PvP Fights Now Be Like:

[razaelll.8324]

@Vancho.8750 said:

@Sigmoid.7082 said:Can you just agree to disagree and move on...?Nah, nah let them fight that is some quality chat pvp, best in years, pvp in game might be boring but this kitten right here is the real deal.

Good one ?

[Multicolorhipster.9751]

@Vancho.8750 said:

@Sigmoid.7082 said:Can you just agree to disagree and move on...?Nah, nah let them fight that is some quality chat pvp, best in years, pvp in game might be boring but this kitten right here is the real deal.

Honestly forget the in-game tickle duels.

This is the real endgame content.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

@Vancho.8750 said:

@Sigmoid.7082 said:Can you just agree to disagree and move on...?Nah, nah let them fight that is some quality chat pvp, best in years, pvp in game might be boring but this kitten right here is the real deal.

Honestly forget the in-game tickle duels.

This

is the real endgame content.

This duel was over before it even started. Technically this was finished on the last page, these are just the squirms that happen right before they accept their fate. Doctorate degree in math but actually did no math? brah okay...Did you cheat on all your tests and sleep through your lectures? I'm honestly curious how this guy has a doctorate in math and has done no math so far. Hire him as a dev and guaranteed the game will be nerfed into the ground and we will all enjoy 1HP, 1DMG Stick Wars Meta.

Fun fact this guy has played the game for 1 month according to his post history. I've played this game since launch, and gw1 since factions release. Do you really think someone who's played this game for a month can understand the history of the game's balance at all? Let that sink in for a moment. I would destroy him in an actual duel just like how I would in this forum. Lack of experience and research in the actual subject we're talking about and in math . So what has this guy got I really wanna know

I can go all day, and make an endless number of jokes and memes but frankly this is it, I don't wanna get banned for harassment. The video is all the proof anyone needs to see at this point. It proves everything I've said so far.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@Multicolorhipster.9751 said:

@Vancho.8750 said:

@Sigmoid.7082 said:Can you just agree to disagree and move on...?Nah, nah let them fight that is some quality chat pvp, best in years, pvp in game might be boring but this kitten right here is the real deal.

Honestly forget the in-game tickle duels.

This

is the real endgame content.

This duel was over before it even started. Technically this was finished on the last page, these are just the squirms that happen right before they accept their fate. Doctorate degree in math but actually did no math? brah okay...Did you cheat on all your tests and sleep through your lectures? I'm honestly curious how this guy has a doctorate in math and has done no math so far. Hire him as a dev and guaranteed the game will be nerfed into the ground and we will all enjoy 1HP, 1DMG Stick Wars Meta.

Fun fact this guy has played the game for 1 month according to his post history. I've played this game since launch, and gw1 since factions release. Do you really think someone who's played this game for a month can understand the history of the game's balance at all? Let that sink in for a moment. I would destroy him in an actual duel just like how I would in this forum. Lack of experience and research in the actual subject we're talking about and in math . So what has this guy got I really wanna know

I can go all day, and make an endless number of jokes and memes but frankly this is it, I don't wanna get banned for harassment. The video is all the proof anyone needs to see at this point. It proves everything I've said so far.

?????

1 word : delusional

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"razaelll.8324" said:1 word : delusional

Delusional huh?

Ya I'm real delusional I must be seein' things. I think I have 3 words for you, Do some research.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"razaelll.8324" said:1 word : delusional

Delusional huh?

Ya I'm real delusional I must be seein' things. I think I have 3 words for you, Do some research.

Learn to read!!!

This duel was over before it even started. Technically this was finished on the last page, these are just the squirms that happen right before they accept their fate.

what you say in the quote above is delusional because

How do you expect to prove me wrong when you dont even know/understand what i have said...

Didnt you ended the conversation, boss? It looks to me that you are really mad for loosing the argument ...

Here another examle of you shifting things to serve your point..

Fun fact this guy has played the game for 1 month according to his post history. I've played this game since launch, and gw1 since factions release. Do you really think someone who's played this game for a month can understand the history of the game's balance at all?

I am new player and you can see there that i say:

I see that a lot of ppl talk about the pvp balance, i am still too unexperianced to talk about it in details.

Now the question for you is where exactly did we talked about the current state of the pvp balance or the history of the game's balance?

Nowhere , because the discussion was about are numerical changes meaningful or not and we used hypothetical examples which were not related at all to the history of the game's balance neither the current balance state so you are just tryharding to make me look bad just because you lost an argument .... Very disappointing mate ....

here i will remind you what me and Ranger disagreed with

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Ragnar.4257" said:Let me ask once again:

Scenario 1:Buff A by 100, Buff B by 100

Scenario 2:Buff A by 100, leave B untouched.

You're actually saying that Scenarios 1 & 2 are equivalent and indistinguishable?

Yes, they are equivalent because you could do the same thing by just nerfing the other by 100. If you make both A and B equal through your operation, you are just moving the basic (universal) power level, and any operation you could have chosen would suffice to do just that. if you are not making them equal then you are purposefully im-balancing the system.

Mathematically they are not equivalent because A+100 and B+100 =/= A+100 and B+0

Here is the definition of equivalent "Two mathematical expressions are said to be equivalent if they yield the same result upon solving them."

Here example of equivalent 25 × 5 = 10 x10 + 5 x 5 -> 125 = 125so A+100 and B+100 does not yield the same result as A+100 and B+0 which means by definition they are not equivalent mathematically.

The rest which you claim namely:

Because whatever Nerf you introduce you can instead give it an equivalent Buff to the other. Thus nerfs are no different then buffsThis is correct and agreed on long time ago

so to be perfectly clear is A+100 and B+0 meaningful for the system it self?there are 3 possible cases:

1. If before applying the change B>A then after it A will be either closer to B or A will be equal to B and in both cases it is meaningful because it either lowers or completely closes the gab between A and B (improved the balance)
2. If before applying the change B < A then after it the gap between A and B become even bigger which is meaningful because it disbalance them even more;
3. If before applying the change A=B then after it A>B so the change is meaningful because it changes the the system from balanced to unbalanced.

Is A+100 and B+0 an UNIQUE or change of significance related to other changes NO because you can achieve the same results by doing A+0 and B -100.

I would destroy him in an actual duelYou are right that you would probably win an ingame duel since i have much less experience and knowledge about the classes, but i am up for a challenge so if you want to duel in game you know how to find me.

how I would in this forum.you would? hmm so you didnt already .... interesting ... well go for it .

Lack of experience and research in the actual subject we're talking about and in mathWhat i really want to know is where exactly did you proved my "Lack of experience and research in the actual subject we're talking about and in math " since you dont even know/understand what exactly i said ? Are you dreaming or something?

We had some fun mate, but at this point you are just trolling because you don't have anything better to say and you cannot prove me wrong since you dont even know/understand what i said or you just refuse to acknowledge it since it does not suite you, either way continuing the conversation with you is just pointless so if you dont want to end it i will end it for you.

Have a great day and be healthy!

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"razaelll.8324" said:so to be perfectly clear is A+100 and B+0 meaningful?

1. If before applying the change B>A then after it A will be either closer to B or A will be equal to B and in both cases it is meaningful because it either lowers or completely closes the gab between A and B
2. If before applying the change B < A then after it the gap between A and B become even bigger which is meaningful because it disbalance them even more;
3. If before applying the change A=B then after it A>B so the change is meaningful because it changes the the system from balanced to unbalanced.

See this is your problem here. You have no definition for what "balanced" and "unbalanced" actually means, and your using basic toddler level math to ignore it and this was the same mistake Ragnar made. When you say that a game is "perfectly balanced" it is critical to understand WHAT this actually means. It means that all choices are the same choice...again because if things are perfectly equal, then they are no different to each other. Qualitatively what does that mean if the game is perfectly balanced? It means all choices are just the same choice and no class is different then any other class in any way. This means that if we were to define it in terms of a complexity metric, this state of the game would be considered as having a maximally optimal state of 1 option.

If you took a perfectly balanced game, and made one choice better then the other choices, you have not changed the maximally optimal state because the maximally optimal state is still just 1 option....it is the choice of whatever you decided to buff up...ALL players decide to choose that option...so the game stays in a maximally optimal state of 1 option...and qualitatively all players are playing this 1 option, so again, how is that qualitatively different then the previous state.

Your view on what "balanced" and "unbalanced" are is primitive, and doesn't truly describe what is actually HAPPENING in the game where one state is balanced and when one state is imbalanced. I show this in the proof on page 3, and I link a video of the proof being done in purely mathematical expression.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"razaelll.8324" said:so to be perfectly clear is A+100 and B+0 meaningful?

1. If before applying the change B>A then after it A will be either closer to B or A will be equal to B and in both cases it is meaningful because it either lowers or completely closes the gab between A and B
2. If before applying the change B < A then after it the gap between A and B become even bigger which is meaningful because it disbalance them even more;
3. If before applying the change A=B then after it A>B so the change is meaningful because it changes the the system from balanced to unbalanced.

See this is your problem here. You have no definition for what "balanced" and "unbalanced" actually means, and your using basic toddler level math to ignore it and this was the same mistake Ragnar made. When you say that a game is "perfectly balanced" it is critical to understand WHAT this actually means. It means that all choices are the same choice...again because if things are perfectly equal, then they are no different to each other. Qualitatively what does that mean if the game is perfectly balanced? It means all choices are just the same choice and no class is different then any other class in any way. This means that if we were to define it in terms of a complexity metric, this state of the game would be considered as having a maximally optimal state of 1 option.

If you took a perfectly balanced game, and made one choice better then the other choices, you have not changed the maximally optimal state because the maximally optimal state is still just 1 option....it is the choice of whatever you decided to buff up...ALL players decide to choose that option...so the game stays in a maximally optimal state of 1 option...and qualitatively all players are playing this 1 option, so again, how is that qualitatively different then the previous state.

Your view on what "balanced" and "unbalanced" are is primitive, and doesn't truly describe what is actually HAPPENING in the game where one state is balanced and when one state is imbalanced. I show this in the proof on page 3, and I link a video of the proof being done in purely mathematical expression.

When you say that a game is "perfectly balanced" it is critical to understand WHAT this actually meansI never talked about what a perfectly balanced system is and you still fail to understand that i don't argue with you about which state is balanced better or worse.

I argue with you about is A+100 and B+100 equivalent to A+100 to B+0.

And i proved you mathematically that they are not equivalent as you claimed

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Ragnar.4257" said:Let me ask once again:

Scenario 1:Buff A by 100, Buff B by 100

Scenario 2:Buff A by 100, leave B untouched.

You're actually saying that Scenarios 1 & 2 are equivalent and indistinguishable?

Yes, they are equivalent because you could do the same thing by just nerfing the other by 100. If you make both A and B equal through your operation, you are just moving the basic (universal) power level, and any operation you could have chosen would suffice to do just that. if you are not making them equal then you are purposefully im-balancing the system.

Mathematically they are not equivalent because A+100 and B+100 =/= A+100 and B+0

Here is the definition of equivalent "Two mathematical expressions are said to be equivalent if they yield the same result upon solving them."

Here example of equivalent 25 × 5 = 10 x10 + 5 x 5 -> 125 = 125so A+100 and B+100 does not yield the same result as A+100 and B+0 which means by definition they are not equivalent mathematically.

Your view on what "balanced" and "unbalanced" are is primitiveyou dont know my view on what "balanced" and "unbalanced" is because i never talked about it.

If you took a perfectly balanced game, and made one choice better then the other choices, you have not changed the maximally optimal state because the maximally optimal state is still just 1 option

I agreed with that multiple times and you still fail to acknowledge that

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"razaelll.8324" said:you don't know my view on what "balanced" and "unbalanced" is because i never talked about it.

It's not subjective. it's systems analysis and you are not using the appropriate tools to analyze it correctly...it's like trying to describe Newtonian Mechanics without Calculus...you simply aren't using the right tools to describe what is ACTUALLY happening.

Here example of equivalent 25 × 5 = 10 x10 + 5 x 5 -> 125 = 125so A+100 and B+100 does not yield the same result as A+100 and B+0 which means by definition they are not equivalent mathematically.

You are repeating over and over that 0 does not equal 100...this is toddler level math your trying to convey and nobody ever talked or cared about this as you took the discussion out of context...What we are talking about is the operations themselves, and whether the usage of those operations are equivalent, which they clearly are. You even show how there is more then one way to get to the same result, and there are an infinite number of operations to get the same result. Stop trivializing the discussion with nonsense toddler level mathematics and trying to prove that 0 doesn't equal 100 it's actually ridiculous and I'm starting to believe you're just a shill, lying about your degrees, cause you already caught not knowing anything about the game we are actually playing.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@razaelll.8324 said:you don't know my view on what "balanced" and "unbalanced" is because i never talked about it.

It's not subjective. it's systems analysis and you are not using the appropriate tools to analyze it correctly...it's like trying to describe Newtonian Mechanics without Calculus...you simply aren't using the right tools to describe what is ACTUALLY happening.

Here example of equivalent 25 × 5 = 10 x10 + 5 x 5 -> 125 = 125so A+100 and B+100 does not yield the same result as A+100 and B+0 which means by definition they are not equivalent mathematically.

You are repeating over and over that 0 does not equal 100...this is toddler level math your trying to convey and nobody ever talked or cared about this as you took the discussion out of context...What we are talking about is the operations themselves, and whether the usage of those operations are equivalent, which they clearly are. You even show how there is more then one way to get to the same result, and there are an infinite number of operations to get the same result. Stop trivializing the discussion with nonsense toddler level mathematics and trying to prove that 100 doesn't equal 0 it's actually ridiculous and I'm starting to believe you're just a shill, lying about your degrees, cause you already caught not knowing anything about the game we are actually playing.

I am not even trying ... because i disagree with you on something else ...why are you keep ignoring it??

@razaelll.8324 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@razaelll.8324 said:so to be perfectly clear is A+100 and B+0 meaningful?

1. If before applying the change B>A then after it A will be either closer to B or A will be equal to B and in both cases it is meaningful because it either lowers or completely closes the gab between A and B
2. If before applying the change B < A then after it the gap between A and B become even bigger which is meaningful because it disbalance them even more;
3. If before applying the change A=B then after it A>B so the change is meaningful because it changes the the system from balanced to unbalanced.

See this is your problem here. You have no definition for what "balanced" and "unbalanced" actually means, and your using basic toddler level math to ignore it and this was the same mistake Ragnar made. When you say that a game is "perfectly balanced" it is critical to understand WHAT this actually means. It means that all choices are the same choice...again because if things are perfectly equal, then they are no different to each other. Qualitatively what does that mean if the game is perfectly balanced? It means all choices are just the same choice and no class is different then any other class in any way. This means that if we were to define it in terms of a complexity metric, this state of the game would be considered as having a maximally optimal state of 1 option.

If you took a perfectly balanced game, and made one choice better then the other choices, you have not changed the maximally optimal state because the maximally optimal state is still just 1 option....it is the choice of whatever you decided to buff up...ALL players decide to choose that option...so the game stays in a maximally optimal state of 1 option...and qualitatively all players are playing this 1 option, so again, how is that qualitatively different then the previous state.

Your view on what "balanced" and "unbalanced" are is primitive, and doesn't truly describe what is actually HAPPENING in the game where one state is balanced and when one state is imbalanced. I show this in the proof on page 3, and I link a video of the proof being done in purely mathematical expression.

When you say that a game is "perfectly balanced" it is critical to understand WHAT this actually meansI never talked about what a perfectly balanced system is and you still fail to understand that i don't argue with you about which state is balanced better or worse.

I argue with you about is A+100 and B+100 equivalent to A+100 to B+0.

And i proved you mathematically that they are not equivalent as you claimed

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Ragnar.4257" said:Let me ask once again:

Scenario 1:Buff A by 100, Buff B by 100

Scenario 2:Buff A by 100, leave B untouched.

You're actually saying that Scenarios 1 & 2 are equivalent and indistinguishable?

Yes, they are equivalent because you could do the same thing by just nerfing the other by 100. If you make both A and B equal through your operation, you are just moving the basic (universal) power level, and any operation you could have chosen would suffice to do just that. if you are not making them equal then you are purposefully im-balancing the system.

Mathematically they are not equivalent because A+100 and B+100 =/= A+100 and B+0

Here is the definition of equivalent "Two mathematical expressions are said to be equivalent if they yield the same result upon solving them."

Here example of equivalent 25 × 5 = 10 x10 + 5 x 5 -> 125 = 125so A+100 and B+100 does not yield the same result as A+100 and B+0 which means by definition they are not equivalent mathematically.

Your view on what "balanced" and "unbalanced" are is primitiveyou dont know my view on what "balanced" and "unbalanced" is because i never talked about it.

If you took a perfectly balanced game, and made one choice better then the other choices, you have not changed the maximally optimal state because the maximally optimal state is still just 1 option

I agreed with that multiple times and you still fail to acknowledge that

You are repeating over and over that 0 does not equal 100...this is toddler level math your trying to convey and nobody ever talked or cared

You DID do i need to quote where you DID again? Why dont you just say that you made a mistake there and end it?

Why you keep trying to ignore a mistake which you did and just shift the topic to suit you?

Yes, they are equivalent because you could do the same thing by just nerfing the other by 100.

THIS IS MATHEMATICALY NOT TRUE AND THAT IS WHAT I ARGUE WITH YOU ABOUT.

I completely understand what you ment there but you choose the WRONG words to describe it.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@razaelll.8324 said:You DID do i need to quote where you DID again? Why dont you just say that you made a mistake there and end it?

You are shilling. This conversation isn't about whether 0 is not equal to 100 . We are talking about THE OPERATIONS and their usage. An ADDITION OPERATION you use is just as equivalent as any other sequence of operations If it gets you the SAME result. Therefor an operation of +100 and an operation of +0 is just as equivalent of an operation of +0 and -100, for a result : |100|

Stop shilling so hard dude cause this is now a huge waste of my time.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@razaelll.8324 said:You DID do i need to quote where you DID again? Why dont you just say that you made a mistake there and end it?

You are shilling. This conversation isn't about whether 0 is not equal to 100 . We are talking about THE OPERATIONS and their usage. An ADDITION OPERATION you use is just as equivalent as any other sequence of operations If it gets you the SAME result. Therefor an operation of +100 and an operation of +0 is just as equivalent of an operation of +0 and -100, for a result : |100|

Stop shilling so hard dude cause this is now a huge waste of my time.

@Ragnar.4257 said:Let me ask once again:

Scenario 1:Buff A by 100, Buff B by 100

Scenario 2:Buff A by 100, leave B untouched.

You're actually saying that Scenarios 1 & 2 are equivalent and indistinguishable?

Yes, they are equivalent because you could do the same thing by just nerfing the other by 100. If you make both A and B equal through your operation, you are just moving the basic (universal) power level, and any operation you could have chosen would suffice to do just that. if you are not making them equal then you are purposefully im-balancing the system.

Are you blind?

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@razaelll.8324 said:You DID do i need to quote where you DID again? Why dont you just say that you made a mistake there and end it?

You are shilling. This conversation isn't about whether 0 is not equal to 100 . We are talking about THE OPERATIONS and their usage. An ADDITION OPERATION you use is just as equivalent as any other sequence of operations If it gets you the SAME result. Therefor an operation of +100 and an operation of +0 is just as equivalent of an operation of +0 and -100, for a result : |100|

Stop shilling so hard dude cause this is now a huge waste of my time.

I agreed with you that nerfing and buffing are the same, i agreed with you that there is no unique operation which can be done i agreed with you that there is only 1 maximally optimal state .

READ CAREFULLY what Ragnar asked you.

Let me ask once again:

Scenario 1:Buff A by 100, Buff B by 100

Scenario 2:Buff A by 100, leave B untouched.

He asks you is A+100 and B+100 equal to A+100 to B+0

And you answer is Yes.

Yes, they are equivalent because you could do the same thing by just nerfing the other by 100.

that is mathematically NOT true and i proved to you.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@"razaelll.8324" said:

I literately said in that comment what I said just now... I think you need to go back to middle school and start yourself there.

"Yes, they are equivalent because you could do the same thing by just nerfing the other by 100. If you make both A and B equal through your operation, you are just >moving the basic (universal) power level, and any operation you could have chosen would suffice to do just that. if you are not making them equal then you are >purposefully im-balancing the system."

Is this not what i just said in the comment above?

"This conversation isn't about whether 0 is not equal to 100 . We are talking about THE OPERATIONS and their usage. An ADDITION OPERATION you use is just as >equivalent as any other sequence of operations If it gets you the SAME result. Therefor an operation of +100 and an operation of +0 is just as equivalent of an >operation of +0 and -100, for a result : |100|"

Tell me what school you go to so I can call them to revoke your degree, cause this is actually nonsense right now.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

I agreed with you that nerfing and buffing are the same, i agreed with you that there is no unique operation which can be done i agreed with you that there is only 1 maximally optimal state .

Then what the kitten are you even going on about. The conversation isn't about whether 0 doesn't equal 100...stop trying to pretend like this is what the convo was ever about.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"razaelll.8324" said:

I literately said in that comment what I said just now... I think you need to go back to middle school and start yourself there.

"Yes, they are equivalent because you could do the same thing by just nerfing the other by 100. If you make both A and B equal through your operation, you are just >moving the basic (universal) power level, and any operation you could have chosen would suffice to do just that. if you are not making them equal then you are >purposefully im-balancing the system."

Is this not what i just said in the comment above?

"This conversation isn't about whether 0 is not equal to 100 . We are talking about THE OPERATIONS and their usage. An ADDITION OPERATION you use is just as >equivalent as any other sequence of operations If it gets you the SAME result. Therefor an operation of +100 and an operation of +0 is just as equivalent of an >operation of +0 and -100, for a result : |100|"

Tell me what school you go to so I can call them to revoke your degree, cause this is actually nonsense right now.

I agreed with you that nerfing and buffing are the same, i agreed with you that there is no unique operation which can be done i agreed with you that there is only 1 maximally optimal state .

READ CAREFULLY what Ragnar asked you.

Let me ask once again:

Scenario 1:Buff A by 100, Buff B by 100

Scenario 2:Buff A by 100, leave B untouched.

He asks you is A+100 and B+100 equal to A+100 to B+0

And you answer is Yes.

Yes, they are equivalent because you could do the same thing by just nerfing the other by 100.

that is mathematically NOT true and i proved to you.

EQUIVALENT can be A+100 and B+0 to A+0 and B-100 AND I AGREED ON THAT BUT A+100 and B+100 IS NOT EUIVALENT to A+100 to B+0 are you really not understanding what is written here or you just purposely ignoring it?

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I agreed with you that nerfing and buffing are the same, i agreed with you that there is no unique operation which can be done i agreed with you that there is only 1 maximally optimal state .

Then what the kitten are you even going on about. The conversation isn't about whether 0 doesn't equal 100...stop trying to pretend like this is what the convo was ever about.

i will ask you again are you blind? Thats where the argument between you and Ragnar started .... WTF

You said that 0 is equal to 100 (indirectly by claiming that A+100 and B+100 = A+100 to B+0), probably by mistake or just choose wrong words and you STILL DONT WANT TO AKNOLEDGE IT.

equivalent -> A+100 and B+0 = A+0 and B-100NOT equivalent -> A+100 and B+100 =/= A+100 and B+0 (you claimed that this 2 are equivalent and they are NOT the ones above ARE)

And you failed to even see that i agreed with you on most of the stuff and just decided to troll without even understanding where do we disagree at....

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@razaelll.8324 said:EQUIVALENT can be A+100 and B+0 to A+0 and B-100 AND I AGREED ON THAT BUT A+100 and B+100 IS NOT EUIVALENT to A+100 to B+0 are you really not understanding what is written here or you just purposely ignoring it?

Dude nobody ever cared, asked or talked about if A+100 and B+100 is equal to A+100 and B+0. What we care about is the OPERATIONS and whether there is an equivalent operation. If A+100 and B+100 is |200| then any operation that will yield you |200| is going to be equivalent, and there are an infinite number of equivlent operations that will yield you |200|. We are talking about CHANGES aka OPERATIONS. This is the whole topic of the thread...stop talking about whether 3421 is not equal to 4059 or whatever STUPID number you want to pick there an infinite amount of numbers that are not equal to each other, please stop this nonsense.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@razaelll.8324 said:EQUIVALENT can be A+100 and B+0 to A+0 and B-100 AND I AGREED ON THAT BUT A+100 and B+100 IS NOT EUIVALENT to A+100 to B+0 are you really not understanding what is written here or you just purposely ignoring it?

Dude nobody ever cared, asked or talked about if A+100 and B+100 is equal to A+100 and B+0.man you are hopeless i will quote it for you again.

@Ragnar.4257 said:Let me ask once again:

Scenario 1:Buff A by 100, Buff B by 100

Scenario 2:Buff A by 100, leave B untouched.

You're actually saying that Scenarios 1 & 2 are equivalent and indistinguishable?

Here Ragnar is asking you ARE A+100 and B+100 equal to A+100 and B+0. So he ask you SPECIFICLY are this 2 operations equivalent to one another and you responded that they are which you now acknowledge is NOT true. Finally ! THANK YOU!

WE AGREED with you that this 2 operations are not UNIQUE and they have EQUIVALENT counter operations which will lead to same result, but he asked you are this 2 SPECIFICLY equivalent to one another and you responded yes... wtf? Maybe you didnt understood the question i dont know but you cannot hide what mistake you did there and that's where the argument started.

If A+100 and B+100 is |200| then any operation that will yield you |200| is going to be equivalent, and there are an infinite number of equivalent operations that will yield you |200|.

Me and Ragnar AGREED with that multiple times i dont know why you keep bringing it!

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@razaelll.8324 said:

You're just misinterpreting the answer I gave to him.

If A has 100HP and B has 200HP and if the end result we want to reach is 300HP, then one operation you can choose is A=+200 and B=+100.

If we want to reach a system of 100 HP, then A=+0 and B=-100. The system where the HP is 300 across A and B and the system where the HP is 100 across A and B are qualitatively the same system...All agents in this system have the same HP....therefor both states of this system are the same, and both operations are equivalent in this regard.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@razaelll.8324 said:

You're just misinterpreting the answer I gave to him.

If A has 100HP and B has 200HP and if the end result we want to reach is 300HP, then one operation you can choose is A=+200 and B=+100.

If we want to reach a system of 100 HP, then A=+0 and B=-100. The system where the HP is 300 across A and B and the system where the HP is 100 across A and B are qualitatively the same system...All agents in this system have the same HP....therefor both states of this system are the same, and both operations are equivalent in this regard.

So first you claimed that nobody talked about that

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:Dude nobody ever cared, asked or talked about if A+100 and B+100 is equal to A+100 and B+0.

Now when i proved that wrong i am just misinterpreting the answer you gave. hahahahah

No mate you just chose wrong words to describe what you mean and you dont want to say it. Your answer to him was very clear and wrong in the way you formulated it

The system where the HP is 300 across A and B and the system where the HP is 100 across A and B are qualitatively the same system...All agents in this system have the same HP....therefor both states of this system are the same, and both operations are equivalent in this regard

Me and Ragnar agreed with that multiple times

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@razaelll.8324 said:No mate you just chose wrong words to describe what you mean and you don't want to say it. Your answer to him was very clear

You are stuck on one thing that nobody actually cares about. Who cares if 0 doesn't equal 100 this is not what the conversation was ever about. And you definitely misinterpreted what I said because no I'm not saying that 100 apples is equal to 4 apples...think your just grasping for straws and bickering over semantics.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@razaelll.8324 said:No mate you just chose wrong words to describe what you mean and you don't want to say it. Your answer to him was very clear

You are stuck on one thing that nobody actually cares about. Who cares if 0 doesn't equal 100 this is not what the conversation was ever about. And you definitely misinterpreted what I said because no I'm not saying that 100 apples is equal to 4 apples...think your just grasping for straws and bickering over semantics.

hahaha okay mate as you say ... you know best.. ;) Keep refusing that you made a mistake ;) As you kept refusing to acknowledge that i agreed with you on almost everything :D and you tried to convince me and ragnar on something which we already agreed on with you...

I understand now you are just never wrong, even when you are proved wrong you are not wrong but the other people just misinterpreted you.

ragnar: are A+100 and B+100 equal to A+100 and B+0JusticeRetroHunter: yes they aremath: no they are notJusticeRetroHunter: MATH you are right BUT you are misinterpreted my words i mean something different.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

@razaelll.8324 said:ragnar: are A+100 and B+100 equal to A+100 and B+0JusticeRetroHunter: yes they aremath: no they are notJusticeRetroHunter: MATH you are right BUT you are misinterpreted my words i mean something different.

If the resultant state of the system is always the same, then all the operations one could do to that system are equivalent, and the state of the system is always the same based on if the maximal complex state is the same. The maximal complex state is the same whether the operation adds up or not...do you not understand this? You just said you agreed right? That the maximal complex state of both systems are always equal to 1.

@razaelll.8324 said:I agreed with you that nerfing and buffing are the same, i agreed with you that there is no unique operation which can be done i agreed with you that there is only 1 maximally optimal state .

So what are you going on about.

Simple math here, All you have to do is have a set of operations and make all operations have to equal to 1. Now go head take any set of operations, they have to equal to 1.

[razaelll.8324]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@razaelll.8324 said:ragnar: are A+100 and B+100 equal to A+100 and B+0JusticeRetroHunter: yes they aremath: no they are notJusticeRetroHunter: MATH you are right BUT you are misinterpreted my words i mean something different.

If the resultant state of the system is always the same, then all the operations one could do to that system are equivalent, and the state of the system is always the same based on if the maximal complex state is the same. The maximal complex state is the same whether the operations add up or not...do you not understand this? You just said you agreed right? That the maximal complex state of both systems are always equal to 1.

@razaelll.8324 said:I agreed with you that nerfing and buffing are the same, i agreed with you that there is no unique operation which can be done i agreed with you that there is only 1 maximally optimal state .

So what are you going on about.

Simple math here, All you have to do is have a set of operations and make all operations have to equal to 1. Now go head take any set of operations, they have to equal to 1.

I told you what i go on about mate.

ragnar: are A+100 and B+100 equal to A+100 and B+0JusticeRetroHunter: yes they aremath: no they are notJusticeRetroHunter: MATH you are right BUT you are misinterpreted my words i mean something different.

We didnt misinterpreted your words you just chose the wrong words to describe your point and you continue to refuse to accept it.

Have a great day and be healthy