A Few Questions about sPvP

Crozame.4098 · March 16, 2021

1) Balance and build diversity, which is more important? At the moment, nearly every class have 1-3 playable builds. What about each class has 1 but the balance is much better?

2) The matching in ranked. Given the current meta, having a core support guardian significantly increases the win change against a group without one. This leads to for example, queuing as war or other class and swap to support guard. One easy way to overcome this, without addressing the balance, is to form match based on the class one played previously in ranked. Of course, if it is the first time playing ranked in each season, then can use the char when queuing.

3) About the matchmaking algorithm. Can devs be more transparent in this? We had suspicion that total games played actually influence the match making, this is really bad. Therefore, if this is not the case, please clarify. And if it is the case, please remove that line of code... I fail to perceive how hard it can be to make such an adjustment.

Trevor Boyer.6524 · March 16, 2021

Total matches effecting your match making isn't a suspicion, it actually works that way: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm

Matchmaking

Matchmaking is the process of organizing players in such a way as to encourage competitive and fun gameplay. The system uses a two-phase, score-based search method that takes into consideration several metrics. A score-based search method was used over other methods because it's a good compromise between the often competing goals of match quality and short wait times.

At the start of matchmaking, the system attempts to find a match customized for the first Filter/Iteration/@rosters rosters (party) in the queue. If no match can be created, these players will be put at the end of the queue to ensure other players have a chance at a match customized for them. While this may seem unfair at first, this has actually been shown to decrease wait times for all players.

The first phase, called filtering, gathers players based on their current MMR. The primary purpose of this phase is to both reduce the number of players being considered for a match, and to ensure that the match is appropriate given each player's skill level. Over time, padding is added to your player rating. While this may decrease match quality, it helps ensure that outliers still receive matches.

The second phase of the algorithm is the scoring phase. During this phase each player is scored against every other player being considered for matchmaking. The metrics used during this phase include: rating, rank, games played, party size, profession, and dishonor. With each metric the system is looking for players that are as close as possible to the average of those already selected. The system also attempts to keep the number of duplicate professions to a minimum.

Read the bolded very carefully.

It's doing this:

First it gathers players based on MMR alone, which has nothing to do with seasonal rating. MMR is invisible and underneath seasonal rating.
Then it looks at seasonal rating of those MMRs gathered, as well as glory rank, total games played, party size, profession, and dishonor.

What that means in a nutshell is that older accounts with greatly inflated glory ranks, total games played, and historical MMR, are getting wildly more difficult match making than newer accounts, regardless of what your actual seasonal rating is. Someone with 900 glory rank and 20,000 games played can be in bottom gold 3 and their matches will be expecting them to carry just as hard or harder for a win, than a person who is in 1600 p2 range who only has 60 glory rank and 2000 games played.

Again, in a nutshell, imagine this:

A game is working to complete its match making in the algorithm. It has 9 players selected. The game has seeded itself as a relatively difficult match that contains many older players on the RED team and it is looking for another veteran player to place on BLUE.
Two players push enter Ranked queue at the same time. One of them has 20,000 total games played and is glory rank 900, the other has 2,000 games played and is glory rank 60. Both of them are 1550 rated in seasonal rating.
The algorithm will grab the guy with 20,000 games played every time to put him into the match against the difficult players, because of how the algorithm steps work, it will identify that guy first or "SEE HIM" so to say, and throw him into that match right away because he meets the qualifications it is looking for.
And then if the same thing were to happen, but the algorithm was trying to finish a queue roster for a relatively easy match that contained newer players on the RED team and it was looking for another newer player to place on BLUE, it will grab the guy with only 2000 games played every time, because the way the algorithm searches, it will "SEE HIM" first and throw him in because he meets the qualifications.

^ The above always happens regardless that both of those players are actually at the same rating. This is why we see pve accounts who have less than 1000 games played walking in and and tagging top 100 titles and holding them all season, but then known strong veterans who can 1v2 players like that, will often get stuck in a g3 bottom p1 tribulation mode because just about every match they queue is very seriously expecting them to 1v2 and 1v3 the entire game and never die, if they want even a remote chance to be able to get a win. And even if the old veteran account gets a "balanced" match, it will look like the final round of an AT even if he is in g3 because the system is placing all the people with 20,000 games played together.

Do you know the game Mario Kart? You know how 50cc 100cc 150cc works? Essentially what is happening in GW2 ranked in 2021 is that newer accounts are playing on 50cc and older accounts are playing on 150cc in the match making. And even though they are the same rating say 1550, it was much easier for the new player to get there and maintain it than it is for the old veteran to achieve it at maintain it.

When you really identify how goofy this system is, you begin to realize that not all 1550 plat badges are equal, not even close. If you were to review some list of 10 players who were all roughly around 1550 rating, you'd be seeing a list like this:

A few guys who got there that are glory rank 40 with 500 total games played. These players couldn't compete in ATs against older players at all.
A few guys who have actually hit glory rank 80 with around 3000 games played or something. They are decent players but not strong players.
A few guys who are glory rank 150+ with 5000 games played. They have invested significant time into the game and are ready to challenge at least up into the semi finals of ATs against the oldest most experienced veterans.
An older veteran with 20,000 games played who could 1v2 any of the above players and they all know it because they all know his name and avoid him in matches. This is a player that wins final rounds of ATs a couple times a day.
But they are all rated 1550 rating.

Arenanet needs to remove the functions in the algorithm that consider total games played, glory rank, and maybe even MMR. It really just needs to be based on actual season rating alone. In 2021 with how many new accounts and alts that are going on being driven secretly by old veterans, these functions are not helping make better match making but rather they are creating god awful unfair match making and creating a way for players to exploit match making through simple smurfing.

Crozame.4098 · March 16, 2021

@"Trevor Boyer.6524" said:Total matches effecting your match making isn't a suspicion, it actually works that way: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Matchmaking_Algorithm
Matchmaking

Still, confirmation from devs and the rationale behind this algorithm would be nice.

Well, think about it: rating, ranking, dishonour are all kind of related to total games played. So total game played negatively impact your matchmaking in many ways.

But how does this dishonour work? Suppose I got suspended twice for 2 weeks (not because of wintrading or botting or cheating in ranked, but other reasons, for example, language), does this influence dishonour and consequently my matchmaking?

And what is MMR? How is it determined?

I totally agree match making should depend on current season rating (for placement previous season rating should matter) and class, that's all.

Fueki.4753 · March 16, 2021

1) It feels like neither are important in GW2's PvP.Balance doesn't exist and Build Diversity is mostly limited to Bunker and AoE spam.2) The match making in GW2 basically is broken.It's supposed to match players close in rank, yet there are not enough players, so it'll often put platinum and silver players into the same match.As for character swapping, they ought to disable that. If you queue with one character, you should play with it.3) Transparency is not something Arenanet does. This goes for every part of the game.

Crozame.4098 · March 16, 2021

@Fueki.4753 said:1) It feels like neither are important in GW2's PvP.Balance doesn't exist and Build Diversity is mostly limited to Bunker and AoE spam.2) The match making in GW2 basically is broken.It's supposed to match players close in rank, yet there are not enough players, so it'll often put platinum and silver players into the same match.As for character swapping, they ought to disable that. If you queue with one character, you should play with it.3) Transparency is not something Arenanet does. This goes for every part of the game.
As for character swapping, they ought to disable that. If you queue with one character, you should play with it.

People can play another char and do world completion for example while queuing. But my method can solve this easily.

1) It feels like neither are important in GW2's PvP.Balance doesn't exist and Build Diversity is mostly limited to Bunker and AoE spam.whining does not work, propose solution instead. If the majority of people prefer balance over diversity, then can further adjust amulets sigils for example or other adjustment. Reduce diversity helps balancing because you have less to consider. If, on the other hand, most people prefer diversity, then its fine to have some IMBA in each meta, as long as it changes from time to time.

JusticeRetroHunter.7684 · March 16, 2021

@Crozame.4098 said:Reduce diversity helps balancing because you have less to consider.

That's not how that works.

@Crozame.4098 said:1) Balance and build diversity, which is more important? At the moment, nearly every class have 1-3 playable builds. What about each class has 1 but the balance is much better?

Build Diversity is way more important, in a game like gw2. Perfect Balance is more important in a game like Fortnite. How to achieve balance in a game like Fortnite is going to be different then achieving balance in gw2. But balance and build diversity aren't mutually exclusive, they are just manifested differently.

You have perfect balance = no player choice through equalization. All options are the same, but the game is perfectly balanced...aka Fortnite.

You have diversity where all choices are different, at the cost of things not being equal. The trick for achieving build diversity is through a complicated mechanism, and it's why the dev's are having such a hard time trying to wrestle with it. But in essence, more complexity = higher diversity. Real world nature is a perfect example of a highly diverse, self balancing system.

So personal opinon, for Gw2, build diversity is way more important because it's what makes gw2, gw2. 1-3 builds that are "playable" is essentially a mockery of what it is truly capable of...we see it all around us what true diversity is capable of. So it's not impossible but it comes with understanding exactly why it happens.

Crozame.4098 · March 16, 2021

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
@Crozame.4098 said:Reduce diversity helps balancing because you have less to consider.

That's not how that works.

@Crozame.4098 said:1) Balance and build diversity, which is more important? At the moment, nearly every class have 1-3 playable builds. What about each class has 1 but the balance is much better?

Build Diversity is way more important, in a game like gw2. Perfect Balance is more important in a game like Fortnite. How to achieve balance in a game like Fortnite is going to be different then achieving balance in gw2. But balance and build diversity aren't mutually exclusive, they are just manifested differently.

You have perfect balance = no player choice through equalization. All options are the same, but the game is perfectly balanced...aka Fortnite.

You have diversity where all choices are different, at the cost of things not being equal. The trick for achieving build diversity is through a complicated mechanism, and it's why the dev's are having such a hard time trying to wrestle with it. But in essence, more complexity = higher diversity. Real world nature is a perfect example of a highly diverse, self balancing system.

So personal opinon, for Gw2, build diversity is way more important because it's what makes gw2, gw2. 1-3 builds that are "playable" is essentially a mockery of what it is truly capable of...we see it all around us what true diversity is capable of. So it's not impossible but it comes with understanding exactly why it happens.

Reduce diversity helps balancing because you have less to consider.

That's not how that works.Why?

Build Diversity is way more important, in a game like gw2. Perfect Balance is more important in a game like Fortnite. How to achieve balance in a game like Fortnite is going to be different then achieving balance in gw2. But balance and build diversity aren't mutually exclusive, they are just manifested differently.This is your opinion. But balance is also very important, need to find the equilibrium spot. Also, in my original post, I said reducing from 3 or more playable builds per class to 1. and have a much better balance. Will players accept the tradeoff?

JusticeRetroHunter.7684 · March 16, 2021

@Crozame.4098 said:Reduce diversity helps balancing because you have less to consider.@Crozame.4098 said:
That's not how that works.Why?

It's because there's no correlation with perfect balance, and the number of elements. 10 things that are perfectly equal, is going to be the same as a 100 things, 1000 things that are perfectly equal.

The correlation is a combination of 2 things, which are the number of elements, and the relationship between those elements. The key here is the relationship. The relationship determines how these elements interact with each other. For example, DNA consists of 4 distinct elements... It's how these elements interact with each other that creates all the diversity of life.

This is your opinion. But balance is also very important, need to find the equilibrium spot. Also, in my original post, I said reducing from 3 or more playable builds per class to 1. and have a much better balance. Will players accept the tradeoff?

Your right, it is an opinion. But I strongly believe that Gw2 is defined by the ability to play different builds. Why give us all these different choices, if people are only going to play 1 of them. If you wanted everyone to play a single build, then just eliminate all the choices, because why bother having them then. This philosophy goes against what the game was really designed for.

One thing to understand about balance, is that balance exists on both ends of the spectrum...it exists in high diversity and it exist among things that are equal. So it's not like you cant have a highly diverse and balanced game. Like I said, we see this in nature already...a highly diverse, self balancing system.

Crozame.4098 · March 17, 2021

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
@Crozame.4098 said:Reduce diversity helps balancing because you have less to consider.@"Crozame.4098" said:
That's not how that works.Why?

It's because there's no correlation with perfect balance, and the number of elements. 10 things that are perfectly equal, is going to be the same as a 100 things, 1000 things that are perfectly equal.

... I sincerely do not understand your logic. "10 things that are perfectly equal, is going to be the same as a 100 things, 1000 things that are perfectly equal." If things are perfectly equal then it might imply there is essentially only one element/build/thing...

So lets put your thought into the context of gw2. So your logic is that if we have for example 100 classes and each of them have 20 elite specs, and we have like 100 amulets and 200 sigils in sPvP, then the difficulty of balance is the same under the scenario that we have 4 classes and each have 2 elite specs and there are only 10 amulets and 20 sigils?

Can you see how ridiculous your logic is?

Lastly, you said and I quote "there could be a highly diverse and balanced game, like I said we see this in nature already.. a highly diverse, self balancing system"...Do you understand the concept of the scarcity of resources? You think ANET will assign 1000 devs on pvp balance?About your nature comment - wow, you are comparing ANET to the Mother Nature, I think they cannot be compared. Also, you think at the moment with all the human activity, nature is still a self balancing system? Then why we need the Paris agreement to limit emission, why we need treaties to limit nuclear weapons?

JusticeRetroHunter.7684 · March 17, 2021

@"Crozame.4098" said:If things are perfectly equal then it might imply there is essentially only one element/build/thing...

And this is indeed the correct conclusion. to draw All things that are perfectly same are merely descriptions of the same object...If you were to collapse all abilities to be perfectly balanced via equality, then all attributes would be the same, all builds would be the same, and all classes would be the same, and for all intensive purposes, they can be considered all just 1 thing...aka stick wars 2, aka checkers.

So lets put your thought into the context of gw2. So your logic is that if we have for example 100 classes and each of them have 20 elite specs, and we have like 100 amulets and 200 sigils in sPvP, then the difficulty of balance is the same under the scenario that we have 4 classes and each have 2 elite specs and there are only 10 amulets and 20 sigils?

This is correct. The number of elements is trivial because there is very little correlation between just the number of things and the balance of those things.

To be clear, there is a correlation, but it is a weak correlation. In essence, the correlation of just elements is linear. The relationship between elements is essentially exponential to any power based on what that relationship is.

The best way to think about is is that of counting balls. You can count, 1 ,2 ,3 4...and so on.

But now you have a Ball that has some relationship with 4 other balls at any given time...then when you count up each network of balls, it's 1, 5, 25, 625...and so on.

The relationship is what defines how complex the network of elements has become, much more strongly then the relationship of just counting up just elements.

Can you see how ridiculous your logic is?Lastly, you said and I quote "there could be a highly diverse and balanced game, like I said we see this in nature already.. a highly diverse, self balancing system"...Do you understand the concept of the scarcity of resources? You think ANET will assign 1000 devs on pvp balance?About your nature comment - wow, you are comparing ANET to the Mother Nature, I think they cannot be compared. Also, you think at the moment with all the human activity, nature is still a self balancing system? Then why we need the Paris agreement to limit emission, why we need treaties to limit nuclear weapons?

Now I don't want to have another forum war, as I just had one, so I'll just say this. This is not my logic. This is well established math and science, by academic bodies. The stuff i'm telling you here, can be read on wikipedia. I am merely a vessel to which i am conveying that information to you.

You should watch this introductory video, that explains everything I previously mentioned, and how its applicable. The area of study from which this stuff comes from, is based on mathematics, and so when we talk about Bio-diversity and Diversity in Gw2, we may be talking about different systems, but both systems follow the same mathematical and structural rules based on the study of just diversity.

&

Crozame.4098 · March 17, 2021

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
@"Crozame.4098" said:If things are perfectly equal then it might imply there is essentially only one element/build/thing...

And this is indeed the correct conclusion. to draw All things that are perfectly same are merely descriptions of the same object...If you were to collapse all abilities to be perfectly balanced via equality, then all attributes would be the same, all builds would be the same, and all classes would be the same, and for all intensive purposes, they can be considered all just 1 thing...aka stick wars 2, aka checkers.

So lets put your thought into the context of gw2. So your logic is that if we have for example 100 classes and each of them have 20 elite specs, and we have like 100 amulets and 200 sigils in sPvP, then the difficulty of balance is the same under the scenario that we have 4 classes and each have 2 elite specs and there are only 10 amulets and 20 sigils?

This is correct. The number of elements is trivial because there is very little correlation between

just

the number of things and the balance of those things.

To be clear, there is a correlation, but it is a weak correlation. In essence, the correlation of just elements is linear. The relationship between elements is essentially exponential to any power based on what that relationship is.

The best way to think about is is that of counting balls. You can count, 1 ,2 ,3 4...and so on.

But now you have a Ball that has some relationship with 4 other balls at any given time...then when you count up each network of balls, it's 1, 5, 25, 625...and so on.

The relationship is what defines how complex the network of elements has become, much more strongly then the relationship of just counting up just elements.

Exponential e^x means the number of elements in this system increases the complexity much more than a linear relationship. And if every thing is interdependent, if you address say one part of the system, then numerous other systems will need to be adjusted too. Therefore, the amount of different elements, is strongly related to the difficulty of balance, and its more so if the relation is exponential.

Now I don't want to have another forum war, as I just had one, so I'll just say this. This is not my logic. This is well established math and science, by academic bodies. The stuff i'm telling you here, can be read on wikipedia. I am merely a vessel to which i am conveying that information to you.
You should watch this introductory video, that explains everything I previously mentioned, and how its applicable. The area of study from which this stuff comes from, is based on mathematics, and so when we talk about Bio-diversity and Diversity in Gw2, we may be talking about different systems, but both systems follow the same mathematical and structural rules based on the study of just diversity.

I have watched that introduction video, it just shows some definition. And I find it problematic to apply them here. One key difference is that the GW2 pvp balance can only be adjusted by devs, there is no A.I. that automatically adjusting the parameters based on player's behaviour. Therefore, the things such as feedback loop or evolution cannot happen in this system. The only way to adjust is via balance patches made by poorly incentivised devs. And the more elements there are, the more things need to do, and the less likely small number of devs can properly fix them.

You really don't need those "fancy" stuff from the internet to explain basic logic...

JusticeRetroHunter.7684 · March 17, 2021

@"Crozame.4098" said:Exponential e^x means the number of elements in this system increases the complexity much more than a linear relationship. And if every thing is interdependent, if you address say one part of the system, then numerous other systems will need to be adjusted too.

This is precisely correct. It is the relationship that truly defines how hard it's gonna be to count the balls. The act of counting balls without a relationship between them is itself by it's lonesome, not a strong correlation. If you have a system where the balls have no relationship, then it's easy to count the balls, easy to balance the game. If the system is complex, then it may be practically impossible to balance the game ever.

Gw2 I would define as being on this level of complexity. Merely reducing the number of elements in the system (removing amulets, equalizing coefficients, etc...) without addressing the relationships within that system is probably impossible, and we kind of see this in real time as the Devs try to remove and balance things...The game continues to remain highly complex and difficult to balance.

If I were to take an example, we can look at a trait like "Chilling Darkness"

The trait itself has maybe 2 or 3 basic elements, which would be it's cooldown, it's effect (inflicting Chill condition) and it's pre-requisite (Must blind a target)

It's easy to count up each element on this skill. 1,2,3,...cool. But what's harder to understand is the relationship these elements have with other elements in the game. For example, removing the element of "Must blind a target" changes the relationship that the other two elements have with other elements in the game. You can imagine that we would expect the ability to be nerfed by removing one of it's elements, but by doing so it actually makes it hilariously overpowered...(inflict chill every 3 seconds...CHILL GO BRRRRRR)

So ya in essence, the relationship these elements have with one another, due to the sheer complexity of the game, it might actually be impossible to balance it into equalization....and it might be impossible to balance it by just simply removing elements. The key concept is the relationship that these elements form...which is a fancy way of saying that the mechanics and their interaction seems to be the most critical and key component of balance AND diversity in the game.

I have watched that introduction video, it just shows some definition. And I find it problematic to apply them here. One key difference is that the GW2 pvp balance can only be adjusted by devs, there is no A.I. that automatically adjusting the parameters based on player's behaviour. Therefore, the things such as feedback loop or evolution cannot happen in this system. The only way to adjust is via balance patches made by poorly incentivised devs. And the more elements there are, the more things need to do, and the less likely small number of devs can properly fix them.
You really don't need those "fancy" stuff from the internet to explain basic logic...

It's not "from the internet"... It's well established applicable science and math. This is stuff they teach in schools, and used in many modern applicable fields. I get that you may have never heard of it before, but it is not new either...it's been around since the advent of Chaos Theory, back in the 1960's, and there are many resources and lectures that you can lookup online that will give you further in-depth explanations.

I want to explain one thing here about this particular quote from you :"Therefore, the things such as feedback loop or evolution cannot happen in this system."

EvolutionEvolution I've studied for a while, and after comparing gw2's game and evolution in a general sense, you can actually see evolution play out in gw2. Allow me to explain;

Players are autonomous agents...because we make autonomous decisions, and in turn we cooperate and compete. It then follows that due to this autonomy, we should see some evolutionary behavior in the game and it turns out that we do.

It's the evolution of builds.

Think of builds as you would creatures and their DNA competing against each other for some autonomous goal...like winning a SPVP match. If you put together some combinations of skills, abilities and traits, and you use these to compete with other's to win or lose a match.If you find that the build is terrible and doesn't work, then the build is not selected for further usage in spvp matches...and the build goes "extinct." In the same vein, builds that do work,...and builds that win you SPVP matches are selected for, for further usage in more matches (Survival). Due to the communication of autonomous agents, we relay the build to others...who then use this build who find that they are now winning matches with it and the build continues to be selected for (Procreation)...Each time this process of communication occurs, players further and further change and improve the build (Adaptation) until you get what we would traditionally think of as "THE META BUILDS." These are builds that have been selected over an evolutionary process...and this is the behavior we see that makes it similar to Natural selection.

Feedback LoopsAnd about Feedback loops. Feedback is an intrinsic property of elements that have relationships. Like I pointed out earlier, we can study the relationships that certain elements have, and you can see that the elements aren't a sum of just their individual parts...they are dependent on their relationship with other elements, which can either be exponential (divergent) or stable (convergent). This is essentially all feedback loops are, which is just how elements don't add up to the sum of the parts...they are either more or less, based on these relationships. So it's not that "feedback can't exist in gw2" Feedback exists in anything that has elements and relationships. If there are elements and relationships in gw2, then there are feedback loops that exist in gw2.

One such example of a mechanic with a clearly apparent feedback loop was the Abrasive Grit Exploit that occured around the time of the Rune's rework patch. Essentially how it worked was that the Abrasive Grit trait would cleanse conditions, and grant might to nearby allies when they casted a barrier on an ally. At the time, this trait could work with anything that granted a barrier, so when equipped with Rune of Sanctuary and Life steal traits from the Blood Magic line, the feedback loop nature of the interaction allowed scourges and their team mates to be effectively immune to conditions, and grant permanent 25 might to their allies. It was a hilarious couple of days or weeks can't remember how long it lasted but as a result, the condition meta was completely removed until this was patched. It was a great example of how these feedback loops can create very interesting mechanics and behaviors.

Another example, is how feedback loop nature was scientifically studied in the game of World of Warcraft during the infamous Hakkar Pandemic. The mechanic of course was intended to work as disease in a game should, but it turned out to work more like a real world disease then they thought...of course the devs didn't think about what would happen if the mechanic went outside of a raid zone...but ya, the mechanic was essentially a mimicry of real diseases and how they spread, it is a consequences of how these feedback loops amplify and accelerate the spread of diseases, and also how negative feedback loops attempt to decelerate the spread (players trying to quarantine and heal other players). This was studied by teams of scientists that even used their studies of the spread of this fictional disease as a primitive model for a response to the corona virus pandemic.

Crozame.4098 · March 17, 2021

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
@"Crozame.4098" said:Exponential e^x means the number of elements in this system increases the complexity much more than a linear relationship. And if every thing is interdependent, if you address say one part of the system, then numerous other systems will need to be adjusted too.

This is precisely correct. It is the relationship that truly defines how hard it's gonna be to count the balls. The act of counting balls without a relationship between them is itself by it's lonesome, not a strong correlation. If you have a system where the balls have no relationship, then it's easy to count the balls, easy to balance the game. If the system is complex, then it may be practically impossible to balance the game ever.

Gw2 I would define as being on this level of complexity. Merely reducing the number of elements in the system (removing amulets, equalizing coefficients, etc...) without addressing the relationships within that system is probably impossible, and we kind of see this in real time as the Devs try to remove and balance things...The game continues to remain highly complex and difficult to balance.

If I were to take an example, we can look at a trait like "

Chilling Darkness

"

The trait itself has maybe 2 or 3 basic elements, which would be it's cooldown, it's effect (inflicting Chill condition) and it's pre-requisite (Must blind a target)

It's easy to count up each element on this skill. 1,2,3,...cool. But what's harder to understand is the relationship these elements have with other elements in the game. For example, removing the element of "Must blind a target" changes the relationship that the other two elements have with other elements in the game. You can imagine that we would expect the ability to be nerfed by removing one of it's elements, but by doing so it actually makes it hilariously overpowered...(inflict chill every 3 seconds...CHILL GO BRRRRRR)

So ya in essence, the relationship these elements have with one another, due to the sheer complexity of the game, it might actually be impossible to balance it into equalization....and it might be impossible to balance it by just simply removing elements. The key concept is the relationship that these elements form...which is a fancy way of saying that the mechanics and their interaction seems to be the most critical and key component of balance AND diversity in the game.

I have watched that introduction video, it just shows some definition. And I find it problematic to apply them here. One key difference is that the GW2 pvp balance can only be adjusted by devs, there is no A.I. that automatically adjusting the parameters based on player's behaviour. Therefore, the things such as feedback loop or evolution cannot happen in this system. The only way to adjust is via balance patches made by poorly incentivised devs. And the more elements there are, the more things need to do, and the less likely small number of devs can properly fix them.
You really don't need those "fancy" stuff from the internet to explain basic logic...

It's not "from the internet"... It's well established applicable science and math. This is stuff they teach in schools, and used in many modern applicable fields. I get that you may have never heard of it before, but it is not new either...it's been around since the advent of Chaos Theory, back in the 1960's, and there are many resources and lectures that you can lookup online that will give you further in-depth explanations.

I want to explain one thing here about this particular quote from you :"Therefore, the things such as feedback loop or evolution cannot happen in this system."

Evolution

Evolution I've studied for a while, and after comparing gw2's game and evolution in a general sense, you can actually see evolution play out in gw2. Allow me to explain;

Players are autonomous agents...because we make autonomous decisions, and in turn we cooperate and compete. It then follows that due to this autonomy, we should see some evolutionary behavior in the game and it turns out that we do.

It's the evolution of builds.

Think of builds as you would creatures and their DNA competing against each other for some autonomous goal...like winning a SPVP match. If you put together some combinations of skills, abilities and traits, and you use these to compete with other's to win or lose a match.If you find that the build is terrible and doesn't work, then the build is not selected for further usage in spvp matches...and the build goes "extinct." In the same vein, builds that do work,...and builds that win you SPVP matches are selected for, for further usage in more matches (Survival). Due to the communication of autonomous agents, we relay the build to others...who then use this build who find that they are now winning matches with it and the build continues to be selected for (Procreation)...Each time this process of communication occurs, players further and further change and improve the build (Adaptation) until you get what we would traditionally think of as "THE META BUILDS." These are builds that have been selected over an evolutionary process...and this is the behavior we see that makes it similar to Natural selection.

Feedback Loops

And about Feedback loops. Feedback is an intrinsic property of elements that have relationships. Like I pointed out earlier, we can study the relationships that certain elements have, and you can see that the elements aren't a sum of just their individual parts...they are dependent on their relationship with other elements, which can either be exponential (divergent) or stable (convergent). This is essentially all feedback loops are, which is just how elements don't add up to the sum of the parts...they are either more or less, based on these relationships. So it's not that "feedback can't exist in gw2" Feedback exists in anything that has elements and relationships. If there are elements and relationships that exist among these elements in gw2, then there are feedback loops that exist.

One such example of a mechanic with a clearly apparent feedback loop was the

Abrasive Grit

Exploit that occured around the time of the Rune's rework patch. Essentially how it worked was that the Abrasive Grit trait would cleanse conditions, and grant might to nearby allies when they casted a barrier on an ally. At the time, this trait could work with anything that granted a barrier, so when equipped with Rune of Sanctuary and Life steal traits from the Blood Magic line, the feedback loop nature of the interaction allowed scourges and their team mates to be effectively immune to conditions, and grant permanent 25 might to their allies. It was a hilarious couple of days or weeks can't remember how long it lasted, but it was a great example of how these feedback loops can create very interesting mechanics...even if those mechanics were aids.

Another example, is how feedback loop nature was scientifically studied in the game of World of Warcraft during the infamous Hakkar Pandemic. The mechanic of course was intended to work as disease in a game would, but it turned out to work more like a real world disease...of course the devs didn't think about what would happen if the mechanic went outside of a raid zone...but ya, the mechanic was essentially a mimicry of real diseases and how they spread, it is a consequences of how these feedback loops amplify and accelerate the spread of diseases, and also how negative feedback loops attempt to decelerate the spread (players trying to quarantine and heal other players). This was studied by teams of scientists that even used their studies of the spread of this fictional disease as a model for a response to the corona virus pandemic.

1) What you meant is that GW2 is already a very complicated system, reducing the diversity a bit does not help balancing. This makes sense, but you really do not need to refer to those concepts to explain, in fact, the usage of exponential relationship actually works against your argument. Because reduce the number of elements also reduces the balance difficulty exponentially. I think the right term you want to use is the diminishing marginal rate of return. In this case, the functional form must be concave, whereas the exponential function is a convex function.

2) You talked loads about Evolution and Feedback Loops. Ok, lets assume that what you said is correct. But this is not what I meant for the wrong analogy you made between GW2 BALANCE and Nature. The game cannot balance itself, it needs devs to actively change some code in order to balance, while nature has mechanisms to adjust, but only up to certain extent, otherwise why we need to limit emission? I do not know what's your field of study, your degree and your job, but over complicate simple issues does not mean you are right....

JusticeRetroHunter.7684 · March 17, 2021

@"Crozame.4098" said:1) What you meant is that GW2 is already a very complicated system, reducing the diversity a bit does not help balancing. This makes sense, but you really do not need to refer to those concepts to explain,

I think explaining it in any other, or less specific way, would be the wrong way to explain it. This is how it's explained everywhere else, why would I change it, or what reasoning would there be to do so? Also, I think you are sharper then most people I've spoken to here on this forum. There are not many people who would even begin to fathom these concepts, and it makes even wanting to explain this at all to anyone, a task in testing my patience. I have tried to explain these things more and more simply, using pictures and very basic analogies, but that just convolutes the concepts and people end up misinterpreting them.

in fact, the usage of exponential relationship actually works against your argument. Because reduce the number of elements also reduces the balance difficulty exponentially. I think the right term you want to use is the diminishing marginal rate of return. In this case, the functional form must be concave, whereas the exponential function is a convex function.

You know, yes this is true. Removing an element with a relationship, will also remove the relationship that is coupled with that element. So ya we could remove elements and by proxy, remove those relationships, thus reducing the overall complexity of the system we are trying to "fix."

But my case really, is that essentially you don't have to remove elements to reduce, complexity to make it easier to balance, you can just fix the relationships, which in effect doesn't destroy the elements. You can still have your cake and eat it too, if you address what's actually causing the problems, which would be the relationship, not the element, then you can still keep the amulet...or keep the trait or keep the ability or keep what ever it is.

I think the right term you want to use is the diminishing marginal rate of return. In this case, the functional form must be concave, whereas the exponential function is a convex function.

I wouldn't really know if the correlation is that of a diminishing return, because it all depends on the relationship and the relationships between elements varies from one element to another so you could for example, remove an element that has no real relationships in a very complex system and have no meaningful effect on the system...but then you could also remove an element that had an extremely complicated set of relationships and have a drastic effect on the complexity of the system. So it's not really known what particular function would be able to describe the correlation in exact specificity...It's just more accurate to describe it in a vague...general way... such as "relationships have a much higher correlation with effect on a system then elements do."

A little off-topic, but in some cases, people argue that elements have no correlation at all and don't even truly "exist", that elements are themselves just sets of smaller relationships at a smaller scale and the element is just an emergence of these relationships... which was posited in the video. Do i think this applies to gw2? Yes, but it's probably not relevant at all to think that traits and abilities can be broken down any further then the components we can read in text on the tooltips, so for all intensive purposes in gw2, elements indeed exist in basic form.

2) You talked loads about Evolution and Feedback Loops. Ok, lets assume that what you said is correct. But this is not what I meant for the wrong analogy you made between GW2 BALANCE and Nature. The game cannot balance itself, it needs devs to actively change some code in order to balance, while nature has mechanisms to adjust, but only up to certain extent, otherwise why we need to limit emission? I do not know what's your field of study, your degree and your job, but over complicate simple issues does not mean you are right....

Well the rabbit hole goes very deep. ..I did give a warning in my first post, that it was a complicated mechanism...Complexity Theory is really a fitting name for the area of study.

But anyway, I've spoken with others on this topic before on another thread...and essentially, to sum up that thread in a very short paragraph; the devs don't really balance the game...it's the players, and this process of evolution that does. Players are the ones who create the meta...not the Devs or am i wrong? Devs just change numbers on skills...it's the players that are constantly optimizing and selecting builds to compete with one another in an evolutionary process, and the builds that survive and thrive, are the ones that become meta, and that defines the game's current state of balance.

The Devs do have influence on what can potentially become the meta, but it's not like they can predict or dictate what the meta builds will be. I like to think of Devs as the proverbial meteor's that strike Earth every once and a while...they cause massive change (extinction level events), and it's up to the players to come up with ideas to survive in this new world. The February nuke is a good example for how players had came to invent this new meta, and so the blame for the current balance state is not just on the shoulders of the Devs, but the blame is also on mathematical laws, physical laws, and human nature...we NEED to optimize, we NEED to compete...and so these systemic drives that are built into reality have lead us to this meta in particular.

So in very similar ways, This game (and really all games) exhibit some kind of evolution that is similar to the evolution seen in nature...and really it comes down to how hard you are analyzing that game. I can name evolution processes in Chess...in Fortnite...in Neverwinter. If there exists autonomy, a drive to achieve some goal and an ability to change, then that system should exhibit it's proxy behavior of evolution in some way.

Crozame.4098 · March 17, 2021

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
@"Crozame.4098" said:1) What you meant is that GW2 is already a very complicated system, reducing the diversity a bit does not help balancing. This makes sense, but you really do not need to refer to those concepts to explain,

I think explaining it in any other, or less specific way, would be the wrong way to explain it. This is how it's explained everywhere else, why would I change it, or what reasoning would there be to do so? Also, I think you are sharper then most people I've spoken to here on this forum. There are not many people who would even begin to fathom these concepts, and it makes even wanting to explain this at all to anyone, a task in testing my patience. I have tried to explain these things more and more simply, using pictures and very basic analogies, but that just convolutes the concepts and people end up misinterpreting them.

in fact, the usage of exponential relationship actually works against your argument. Because reduce the number of elements also reduces the balance difficulty exponentially. I think the right term you want to use is the diminishing marginal rate of return. In this case, the functional form must be concave, whereas the exponential function is a convex function.

You know, yes this is true. Removing an element with a relationship, will also remove the relationship that is coupled with that element. So ya we could remove elements and by proxy, remove those relationships, thus reducing the overall complexity of the system we are trying to "fix."

But my case really, is that essentially

you don't have to remove elements

to reduce, complexity to make it easier to balance, you can just fix the relationships, which in effect doesn't destroy the elements. You can still have your cake and eat it too, if you address what's actually causing the problems, which would be the relationship, not the element, then you can still keep the amulet...or keep the trait or keep the ability or keep what ever it is.

I think the right term you want to use is the diminishing marginal rate of return. In this case, the functional form must be concave, whereas the exponential function is a convex function.

I wouldn't really know if the correlation is that of a diminishing return, because it all depends on the relationship and the relationships between elements varies from one element to another so you could for example, remove an element that has no real relationships in a very complex system and have no meaningful effect on the system...but then you could also remove an element that had an extremely complicated set of relationships and have a drastic effect on the complexity of the system. So it's not really known what particular function would be able to describe the correlation in exact specificity...It's just more accurate to describe it in a vague...general way... such as "relationships have a much higher correlation with effect on a system then elements do."

A little off-topic, but in some cases, people argue that elements have no correlation at all and don't even truly "exist", that elements are themselves just sets of smaller relationships at a smaller scale and the element is just an emergence of these relationships... which was posited in the video. Do i think this applies to gw2? Yes, but it's probably not relevant at all to think that traits and abilities can be broken down any further then the components we can read in text on the tooltips, so for all intensive purposes in gw2, elements indeed exist in basic form.

2) You talked loads about Evolution and Feedback Loops. Ok, lets assume that what you said is correct. But this is not what I meant for the wrong analogy you made between GW2 BALANCE and Nature. The game cannot balance itself, it needs devs to actively change some code in order to balance, while nature has mechanisms to adjust, but only up to certain extent, otherwise why we need to limit emission? I do not know what's your field of study, your degree and your job, but over complicate simple issues does not mean you are right....

Well the rabbit hole goes very deep. ..I did give a warning in my first post, that it was a complicated mechanism...Complexity Theory is really a fitting name for the area of study.

But anyway, I've spoken with others on this topic before on another thread...and essentially, to sum up that thread in a very short paragraph; the devs don't really balance the game...it's the players, and this process of evolution that does. Players are the ones who create the meta...not the Devs or am i wrong? Devs just change numbers on skills...it's the players that are constantly optimizing and selecting builds to compete with one another in an evolutionary process, and the builds that survive and thrive, are the ones that become meta, and that defines the game's current state of balance.

The Devs do have

influence

on what can potentially become the meta, but it's not like they can predict or dictate what the meta builds will be. I like to think of Devs as the proverbial meteor's that strike Earth every once and a while...they cause massive change (extinction level events), and it's up to the players to come up with ideas to survive in this new world. The February nuke is a good example for how players had came to invent this new meta, and so the blame for the current balance state is not just on the shoulders of the Devs, but the blame is also on mathematical laws, physical laws, and human nature...we NEED to optimize, we NEED to compete...and so these systemic drives that are built into reality have lead us to this meta in particular.

So in very similar ways, This game (and really all games) exhibit some kind of evolution that is similar to the evolution seen in nature...and really it comes down to how hard you are analyzing that game. I can name evolution processes in Chess...in Fortnite...in Neverwinter. If there exists autonomy, a drive to achieve some goal and an ability to change, then that system should exhibit it's proxy behavior of evolution in some way.

You really do love your complex theory... Good for you, but many of what you said is just arguemnts without any true proof. I just have time to reply to one point:

Devs just change numbers on skills...it's the players that are constantly optimizing and selecting builds to compete with one another in an evolutionary process, and the builds that survive and thrive, are the ones that become meta, and that defines the game's current state of balance.The Devs do have influence on what can potentially become the meta, but it's not like they can predict or dictate what the meta builds will be. I like to think of Devs as the proverbial meteor's that strike Earth every once and a while...they cause massive change (extinction level events), and it's up to the players to come up with ideas to survive in this new world. The February nuke is a good example for how players had came to invent this new meta, and so the blame for the current balance state is not just on the shoulders of the Devs, but the blame is also on mathematical laws, physical laws, and human nature...we NEED to optimize, we NEED to compete...and so these systemic drives that are built into reality have lead us to this meta in particular.

The devs are the cause. Without any patches, there will be basically minimal change in meta. There is data that can acutally test this: compare the meta builds on meta battle after each balance patch, check how stable it is after say 1 week after the patch...

If devs make the numbers wrong, we can of course adapt, but the game play will be unbalanced and not enjoyable. Of course players choose builds to fit the balance, but this leads exaclty to this boring bunker meta... And if we want a more balanced, fun games, devs need to make the change, not the kitten players...

JusticeRetroHunter.7684 · March 17, 2021

@"Crozame.4098" said:You really do love your complex theory... Good for you, but many of what you said is just arguemnts without any true proof. I just have time to reply to one point:The devs are the cause. Without any patches, there will be basically minimal change in meta. If devs make the numbers wrong, we can of course adapt, but the game play will be unbalanced and not enjoyable. There is data that can acutally test this: compare the meta builds on meta battle after each balance patch, check how stable it is after say 1 week after the patch... Of course players choose builds to fit the balance, but this leads exaclty to this boring bunker meta... And if we want a more balanced, fun games, devs need to change, not the kitten players....

I sense the hostility in your response man. Look, You asked a question, I answered it. I even answered it in very simple way using only 4 words in my first post to you, I said... more complexity = more diversity.

So your now complaining that I'm over-complicating a simple issue? What "proof" do you have that the issue is simple to begin with?

I said already, that diversity is achieved through a complicated mechanism...now your complaining that it's too complicated and I need to prove it...why do I need to prove it to you again? This stuff I'm talking about has already been proven since Charles Darwin in the 1800's, complexity's been around since the 1960's and people have won Nobel prizes for it by people way smarter then you or me.

If you want proof, scour the internet and do your research. Nobody can prove to you whether this stuff applies to gw2...you are either gonna believe it or you aren't. You want to play the game with 4 classes, with 1 spec and 2 weapon sets because you believe that's gonna fix balance. If you believe that, okay be my guest man. No need to be so hostile since I've been reasonable.

Crozame.4098 · March 17, 2021

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
If you want proof, scour the internet and do your research. Nobody can prove to you whether this stuff applies to gw2...you are either gonna believe it or you aren't. You want to play the game with 4 classes, with 1 spec and 2 weapon sets because you believe that's gonna fix balance. If you believe that, okay be my guest man. No need to be so hostile since I've been reasonable.
Nobody can prove to you whether this stuff applies to gw2...you are either gonna believe it or you aren't.So you are talking about science? I actually work in academia, and I am pretty sure that academic does not work this way.

Moreover, it seems common sense to me that more diversity / more elements need to be considered leads increased difficulty to balance PROPERLY. This is simply because there are more things to be considered.

You argue that, no, based on the complexity theory, for GW2, more diversity does not mean more difficult to balance. This seems counter intuitive, but counter intuitive does not implies its wrong, Bayes rule is counter intuitive but it is easy shown by rigorous formulas. So, why not prove me that you can apply complexity theory into gw2 balance issue. You can simplify things, for example, just consider rev (With only one elite spec) and war (with again, only one elite spec), and lets introduce 5 amulets and 6 sigils. Prove to me that balancing in this example, is at least the same difficulty when ELE, NECRO, THEIF, ENGI and RANGER is involved.

When proofing please define the concepts carefully (for example, how is difficulty defined the world of complexity theory), use rigorous mathematical formula, with reasonable assumptions. Do not talk those nonsense such as -- these are true and has been proven many years ago etc, because this does not help undestand how your theory is related to the Balance issue, which is the Mian topic of this post.

JusticeRetroHunter.7684 · March 18, 2021

@"Crozame.4098" said:You argue that, no, based on the complexity theory, for GW2, more diversity does not mean more difficult to balance. This seems counter intuitive, but counter intuitive does not implies its wrong, Bayes rule is counter intuitive but it is easy shown by rigorous formulas. So, why not prove me that you can apply complexity theory into gw2 balance issue. You can simplify things, for example, just consider rev (With only one elite spec) and war (with again, only one elite spec), and lets introduce 5 amulets and 6 sigils. Prove to me that balancing in this example, is at least the same difficulty when ELE, NECRO, THEIF, ENGI and RANGER is involved.
When proofing please define the concepts carefully (for example, how is difficulty defined the world of complexity theory), use rigorous mathematical formula, with reasonable assumptions. Do not talk those nonsense such as -- these are true and has been proven many years ago etc, because this does not help understand how your theory is related to the Balance issue, which is the Mian topic of this post.

Yes, it's definitely counter intuitive believe me, I first thought the same exact thing and thought none of it made any sense but I really had to buckle down and do some hardcore research before I started understanding what was going on. The best way to understand isn't even with math because the whole thing is very conceptually abstract. I know you want me to provide you a mathematical formula like it was that easy...but I really can not do that for you because it's still very hard mathematics and I'm just not on that level, and i will butcher it if I tried. What i can do is show you others doing the proof and then you can take it a step further and follow through on it and see if you reach a similar or conflicting conclusion that you can come to with in your own math exercises.

So, see here It all starts with the assumption of the problem being not right to begin with...that the problem opens up to contradiction and a paradox.... Consider the question;

"Can you prove to me that you can apply complexity theory into gw2 balance issue."

The first thing to understand is what does "balance" mean exactly. It's poorly defined and we've said this earlier, that in order to make the state of the game perfectly balanced, implies setting all parameters and properties in the system equal to each other. This collapses all differentiation via a process of equalization (applying simple binary operations that set things equal to each other), therefor all classes and all choices are the same choice and can be thought of as just being equal to 1 choice.

Take now a system that is heterogenous, and you attempted to apply balance changes to this system...Well what kind of operations are we doing if we intend to make it balanced? The problem is that there is no operation that is going to make the system balanced, because all elements and their relations are by definition in a heterogenous system different...so all operations that intend to make those different things equal or the same, will always lead to a loss of diversity and collapse the system to be eventually be completely homogenous.

Complexity theory actually comes in because of this above issue and paradox with the question of balancing things that are different to be equal. In essence, the way it's described, is that there is an understanding, that homogenous and heterogenous states of a system are invariant and therefor are equivalent states of a system, where all states in a system can be just defined by a complexity metric instead. A complexity metric is just the number of operations it takes to get from one state of a system to another a system (specifically the maximal complex state). Thus states of a system with the same complexity metric, which are either a homogenous or heterogenous, means that the states are still both equivalent.

Below are two rather rudimentary but sufficient proofs describing a complexity metric, and a video of the guy actually doing the proof in a quantum mechanical sense.

So part 2 of that questionHow does more diversity 'not' mean more difficult to balance?

When looked at through the lens of the above, you realize that the question itself makes no sense to ask anymore. Basically Diversity and balance can't even be conceptually separated if the only thing that truly defines it s a complexity metric...It means that simply a decrease or an increase in complexity will either result in the system being "less balanced and less diverse" or "more balanced and more diverse" respectively.

All I ask of you really at this point is, you don't even have to agree or like this stuff at all...it's that you should take a minute to stop and think about what I said here in this few paragraphs on this post, and really QUESTION what it truly means when things are truly "balanced." You need to really get to the core component of what the word truly means, what it implies and what the repercussions of that happening are in a system. It leads you down the road of contradictions and paradoxes, and to solve them requires this field. Seeing how certain concepts have complementarity rather then being separate and distinct things (homogenous and heterogenous systems being the same sounds insane but they are technically both invariant with all scales so why wouldn't they be equivalent... sounds crazy right)

razaelll.8324 · March 18, 2021

A complexity metric is just the number of operations it takes to get from one state of a system to another a system (specifically the maximal complex state). Thus states of a system with the same complexity metric, which are either a homogenous or heterogenous, means that the states are still both equivalent.

Hey, i am not trying to start a second war, but can you please answer 1 question?

Complexity metric is the MINIMAL number of simple operations it takes to get from 1 state to another. This metric is used for determining of how "hard" it would be to go from 1 state to another and it is used in many different fields of study as electronics, economics , quantum physics and so on.

But how that proves that "Thus states of a system with the same complexity metric, which are either a homogenous or heterogenous, means that the states are still both equivalent." Can you please elaborate on that?

Also the charts which you posted are showing that State A and State B have one Optimal CHOISE but does NOT show that State A is equivalent to state B it only shows that Both State A and State B have 1 optimal choice. Didnt we agreed on that already?

IN term of GW2 that means if we have all 9 classes and in State A the optimal choice is Warrior and in State B optimal choice is Necromancer and you need the same number of operations to determine that, still that does NOT make State A equivalent to State B (this 2 states are still different just both of them have 1 best class). Also if for example you need 5 operation to go from state A to state B and 5 operation to go from state B to state A (the relative complexity number is the same) that again does not make State A equivalent to State B (they are still different), that only shows that it is equally "complex" to go from state A to state B as to go from state B to state A.

In the video which you posted the Lecturer Leonard Susskind (great professor btw) says that State A is orthogonal to State B and also State A is orthogonal State C (means State B and State C are both at distance P/2 from State A) so measuring the distance is not a good way to measure how "complex" is to go from State A to State B and from State A to state C thats why other metric is needed and namely that metric is relative complexity. With other words measuring how "complex" is the difference between State A and State B compared to how "complex" is the difference between State A and State C. In matter of facts neither in the video nor the chars balance is mentioned nor equivalency of states so i fail to understand how that video and the charts prove that any of the states are equivalent to each other or how homogenous system is equivalent to heterogenous in terms of balance? So can you please elaborate on that?

Thank you in advance.

lare.5129 · March 18, 2021

@Crozame.4098 said:1) Balance and build diversity, which is more important?no, it no important. We have mmr matching system, and you can take any biudl and any class
What about each class has 1 but the balance is much better?any
2) The matching in ranked. Given the current meta, having a core support guardian significantly increases the win change against a group without one.if you think what it help for you -why not? But I am sure system not check yours biuld amulet.
3) About the matchmaking algorithm. Can devs be more transparent in this?you can find it on gw2 wiki. It not hidden.

Crozame.4098 · March 18, 2021

@"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:
The first thing to understand is what does "balance" mean exactly. It's poorly defined and we've said this earlier, that in order to make the state of the game perfectly balanced, implies setting all parameters and properties in the system equal to each other. This collapses all differentiation via a process of equalization (applying simple binary operations that set things equal to each other), therefor all classes and all choices are the same choice and can be thought of as just being equal to 1 choice.

OK, balance is a relative concept I believe. As far as I know, people enjoy sPvP when it was core or before PoF. In this sense, since PoF introduced many new elite specifications, it can be deduced that more diversity implies less balance.

Complexity theory actually comes in because of this above issue and paradox with the question of balancing things that are different to be equal. In essence, the way it's described, is that there is an understanding, that homogenous and heterogenous states of a system are invariant and therefor are equivalent states of a system, where all states in a system can be just defined by a complexity metric instead. A complexity metric is just the number of operations it takes to get from one state of a system to another a system (specifically the maximal complex state). Thus states of a system with the same complexity metric, which are either a homogenous or heterogenous, means that the states are still both equivalent.

Ok, you specified the definition of a complexity metric, which is based on a sorting algorithm, lets assume you are 100% correct. However, the example states you used all consist of 10 "bars". But in from HoT to PoF, we have 7 or 8 more specialisations. Therefore, the number of bars is different? Therefore, PoF by definition is more complex?

JusticeRetroHunter.7684 · March 18, 2021

@"Crozame.4098" said:Ok, you specified the definition of a complexity metric, which is based on a sorting algorithm, lets assume you are 100% correct. However, the example states you used all consist of 10 "bars". But in from HoT to PoF, we have 7 or 8 more specialisations. Therefore, the number of bars is different? Therefore, PoF by definition is more complex?
it can be deduced that more diversity implies less balance.

I guess I should have explained this more in the proof, but basically, the above observation is explained in the framework, and is responsible for what I believe to be, is the "aha!" moment with this abstraction.

So, It's not that diversity implies less balance... it's a little different. What's actually going on here is that all systems and all states of these systems are heading toward an eventuality. The inevitable "end" of the game which is the maximally complex state. And this framework implies that this eventuality is actually driven by the act of computation.

So the most highly diverse (Heterogenous) state of the system is in the beginning ...before computations...and the most homogenous state of the system is after the computations. Essentially the framework is like a description for what is happening as a system evolves from a heterogenous system toward a homogenous one!

This to me is the biggest mind blow about this (sorry but it still blows my mind every time I think about it) ...that it's a brilliant descriptor for how any system in any state is always going from a maximally diverse and heterogenous state to a maximally balanced/completely homogenous state through computation.

To put the above realization into the context of your example...

You have Core gw2 as State A and PoF Gw2 as State B. Even though we've added complexity into State B, the act of computation will always move the system towards the eventuality, toward a single metagame. This in my view at least, perfectly describes why POF which is by definition more complex than core, doesn't feel more diverse or balanced then core. It's because it's constantly being driven toward the maximal complex state via players making choices, and that the most diverse state of the game, was when POF was released,...and this makes sense right? People are trying out builds, experimenting and having fun...people are trying all types of combos and exploring all the options...but it is this VERY ACT of exploring options and making computations for optimality that is pushing the game closer and closer toward the maximal complex state, and the eventuality of a singular homogenous meta game.

Now there's a bit more to explain here, and this is about computation time.

If we say that it takes a finite period of time to make a computation, then we can also say that time scales with the complexity of the system. Therefor, an increase in complexity, increases the number of computations which increases the time it takes for the system to go from heterogenous to homogenous. If that's the case, then simply increasing the complexity will result in a greater time spent in a heterogenous state, or rather it will take a longer period of time before we reach the eventuality; the maximally complex state.

For the majority of this discussion we've been referring to computations being done by a (singular) computer. But then what happens if we had a parallel process of computers?

Let's say we have a complex system that takes 1 million computations to reach the end maximal state, and that it takes 1 second per computation for a total of 1 million seconds (approximately 11 days) to compute the complexity of a system. But this time, instead of one computer computing the complexity of the system, we had 100 or 1000 computers, with the ability to communicate their findings with one another. This means that the sum of all computers is essentially a more efficient single computer that can perform more computations in the same period of time, thus the complexity of a system among a parallel process of 1000 computers, would reduce the computation time of such a system from 11 days, to 16 minutes!

The analogy is that we are discussing computers making computation but what we are actually talking about are human brains and it's ability to make decisions and choices. If players communicate among themselves about what is optimal and what is not, then they would essentially be pushing the complexity of the system toward maximally complex state exponentially faster then if they couldn't communicate, and this takes us further away from diversity in the system toward a homogenous meta game.

Psycoprophet.8107 · March 18, 2021

U guys ^ know ur posting these in a gw2 forum thread right? Just checking lol.Must be fun at parties.

razaelll.8324 · March 18, 2021

hehe that does not mean that you cannot have a good discussion about science, mate. In matter of fact this type of discussions are more constructive imo instead of the typical nerf this nerf that ...

JusticeRetroHunter.7684 · March 18, 2021

@"razaelll.8324" said:Hey, i am not trying to start a second war, but can you please answer 1 question?

Hey, I appreciate that, and honestly, I'm sorry and I sincerely apologize for being a jerk. I don't want a second war either so I'll be civilized this time.

So these are great questions, and before answering this I want to refer you to the post above first, because it's a primer for getting a hold on the entire framework described so far. In addition The proof by Susskind is part of a lecture on Complexity and Black Hole Physics. First part of the lecture is just merely explaining complexity and how it's used and kinda how it manifests in the subject, and the 2nd part is applying it to the physics of black holes and what knowledge is gained from that information. I will link this lecture at the bottom for you to watch in full since really the whole thing is interesting in it's own right.

Complexity metric is the MINIMAL number of simple operations it takes to get from 1 state to another. This metric is used for determining of how "hard" it would be to go from 1 state to another and it is used in many different fields of study as electronics, economics , quantum physics and so on.
But how that proves that "Thus states of a system with the same complexity metric, which are either a homogenous or heterogenous, means that the states are still both equivalent." Can you please elaborate on that?

Right ya. So the minimum number of operations and the maximal complex state are kind of just ways of using this metric and in our example those both take on the same value for the following reason : In our example, we are assuming that we are using the most simple operations already (comparing the size of one bar, to another bar) and we are also assuming that we know how many operations it's going to take to get from one to the other (total of 9 elements means there are a total of 9 computations needed to reach the maximal end state), so we already defined what the minimum is. The minimum in the case of our example is just the same as the number of operations it takes to get to any other state of this system, and so the maximal complex state also happens to be this number. Below I'll explain the key differences between the two things.

Minimal Number of OperationsIn the lecture, Susskind is using the Metric to actually find out how many operations are needed in a set of states, where it's not known how many of the elements are in that state. So you have state of some object A where you just start flipping atoms one by one (The Rolls Royce), and after you flipped 100 atoms you now have a state of B (Rust Pile), then that is the relative complexity between the two states, for which at first you didn't know how many things you actually needed to flip to get from one state to the other.

Maximal Complex StateThe maximal complex state, is essentially the maximum number of states that are possible in a system. This is determined using that metric, by knowing all the elements in the system, and then identifying how many simple operations it will take to cycle through all possible states before returning you to a state you've already "visited." In our example, we had 9 states, and if each operation is just an analysis of 1 element to another element, then that maximal complex state is going to happen after 9 operations, as a 10th operation would mean you are now cycling through a state you've already visited.

So in the examples , we are showing that, given we know what the minimum number of operations are, and knowing all the elements in the system, then the maximum we can determine, and by proxy if we compare this result to all other results using the same parameters, we can determine that all states of the same complexity lead to the same "value" of a maximally complex state, which is just 1 build. We can start with any number of elements, and any number of computations, and it will all eventually collapse to just 1 eventually, and therefor all states of the system are equivalent in this regard.

In the video of the lecture he defines thoroughly the parameters of this metric. Here in this picture he presents a list of axioms regarding the states and the equalities of the metric:

1) If State A is equal to State B, then then the number of computations needed to go from A to B must be 0. (And by proxy, the number of computations needed to get to the maximal complex state will also be the same, like in our example.)

2) A and B are symmetrical, in that it doesn't matter which order the states are in you can "flip atoms" in any direction to reach the same value...This is essentially the analog of what was debated in the war thread, about how any operation used can have any inverse operation that can be used to achieve the same result.

3) "Satisfies triangle inequality" <- idk I don't care about this but hey it's cool too I guess.

In the video which you posted the Lecturer Leonard Susskind (great professor btw) says that State A is orthogonal to State B and also State A is orthogonal State C (means State B and State C are both at distance P/2 from State A) so measuring the distance is not a good way to measure how "complex" is to go from State A to State B and from State A to state C thats why other metric is needed and namely that metric is relative complexity. With other words measuring how "complex" is the difference between State A and State B compared to how "complex" is the difference between State A and State C. In matter of facts neither in the video nor the chars balance is mentioned nor equivalency of states so i fail to understand how that video and the charts prove that any of the states are equivalent to each other or how homogenous system is equivalent to heterogenous in terms of balance? So can you please elaborate on that?

Okay, this is a bit harder to talk about since I'm not 100% sure, but The Orthogonal states is referring to Eigen Vectors of particles and stuff (Quantum states), in which when these vectors are orthogonal, the dot products of these vectors add up to 0. This is actually required in physics to do because it's sort of like a conservation law for particles...Where vectors add up (or negate each other) to encompass the entirety of the system in order to equal 0. Essentially, you can't push a ball forward without the ball exerting a force back on you. So when looking at 2 different objects, one would EXPECT there should be some kind of meaningful imbalance that describes why the quantum states of these two distinctly different objects are different, but there isn't...everything is just orthogonal to each other and it's like...well how is this different if all the vectors are adding up to 0?

Anyway, here's the full Lecture. It's well worth the hour and a half watch if you have the time.

&

A Few Questions about sPvP

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in