the meta rn

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

3 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

Usually I'm able to follow along with your posts, and I generally agree with the points you make... but you lost me here. 

 

Perhaps you could reiterate in a way us smooth brains can understand?

 

Okay, sorry if I maybe wasn't clear.

 

So shao said the following : "Every positive actions has a negative reaction" This is roughly a paraphrasing of a famous derivation of the Newtonian Laws of motion..."that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The quote he's paraphrasing is not false...many things have this property, and this property is called "symmetry." However using the terms "positive" and "negative" are incorrect ways to interpret the quote and describing it as symmetry, because not all things lay on a spectrum between negative and positive. Some symmetries lay on positive spectrums between 0 and infinite (like space-time/speed of light).

 

A symmetry is taking some object...can be anything like shapes, numbers, equations, abstractions... and applying some operation to it called a transformation...which can be making that thing bigger or smaller...rotating it around, scaling it up or down, inverting or reflecting it, adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing... there's many many kinds of transformations one can apply, and if that object remains the same after those transformations, then the object has symmetry with that particular transformation.

 

One obvious symmetry is chiral symmetry, which you place your hands out in front of you, you notice that your hands are basically identical to each other... But you also notice that there exists more right handed people then left handed people...about 90% of people on the planet are right handed. There is no obvious reason for why such would be the case, that perfectly symmetrical things exhibit biases to one over the other. The same kind of one-way behavior in symmetry exists with particle/antimatter particles, where the universe is made up of entirely of matter, but almost no antimatter, but they are technically both identical, and both technically should exist in equal number.

 

These one-way processes or bias's in what should be perfectly symmetrical...like how their should be a balanced number of particle/antiparticle's to exist, and how their should be an equal number of left handed and right handed people on the planet, are caused by symmetries of higher order. These higher order symmetries are much harder to understand, and are much more elusive because it's not very obvious how they manifest, but these higher order symmetries can force process to become one way, or biased in one direction.

 

One such high order symmetry, is the example explained with the tree. The tree itself has many kinds of interesting symmetries, but positive and negative is not one of them. There is no way to define this tree as having a positive or a negative value. The values on this tree are based on the number of numbers there are, and the number of branches. You can't really have a "negative" number of branches...just like how we can't have "negative" diversity or "negative" balance. Things just exist between values of 0 to infinite...they don't exist in some negative space. This is the same kind of behavior in the equations of the speed of light and space-time. You can't have anything go faster then the speed of light, because it requires an infinite amount of energy to do so, and you can't go anything slower then 0 because you can't really have negative mass or energy...so the values for an accelerated mass is between 0 and infinite, and at infinite is the speed of light....you're stuck between a set of values, and these positive values determine the arrow of time. 

 

Another high order symmetry is the process of evolution. I thought I was trying to make it obvious, but it was no accident that I used a tree as my example, as it resembles "The Tree of Life" coined by Darwin, basically the OG of Diversity science. There's a reason it looks like a tree, and it's because the process of evolution is a one-way process. The diversity of life is so huge, that most people don't realize that it is indeed a tree for a reason and not a perfectly symmetric circle...but that doesn't mean that the tree isn't symmetric. It indeed has symmetry, it's just a way different kind of symmetry that most people aren't us-to and don't understand very well...a one-way symmetry.

Edited May 23, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Kuma.1503]

9 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Okay, sorry if I maybe wasn't clear.

 

So shao said the following : "Every positive actions has a negative reaction" This is roughly a paraphrasing of a famous derivation of the Newtonian Laws of motion..."that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The quote he's paraphrasing is not false...many things have this property, and this property is called "symmetry." However using the terms "positive" and "negative" are incorrect ways to interpret the quote and describing it as symmetry, because not all things lay on a spectrum between negative and positive. Some symmetries lay on positive spectrums between 0 and infinite (like space-time/speed of light).

 

A symmetry is taking some object...can be anything like shapes, numbers, equations, abstractions... and applying some operation to it called a transformation...which can be making that thing bigger or smaller...rotating it around, scaling it up or down...inverting or reflecting it, there's many many kinds of transformations one can apply, and if that object remains the same after those transformations, then the object has symmetry with that particular transformation.

 

One obvious symmetry is chiral symmetry, which you place your hands out in front of you, you notice that your hands are basically identical to each other... But you also notice that there exists more right handed people then left handed people...about 90% of people on the planet are right handed. There is no obvious reason for why such would be the case, that perfectly symmetrical things exhibit biases to one over the other. The same kind of one-way behavior in symmetry exists with particle/antimatter particles, where the universe is made up of entirely of matter, but almost no antimatter, but they are technically both identical, and both technically should exist in equal number.

 

These one-way processes or bias's in what should be perfectly symmetrical...like how their should be a balanced number of particle/antiparticle's to exist, and how their should be an equal number of left handed and right handed people on the planet, are caused by symmetries of higher order. These higher order symmetries are much harder to understand, and are much more elusive because it's not very obvious how they manifest, but these higher order symmetries can force process to become one way, or biased in one direction.

 

One such high order symmetry, is the example explained with the tree. The tree itself has many kinds of interesting symmetries, but positive and negative is not one of them. There is no way to define this tree as having a positive or a negative value. The values on this tree are based on the number of numbers there are, and the number of branches. You can't really have a "negative" number of branches...just like how we can't have "negative" diversity or "negative" balance. Things just exist between values of 0 to infinite...they don't exist in some negative space. This is the same kind of behavior in the equations of the speed of light and space-time. You can't have anything go faster then the speed of light, because it requires an infinite amount of energy to do so, and you can't go anything slower then 0 because you can't really have negative mass or energy...so the values for an accelerated mass is between 0 and infinite, and at infinite is the speed of light....you're stuck between a set of values, and these positive values determine the arrow of time. 

 

Another high order symmetry is the process of evolution. I thought I was trying to make it obvious, but it was no accident that I used a tree as my example, as it resembles "The Tree of Life" coined by Darwin, basically the OG of Diversity science. There's a reason it looks like a tree, and it's because the process of evolution is a one-way process. The diversity of life is so huge, that most people don't realize that it's a tree and not a perfectly symmetric circle...but that doesn't mean that the tree isn't symmetric. It indeed has symmetry, it's just a way different kind of symmetry that most people aren't us-to and don't understand very well...a one-way symmetry.

 

Okay, I'm starting to wrap my head around what you're saying, and yet I'm left with even more questions 😅

 

If I'm understanding properly objects are symmetrical when they are the same or similar to the point where they're almost the same (in the case of hands), and they retain that symmetry even if you move them around, rotate them, or mirror them. 

 

How does evolution play into this though? If a duck evolves into an Ultra Duck it's not like you just moved the duck from point A to point B. It's a completely different species of duck. Or are you saying that the tree that describes the transformation of duck to ultra duck is what displays symmetry?

 

Also I'd just like to point out that we're having yet another discussion about abstract science in a video game forum... a PvP video game forum. 

 

This is my life right now. 

[Shao.7236]

1 hour ago, Kanto.2485 said:

The effect of removing mender (which was barely a support stat already given it had ++ power + precision) has been making scourge the only meta "support" as it hurt other support builds while having little to no impact on scourge (the extra pressure from avatar/sage might even be worth the loss in healing power, especially with the other supports' cleanses absent due to low usage). If anything i'd argue that a support build should be able to not die in 1v1 against MOST classes (with some exceptions to prevent bunkering, like, for example, condi rev which can kill a support guard overtime) and NOT be able to get solokills or dealing like 75% of the dmg of a dps while also supporting.

I did not see the game getting more fun, nor faster with the removal of amulets over the years, as of course amulets are but a complementary tool, especially now with such low scalings, but overperforming BUILDS have always been the problem (for example bunker mesmer in core, reaper and tempest in early HoT, then dardevil+portal chrono in every high level game in late HoT, SpB, firebrand and scourge in early PoF, then every thinkable rev build with scourge nerfed out of existance with the shade rework,  and now scourge again). This does not mean that the builds should be "removed" instead, but that it is traits and utilities that are overperforming that should be MODERATELY toned down, in order to preserve diversity. I do not mean that every single spec should be meta either, but what we are seeing these last years is discouraging to say the least, especially at high levels. the last two 2v2 games i played i had 4 scourges against me, and my teammates have been a core necro and a reaper (top 50-100 games), on top of that double scourge has been very common in 5v5 already.

By the amount of times I said Scourge Barrier should be looked at, even before the removal of Amulets.

 

Funny to think that Scourge doesn't even heal close to Ventari, Tempest or Guard but still comes on top becaaaaauuuuusee... Maybe it should be looked at? Should I say properly?

 

Support builds should be dying 1v1 if they aren't played properly, it's not a difficult task to demand players using their ability to play the game instead of just soaking everything which still happens to a certain bearable degree now besides Scourge.

 

Because you're support doesn't mean you're marked as an exception of being easily deleted. You play support to play as a team also therefor it's already wrong to try 1v1 at all.

 

Talking about Mallyx Rev also, by design if you get smothered too much by the Elite, anybody is going to fall short unless stopped. As a reminder, Rev can't do damage without energy so, CC'ing in the right stance is a win for anyone because you want to make that fuel run out.

[Kuma.1503]

9 hours ago, Shao.7236 said:

Yeah but you have Sage that can do the same except less obnoxious to fight which was the intend behind the removal. Less everything at once and more specializing to tip balance in favor of certain aspect to exhibit trade offs.

 

Your sustain isn't meant to be an eternal rotation thus vitality pool is increased to speed up the game in incentivizing less gonna heal back everything and be more I have this much left, what should I risk. Damage is more focused on because we want you to fight and not spin evades 24/7 while doing less damage, you'd argue that one build was lost because of this but the same playstyle can be achieved while it's not annoyingly toxic.

 

You ever fought a Diviner Renegade before the amulet was removed? Near permanent every boon with almost constant immunity to condition damage, even if that looks fun to me and you, that was extremely unfun to play against.

 

Making Damage matter more over Sustain is easier to balance and will allow Anet to spot what needs buffs or nerfs in traits/skill in the later days.

 

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684  Every positive actions have a negative reaction. It's basic stuff, still irrelevant to the situation when;

 

Constantly bringing us back at the surface level of things rather than properly argue the situation at hand in details is useless. The issues are obvious and easy to spot by simply visualizing player effort and access in the situation comparatively to others.

 

You haven't put causality in perspective either. From the very start devs can create flaws without you or them knowing, because of those flaws that you view as an ideal starting point are already broken and require attention, we live off a greater point of failure that will only make everything after it worst if we don't address that issue first.

 

I did not fight a Diviner Renegade prior to the Februrary patch. It was a unicorn build back then. Most regarded renegade as a trash-tier elite in PvP, if you played it it was because you were either a hipster or you were good enough to carry it. That was the widespread opinion of it at any rate. I did play the build myself however. It played a Shiro/Jallis Diviner Renegade and a Jallis/Kalla Diviner Renegade. No, it could not maintain permenant every boon. You're being hyperbolic. I wish people wouldn't so quickly resort to hyperbole when discussing whether things should or should not exist. I understan the reasoning behind it. It's much easier to make a case for why a non-existent build with permenant boon uptime of every boon in the game and unlimited evades shouldn't exist. 

 

Does it match up with reality however?

 

In regards to your other point. I had a feeling someone would bring up the point "Just swap to sage". It's not that simple. To explain why, you simply need to ask yourself why the build did not run sage in the first place if the option was there? 

 

It's not optimal. The healing power in marshal has greater synergy with the water traitline. It has plenty of sustain traits with high healing coefficients to make maximum use out of the amulet.  Wheras the +500 condition damage from sage does not synergize as well. If you run sage, you'd gain more mileage out of running a standard fire weaver build. 

 

This was an alternative way of playing weaver that allowed you to run a different amulet to take advantage of different synergies. In essence, you were trading some weaknesses for others, and this would let you thrive in scenarios/matchups that your typical fire weaver couldn't. As a trade-off, you were very squishy, and it was not at all uncommon to get one shot while playing that build.

 

An obvious counter would be stregnth spellbreaker, because they would be able to match you in melee, and overwhelm your cooldowns with their abundance of crowd controls. All it would take is one good bulls charge and they could take you from 100% to down. 

 

On the other end of the coin, it did well against scourge and burn DH. It had plenty of cleanses to deal with the condi spam and you could pressure them back. Scourge lacked the burst to be able to 100-0 you so you could comfortably sustain back to full against them. 

 

The build essentially embdodied the original trade-off of playing ele. You were a low durability proffession with high damage, and high sustain. The trade-off of having low hp was that you could heal it back quickly if given the opportunity to recover. If you were repeatedly healing to 100% hp in a fight, it isn't because you were immortal, it's because your opponent misplayed and failed to land any of their bread and butter burst combos. 

 

The days of weaver chaining endless evades to cover that weakness ended ages ago when Anet nerfed ToF to 75 seconds and increased cooldowns on Riptide and Earthen Vortex. 

 

It was a perfectly valid alternative to fire weaver that had no reason to be deleted. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Kuma.1503

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

5 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

Also I'd just like to point out that we're having yet another discussion about abstract science in a video game forum... a PvP video game forum. 

 

This is my life right now. 

Lol. Ya it's funny but honestly...I'd rather we talk about this and maybe make progress on ideas rather then well...going through the same rigmarole that's been going down for 8ish years here on the forums. I us-to be that guy asking for nerfs all the time, but I realized how stupid that was...maybe talking about this is just as stupid since it might not lead to any change. But in the end, it's whatever it's not a big deal. not trying to change the world or anything,

 

Quote

If I'm understanding properly objects are symmetrical when they are the same or similar to the point where they're almost the same (in the case of hands), and they retain that symmetry even if you move them around, rotate them, or mirror them. 

 

Right exactly. There are tons and tons of different kinds of symmetries. And these objects aren't limited to just shapes. Mathematical structures, abstractions, number...all things can have some number of symmetry's. A good example is like looking at a picture of white noise. White noise looks the same at all scales, it can be rotated in many ways, reflected in a mirror...and there are a bunch of other symmetries it has. When you think about white noise though, it's interesting to note, that what white noise is, is just random pixels on a screen in no particular order or form...how can something completely random, have tons and tons of different symmetry? And this kind of opens up questions about what do we really know about things that are symmetric, and what these things actually are and how they behave.

 

 

Quote

How does evolution play into this though? If a duck evolves into an Ultra Duck it's not like you just moved the duck from point A to point B. It's a completely different species of duck.

 

Or are you saying that the tree that describes the transformation of duck to ultra duck is what displays symmetry?

 

The questions you asked here are really hard to give a short answer to, if you peaked at the link above, you'll see that honestly, there's a lot to really say about symmetry and trying to parse it in any easily digestible way is gonna be near impossible for me. So I'll do my best to try to say this without it getting too crazy.-----

 

-----Evolution is involved, because the same process that drives biological evolution, is the same process that drives the emergence of meta builds, which is just a process of selection.

 

In Guild Wars 2, evolution is the evolution of builds, and each build goes through a process of selection just like in Darwinian evolution. There are a set number of possible combinations, people play these combinations to see if they work or do not work to achieve a certain goal (winning a game), in some environment (A PVP environment or a PVE environment). Builds that work are selected for, builds that don't work go extinct. You can represent this evolution on a Caley Graph like our tree diagram, and at the bottom of the graph are all the possible build combinations that can exist...Every-time we move up to the next branch, we go through a process of selection, so that at the top of this graph is the best meta build among builds...the proverbial T-Rex of the Gw2 world.

 

Selection is the mechanism that creates statistical consequences on this hierarchical object in which these builds rest on. Builds that are selected for, are more likely to be used, therefor they are selected for more often, which makes them more likely to be used...etc etc...Likewise, builds that are not selected for a more likely to die out, which makes them more likely not to be selected for which makes them more likely to die out etc...

 

Build combinations that are good, are more likely to survive and to procreate, build combinations that are not good are more likely to die out and not procreate, and this selection forms the biased, one way behavior of the system. This behavior is represented as the tree graph...the builds that are good are at the top, the builds that are bad are at the bottom.

 

This behavior outlines a hierarchical object, which can make certain operations not have equal weight with one another. One such operation is the removal of an element in the system. Because the builds in gw2 to some degree share the same elements, removing an element from the game, removes that element from other builds...this means that removing an element will proportionally remove that element from the other parts of the tree. In the same vein, adding an element to the system has an overall different effect entirely. New relationships are created, and the entire structure of the tree changes with the same proportionality as if you took something away, except it's opposite where instead of killing branches, branches are born instead, as the operation is essentially adding new branches to the structure rather then taking them away.

 

Some operations do have equal weighting. Such as numerical buff and nerf operations. Since there are negative and positive numbers on the number line, there is a numerical nerf you can make to some element somewhere, that has an equivalent positive buff to an element somewhere else to keep the hierarchy of the tree the same. So all nerfs and all buffs are symmetrical (this also is the reason why they are useless operations)

 

The power level being relative is another consequence of this symmetry for the same reasons. You can imagine again doing another exercise, where each branching of the tree is labeled by some number ranging in some set of finite numbers. No matter what the range of the integers are in this tree, they will always be the same "distance" away from each other in the structure. You can imagine how adjusting numerical values doesn't change the shape of the proportion of the tree at all.. the symmetry for the tree remains the same, and scale invariant at all scales.

 

I hope I didn't just talk your head off, but this is why I avoid the topic of symmetry in general. It's way to complicated to explain in a short way, because symmetry is a huge huge thing to talk about, and it's really got entire fields of it's own...so i hope I didn't butcher anything or explain it all weird.

Edited May 24, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Kuma.1503]

10 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Lol. Ya it's funny but honestly...I'd rather we talk about this and maybe make progress on ideas rather then well...going through the same rigmarole that's been going down for 8ish years here on the forums. I us-to be that guy asking for nerfs all the time, but I realized how stupid that was...maybe talking about this is just as stupid since it might not lead to any change. But in the end, it's whatever it's not a big deal. not trying to change the world or anything,

 

 

Right exactly. There are tons and tons of different kinds of symmetries. And these objects aren't limited to just shapes. Mathematical structures, abstractions, number...all things can have some number of symmetry's. A good example is like looking at a picture of white noise. White noise looks the same at all scales, it can be rotated in many ways, reflected in a mirror...and there are a bunch of other symmetries it has. When you think about white noise though, it's interesting to note, that what white noise is, is just random pixels on a screen in no particular order or form...how can something completely random, have tons and tons of different symmetry? And this kind of opens up questions about what do we really know about things that are symmetric, and what these things actually are and how they behave.

 

 

 

The questions you asked here are really hard to give a short answer to, if you peaked at the link above, you'll see that honestly, there's a lot to really say about symmetry and trying to parse it in any easily digestible way is gonna be near impossible for me. So I'll do my best to try to say this without it getting too crazy.-----

 

-----Evolution is involved, because the same process that drives biological evolution, is the same process that drives the emergence of meta builds, which is just a process of selection.

 

In Guild Wars 2, evolution is the evolution of builds, and each build goes through a process of selection just like in Darwinian evolution. There are a set number of possible combinations, people play these combinations to see if they work or do not work to achieve a certain goal (winning a game), in some environment (A PVP environment or a PVE environment). Builds that work are selected for, builds that don't work go extinct. You can represent this evolution on a Caley Graph like our tree diagram, and at the bottom of the graph are all the possible build combinations that can exist...Every-time we move up to the next branch, we go through a process of selection, so that at the top of this graph is the best meta build among builds...the proverbial T-Rex of the Gw2 world.

 

Selection is the mechanism that creates statistical consequences on this hierarchical object in which these builds rest on. Builds that are selected for, are more likely to be used, therefor they are selected for more often, which makes them more likely to be used...etc etc...Likewise, builds that are not selected for a more likely to die out, which makes them more likely not to be selected for which makes them more likely to die out etc...

 

Build combinations that are good, are more likely to survive and to procreate, build combinations that are not good are more likely to die out and not procreate, and this selection forms the biased, one way behavior of the system. This behavior is represented as the tree graph...the builds that are good are at the top, the builds that are bad are at the bottom.

 

This behavior outlines a hierarchical object, which can make certain operations not have equal weight with one another. One such operation is the removal of an element in the system. Because the builds in gw2 to some degree share the same elements, removing an element from the game, removes that element from other builds...this means that removing an element will proportionally remove that element from the other parts of the tree. In the same vein, adding an element to the system has an overall different effect entirely. New relationships are created, and the entire structure of the tree changes with the same proportionality as if you took something away, except it's opposite where instead of killing branches, branches are born instead, as the operation is essentially adding new branches to the structure rather then taking them away.

 

Some operations do have equal weighting. Such as numerical buff and nerf operations. Since there are negative and positive numbers on the number line, there is a numerical nerf you can make to some element somewhere, that has an equivalent positive buff to an element somewhere else to keep the hierarchy of the tree the same. So all nerfs and all buffs are symmetrical (this also is the reason why they are useless operations)

 

The power level being relative is another consequence of this symmetry for the same reasons. You can imagine again doing another exercise, where each branching of the tree is labeled by some number ranging in some set of finite numbers. No matter what the range of the integers are in this tree, they will always be the same "distance" away from each other in the structure. You can imagine how adjusting numerical values doesn't change the shape of the proportion of the tree at all.. the symmetry for the tree remains the same, and scale invariant at all scales.

 

I hope I didn't just talk your head off, but this is why I avoid the topic of symmetry in general. It's way to complicated to explain in a short way, because symmetry is a huge huge thing to talk about, and it's really got entire fields of it's own...so i hope I didn't butcher anything or explain it all weird.

 

I think I understood that time.  That was interesting to read!

 

I suppose this links back to that epic Forum Wars 2 battle you had with Ragnar. Btw, still more amusing to read than actual PvP is at this point. 

 

If you took that tree of meta builds and you gave a slight nerf to mesmer, you might see it fall further down the tree towards the bottom. Another build (or builds) would take it's place higher up the rung. For example, lets say elementalist rises because they generally lost the 1v1 to mesmer. The nerf causes them to win that 1v1 more often so some the selective pressures that were keeping it further down the ladder are effectively removed

 

On the other hand, if you could perform a buff or series of buffs in the just the right places.  The end result would be Mesmer falling to the same spot and ele rising to the same spot in the tree. Obviously the two games are not the same. If you took the Mesmer from example 1 and pitted it against the mesmer from example 2. Example 2 mesmer would win because it wasn't nerfed. 

 

But if you look at the relative power of mesmer and the relative power of ele vs all other builds in the system, you'd end up with two symmetrical trees.

 

Which is a mathematical way of saying what I've been saying since the Feb patch was announced. 

 

Power Creep can work in both ways. Both buffs and nerfs can cause situations that feel like power creep. This is precisely what happened with prot holo and scourge. This is why rezzing became so strong despite no direct buffs to the mechanic. In fact, since the Feb patch dropped, we've only been nerfing rez power. 

 

Likewise, if you buffed every skill, every attritube, and every trait in the game by 10x, the game wouldn't change. You'd just have an extra zero on top of everything. Instead of 1000 power you have 10000 power. Instead of 1000 toughness you have 10000 toughness, ect. You could compare the original game to the 10x game and the two would have symmetry. 

 

Edit: Fixed some word salad that happened some time during editing. Whoops 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Kuma.1503

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 hours ago, Kuma.1503 said:

Power Creep can work in both ways. Both buffs and nerfs can cause situations that feel like power creep. This is precisely what happened with prot holo and scourge. This is why rezzing became so strong despite no direct buffs to the mechanic. In fact, since the Feb patch dropped, we've only been nerfing rez power. 

 

Likewise, if you buffed every skill, every attritube, and every trait in the game by 10x, the game wouldn't change. You'd just have an extra zero on top of everything. Instead of 1000 power you have 10000 power. Instead of 1000 toughness you have 10000 toughness, ect. You could compare the original game to the 10x game and the two would have symmetry. 

 

Right exactly. Symmetry is probably the hardest way to explain these highly abstract concepts, but essentially that's the reason why those things behave this way is because it's a feature of the geometry of an object....bleh even this sentence sounds confusing lmao...again this is why I try to avoid talking about symmetry, there's way more simple ways to explain those things.

 

I don't know if I ever showed you this video before...but this video is basically like introductory 101 complexity theory video that helped me understand what I was even looking at when I was analyzing the balance/diversity problem in gw2. Although symmetry isn't exclusively mentioned in this video, I think it better explains exactly what the properties of this higher order symmetry is....probably explains it way better then I can.

 

 

Ones immediate conclusion to draw from all this, is that complexity is a big problem, and most people believe that simplifying a systems complexity (usually by removing elements) will make a game "more balanced" and solve that problem. But, you realize that not only does complexity cause the inevitable problem of creating a meta hierarchy, but complexity is ALSO  responsible for the reason the system is able to be have diversity in the first place.

 

If you were to probe me on what I think complexity is, I would say with caution, that complexity is some higher order symmetry that we don't fully understand yet...that balance and diversity aren't distinctly different things...that all it is, is just complexity and seems to be just very generically described as "system evolution". Right now, many people are gravitating toward this field, not only for it's usefulness in new technology like neural networks and stuff, but because there's precedent to believe that it is a TOE.

 

 

[Kuma.1503]

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Right exactly. Symmetry is probably the hardest way to explain these highly abstract concepts, but essentially that's the reason why those things behave this way is because it's a feature of the geometry of an object....bleh even this sentence sounds confusing lmao...again this is why I try to avoid talking about symmetry, there's way more simple ways to explain those things.

 

I don't know if I ever showed you this video before...but this video is basically like introductory 101 complexity theory video that helped me understand what I was even looking at when I was analyzing the balance/diversity problem in gw2. Although symmetry isn't exclusively mentioned in this video, I think it better explains exactly what the properties of this higher order symmetry is....probably explains it way better then I can.

 

 

Ones immediate conclusion to draw from all this, is that complexity is a big problem, and most people believe that simplifying a systems complexity (usually by removing elements) will make a game "more balanced" and solve that problem. But, you realize that not only does complexity cause the inevitable problem of creating a meta hierarchy, but complexity is ALSO  responsible for the reason the system is able to be have diversity in the first place.

 

If you were to probe me on what I think complexity is, I would say with caution, that complexity is some higher order symmetry that we don't fully understand yet...that balance and diversity aren't distinctly different things...that all it is, is just complexity and seems to be just very generically described as "system evolution". Right now, many people are gravitating toward this field, not only for it's usefulness in new technology like neural networks and stuff, but because there's precedent to believe that it is a TOE.

 

 

 

You know when they call the video a "Module" it's going to be some serious ****.

 

I can see what you mean about struggling to break these things down into simple terms. When the talked about Elements (parts) I was like "okay" and then he went onto describe emergence and I was like "okaaay my head hurts, but I think I'm starting to grasp"

 

"--And now we're going to add complexity to the system"

 

"--Oh god he's still going".

 

 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

On 5/24/2021 at 2:45 PM, Kuma.1503 said:

 

You know when they call the video a "Module" it's going to be some serious ****.

 

I can see what you mean about struggling to break these things down into simple terms. When the talked about Elements (parts) I was like "okay" and then he went onto describe emergence and I was like "okaaay my head hurts, but I think I'm starting to grasp"

 

"--And now we're going to add complexity to the system"

 

"--Oh god he's still going".

 

 

Ya, it's a lot to take in, but it's one of the best explanations (if not the only explanation) that in my eyes, perfectly describes games like guild wars 2, if not all games.

 

Best way to think about it, is to just substituting the elements in the game with the elements in those rudimentary examples

 

Example : Properties -> Skills -> Builds -> Team Compositions -> Zerg Compositions is the emergent behavior of the games design as a whole. There's more then one way to classify or to organize all the emergent behaviors taking place, this is just one of them. You can classify it as 1v1 -> 5v5 -> GvG. for example, and each scale of combat exhibits different behavior. The difference in behavior that becomes apparent at each scale is a phase transition. You hear that word a lot when people talk about water melting from ice, or boiling water into water vapor...that's exactly what a phase transition is, just a change in system behavior. Water itself doesn't actually change...water molecules are still water molecules much like how the properties of skills don't change when we go up in the scale of combat...those properties remain the same it's just the systems behavior that changes.

 

Honestly I could go on and on about explaining how every part of this video describes gw2 in detail, and how these descriptions can be used to come up with solutions to game design flaws, but that might be a bit much, and you already understand everything I've ever said about the topic, and you are able to articulate it and explain it to others in an altruistic way, more laymen friendly way. For you it's easy to understand these things, but for others, it's not the case...like for example in that gw2 forum thread, the conversation was no where near constructive, and the argument was about very basic arithmetic. If people can't get past something as critical to understand as non-determinism (that we live in an approximate world, not a deterministic one) then they are still stuck in Pre-Newtonian era of thought, and there's no way to know this stuff without going past Newtonian thinking. That's kind of why Shao's response here on this thread triggered such a response from me...Newton was a forefather of science, but his ideas are not valid anymore... like at all. Gravity is not a force, it's curved space+time mediated by particle interaction... and current day physics even think that's not the correct description of gravity at all either anymore... The world just works way more different and is way more complicated then just assuming things are just "everything is equal bro." lol

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684