Jump to content
  • Sign Up

JusticeRetroHunter.7684

Members
  • Posts

    3,011
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

4,174 profile views

JusticeRetroHunter.7684's Achievements

  1. Playing naked is an extreme example, though pro players do already this kind of thing...but playing naked wasn't the point being made exactly you know lol. In terms of optimal choices with respect to this topic: You want to play a build where the skills you press that have low bases/higher than 1 coefficients, are the stats that you are investing in. The skills that you press with higher bases and lower than 1 coefficients are the stats you want to not invest in, and if you can put them into the stats you actually should invest in, because those stats are better allocated to places where they aren't diminishing. I think very little skills in this game if at all have 0.00 coefficients, but if it did, choosing gear wouldn't matter. Lots of skills fall between 0:00 - 2.00 coefficients, and typically bunker-y 1v1 like skills are the ones with low coefficients and higher bases...so in those bunker-y builds, you actually be better off, utilizing them by not investing into stats since they poorly scale. To some folks, this is just really obvious when you spend a lot of time looking at coefficients...observing how bad the scaling of certain abilities are...wondering why you are bothering to invest in thousands of stats, for just a couple digits of improvement, like for instance on Necro life steal which have like .01 coefficients lol...and you figure out you are much better off running practically any set because no matter what you pick, its gonna perform the same. The games balance design implies that if a skill has a high base value and low coefficient, it means they want that skill to be more universally played, since that property allows the skill to be invariant under stat choices.
  2. For the record : Skills that have lower coefficients are less and less useful the more stats one stacks on. For instance, if you are using a build that does 1000 healing base, and has a healing coeffecient (scaling) of 0, then adding 1000 healing power, does nothing for that skill...it still has 1000 healing whether at 1000 healing power, or 2000 healing power, etc... The same story is true for damage coeffecients. Smaller scaling, means stats have less and less value. So if you are using a build that utilizes skills with high base, and low coefficients (scaling), then the most efficient investment of stats for those skills ends up being not investing in the stats. Likewise, skills that have low bases, and high coefficients, puts greater emphasis on investing in the stat. The following shows three different individuals, one running no armor, another running full ascended celestial, and another with full healing power. No Stat (0 Healing Power) (735 Total) Regeneration 166 per second Rugged Growth 205 per second Evasive Purity 364 per condi cleanse Max Celestial Stat (885 Healing Power) (1049 Total) Regeneration 289 per second Rugged Growth 304 per second Evasive Purity 446 per condi cleanse Max Healer Stat (1900 Healing Power) (1423 Total) Regeneration 443 per second Rugged Growth 431 per second Evasive Purity 549 per condi cleanse Side note: This has nothing to do with your duels btw, i just chose these three skills here since it is tangential to topic of discussion. Notice the diminishing return when more stats are added. Let me simplify what's being said here... and this is a principle of the power scaling in this game so listen carefully: Any skill that has a coefficient less than a 1.00 has a diminishing return on its investment in stats. What does that mean...It means that skills with lower coefficients, benefit more from not investing in those stats. Skills with higher coefficient benefit you more when investing in those stats. Take a look at the differences between someone wearing no armor, and someone wearing celestial, based on the skills that they took (regeneration, Rugged Growth, Evasive Purity) because these are low coefficient spells, this persons build, with respect to these spells, would actually be more optimal not playing on celestials. So I hope you guys getting the picture here...the non-triviality of this game, is such that talking about stats in a vacuum is not enough. Skills, and how they scale is an important factor with how stats interact with them. To take an extreme example...If your entire build just has base values, with 0 coefficient, then the most optimal choice you can make is playing that build with no stat investment...more precisely, adding gear will not change anything about the skills that your pressing. So in reality, Celestial stats can make your build worse (is a worse decision) than another stat set, depending on what kind of build you are playing and how the skills on that build scale with stats.
  3. Dang this thread is still going... Guess what I said when I first commented didn't hit enough: This duel business does not say anything meaningful about celestial stats. I don't share your personal experiences, and neither does anybody else for that matter. If you want actual progress of this discussion made, it would be realizing how pointless this discussion right now actually is until people start formally defining things and not defining them with "personal experiences."
  4. Is there a written version of what they are gonna talk about?
  5. mathematical logic isn't philosophy. It's the opposite : it's supposed to formalize things like philosophy. Mathematical logic is just a fancier way to say math. As I said in the post : This thread will probably continue on until someone formalizes it (defining it's vague terms) in a way that is mathematical (and at the very least logical). Take this quote block for instance: There never was a goal to begin with. This topic started with "Celestial is unbalanced, please remove." There's no argument there until those vague terms are defined in a kind of formal way. As it stands it's like saying "Hey i hate the president he suk" and saying that statement is a meaningful statement to argue about. You wouldn't think saying "fight me" to prove your right about the president suking is acceptable right... This analogy sums up the state of this thread.
  6. Ya I appreciate the effort for sure. I agree that the thread veered off in a non-sensible direction, so what I'm gonna do is just add my 2 cents about this topic, from someone that does formal mathematical logic: From the onset, the statement in the OP of this thread, and similiar threads like this are not provable, because one can always come up with cases in n (n means an arbitrary number of cases. In formal mathematics, this is a set, where n is the set of all numbers) that show the statement is false. Proofs by Induction, are proofs that actually show the statement applies for all cases in n (an infinite number of cases), which is why its a formal proof. In induction, proving a base case, then showing the statement holds in the induction step, means you can recursively apply the logic for each subsequent step. Most arguments do not even have a base case, like in this thread, because the definition of terms is vague. For example, there's no definition of what "balanced" even means. One can still get to a base case, by at least defining the vague terms (And this is the first rung on the ladder, to having a formal argument). So cool, if someone can come up with a base case, then someone can now in practice, apply induction steps to see if that case holds, which normally it can't even get past a first induction step. For example the question : "Why does God have a beard?" is not a formal argument, because of the vague-ness of its terms. What is the definition of "god" and what is the definition of a beard. Once one defines those things, then you can at least have a base case. Obviously, things like "god" can't be defined without its definition also being vague...is god a cat? is god an amorphous sludge? Is God an infinite grid of points? Its a doomed argument in the realm of mathematical logic. There are other forms of proof...Proof by Construction, a proof that one can create an object from the axioms of the logic, or a Proof by Exhaustion, which is brute force checking each case (like an extended form of induction except without making assumptions, so its an even stronger form of inductive proof). True Proofs of exhaustion can not be done, they can only be meaningfully approximated. So why am I droning on about proofs...the point is that this thread does not even have a foundation to stand on, and shouldn't be taken seriously until it's vague terms are actually formally defined. Once those terms are formally defined, one can then formally prove or disprove whether the argument is true or false. Already did this specifically for balance, proving by induction, that for any game that uses numbers, balance operations either make the games elements homogenous, or will fail to prove equivalence relations between it's unique elements, therefor making all balance operations completely arbitrary...thus threads like this are closed in the logic book. Non-trivial games defined by numbers will never have a truly objective parametrization. That's one reason I think this thread even went on as long as it did : one guy over here defines true balance as "having 1v1 duels", the other guy over there thinks true balance is "cause it was done over in PVP man" yada yada yada. What you're going to hear from people is that Celestial stats have more total stats (~5112) than the others (4 stat : ~3610, 3 stat ~3302) and therefor this is what makes it OP. It sounds reasonable. but it obviously fails to account for force multiplication (force multiplication meaning, that one is augmented by the existence of other players in groups, or how traits interact with elements in the game non-trivially, such as diminishing returns, hard limits, or multiplicity and exponential relations). Right like...imagine if I'm a game dev and i made two different announcements in two different parallel universes: 1) I'm going to buff everyone's precision by 30,000 2) i'm going to buff everyone's precision by 1,000,000 Anything above 2600 makes no difference. So would people consider announcement 2, to be more OP than announcement 1 just because it has more stats? No logical person, knowing about the hard limit behavior of critical chance would think so. This is yet another case in n that shuts down induction for the argument...and at that point its case closed...but for people who are really inclined, one can just extend the argument out and find that in order to "truly balance" the stat sets means making them all the same, where every stat has to do the same thing, scale in the same way...and all traits have to do the same stuff, because the uniqueness and nontriviality of the games elements, inevitably imposes this constraint when using mathematical logic.
  7. Ya true, it's a massive risk, probably too much of a risk which is why they've never done it. It's one of those feedback loop-like problems...forced to take the medicine that's also slowly killing you type of thing.
  8. I've known Trevor since forever from dueling arenas. If you've been around long enough in the pvp scene, you'd know this is just a disingenuous statement. PS: Not saying Zyreva is bad btw...i don't know them (name sounds familiar though.) I'd say if they did fight and if he is good, then they would be close in skill space probably
  9. I dont see why they don't just do the same thing that WoW does and let you que for everything at the same time...and whatever comes up first you get to play in that.
  10. Ya, typo. probably meant 4 - 3 - 1, but also sometimes 4 - 4, 5 - 3 and 7 - 1 splits were common.
  11. To give some context to everyone about this topic : GW1 GvG was a game mode where the main objective was to defeat the others guild lord. Additionally there was an optional (but in many cases necessary) job of flag running which would provide morale boosts to the team, which you needed if you had a wipes, because each death gives player a morale penalty. The design and the maps were usually somewhat complex, and in this way you could never usually just rush an enemy guild lord in a single go. The tactics were similar to war: each fight you win you push into the enemies territory a bit deeper…which also meant that same enemy had a) higher priority to flag run and b) closer response time to the fight, culminating in the final battle in the end in the guild lords room. additionally, the design of the game mode encouraged commonly splitting groups, to protect flag runners, or counter pushing into enemy territory…5 v 3 v 1 splits were common. The combination of the above often meant players were constantly shifting in splits…to secure flags, push into territory or defending against getting pushed. Next to late stage Hall of Heroes, it was really top tier PvPing. You could also, back in Gw1 observe guilds fighting and they were just straight up fun to watch. I agree with OP, that this game should have had a GvG mode…maybe it’s not too late but idk maybe it is. It’s kinda depressing to think about what anet could or should have done…so you know…. I think the particular player count doesn’t matter much imo, I think what made gvg a good mode was the ruleset that encouraged (to the point of necessity) players to split up, engaging in complex decision making. Current PvP has elements of this splitting (it’s not optimal to zerg around in 3 way capture) and I think the same would apply even in a 15v15 mode so long as the objectives necessarily impose onto the game, for players to split the group. If you think about Alterac Valley, it is something similar except, except lord rushing was not a viable strategy in gw1 (which therefor made it better) if I remember correctly… it’s been a long time but ya… pretty sure people didn’t (or couldn’t) avoid fighting each other to just rush lords in gvg. If anyone does remember they can correct me there if I am wrong
  12. To be fair, the game was originally about guilds waring (gvg) and a lot of its elements it's always had, were based on that, but Guild Wars became a bit more than just PvP at some point in development and they expanded the name into having lore.
  13. Hello. I understand the idea...that if you have one skill over there that does 10,000 damage, this other one over here that does 200 damage, then players flock to the skill that does 10,000 damage, and that trivializes the other skills...so people's conclusion is that the skill that does 10,000 damage should be nerfed. But this is where these issues start creep in, because that is just an arbitrary choice. You could have just buffed the other skill by 9800. You could have just buffed both skills to do 15,000...or nerfed them both to do 3000 damage, like so : Skill A : 3000 damage Skill B : 3000 damage Skill C : 3000 damage And there’s an infinite number of possible arbitrary operations you could have picked. But worse than that, and i hope the above makes it more visually obvious is...if you want to solve that actual problem you have, which is that players keep choosing the bigger damage skill over the smaller damage skill they must have the same amount of damage, and therefor these two skills which are only defined by giving damage are just instantiations of the same skill, and this is called homogenization. Otherwise you are still left with the same problem you originally had : Players choosing the skill with the biggest number. The way most people try to solve this is to add more unique parameters to the skills, say 10,000 damage in 500 radius, 200 damage in 2000 radius etc...But the problem doesn't go away...because you can't form equivalence statements that show the two unique parameters are equivalent to each other. At this point, the question for this example skill is already undecidable, but once these unique parameters become abstract enough...like say...3s immobilization and 3s of stability. It becomes obvious that one can't form equivalence statements between them. To summarize: The post I made in support of Saltwind, is about how balance, at a fundamental level, is not mathematically sound, as you can't form equivalence statements about things. It doesn't matter what numbers you give to skills...It's "undefinable" unless the game is completely trivialized (homogenous), by virtue of the game having unique elements. In other words : If you want a game with unique elements in it, you can not balance it in a formal...logical...way, by a set of numerical nerf or buff operations. It's as i said earlier you know...this is a hard pill for most people to swallow. I think it's because its such an in-ones-face confrontation to truths people don't want to accept : That some things are not possible...not logical and not definable. This problem is not even a statement about guild wars...this is a bulk statement about balancing in general that applies to any and all games...and extends to mathematics and systems of formal logic themselves...which is typically how we operate in the world, in everything we do as humans. I can't emphasize more, that this is a catastrophic breakdown of some people's worldviews. It certainly was for me 5 years ago. But what is certainly a misconception about this is that numbers are the only option. That's not true...its just not easy to see what the other options are, when we as humans are so geared and focused on numbers, and built our world on formal logic. There's no simple way to put it, but basically instantiation (exploring the space of all possible game interactions) and making that space larger to explore, is how one brings "balance" to the game. Remember...balance isn't real, it doesn't exist...it is just an illusion of our experience of the game as it goes through this instantiation of different behaviors. The idea (at least in a logical sense) would be that you would want the number of unique experiences to be a lot...not just one (unless you want to play a linear-like game, where you want the player to experience only one particular thing) and you want those experiences to be meaningful...which has to do with the depth of the game mechanics...in the words of Saltwind the amount of "cool" in the tools you have available to you. There's a number of ways we can formally define those things...but it boils down into this idea of an exploration space and just giving players the options to explore it...so that when builds show up, other builds are made that suppress those builds...and this problem-solution dynamic in a well designed game, where the game has enough depth...should just continue forever and ever in a meaningful way to us. Hope this addressed your comment, Cheers. Thank you sir. Same to you.
  14. This. I've talked about this subject for years now...but basically I proved a while back mathematically that, numerical balance operations either 1) make the game homogenous and trivial and 2) are completely arbitrary because if the elements being balanced in question are non-trivial, you can't form a proof statement between them about their equivalence. You can then further prove the difficulty of forming proof statements to be equivalent to the halting problem : That such a problem (of trying to form a proof statement between two non-trivial functions, like game mechanics) is undecidable, meaning that you can't ever in principle, build a computer or an algorithm strong or fast enough to make such statements. Since then I've completely formalized that proof into a series of induction proofs, which goes like this : Not only is perfect balance not attainable, the act of (numeric) balancing in and of itself does not work at all...to the point where it is completely and utterly useless. The first claim by induction, is that you can't balance a game with even 2 skills, and therefor not doable for a game with n skills. you can then go further and prove that you can't make proof statements for even 2 unique parameters on a skill, so you can't form equivalence statements for n unique parameters for even a single skill, thus claim 2, proves by induction, the induction for claim 1. Ultimately it boils down into the fact that numbers themselves are arbitrary, relative constructs, so if the game is "made" with numbers, like guild wars 2 then there is no hope in ever balancing even two measly skills, let alone perfect balance of a game with n skills. The problem is far worse then most people think it is...and the beliefs people have about balance fall into the same regime that people like Kurt Gödel set out to disprove with incompleteness against folks like David Hilbert: That any system that uses numbers, can not be consistent, or complete and will fail to make proof statements, such as the ability to prove equivalences between parameters, and skills. And that makes sense intuitively : How does one form objective, numerical equivalence statements about abstract mechanics like radius... when we humans are the ones who derive unique meaning from what radius is supposed to mean to us. The value we derive from it changes...not only between different modes, different players and situations but even across time as more strategies develop. Most folks believe that there exists of this "middle ground" for balance but it's an illusion. It's an illusion because people kinda know what a balanced game should feel like. But this feeling is...a misinterpretation for what this middle ground is, and what actually brings it about...which is captured by your statement here : "I've come to think that perhaps these games should just give players a really cool tool set" This here, is the answer...it is the middle ground...the utopia people subconsciously want but don't know how to describe or get to it, because to understand why that is the answer rather than buffing and nerfing things, requires very deep deep knowledge about stuff people are not ready to hear which is why its a hot take. But basically numbers ultimately don't matter...they are just constructs we use to make sense of a world that is instantiating "the set of all possible rules" and that quote is the only way to describe what it is that we experience as the balance state of a game. We are experiencing this game enumerating different behaviors, different mechanics and instantiations of a set of abstract, non-trivial elements... There's no way to actually box that in, with an objective numerical representation, only a subjective one...and that is the biggest red pill most people don't want to swallow : Game balance is not real...Game Balance is more or less, a statement about us players, playing the game, and experiencing it in all of its complexity, and what behaviors arise from those experiences, and that can not be truly defined without completely liquidating those unique experiences. There's other more mathematical reasons why creation alone (specifically creating options for players to generate solutions to problems by exploring the space of possible builds) is the right answer to how to get to this balance middle ground, but I don't wanna bog this down with too much of that...but you already expressed it in your comment : The more build options that exist, the more likely you are to find counters in the space of possible builds, to the build that your playing, thus smothering outlier builds...This comes from a mathematical quirk (but i think this is rather intentional by nature) to how creation and instantiation of things, has a much more meaningful quality to it then removing, and destroying them. Anyway I don't want anyone to get me wrong, i think numbers do serve purposes. Just not in the way we think they should have. For instance, to make it more obvious: a skill having .0000001 second cooldown, or a 5 year cooldown, matters to us... but only in relative, subjective terms. There's a limit to what us human people can care about because that is the limit of our senses and what not so there's no need to "go overboard" with the idea; they serve a purpose but just not an objective one. Cheers,
×
×
  • Create New...