razaelll.8324
-
Posts
453 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by razaelll.8324
-
-
4 hours ago, Crozame.4098 said:
Its the quoting system issue. I think the reason is that you quoted him about this, and I just copy pasted the relevant section. Previously, this would also quote him...
But yea, my intention was not arguing with you.
Ahh i see. No worries.
-
46 minutes ago, Crozame.4098 said:
...cannot use complexity on complex issues. emmm.
You need to know usually people use science to give a clear solution to a problem, not something like: when balancing you need to take into account the complexity of the problem; it is complicated; there is no clear answer etc. Like in this thread and in some posts.,people have asked something like ok: X build is OP, if we cannot address the numbers, then how can we make the game more balanced/enjoyable. But the answers were just meh.
I think you know my stance about numbers and that i disagree with Justice on that topic , so i am not sure why you quote me
-
8 minutes ago, Pimsley.3681 said:
Yes!
No name calling, no insults. They conveyed their side using theories and a very very very thorough explanation. In the end, they were friendly and non-toxic.
Such rarity!!!
There was a bit of toxicity here and there, but overall it is very constructive thread with a lot of interesting things and ideas mentioned.
I hope to see more threads like this.
Balancing a game is not an easy task and the typical nerf/buff threads many times are actually doing more bad than good for the game in my opinion, thats why this thread is interesting to me , because people are trying to find a better approach to that complex problem.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Pimsley.3681 said:
This thread is rare. Enjoy and immerse yourself in something rather extraordinary. One thing is for sure, they have a STEM background (Science, Technology, Engineering Math)
Probably masters degree level, even PhD.
Probably economists, professor, engineer, etc....
Probably working in Wall St as investment banking analysts.
I'd say this is one of the best threads ever.
Unfortunately most of the people get bored when science get involved, but this thread is truly awesome in my opinion, because it is constructive.
-
2
-
-
Hello dear Anet,
Today for first time i got disconnected in pvp match and i saw that many people today had problems with getting disconnected.
My last game for today i got disconnected 4 times, another team mate got disconnected 2 times and an enemy player also got disconnected 2 times in the same game, we won that game but i got dishonor and deserter and lost points for winning the game.
In another game today 3 allies and 2 enemies got dced at the same time.. and i had few more disconnects during other matches.
This happens for first time for me. Are the server getting DDoS attacks or something?
Hope you can find and fix that issue.
Good luck and be healthy.
-
1 hour ago, Kolzar.9567 said:
That was what I was trying to explain, but there is a little more to it. It is a process defined on sets of builds. So unlike processes you would encounter in physical phenomena (say currently my cup of tea is at 30 degrees Celsius at 10 seconds from now on, it will be something slightly below, with some randomness in it and I have neat formula to calculate how I expect it to evolve), it is prone to exhibit some problematic behavior (also it has some good behavior because people are doing what is in their best interest given their understanding of the game, but that is a separate issue) that makes complexity of the problem overinflated and at least in my opinion inappropriate to use.
Exactly.
QuoteBut suppose we changed something tiny on the prot holo say we removed one amulet or sigil, now there are 5 counters (again no assumptions on why the player base plays those as counters), which may or may not include the original counter we had in mind. This rapid, discontinuous expanding of the set is a failure of a notion called hemi-continuity. This failure automatically makes your problem very complex regardless of the rest of the real situation, and whatever you assume about player behavior, which makes using complexity not suitable in my opinion
Totaly agree with this.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
There's no problem using evolution 😄 This is exactly what evolution is for...it's one of the most efficient processes to find an answer to a hard problem.
Like i said earlier we agree, there's just confusion on what "a problem" is. By problem I mean "a question." evolution is a way to answer a problem, if not the best way to solve most problems.
exactly.
-
22 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
I can show you what I mean in the form of a picture, using the same example above.
https://i.imgur.com/gd8ZZob.png
In this image, I took one of the paths to the end of a tree (marked red), each line representing a simple addition of the values in the box. I tell you now, that the highest number in this tree game is 45...and now you are asked to verify my answer.
The complexity of this problem is just the the total computation size of the game...the number of boxes, and the operations taken between each box.
If you were one person, you have to travel down all the paths to verify that my answer is either true or false. Your algorithm in this case is slow (a brute force algorithm) that takes you at least 11 steps and at most 28 steps.
If you had 7 people with you to go down the other paths, then you can verify the answer I gave in a much shorter number of steps (4 of them). This is why increasing the number of people acts as an algorithm, because it solves the problem faster. This is the notion for what computational time is and how it changes from algorithm to algorithm.
The problem itself is the tree (which has a definite complexity size). The algorithm here is the number of people traveling on a different path of the tree...When you think about evolution in terms of biology, these other people on the path of this tree are the other animals in the animal kingdom...they verify with each other what the "highest number is" by eating each other, competing for resources, and reproducing. The animals that survive are the "highest number" until they get verified by something else
Hmm.. i am sorry but i still dont see where the problem is to use evolution algorithm to find the optimal state. The idea of EA is optimization and finding optimal state.
May i ask you are you familiar with EA and how they optimize/find best solution for specific problem?
-
4 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
I think there's just a little confusion on what a problem is here. The problem is just a question you want to find an answer too. All questions have answers, and computational complexity is just a measure for how much time it takes you to answer a question. You could have asked any question, and you could have used any algorithm to answer that question.
So even if your question is simple, doesn't mean it doesn't have a complex computation time...it just means that computation time will be small. You can have an addition problem like 15+10+83 =? That's a simply problem that takes a few steps...but it still takes steps. the more steps there are, the harder the problem is. 6+19+1+89+54+16+25+15+14+1+2+5+97... I think you get the idea.
yes i understand the idea, what i fail to understand is how is that related to this :
QuoteI was thinking about that after our last discussion namely: the process of finding the best/optimal builds can be modeled as an evolution process. At least to me the more i think of it more it looks like an evolution process than a complexity computation one.
-
5 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
I see it just slightly slightly differently...that evolution processes are algorithms to a complicated problem. You can kinda see this when you look at the gw2 problem as a decision tree problem. If the best build is somewhere at the end of a very long tree, you have to explore all the paths of this tree. If you are just one person...it's gonna be hard for you to explore all the paths...but with a thousand people taking each path, you are parallel processing that problem, to solve it 1000 times faster.
Not necessarily . In my case i used it to optimize 3 coefficients, which is much more simple task than finding the optimal builds in game as gw2, so in my opinion it can be used without any kind of a problem.
-
15 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
Although this is true, complex computation when we talk about things that are like lotteries, you have to talk about it in terms of statistics. You can get lucky on your first try when buying a lottery ticket, but it's highly unlikely...
Example, if you have a build space with 100 trillion builds that has 1 equilibrium point, and you run one test with an algorithm that picks a build at random, and you just happen to find the fixed point in the first go, doesn't mean that the algorithm is fast...it means it just got lucky...so you run it a couple thousand times...on average it will take a time period that is comparable to 100 trillion times.
Also you can treat it like it wasn't a lottery too, where you simply pick the fixed point, and it's furthest point away from each other. This is how it's normally done in complex computation where you take the worst case scenario (O) when running an algorythm.
Exactly. Or you can also use evolution algorithm to find the best build as i gave example in my prevous post
"This also i have seen in another test which i was working on few years ago. So i used a bacteria evolution algorithm to optimize the performance of line tracing robot car on a specific race track. The output of this algorithm was few parameters(settings) which needed to be setup in the car. So i made a simulator and physical model of the car and a map of the track and let the algorithm to give me the best settings for the car for that specific track. What the algorithm was doing simply is generate the settings put them into the simulator , run a simulation and see how fast the car finishes the track and then compute some changes generate new settings and so on. i started the algorithm 5 times with the same initial settings and all of the times it gave me the same optimal output at the end but the time needed to find that optimal output was different between each full test , because of some randomized changes between each simulation, because it could do more than 1 simple operation between this simulations. So maybe the conclusion here might be that finding the optimal builds is more like an evolution process then an complexity computation, I was think about that after out last discussion namely: the process of finding the best/optimal builds can be modeled as an evolution process. At least to me the more i think of it more it looks like an evolution process than a complexity computation one."
-
14 minutes ago, Kodama.6453 said:
There is a place for this kind of discussion, agreed. However, when @JusticeRetroHunter.7684started insulting the intelligence of others, that's where they went too far. They are just a kitten and while I was interested in the discussion at first, at that point I stopped taking him serious.
He is a bit too agressive some times, but he have some interesting points and the discussion it self is very interesting one in my opinion.
-
4 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
Kolzar presented a model of gw2, that models meta evolution in gw2. He's stated explicitly that computational complexity is not a factor in how fast the system reaches a fixed point. The fixed point is a notion for how much diversity the system has.
His model as far as I've worked it out is this https://i.imgur.com/ZgkbNND.png
Now, my position is that computational complexity must have an impact on the time it takes to reach the fixed point... but he's stated reasons for why it's not the case...I'm trying to work that out but it requires some research on my end.
Based on my knowledge of the model so far, if you were to imagine hopping from one build to the next build to the next build, this takes some finite time to do each step. If each step takes some finite time, then the time should scale with the size of Set S. If Set S is a million possible configuration of builds, and each step takes the playerbase 1 second to compute the cardinality of that build, then if their is only 1 build in the fixed point, it should take time, comparable to a million steps to reach that build.
This turns out to be basically the same derivation that was made by Susskind in that lecture i linked earlier, and you and I had a previous thread dedicated to that derivation.
Anyway i have to do more research into Kolzar's model in order to see where he's getting the notion that complexity time doesn't factor into the model. I've yet to come across such a notion.
Got it thanks for the explanation.
To be honest i agree to his statement and the reason is the following. From our conversation we talked that to go from State A to State F it requires fixed number of computations(operations) depending on the complexity, while for changing the build the case is not that , because you can find the optimal state from the First try or from the n-th try. So the number of tries to find the optimal build of a specific class in not fixed and it can be a random number between 1 try and Maximum number of changes possible to the build.
To be a bit more clear on what i mean lets say for Necro build F is the best option (optimal build) and you are currently using build A you can change the build randomly to build F in the first try (because you can make more than 1 operation between tryes/tests). SO the number of tries(tests) to reach the optimal build is not linear to the complexity.
This also i have seen in another test which i was working on few years ago. So i used a bacteria evolution algorithm to optimize the performance of line tracing robot car on a specific race track. The output of this algorithm was few parameters(settings) which needed to be setup in the car. So i made a simulator and physical model of the car and a map of the track and let the algorithm to give me the best settings for the car for that specific track. What the algorithm was doing simply is generate the settings put them into the simulator , run a simulation and see how fast the car finishes the track and then compute some changes generate new settings and so on. i started the algorithm 5 times with the same initial settings and all of the times it gave me the same optimal output at the end but the time needed to find that optimal output was different between each full test , because of some randomized changes between each simulation, because it could do more than 1 simple operation between this simulations. So maybe the conclusion here might be that finding the optimal builds is more like an evolution process then an complexity computation, I was thinking about that after out last discussion namely: the process of finding the best/optimal builds can be modeled as an evolution process. At least to me the more i think of it more it looks like an evolution process than a complexity computation one.
I am interested on your thoughts about this, also i will be happy to see Kuma's , Kolzar's and Crozame's thoughts too.
-
10 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
The last one, isn't as bad as the first one...its the most ideal solution if one were to pick between the two because that's kind of what we want in the end (heterogeneity) but at the same time when you think about, it's not possible to truly attain. It would have to be a perfect rock paper scissors game...like the real rock paper scissors....otherwise you just get fixed points that are in between and you fall victim to the above loss of free will...where some classes are destined to be bad or good by design.
There's also inconsistencies with the model...like the behavior of the fix point not truly describing what happens at the extreme ends of the model...like if you had a perfect rock paper scissors game, and you removed one build that countered someone, then you have one build that has no counter, and everyone technically should flock to that build...but the fixed point "remains" large when it should be small, and the model doesn't properly describe that kind of behavior.
Exactly , this is not an easy task, specially for classes which are not very interactive as thief for example. The more uninteractive the class is , hardest to make counter to it. Thats why i said previously that it is not good to combine stealth, frontloaded burst and mobility in the same class. Please dont get me wrong i am not saying that thief is OP , i am saying that such classes are hard to balance properly, because they dont have many interactions with others. Also here the synergies between classes has to be taken into consideration and also the mode you are playing , because they reflect a lot on what the meta (optimal setup) is. So the connections and interactions between different builds are very important which makes the balance task even harder and more complex. (Example scourge on its own is not that big of a problem, but when you combine scourge with another support it becomes dominant)
QuoteAnd ya, this is my position. It should be just possible to just chop the system into discrete time intervals, and then each time interval is a computation and this defines a notion of complexity time. I've yet to come across a reason why that's not possible to do in the maths but im working through it
I am not sure that i understand this quote correctly , can you please give me a bit more info about what you mean. Thank you in advance!
-
29 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
That the size of equilibrium point determines the diversity of gw2 and that there are only 2 solutions that have the "largest size" : A) completely homogenized game, or B) a completely rock paper scissors game.
The above is true regardless actually...with or without complexity time involved. However without complexity time involved, then the two options above are the only options we have, and both of them are dead-ends, meaning that there is no real way to balance a game like gw2...no real answer to the diversity problem. The best compromise, is to go for a fixed point somewhere in the middle...it's just that means that some builds will just be destined to be good, and others will not. This is essentially the equivalent to being stripped of freewill...You are no longer free to play the build you want...because in essence, you will eventually play the builds that are in the fixed point solution, any other solution is in the "non viable" section by design.
As far as i remember i said the same thing couple of pages ago, basically you have 2 types of balance.
1. Homogenous where everything is the same;
2. Heterogenous or with other words diverse with everything having a counter. (Rock,paper, scissors)
Higher complexity only increases the time needed to find the optimal builds. Atleast that is my understanding and oppinion on the topic.
The problem with the second type comes when 1 build counter many others (Overpowered build).
-
19 minutes ago, toxic.3648 said:
im not..
i am however making fun of u 🙂
Hmmm... To me it looks like you make fun of your self ..., but what ever you say ...
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Guzzo.5274 said:
/title
Thief has the privilege to pick his fights , so in order to kill it you need to catch it out of position or to try to lure him to overextend and waste his CDs. Most of the times when i have to deal with thief i try to use as much as possible "No Port" terrain and force him to come to me instead of chasing him. About mirage i cannot give much of advice, since i have very limited experience against it as warrior. Hope that helps you a bit.
Have fun and good luck! -
21 minutes ago, Azure The Heartless.3261 said:
Just in case I'm misreading this, I think OP is saying they want to know the matchup for VS thief on warrior AND vs Mirage on warrior, not what to do when 2v1ed.
I could be wrong but that would make more sense. +1 on anything but scourge/tempest isnt gonna end well.
i understood the question the same way as you did.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, toxic.3648 said:
guys wtf..?
this is a game forum. Not a masters degree in philosophy or competition on who can appear the most intelligent ..
all these posts with fancy words and obvious intent on looking intellectual superior are cringe af.
noone is gonna hand u the nobel prize for any of this
pls stop urselves
Nobody forces you to read it.
-
3
-
-
Please STOP removing options from the game!
-
1
-
3
-
-
34 minutes ago, periphery.5421 said:
keeping being bad at math and keep copy pasting the 2 different builds out of thousands of possible build combinations and thinking that's okay because you lack intelligence in all its forms
Are you okay , buddy?
Ronald is right about ele. Tempest is good support at the moment and weaver is one of the best duelists currently.
You are insulitng his intelligence , but you are the one being toxic which is not the smartest way to defend your position ....
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, periphery.5421 said:
Lmao I laughed so hard, thanks. The game is trash XD
This is from 2015
-
53 minutes ago, Pimsley.3681 said:
Maybe it's because you're a nice person, thus the low toxicity experienced 🙂
I believe that toxicity can bother you only if you allow it... You cannot controll how other people act and react to stuff, but you can controll your actions and reactions...
-
33 minutes ago, Pimsley.3681 said:
Let's think of it as a compliment 🙂
The funniest moment i had is when a guardien acused me for being perma immune and using damage hacks as fire weaver when he ate full pyro vortex and then i weaved to fire earth and used earth focus 5
-
1
-
Is it bad to play ranked as a mediocre/learning player?
in Player vs. Player
Posted · Edited by razaelll.8324
In my opinion you should not get discouraged by toxicity of some people and focus on improving your self. Even when you are in bad team try to do your job best , because aways there is something which you can learn and improve on.
If you want to try hard i would recommend you to film some of your games and watch them after that, look for mistakes which you have made and where you can improve on.
Also i think it is good to learn to play different builds, classes and roles so you can adapt and be more useful for the team.
Most important in my opinion is to have fun during the process of learning.
Have fun and good luck.