up. I mean, there are actually LOTS of reasons for diversity to change and a rune change is just one of them. The number of people play a game mode and choose a specific build for it are numerous and both of these things affect the DI ... how does Anet know if a game change they make is what triggers some change in diversity? DI can't tell you WHY it's changing and when there are so many factors that can change it, it's folly to think a specific DI change could be attributed to a game change.

    In otherwords, it's really great we can measure diversity but it's pretty irrelevant to do so because game changes aren't made in isolation. Therefore, anyone using 'diversity changes' it to argue that a specific game change is bad is just making a contrived argument.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 3, 2020

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    Well that’s where the other parameters come into play that this particular equation doesn’t describe explicitly, but implicitly. It’s described by the following:

    The reason people choose builds is to fulfill some kind of meaningful goal. Most build combinations simply can’t compete and this is why nobody plays them. That’s part of the parameters of the equation, is the number of people choosing to play a build.

    Again I can choose to play some kind of special snowflake build where I just look pretty during a fight...this option probably exists in gw2’s possibility space. This doesn’t mean that my build will be chosen by others, especially in a competitive environment where being able to kill someone or survive a fight is a goal that is meaningful in the game mode. This choosing is part of that equation, in which you might see one person in a squad running some kind of off meta build...

    The reason people don’t play my special snowflake build can be for a multitude of reasons, but the reason is more than likely because it can’t compete with the other options, and consequently is why it’s not one of the meta builds.

    This is where you have to go beyond the scope of just diversity, in that balance and performance plays a key role in deciding what builds can achieve goals and which can not, which by proxy details which builds get chosen by players and which do not. This is a parameter of usefulness, which again has an effect on the diversity Index (by effecting what people will choose to play, which is a parameter in the equation.)

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 3, 2020

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    Well that’s where the other parameters come into play that this particular equation doesn’t describe explicitly, but implicitly. It’s described by the following:

    The reason people choose builds is to fulfill some kind of meaningful goal. Most build combinations simply can’t compete and this is why nobody plays them. That’s part of the parameters of the equation, is the number of people choosing to play a build.

    Again I can choose to play some kind of special snowflake build where I just look pretty during a fight...this option probably exists in gw2’s possibility space. This doesn’t mean that my build will be chosen by others, especially in a competitive environment where being able to kill someone or survive a fight is a goal that is meaningful in the game mode. This choosing is part of that equation, in which you might see one person in a squad running some kind of off meta build...

    The reason people don’t play my special snowflake build can be for a multitude of reasons, but the reason is more than likely because it can’t compete with the other options, and consequently is why it’s not one of the meta builds.

    This is where you have to go beyond the scope of just diversity, in that balance and performance plays a key role in deciding what builds can achieve goals and which can not, which by proxy details which builds get chosen by players and which do not. This is a parameter of usefulness, which again has an effect on the diversity Index (by effecting what people will choose to play, which is a parameter in the equation.)

    OK but this doesn't address my point ... you say that diversity goes down IN THIS CASE because of the rune change ... but you don't know that. In actual fact, we can't attribute a decrease in diversity to ANY particular change because diversity is affected by MANY things at once.

    If you think balancing is only driven by performance and justified by comparisons to other classes then prepare to be educated:

    https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/balance-updates-the-heralds-near-future-and-pvp-league-season-13/

  • What a waste of time. Yes, it's good that it was nerfed. No need to discuss semantics for days.

    Με χίλια ονόματα, μία χάρη, ακρίτας ειτ’ αρματολός, αντάρτης, κλέφτης, παλικάρι; πάντα ειν’ ο ίδιος ο λαός.

  • steki.1478steki.1478 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @diomache.9246 said:
    What a waste of time. Yes, it's good that it was nerfed. No need to discuss semantics for days.

    Imagine bringing math and philosophy into a discussion about a rune being hotfixed in a casual video game kekW

    Deso's favorite FROG
    Master of afk and kiting
    The God of Pips and Gud Deeps
    Froggo himself