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

[Obtena.7952]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:OK but this doesn't address my point ... you say that diversity goes down IN THIS CASE because of the rune change ... but you don't know that. In actual fact, we can't attribute a decrease in diversity to ANY particular change because diversity is affected by MANY things at once.

It's not that i'm not addressing your points...what i'm saying is me addressing the point. Perhaps i'm not explaining it well enough.

Determining whether a change will increase or decrease the diversity index, is based on what people are choosing to play. So if 70 out of those 1000 people in the sample size were playing Altruism Engi, those 70 people will now play something else when we resample. That something else they decide to play

can be anything

, but is determined by what is most likely going to be

the most likely scenario...

being that they will choose something that can achieve an autonomous goal ie: one of those already popular meta builds. The only way is to really find out is to just do a new calculation on the index.

Now you are right that there is no explicit thing to say that people will choose the meta...that's why this function requires a sample size for data, you have to take another sample at a later time (before and after an event) to determine the change in the system. So the explanation here is an implicit one.

Just to show you another example of what could happen here...let's pretend all the parameters from the earlier samples apply here, but this time im just using way less variables, where there are only 3 meta builds (One of which is Altruism Engi) -Build A= 80Build B= 60Build C=56Build D=3Build E=1

Let's say build C is Altruism Engi, and Build D is my 0 energy Rev, and Build E is some other Non-meta build The DI Index equation...D= 1-(∑ⁿn^2/N^2))

Now N = 200, so N^2 = 40,000∑ⁿn^2 = 13,146

D= 1-(13,146/40,000))D= 1-0.32865D= 0.67135

Now Let's say Build C and D get's nerfed with a change to whatever...rune, skill...doesn't matter so long as what gets changed has an actual effect on the choosing of that build. IMO Altruism change is enough for people to not play this build anymore (they effectively killed it). So now, we have a deficit of 56 players in our sample... where are they gonna go? Are they going to go to some non meta Build E? It's not likely.

The most likely scenario is that players will choose what works, which is Build A and B. Even in the scenario where they all decide to all go play some new Build E, The Diversity will at best remain the same...so you can have a distribution that either looks something like this:

The most likely scenario (players flocking to the meta builds)-Build A= 112Build B= 86Build C= 1Build D=1Build E=3

Where D= 1-(∑ⁿn^2/N^2)) = 0.50125

Or the least likely scenario (Players flocking to some other non meta builds) -

Build A= 80Build B= 60Build C=0Build D=0Build E=60

D= 1-(∑ⁿn^2/N^2)) = 0.66

As you can see, the number never really gets above the first index of .67.

I'm not asking you how the formula works with some example you invent ... we are beyond that; I see how it works. I'm asking you how you can come to the conclusion that diversity has decreased because of the rune change, especially since there is no way separate out what effects are causing the diversity to change in any particular direction or amount.

Again, I'm challenging the idea that we can ONLY get a decrease in diversity when Anet makes a game change. The formula doesn't indicate diversity can only decrease. I think you are skirting the question because you know you have jumped to a conclusion based on a faulty assumption that game changes can only result in diversity going down.

[urd.8306]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:This is just math wrong used.You have two options here:Was the nerf necessary for the balancing of the game?a) Yesb) No

Answer: a)

End of story.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Obtena.7952 said:I'm not asking you how the formula works with some example you invent ... we are beyond that; I see how it works.

I don't think that you do. If you did we wouldn't be sitting here, me trying to explain to you how it works over and over again.

I'm asking you how you can come to the conclusion that diversity has decreased because of the rune change, especially since there is no way separate out what effects are causing the diversity to change in any particular direction or amount.

Like i continue to keep saying...this comes down to people choosing builds. If you nerf something to the point where a build is so bad that it's unusable, nobody will choose that build. I illustrate in both the most ideal and least ideal scenarios of what happens to players after their builds take a nerf. In both cases the diversity index doesn't go above the index before the nerf.

Again, I'm challenging the idea that we can ONLY get a decrease in diversity when Anet makes a game change. The formula doesn't indicate diversity can only decrease.

And nobody said this at all ever. You can get both increases and decreases in diversity...idk where you get this idea that it's only a one way street? It's a spectrum like i said 3 or 4 comments ago.

You need to read my comment again, and try to process what i'm trying to tell you. If you actually understood how the equations works, then i shouldn't need to hold your hand and tell you how you can get an increase in the diversity, which you can, using a similar procedure, and a similar scenario. You should be able to do the equation yourself by now. I think if you tried you would fully realize how you would be able to do just that.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@steki.1478 said:

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

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

IKR math is so silly...i mean who needs math when i can just pretend i'm doing 30k in dps because i mash all my buttons at once.Who needs math to make gold on the Black Lion Trading Company...pffft...Who needs math in real life either amiright?I don't need to know how much money i need to get back from the cashier at a grocery store...Or how to count the hours to make a proper work schedule for my workforce...i mean who needs calculus when only everything in the world requires at least a basic understanding of it to actually describe how the world actually works?Meh i think i'll just stick with my 2+2 = 4 therefor BALANCE BRO education is enough for me.

Big KEK yo.

You are significantly over complicating something that is substantially more trivial, and simple, than the importance you are assigning to it. You can flaunt the Math Degree all you want, doesn't change the reality and it doesn't change the reasoning for it, no matter how vehemently you might disagree. The longer you prolong the argument the less likely you are to accept the current reality and move on.

Its a video game. You'll get over it.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:

If it's so trivial, then please enlighten the rest of us.

If you say anything like just Buff x, nerf y, = balance then i'm just going to ignore you. Nothing personal, i just don't want to waste my energy.

[God.2708]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684

As an observation, you seem to struggle to explain the higher levels of your theories/processes, and when people latch onto the lower levels (which, generally, is all that is needed for your explanations for the most part in the first place) you assume the worst of them. It results in a poor discussion foundation. Make of that what you will.

I'm going to steer clear of getting in-depth with this because no doubt we could add a couple of extra pages to this topic as we've done in the past, but some qualms I have with arguments seen thus far.

• The Rev build, whilst I like it and have personally handed it to a couple of people to try, I don't think ever got used. It would be a zero in your formula for almost every sample size. I also don't think the rune change 'killed' it. Maybe put it dormant, but IMO it still remains one of the best ways to utilize heal rev and altruism still remains one of the strongest runes for the build. There's just less reason to have the elite on auto attack.
• For the scrapper build we'd have to get into what we consider diverse. If the altruism scrapper is superior in all cases to the meta build, then in its removal there has been no diversity change. The scrappers simply went to an alternate build and are still playing heal scrapper. If there were some altruism scrappers and some regular ones, and now they shift to all regular there has been a (fairly small) decrease in diversity BUT
• Scrapper itself is a fairly oppressive counter to some builds, and the nerf to the altruism variant may result in a rise of other builds. I feel like your topic headline was slightly disingenuous with not acknowledging this option as sometimes the removal of a predator results in increased options.

I think Anet could have handled the scrapper issue better, but CMC has mentioned in the past his hands are a bit tied in what sort of changes he can make quickly. And, quite frankly, the scrapper build needed to be changed. It shut down to much for to low of a cost.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

If it's so trivial, then please enlighten the rest of us.

If you say anything like just Buff x, nerf y, = balance then i'm just going to ignore you. Nothing personal, i just don't want to waste my energy.

No, nothing like that actually. Just that its a video game. You'll get over it. You're over complicating it, the rune was nerfed...you disagreed, you've stated your point, others disagreed and stated that the Rune was the reason for another particular build essentially "abusing" its mechanic, and now you're just on the path to trying to prove everyone wrong and bringing in significantly more complexity to it than is necessary.

I understand that a build, or piece of gear, you used was nerfed but taking the "discussion" to this degree isn't constructive or productive. Don't get me wrong, I'm all on the wagon for saying ANet makes poor decisions, but at this point the discussion isn't going anywhere and complicating it with the equations you've created doesn't help it go anywhere either.

Now stating my own personal opinion, and having viewed Altruism Engi and your build, the nerf does seem warranted. The gameplay of your build in particular seemed to consist almost entirely of hitting 2 buttons, sometimes 3, within the span of 10-15 seconds. Sure, the nerf will have stunted that particular way of play but I don't think it will have nullified it entirely. There is also the pre-existing issue of how it functioned with Engineer kits and how that was actually particularly unhealthy, because it did amount to just spamming mortar kit. Now it was either the rune changed or they do a complete rework on how Engineer kits work. Worst case is that your build is just an unfortunate victim of an attempt to tone down a particularly unhealthy method of play with a particular build that had no relation to your own.

This isn't a dig at your personal skill, its just an observation I made based on the video evidence you provided and to give you context as to where my point of view is currently so no assumptions are being made in that regard. I understand this particular thread might have become a source of frustration for you, but I don't think it should be getting to the point where your response to someone just entering the thread after reading the whole thing should be "if your opinion is X then I'm just going to ignore you".

@God.2708 said:@JusticeRetroHunter.7684

As an observation, you seem to struggle to explain the higher levels of your theories/processes, and when people latch onto the lower levels (which, generally, is all that is needed for your explanations for the most part in the first place) you assume the worst of them. It results in a poor discussion foundation. Make of that what you will.

I'm going to steer clear of getting in-depth with this because no doubt we could add a couple of extra pages to this topic as we've done in the past, but some qualms I have with arguments seen thus far.

• The Rev build, whilst I like it and have personally handed it to a couple of people to try, I don't think ever got used. It would be a zero in your formula for almost every sample size. I also don't think the rune change 'killed' it. Maybe put it dormant, but IMO it still remains one of the best ways to utilize heal rev and altruism still remains one of the strongest runes for the build. There's just less reason to have the elite on auto attack.
• For the scrapper build we'd have to get into what we consider diverse. If the altruism scrapper is superior in all cases to the meta build, then in its removal there has been no diversity change. The scrappers simply went to an alternate build and are still playing heal scrapper. If there were some altruism scrappers and some regular ones, and now they shift to all regular there has been a (fairly small) decrease in diversity BUT
• Scrapper itself is a fairly oppressive counter to some builds, and the nerf to the altruism variant may result in a rise of other builds. I feel like your topic headline was slightly disingenuous with not acknowledging this option as sometimes the removal of a predator results in increased options.

I think Anet could have handled the scrapper issue better, but CMC has mentioned in the past his hands are a bit tied in what sort of changes he can make quickly. And, quite frankly, the scrapper build needed to be changed. It shut down to much for to low of a cost.

Also this.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@God.2708 said:@JusticeRetroHunter.7684

As an observation, you seem to struggle to explain the higher levels of your theories/processes, and when people latch onto the lower levels (which, generally, is all that is needed for your explanations for the most part in the first place) you assume the worst of them. It results in a poor discussion foundation. Make of that what you will.

I'm going to steer clear of getting in-depth with this because no doubt we could add a couple of extra pages to this topic as we've done in the past, but some qualms I have with arguments seen thus far.

• The Rev build, whilst I like it and have personally handed it to a couple of people to try, I don't think ever got used.

This is why it takes up a only a 1 - 3 count value on the index on the example calculation above. Was sort of on purpose for those that understood the equation to point it out, which you did, that's great.

If there were some altruism scrappers and some regular ones, and now they shift to all regular there has been a (fairly small) decrease in diversity

Right, and i think that this is the actual case. Altruism wasn't exactly popular...not as popular as the current meta, but it was an option. and that shows in the diversity Index examples above. If it was completely oppressive clouding out every healer, than that's a different story, but you can still solve that problem without introducing nerfs. (Introducing more builds into the meta by making more builds viable picks can increase the evenness and therefor the diversity index goes up. I show this as the first example on page 2)

• Scrapper itself is a fairly oppressive counter to some builds, and the nerf to the altruism variant may result in a rise of other builds. I feel like your topic headline was slightly disingenuous with not acknowledging this option as sometimes the removal of a predator results in increased options.

Alright sure. That's a very valid thing to point out. Though technically, when you do a diversity index, it's supposed to be of all builds in the environment, not just a single team or side your playing on... and the Index's above reflect that, because it's across ALL players in the sample size...both ally and enemy technically. And I think the Diversity Index examples shown above is a valid reflection of anti-predator behavior (where everyone flocks to some off meta build after a balance change)

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"KryTiKaL.3125" said:Now stating my own personal opinion,

Alright...already we are off to a bad start. You are free to express your opinions...but opinions hold no weight when talking about objective reasoning, analysis and logic.

And having viewed Altruism Engi and your build, the nerf does seem warranted.

So based on your opinion, you believe holds objective value and that other's should suffer from the consequence of your opinion. Suffer is a strong word, but for lack of any other way to describe it...you want people like me to not play this game based on our own standards, but rather based on something completely and subjectively someone else's...yours?

"if your opinion is X then I'm just going to ignore you".

That's exactly how this works right now. Because opinions are essentially meaningless when we are trying to keep a discussion in relevant and objective topics. People here expressed their opinions about me already, and i likewise did the same onto them. Doesn't mean anything or get us anywhere.

So this post you made just now, you realize you started it off by expressing your opinion and tried using your opinion as a valid primer to your explanation to make objective changes to a game that not only you play.

You would have to come back, like God did, with objective analysis at the very least for me to focus my energy back to you. If you've been keeping track of the last few pages of the discussion, everything i say is objective, and can even be cited with valid sources. Now i'm not pressing anyone to provide any sources for their own counter arguments...but still i'm being as genuinely objective and fair as possible in this discussion. Believe me, if this was by any means a real debate this wouldn't have gone any further than page 2, because it should have stopped at the presentation of the scientific paper, which has the Simpson Equation already.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"KryTiKaL.3125" said:Now stating my own personal opinion,

Alright...already we are off to a bad start. You are free to express your opinions...but opinions hold no weight when talking about objective reasoning, analysis and logic.

And having viewed Altruism Engi and your build, the nerf does seem warranted.

So based on your

opinion

, you believe that other's should suffer. Suffer is a strong word, but for lack of any other way to describe it...you want people like me to not play this game based on our own standards, but rather based on something completely and subjectively someone else's...yours?

"if your opinion is X then I'm just going to ignore you".

That's exactly how this works right now. Because opinions are essentially meaningless when we are trying to keep a discussion above relevant and objective topics. People here expressed their opinions about me already, and i likewise did the same onto them. Doesn't mean anything or get us anywhere.

So this post you made just now, you realize you started it off by expressing your opinion and tried using your opinion as a valid explanation to make objective changes to a game that not only you play.

You would have to come back, like God did, with objective analysis at the very least for me to focus my energy back to you. Sorry but this is how it's gotta be.

The argument could be made that it is objective reasoning. Which can further lead to the question whether or not your position is objective reasoning as well. Or both our positions can be. Just because you are saying it doesn't make it any more objective than if someone else simply said something contrary to what you believe. Opinions can be defined as objective as well, don't forget that bit. I also didn't express any opinion "about you" outside of an observation I made at the tail end of my own post, but that can be right or wrong and thats fine.

My position was not that someone play this game by someone else's standards, but that the way you have played, particularly your build, is an unfortunate victim of a change that was made to dial down an oppressive build on an entirely different class. At no point did I imply that you, or anyone else, should not be able to play the game based on your own standards. That wasn't the point. It seems like you only read the "my own personal opinion" bit which is likely my own fault for even including it, I just didn't want there to be any assumptions made on where I stand on it in particular.

@God.2708 Didn't bring up anything much different than what I said, they just phrased it and structured the post differently. You have every right to disagree with anything I say, but just because you disagree with it doesn't make the proposed idea or opinion any less objective than your own.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"KryTiKaL.3125" said:It seems like you only read the "my own personal opinion" bit which is likely my own fault for even including it,

Right. You shouldn't have included it. You blew it there.

Opinions can be defined as objective as well

But no. Objectivity is not something you can debate here. You can look it up on google and find out how to present your argument objectively using logic, facts, mathematics, experiments, valid sources...these are objective things. Until you get passed that hurdle we aren't going to get any further in this conversation.

Because your argument right now, is subjective to begin with, there is no debate yet. It would be disingenuous of me and to others here to even respond because i know it would lead to 3 pages of "No U, No U."

Edit: Again i'm not saying you can't say what you want to say...but if you want this to actually work, you need to have an objective argument or counter argument. For example, the gist of your post is basically "The spamming of mortar kit, and using few skills is unhealthy game play" You need to be able to show this objectively...as in you need to define what is unhealthy, what is healthy, and logically explain, or even have to provide mathematical proof, that spammy gameplay is considered unhealthy rather than healthy, why it's grounds for a legitimate reason for a nerf, and then worst of all you need to prove that the gameplay is spammy to begin with, which is a metric you'd probably have to define... what is spammy? using 1 skill every 3 seconds? or 1 skill every 5 seconds? How does this apply to diversity which is the title of the topic? You need to outline objective things to even have a conversation here...this opinion stuff is going to result in nonsense if i let it happen.

Again another example just to help you out with presenting your argument:You are some doctor and you want to show that Coca Cola is directly linked to Obesity. That is an objective argument. You would support this by : A) providing a logic...such as that Coca Cola is widely available in Convenient stores. Thus has a higher probability of being selected when consumers go shopping, and it leads to an abnormal distribution of coca cola purchases instead of water...PROCEEDS TO SHOW A GRAPH...That's the start of an objective argument, That begins with a logic that's backed up by a math proof or valid source. This is the kind of stuff you need to be doing if you want this to go anywhere.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"KryTiKaL.3125" said:It seems like you only read the "my own personal opinion" bit which is likely my own fault for even including it,

Right. You shouldn't have included it. You blew it there.

Opinions can be defined as objective as well

But no. Objectivity is not something you can debate here. You can look it up on google and find out how to present your argument objectively using logic, facts, mathematics, experiments, valid sources...these are objective things. Until you get passed that hurdle we aren't going to get any further in this conversation.

Because your argument right now, is subjective to begin with, there is no debate yet. It would be disingenuous of me and to others here to even respond because i know it would lead to 3 pages of "No U, No U."

Edit: Again i'm not saying you can't say what you want to say...but if you want this to actually work, you need to have an objective argument or counter argument. For example, the gist of your post is basically "The spamming of mortar kit, and using few skills is unhealthy game play" You need to be able to show this objectively...as in you need to define what is unhealthy, what is healthy, and logically explain, or even have to provide mathematical proof, that spammy gameplay is considered unhealthy rather than healthy, why it's grounds for a legitimate reason for a nerf, and then worst of all you need to prove that the gameplay is spammy to begin with, which is a metric you'd probably have to define... what is spammy? using 1 skill every 3 seconds? or 1 skill every 5 seconds? How does this apply to diversity which is the title of the topic? You need to outline objective things to even have a conversation here...this opinion stuff is going to result in nonsense if i let it happen.

To be fair the entire topic of discussion is subjective. The only concrete factual information present in the discussion is the effects of the Rune itself. As in its mechanics. How that plays out ingame can be subjective based on traits used, player handling it, equipment being used, skills being used, even the class using it. From the contrary perspective to your own, which others have debated on with you, is that the way it was performing and the way it was being used was not very good for gameplay. They explained it, some of them not entirely well to be fair, but that wasn't everyone. You also vehemently opposed practically anything contrary to your position, which is fine you have to debate your point and they debate theirs, but you simply didn't want to accept a "simple" explanation; that they felt that how it was being used was not good for the game.

To get into the hole that is "How does one define X" unfortunately also dives into "subjective" territory as you, or someone else, might define "spammy" as something completely different, or "spammy" might change based on the game. Generally it pertains to "frequency of use" like with getting spammed in a text chat with the same thing over and over again. However you could think that in a game like GW2, or most MMORPGs, "spammy" could pertain to "simplicity", in that you are accomplishing something with less effort, or through the use of less skills (or the same skills on a short loop) to accomplish something. In that situation saying "spammy" is likely inaccurate and "simplistic" would be the more appropriate term to use in its place.

However in the case of the mortar kit and its function relating to Rune of Altruism, which was what I touched on specifically, I would say that is "spammy" because it mostly just involved hitting that 1 skill to accomplish the same thing other classes would need multiple skills to achieve. Which also fulfills the "simplistic" criteria.

I know you've been attacked, insulted, questioned, and everything else the GW2 community is normally guilty of doing to others (especially on these forums), but thats precisely where this thread went off the rails. Which is to say the very first response you got was a less than helpful one, so I don't blame you for wanting more detailed and elaborate responses and reasoning. I actually do agree with you that this game needs more diversity in builds, but balance is important as well. In fact I'd say they go hand in hand because if they set out to create multiple options for any given class then that is probably the best course of action and will result in better "balance". Its how GW1 worked, its how GW2 should as well.

If you want to have an actual discussion on the topic you can't just dismiss points of view as "irrelevant" simply because they don't delve into trying to define subjective material relating to the topic, especially when the topic itself can be considered subjective. Your point of view, to my understanding, was that there is less diversity due to the change, others believe that there could be more diversity. However do you agree or disagree that how it was used on Scrapper, with Mortar kit, could be considered "simplistic" gameplay?

[Ovalkvadratcylinder.9365]

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:It seems like you only read the "my own personal opinion" bit which is likely my own fault for even including it,

Right. You shouldn't have included it. You blew it there.

Opinions can be defined as objective as well

But no. Objectivity is not something you can debate here. You can look it up on google and find out how to present your argument objectively using logic, facts, mathematics, experiments, valid sources...these are objective things. Until you get passed that hurdle we aren't going to get any further in this conversation.

Because your argument right now, is subjective to begin with, there is no debate yet. It would be disingenuous of me and to others here to even respond because i know it would lead to 3 pages of "No U, No U."

Edit: Again i'm not saying you can't say what you want to say...but if you want this to actually work, you need to have an objective argument or counter argument. For example, the gist of your post is basically "The spamming of mortar kit, and using few skills is unhealthy game play" You need to be able to show this objectively...as in you need to define what is unhealthy, what is healthy, and logically explain, or even have to provide mathematical proof, that spammy gameplay is considered unhealthy rather than healthy, why it's grounds for a legitimate reason for a nerf, and then worst of all you need to prove that the gameplay is spammy to begin with, which is a metric you'd probably have to define... what is spammy? using 1 skill every 3 seconds? or 1 skill every 5 seconds? How does this apply to diversity which is the title of the topic? You need to outline objective things to even have a conversation here...this opinion stuff is going to result in nonsense if i let it happen.

To be fair the entire topic of discussion is subjective. The only concrete factual information present in the discussion is the effects of the Rune itself. As in its mechanics. How that plays out ingame can be subjective based on traits used, player handling it, equipment being used, skills being used, even the class using it. From the contrary perspective to your own, which others have debated on with you, is that the way it was performing and the way it was being used was not very good for gameplay. They explained it, some of them not entirely well to be fair, but that wasn't everyone. You also vehemently opposed practically anything contrary to your position, which is fine you have to debate your point and they debate theirs, but you simply didn't want to accept a "simple" explanation; that they felt that how it was being used was not good for the game.

To get into the hole that is "How does one define X" unfortunately also dives into "subjective" territory as you, or someone else, might define "spammy" as something completely different, or "spammy" might change based on the game. Generally it pertains to "frequency of use" like with getting spammed in a text chat with the same thing over and over again. However you could think that in a game like GW2, or most MMORPGs, "spammy" could pertain to "simplicity", in that you are accomplishing something with less effort, or through the use of less skills (or the same skills on a short loop) to accomplish something. In that situation saying "spammy" is likely inaccurate and "simplistic" would be the more appropriate term to use in its place.

However in the case of the mortar kit and its function relating to Rune of Altruism, which was what I touched on specifically, I would say that is "spammy" because it mostly just involved hitting that 1 skill to accomplish the same thing other classes would need multiple skills to achieve. Which also fulfills the "simplistic" criteria.

I know you've been attacked, insulted, questioned, and everything else the GW2 community is normally guilty of doing to others (especially on these forums), but thats precisely where this thread went off the rails. Which is to say the very first response you got was a less than helpful one, so I don't blame you for wanting more detailed and elaborate responses and reasoning. I actually do agree with you that this game needs more diversity in builds, but balance is important as well. In fact I'd say they go hand in hand because if they set out to create multiple options for any given class then that is probably the best course of action and will result in better "balance". Its how GW1 worked, its how GW2 should as well.

If you want to have an actual discussion on the topic you can't just dismiss points of view as "irrelevant" simply because they don't delve into trying to define subjective material relating to the topic, especially when the topic itself can be considered subjective. Your point of view, to my understanding, was that there is less diversity due to the change, others believe that there could be more diversity. However do you agree or disagree that how it was used on Scrapper, with Mortar kit, could be considered "simplistic" gameplay?

The statement that there is less diversity now rests on the assertion that you can't run alturism runes anymore... but you can.. you just cant spam it like an idiot. Therefore the statement "theres less diversity" factually, objectively wrong.

Then the quesiton becomes is it still viable and if so is it still AS viable as before? To the first quesiton YES: you cna still run alturism wiht mortar kit (as an example) because the basic cleanse build doesnt change with or without alturism rune.Is it it still AS viable as before? maybe not, you cant drain as many condis anymore, but you also dont run as big a risk to kill youserlf which might be looked at as something positive.

Ultimately the diveristy didnt change one bit. If anything it probably opened up more playstyles to the already existing alturism builds since you now dont have to, or cant spam it to til ur fingers are numb.

[Obtena.7952]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:Like i continue to keep saying...this comes down to people choosing builds.

Right ... and you CAN'T conclude that people are NOT choosing builds that lead to MORE diversity just because you can measure it.

@KryTiKaL.3125 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@steki.1478 said:

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

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

IKR math is so silly...i mean who needs math when i can just pretend i'm doing 30k in dps because i mash all my buttons at once.Who needs math to make gold on the Black Lion Trading Company...pffft...Who needs math in real life either amiright?I don't need to know how much money i need to get back from the cashier at a grocery store...Or how to count the hours to make a proper work schedule for my workforce...i mean who needs calculus when only everything in the world requires at least a basic understanding of it to actually describe how the world actually works?Meh i think i'll just stick with my 2+2 = 4 therefor BALANCE BRO education is enough for me.

Big KEK yo.

You are significantly over complicating something that is substantially more trivial, and simple, than the importance you are assigning to it. You can flaunt the Math Degree all you want, doesn't change the reality and it doesn't change the reasoning for it, no matter how vehemently you might disagree. The longer you prolong the argument the less likely you are to accept the current reality and move on.

Its a video game. You'll get over it.

Pretty much ... There is no way complicating the argument is going to be compelling to a group of people that change the game based on whatever process they are using to do so ... especially if there isn't actually a link made between the theory and the practical. The only thing the math does is allow you to measure the diversity for a particular game state ... it doesn't say what caused the reduction. it also doesn't say diversity can't increase either ... just because there is a way to measure shouldn't lead anyone to conclude whatever they want without actually DOING the comparative calculations needed to prove it.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Obtena.7952 said:

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:This was the center of the debate on the topic. That's why a proof was NEEDED to show that diversity has net decreased due to balance change. I show this with a well established equation taken from a scientific paper....so it's not a "belief" it's a mathematical proof that you or anyone else can do and see the same with consistent results, and i did the courtesy of displaying how to do it, when a simple google search would have sufficed.

you don't have the actual game data you need.

I mean sure. That's completely reasonable. I'd have to interview a large sample of players (probably 1000 of them) and then do the calculation for all thousand of those players, which even then is just gonna be an approximation of the system as a whole, and it's also too late because the balance change had already happened. So ya, you could say that i can't definitively prove that the rune changed the diversity for better or worse, because it's too late now. I don't have a sample size from before the patch.

But it's not like anyone is gonna really go into the game and interview 1000 people just to get some data for a forum post. Everything i've stated here is practical, but technically theoretical and meant to just illustrate the concepts to think about the issue. It's a mathematical proof, not just an experimental one. I mean you were sitting here saying "Just count all the options= diversity." That had to be disproven...just saying.

Anyway If you want to go interview 1000 people be to get the result be my kitten guest. But i'm sorry i don't get paid enough to do the experiment, and if you wanna call me names then so be it. As far as this thread is concerned everything here is technically theoretical. Just so long as you can do it in practice is what actually matters.

[Obtena.7952]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:This was the center of the debate on the topic. That's why a proof was NEEDED to show that diversity has net decreased due to balance change. I show this with a well established equation taken from a scientific paper....so it's not a "belief" it's a mathematical proof that you or anyone else can do and see the same with consistent results, and i did the courtesy of displaying how to do it, when a simple google search would have sufficed.

you don't have the actual game data you need.

I mean sure. That's completely reasonable. I'd have to interview a large sample of players (probably 1000 of them) and then do the calculation for all thousand of those players, which even then is just gonna be an approximation of the system as a whole, and it's also too late because the balance change had already happened. So ya, you could say that i can't definitively prove that the rune changed the diversity for better or worse, because it's too late now. I don't have a sample size from before the patch.

But it's not like anyone is gonna really go into the game and interview 1000 people just to get some data for a forum post. Everything i've stated here is practical, but technically theoretical and meant to just illustrate the concepts to think about the issue. It's a mathematical proof, not just an experimental one. I mean you were sitting here saying "Just count all the options= diversity." That had to be disproven...just saying.

Anyway If you want to go interview 1000 people be to get the result be my kitten guest. But i'm sorry i don't get paid enough to do the experiment, and if you wanna call me names then so be it. As far as this thread is concerned everything here is technically theoretical. Just so long as you

can

do it in practice is what actually matters.

I agree ... getting that data would be absolutely impossible ... so what reason do we have to simply take your word for the fact that diversity decreased when the math you provides shows it can increase as well? It's a fallacy to claim we have a diversity decrease because of game changes. Am I wrong when I think there are scenarios where the Simpsons DI stays the same or increases when there are changes? I don't think so ... As simple as it is for you to show scenarios in decrease, it's as simple to show no change or increases. In fact, it's as simple as flipping your data set from A to B to B to A

Again, you're just unhappy the rune got nerfed. Let's not pretend this is some massive hit to some diversity target Anet may or may not have for the game to complain about it.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"KryTiKaL.3125" said:Listen closely.I'm not gonna argue with you about what objective means...This isn't a debatable topic...go GOOGLE it and stop wasting my time trying to say that an opinion is considered objective, otherwise i'll just stop right here.

I know you've been attacked, insulted, questioned, and everything elseYes, i have. and I get your trying to be sympathetic, but i don't care if people think i'm a kitten. If i say something that is irrefutably true, and i even prove that and people don't like it, that's not my problem and they can be mad all they want and they can say whatever they want. It won't make it any less true.

I actually do agree with you that this game needs more diversity in builds, but balance is important as well.You realize this was my stance the entire time right? That's what I've been arguing with Obtena for, for the past 2 pages.

In fact I'd say they go hand in hand because if they set out to create multiple options for any given class then that is probably the best course of action and will result in better "balance". Its how GW1 worked, its how GW2 should as well.Again this was my stance from the very beginning. This is what the equation (called the Simpson Diversity Index) proves.

Your point of view, to my understanding, was that there is less diversity due to the change, others believe that there could be more diversity.This was the center of the debate on the topic. That's why a proof was NEEDED to show that diversity has net decreased due to balance change. I show this with a well established equation taken from a scientific paper....so it's not a "belief" it's a mathematical proof that you or anyone else can do and see the same with consistent results, and i did the courtesy of displaying how to do it, when a simple google search would have sufficed.

I know what it means, I was suggesting that you are essentially "deciding" what is or is not "objective".

Mathematics doesn't explain everything, it can help but ultimately it doesn't include the "human" factor. Which is why ANets insistence on using its metrics for everything hasn't exactly helped the game. Because the numbers show one thing, but it doesn't explain the why.

Lets use your situation as an example (just an example); Atruism Engi and "0 Energy Mallyx Support Rev" both fulfilled a similar role, both of these builds utilized Rune of Altruism which would lead to their metrics stating that Rune of Altruism's frequency of use was much higher than that of other runes. If you go by just the numbers then it looks like Rune of Altruism essentially has too much presence.

By that example if the intent was to create "more diversity" you have a few options;

1. Buff other runes that fall within the "Support" category to be equally as viable (this has been their approach in the past and it is pretty much exactly what lead to the power creep we saw pre-February patch).
2. Just flat out nerf the rune so that others can fill in the void it leaves behind. This is usually an "over nerf" like what they did with the Passive traits (Defy Pain and its like) that essentially just completely removes something from play. This is also something they did pretty consistently over the years and it resulted in wacky shifts in "balance".
3. Discern "why" it is being used more frequently than other runes to fulfill its role or purpose in content. For this example, the Rune behaved in a way with certain skills that made it extremely ideal to handle the mass of conditions used in zerg vs zerg encounters in WvW. Specifically with Mortar Kit on Engineer and Ventari Elite on Revenant.

In the scenario where #3 is used there are also a few approaches to take;

• Adjust the effect on the rune so that it is not so "overwhelming" to take in comparison to other runes in the "support" category for those builds. This is the easiest path, and a much quicker "fix".
• Because it seems to have an arguably unhealthy behavior with Engineer Kits they could potentially be reworked. This is a much more drastic "fix" and has longer arching repercussions and would drastically shift how an entire class functions at the base level.

Now in the past ANet had often opted to go with options 1 and 2. Eventually it got to a point where any "over nerf" they did just not go over well and they started to just buff everything if something in particular was being used more frequently than others. For example, Firebrand was the healing you brought along, so ANet had a span of time where they ended up just buffing Tempest and Revenant healing values to see if they would get used as "options" as opposed to Firebrand dominating the role.

Again that was just an example scenario and I am in no way saying that is how it was thought out or "went down", there are a lot of other factors to consider like how Condition damage is essentially "null" in zerg vs zerg, pretty much because of how Rune of Altruism functioned with Engineer and, apparently, Revenant. Conditions are much less oppressive in large scale due in large part to all of the available cleanse in the game, however the issue with them is that Conditions are more oppressive in smaller scale because there is less available cleanse.

ANet, if I'm correct, has expressed a desire to actually create meaningful choice between Power and Condi rather than have one just be overwhelmingly desired over the other. At least in WvW that is the case, which is to say the go to builds in zerg vs zerg are almost predominantly power. Yet with Roaming you actually see a bit more of a mix of the two.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Obtena.7952 said:I agree ... getting that data would be absolutely impossible ... so what reason do we have to simply take your word for the fact that diversity decreased when the math you provides shows it can increase as well?

Your supposed to do the equations yourself. Just play around with them and you'll find out how those relationships work and read that paper. It's not MY WORD...this is again well established stuff.

The way you are wording this makes me think you didn't even read the comment or didn't both going through and doing the equations on your own. If you did you would find out exactly how those indices can increase and how they can decrease. Again i prove it to you already so that you don't have to...but that's not enough apparently so just do it yourself.

[Obtena.7952]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:I agree ... getting that data would be absolutely impossible ... so what reason do we have to simply take your word for the fact that diversity decreased when the math you provides shows it can increase as well?

Your supposed to do the equations yourself. Just play around with them and you'll find out how those relationships work and read that paper. It's not MY WORD...this is again well established stuff.

You already provided the examples that show that the Simpsons' DI can BOTH decrease and increase ... NOTHING that in equation suggests it can only continually decrease as the game changes are made over time.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Obtena.7952 said:NOTHING that in equation suggests it can only continually decrease as the game changes are made over time.

Who ever said this? Are you okay? Nobody ever said this in the entire conversation.

[Obtena.7952]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Obtena.7952" said:NOTHING that in equation suggests it can only continually decrease as the game changes are made over time.

Who ever said this? Are you okay? Nobody ever said this in the entire conversation.

OK so if the DI can move in either direction ... why are we simply taking your word for the conclusion that the rune nerf has lead to a decrease in diversity? What prevents that rune nerf to making the DI lead to a no change in diversity or or even a diversity increase? I mean, this is YOUR claim ... and if you are going to say "hey, I have a way to measure DI" .. you better tell us how you used it to make your conclusion don't you think? If the DI can move in EITHER direction because of a game change, why in THIS case does it HAVE to lead to decreased diversity conclusion? Apparently, because you say so.

The fact is that regardless of whatever direction the DI moves, in PRACTICAL terms you could NEVER attribute a DI shift to a specific game change anyways ... because game changes don't happen individually. To complicate things ... the DI will change EVEN WITHOUT game changes because players change their builds for any reason they want to. Sure, that math looks nice on paper ... but it doesn't prove a damn thing by itself.

See ... you are right .. the formula is pretty simple ... so it's REALLY easy to see that it can increase or decrease when the game is changed. There is NO reason to assume it increases or decreases because of a specific change ... but you have done exactly that. So what is your assumption?

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Obtena.7952" said:What prevents that rune nerf to making the DI stay the same or even increase?

It's because of the behavior in how players choose builds.

Now i wanted you to figure this out on your own, but i'll just go ahead and spill the beans

The only way to get that diversity Index to increase:Players who are playing dominant Meta Builds decide not to play the dominant meta builds. Now how do you suppose that will happen? In what situation would players not play the meta over something else? It's only when non-meta builds become competitive (viable alternatives) to the meta...This is the same as the first example from the beginning, where instead of 6 meta builds we now have 60 meta builds. How do off meta builds become viable alternatives to the meta? It's when they make builds U S E F U L... you remember this conversation now...we've had it before.

The equation works like this because evenness is a part that factors into the equation...so as less and less people play the dominant meta builds and play non-meta builds, the evenness distribution get's more and more level and the index goes up. Your only job here is to accurately describe, how you can get this behavior to occur in the game...how do you get people to not play the dominant meta builds and play off meta builds...That's all you have to do.

why are we simply taking your word for the conclusion that the rune nerf has lead to a decrease?

You aren't supposed to just be taking my word for it. I've only done the courtesy of proving it.https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/1303600#Comment_1303600It's as simple as showing you by how much the Diversity Index decreases in the most ideal scenario and the least ideal scenario in the event of a change to the system that leads to the disappearance of a single build in that system, and that this number doesn't surpass the number of the diversity index BEFORE the change happened.

Technically your supposed to do it yourself by just playing around with the equation.

[Obtena.7952]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:Technically your supposed to do it yourself by just playing around with the equation.

I have already done this ... and since the DI can increase OR decrease for a game change, I have no reason to believe whatever assumptions you have used to conclude the altruism rune nerf = diversity decrease are valid. You don't know player's behaviour to choose builds ... so no, you can't conclude we have a decrease in diversity. That's just a contrived conclusion.

The math is just an obfuscation here as far as I'm concerned ... it doesn't actually prove anything by itself ... no one should be assuming people are going to flock to meta builds when non-meta builds get nerfed. I think I already mentioned that anyways.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Obtena.7952 said:You don't know players' behaviour to choose builds ...

Sure but you don't have to know their behavior...you can create and cover ALL THE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS in which players choose builds, and make an index for them...That's why i chose the least ideal scenario and the most ideal scenario...Which shows you the FULL RANGE of the Difference in Diversity Index. between the first and second example in that link i just linked to you.

[Obtena.7952]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@Obtena.7952 said:You don't know players' behaviour to choose builds ...

Sure but you don't have to know their behavior...

Yes you do because if they choose a build that no one is using, the diversity stays the same or increases. Nothing tells you a priori what direction diversity will move in for a given game change. You have simply assumed diversity will go down for a game change. That doesn't make sense. It's easy to see how this works if you plot the DI as a function of n for whatever N you want. A change doesn't tell you what direction the curve you will shift to. You have to ASSUME that direction if you want to claim it without direct measurement.

A change can result in n increasing or n decreasing. You simply don't know unless you measure it ... or have a strong argument to assume one way or the other. You have neither.

I mean ... lets just play around ... we have N = 10 and n = 5 ... Anet makes a change to the game ... what is the new n? You don't know .... We can invent whatever numbers we want ... but it doesn't matter. The math is a ruse because you still have to assume player behaviour to claim a specific direction for the DI to shift to result in a diversity decrease.