Jump to content
  • Sign Up

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


Recommended Posts

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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.

@"Mini Crinny.6190"Here, just proof that i'm not jocking you about when i made this engi...i went ingame and /age'd my character 26wDSkP.png153 days = This February.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@Simo.6819 said:.

@"Mini Crinny.6190"Here, just proof that i'm not jocking you about when i made this engi...i went ingame and /age'd my character
26wDSkP.png
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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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 buildB ) 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 buildB ) 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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 toA ) 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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. 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.

So let's REALLY call this what it is ... you simply don't like that builds you play got changed. I can't understand how that is a reasonable complaint since this isn't just how GW2 has worked for 8 years, it's a standard expectation across MMOs. Linking your complaint to diversity isn't really compelling, especially if you have to re-define what diversity means to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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:PJwWVZg.png

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...