Where Did Prot Holo Come From?

[ThrakathNar.4537]

Let the records show I had no participation in starting the second great forum war.

 

[Crab Fear.1624]

They make everyone else weaker. And sneaky buffs.

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

5 hours ago, ThrakathNar.4537 said:

Let the records show I had no participation in starting the second great forum war.

 

 

Right now it's like what Desert Storm was to WWII though.

 

If we are to approach a similar magnitude of the first heterogenial homogenius forum war, we are going to need a lot more hand made charts.

[Leonidrex.5649]

1 nerfed fun to play nades
2 buffed unfun to play prot ( shield buffs lul )
3 nerfed weaver and cherald ( wasnt this like the only 2 pieces of kitten that could brawl this thing ? )

[apharma.3741]

On 5/31/2021 at 3:22 PM, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Dang dude...so close but I think you need a bit more time in the oven.

 

The very definition of Relative means that things vary in order to keep something a constant. I'm not starting a second war. if you are struggling to understand what is constant in this picture, then there's not much else to say.

Gonna need a fact check on this one, last I heard relative has nothing to do with keeping something constant, it is the judging of something in comparison to another.

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/relative

[razaelll.8324]

5 minutes ago, apharma.3741 said:

Gonna need a fact check on this one, last I heard relative has nothing to do with keeping something constant, it is the judging of something in comparison to another.

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/relative

You are generally right, but to be fair it can also be used in the context of which @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 is using it

[apharma.3741]

1 minute ago, razaelll.8324 said:

You are generally right, but to be fair it can also be used in the context of which @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 is using it

I know, if expressed as a ratio, but you really should state as such before making such a statement and it isn't the norm outside of certain fields.

[razaelll.8324]

2 hours ago, apharma.3741 said:

I know, if expressed as a ratio, but you really should state as such before making such a statement and it isn't the norm outside of certain fields.

Its not my statement and i agree with you, just pointing out that in the context of which he use it is also correct.

Edited June 1, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

3 hours ago, apharma.3741 said:

I know, if expressed as a ratio, but you really should state as such before making such a statement and it isn't the norm outside of certain fields.

It's more like...the other way around. The definition of Relative, is more or less a derivative term for a "relation" which means "How two objects, concepts or anything really, are related to each other." and from there, it breaks down into more formalized definitions, the most useful of which are the mathematical formalisms, these formalisms are described strictly in math terms, and it would be ridiculous to describe it in that way over here, but for all intensive purposes it breaks down like this : "things vary with respect to some dimensionless number." The link on Britannica is more or less a collection of non-formal definitions, and to apply a non-formal definition is gonna lead you basically nowhere.

 

Example: Me and you are driving on the interstate, and you shout out to me that you are driving 60 kilometers per hour. The concept of "60kilometers per hour" is a relative concept... because I can tell you my speed with some other unit of measurement like "I'm driving 3 tadpole leaps per human heartbeat!". Both of us are correct...so the absolute here, is the agreement on the actual distance that was traveled, and since there are an infinite number of ways to describe that distance, all notions of distance are relative. We all agree that the distance traveled between you and me can be quantified, but we have to both agree on a metric that we both use. This is why in equations of Einstein relativity, they give the speed of light the dimensionless quantity of 1, rather then 300,000 Km/s.

 

So it's not that Britannica is wrong...it's just not useful to describe anything without it being completely pedantic. For example... the skill Bulls Charge is not related to the skill Lightning Flash... But if you were to compare the two skills, you can then give them a relation such as Bulls Charge > Lightning Flash...Bulls Charge < Lightning Flash or even Bulls Charge = Lightning Flash. You find it hard to believe that a statement like Bulls Charge = Lightning Flash can ever be true, and you'd be correct.

 

The only way Bulls Charge = Lightning Flash can ever be true, is if both skills are actually the same...and it doesn't even matter what we could have used they could either both be teleports that do damage...or both knockdown skills with an evasion component...in an infinite number of possible set of operations...units of measurement whatever you want to call it, the agreement that the two can be the same is an absolute dimensionless quantity, where all parties agree that object A is the same as object B.

 

This is when people preach "perfect balance" by nerfing something or "Guardian = Mesmer" and other such statements , you should be skeptical because they are complete nonsense, and this is what that previous war thread was really about for like the first 3 pages...the mistake of fitting an equal sign between two things that are different, and just "saying" that it's true is baloney.

 

I won't really talk more on this, because it's already been said and done and I won't go into it any further. the comments on the previous page are simple enough for a toddler in preschool to understand. There's really no simpler way to describe what a relation is, or two things being relative are, then what I've already said. Cheers buddy.

Edited June 1, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[apharma.3741]

5 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

It's more like...the other way around. The definition of Relative, is more or less a derivative term for a "relation" which means "How two objects, concepts or anything really, are related to each other." and from there, it breaks down into more formalized definitions, the most useful of which are the mathematical formalisms, these formalisms are described strictly in math terms, and it would be ridiculous to describe it in that way over here, but for all intensive purposes it breaks down like this : "things vary with respect to some dimensionless number." The link on Britannica is more or less a collection of non-formal definitions, and to apply a non-formal definition is gonna lead you basically nowhere.

 

Example: Me and you are driving on the interstate, and you shout out to me that you are driving 60 kilometers per hour. The concept of "60kilometers per hour" is a relative concept... because I can tell you my speed with some other unit of measurement like "I'm driving 3 tadpole leaps per human heartbeat!". Both of us are correct...so the absolute here, is the agreement on the actual distance that was traveled, and since there are an infinite number of ways to describe that distance, all notions of distance are relative. We all agree that the distance traveled between you and me can be quantified, but we have to both agree on a metric that we both use. This is why in equations of Einstein relativity, they give the speed of light the dimensionless quantity of 1, rather then 300,000 Km/s.

 

So it's not that Britannica is wrong...it's just not useful to describe anything without it being completely pedantic. For example... the skill Bulls Charge is not related to the skill Lightning Flash... But if you were to compare the two skills, you can then give them a relation such as Bulls Charge > Lightning Flash...Bulls Charge < Lightning Flash or even Bulls Charge = Lightning Flash. You find it hard to believe that a statement like Bulls Charge = Lightning Flash can ever be true, and you'd be correct.

 

The only way Bulls Charge = Lightning Flash can ever be true, is if both skills are actually the same...and it doesn't even matter what we could have used they could either both be teleports that do damage...or both knockdown skills with an evasion component...in an infinite number of possible set of operations...units of measurement whatever you want to call it, the agreement that the two can be the same is an absolute dimensionless quantity, where all parties agree that object A is the same as object B.

 

This is when people preach "perfect balance" by nerfing something or "Guardian = Mesmer" and other such statements , you should be skeptical because they are complete nonsense, and this is what that previous war thread was really about for like the first 3 pages...the mistake of fitting an equal sign between two things that are different, and just "saying" that it's true is baloney.

 

I won't really talk more on this, because it's already been said and done and I won't go into it any further. the comments on the previous page are simple enough for a toddler in preschool to understand. There's really no simpler way to describe what a relation is, or two things being relative are, then what I've already said. Cheers buddy.

I’m still struggling to see where the very definition of relative is about keeping a constant, especially in regard to video game balance which at least from what I’ve seen of ANet isn’t around a constant and more based off feeling and perceptions from people. This is not exactly constant and from what I can understand there is no constant state and you cannot say a relationship will be valid either as redesigns and removals happen.

 

This is of course without touching the mess of perceived value which makes assigning a numeric value to objects extremely difficult and so expressing objects in this game as functions of each other is theoretical at best.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 hours ago, apharma.3741 said:

I’m still struggling to see where the very definition of relative is about keeping a constant, especially in regard to video game balance which at least from what I’ve seen of ANet isn’t around a constant and more based off feeling and perceptions from people. This is not exactly constant and from what I can understand there is no constant state and you cannot say a relationship will be valid either as redesigns and removals happen.

 

This is of course without touching the mess of perceived value which makes assigning a numeric value to objects extremely difficult and so expressing objects in this game as functions of each other is theoretical at best.

 

Apharma, you are having an issue here, because you kind of don't understand the argument, and the reference frame of it which isn't your fault it's just that it's an argument taken out of context from a previous forum thread...

 

The argument is about the implementation of numerical buffs, and numerical nerfs, and why both are equivalent, and therefor meaningless operations. The reason they are meaningless operations, is because of the mathematical relationship of how balance in the game is completely relative, based on the relation below :

 

Let's say you have 3 objects, A B and C. You can arrange them using some kind relations, like A>B>C for example...doesn't matter what kind of objects A B and C are...or the parameters for which to describe the relations.

 

How many possible ways are there of making these relations.

 

A>B>C

A>C>B

B>A>C

B>C>A

C>A>B

C>B>A

A=B=C

 

There are only 7 possible ways, to describe the relationship between A B and C. in each relation, the number in which you decide to describe it is COMPLETLY arbitrary. You can choose literally any number in the infinite line of numbers to substitute A,B or C...and these numbers can be as complex as you desire...being matrixes, parameters...whatever you want, and at least 1 of the relations will always be true. This truth in satisfying one of the above relations is what is constant basically.

 

So if A B and C were skills, then you should be able to imagine any arbitrary scenario, and that scenario will satisfy one of the 7 relations above. The only scenario that satisfies the last relation, is if A B and C are the same skill...Extrapolate the above to the video game as a whole, and then understand what the above information is telling you when someone says how to "balance" the game. What operation is someone actually doing when they want to "balance" a skill, because that operation, if it's numerical, will always obey at least one of the possible relations that take the form of the above. If the objective of balancing the game, was to make all things fair and "equal" then the objective would clearly be, to reach the final relation A=B=C. If that is what "balance" means, then balance actually means that A,B and C are the same object, and must be no different... If the operations don't satisfy that relation, then they must satisfy one of  the other relations using some other set of operations, and will by definition be "unbalanced."

 

In both cases, you lose. You simply can not have a perfectly balanced "equal" game, that is diverse, and any operation that isn't "balancing" this game, is just a meaningless operation that doesn't do anything at all other then "unbalance" the game, and there are an infinite number of possible ways to unbalance the game.

 

Like you point out in your comment, there are operations that do not obey the constant relations of the above, and these operations include specifically, adding elements, removing elements and altering the complexity of elements in the game (aka changes in mechanics). The way in which those operations effect the game, are very noticeably different and are meaningful in altering the state of the game. As it turns out, Removing things is very bad for diversity, adding things is very good for diversity. Increased complexity is all together even more of a unique operation, but it's much harder to describe, and I won't get into exactly what it does...but to really abridge it, more complexity means more diversity...

 

Quote

This is of course without touching the mess of perceived value which makes assigning a numeric value to objects extremely difficult and so expressing objects in this game as functions of each other is theoretical at best.

This is also something really important, and is part of the argument, and really deserves a comment on it own...but to keep it short, yes, assigning quantifiable values to objects is basically a ridiculous notion because these objects are complex. 

 

You can use the example of Bulls Charge > Lightning Orb. In what sense can we even say, that Bulls Charge is actually better then lightning orb? There is a way to quantify it numerically, but in terms of complexity, it's basically impossible for a human being (rather then a supercomputer) to do so. There are a number of parameters that we can imagine up, that quantifies it in some approximate notion, and we use this approximation as a way to make a decision to arrive at a very vague conclusion that Bulls Charge > Lightning Orb. This means that all the relations above are in fact, approximate notions...so again, the above argument is supported even more then it already was...because it was bad enough that nothing in the game can be balanced in principle...but now we don't even have a way to quantify anything because it's an approximate notion.

 

So numerical operations don't have any meaning, and even if it did, there's no way to even quantify it. 

 

So if someone comes up to you and tells you that Bulls Charge > Lightning Orb, you should realize that this statement is approximate. Same thing when someone tells you Guardian > Mesmers...it's an approximation made by people making approximate decisions. Think on these things and realize the state of the SPVP forum...where everyone justifies their view of nerfs and buffs with statements of "X is better then Y, please nerf!" 

Edited June 2, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Ragnar.4257]

Of course, this is all highly relevant to a discussion on an MMO, and is in no way a cry for help.

 

And to all those who cba to read the wall of text, but who reckon that he must have a point because "grrrr Anet bad", he's literally saying that neither buffing or nerfing, for example prot-holo or scourge, has any impact on game balance, and that buffing Renegade to be 1000x stronger than any other class would be totally fine and have zero bad consequences.

 

Which is self-evidently absurd.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Ragnar.4257

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

41 minutes ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

Of course, this is all highly relevant to a discussion on an MMO, and is in no way a cry for help.

 

And to all those who cba to read the wall of text, but who reckon that he must have a point because "grrrr Anet bad", he's literally saying that neither buffing or nerfing, for example prot-holo or scourge, has any impact on game balance, and that buffing Renegade to be 1000x stronger than any other class would be totally fine and have zero bad consequences.

 

Which is self-evidently absurd.

 

You did this in the last thread too. You don't even read the comment, insert a strawman and mount your argument on clear misdirection and manipulation of the argument.

 

You're position is like me saying that you have only two options : "Hey do you want Renegade to be the meta this month? Or do you want Scourge to be meta this month?" and you think this is meaningful... And yet, I can impart an infinite number of numerical nerfs or numerical buffs that makes either one or the other the case. There is no meaning in that.

Edited June 2, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Ragnar.4257]

9 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

You did this in the last thread too. You don't even read the comment, insert a strawman and mount your argument on clear misdirection and manipulation of the argument.

 

You're position is like me saying that you have only two options : "Hey do you want Renegade to be the meta this month? Or do you want Scourge to be meta this month?" and you think this is meaningful... And yet, I can impart an infinite number of numerical nerfs or numerical buffs that makes either one or the other the case. There is no meaning in that.

Riiiight.

Very simple test.

 

If I were to ask you if buffing under-performers (like berserker and core-ele), and/or nerfing over-performers (like scourge and holo)***, would you say:

 

a) This would be beneficial to the state of pvp

b) This would not be beneficial to the state of pvp

c) hand-wavy metaphysical abstract BS about "what even is reality, how can we know anything  o0o0o0o0o0o" while making spooky noises

 

100G says you go with b or c, when any sane person can see it is a).

 

*** or, and I know what you're going to say, any combination of nerfs/buffs which achieve making bers/ele relatively stronger and scourge/holo relatively weaker.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Ragnar.4257

[Kuma.1503]

6 hours ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

 

c) hand-wavy metaphysical abstract BS about "what even is reality, how can we know anything  o0o0o0o0o0o" while making spooky noises

 

Sorry! Ghost noises were me. Got 2 scourges and a bunker guard last match and I literally died from boredom. 👻

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Kuma.1503

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 hour ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

*** or, and I know what you're going to say, any combination of nerfs/buffs which achieve making bers/ele relatively stronger and scourge/holo relatively weaker.

 

Yea. There's literately an infinite number of numerical operations you can do to the game, to get any state of the game that you desire., and It will always fit the hierarchy of A>B>C. 

 

It's not much more complicated then that, but I have to explain, the origin of the universe for you to understand toddler level math. Greater than signs, less than signs and equal signs.... real spooky.

 

Speaking of spooky metaphysics, I'm re-watching Harry Potter right now, so this is nice and all, but we've already been through this and I won't indulge it any longer.

Edited June 2, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Eugchriss.2046]

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Dude, you re so obsessed by your mathematicals stuffs that you re completely missing the whole point. You re basically saying that "we can't have perfect balance without sacrifying the diversity. Therefore, to achieve balance in this game, all classes need to be actually and litteraly the same".

In a theorical way and in a perfect world, you are right. In the practical and real world, you re completely, like absolutely wrong. Why? Simple : Nobody wants perfect balance, because we all know that it's unrealistic. What people want is to get as closer as possible from perfect balance. <==  That's the point you ve been missing this whole time.

What does this means? This means we don't want A=B=C, we want max(A,B,C) - min(A,B,C) (aka balance cursor) to be as smaller as possible. So yes there will always be something like A>B>C, and tbh we don't give a kitten as long as that balance cursor is close enough from 0. Now how much is enough could have its own thread, but let's say we have 5 specs, each having an arbitry value on how well they performs:

1. renegade : 49
2. holo : 50
3. scourge : 51
4. core ele : 10
5. core engi : 12

Let's say we buff core ele and core engi, so now it looks like:

1. renegade : 49 
2. holo : 50
3. scourge : 51
4. core ele : 45
5. core engi : 47

Again, you re right on the fact that the relation A>B>C will remain, but you re absolutely wrong when you say that it wont change the overall state of pvp. Why? Because of that balance cursor, which has the same utility as standard deviation in statistics:  39 in the first set vs 4 in the second. The order has remained but the balance is better.

[Crozame.4098]

7 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Let's say you have 3 objects, A B and C. You can arrange them using some kind relations, like A>B>C for example...doesn't matter what kind of objects A B and C are...or the parameters for which to describe the relations.

 

How many possible ways are there of making these relations.

 

A>B>C

A>C>B

B>A>C

B>C>A

C>A>B

C>B>A

A=B=C

 

There are only 7 possible ways, to describe the relationship between A B and C.

Lol, learn some more basic math before talking more complicated Chaos theory mate... You allow for A=B=C in the last line, where only allow strict inequality in the previous lines... 

[apharma.3741]

8 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Apharma, you are having an issue here, because you kind of don't understand the argument, and the reference frame of it which isn't your fault it's just that it's an argument taken out of context from a previous forum thread...

 

The argument is about the implementation of numerical buffs, and numerical nerfs, and why both are equivalent, and therefor meaningless operations. The reason they are meaningless operations, is because of the mathematical relationship of how balance in the game is completely relative, based on the relation below :

 

Let's say you have 3 objects, A B and C. You can arrange them using some kind relations, like A>B>C for example...doesn't matter what kind of objects A B and C are...or the parameters for which to describe the relations.

 

How many possible ways are there of making these relations.

 

A>B>C

A>C>B

B>A>C

B>C>A

C>A>B

C>B>A

A=B=C

 

There are only 7 possible ways, to describe the relationship between A B and C. in each relation, the number in which you decide to describe it is COMPLETLY arbitrary. You can choose literally any number in the infinite line of numbers to substitute A,B or C...and these numbers can be as complex as you desire...being matrixes, parameters...whatever you want, and at least 1 of the relations will always be true. This truth in satisfying one of the above relations is what is constant basically.

 

So if A B and C were skills, then you should be able to imagine any arbitrary scenario, and that scenario will satisfy one of the 7 relations above. The only scenario that satisfies the last relation, is if A B and C are the same skill...Extrapolate the above to the video game as a whole, and then understand what the above information is telling you when someone says how to "balance" the game. What operation is someone actually doing when they want to "balance" a skill, because that operation, if it's numerical, will always obey at least one of the possible relations that take the form of the above. If the objective of balancing the game, was to make all things fair and "equal" then the objective would clearly be, to reach the final relation A=B=C. If that is what "balance" means, then balance actually means that A,B and C are the same object, and must be no different... If the operations don't satisfy that relation, then they must satisfy one of  the other relations using some other set of operations, and will by definition be "unbalanced."

 

In both cases, you lose. You simply can not have a perfectly balanced "equal" game, that is diverse, and any operation that isn't "balancing" this game, is just a meaningless operation that doesn't do anything at all other then "unbalance" the game, and there are an infinite number of possible ways to unbalance the game.

 

Like you point out in your comment, there are operations that do not obey the constant relations of the above, and these operations include specifically, adding elements, removing elements and altering the complexity of elements in the game (aka changes in mechanics). The way in which those operations effect the game, are very noticeably different and are meaningful in altering the state of the game. As it turns out, Removing things is very bad for diversity, adding things is very good for diversity. Increased complexity is all together even more of a unique operation, but it's much harder to describe, and I won't get into exactly what it does...but to really abridge it, more complexity means more diversity...

 

This is also something really important, and is part of the argument, and really deserves a comment on it own...but to keep it short, yes, assigning quantifiable values to objects is basically a ridiculous notion because these objects are complex. 

 

You can use the example of Bulls Charge > Lightning Orb. In what sense can we even say, that Bulls Charge is actually better then lightning orb? There is a way to quantify it numerically, but in terms of complexity, it's basically impossible for a human being (rather then a supercomputer) to do so. There are a number of parameters that we can imagine up, that quantifies it in some approximate notion, and we use this approximation as a way to make a decision to arrive at a very vague conclusion that Bulls Charge > Lightning Orb. This means that all the relations above are in fact, approximate notions...so again, the above argument is supported even more then it already was...because it was bad enough that nothing in the game can be balanced in principle...but now we don't even have a way to quantify anything because it's an approximate notion.

 

So numerical operations don't have any meaning, and even if it did, there's no way to even quantify it. 

 

So if someone comes up to you and tells you that Bulls Charge > Lightning Orb, you should realize that this statement is approximate. Same thing when someone tells you Guardian > Mesmers...it's an approximation made by people making approximate decisions. Think on these things and realize the state of the SPVP forum...where everyone justifies their view of nerfs and buffs with statements of "X is better then Y, please nerf!" 

Yes I understood the first time, what I think you're missing is that I'm saying you're applying a mathmatical perspective and definition inappropriately.

 

Before someone says "maths is universally applicable" it is not if you cannot actually apply it, which at least the person I'm replying to has stated would at least be very difficult if not impossible here under current limitations.

 

Hence why I drew attention to the constant part of your definition as there are very few constants with regards to the game balance and so I believe the "very definition of relative" is inappropriately used here.

[MrForz.1953]

1 hour ago, Crozame.4098 said:

Lol, learn some more basic math before talking more complicated Chaos theory mate... You allow for A=B=C in the last line, where only allow strict inequality in the previous lines... 

That's not the point at all. And please don't feed this being.

[Crozame.4098]

1 hour ago, MrForz.1953 said:

That's not the point at all. And please don't feed this being.

Basic understanding of stuff before mentioning more complicated stuff. How is that not the point?
 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

4 hours ago, apharma.3741 said:

Before someone says "maths is universally applicable" it is not if you cannot actually apply it, which at least the person I'm replying to has stated would at least be very difficult if not impossible here under current limitations.

 

I don't get why you are drawing the conclusion that it's not applicable. It is applicable, and you can do the application yourself. I'm trying to lay this out so that you can in fact do it yourself in as simple a way as I can think of but people don't want to follow through...part of me thinks it's because they don't know how, but another part of me thinks it's because of sheer laziness to try...but I will literally do you the courtesy, and walk you through step by step, going from basic, simple numbers, to gw2 skills, and how this applies in the same manner all the way through. I can only go so far, so you have to do what's called "extrapolation" which means extending the application of an idea from a smaller set of components  

 

I'll start real basic with just numbers, then move on to the complex gw2 skills.

 

You have 3 arbitrary numbers. who cares what they are, and we can define the relation of some objects A,B,C.

 

A>B>C

 

50>30>10

 

Now, there are an infinite number of numerical addition operations and subtraction operations (the equivalent of a numerical nerf and numerical buff in gw2) that you can apply here to any of the three objects... again you will end up with an inequality.

 

94>20>5

25>15>7

100>99>98

 

There's...an infinite number of these okay. Now...let's make the objects more complex, by giving them components, which are similar to that of the game. Let's start by giving them all the same components, where each ability has a damage component, a stun component and a healing component, and they will be listed in that order like a matrix:

 

A : 39 Damage | 2 stun | 40 healing

B : 32 Damage | 4 stun | 10 healing

C : 38 Damage | 3 stun | 50 healing

 

So... you look at the above, and you realize, that forming an inequality becomes complicated. This is where everything extra I said about approximation begins to rear it's head. One can naively look at each object, add everything together as if it were some regular number and from that you get an inequality :

 

A=81, B=46, C=91,

 

and the inequality takes the form of C>A>B....

 

But we can do better then that. Instead of adding them all together, you should add each component individually, give them an inequality with respect to that component, and then produce a sum or series of these inequalities to produce a final inequality. the one with the most "wins" so to speak, :

 

A : 39 Damage | 2 stun | 40 healing

B : 32 Damage | 4 stun | 10 healing

C : 38 Damage | 3 stun | 50 healing

 

in the category of damage, the inequality is A>C>B. In the category of stun, it's B>C>A and the category of healing it's C>A>B, and the form of this final inequality takes the form of C>A>B. This equality, is now an approximate notion...because each letter in this inequality basically has sub inequalities... So the overall inequality is "true" only to the extent that the sub inequalities are "true", and as these objects become more complex, you will realize that it will become nearly impossible for a human being to break down skills into quantitatively accurate values.

 

Last stage...we take our 3 objects, and we make them fully complex gw2 objects, where instead of each object having the same sub components, we give them different subcomponents. At this stage, it becomes impractical to give them some value that we could use without it being inaccurate. But let's just see if we can try. We take 3 skills from the game that have separate and have distinctly different components. We will take the skills everyone complains about here, to just prove a point. A will be "Deathly Claws" from the necromancer skill 1 in lich form. B will be "Flame Jet" from the engineer skill 1 in Flamethrower kit. and C will be "Rapid Fire" skill from Rangers lowgbow set.

 

So like we did before, one can parse each component of the skill into it's subcomponents. Like i said before, as the objects get more complicated, they become much harder to compute, and so for my own mental sanity, and to prove the point here, the notion of each one will be approximate, just like stated before:

 

A :1,628 damage | 1200 Range | Target cap:5 | CD .75s...180sCD | piercing projectile| applies 0 burning| applies 0 vulnerability| non-combo finisher |

B : 2,225 damage | 425 Range | Target cap:3 | CD 2.25s... | non-projectile| applies 1 burning| applies 0 vulnerability| non-combo finisher |

C : 5,400 damage | 1500 Range | Target cap:1 | CD 12.5 | fast projectile| applies 0 burning| applies 10 vulnerability| combo finisher |

 

 

For damage C>B>A. For range C>A>B, for target cap, A>B>C. and for Cooldown is B>C>A, This is about as far as you can go in terms of producing a numerical value that a human being can perform on a piece of paper, before the notion becomes very approximate. But just like before, one just needs to compare each component, to procure an inequality, and sum all the equalities to get a final approximate inequality. A computer can do it precisely by running statistical simulations in a very large set of hypothetical encounters...a human being can not...or rather, this is what we do already, we just do it much much slower....this is actually what playing the game is. We play with different skills, find out which ones perform the best through a series of trials and error.

 

So if you learned anything from what I said, is that you should be looking at whatever I say now to describe the inequality of the three complex objects above, and be skeptical if I told you, right now, that C>B>A is true... You should know, that whatever inequality I procure is going to be an approximation at best. This is roughly analogous to stating an opinion. I as some forum shmoe could literally tell you anything...like, "Deathly Claws is more OP then Rapid Fire, it should be nerfed by X amount to bring it in line", and you wouldn't be able to confirm with much accuracy if what I said was true.

Now in theory and in practice, one can calculate with supercomputers, the inequality of the game to some very accurate measure. But what we do in practice, is just play the game ourselves and make approximate decisions...which is kind of the point of playing the game in the first place. So I don't see why you are struggling to understand this notion and why it's approximate...it's the reason why we play the game and have diversity... If we were all super computers, and could compute the most optimal strategy (by calculating the inequality, and then just playing the best object) then it wouldn't be much of a fun or diverse game. The entire goal of the game, is to find the optimal strategy, and the complexity of the game is designed in such a  way on purpose, so that you can't figure out immediately what that optimal strategy is.

 

Aside from the notion of approximation, just look at now the most basic premise from the beginning in which there is an infinite number of numerical addition operations and subtraction operations (the equivalent of a numerical nerf and numerical buff in gw2) that you can apply here to any of the three objects... again you will end up with an inequality of some kind. It's really such a basic concept that I'm having a hard time explaining it any simpler then that. There is no other form the problem can take. Things are either going to be equal, or they aren't...and there are an infinite number of ways two or more things can be not equal to each other, and an infinite number of ways those things can be equal to each other...so I fail to see why I need to explain that in such gross detail, when really you should be the one to go and just look up the formal definition of relative. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[apharma.3741]

2 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

I don't get why you are drawing the conclusion that it's not applicable. It is applicable, and you can do the application yourself. I'm trying to lay this out so that you can in fact do it yourself in as simple a way as I can think of but people don't want to follow through...part of me thinks it's because they don't know how, but another part of me thinks it's because of sheer laziness to try...but I will literally do you the courtesy, and walk you through step by step, going from basic, simple numbers, to gw2 skills, and how this applies in the same manner all the way through. I can only go so far, so you have to do what's called "extrapolation" which means extending the application of an idea from a smaller set of components  

 

I'll start real basic with just numbers, then move on to the complex gw2 skills.

 

You have 3 arbitrary numbers. who cares what they are, and we can define the relation of some objects A,B,C.

 

A>B>C

 

50>30>10

 

Now, there are an infinite number of numerical addition operations and subtraction operations (the equivalent of a numerical nerf and numerical buff in gw2) that you can apply here to any of the three objects... again you will end up with an inequality.

 

94>20>5

25>15>7

100>99>98

 

There's...an infinite number of these okay. Now...let's make the objects more complex, by giving them components, which are similar to that of the game. Let's start by giving them all the same components, where each ability has a damage component, a stun component and a healing component, and they will be listed in that order like a matrix:

 

A : 39 Damage | 2 stun | 40 healing

B : 32 Damage | 4 stun | 10 healing

C : 38 Damage | 3 stun | 50 healing

 

So... you look at the above, and you realize, that forming an inequality becomes complicated. This is where everything extra I said about approximation begins to rear it's head. One can naively look at each object, add everything together as if it were some regular number and from that you get an inequality :

 

A=81, B=46, C=91,

 

and the inequality takes the form of C>A>B....

 

But we can do better then that. Instead of adding them all together, you should add each component individually, give them an inequality with respect to that component, and then produce a sum or series of these inequalities to produce a final inequality. the one with the most "wins" so to speak, :

 

A : 39 Damage | 2 stun | 40 healing

B : 32 Damage | 4 stun | 10 healing

C : 38 Damage | 3 stun | 50 healing

 

in the category of damage, the inequality is A>C>B. In the category of stun, it's B>C>A and the category of healing it's C>A>B, and the form of this final inequality takes the form of C>A>B. This equality, is now an approximate notion...because each letter in this inequality basically has sub inequalities... So the overall inequality is "true" only to the extent that the sub inequalities are "true", and as these objects become more complex, you will realize that it will become nearly impossible for a human being to break down skills into quantitatively accurate values.

 

Last stage...we take our 3 objects, and we make them fully complex gw2 objects, where instead of each object having the same sub components, we give them different subcomponents. At this stage, it becomes impractical to give them some value that we could use without it being inaccurate. But let's just see if we can try. We take 3 skills from the game that have 3 separate and have distinctly different components. We will take the skills everyone complains about here, to just prove a point. A will be "Deathly Claws" from the necromancer skill 1 in lich form. B will be "Flame Jet" from the engineer skill 1 in Flamethrower kit. and C will be "Rapid Fire" skill from Rangers lowgbow set.

 

So like we did before, one can parse each component of the skill into it's subcomponents. Like i said before, as the objects get more complicated, they become much harder to compute, and so for my own mental sanity, and to prove the point here, the notion of each one will be approximate, just like stated before:

 

A :1,628 damage | 1200 Range | Target cap:5 | CD .75s...180sCD | piercing projectile| applies 0 burning| applies 0 vulnerability| non-combo finisher |

B : 2,225 damage | 425 Range | Target cap:3 | CD 2.25s... | non-projectile| applies 1 burning| applies 0 vulnerability| non-combo finisher |

C : 5,400 damage | 1500 Range | Target cap:1 | CD 12.5 | fast projectile| applies 0 burning| applies 10 vulnerability| combo finisher |

 

 

For damage C>B>A. For range C>A>B, for target cap, A>B>C. and for Cooldown is B>C>A, This is about as far as you can go in terms of producing a numerical value that a human being can perform on a piece of paper, before the notion becomes very approximate. But just like before, one just needs to compare each component, to procure an inequality, and sum all the equalities to get a final approximate inequality. A computer can do it precisely by running statistical simulations in a very large set of hypothetical encounters...a human being can not...or rather, this is what we do already, we just do it much much slower....this is actually what playing the game is. We play with different skills, find out which ones perform the best through a series of trials and error.

 

So if you learned anything from what I said, is that you should be looking at whatever I say now to describe the inequality of the three complex objects above, and be skeptical if I told you, right now, that C>B>A is true... You should know, that whatever inequality I procure is going to be an approximation at best. This is roughly analogous to stating an opinion. I as some forum shmoe could literally tell you anything...like, "Deathly Claws is more OP then Rapid Fire, it should be nerfed by X amount to bring it in line", and you wouldn't be able to confirm with much accuracy if what I said was true.

Now in theory and in practice, one can calculate with supercomputers, the inequality of the game to some very accurate measure. But what we do in practice, is just play the game ourselves and make approximate decisions...which is kind of the point of playing the game in the first place. So I don't see why you are struggling to understand this notion and why it's approximate...it's the reason why we play the game and have diversity... If we were all super computers, and could compute the most optimal strategy (by calculating the inequality, and then just playing the best object) then it wouldn't be much of a fun or diverse game. The entire goal of the game, is to find the optimal strategy, and the complexity of the game is designed in such a  way on purpose, so that you can't figure out immediately what that optimal strategy is.

 

Aside from the notion of approximation, just look at now the most basic premise from the beginning in which there is an infinite number of numerical addition operations and subtraction operations (the equivalent of a numerical nerf and numerical buff in gw2) that you can apply here to any of the three objects... again you will end up with an inequality of some kind. It's really such a basic concept that I'm having a hard time explaining it any simpler then that. There is no other form the problem can take. Things are either going to be equal, or they aren't...and there are an infinite number of ways two or more things can be not equal to each other, and an infinite number of ways those things can be equal to each other...so I fail to see why I need to explain that in such gross detail, when really you should be the one to go and just look up the formal definition of relative. 

Writing all this but ignoring what I said, you're just typing the same thing for the third time, I got it the first time but it has no bearing on what I called you out for. Here's the analogy to make it clear.

 

An evolutionary biologist comes into the GW2 forum, discusses the similarities between build evolutions and evolution in real life, then literally makes everything they say and every comparison from the perspective of evolutionary biology. Then proclaims the word trait means not what a trait is in this game but something only applicable to their niche evolutionary biology. They then proceed to make every arguement and discussion based around evolutionary biology.

 

Do you understand or is this still going straight over your head?

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

5 hours ago, Eugchriss.2046 said:

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Dude, you re so obsessed by your mathematicals stuffs that you re completely missing the whole point. You re basically saying that "we can't have perfect balance without sacrifying the diversity. Therefore, to achieve balance in this game, all classes need to be actually and litteraly the same".

In a theorical way and in a perfect world, you are right.

 

You have it backwards. The real world, is not perfectly balanced at all. The real world is highly diverse, and there is a reason that things in the real world are not equal. I've spent a lot of time studying biological diversity, and it's the simple fact that things aren't equal, is what make things diverse.

 

Quote

 

In the practical and real world, you re completely, like absolutely wrong. Why? Simple : Nobody wants perfect balance, because we all know that it's unrealistic. What people want is to get as closer as possible from perfect balance. <==  That's the point you ve been missing this whole time.

 

 

People want perfect balance, but the truth is that it is mathematically impossible to attain...and it's not like an on and off switch where you click a button and all things just "become" balanced with a single change. It's a gradient process, and as things become less different and more equal, there is less diversity. Again, you can look at the real world, and just look around you...does ANYTHING appear even remotely equal to you? Even your neighbors have different hair, different clothes, different personalities... There's even more differentiation in the animal kingdom just look at all the species that exist on the planet, and how different they are. Do you really think nature does this by making things more equal or more different...take a guess.

 

Quote

 

Again, you re right on the fact that the relation A>B>C will remain, but you re absolutely wrong when you say that it wont change the overall state of pvp. Why? Because of that balance cursor, which has the same utility as standard deviation in statistics

 

 

Okay, just read my previous comments...I said exactly the same thing...except I posit that the balance cursor idea, is just as approximate as throwing darts at the dart board with your eyes closed.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

4 minutes ago, apharma.3741 said:

Writing all this but ignoring what I said, you're just typing the same thing for the third time, I got it the first time but it has no bearing on what I called you out for. Here's the analogy to make it clear.

 

An evolutionary biologist comes into the GW2 forum, discusses the similarities between build evolutions and evolution in real life, then literally makes everything they say and every comparison from the perspective of evolutionary biology. Then proclaims the word trait means not what a trait is in this game but something only applicable to their niche evolutionary biology. They then proceed to make every arguement and discussion based around evolutionary biology.

 

Do you understand or is this still going straight over your head?

 

I didn't ignore what you said, I clearly just don't understand what you must be trying to say. I'm literally applying it in front of you with a huge paragraph of text and you are denying it's applicable, and you can do the application yourself and get the same answer. I don't get that. the notion of being relative and relations are very basic mathematical constructs. They apply to basically everything, and I think you just don't have a clear understanding of what a relation is.

 

You mention here in this comment, An analogy, which breaks down roughly to the following: that a physicist walks into a bar and tries to explain to the bartender how his beer is made from a physics standpoint. What I'm failing to understand from you, is how the above isn't logical...it's perfectly logical for me to tell you how beer is made in accordance with physics...I'm telling you how diversity is made in accordance with evolutionary biology, the most diverse system we know of that exists.