PvP Fights Now Be Like:

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"Ragnar.4257" said:This is still nonsense.

And the reason, is that GW2 is not an equation. In an equation, I cannot add to one side without adding to the other, which results in the homogeneity you describe.

But in GW2 it is entirely possible to add to one side without adding to the other. If we make guard stronger, we do not necessarily make rev stronger. We can decide to make rev also stronger, resulting in no net change, or we can leave rev where it is resulting in a relative nerf, or we can hard nerf it, or we can buff it even more resulting in a relative nerf for guard.

You have simply declared GW2 to be homogenous. This a ridiculous assumption.

You're saying that a situation where 90% of players pick guardian and 10% pick rev is equivalent to a situation where 50% pick both, because its still the same number of players. It is...... but that says nothing about balance. You're looking at the wrong equation.

It's like declaring that the energy and mass of the universe is homogenous. True, you can't add or remove from the total. That doesn't change the fact that you can take actions to make certain areas much hotter or colder. This is almost a perfect example of this situation. I'm saying "if you turn the heating up, the room will get hotter", and you're saying "nope, because eventually the universe will reach heat death". Ummm....... that doesn't change that turning the heating up right now in this room will make it hotter. Bringing up the heat death of the universe is so irrelevant to tweaking the temperature of the room I'm in, that it's hard not to conclude that you're either a troll, or really want to show off about how you read a book.

I am well aware of the concept of homogeneity. I am disputing its relevance to this situation.

Okay where to start...

Your talking to someone who studied this for years and years. Do you really think I can't see straight through every single issue you are presenting in each one of your talking points? You literally can't even show with actual mathematics to prove your point, while I can, effortlessly.

Here's something very important to understand first. That when talking about homogeneity, you can't just "talk" about it either, like it's some lone thing in a vacuum that only applies to equations. Homogeneity and Heterogeneity are complicated properties of mathematics that exist in consort (in fact they are one in the same thing) and I said this pages ago... The things you are talking about (Heating and cooling part of a system) shows your lack of understanding how homogeneity and heterogeneity are supposed to exist together in the same framework.

Here's a picture to show you how the two are the same thing, and how and why they exist together.

The main takeaway from this, is that this is a pictorial representation of the math, for how a system is and ALWAYS will be, homogenous, because it is invariant at all scales...no matter what state the subsystems are in. Even if you manipulate one of the balls in any of the systems to go in any direction, the system as a whole still remains homogenous. Its something that you simply CAN NOT change. with any operation and I've said this a hundred billion times now.

Take your example, that you change guardian to have 1 million HP and 1 million damage and change nothing else in the game. What happens to the system as a whole? Everyone plays a guardian. The system REMAINS homogenous because EVERYTHING in the system is now a guardian. Such a state of the game, is "perfectly balanced" is it not...if everyone is just playing the same build on the same class as if nothing else existed...is this not the same state of a game where if all 9 classes had the same abilities, the same traits the same weapons the same everything? Would this not be equivalent to a perfectly balanced game of Ping Pong? This is the kind of thinking you need to be doing when trying to analyze the logic in your examples.

Now something to also understand, is that Perfect Homogenous systems don't truly exist . All systems are imperfect, and lay on a spectrum between homogeneity and heterogeneity, and as you get closer to making a system more and more homogenous, it simply gives you more and more homogenous properties...likewise in the reverse direction. Gw2 is no exception. It is not a homogenous game. but you can still balance the game into homogeneity or heterogeneity. Balancing to either end will give you more and more properties that align with homogenous systems, or heterogenous systems. Homogenous systems exhibit equality, while heterogenous systems exhibit high differentiation (diversity). And lastly, you can't have both because they exhibit complementarity. You can't have a game that exhibits complete equality, while having a high level of diversity. In addition, Both systems can't exist WITHOUT each other. Homogenous systems evolve into heterogenous systems, and heterogenous systems become homogenous at a higher scale, triggering the same process over and over and over again at any and all scales.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Ragnar.4257 said:But in GW2 it is entirely possible to add to one side without adding to the other. If we make guard stronger, we do not necessarily make rev stronger.

Also wanted to address that this isn't true either. Aside from how mathematics states otherwise to be the case, It's also like saying that Necro didn't inadvertently get buffed by the February patch when clearly it did despite not being changed all that much.

Buffing something somewhere in the system WILL result in a nerf to something else in the system, it's just a feature of math dude, its not much more complicated then that.

Like again with the guardian example, Buff Guardian by a million Health and damage, and you inadvertently nerfed everything else. Again, consequence of the math it's not hard to understand this.

Now i don't care about upvotes, but the fact that people are upvoting your actual nonsense is what i find the most disturbing. Round and round we go i guess we just continue to nerf everything until the game is completely dead because that's what will happen based on your logic.

[Psycoprophet.8107]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Ragnar.4257" said:This is still nonsense.

And the reason, is that GW2 is not an equation. In an equation, I cannot add to one side without adding to the other, which results in the homogeneity you describe.

But in GW2 it is entirely possible to add to one side without adding to the other. If we make guard stronger, we do not necessarily make rev stronger. We can decide to make rev also stronger, resulting in no net change, or we can leave rev where it is resulting in a relative nerf, or we can hard nerf it, or we can buff it even more resulting in a relative nerf for guard.

You have simply declared GW2 to be homogenous. This a ridiculous assumption.

You're saying that a situation where 90% of players pick guardian and 10% pick rev is equivalent to a situation where 50% pick both, because its still the same number of players. It is...... but that says nothing about balance. You're looking at the wrong equation.

It's like declaring that the energy and mass of the universe is homogenous. True, you can't add or remove from the total. That doesn't change the fact that you can take actions to make certain areas much hotter or colder. This is almost a perfect example of this situation. I'm saying "if you turn the heating up, the room will get hotter", and you're saying "nope, because eventually the universe will reach heat death". Ummm....... that doesn't change that turning the heating up right now in this room will make it hotter. Bringing up the heat death of the universe is so irrelevant to tweaking the temperature of the room I'm in, that it's hard not to conclude that you're either a troll, or really want to show off about how you read a book.

I am well aware of the concept of homogeneity. I am disputing its relevance to this situation.

Okay where to start...

Your talking to someone who studied this for years and years. Do you really think I can't see straight through every single issue you are presenting in each one of your talking points? You literally can't even show with actual mathematics to prove your point, while I can, effortlessly.

Here's something very important to understand first. That when talking about homogeneity, you can't just "talk" about it either, like it's some lone thing in a vacuum that only applies to equations. Homogeneity and Heterogeneity are complicated properties of mathematics that exist in consort (in fact they are one in the same thing) and I said this pages ago... The things you are talking about (Heating and cooling part of a system) shows your lack of understanding how homogeneity and heterogeneity are supposed to exist together in the same framework.

Here's a picture to show you how the two are the same thing, and how and why they exist together.

The main takeaway from this, is that this is a pictorial representation of the math, for how a system is and ALWAYS will be, homogenous, because it is invariant at all scales...no matter what state the subsystems are in. Even if you manipulate one of the balls in any of the systems to go in any direction, the system as a whole still remains homogenous. Its something that you simply CAN NOT change. with any operation and I've said this a hundred billion times now.

Take your example, that you change guardian to have 1 million HP and 1 million damage and change nothing else in the game. What happens to the system as a whole? Everyone plays a guardian. The system REMAINS homogenous because EVERYTHING in the system is now a guardian. Such a state of the game, is "perfectly balanced" is it not...if everyone is just playing the same build on the same class as if nothing else existed...is this not the same state of a game where if all 9 classes had the same abilities, the same traits the same weapons the same everything? Would this not be equivalent to a perfectly balanced game of Ping Pong? This is the kind of thinking you need to be doing when trying to analyze the logic in your examples.

Now something to also understand, is that Perfect Homogenous systems don't truly exist . All systems are imperfect, and lay on a spectrum between homogeneity and heterogeneity, and as you get closer to making a system more and more homogenous, it simply gives you more and more homogenous properties...likewise in the reverse direction. Gw2 is no exception. It is not a homogenous game. but you can still balance the game into homogeneity or heterogeneity. Balancing to either end will give you more and more properties that align with homogenous systems, or heterogenous systems. Homogenous systems exhibit equality, while heterogenous systems exhibit high differentiation (diversity). And lastly, you can't have both because they exhibit complementarity. You can't have a game that exhibits complete equality, while having a high level of diversity. In addition, Both systems can't exist WITHOUT each other. Homogenous systems evolve into heterogenous systems, and heterogenous systems become homogenous at a higher scale, triggering the same process over and over and over again at any and all scales.

Honestly man u got way to much time on ur hands, I want u to read what u wrote than use that big brain u have and think hard about how u wrote it in a mmo video game forum lol.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Ragnar.4257" said:This is still nonsense.

And the reason, is that GW2 is not an equation. In an equation, I cannot add to one side without adding to the other, which results in the homogeneity you describe.

But in GW2 it is entirely possible to add to one side without adding to the other. If we make guard stronger, we do not necessarily make rev stronger. We can decide to make rev also stronger, resulting in no net change, or we can leave rev where it is resulting in a relative nerf, or we can hard nerf it, or we can buff it even more resulting in a relative nerf for guard.

You have simply declared GW2 to be homogenous. This a ridiculous assumption.

You're saying that a situation where 90% of players pick guardian and 10% pick rev is equivalent to a situation where 50% pick both, because its still the same number of players. It is...... but that says nothing about balance. You're looking at the wrong equation.

It's like declaring that the energy and mass of the universe is homogenous. True, you can't add or remove from the total. That doesn't change the fact that you can take actions to make certain areas much hotter or colder. This is almost a perfect example of this situation. I'm saying "if you turn the heating up, the room will get hotter", and you're saying "nope, because eventually the universe will reach heat death". Ummm....... that doesn't change that turning the heating up right now in this room will make it hotter. Bringing up the heat death of the universe is so irrelevant to tweaking the temperature of the room I'm in, that it's hard not to conclude that you're either a troll, or really want to show off about how you read a book.

I am well aware of the concept of homogeneity. I am disputing its relevance to this situation.

The main takeaway from this, is that this is a pictorial representation of the math, for how a system is and ALWAYS will be, homogenous, because it is invariant at all scales...no matter what state the subsystems are in. Even if you manipulate one of the balls in any of the systems to go in any direction, the system as a whole still remains homogenous. Its something that you simply CAN NOT change. with any operation and I've said this a hundred billion times now.

Take your example, that you change guardian to have 1 million HP and 1 million damage and change nothing else in the game. What happens to the system as a whole? Everyone plays a guardian. The system REMAINS homogenous because EVERYTHING in the system is now a guardian. Such a state of the game, is "perfectly balanced" is it not...if everyone is just playing the same build on the same class as if nothing else existed...is this not the same state of a game where if all 9 classes had the same abilities, the same traits the same weapons the same everything? Would this not be equivalent to a perfectly balanced game of Ping Pong? This is the kind of thinking you need to be doing when trying to analyze the logic in your examples.

Now something to also understand, is that Perfect Homogenous systems don't truly exist . All systems are imperfect, and lay on a spectrum between homogeneity and heterogeneity, and as you get closer to making a system more and more homogenous, it simply gives you more and more homogenous properties...likewise in the reverse direction. Gw2 is no exception. It is not a homogenous game. but you can still balance the game into homogeneity or heterogeneity. Balancing to either end will give you more and more properties that align with homogenous systems, or heterogenous systems. Homogenous systems exhibit equality, while heterogenous systems exhibit high differentiation (diversity). And lastly, you can't have both because they exhibit complementarity. You can't have a game that exhibits complete equality, while having a high level of diversity. In addition, Both systems can't exist WITHOUT each other. Homogenous systems evolve into heterogenous systems, and heterogenous systems become homogenous at a higher scale, triggering the same process over and over and over again at any and all scales.

I am reading the discussion from couple of days and i really don't understand what are you trying to achieve here @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 .

The example which you are discussing (giving guardian 1M hp and NOT changing anything else) will result in exactly what you said namely everybody will play guardian which means that the system will change from a heterogenic into homogenic, which is pretty MEANINGFULL change NOT MEANINGLESS which is all Rangar is claiming.

Claiming that this is NOT a meaningful change is simple false because at the moment the system is heterogenic (has diversity many classes with many different skills) and with such a big numerical change which leads to loss of diversity and everything will became guardian (which means one class with same skills which means homogenic ) you are changing the whole system type.

Please try to rethink what you wrote exactlyFirst "Even if you manipulate one of the balls in any of the systems to go in any direction, the system as a whole still remains homogenous. Its something that you simply CAN NOT change. with any operation and I've said this a hundred billion times now. " - so here you claim that the system cannot change then ". Homogenous systems evolve into heterogenous systems, and heterogenous systems become homogenous at a higher scale, triggering the same process over and over and over again at any and all scales. " here you claim that the system is changing from one to another.

Let me try to clarify that simply, the system cannot change by it self , but it can be changed by third party, which is exactly what the example above will do if it was made.

Also i would like to share with you something which one of my professors once told me - " If you cannot explain something with simple words then you probably dont understand it either" . Please dont get me wrong i dont want to offend you, but your attitude in the whole conversation is very cocky and such attitude usually does not lead to constructive conversation. Also when someone do not agree with you and you start your response with "i study it for many years so i know it" does not prove your point either.

Have a great day and be healthy!

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:Honestly man u got way to much time on ur hands, I want u to read what u wrote than use that big brain u have and think hard about how u wrote it in a mmo video game forum lol.

I mean sure. but can you imagine if we were to sit around and talk about the world as if the Earth was flat? This is essentially the equivalent to talking about balance and diversity without understanding that there's actual math and science to be understood when talking about these subjects...

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Psycoprophet.8107" said:Honestly man u got way to much time on ur hands, I want u to read what u wrote than use that big brain u have and think hard about how u wrote it in a mmo video game forum lol.

I mean sure. but can you imagine if we were to sit around and talk about the world as if the Earth was flat? This is essentially the equivalent to talking about balance and diversity without understanding that there's actual math and science to be understood when talking about these subjects...

Noone is denying that there is " actual math and science to be understood when talking about these subjects"

Balancing a MMOrpg is NOT a simple task at all and it involves a lot of science and math in it.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"razaelll.8324" said:The example which you are discussing (giving guardian 1M hp and NOT changing anything else) will result in exactly what you said namely everybody will play guardian which means that the system will change from a heterogenic into homogenic, which is pretty MEANINGFULL change NOT MEANINGLESS which is all Rangar is claiming.Claiming that this is NOT a meaningful change is simple false because at the moment the system is heterogenic (has diversity) and with such a big numerical change which leads to loss of diversity and everything will became guardian (which means same which means heterogenic ) you are changing the whole system type.

It's meaningless because you can do the same operation elsewhere in the system and get a similar state of the system. The definition of meaning is what voltaicbore pointed out as to what me and Ragnar truly disagree on. He believes that the change has meaning because it has a local impact on the system. My position is that it's meaningless because there are an infinite number of operations you can do or could have done to the system that are just as balanced as that particular change you just did and so no other change is any more significant than any other...therefor u could have really done anything using whatever excuse you wanted and you can still get the same results. You could have buffed guardian with 1million HP or you could have nerfed everyone but guardian to have 1 HP. The difference between me and Ragnar is that math supports my position.

Claiming that this is NOT a meaningful change is simple false because at the moment the system is heterogenic (has diversity) and with such a big numerical change which leads to loss of diversity and everything will became guardian (which means same which means heterogenic ) you are changing the whole system type.

Okay, there's only one way to truly explain this, and it will make sense to you alright. Just read through the whole thing.

Imagine you have two agents competing against each other in a game.

In this system, there are 10 different abilities that each agent could choose from. The agents will sort through all 10 to compete with their opponent to find out which one is the most optimal choice. After some finite number of computations, lets just say 10 of them, the agents will have figured out the ability that is the most optimal. The state of this system can essentially be anything right....it could be that the most optimal choice is a million times stronger then every other choice, but the agent still had to do at least 10 computations to find out this information.

Now imagine this game at different states of the system.1) If all options in the system were homogenous, then at the end of the computations, there is no optimal choice, because in fact all choices are the optimal choice...since they are all just the same choice.2) In another state of the system, all choices are different, and the most optimal choice is identified in a finite number of steps.3) Imagine now a state of the system where each choice was setup like Rock Paper Scissors. The most optimal choice for each agent is to pick a choice at random.

So what do all 3 states have in common...or how are they different? The answer is that they are all the same. why? because It takes the same amount of computation to determine the most optimal state of the game. In other words, if you were to place any of the game types into a hat, you could pick any kind of state in this system, and always produce a game that will be solved in 10 steps. Yes changing one state to another state will essentially "reset" the computation, this is true, but eventually the optimal path will be found and the game will be "solved" until the next "reset."

So in the above, all changes made in the game above essentially don't mean anything in terms of the system as a whole. You can tell, that the game state that fits the best with gw2, is the RPS state...the RPS state is essentially a state of maximum diversity, where all choices when picked at random have the same percent chance to win against the opponent.

But aside from how this RPS state fits the best with gw2, it is still just as meaningless as any other change...so what can actually be done to give this system more meaning? The answer is increasing the number of required computations to reach optimal strategy. This is essentially the reason why systems are able to evolve in the first place. Essentially, the more the complexity of the system increases, the more computations required by the agents to reach optimal strategy, and NEW states of the system are explored with every computation. It's this key feature of exploring new states that gives the agents in this system a continued purpose to even play the game.

So to directly answer your question, is that this meaningful change is derived from an understanding in how an increase in complexity increases the time it takes to find optimal strategy, which allows the system to evolve into NEW states rather then revisiting older ones, or states of the system that are the the same as other states of the system. It has nothing to do with change in system types because again, homogenous-heterogenous systems are basically the same thing with different properties.

Also i would like to share with you something which one of my professors once told me - " If you cannot explain something with simple words then you probably dont understand it either"

No offence to your professor, but tell him to go predict the weather or study complexity theory and see if he can explain that in simple words. Complexity theory is literally a field of science and math that explains how NOTHING is simple. Yes, I have studied this particular science for years and it also turns out that all modern physics is pointing to this field and it's procuring answers to big questions...don't believe me? Type in

.... yes scientists are using complexity theory to solve the the gap between GR and QM. Complexity theory is definitely not easy to explain especially when it has everything to do with how all real world systems work in reality. Ask any systems engineer and they will tell you how they NEED to use complexity theory to solve real world applicable problems when making models or systems.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"razaelll.8324" said:The example which you are discussing (giving guardian 1M hp and NOT changing anything else) will result in exactly what you said namely everybody will play guardian which means that the system will change from a heterogenic into homogenic, which is pretty MEANINGFULL change NOT MEANINGLESS which is all Rangar is claiming.Claiming that this is NOT a meaningful change is simple false because at the moment the system is heterogenic (has diversity) and with such a big numerical change which leads to loss of diversity and everything will became guardian (which means same which means heterogenic ) you are changing the whole system type.

It's meaningless because you can do the same operation elsewhere in the system and get a similar state of the system. The definition of meaning is what voltaicbore pointed out as to what me and Ragnar truly disagree on. He believes that the change has meaning because it has a

local

impact on the system. My position is that it's meaningless because there are an infinite number of operations you can do or could have done to the system that are just as balanced as that particular change you just did and so no other change is any more significant than any other...therefor u could have really done anything using whatever excuse you wanted and you can still get the same results. You could have buffed guardian with 1million HP or you could have nerfed everyone but guardian to have 1 HP. The difference between me and Ragnar is that math supports my position.

Claiming that this is NOT a meaningful change is simple false because at the moment the system is heterogenic (has diversity) and with such a big numerical change which leads to loss of diversity and everything will became guardian (which means same which means heterogenic ) you are changing the whole system type.

Okay, there's only one way to truly explain this, and it will make sense to you alright. Just read through the whole thing.

Imagine you have two agents competing against each other in a game.

In this system, there are 10 different abilities that each agent could choose from. The agents will sort through all 10 to compete with their opponent to find out which one is the most optimal choice. After some finite number of computations, lets just say 10 of them, the agents will have figured out the ability that is the most optimal. The state of this system can essentially be anything right....it could be that the most optimal choice is a million times stronger then every other choice, but the agent still had to do at least 10 computations to find out this information.

Now imagine this game at different states of the system.1) If all options in the system were homogenous, then at the end of the computations, there is no optimal choice, because in fact all choices are the optimal choice...since they are all just the same choice.2) In another state of the system, all choices are different, and the most optimal choice is identified in a finite number of steps.3) Imagine now a state of the system where each choice was setup like Rock Paper Scissors. The most optimal choice for each agent is to pick a choice at random.

So what do all 3 states have in common...or how are they different? The answer is that they are all the same. why? because It takes the same amount of computation to determine the most optimal state of the game. In other words, if you were to place any of the game types into a hat, you could pick any kind of state in this system, and always produce a game that will be solved in 10 steps. Yes changing one state to another state will essentially "reset" the computation, this is true, but eventually the optimal path will be found and the game will be "solved" until the next "reset."

So in the above, all changes made in the game above essentially don't mean anything in terms of the system as a whole. You can tell, that the game state that fits the best with gw2, is the RPS state...the RPS state is essentially a state of maximum diversity, where all choices when picked at random have the same percent chance to win against the opponent.

But aside from how this RPS state fits the best with gw2, it is still just as meaningless as any other change...so what can actually be done to give this system more meaning? The answer is increasing the number of required computations to reach optimal strategy. This is essentially the reason why systems are able to evolve in the first place. Essentially, the more the complexity of the system increases, the more computations required by the agents to reach optimal strategy, and NEW states of the system are explored with every computation. It's this key feature of exploring new states that gives the agents in this system a continued purpose to even play the game.

So to directly answer your question, is that this meaningful change is derived from an understanding in how an increase in complexity increases the time it takes to find optimal strategy, which allows the system to evolve into NEW states rather then revisiting older ones, or states of the system that are the the same as other states of the system. It has nothing to do with change in system types because again, homogenous-heterogenous systems are basically the same thing with different properties.

Also i would like to share with you something which one of my professors once told me - " If you cannot explain something with simple words then you probably dont understand it either"

No offence to your professor, but tell him to go predict the weather or study complexity theory and see if he can explain that in simple words. Complexity theory is literally a field of science and math that explains how

NOTHING

is simple. Yes, I have studied this particular science for years and it also turns out that all modern physics is pointing to this field and it's procuring answers to big questions...don't believe me? Type in

.... yes scientists are using complexity theory to solve the the gap between GR and QM. Complexity theory is definitely not easy to explain especially when it has everything to do with how all real world systems work in reality. Ask any systems engineer and they will tell you how they NEED to use complexity theory to solve real world applicable problems when making models or systems.

I dont need to ask anybody about that because i have bachelor and master degree in electronics and doctor degree in math (development and design of electronic devices is my job) so I believe i understand well enough the complexity in design of a system ... i never said that everything is simple, and my professor claims that everything can be explained with simple words, and to back that up you can check how Einstein explains the theory of the relativity for example, anyways back to the topic. I agree on what you wrote up mostly.

The different play modes in gw2 can be separated and threated as subsystems because making changes for spvp will not reflect in to the rest of the game. So here the change which we make is relevant to spvp only which means that for the game as a hole this changes are meaningless correct, but for the spvp mode (subsystem) it will be meaningful because it changes the subsystem type... And the discussion here is about spvp not about the game as a whole, because spvp is a separated subsystem because any changes in it will not reflect to the rest of the game .

If the changes done for spvp also reflect to the rest of the game then that will become meaningful change for the whole system not only for the spvp subsystem.

Edit: i believe this conversation is not very interesting for most of the people so i suggest to move it in PMs if you want to continue it since it is interesting for me. You can find me in game or in discord as beyolf#9079

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"razaelll.8324" said:The different play modes in gw2 can be separated and threated as subsystems because making changes for spvp will not reflect in to the rest of the game. So here the change which we make is relevant to spvp only which means that for the game as a hole this changes are meaningless correct, but for the spvp mode (subsystem) it will be meaningful because it changes the subsystem type... And the discussion here is about spvp not about the game as a whole, because spvp is a separated subsystem because any changes in it will not reflect to the rest of the game .

Let me put it this way. Ragnar's position, is like saying that Entropy is false and doesn't exist; because according to his argument, we can make a change at local scale that doesn't effect the system as a whole, therefor changes on a local scale have "meaning." As an example of what he said, "we can nerf Guardian without buffing Revenant" and that will give us "meaningful change." And, this is why I am so completely against his position and others justifying that...It's Thermodynamics 101 and off the bat we are violating all the laws...I mean this position wouldn't get past the first day of high-school. And Ragnar will of course say that "this isn't my argument at all!" But this is because he doesn't fully get the whole equivalence of a system at all scales because of it having invariant properties.

You can not lower the entropy inside the box, without increasing it outside the box. Entropy 101, close the book, the conversation is basically done.

Now we only care about the system of SPVP....other systems that exist outside of it aren't causally connected, so they of course don't matter. When we talk about SPVP changes in Guild-Wars 2, we aren't talking about how those changes effect World of Warcraft balance (Fun fact, for people who were reading the first paragraph, the two INDEED have a connection, but that connection for us right now, is completely irrelevant to what we care about, something to think about.). We only need to care about the system if it's causally connected, which is just the system of SPVP. The system of SPVP that we are describing and we care about is the 9 classes, and the hundreds or thousands of choices that each class has available to them...this is the entire system, and anything that is a partition of these 9 classes is just a subsystem. Guardian is a subsystem of the 9 classes and the Staff weapon-set on Guardian, is a subsystem of Guardian.

So in other words, "Our universe" for all intensive purposes is these 9 classes, the thousands of possible skills and trait combinations on these 9 classes, and the 4 or 5 attributes that describe these thousands of skills and traits. Again, just because we have a finite number of subsystems, doesn't mean that the system isn't still invariant at all scales...its just a finite system; There are an infinite number of changes one could make in any of the subsystems that is equivalent to any other change elsewhere in the system. Changing one thing, changes the entire system in some way at all scales. Again the difference between me and Ragnar's position, is that Ragnar believes you can make UNIQUE local change with numerical changes, which is wrong btw, and my position is that ALL numerical changes have an infinite number of equivalent change, meaning NO change is unique at any and all scale, which is factually and mathematically correct.

I dont need to ask anybody about that because i have bachelor and master degree in electronics and doctor degree in math (development and design of electronic devices is my job) so I believe i understand well enough the complexity in design of a system ... I never said that everything is simple, and my professor claims that everything can be explained with simple words, and to back that up you can check how Einstein explains the theory of the relativity for example, anyways back to the topic. I agree on what you wrote up mostly.Edit: i believe this conversation is not very interesting for most of the people so i suggest to move it in PMs if you want to continue it since it is interesting for me. You can find me in game or in discord as beyolf#9079

Right ya. See that's the thing to me. This conversation might not be interesting to some people, but it is the only way to talk about the subject if we want to be factual and not just subjective. Everyone enjoys the "NERF CLASS X Y Z" thread, but those threads are the reason we are here right now in this one. I am a PRODUCT of the need for logical analysis in a game that is being slowly destroyed by illogical subjective and bias arguments.

Personally, you would enjoy looking into Complexity theory. I also firmly believe (but has yet to be proven) that complexity theory is the possible theory of everything. It's one reason why I've studied it for so long. When looking at complexity theory, it's like a theory that simply describes how systems work...how they evolve from simple systems into complex ones and why. It's an amazing area to study if you are into mathematics, and it applies to basically everything, including this game. In fact one day i was just walking home, i looked up at all these birds in the sky flying around like they do in the morning...and then just out of nowhere randomly I though "huh...why does that look like WvW zerg lol" Ever since I went on a 3 year long journey to understand how complexity theory explains both behaviors and why they look so similar. Didn't think it was going to be a 3 year long journey....I honestly though I could just googled something and find some cool fact about why they are similar but nope...it was a rabbit hole that kept going deeper and deeper and deeper.

But sure if i ever log on in game (i haven't really logged in months because i kind of quit ages ago and just appear now and then to see if anything has changed) ill give you a whisper.

[razaelll.8324]

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

So in other words, "Our universe" for all intensive purposes is these 9 classes, the thousands of possible skills and trait combinations on these 9 classes, and the 4 or 5 attributes that describe these thousands of skills and traits. Again, just because we have a finite number of subsystems, doesn't mean that the system isn't still invariant at all scales...its just a finite system; There are an infinite number of changes one could make in any of the subsystems that is equivalent to any other change elsewhere in the system. Changing one thing, changes the entire system in some way at all scales. Again the difference between me and Ragnar's position, is that Ragnar believes you can make UNIQUE local change with numerical changes, which is wrong btw, and my position is that ALL numerical changes have an infinite number of equivalent change, meaning NO change is unique at any and all scale, which is factually and mathematically correct.

I am sorry but i think you are getting this wrong. From what i read Ragnar does not claim " he can make UNIQUE local change with numerical changes". He does NOT even once talk about UNIQUE local change. The only thing which he claims is that he can make a numerical change to the subsystem which will be meaningful for the subsystem it self , that is completely correct as we discussed in the example above . @Ragnar.4257 correct me if i am wrong please.

even you just admit it by saying " Changing one thing, changes the entire system in some way at all scales" which is exactly what Rangar is claiming

Personally, you would enjoy looking into Complexity theory. I also firmly believe (but has yet to be proven) that complexity theory is the possible theory of everything. It's one reason why I've studied it for so long. When looking at complexity theory, it's like a theory that simply describes how systems work...how they evolve from simple systems into complex ones and why. It's an amazing area to study if you are into mathematics, and it applies to basically everything, including this game. In fact one day i was just walking home, i looked up at all these birds in the sky flying around like they do in the morning...and then just out of nowhere randomly I though "huh...why does that look like WvW zerg lol" Ever since I went on a 3 year long journey to understand how complexity theory explains both behaviors and why they look so similar. Didn't think it was going to be a 3 year long journey....I honestly though I could just googled something and find some cool fact about why they are similar but nope...it was a rabbit hole that kept going deeper and deeper and deeper. But sure if i ever log on in game (i haven't really logged in months because i kind of quit ages ago and just appear now and then to see if anything has changed) ill give you a whisper.

I totally agree that complexity theory is an amazing study, but i dont think that its necessary to involve it in the discussion, because we are discussing a system with finite number of subsystems which can be simplified well enough.

But sure if i ever log on in game (i haven't really logged in months because i kind of quit ages ago and just appear now and then to see if anything has changed) ill give you a whisper.

feel free to do so , i will be glad to have a chat :)

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"razaelll.8324" said:I am sorry but i think you are getting this wrong. From what i read Ragnar does not claim " he can make UNIQUE local change with numerical changes". He does NOT even once talk about UNIQUE local change. The only thing which he claims is that he can make a numerical change to the subsystem which will be meaningful for the subsystem it self , that is completely correct as we discussed in the example above . @Ragnar.4257 correct me if i am wrong please.

His claim that buffing one class is meaningfully different operation then nerfing another class (or just leaving other classes alone), and that because he believes it's different, that this has meaning. I'm saying it's not different or a unique change, there is an infinite number of changes that give you the same resultant state of the system as a whole.

His claim is one of the idea that nerfs and buffs have meaning because they have impact on the local system (being unique) I'm saying any and all changes are not unique therefor have no impact on the system as a whole. This is the entire argument please re-read the thread if you have to so you can understand the positions clearly.

Just a quote here

@Ragnar.4257 said:Exactly, we're NOT making a change that's equivalent to something else.

We're NOT buffing A by 100, and also buffing B by 100. We're ONLY buffing A by 100. So yes there is a difference.

...Okay guys, we've reached peak idiocy.

It's totally fine to give guardian +10k HP, because we COULD have added damage to Warrior, even though we didn't. But we COULD have done (but we didn't). Giving >guardian +10k HP and giving warrior nothing in compensation, is totally fine, because it's all relative and systems and nothing matters and blabla.

Just..... lol.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"razaelll.8324" said:I am sorry but i think you are getting this wrong. From what i read Ragnar does not claim " he can make UNIQUE local change with numerical changes". He does NOT even once talk about UNIQUE local change. The only thing which he claims is that he can make a numerical change to the subsystem which will be meaningful for the subsystem it self , that is completely correct as we discussed in the example above . @Ragnar.4257 correct me if i am wrong please.

His claim that buffing one class is meaningfully different operation then nerfing another class (or just leaving other classes alone), and that because he believes it's different, that this has meaning. I'm saying it's not different or a unique change, there is an infinite number of changes that give you the same resultant state of the system as a whole.

His claim is one of the idea that nerfs and buffs have meaning because they have impact on the local system (being unique) I'm saying any and all changes are not unique therefor have no impact on the system as a whole. This is the entire argument please re-read the thread if you have to so you can understand the positions clearly.

Just a quote here

@"Ragnar.4257" said:Exactly, we're NOT making a change that's equivalent to something else.

We're NOT buffing A by 100, and also buffing B by 100. We're ONLY buffing A by 100. So yes there is a difference.

...Okay guys, we've reached peak idiocy.

It's totally fine to give guardian +10k HP, because we COULD have added damage to Warrior, even though we didn't. But we COULD have done (but we didn't). Giving >guardian +10k HP and giving warrior nothing in compensation, is totally fine, because it's all relative and systems and nothing matters and blabla.

Just..... lol.

I will tell you again i believe you are getting this wrong. He is not clamming that "His claim that buffing one class is meaningfully different operation then nerfing another class". he is claiming that if you buff 1 class without buffing the other this will change the local system, which is correct. Same if you nerf 1 class without nerfing the other this will also change the local system. He is not claiming that buffing is more meaningful than nerfing nether the opposite. Making a change to a part of a local system without making the same change to the rest of local the system will change the local system that is what he is saying exactly just with other words. And i believe we already agreed on that.

His claim is one of the idea that nerfs and buffs have meaning because they have impact on the local system (being unique)

he claims that nerfing or buffing have meaning because it impacts the local system exactly, and we are talking only for the local system and changes on the local system not for the system as a whole. i think that is what you are missing the topic here is the LOCAL SYSTEM not the system as a whole. Buffing and nerfing changes the local system and they are meaningful for the local system it self not for the system as a whole.

I believe i understand the positions well enough and reading the conversation led me to the conclusion that you do not understand what he is saying exactly , thats why i decided to write you.

Also in the previous post you say "

Changing one thing, changes the entire system in some way at all scales

and now you say

I'm saying any and all changes are not unique therefor have no impact on the system as a whole

... i am confused what you are trying to say exactly.

[Shao.7236]

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" Definition of overthinking, nothing is going to be perfect no matter the effort but at least we can make most of the options relevant one way or another and that's one of the cool niches of GW2.

Being that one thing is better in most scenario's doesn't mean it'll do all better compared the lesser. There's a lot of options that are worst overall but give some other benefit that the latter that's better. This is how things should be capitalized on to be fun.

Most complains have been about overperforming factors, as much as people can whine about nerfs. This is the direction the game took and everything than doesn't comply to it will need to be adjusted "correctly".

There is no reason to associate and contemplate the many aspects of existence even if it's the fundamentals, we get it, it'll never end otherwise if you keep going down to the very fabric of spacetime itself.

It's in a constant back and forth cycle, we don't have to mention it all here. The conversation just doesn't belong here.

Just, take a break and enjoy the current events that will be equally flawed as of before, now and future.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"razaelll.8324" said:I will tell you again i believe you are getting this wrong.... he is claiming that if you buff 1 class without buffing the other this will change the local system, which is correct.

You're distorting his argument and mine by filling it with things nobody really argued about, and that's also why you are confused. The argument isn't about whether the local state of a system can change or not... it's about whether the change has MEANING or not. The reason it has no meaning is because when you change a system locally, you are doing so at the expense of some other local subsystem somewhere else, therefor the system AS A WHOLE doesn't change. Again, buffing Guardian here, is an indirect NERF to something else elsewhere in the system. You might have changed the local system of guardian, but you did so at the expense of insert whatever class here. And again, the change you made is irrelevant because you could have done another set of operations and yielded the same result...You could have nerfed Warrior which was SUPPRESSING Guardian which inadvertently buffs Guardian , which is an inadvertent nerf to insert whatever class here So if you made a change at the expense of negating that change somewhere else in the system, then the change doesn't MEAN anything and therefor you didn't really CHANGE anything.

Mathematically, the above is the only way such a system can remain homogenous, which it has to be. All things have to add up to their constituents, if they don't you did something wrong. This is HOW entropy and all other conservation laws work. There is no free energy, no free pizza, no free balance changes.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"razaelll.8324" said:I will tell you again i believe you are getting this wrong.... he is claiming that if you buff 1 class without buffing the other this will change the local system, which is correct.

You're distorting his argument and mine by filling it with things nobody really argued about, and that's also why you are confused. The argument isn't about whether the local state of a system can change or not... it's about whether the change has MEANING or not. The reason it has no meaning is because when you change a system locally, you are doing so at the expense of some other local subsystem somewhere else, therefor the system AS A WHOLE doesn't change. Again, buffing Guardian here, is an indirect NERF to something else elsewhere in the system. You might have changed the local system of guardian, but you did so at the expense of

insert whatever class here.

And again, the change you made is irrelevant because you could have done another set of operations and yielded the same result...You could have nerfed Warrior which was SUPPRESSING Guardian which inadvertently buffs Guardian , which is an inadvertent nerf to

insert whatever class here

So if you made a change at the expense of negating that change somewhere else in the system, then the change doesn't MEAN anything and therefor you didn't really CHANGE anything.

Mathematically, the above is the only way such a system can remain homogenous, which it has to be. All things have to add up to their constituents, if they don't you did something wrong. This is HOW entropy and

all other conservation laws work

. There is no free energy, no free pizza, no free balance changes.

I strongly advise you to re-read the conversation. I think i will end the conversation here since it is becoming pointless.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@razaelll.8324 said:I strongly advise you to re-read the conversation. I think i will end the conversation here since it is becoming pointless.

I think it's you who needs to read the conversation. The debate is NOT about whether a system can change, it's whether that change has any meaning, and if that change has no meaning, then what is the point of the change in the first place. I then go on to debate with Ragnar, over the course of 2 pages, how numerical change makes no meaningful change to the system as a whole, with the reasoning that every operation one could do, has an infinite number of counter operations that could have been used instead, making any particular change you made, irrelevant to any change you could have done instead. Want me to quote every time I've said this over the past 3 pages or can you do your own reading?

Honestly I'm disappointed. You have a math background and you've yet to contribute any insight into the conversation. Was hoping you'd actually say something useful but you dip out instead because you can't seem to handle a debate of two ideas...great job. This conversation that you and I have had so far has been meaningless we may as well have never had it.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"razaelll.8324" said:

I'll just say one thing because this is PROBABLY what you really were trying to talk about, but even after I had addressed this you kind of brushed it off a few times (by just saying i was wrong or something) I'll RE-address this point so that there is closure and that we are clear.

The example which you are discussing (giving guardian 1M hp and NOT changing anything else) will result in exactly what you said namely everybody will play guardian which means that the system will change from a heterogenic into homogenic, which is pretty MEANINGFULL change NOT MEANINGLESS which is all Rangar is claiming.

Claiming that this is NOT a meaningful change is simple false because at the moment the system is heterogenic (has diversity many classes with many different skills) and with such a big numerical change which leads to loss of diversity and everything will became guardian (which means one class with same skills which means homogenic ) you are changing the whole system type.

YOUR claim (and not really Ragnar's, because he never really said anything remotely close to this) is that A system changing (at any scale) from homogenous to heterogenous is a meaningful change. Now I addressed this quiet a few times already, that the system "type" changing is not meaningful, because both system types are the same thing... they just feature properties that appear different, and this is a word I've said maybe 3 or 4 times now in this thread, that they have what's called COMPLIMENTARITY, where they are just both different ways of looking at the same thing. Complementarity is an abstract mathematical equivalence... Where two things that appear different aren't actually different, and this difference is proved by all states adding up to the sum of it's constituents. Here is a visual on why they are the same thing :

Something to understand about the two system types, is that homogenous and heterogenous systems are not different...they are different ways of viewing the same thing, and they both exist in consort with one another. In any and all states of a system, from complete homogeneity to complete diversity there is and always will be a single optimal "choice" or optimal path that determines the eventual collapse of that system to return it to a homogenous type. (As an example, think of the human race on planet Earth...as of right now we are the most optimal path in a heterogenous system, and as we continue into the future, lets just say humans completely remove all other life except other humans on earth. The system has gone from Heterogenous, to homogenous.) All states of the system that are in between the two system types, are just imperfect heterogenous systems at differing scales. So all states of the system are equivalent in that no state is any different then any other state because they all still have one optimal "meta-choice" path...

The only thing that is meaningful when describing how these systems are able to evolve and be defined is the NUMBER OF COMPUTATIONS that it takes to reach the end optimal state. This optimal state is called something very specific in math but I don't remember what it is...something like "maximally complex state" or something like that. This mechanism is basically completely separate from a description of the "system types" because it defines what the goal of the endless cycle of types shifting from one to the other actually is...which is this idea of the end maximal complex state. Once you reach the goal, the game is finished, there's nothing more to be explored...Increase the complexity, and the number of computations required to reach the end state increases, and the game goes on.

Anyway what I'm saying here, because I don't want this to go off-topic, is that Homogenous and Heterogenous systems are not different, they are the same thing, and that changes from one type into another don't mean anything. It's actually because of this relation between these two system types and complexity, that make numerical changes meaningless. The only meaningful operation one can do in a system that has any variable meaning, is increasing or decreasing the number of computations to reach the maximally complex end-sate.

[razaelll.8324]

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

complete homogeneity to complete diversity there is and always will be a single optimal "choice" or optimal path that determines the eventual collapse of that system to return it to a homogenous type.

that is true

(As an example, think of the human race on planet Earth...as of right now we are the most optimal path in a heterogenous system, and as we continue into the future, lets just say humans completely remove all other life except other humans on earth. The system has gone from Heterogenous, to homogenous.)

That example is not entirely correct. If all other life is removed and only humans stay , the system wont become a homogenous yet, because the humans are not the same so you need to first make all humans same (high, weight, strenght, age and etc.) and THEN the system will become homogenous ...

"So all states of the system are equivalent in that no state is any different then any other state because they all still have one optimal "meta-choice" path"

the states are different from one another if they have different properties ( which means they are not same states), but i agree that they all have one optimal "meta-choice" path as you called it.

Homogenous and Heterogenous systems are not different, they are the same thing, and that changes from one type into another don't mean anything.No they are not they are completely different types of system with different properties and i will give a very very simple example. is the Rain water same thing as rain water with rocks in it? the answer is no , Rain water is homogenous system but rain water with rocks in it is heterogenous system both systems have some same properties but also some in difference which makes them different to one another.

Why the different properties has any meaning? What will happen if you drink rain water and what will happen if you drink rain water with rocks in it?

Now how changing the type of the system have meaning ? Well if you remove the rocks from the rain water (change it from heterogenous into homogenous ) and then you drink it will the effect be the same as if you drink it with the rocks in it?

that changes from one type into another don't mean anything

dont mean anything for who or what? Changing a system type is very meaningful for the system , because the properties of the system are changed this way, check example above.

Honestly I'm disappointed. You have a math background and you've yet to contribute any insight into the conversation. Was hoping you'd actually say something useful but you dip out instead because you can't seem to handle a debate of two ideas...great job. This conversation that you and I have had so far has been meaningless we may as well have never had it.

The disappointment is mutual. You are shifting the words of Ragnar to serve your point in very inconsistent way

Example:

Again the difference between me and Ragnar's position, is that Ragnar believes you can make UNIQUE local change with numerical changes, which is wrong btw, and my position is that ALL numerical changes have an infinite number of equivalent change, meaning NO change is unique at any and all scale, which is factually and mathematically correct.

where exactly did Ragnar claimed that you can make "UNIQUE local change with numerical changes " ?He never said that giving 1M HP to guardian is not the same as nerfing every other class to do 1 dmg , never claimed that giving 1M hp to guardian is unique change

I assume you understand that unique and meaningful are not the same thing.

The debate is NOT about whether a system can change, it's whether that change has any meaning, and if that change has no meaning, then what is the point of the change in the first place. I then go on to debate with Ragnar, over the course of 2 pages, how numerical change makes no meaningful change to the system as a whole, with the reasoning that every operation one could do, has an infinite number of counter operations that could have been used instead, making any particular change you made, irrelevant to any change you could have done instead.

End of example.

with the reasoning that every operation one could do, has an infinite number of counter operations that could have been used instead, making any particular change you made, irrelevant to any change you could have done instead.

as long as a operation changes the state of the system it is meaningful even if it is not unique operation (having counter operation). Meaningless is which exactly operation you chose to use in order to change the state of the system, but the change it self is meaningful because it leads to different state of the system.

with other words it is meaningless do you choose to increase guardian to 1M hp or reduce all other classes to do 1 dmg because both lead to same state of the system. but executing one of this operations is meaningful for the system because it changes the system state.

so if you are claim that it is meaningless which operation you choose (increasing guardian hp to 1m or reducing all other classes to do 1 dmg)that is correct because both operations lead to the SAME state, but if you are claiming changing systems state is meaningless then that is false and i already proved why that is false.What Rangar is saying to you is no matter which of this operations(changes ) you execute this will be a meaningful change for the system it self because it will change its state, which correct.

I dip out because the debate is pointless and does not contribute for a better state of the system (sPVP) at all, which makes it meaningless to me. Looks like you cannot handle when people dont agree with you ... Anyways i am really ending this here , because of the reasons pointed above.

Have a great day and be healthy!

[Kuma.1503]

Hi, welcome to the Guild Wars 2 Forums. As you can see, the smart people are arguing right now. This might go on for a while, so, for now, a brief intermission!

Ragnar be like: Look if I scramble up my food like this I get--

Justice: A mess. And you could've just done that in a different way and gotten the same result.

Ragnar: -Munch- . . . If I did it differently it would taste better... >_<

Justice: Math doesn't care about your taste buds.

Ragnar: Remind me not to hire math as my culinarian.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@razaelll.8324 said:

(As an example, think of the human race on planet Earth...as of right now we are the most optimal path in a heterogenous system, and as we continue into the future, lets just say humans completely remove all other life except other humans on earth. The system has gone from Heterogenous, to homogenous.)

That example is not entirely correct. If all other life is removed and only humans stay , the system wont become a homogenous yet, because the humans are not the same so you need to first make all humans same (high, weight, strenght, age and etc.) and THEN the system will become homogenous ...

My guy, this has already been established way earlier in the thread. Half the thread was spent explaining this concept to Ragnar or did you miss that? The system will NEVER become homogenous because there are an infinite number of metrics one can use to define the equality of two or more things, and when two or more things are equal, they are descriptions of the same object (truly homogenous, and aka equivelence) . Here I quote one instance of myself saying exactly the same thing, and there are many instances where i repeat the same thing in much greater detail from earlier in the thread :

! > > @Ragnar.4257 said:! > > This is still nonsense....! > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:! > ...Something to also understand, is that Perfect Homogenous systems don't truly exist . All systems are imperfect, and lay on a spectrum between homogeneity and heterogeneity, and as you get closer to making a system more and more homogenous, it simply gives you more and more homogenous properties...likewise in the reverse direction. Gw2 is no exception....

You're essentially contradicting yourself in your response to me because you are struggling to understand this concept that you either don't understand or seem to not want to understand, how invariance effects the macroscopic properties and behavior of systems.

No they are not they are completely different types of system with different properties and i will give a very very simple example. is the Rain water same thing as rain water with rocks in it? the answer is no , Rain water is homogenous system but rain water with rocks in it is heterogenous system both systems have some same properties but also some in difference which makes them different to one another.

Why the different properties has any meaning? What will happen if you drink rain water and what will happen if you drink rain water with rocks in it?

Now how changing the type of the system have meaning ? Well if you remove the rocks from the rain water (change it from heterogenous into homogenous ) and then you drink it will the effect be the same as if you drink it with the rocks in it?

...as long as a operation changes the state of the system it is meaningful even if it is not unique operation (having counter operation). Meaningless is which exactly operation you chose to use in order to change the state of the system, but the change it self is meaningful because it leads to different state of the system.

with other words it is meaningless do you choose to increase guardian to 1M hp or reduce all other classes to do 1 dmg because both lead to same state of the system. but executing one of this operations is meaningful for the system because it changes the system state.

I just proved to you mathematically in the previous comment, how no state is any different then any other state (I showed that all states are equivalent). And, In fact there is no state you can show me in the example I provided, that shows it being qualitatively different then any other state. Just because you refuse to believe something doesn't mean it's not true. Don't want to believe me you can read the wiki article...it's not like I pull this information from the ether...this is established science and math and I did my homework. Everything I have said so far, is logical, backed by mathematics, and has been cited by sources, each one of them you've dismissed.

Now I challenge you to go head and show me a state of a system that is qualitatively different then any other state in the example...in fact I will give you a head start and do one for you.

You can even pretend that Pink in the above example is Mesmer, and Blue in the above is Guardian. So tell me, how are either states qualitatively different from one another? And here's I'll give you a head start on your response:

• Argument : "Well Guardian(Blue) is now the optimal choice, therefor that change was meaningful because a Guardian has different skills (properties) then a Mesmer."

• Counterpoint: Now show of hands...who truly believes that State B is qualitatively any different then State A with respect to the system as a whole. Really I would like to see anyone come forward and assess that State B is a better or worse state of the game then State A.

• Argument : "Well you made the bar smaller so all the choices are "closer" to being balanced though right?"

• Counterpoint : And as all bars approach the same height, it becomes more homogenous, meaning you lose diversity in exchange for making things equal. Even in an "almost homogenous" state, there will STILL be a most optimal path after 9 computations. Make the bars as big or as small as you like, it will lead to the same story in every and all states, again this was proved by taking a heterogenous state and a perfect homogenous state, proved at the boundaries of the problem, and thus proves it for all states within the boundary.

Now, you don't have to take my word or my proof that both states are qualitatively the same...you can just read the article on wiki and it will tell you the same thing, that the reason all states between a homogenous system and heterogenous system are the same, is because it is invariant with any and all scales....That a system at one scale can be homogenous, while at the same time, on another scale be heterogenous, and that the properties you CHOOSE to observe are just observations of local properties that are relative to the system as a whole. :

Looks like you cannot handle when people don't agree with you ...

No I have no problem with people who disagree with me especially if it's an opinion. What I do have a problem with is when people dismiss logic, proof and mathematics due to their own bias. @"voltaicbore.8012" is the perfect example of standup citizen...someone I have no issue with at all...because he/she was able to assess the argument and provided their stance and position on the argument with at the very least a logical assessment...and was able to make a good joke too... Do you see me raging at him because he disagrees with my position? Go and read up the thread and see my response.

Again, this entire conversation between me and Ragnar and now you apparently, it's like saying Entropy doesn't exist...it's simply not true, and by going around saying that it doesn't exist, you are doing a disservice to anyone who would naively believe that to be the case. This is why my disappointment in your position is exacerbated, by someone whos also "apparently" studied math...I mean... at least you KNOW what homogenous and heterogenous states of a system are and their properties. I had to EXPLAIN this to a certain someone who spent pages bickering that they can just shove an equal sign between two classes and think that makes them equal...we couldn't even get to complexity because we were stuck on why two different things cant be equal FOR PAGES. Am I frustrated...sure, like anyone who would be frustrated with someone's denial to do just a LITTLE bit of research on something to see if what they are saying is actually not true. Now I've done my research, years of it, and I provide sources, reading material, mathematical proofs, and detailed examples. Nobody can tell me i don't know what I'm trying to say, because I know exactly what I said, and i know exactly what other people have said in response to what I've said, and I've got an arsenal of counter points and proofs to support it.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@razaelll.8324 said:

(As an example, think of the human race on planet Earth...as of right now we are the most optimal path in a heterogenous system, and as we continue into the future, lets just say humans completely remove all other life except other humans on earth. The system has gone from Heterogenous, to homogenous.)

That example is not entirely correct. If all other life is removed and only humans stay , the system wont become a homogenous yet, because the humans are not the same so you need to first make all humans same (high, weight, strenght, age and etc.) and THEN the system will become homogenous ...

My guy, this has already been established way earlier in the thread. Half the thread was spent explaining this concept to Ragnar or did you miss that? The system will NEVER become homogenous because there are an infinite number of metrics one can use to define the equality of two or more things, and when two or more things are equal, they are descriptions of the same object (truly homogenous, and aka equivelence) . Here I quote one instance of myself saying exactly the same thing, and there are many instances where i repeat the same thing in much greater detail from earlier in the thread :

! > > @Ragnar.4257 said:! > > This is still nonsense....! > @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:! > ...Something to also understand, is that Perfect Homogenous systems don't truly exist . All systems are imperfect, and lay on a spectrum between homogeneity and heterogeneity, and as you get closer to making a system more and more homogenous, it simply gives you more and more homogenous properties...likewise in the reverse direction. Gw2 is no exception....

You're essentially contradicting yourself in your response to me because you are struggling to understand this concept that you either don't understand or seem to not want to understand, how invariance effects the macroscopic properties and behavior of systems.

No they are not they are completely different types of system with different properties and i will give a very very simple example. is the Rain water same thing as rain water with rocks in it? the answer is no , Rain water is homogenous system but rain water with rocks in it is heterogenous system both systems have some same properties but also some in difference which makes them different to one another.

Why the different properties has any meaning? What will happen if you drink rain water and what will happen if you drink rain water with rocks in it?

Now how changing the type of the system have meaning ? Well if you remove the rocks from the rain water (change it from heterogenous into homogenous ) and then you drink it will the effect be the same as if you drink it with the rocks in it?

...as long as a operation changes the state of the system it is meaningful even if it is not unique operation (having counter operation). Meaningless is which exactly operation you chose to use in order to change the state of the system, but the change it self is meaningful because it leads to different state of the system.

with other words it is meaningless do you choose to increase guardian to 1M hp or reduce all other classes to do 1 dmg because both lead to same state of the system. but executing one of this operations is meaningful for the system because it changes the system state.

I just proved to you mathematically in the previous comment, how no state is any different then any other state (I showed that all states are equivalent). And, In fact there is no state you can show me in the example I provided, that shows it being qualitatively different then any other state. Just because you refuse to believe something doesn't mean it's not true. Don't want to believe me you can read the wiki article...it's not like I pull this information from the ether...this is established science and math and I did my homework. Everything I have said so far, is logical, backed by mathematics, and has been cited by sources, each one of them you've dismissed.

Now I challenge you to go head and show me a state of a system that is qualitatively different then any other state in the example...in fact I will give you a head start and do one for you.

You can even pretend that Pink in the above example is Mesmer, and Blue in the above is Guardian. So tell me, how are either states qualitatively different from one another? And here's I'll give you a head start on your response:

• Argument : "Well Guardian(Blue) is now the optimal choice, therefor that change was meaningful because a Guardian has different skills (properties) then a Mesmer."

• Counterpoint: Now show of hands...who truly believes that State B is qualitatively any different then State A with respect to the system as a whole. Really I would like to see anyone come forward and assess that State B is a better or worse state of the game then State A.

• Argument : "Well you made the bar smaller so all the choices are "closer" to being balanced though right?"

• Counterpoint : And as all bars approach the same height, it becomes more homogenous, meaning you lose diversity in exchange for making things equal. Even in an "almost homogenous" state, there will STILL be a most optimal path after 9 computations. Make the bars as big or as small as you like, it will lead to the same story in every and all states, again this was proved by taking a heterogenous state and a perfect homogenous state, proved at the boundaries of the problem, and thus proves it for all states within the boundary.

Now, you don't have to take my word or my proof that both states are qualitatively the same...you can just read the article on wiki and it will tell you the same thing, that the reason all states between a homogenous system and heterogenous system are the same, is because it is invariant with any and all scales....That a system at one scale can be homogenous, while at the same time, on another scale be heterogenous, and that the properties you CHOOSE to observe are just observations of local properties that are relative to the system as a whole. :

Looks like you cannot handle when people don't agree with you ...

No I have no problem with people who disagree with me especially if it's an opinion. What I do have a problem with is when people dismiss logic, proof and mathematics due to their own bias. @"voltaicbore.8012" is the perfect example of standup citizen...someone I have no issue with at all...because he/she was able to assess the argument and provided their stance and position on the argument with at the very least a logical assessment...and was able to make a good joke too... Do you see me raging at him because he disagrees with my position? Go and read up the thread and see my response.

Again, this entire conversation between me and Ragnar and now you apparently, it's like saying Entropy doesn't exist...it's simply not true, and by going around saying that it doesn't exist, you are doing a disservice to anyone who would naively believe that to be the case. This is why my disappointment in your position is exacerbated, by someone whos also "apparently" studied math...I mean... at least you KNOW what homogenous and heterogenous states of a system are and their properties. I had to EXPLAIN this to a certain someone who spent pages bickering that they can just shove an equal sign between two classes and think that makes them equal...we couldn't even get to complexity because we were stuck on why two different things cant be equal FOR PAGES. Am I frustrated...sure, like anyone who would be frustrated with someone's denial to do just a LITTLE bit of research on something to see if what they are saying is actually not true. Now I've done my research, years of it, and I provide sources, reading material, mathematical proofs, and detailed examples. Nobody can tell me i don't know what I'm trying to say, because I know exactly what I said, and i know exactly what other people have said in response to what I've said, and I've got an arsenal of counter points and proofs to support it.

You fail to understand your own chart mate. I dont know what research you did but obviously you don't understand it at all.

Now I challenge you to go head and show me a state of a system that is qualitatively different then any other state in the example...in fact I will give you a head start and do one for you.

check what is written at the end " No particular state is in more significant than any other" which does not mean " no particular state is any different in any other" making a difference here?

You can even pretend that Pink in the above example is Mesmer, and Blue in the above is Guardian. So tell me, how are either states qualitatively different from one another? And here's I'll give you a head start on your response:i already did, THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES if you fail to understand that that's your problem not mine. Looks like you dont understand what a property of a system is let me help you Rain water is homogenous system also air is a homogenous system are they the same systems NO BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES.

I just proved to you mathematically in the previous comment, how no state is any different then any other stateyou proved nothing but your own ignorance.

No I have no problem with people who disagree with me especially if it's an opinion. What I do have a problem with is when people dismiss logic, proof and mathematics due to their own bias

You fail to prove anything and you get angry because someone challenge you to do so. I proved you wrong with just a simple example in my previous post and you decided to post a char which you don't even understand and then claim that you proved something mathematically, well a wakeup call you didnt mate. Try better next time or don't get angry to people which challenge your statements

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"razaelll.8324" said:

You can even pretend that Pink in the above example is Mesmer, and Blue in the above is Guardian. So tell me, how are either states qualitatively different from one another? And here's I'll give you a head start on your response:i already did, THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES if you fail to understand that that's your problem not mine.

This is the equivalent of saying that your coffee isn't actually coffee until the milk and sugar have been completely dissolved and dispersed evenly in your cup, which would take only the age of the universe to reach true homogenous state.

I mean if I was a coffee salesmen, I'd tell you to invest in my "Completely Homogenous Coffee Machine!...Cause It's true coffee! Believe me you will receive your return on investment in approximately 10^10^10 years....Guaranteed!"

Anyway, i already addressed this in the counterpoint.

Counterpoint: Now show of hands...who truly believes that State B is qualitatively any different then State A with respect to the system as a whole. Really I would like to see anyone come forward and assess that State B is a better or worse state of the game then State A.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@razaelll.8324 said:

You can even pretend that Pink in the above example is Mesmer, and Blue in the above is Guardian. So tell me, how are either states qualitatively different from one another? And here's I'll give you a head start on your response:i already did, THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES if you fail to understand that that's your problem not mine.

This is the equivalent of saying that your coffee isn't actually coffee until the milk and sugar have been completely dissolved and dispersed evenly in your cup, which would take only the age of the universe to reach true homogenous state.

that makes no sense at all.

Anyway, i already addressed this in the counterpoint.

Counterpoint: Now show of hands...who truly believes that State B is qualitatively any different then State A with respect to the system as a whole. Really I would like to see anyone come forward and assess that State B is a better or worse state of the game then State A.

no you didnt. that does not prove that the states are the same ....

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@razaelll.8324 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@razaelll.8324 said:

You can even pretend that Pink in the above example is Mesmer, and Blue in the above is Guardian. So tell me, how are either states qualitatively different from one another? And here's I'll give you a head start on your response:i already did, THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES if you fail to understand that that's your problem not mine.

This is the equivalent of saying that your coffee isn't actually coffee until the milk and sugar have been completely dissolved and dispersed evenly in your cup, which would take only the age of the universe to reach true homogenous state.

that makes no sense at all.

You just said that Homogenous and Heterogenous States have different properties and therefor, these properties make them meaningful... is that not what you said? Therefor I can sell you a cup of coffee that is truly homogenous and you would buy it, it'll just take only until universal Heat Death to reach perfect homogeneity, so i'll just take your money first agreed?

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

You just said that Homogenous and Heterogenous States have different properties and therefor, these properties make them meaningful... is that not what you said? Therefor I can sell you a cup of coffee that is truly homogenous and you would buy it, it'll just take you only until universal Heat Death to reach perfect homogeneity, so i'll just take your money first agreed?

Where did i said that ?

i said that what makes 2 states different is their properties, which is perfectly visible on the char you posted too ...