PVP Rejuvenation

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

19 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

Interesting. I agree that the condensing of professions into set roles has been a long building problem. In your view, would a better way to handle the condensing of viable play styles for certain classes to be to expand the capability of classes to fulfill multiple roles with one build, or be to fulfill multiple roles depending on the build used?

 

The concept of roles is an arbitrary construct that is created by the player-base. A role is something we believe a set of things does, that helps achieve a goal that we have in mind. What we also do, is compare these sets of things, to see which one achieves the goal more and more efficiently.

 

For example, we have a set of four things:

stick

fork

pen

spoon

 

Each thing here can achieve the same purpose: a tool for eating food. In this sense we give all these objects the same role (to eat food with). but what we also do, is compare how efficient they are at achieving that goal, with relation to one another. That efficiency, varies in relation to other things: What kind of food are we eating. A fork is gonna be more efficient at eating pasta, then it will be eating soup...but a spoon will be more efficient at eating soup then eating a noodles...and a stick is gonna be the best at eating noodles and so on...You should also observe that the purpose : a tool for eating food, is also arbitrary, and we could have evaluate these objects based on a huge number of possible purposes (what makes the best weapon? Best tool to give to a child? so on and so on...)

 

The point of this example above, is that when things exist, it is us human players, that relegate the idea of roles to the things that just "abstractly exist" without any objective purpose. These constructs are completely arbitrary, but they interact in relation to each other based on what we as humans believe are important to us.

 

You can play a tank as a dps...you can play a healer as a tank...you can play a dps as a healer...none of these things say how useful they are in those roles...it is us humans that first create the role for the desired goal, and then we measure and derive these properties, based on the roles we assigned them. For example...you can have a healer, that is a useful tank, which is based on us measuring (with an arbitrary measuring apparatus) whether they are able to survive encounters and not die...we might also even say that a healer can be a +1 decapper if they have some properties that make them suitable for de-capping, and +1ing other players...and the list of possible roles we could create are in some sense infinite...

 

So the issue of roles, is that they shouldn't be "built-in" to the classes...we already do that as a function of our human existence. Things just merely have to "exist" to a capacity where people can find it useful for something. In fact, the creation of roles, should be a consistently novel discovery process...not one handed down from us by A-net, because otherwise, choice becomes illusory and players discover the most optimal game state too fast (the meta game). 

 

Discovering new roles, and new builds to fulfill new roles, is how the game should work...because that is what real diversity is...it is a self-referential phenomena (like a fractal) where diversity just grows more and more and more, as a function of more and more things existing at larger levels of complexity.

 

There is a game designer that goes into these ideas on a basic level named Will Wright. Beyond him, Wright mentions a name in this lecture, a computer scientist named Stephan Wolfram, who spent his life trying to understand the exact problem that we are staring in the face when it comes to guild wars 2 balance/diversity...and thus the problem of balance/diversity/game design are all intertwined with the nature of what balance and diversity even is. They are deep scientific concepts and most people ignore this fact about the problem.

 

TLDR:

"In your view, would a better way to handle the condensing of viable play styles for certain classes to be to expand the capability of classes to fulfill multiple roles with one build, or be to fulfill multiple roles depending on the build used?"

 

The answer to this, is that this is not the right question to ask...as we presuppose the solution has to be one of these two things. Instating roles into classes should not exist and be pre-programmed into the game, as creating a class to already have a role, defeats the purpose of having options to choose from. If your spec is designed to be a +1 Decapper...then all 9 of your options are gonna be designed for you to play this so why even bother giving us options at all? It's basically homogenization just wrapped in a much prettier looking bow-tie. Pre-ordained roles with options is just an "illusion" that you have some kind of choice.

Edited July 16, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[oscuro.9720]

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

The concept of roles is an arbitrary construct that is created by the player-base. A role is something we believe a set of things does, that helps achieve a goal that we have in mind. What we also do, is compare these sets of things, to see which one achieves the goal more and more efficiently.

 

For example, we have a set of four things:

stick

fork

pen

spoon

 

Each thing here can achieve the same purpose: a tool for eating food. In this sense we give all these objects the same role (to eat food with). but what we also do, is compare how efficient they are at achieving that goal, with relation to one another. That efficiency, varies in relation to other things: What kind of food are we eating. A fork is gonna be more efficient at eating pasta, then it will be eating soup...but a spoon will be more efficient at eating soup then eating a noodles...and a stick is gonna be the best at eating noodles and so on...You should also observe that the purpose : a tool for eating food, is also arbitrary, and we could have evaluate these objects based on a huge number of possible purposes (what makes the best weapon? Best tool to give to a child? so on and so on...)

 

The point of this example above, is that when things exist, it is us human players, that relegate the idea of roles to the things that just "abstractly exist" without any objective purpose. These constructs are completely arbitrary, but they interact in relation to each other based on what we as humans believe are important to us.

 

You can play a tank as a dps...you can play a healer as a tank...you can play a dps as a healer...none of these things say how useful they are in those roles...it is us humans that first create the role for the desired goal, and then we measure and derive these properties, based on the roles we assigned them. For example...you can have a healer, that is a useful tank, which is based on us measuring (with an arbitrary measuring apparatus) whether they are able to survive encounters and not die...we might also even say that a healer can be a +1 decapper if they have some properties that make them suitable for de-capping, and +1ing other players...and the list of possible roles we could create are in some sense infinite...

 

So the issue of roles, is that they shouldn't be "built-in" to the classes...we already do that as a function of our human existence. Things just merely have to "exist" to a capacity where people can find it useful for something. In fact, the creation of roles, should be a consistently novel discovery process...not one handed down from us by A-net, because otherwise, choice becomes illusory and players discover the most optimal game state too fast (the meta game). 

 

Discovering new roles, and new builds to fulfill new roles, is how the game should work...because that is what real diversity is...it is a self-referential phenomena (like a fractal) where diversity just grows more and more and more, as a function of more and more things existing at larger levels of complexity.

 

There is a game designer that goes into these ideas on a basic level named Will Wright. Beyond him, Wright mentions a name in this lecture, a computer scientist named Stephan Wolfram, who spent his life trying to understand the exact problem that we are staring in the face when it comes to guild wars 2 balance/diversity...and thus the problem of balance/diversity/game design are all intertwined with the nature of what balance and diversity even is. They are deep scientific concepts and most people ignore this fact about the problem.

 

TLDR:

"In your view, would a better way to handle the condensing of viable play styles for certain classes to be to expand the capability of classes to fulfill multiple roles with one build, or be to fulfill multiple roles depending on the build used?"

 

The answer to this, is that this is not the right question to ask...as we presuppose the solution has to be one of these two things. Instating roles into classes should not exist and be pre-programmed into the game, as creating a class to already have a role, defeats the purpose of having options to choose from. If your spec is designed to be a +1 Decapper...then all 9 of your options are gonna be designed for you to play this so why even bother giving us options at all? It's basically homogenization just wrapped in a much prettier looking bow-tie. Pre-ordained roles with options is just an "illusion" that you have some kind of choice.

I think you misunderstand my intent, which is reasonable given I didn’t explain very in depth. My apologies for not being as precise and explanatory as I could’ve been. 
 

Yes, roles are artificial constructs created by the player base, and I agree that roles should not be baked into classes, very much for the very reasons you stated. However, to ignore the desired end state of a creation is not a good strategy imo. That’s not to say you should design into an end state, but rather know which end states would constitute a successful system, which is what I intended to ask with my question. I did not intend to presuppose that roles or builds are things that should be predetermined during the design process. Again, sorry if that wasn’t clear, that’s my fault for a lack of information provided. 
 

I used the terminology of “roles” because roles will inherently arise in an mmo due to the fact that they are played-created. Players need some sort of hueristic around which to organize, and roles are just the name for that heuristic. Just as you state that diversity needs organic, randomly arising gameplay styles, it also needs some form of structure, otherwise it descends into chaos, which isn’t good either. This is not to say what the roles are, how many roles there are, etc. I am using roles as a very loose term for when the system of the game is fleshed out by players and some form of order has been derived from the chaos. 
 

So my question was, using more precise language, in the end of the implementation of the system, would you want classes to be able to fulfill multiple roles from its base state with the role determined by a player’s choice of actions while in combat, or would you want classes to be able to fulfill multiple roles depending on the player choices made when setting up their character prior to combat? Or would a successful system be an amalgamation of the two in your view? 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

4 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

So my question was, using more precise language, in the end of the implementation of the system, would you want classes to be able to fulfill multiple roles from its base state with the role determined by a player’s choice of actions while in combat, or would you want classes to be able to fulfill multiple roles depending on the player choices made when setting up their character prior to combat? Or would a successful system be an amalgamation of the two in your view? 

 

I see what you are saying, thanks for clarifying.

 

However, the answer doesn't change much but it would be something like option three which is an amalgamation of the two. If the system is good, players can achieve both or neither if they decide to do so, at whatever time they wish that to be the case. 

 

An example of one of these cases, where "neither" is an option, is taking "runners" from Guild Wars 1. These were troll builds in Random Arena where a ranger or assassin would equip only running skills, and when their teammates died (because it was effectively a 3v4 as the ranger is not useful for engaging in fights), they would run around the map while the enemy chased them to no avail until the match ended and they lose anyway. To those rangers, their skills served a purpose to them (to annoy everyone) and even though this role is meaningless and degenerate to us, these skills that allowed that to happen were useful to that player in achieving that goal. Other similar griefing builds existed...like Suicide Necromancers that would just blow themselves up with self sacrifice skills at the beginning of a match.

 

It might seem reasonable to think this kind of play should not be allowed, and that skills should funnel players into a specific playstyle...but is that actually reasonable? 

 

There were builds based largely on these same suicide skill interactions which were amazing to behold: Dark Aura Bombers...that had important usage in Fort Aspen-wood, Jade Quarry as well as a brilliant and probably my favorite team build in Hero's Ascent : Contagion Spike.

 

So by and large...it is up to the players to decide what roles they want to fill...how many they want to fulfil at any given time or none at all if that is their desire. Skills and options should therefor be looked at as tools to achieve goals (any arbitrary number of them) and what follows is that the requirement for designing skills, is asking if it's useful. Useful is a bit of a vague term...but by and large usefulness is correlated with how well it interacts with other things. That's also somewhat vague, but it deals with the level of depth skills have....and asking how rich are the interactions, both with other skills, and the environments with which they are played in.

 

Just another example, these "runner builds" used skills that are not out of the ordinary...they were just regular speed boosts that practical everyone had, and in some cases, if the last player alive had more running skills equipped then the opponent and they decide to run away, they can force a win where running was the winning strategy. So the fact that Skill A could be used in a fight AND be used in these troll-y runner builds is a reflection of the level of depth skills have with other skills and the environments they are played in. 

 

Hope that cleared up my answer a bit.

 

TLDR: The idea of roles should remain arbitrary...whether that is before combat or during combat, deciding whether to take on a singular role during a match, or deciding whether to take on multiple roles during a match...the skills one brings are merely tools with which players get to decide how to use those tools. The tools should not dictate to the players on how to play them. Making skills that are of this depth requires deep system-design knowledge. Very similar to how a program like "Paint" works, the program doesn't tell you what you should draw...it merely gives you tools to draw whatever you want.

Edited July 16, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[oscuro.9720]

2 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

I see what you are saying, thanks for clarifying.

 

However, the answer doesn't change much but it would be something like option three which is an amalgamation of the two. If the system is good, players can achieve both or neither if they decide to do so, at whatever time they wish that to be the case. 

 

An example of one of these cases, where "neither" is an option, is taking "runners" from Guild Wars 1. These were troll builds in Random Arena where a ranger or assassin would equip only running skills, and when their teammates died (because it was effectively a 3v4 as the ranger is not useful for engaging in fights), they would run around the map while the enemy chased them to no avail until the match ended and they lose anyway. To those rangers, their skills served a purpose to them (to annoy everyone) and even though this role is meaningless and degenerate to us, these skills that allowed that to happen were useful to that player in achieving that goal. Other similar griefing builds existed...like Suicide Necromancers that would just blow themselves up with self sacrifice skills at the beginning of a match.

 

It might seem reasonable to think this kind of play should not be allowed, and that skills should funnel players into a specific playstyle...but is that actually reasonable? 

 

There were builds based largely on these same suicide skill interactions which were amazing to behold: Dark Aura Bombers...that had important usage in Fort Aspen-wood, Jade Quarry as well as a brilliant and probably my favorite team build in Hero's Ascent : Contagion Spike.

 

So by and large...it is up to the players to decide what roles they want to fill...how many they want to fulfil at any given time or none at all if that is their desire. Skills and options should therefor be looked at as tools to achieve goals (any arbitrary number of them) and what follows is that the requirement for designing skills, is asking if it's useful. Useful is a bit of a vague term...but by and large usefulness is correlated with how well it interacts with other things. That's also somewhat vague, but it deals with the level of depth skills have....and asking how rich are the interactions, both with other skills, and the environments with which they are played in.

 

Just another example, these "runner builds" used skills that are not out of the ordinary...they were just regular speed boosts that practical everyone had, and in some cases, if the last player alive had more running skills equipped then the opponent and they decide to run away, they can force a win where running was the winning strategy. So the fact that Skill A could be used in a fight AND be used in these troll-y runner builds is a reflection of the level of depth skills have with other skills and the environments they are played in. 

 

Hope that cleared up my answer a bit.

 

TLDR: The idea of roles should remain arbitrary...whether that is before combat or during combat, deciding whether to take on a singular role during a match, or deciding whether to take on multiple roles during a match...the skills one brings are merely tools with which players get to decide how to use those tools. The tools should not dictate to the players on how to play them. Making skills that are of this depth requires deep system-design knowledge. Very similar to how a program like "Paint" works, the program doesn't tell you what you should draw...it merely gives you tools to draw whatever you want.

Okay, thank you for the clarification of response. Very well thought out and, for the most part, I agree. I asked this because in my view the two options are the only two left for GW2, as I feel the extensiveness of reworks required to reach your described ideal state of diversity is an unrealistic expectation, but somewhat stricter systems that have aspects of added diversity are still  achievable and could still create an enjoyable level of diversity and balance in the game. Just my opinion though, I’m by no means correct, and there could very well be simpler ways to achieve it by altering the current system than I am currently imagining. 🙂

 

I always enjoy reading your thoughts, as they are extensively fleshed out and operate on some very interesting theories (you linked some for me in the past, they were very enjoyable reading). Take care :) 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

Okay, thank you for the clarification of response. Very well thought out and, for the most part, I agree. I asked this because in my view the two options are the only two left for GW2, as I feel the extensiveness of reworks required to reach your described ideal state of diversity is an unrealistic expectation, but somewhat stricter systems that have aspects of added diversity are still  achievable and could still create an enjoyable level of diversity and balance in the game. Just my opinion though, I’m by no means correct, and there could very well be simpler ways to achieve it by altering the current system than I am currently imagining. 🙂

 

I always enjoy reading your thoughts, as they are extensively fleshed out and operate on some very interesting theories (you linked some for me in the past, they were very enjoyable reading). Take care 🙂

 

To an extent, I agree. the state of that game, requires reworks to skill mechanics (not just numerical changes) and the kinds of reworks involved, takes knowledge that I don't think A-net has. The instruction set is in some sense very simple: rework skills so that they are useful. But there's more to it then just making things useful. I said this earlier, but making good systems is somewhat of an artform... it takes a certain knowledge base, and I even think A-net has to some extent this intuition, and possibly this intention but they don't have the knowledge.

 

I also think that if A-net had spent the past three years reworking the mechanics skills and traits, rather than adjusting numbers class by class, by now we could have been to such a state. But instead much time has been wasted on adjusting numbers...and that notion that number changes are meaningless is another huge huge problem. There's a video by the same guy (Stephan Wolfram) that has a lecture on why numbers are meaningless (arbitrary constructs created by humans) and that the underlying mechanism for how the world works is based on rules (for us these are mechanics, game ruleset, systems) and that makes perfect perfect sense to me. It's hard to translate why such an obvious and simple concept applies to us here...using the words of a computer scientist, but this is the kind of knowledge base we are talking about and what is needed. It's deep and expecting A-net to "get it" and "apply it" might never happen. 

 

This is the lecture I'm referring to about that. Don't even need to watch the whole thing, just the segment 14:28 - 26:22. The entire thing is fascinating, and I recommend watching the whole thing...but just to TLDR it: numbers are arbitrary constructs (balance is therefor not a thing that is possible) and how the world works is based on rules, how those rules behave and how that behavior effects systems. (maybe I already linked this to you a while ago, lol but just incase I didn't, and for others to engage with it, just humor the posting. Cheers.)

 

Edited July 17, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Eddie.9143]

The core engineer AI trainer thing doesn't even have an updated rifle. It almost doesn't even fire the kitten thing lol.

 

I think an entirely new pvp area would be great. All new elite specs, updated ai, twice the size free for all arena with a king of the hill feature.

 

One vendor that sells EVERYTHING you need to clear out your pvp inventory without having to type a single item's name.

 

A totally free camera for spectator mode watching ffa and the king of the hill battles 

 

Role selection with locked classes.

TRUE solo queue 

 

Make the rating system based off of top stats and match performance along with whether you win or lose, a way to make it harder on win traders and manipulators 

 

[oscuro.9720]

15 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

To an extent, I agree. the state of that game, requires reworks to skill mechanics (not just numerical changes) and the kinds of reworks involved, takes knowledge that I don't think A-net has. The instruction set is in some sense very simple: rework skills so that they are useful. But there's more to it then just making things useful. I said this earlier, but making good systems is somewhat of an artform... it takes a certain knowledge base, and I even think A-net has to some extent this intuition, and possibly this intention but they don't have the knowledge.

 

I also think that if A-net had spent the past three years reworking the mechanics skills and traits, rather than adjusting numbers class by class, by now we could have been to such a state. But instead much time has been wasted on adjusting numbers...and that notion that number changes are meaningless is another huge huge problem. There's a video by the same guy (Stephan Wolfram) that has a lecture on why numbers are meaningless (arbitrary constructs created by humans) and that the underlying mechanism for how the world works is based on rules (for us these are mechanics, game ruleset, systems) and that makes perfect perfect sense to me. It's hard to translate why such an obvious and simple concept applies to us here...using the words of a computer scientist, but this is the kind of knowledge base we are talking about and what is needed. It's deep and expecting A-net to "get it" and "apply it" might never happen. 

 

This is the lecture I'm referring to about that. Don't even need to watch the whole thing, just the segment 14:28 - 26:22. The entire thing is fascinating, and I recommend watching the whole thing...but just to TLDR it: numbers are arbitrary constructs (balance is therefor not a thing that is possible) and how the world works is based on rules, how those rules behave and how that behavior effects systems. (maybe I already linked this to you a while ago, lol but just incase I didn't, and for others to engage with it, just humor the posting. Cheers.)

 

You did not share this particular lecture with me I don’t think, I will watch the lecture later, thank you. As for numbers not applying, admittedly not having listened to the lecture yet (don’t have headphones with me, usually come on here on mobile in the small gaps in my day), I am not entirely convinced that is entirely true in this case. I do agree that an incessant focus on number balancing is not good and that reworking things to be functionally useful is more important than the numbers. 
 

You say “much time has been wasted on adjusting numbers...and that notion that number changes are meaningless is another huge huge problem”. I need a bit of clarification on what you mean by this. Are you saying that time has been wasted on numbers, but in saying that it implies that numbers are meaningless, which is not true? Or that the implication of number changes being useless is a problem for the balancing attempts Anet has been doing the past few years, which are predominantly focused on numbers? I’m assuming it’s the latter. 
 

As for numbers being meaningless, arbitrary constructs of human invention, I have to fundamentally disagree with that. Their form is certainly arbitrary, but numbers are derived from the organization of phenomenon in our universe. The fact that 1 is the symbol that represents one has nothing to do with them being arbitrary. For example, if there are three moons when you look up, the concept of three is derived from the existence of of natural phenomenon being grouped and categorized in the human brain due to the way they have naturally organized. Similarly, mathematics based fields are, predominantly, based on translating natural phenomenon into numbers so it’s readily communicable, but the numbers and equations themselves are not arbitrary. They are as close to objective a thing as humanity has made. Now, again, I have not listened to the lecture and will, because the topic is interesting. He could very well address this, idk. But I’m illustrating this because it leads to the concept that number changes aren’t inherently flawed balance approaches in my view. It’s only flawed when it’s used to compensate for underlying design flaws. 
 

Let’s look at two skills; final thrust and 100blades. 100blades is, mechanically, and okay skill imo. It has high costs of use, but it’s niche functionality pairs very nicely with the amount of lockdown in warriors kit. However, it is currently not good, not because of design, but because it’s numbers are so low, it only confers a 2% damage increase over the auto attack. Meanwhile, Final Thrust is a numerically okay skill, but it’s functionality is poor and doesn’t fit the kit particularly well. This is a skill where adjusting the numbers is pretty meaningless IMO, and it should be reworked to have a better mechanical function (I.e. be a short, ground targeted dash), which would give the skill, and the whole weapon kit more use and ability. Balancing numbers is important because they are expressions of how the skills actually play out in the game, though the amount of balance that can be achieved through numbers alone is limited, and more likely to lead to a more homogenous environment. 
 

I don’t think we are really far off in what we are saying, I’m just less rooted in the idea that numbers and a bit of rigidity is as prohibitive as you seem to be. I could definitely be wrong though 🙂 

Edited July 17, 2022 by oscuro.9720

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

20 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

You did not share this particular lecture with me I don’t think, I will watch the lecture later, thank you. As for numbers not applying, admittedly not having listened to the lecture yet (don’t have headphones with me, usually come on here on mobile in the small gaps in my day), I am not entirely convinced that is entirely true in this case. I do agree that an incessant focus on number balancing is not good and that reworking things to be functionally useful is more important than the numbers. 
 

You say “much time has been wasted on adjusting numbers...and that notion that number changes are meaningless is another huge huge problem”. I need a bit of clarification on what you mean by this. Are you saying that time has been wasted on numbers, but in saying that it implies that numbers are meaningless, which is not true? Or that the implication of number changes being useless is a problem for the balancing attempts Anet has been doing the past few years, which are predominantly focused on numbers? I’m assuming it’s the latter. 
 

As for numbers being meaningless, arbitrary constructs of human invention, I have to fundamentally disagree with that. Their form is certainly arbitrary, but numbers are derived from the organization of phenomenon in our universe. The fact that 1 is the symbol that represents one has nothing to do with them being arbitrary. For example, if there are three moons when you look up, the concept of three is derived from the existence of of natural phenomenon being grouped and categorized in the human brain due to the way they have naturally organized. Similarly, mathematics based fields are, predominantly, based on translating natural phenomenon into numbers so it’s readily communicable, but the numbers and equations themselves are not arbitrary. They are as close to objective a thing as humanity has made. Now, again, I have not listened to the lecture and will, because the topic is interesting. He could very well address this, idk. But I’m illustrating this because it leads to the concept that number changes aren’t inherently flawed balance approaches in my view. It’s only flawed when it’s used to compensate for underlying design flaws. 
 

Let’s look at two skills; final thrust and 100blades. 100blades is, mechanically, and okay skill imo. It has high costs of use, but it’s niche functionality pairs very nicely with the amount of lockdown in warriors kit. However, it is currently not good, not because of design, but because it’s numbers are so low, it only confers a 2% damage increase over the auto attack. Meanwhile, Final Thrust is a numerically okay skill, but it’s functionality is poor and doesn’t fit the kit particularly well. This is a skill where adjusting the numbers is pretty meaningless IMO, and it should be reworked to have a better mechanical function (I.e. be a short, ground targeted dash), which would give the skill, and the whole weapon kit more use and ability. Balancing numbers is important because they are expressions of how the skills actually play out in the game, though the amount of balance that can be achieved through numbers alone is limited, and more likely to lead to a more homogenous environment. 
 

I don’t think we are really far off in what we are saying, I’m just less rooted in the idea that numbers and a bit of rigidity is as prohibitive as you seem to be. I could definitely be wrong though 🙂 

 

The lecture definitely explores this problem very well, but let me give some context from the perspective of Guild Wars 2, and why I personally believe in such a thing. Be prepare to read an extremely long post, because it goes pretty deep.

 

Around 4 or 5 years ago, I believed in the same set of solutions; that the answer to the balance problem must be some simple set of numerical nerfs or some numerical buffs. But as I started probing deeper into the problem, it became more and more of a mystery as to why that would actually be the case. It wasn't until around the summer of 2020 where I realized that numbers were meaningless. It wasn't until 2021 where I found Wolfram's work, which pretty much confirmed my suspicions to be true.

 

My research into the problem started in November 2019 by asking some very simple questions about the February 2020 balance philosophy, which was working out the consequences of nerfing everything in the game, and whether such a procedure would create balance. One such experiment to conduct was to take two skills, and attempt to balance them, and take the nerf everything philosophy to it's logical conclusion, which is what happens when you nerf all skills in the game one after the next until you reach "the end." I found that such a procedure, even with just two skills, is simply impossible to do.

 

Say you have a set of skills...classes...whatever, which are only defined by a single number, and your goal was to balance them:

10

30

100

500

 

The operation to achieve balance of these skills at first seems trivial, where we simply nerf and buff each number with a simple arithmetical operation:

 

10 +240   =250

30 +220   =250

100 +150 =250

500 -250  =250

 

All 4 numbers equal to 250, it's perfectly balanced.

 

But, upon closer inspection, aside from the fact that they are all homogenous...you realize that this isn't the only set of operations you could have done... you could have done for example :

 

10 +1240   =1250

30 +1220   =1250

100 +1150 =1250

500 +750  =1250

 

In fact, there's an infinite number of possible operations you could have chosen on the number line to achieve perfect balance.

 

So okay it's strange that we could have chosen any procedure to achieve perfect balance irregardless of an all nerf or all buff philosophy...so what if we made the example more complex, where instead of defining each skill or class by a single number, we have each skill have a subset of two numbers, where one might be "power" and another might be "speed." Surely we can adjust the numbers here so that each subset can have it's attributes be heterogenous, but still add up to the same number to achieve balance... 

 

Skill 1

Power = 10

Speed = 500

 

Skill 2

Power = 30

Speed = 480

 

Skill 3

 

Power = 100

Speed = 410

 

Skill 4

Power = 500

Speed = 10

 

 

Above, each subset adds up to get you 510. It seems like we have done it...we've achieved balance! But something still seems wrong here... how do we know that "500 speed"  is worth 10 power? Or that 500 speed isn't more overpowered than 500 power? Is what we just did objective and logical or did we commit some kind of fallacy? And the problem is that it is indeed a fallacy. We ASSUMED that speed and power must be equivalent to one another in order to say that "500 power" is equivalent to having "500 speed" when this might not actually be the case.

 

This now get's into the final step of this problem, which is looking at a real set of skill mechanics: Balance Immobilization and Stability as one would with the above procedure. Is it possible? How does one even go about measuring that X amount of Stability is somehow equivalent to Y amount of immobilization? 

 

The above question is impossible to answer...because we can't give a numerical description that justifies that assumed equivalence. This is the issue being presented in that lecture at 19:35 - 20:05...where trying to arithmetically parametrize (count) "cloud, gusts of wind, abstract ideas," it becomes unclear whether such a parametrization is possible...whether it even makes sense to state that this gust of wind, is the same as this other gust of wind and things like this... At 22:36 he states that what follows, is that most things, in principle can not be "reduced" to a point where one can parametrize it's behavior with numbers, and that the only thing that can, is the thing itself. This phenomenon is called "Computational Irreducibility" but to put it in gw2 terms...it's that trying to parametrize immobilization and stability, is a computationally irreducible process...and that the only thing that can parametrize it's behavior, is the game itself being played by players that are parametrizing it's behavior through the interactions it has with all the other skills. It's important to understand the implications of this conclusion here...because it makes concrete...that the game can not in principle ever be balanced...as there's no way to parametrize with numbers, the complex behavior of simple and abstract mechanics.

 

There's another pretty shocking conclusion to be made here...which follows from confronting that realization: What if we didn't try to achieve perfect balance then? Is close enough balance actually good enough balance?

 

Say if we aren't balancing the game with the intention of making things equal...then what exactly are we doing with our operations...

 

10 +280   =290

30 +320   =350

100+180  =280

500 -170  =330

 

We are purposefully making them unequal...which is on top of the fact that we have no way to even parametrize what it is we are doing while making them unequal. This truth becomes more and more shocking but also makes more and more sense as to why numerical changes seem more and more meaningless as time marches forward.

 

If that wasn't enough right...but there is more...

 

We mentioned earlier, that as we make all these skills "equal" they all seem to collapse to the same number (250). The reason this happens is because we are simultaneously stripping away from them the properties that make them different from one another. Therefor diversity and balance are mutually exclusive properties. The reason this is the case is because they are both equivalent to each other and are just different aspects of a singular unified mechanism, which can be described as "system evolution" where systems change from going from maximally heterogeneous, to homogenous over time (a process of entropy). 

So doing "close enough" balance is actually just stripping away heterogeneity, for homogeneity.

 

What we are dealing with here is a paradox between balance and diversity and trying to put a square peg into a round hole. It is simply not the way to approach the problem. Wolfram, allthough he doesn't go into it to much in this lecture, identified what this unifying mechanism is, with a principle called "Computational Equivelence" which is that in essence, all systems both physical, and computational are equivalent to one another...and that this is why diversity and balance are both unified concepts. It seems obvious that if you are gonna have a theory of everything, then everything must emerge from the same construct. Wolfram's construct is the notion that computational rules are fundamental to the universe, where physics is just one of many computational rules. That topic is itself something that is way bigger than a Guild Wars 2 discussion, but it is part of the knowledge base required to understand why diversity and balance are paradoxical, and yet unified properties of systems, which is necessary to talk about for gw2 diversity/balance discussion.

 

Sorry for the extremely long post...You can tell perhaps that the subject is expansive and can be exhausting to talk about...it's 3-ish years of research exclusively on this subject condensed into a forum post, and honestly the topic here is dropping one bombshell after another...so it's hard for folks to grapple with the subject, and it can be difficult for me to even explain it in a concise way...in many ways it goes completely against our intuitions. Like mentioned in the beginning, I was just like everyone else...until I really started questioning those intuitions. The idea that numbers are meaningless was never something i really thought about, but then once you think on the subject you start to question a lot of the things that are derived from numbers.

 

An example you gave are the three moons. why is that we describe it as 3 moons, rather than 10 gazillion atoms? or 10 trillion trillion rocks? If the world is fundamentally made out of wolframs "atoms of space" then there is no objective description of "3 moons" it's all just atoms of space.

 

Even more strange, is when we discover just how human-centric our notion of numbers are. A good joke and example I like to use is the color of an apple. I look at a red apple and so I go to you and i ask if the apple is red and you agree with me. IF i ask enough people and we all agree that the apple is red, then objectively we say the apple is red right? 

 

But say we wanted a second opinion and I were to ask a dog what color the apple is, he would say that it is some shade of grey. The dog goes to get a second opinion and he asks the entire doggy race what color the apple is and they all agree with him...so they conclude that the apple is objectively grey.

 

Now you need a third opinion...so you go and ask the bat what color the apple is and he says "What's a color?"

 

So objectivity in a very real sense doesn't exist...a lot of how we describe things with numbers...don't exist either. we describe what we see with numbers, where other things might not see the same kind of things, nor use numbers in a way where they agree with us on it. an alien might not look at the moons and say there's three moons there...if all they see is atoms of space.

 

I hope that this was in some sense informative about how I came to the conclusion about numbers...basically lots of evidence kept piling up in favor of that conclusion. Cheers,

PS: i think this is the longest forum post in the history of gw2 forum posts lol

Edited July 18, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Nilkemia.8507]

Oh no. Get out now, while you still can. Let it die.

[oscuro.9720]

On 7/17/2022 at 8:38 PM, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

The lecture definitely explores this problem very well, but let me give some context from the perspective of Guild Wars 2, and why I personally believe in such a thing. Be prepare to read an extremely long post, because it goes pretty deep.

 

Around 4 or 5 years ago, I believed in the same set of solutions; that the answer to the balance problem must be some simple set of numerical nerfs or some numerical buffs. But as I started probing deeper into the problem, it became more and more of a mystery as to why that would actually be the case. It wasn't until around the summer of 2020 where I realized that numbers were meaningless. It wasn't until 2021 where I found Wolfram's work, which pretty much confirmed my suspicions to be true.

 

My research into the problem started in November 2019 by asking some very simple questions about the February 2020 balance philosophy, which was working out the consequences of nerfing everything in the game, and whether such a procedure would create balance. One such experiment to conduct was to take two skills, and attempt to balance them, and take the nerf everything philosophy to it's logical conclusion, which is what happens when you nerf all skills in the game one after the next until you reach "the end." I found that such a procedure, even with just two skills, is simply impossible to do.

 

Say you have a set of skills...classes...whatever, which are only defined by a single number, and your goal was to balance them:

10

30

100

500

 

The operation to achieve balance of these skills at first seems trivial, where we simply nerf and buff each number with a simple arithmetical operation:

 

10 +240   =250

30 +220   =250

100 +150 =250

500 -250  =250

 

All 4 numbers equal to 250, it's perfectly balanced.

 

But, upon closer inspection, aside from the fact that they are all homogenous...you realize that this isn't the only set of operations you could have done... you could have done for example :

 

10 +1240   =1250

30 +1220   =1250

100 +1150 =1250

500 +750  =1250

 

In fact, there's an infinite number of possible operations you could have chosen on the number line to achieve perfect balance.

 

So okay it's strange that we could have chosen any procedure to achieve perfect balance irregardless of an all nerf or all buff philosophy...so what if we made the example more complex, where instead of defining each skill or class by a single number, we have each skill have a subset of two numbers, where one might be "power" and another might be "speed." Surely we can adjust the numbers here so that each subset can have it's attributes be heterogenous, but still add up to the same number to achieve balance... 

 

Skill 1

Power = 10

Speed = 500

 

Skill 2

Power = 30

Speed = 480

 

Skill 3

 

Power = 100

Speed = 410

 

Skill 4

Power = 500

Speed = 10

 

 

Above, each subset adds up to get you 510. It seems like we have done it...we've achieved balance! But something still seems wrong here... how do we know that "500 speed"  is worth 10 power? Or that 500 speed isn't more overpowered than 500 power? Is what we just did objective and logical or did we commit some kind of fallacy? And the problem is that it is indeed a fallacy. We ASSUMED that speed and power must be equivalent to one another in order to say that "500 power" is equivalent to having "500 speed" when this might not actually be the case.

 

This now get's into the final step of this problem, which is looking at a real set of skill mechanics: Balance Immobilization and Stability as one would with the above procedure. Is it possible? How does one even go about measuring that X amount of Stability is somehow equivalent to Y amount of immobilization? 

 

The above question is impossible to answer...because we can't give a numerical description that justifies that assumed equivalence. This is the issue being presented in that lecture at 19:35 - 20:05...where trying to arithmetically parametrize (count) "cloud, gusts of wind, abstract ideas," it becomes unclear whether such a parametrization is possible...whether it even makes sense to state that this gust of wind, is the same as this other gust of wind and things like this... At 22:36 he states that what follows, is that most things, in principle can not be "reduced" to a point where one can parametrize it's behavior with numbers, and that the only thing that can, is the thing itself. This phenomenon is called "Computational Irreducibility" but to put it in gw2 terms...it's that trying to parametrize immobilization and stability, is a computationally irreducible process...and that the only thing that can parametrize it's behavior, is the game itself being played by players that are parametrizing it's behavior through the interactions it has with all the other skills. It's important to understand the implications of this conclusion here...because it makes concrete...that the game can not in principle ever be balanced...as there's no way to parametrize with numbers, the complex behavior of simple and abstract mechanics.

 

There's another pretty shocking conclusion to be made here...which follows from confronting that realization: What if we didn't try to achieve perfect balance then? Is close enough balance actually good enough balance?

 

Say if we aren't balancing the game with the intention of making things equal...then what exactly are we doing with our operations...

 

10 +280   =290

30 +320   =350

100+180  =280

500 -170  =330

 

We are purposefully making them unequal...which is on top of the fact that we have no way to even parametrize what it is we are doing while making them unequal. This truth becomes more and more shocking but also makes more and more sense as to why numerical changes seem more and more meaningless as time marches forward.

 

If that wasn't enough right...but there is more...

 

We mentioned earlier, that as we make all these skills "equal" they all seem to collapse to the same number (250). The reason this happens is because we are simultaneously stripping away from them the properties that make them different from one another. Therefor diversity and balance are mutually exclusive properties. The reason this is the case is because they are both equivalent to each other and are just different aspects of a singular unified mechanism, which can be described as "system evolution" where systems change from going from maximally heterogeneous, to homogenous over time (a process of entropy). 

So doing "close enough" balance is actually just stripping away heterogeneity, for homogeneity.

 

What we are dealing with here is a paradox between balance and diversity and trying to put a square peg into a round hole. It is simply not the way to approach the problem. Wolfram, allthough he doesn't go into it to much in this lecture, identified what this unifying mechanism is, with a principle called "Computational Equivelence" which is that in essence, all systems both physical, and computational are equivalent to one another...and that this is why diversity and balance are both unified concepts. It seems obvious that if you are gonna have a theory of everything, then everything must emerge from the same construct. Wolfram's construct is the notion that computational rules are fundamental to the universe, where physics is just one of many computational rules. That topic is itself something that is way bigger than a Guild Wars 2 discussion, but it is part of the knowledge base required to understand why diversity and balance are paradoxical, and yet unified properties of systems, which is necessary to talk about for gw2 diversity/balance discussion.

 

Sorry for the extremely long post...You can tell perhaps that the subject is expansive and can be exhausting to talk about...it's 3-ish years of research exclusively on this subject condensed into a forum post, and honestly the topic here is dropping one bombshell after another...so it's hard for folks to grapple with the subject, and it can be difficult for me to even explain it in a concise way...in many ways it goes completely against our intuitions. Like mentioned in the beginning, I was just like everyone else...until I really started questioning those intuitions. The idea that numbers are meaningless was never something i really thought about, but then once you think on the subject you start to question a lot of the things that are derived from numbers.

 

An example you gave are the three moons. why is that we describe it as 3 moons, rather than 10 gazillion atoms? or 10 trillion trillion rocks? If the world is fundamentally made out of wolframs "atoms of space" then there is no objective description of "3 moons" it's all just atoms of space.

 

Even more strange, is when we discover just how human-centric our notion of numbers are. A good joke and example I like to use is the color of an apple. I look at a red apple and so I go to you and i ask if the apple is red and you agree with me. IF i ask enough people and we all agree that the apple is red, then objectively we say the apple is red right? 

 

But say we wanted a second opinion and I were to ask a dog what color the apple is, he would say that it is some shade of grey. The dog goes to get a second opinion and he asks the entire doggy race what color the apple is and they all agree with him...so they conclude that the apple is objectively grey.

 

Now you need a third opinion...so you go and ask the bat what color the apple is and he says "What's a color?"

 

So objectivity in a very real sense doesn't exist...a lot of how we describe things with numbers...don't exist either. we describe what we see with numbers, where other things might not see the same kind of things, nor use numbers in a way where they agree with us on it. an alien might not look at the moons and say there's three moons there...if all they see is atoms of space.

 

I hope that this was in some sense informative about how I came to the conclusion about numbers...basically lots of evidence kept piling up in favor of that conclusion. Cheers,

PS: i think this is the longest forum post in the history of gw2 forum posts lol

Okay, than if you are balancing things in this manners with a view of the numbers as being fairly unimportant, in what manner do you propose things are balanced? (Again, genuinely curious of your view and how you would apply this hypothesis, not meant to be read in a direct way or anything. Sometimes I get told the things I write come across that way, and I don't want that to be the case xD)

[Sahne.6950]

4 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

Okay, than if you are balancing things in this manners with a view of the numbers as being fairly unimportant, in what manner do you propose things are balanced? (Again, genuinely curious of your view and how you would apply this hypothesis, not meant to be read in a direct way or anything. Sometimes I get told the things I write come across that way, and I don't want that to be the case xD)

i do not share the opinion of Justiceretro. i had a talk about that with him. Part of his theory is, that changing numbers, doesnt change the "balancing" at all.

I do not share that opinion. Just take Vindicator for example.

Them raising and lowering the number of "heal on dodge" and the dmg coefficients of the weaponskills literally has it bouncing from  "meta" to, not worth playing at all.

Numerical changes go a long way. and no "big old dusty book" that he read is going to change that.

 

He has some VERY valueable points tho, that the true fixing of the game liys within improving the interactions between diffrent traits and weaponskills. There need to be mechanical changes to completly get us out of this perceived "balance nightmare". Some things are simply not vialbe, thus you are pigeonholed into certain builds. You can only achieve a better balancing when there is a plethora of builds viable and most notably when these builds are actually played. To rejuvenate pvp, we need a overhaul of unused traits and weapons. As long as just 10 builds are truely viable, there will always be a build that is the strongest of them all. If we have more builds being viable, there would be more countering. Some builds would keep others in check and vis versa.

but saying numerical changes mean nothing... meeeh.  Them raising the dmg and healing coeffs of vindi just a tiiiiny bit, literally has it bouncing from useless to overpowered over the course of the last balancepatches.

The theory that he is using is briliant! but i am unsure if you can implement it 1-1 on guildwars pvp balancing xD

Edited July 19, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[oscuro.9720]

9 hours ago, Sahne.6950 said:

i do not share the opinion of Justiceretro. i had a talk about that with him. Part of his theory is, that changing numbers, doesnt change the "balancing" at all.

I do not share that opinion. Just take Vindicator for example.

Them raising and lowering the number of "heal on dodge" and the dmg coefficients of the weaponskills literally has it bouncing from  "meta" to, not worth playing at all.

Numerical changes go a long way. and no "big old dusty book" that he read is going to change that.

 

He has some VERY valueable points tho, that the true fixing of the game liys within improving the interactions between diffrent traits and weaponskills. There need to be mechanical changes to completly get us out of this perceived "balance nightmare". Some things are simply not vialbe, thus you are pigeonholed into certain builds. You can only achieve a better balancing when there is a plethora of builds viable and most notably when these builds are actually played. To rejuvenate pvp, we need a overhaul of unused traits and weapons. As long as just 10 builds are truely viable, there will always be a build that is the strongest of them all. If we have more builds being viable, there would be more countering. Some builds would keep others in check and vis versa.

but saying numerical changes mean nothing... meeeh.  Them raising the dmg and healing coeffs of vindi just a tiiiiny bit, literally has it bouncing from useless to overpowered over the course of the last balancepatches.

The theory that he is using is briliant! but i am unsure if you can implement it 1-1 on guildwars pvp balancing xD

I would agree with you, much of what you said you can find similarly expressed in my above posts (if you can get through the numerous text walls.xD). I hesitated to write out a longer response without first identifying an answer to my above question, partly because I haven’t had the time to write out a well thought out response, and also because I’m curious exactly how Justice would seek to balance a game if numbers are unimportant to the overall balance 🙂 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 hour ago, oscuro.9720 said:

I would agree with you, much of what you said you can find similarly expressed in my above posts (if you can get through the numerous text walls.xD). I hesitated to write out a longer response without first identifying an answer to my above question, partly because I haven’t had the time to write out a well thought out response, and also because I’m curious exactly how Justice would seek to balance a game if numbers are unimportant to the overall balance 🙂 

 

The issue with what Sahne said in the start of her comment, and the example being spoken about here, is that it doesn't take into account the big picture consequences of numerical balance changes. Changing numbers around changes the strength and weakness of the skills/builds/classes, but that does not mean that those changes balance the game. 

 

We can reasonably test such hypothesis to see what the consequences of such changes would be.

 

Let's just to take Sahne's example :

 

 

"I do not share that opinion. Just take Vindicator for example.

Them raising and lowering the number of "heal on dodge" and the dmg coefficients of the weapon skills literally has it bouncing from  "meta" to, not worth playing at all.

Numerical changes go a long way. and no "big old dusty book" that he read is going to change that."

 

https://i.imgur.com/5Oo85Ix.png

 

In the above linked example, we pretend that these are classes or builds or skills and the size of the bars represent how strong they are in the eyes of players in the game, where in this example, Class I is Sahne's Revenant Vindicator. We apply the numerical nerfs as dictated by Sahne's comment, and what happens as a result, is the meta changes, where class I (our Revenant Vindicator) is now, at the bottom of the list.

 

Notice the most important part here...is that the structure of the graph has not changed. It still takes on the same hierarchy as it did before. No matter how many changes one does, this hierarchy never changes. You will always get an ordinance of the classes, where one is the strongest, and one is the weakest. It is only until all 9 bars are completely equal ( perfectly balanced) where this hierarchy disappears. We established earlier, that perfect balance is impossible to not only parametrize, but that in order for it to be achieved, requires complete homogenization.

 

This example shows what numerical changes do to the balance of the game: nothing. They simply shift was is meta today, for something else that will be meta tomorrow and one is simply pushing the buck. Sahne states this themselves: 

 

"there will always be a build that is the strongest of them all."

 

If balance through numbers was truly the answer, we've had more than 10 years to get the numbers right...and we also know what the procedure is to get them all perfectly balanced...and that hasn't happened yet. It's obvious as to why: it's because it doesn't work. If one wants to actually escape cycle of pushing the buck with out direction or meaning, then the problem has to be approached from a different perspective.

 

15 hours ago, oscuro.9720 said:

Okay, than if you are balancing things in this manners with a view of the numbers as being fairly unimportant, in what manner do you propose things are balanced? (Again, genuinely curious of your view and how you would apply this hypothesis, not meant to be read in a direct way or anything. Sometimes I get told the things I write come across that way, and I don't want that to be the case xD)

 

To get to this part, one has to sort of see what the problem is. When you come to the realization that numbers are arbitrary and meaningless, the questions you ask is...how does one actually change the hierarchy? The truth is that you can't...but still...are there any clever procedures that one can think of to get around the problem? I wrote an forum comment on another thread a while back about different possible balance philosophies and the consequences they have on this hierarchy, and the only thing that "works" is that one has to see such systems as a computation, where "time" plays a key role in extending the collapse to the meta game by simply having more things "exist" in the game...because it just takes to long for players to evaluate the answer to "what is the strongest build." 

 

In this sense, the game would be in a continually novel state of trying to just create new builds, and playing them. Because of that persistent novelty the question of finding out what the best build is, becomes formally undecidable.

 

But here's the thing about that. You don't need to "add more things" in order for more things to exist. This is where ideas about complexity enter the conversation...and understanding how complexity works, which is the real cheese to get the game to truly emulate real diversity and give us "real" balance, the kind we see in natural systems etc... Wolfram's main principle Computational Equivalence is itself a statement complexity : That simplicity and complexity are equivalent...and that if we wanted to "add more things" we don't need to add all these complicated things to the game to make it complicated...you can do that using simple rules...and those simple rules can go on and create complex behavior. Game mechanics are rules...so it follows that one needs to just fix mechanics, where they follow rules that lead to complex behavior.

A short closer to truth interview where Wolfram goes into his principle of computational equivalence and it's relation to complexity:

 

Said another way, simple mechanics, can have very deep and complex layer of gameplay to them, and this is based on how they interact with the rest of the skills in the game. This is the kind of  complexity we are after: simple (but deep) mechanics leading to complicated, persistently novel behavior (builds), this extends the time it takes for collapse to the meta game, making meta gaming formally undecidable.

 

This is like...the pure essence, the pure science for what it means to create good game systems. You have a very simple system with great depth, and that allows you to do whatever you want... where the sky is the limit. Skills in this game are not designed like this. Most of them are what wolfram would call "obviously simple" meaning they are simple, but don't have great depth (which are homogenous or patterned rules). and one can create an algorithm (a strategy) that simplifies it's behavior efficiently. That's something you don't want the player-base to figure out...which is the most efficient strategy...you want to delay that as long as possible.

 

Cheers,

 

 

Edited July 19, 2022 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[oscuro.9720]

24 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

The issue with what Sahne said in the start of her comment, and the example being spoken about here, is that it doesn't take into account the big picture consequences of numerical balance changes. Changing numbers around changes the strength and weakness of the skills/builds/classes, but that does not mean that those changes balance the game. 

 

We can reasonably test such hypothesis to see what the consequences of such changes would be.

 

Let's just to take Sahne's example :

 

 

"I do not share that opinion. Just take Vindicator for example.

Them raising and lowering the number of "heal on dodge" and the dmg coefficients of the weapon skills literally has it bouncing from  "meta" to, not worth playing at all.

Numerical changes go a long way. and no "big old dusty book" that he read is going to change that."

 

https://i.imgur.com/5Oo85Ix.png

 

In the above linked example, we pretend that these are classes or builds or skills and the size of the bars represent how strong they are in the eyes of players in the game, where in this example, Class I is Sahne's Revenant Vindicator. We apply the numerical nerfs as dictated by Sahne's comment, and what happens as a result, is the meta changes, where class I (our Revenant Vindicator) is now, at the bottom of the list.

 

Notice the most important part here...is that the structure of the graph has not changed. It still takes on the same hierarchy as it did before. No matter how many changes one does, this hierarchy never changes. You will always get an ordinance of the classes, where one is the strongest, and one is the weakest. It is only until all 9 bars are completely equal ( perfectly balanced) where this hierarchy disappears. We established earlier, that perfect balance is impossible to not only parametrize, but that in order for it to be achieved, requires complete homogenization.

 

This example shows what numerical changes do to the balance of the game: nothing. They simply shift was is meta today, for something else that will be meta tomorrow and one is simply pushing the buck. Sahne states this themselves: 

 

"there will always be a build that is the strongest of them all."

 

If balance through numbers was truly the answer, we've had more than 10 years to get the numbers right...and we also know what the procedure is to get them all perfectly balanced...and that hasn't happened yet. It's obvious as to why: it's because it doesn't work. If one wants to actually escape cycle of pushing the buck with out direction or meaning, then the problem has to be approached from a different perspective.

 

 

To get to this part, one has to sort of see what the problem is. When you come to the realization that numbers are arbitrary and meaningless, the questions you ask is...how does one actually change the hierarchy? The truth is that you can't...but still...are there any clever procedures that one can think of to get around the problem? I wrote an forum comment on another thread a while back about different possible balance philosophies and the consequences they have on this hierarchy, and the only thing that "works" is that one has to see such systems as a computation, where "time" plays a key role in extending the collapse to the meta game by simply having more things "exist" in the game...because it just takes to long for players to evaluate the answer to "what is the strongest build." 

 

In this sense, the game would be in a continually novel state of trying to just create new builds, and playing them. Because of that persistent novelty the question of finding out what the best build is, becomes formally undecidable.

 

But here's the thing about that. You don't need to "add more things" in order for more things to exist. This is where ideas about complexity enter the conversation...and understanding how complexity works, which is the real cheese to get the game to truly emulate real diversity and give us "real" balance, the kind we see in natural systems etc... Wolfram's main principle Computational Equivalence is itself a statement complexity : That simplicity and complexity are equivalent...and that if we wanted to "add more things" we don't need to add all these complicated things to the game to make it complicated...you can do that using simple rules...and those simple rules can go on and create complex behavior. Game mechanics are rules...so it follows that one needs to just fix mechanics, where they follow rules that lead to complex behavior.

A short closer to truth interview where Wolfram goes into his principle of computational equivalence and it's relation to complexity:

 

Said another way, simple mechanics, can have very deep and complex layer of gameplay to them, and this is based on how they interact with the rest of the skills in the game. This is the kind of  complexity we are after: simple (but deep) mechanics leading to complicated, persistently novel behavior (builds), this extends the time it takes for collapse to the meta game, making meta gaming formally undecidable.

 

This is like...the pure essence, the pure science for what it means to create good game systems. You have a very simple system with great depth, and that allows you to do whatever you want... where the sky is the limit. Skills in this game are not designed like this. Most of them are what wolfram would call "obviously simple" meaning they are simple, but don't have great depth (which are homogenous or patterned rules). and one can create an algorithm (a strategy) that simplifies it's behavior efficiently. That's something you don't want the player-base to figure out...which is the most efficient strategy...you want to delay that as long as possible.

 

Cheers,

 

 

I see, I don't agree with all of what you've said, but its a very well thought out theory. I've gone through about 5 hours of Wolfram's lectures. Our thought processes are more similar than they are different I think, I just place a larger importance on the impact that numerical alterations have than you. This is for more complex reasons about the underlying models created by models. I think its worth noting I think that your statement of us having "10 years to get the numbers right" isn't particularly relevant, because if you try to balance numbers using an arbitrary process, no matter how long you do balance the numbers, its a shot in the dark you actually stumble upon a range of acceptable balance based on the naturally arising hierarchy of attributes. I wholly agree that over time, the numbers of a set model can become irrelevant, but that's less predicated on time as it is predicated on added information to a system, which is what invalidates them. If nothing changes over time, than any numerical change becomes the only change, making it the most important thing (but this is unrealistic. Even in an embedded and finite system like GW2, new information is still added or replaces old information because there's no truly closed system). Every time the information changes beyond the acceptable threshold (what that is, I don't know for this particular example) you fully have to restructure your model. Basically, the way I'm thinking of numerical balance is far more complex than just balancing numbers, which is where my disagreement comes from. Statistics are fun, yay! That's about the limit of what I can type without getting into something I can't finish due to time (RL busy 🙂 ). 

 

I enjoy our conversations Justice take care 🙂 

[Sahne.6950]

9 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

The issue with what Sahne said in the start of her comment, and the example being spoken about here, is that it doesn't take into account the big picture consequences of numerical balance changes. Changing numbers around changes the strength and weakness of the skills/builds/classes, but that does not mean that those changes balance the game. 

 

We can reasonably test such hypothesis to see what the consequences of such changes would be.

 

Let's just to take Sahne's example :

 

 

"I do not share that opinion. Just take Vindicator for example.

Them raising and lowering the number of "heal on dodge" and the dmg coefficients of the weapon skills literally has it bouncing from  "meta" to, not worth playing at all.

Numerical changes go a long way. and no "big old dusty book" that he read is going to change that."

 

https://i.imgur.com/5Oo85Ix.png

 

In the above linked example, we pretend that these are classes or builds or skills and the size of the bars represent how strong they are in the eyes of players in the game, where in this example, Class I is Sahne's Revenant Vindicator. We apply the numerical nerfs as dictated by Sahne's comment, and what happens as a result, is the meta changes, where class I (our Revenant Vindicator) is now, at the bottom of the list.

 

 

 

 

UHH! they exactly did what i said. they adjusted some numbers on vindicator a tiny bit.

watch every Rev player run towards Herald during this patch!