Where Did Prot Holo Come From?

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

22 minutes ago, MrForz.1953 said:

I... was just agreeing. Okay.

 

 

Yea i know you are agreeing, I was speaking more generally, not directly toward you...things get lost in translation it's hard to convey tone on a forum. sorry.

 

Quote

Hmm... There would need a set of rules to define what would be balanced first I think? Like what the mobility represents and what the damage actually represents in reference to our characters, health pools and so on. Sadly my time's up. Food for thought anyways.

 

The only thing that really matters, is that everyone has to agree that the three skills are perfectly balanced.

Edited June 2, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Ragnar.4257]

13 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

This is a strange discussion lol. You have two sides arguing completely separate points. Neither side is technically wrong. Neither side technically refutes the other. 

 

If I had to sum up the root of the misunderstanding...

 

[Several people] are not asking for a balanced game. Rather, the mindset is similar to the mindset Blizzard had a while back when they began the great prune. "Bring the class not the player", and they achieved this not by making all things equal but by squishing things together so that classes were close enough together in power that the gains one would have by bringing A over B were insubstantial. 

 

If you were really obsessed with min maxing, A would technically be the superior choice, but the advantages of chosing A would be so small, players, even the hardcore, could simply play what they want. 

 

Justice on the other hand is making a completely separate argument, that the only way to make all classes equal is to make them carbon copies of one another. No amount of numerical buffs and nerfs can achieve perfect balance. By extension, even achieving a game state where classes are close together in power is difficult. This is because of the vast number of variables you have to consider

 

 If you do decide to try balancing the game in this manner, diversity will be sacrificed. This is unavoidable. 

 

There is a distinct lack of hand-drawn charts this time around, but he does provide evidence/reasoning for why this happens. 

 

The disconnect comes from the fact that Several of us doesn't necessarily care much about diversity (Or at least, it isn't brought up in the argument), the priority is in creating what is, as close as possible to, an equal playing field. It doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough that you don't kitten yourself for picking one class over another. 

 

Justice holds diversity as a high priority in terms of what the game should promote, and argues that point in great detail. Two entirely separate values. Two related, but separate arguments. 

 

 

There isn't a single person here who hasn't understood Justice's point.

 

It's just that its a irrelevant point that is of no value in discussing how to balance this game.

 

It's equivalent of going "No, you're wrong, the sky is actually blue"...... ummmm, yeah, nobody said it wasn't. Is it relevant?

 

Perfectly balancing stuff would only be possible by making everything exactly the same. Yeah, we got it. But nobody is proposing achieving perfect balance. So why do you bring it up?

Edited June 2, 2021 by Ragnar.4257

[Kuma.1503]

23 minutes ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

There isn't a single person here who hasn't understood Justice's point.

 

It's just that its a irrelevant point that is of no value in discussing how to balance this game.

 

It's equivalent of going "No, you're wrong, the sky is actually blue"...... ummmm, yeah, nobody said it wasn't. Is it relevant?

 

Yeah,  it's more or less just a group of people talking past each other. Most of us are veterans of the First Great Forum War. I'm sure we all know the talking points. 

 

It's like that one example that one guy gave (very specific I know) where there were two men in a parking lot arguing passionately about something. Then someone stopped them and asked them what they were arguing about and they were both talking about something totally different. 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Kuma.1503

[razaelll.8324]

34 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

This is a strange discussion lol. You have two sides arguing completely separate points. Neither side is technically wrong. Neither side technically refutes the other. 

 

If I had to sum up the root of the misunderstanding...

 

[Several people] are not asking for a balanced game. Rather, the mindset is similar to the mindset Blizzard had a while back when they began the great prune. "Bring the class not the player", and they achieved this not by making all things equal but by squishing things together so that classes were close enough together in power that the gains one would have by bringing A over B were insubstantial. 

 

If you were really obsessed with min maxing, A would technically be the superior choice, but the advantages of chosing A would be so small, players, even the hardcore, could simply play what they want. 

 

Justice on the other hand is making a completely separate argument, that the only way to make all classes equal is to make them carbon copies of one another. No amount of numerical buffs and nerfs can achieve perfect balance. By extension, even achieving a game state where classes are close together in power is difficult. This is because of the vast number of variables you have to consider

 

 If you do decide to try balancing the game in this manner, diversity will be sacrificed. This is unavoidable. 

 

There is a distinct lack of hand-drawn charts this time around, but he does provide evidence/reasoning for why this happens. 

 

The disconnect comes from the fact that Several players here don't necessarily care much about diversity (In relation to this discussion at least), there is a higher priority in creating what is, as close as possible to, an equal playing field. It doesn't have to be perfect, just good enough that you don't kitten yourself for picking one class over another. 

 

Justice holds diversity as a high priority in terms of what the game should promote, and argues that point in great detail. Two entirely separate values. Two related, but separate arguments. 

 

 

Finaly! I was writing the same summary when notification poped with your post.

Edited June 2, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

 

7 minutes ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

There isn't a single person here who hasn't understood Justice's point.

 

It's just that its a irrelevant point that is of no value in discussing how to balance this game.

 

It's equivalent of going "No, you're wrong, the sky is actually blue"...... ummmm, yeah, nobody said it wasn't. Is it relevant?

 

I actually think Kuma is truly the only one here who understands the argument, the math and the logic at all. Kuma points out the following : 

 

"[Several people] are not asking for a balanced game. Rather, the mindset is similar to the mindset Blizzard had a while back when they began the great prune. "Bring the class not the player", and they achieved this not by making all things equal but by squishing things together so that classes were close enough together in power that the gains one would have by bringing A over B were insubstantial. 

 

If you were really obsessed with min maxing, A would technically be the superior choice, but the advantages of chosing A would be so small, players, even the hardcore, could simply play what they want. 

 

Justice on the other hand is making a completely separate argument, that the only way to make all classes equal is to make them carbon copies of one another. No amount of numerical buffs and nerfs can achieve perfect balance. By extension, even achieving a game state where classes are close together in power is difficult. This is because of the vast number of variables you have to consider"

 

The key concept and pivotal point of the argument here, is that the operation of making all classes "closer together" is the same operation as making them slowly into carbon copies. Your closing the boundary for what makes classes different...and by doing so you kill diversity obviously! In addition, you also don't get perfect balance...which is the whole point of those operations you were instating in the first place....you get A>B>C and you get no diversity...the operation is a LOSE LOSE and that's IMPORTANT for the discussion of balance not irrelevant.

 

This isn't hard to see when people actually DO the counter proof...which is trying to balance 3 separate gw2 skills...that's literally all it takes to analyze the behavior of certain balance changes...just try to balance 3 skills with numerical operations, and you find that it's impossible to do without slowly stripping those skills of their identity, or that whatever changes you are making have no real "logic" behind them in the name of balance since it's all approximate. Kuma clearly states this but everybody overlooks that fact.

 

Anyway, do the counterproof, prove me wrong, and there there's nothing else to discuss. Nobody will be able to provide a valid counter proof anyway because I wouldn't challenge people to do it if I knew I wasn't right on this. I've already done the counterproof, I know already that it's impossible to do...nobody here has tried and that's really the problem.

[Ragnar.4257]

7 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

 

I actually think Kuma is truly the only one here who understands the argument, the math and the logic at all. Kuma points out the following : 

 

"[Several people] are not asking for a balanced game. Rather, the mindset is similar to the mindset Blizzard had a while back when they began the great prune. "Bring the class not the player", and they achieved this not by making all things equal but by squishing things together so that classes were close enough together in power that the gains one would have by bringing A over B were insubstantial. 

 

If you were really obsessed with min maxing, A would technically be the superior choice, but the advantages of chosing A would be so small, players, even the hardcore, could simply play what they want. 

 

Justice on the other hand is making a completely separate argument, that the only way to make all classes equal is to make them carbon copies of one another. No amount of numerical buffs and nerfs can achieve perfect balance. By extension, even achieving a game state where classes are close together in power is difficult. This is because of the vast number of variables you have to consider"

 

The key concept and pivotal point of the argument here, is that the operation of making all classes "closer together" is the same operation as making them slowly into carbon copies. Your closing the boundary for what makes classes different...and by doing so you kill diversity obviously! In addition, you also don't get perfect balance...which is the whole point of those operations you were instating in the first place....you get A>B>C and you get no diversity...the operation is a LOSE LOSE and that's IMPORTANT for the discussion of balance not irrelevant.

 

This isn't hard to see when people actually DO the counter proof...which is trying to balance 3 separate gw2 skills...that's literally all it takes to analyze the behavior of certain balance changes...just try to balance 3 skills with numerical operations, and you find that it's impossible to do without slowly stripping those skills of their identity, or that whatever changes you are making have no real "logic" behind them in the name of balance since it's all approximate. Kuma clearly states this but everybody overlooks that fact.

 

Anyway, do the counterproof, prove me wrong, and there there's nothing else to discuss. Nobody will be able to provide a valid counter proof anyway because I wouldn't challenge people to do it if I knew I wasn't right on this. I've already done the counterproof, I know already that it's impossible to do...nobody here has tried and that's really the problem.

Yeah, we got it.

 

Making things more equal necessitates making them more similar, and if you take this to the point of perfect equality then you must make them exactly similar.

 

You keep saying we don't get it, but we do. I've just stated it.

 

The issue is not with understanding what you're saying. The issue is that nobody cares. It's not useful. It's not relevant.

 

We do not require GW2 to have infinite diversity. We are more than happy to constrain ourselves down from infinity to, say, 20-30 builds, and "re-invest" that lost diversity back into balance.

 

Every single point you make is "but that results in less diversity!!!"....... like we're supposed to care. We don't.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Ragnar.4257

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

11 minutes ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

Yeah, we got it.

 

Making things more equal necessitates making them more similar, and if you take this to the point of perfect equality then you must make them exactly similar.

 

You keep saying we don't get it, but we do. I've just stated it.

 

The issue is not with understanding what you're saying. The issue is that nobody cares. It's not useful. It's not relevant.

 

We do not require GW2 to have infinite diversity. We are more than happy to constrain ourselves down from infinity to, say, 20-30 builds, and "re-invest" that lost diversity back into balance.

 

Every single point you make is "but that results in less diversity!!!"....... like we're supposed to care. We don't.

 

Well you would care if you realized that more diversity makes things more balanced through another mathematical mechanism...the same mechanism that makes the  highly diverse world like the one we live in, exhibit cyclical "balanced" behavior...often quoted roughly speaking, as "The Balance of Nature." but i don't think you have an interest in finding out how actual diversity and balance in systems work. You want to ruin the game, and turn it something it never was...a FPS shooter clone or whatever. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Ragnar.4257]

11 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Well you would care if you realized that more diversity makes things more balanced through another mathematical mechanism...the same mechanism that makes the  highly diverse world like the one we live in, exhibit cyclical "balanced" behavior...often quoted roughly speaking, as "The Balance of Nature." 

Not relevant at all.

 

GW2 is not subject to the same rules as nature. There is no scarcity of resources. There is no food-chain.

 

In nature, not everyone can choose to be a Lion or a Tiger. But in GW2 you can. If nature operated like an MMO, there'd not be the diversity you get off on. There'd just be a planet full of tigers.

 

Stop trying to shoe-horn your pet subject-area to a situation where it does not apply.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Ragnar.4257

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

20 minutes ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

Not relevant at all.

 

GW2 is not subject to the same rules as nature. There is no scarcity of resources.

 

In nature, not everyone can choose to be a Lion or a Tiger. But in GW2 you can. If nature operated like an MMO, there'd not be the diversity you get off on. There'd just be a planet full of tigers.

 

Stop trying to apply your pet subject-area to a situation where it does not apply.

 

It obvious that you really do not care about diversity and by proxy balance either...Just like the balance argument, you think everything is as simple as pressing a button and diversity turns on and off like some switch on a dial. You have NO IDEA how diversity works in the world, and this response its clear why.

 

Let's take apart this for example 

Quote

In nature, not everyone can choose to be a Lion or a Tiger. But in GW2 you can. If nature operated like an MMO, there'd not be the diversity you get off on. There'd just be a planet full of tigers.

 

Do you not see that there is a meta composition on Earth too? Dinosaurs ring a bell? Human beings? There are meta-beings in biology just like there are meta builds in gw2. You can't choose your genes like you can in gw2 (if one were to relate genes, as being traits/amulets/skills etc) but the process of selection still exists, and that is exactly the process that drives the evolution of balance and diversity in both the game and in biology. Selection has nothing to do with scarcity of resources...it deals with the accomplishment of autonomous goals. If you knew about selection, and how selection effects system evolution then maybe there is hope for you...but otherwise, I can't reason with someone who doesn't care on the level at which you do not care...you either care enough to actually learn how diversity works and how diversity creates balance...or you don't care and nothing changes. 

 

I've seen you in game by the way. Your attitude on the forum, is fitting for your behavior in game...you hate being wrong, you have an E-peen to prove, and that's how you establish yourself here...is it so hard to just go and look up a video right now on how selection works and how it drives evolution? Why are people not okay with being wrong at something...or at least learning something new. I'm no saint either, but at least I don't bask around in game like I am the best player in the universe.

Edited June 2, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Ragnar.4257]

13 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

It obvious that you really do not care about diversity and by proxy balance either...Just like the balance argument, you think everything is as simple as pressing a button and diversity turns on and off like some switch on a dial. You have NO IDEA how diversity works in the world, and this response its clear why.

 

Let's take apart this for example 

 

Do you not see that there is a meta composition on Earth too? Dinosaurs ring a bell? Human beings? There are meta-beings in biology just like there are meta builds in gw2. You can't choose your genes like you can in gw2 (if one were to relate genes, as being traits/amulets/skills etc) but the process of selection still exists, and that is exactly the process that drives the evolution of balance and diversity in both the game and in biology. Selection has nothing to do with scarcity of resources...it deals with the accomplishment of autonomous goals. If you knew about selection, and how selection effects system evolution then maybe there is hope for you...but otherwise, I can't reason with someone who doesn't care on the level at which you do not care...you either care enough to actually learn how diversity works and how diversity creates balance...or you don't care and nothing changes. 

 

I've seen you in game by the way. Your attitude on the forum, is fitting for your behavior in game...you hate being wrong, you have an E-peen to prove, and that's how you establish yourself on this forum.

Aaaaaaand, out come the insults.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Also, funny that you acknowledge the existence of "meta builds" in nature, which directly contradicts your assertion that diversity leads to balance.

 

Also, resource availability has no influence on selection in nature?? And I'm the one who needs to go and read-up on evolution?

Edited June 2, 2021 by Ragnar.4257

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

29 minutes ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

Also, funny that you acknowledge the existence of "meta builds" in nature, which directly contradicts your assertion that diversity leads to balance.

 

No it doesn't contradict anything I said at all. the cyclical balanced behavior you see in nature is an overall different kind of balance mechanism...its not the same mechanism as "everything being equal." And it's the only true balance mechanism that actually exists. You won't even understand it, and frankly I don't want to waste my time again explaining this stuff to you because you simply do not care, so why should I?...Go and look it up for yourself and learn it if you actually care about balance.

 

  

29 minutes ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

Also, resource availability has no influence on selection in nature??

Resource availability is not a huge driving force for system evolution. The process of Selection happens in many many kinds of systems that are resource independent , including the selection of products in a store when you go shopping.

 

The process that really drives selection, is whether something can achieve a goal. if that goal is achieved, it is selected for again, to achieve more goals, which causes it to be selected more etc... This process of selection is what drives nearly all system evolution, and that's really one of the few things required for a system to exhibit diverse system evolution...is the ability to achieve a goal. Many of the other constraints on evolution is really auxiliary to the evolution, and are merely minor constraints on the system. 

 

There are some that will posit the notion that system evolution doesn't even need to have autonomous agents, being able to accomplish a goal, just merely being selected for. by some selection process. Entropy is thought to be, system evolution, going from Homogenous->Heterogenous->Homogenous...meaning, so long as a system is not homogenous and evolving through time according to some kind of laws, it will exhibit diversity of some form. It's called Anthropic reasoning.

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Twigifire.8379]

This thread is wild

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 hour ago, Twigifire.8379 said:

This thread is wild

 

It's wild because people have an e-peen and want to feel righteous in their justification in jettisoning whatever build they want from the game, on reasons that are not logical, or mathematical, and the game suffers as a consequence of this mentality.

 

example:

https://i.imgur.com/H9brBp9.png

https://i.imgur.com/Hrl93nm.png

 

Not attacking this person directly, just merely using him as an example since he spoke here earlier in the thread, but these people do not care about the health of the game in any form. It's easy to fool people into believing someone's, non logical opinion because it's sensational, and unfalsifiable... but they even say it themselves...that the game can't ever be balanced (which is what I proved here in the thread, and still waiting for a counter proof), and yet these people still continue to support their position that XYZ should be deleted...uuhhh why? They just confirmed comments ago that they understood the argument, that the game can not in principle ever be balanced then still go on to say "but please delete x y and z class." Frankly I don't understand what going through the minds of some people here.

 

This to me is what is truly wild; Willful ignorance.

Edited June 3, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Math.5123]

16 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

It's wild because people have an e-peen and want to feel righteous in their justification in jettisoning whatever build they want from the game, on reasons that are not logical, or mathematical, and the game suffers as a consequence of this mentality.

 

example:

https://i.imgur.com/H9brBp9.png

https://i.imgur.com/Hrl93nm.png

 

Not attacking this person directly, just merely using him as an example since he spoke here earlier in the thread, but these people do not care about the health of the game in any form. It's easy to fool people into believing someone's, non logical opinion because it's sensational, and unfalsifiable... but they even say it themselves...that the game can't ever be balanced (which is what I proved here in the thread, and still waiting for a counter proof), and yet these people still continue to support their position that XYZ should be deleted...uuhhh why? They just confirmed comments ago that they understood the argument, that the game can not in principle ever be balanced then still go on to say "but please delete x y and z class." Frankly I don't understand what going through the minds of some people here.

 

This to me is what is truly wild; Willful ignorance.

Nice try, trying to put my comments in a vacuum thus not conveying the obvious sarcastic tone it had to it. 

Let me explain those two comments, in the name of diversity of course. 

The one about dh is sarcastic because of Trevor's crusade against the one rune that keeps the spec somewhat viable. The second comment about deleting unhealthy builds, leads to more diversity. 

 

Say you nerf dp thief and renegade today right? Other roamers would see the light of day. You're potentially going to see sic'em ranger, FA weaver,  power mirage and core guardian. So by killing a few, you give birth to many. Thus leading to the diversity, you so crave. It has nothing to do with having to prove myself having a big enough "e-peen".

 

Let's put this into two real life scenarios, first a hypothetical one. Then a real one. 

Say you introduce a tyranus rex into the modern day ecosystem. While on paper it would increase the amount of species in any designated place, it would over time absolutely destroy the biodiversity of said biome, if the rex will thrive. 

Take modern day Portugal, Asian murder wasps was introduced to its ecosystem by mistake through a fruit delivery a year and a half something ago. These are much bigger, much more aggressive than the bees that have existed there for 100s of years. It has now killed a lot of those bees, leading in shortage of pollination and its slowly but surely killing off plants and other insects that relied on pollinating in order to survive. 

 

You can continue trying to solve everything as a mathematic equation if you'd like. But if you see how things actually work, in the world and in the game. You would stop spouting the nonsense that you have for the past 2 days. 

 

Removing something, can lead to more diversity. 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

9 minutes ago, Math.5123 said:

Removing something, can lead to more diversity. 

 

 

This is not true....again it's from a lack of understanding how diversity works, and you should actually do research on it.

 

Counter argument:

 

Someone proposed another similar example on another thread a while back. Let's say you introduce some elite spec, that has an automatic one shot mechanic. People find it useful, it get's selected for and more and more people start playing this build, and it eliminates over time most of the competition. This satisfies the inequality A>B>C>D where A is strong asf.

 

You now remove A, and your left with B>C>D. Guess what...you still are in the same situation as A>B>C>D except it's now B>C>D...by eliminating one, you simply substitute that previous meta, for a new meta...and all you got out of this exchange is a total 3 builds instead of 4.

[Math.5123]

7 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

 

This is not true....again it's from a lack of understanding how diversity works, and you should actually do research on it.

 

Counter argument:

 

Someone proposed another similar example on another thread a while back. Let's say you introduce some elite spec, that has an automatic one shot mechanic. People find it useful, it get's selected for and more and more people start playing this build, and it eliminates over time most of the competition. This satisfies the inequality A>B>C>D where A is strong asf.

 

You now remove A, and your left with B>C>D. Guess what...you still are in the same situation as A>B>C>D except it's now B>C>D...by eliminating one, you simply substitute that previous meta, for a new meta...and all you got out of this exchange is a total 3 builds instead of 4.

Only, you're not actually removing A. You're reducing the power of A so that it doesn't gatekeep B C and D. If you do not understand my analogy, nothing will help. 

 

Edit; look at it this way. What is preferable? A > B > C > D  or B = C = D > A?

Which of these examples lead to more diversity?

Edited June 3, 2021 by Math.5123

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

31 minutes ago, Math.5123 said:

Only, you're not actually removing A. You're reducing the power of A so that it doesn't gatekeep B C and D. If you do not understand my analogy, nothing will help. 

 

I understand your analogy. Your argument is just flawed because your analyzing diversity on a local level, when diversity is a global system wide analysis.

 

Again, looking at this example A>B>C>D. This is the meta hierarchy. No matter how strong A is...so long as it is stronger then B,C and D, you will have the same relative effect on the diversity of the system as if A was a monster T-rex or the dominant germ in a petri dish.

 

In other words, A will still be selected for no matter how strong it is, so long as it is stronger then B C and D.

 

My guy I have studied diversity science for years. Do you really think I haven't thought about all these different scenario's and did the proper research to address every possible argument you could throw at me right now? I encourage you to actually think deep and do  some hardcore research on what is being said right now, so that you can come to a logically consistent conclusion as to what actually impacts the diversity of a system. It's a math problem and it's not a simple one....but I'll give you one hint. Removing things from a system does not give you more diversity. If removing things from a system was the most efficient way to produce the most diversity...then why would the universe have anything exist in it at all? You need to really think and apply yourself... Your 15 minutes of thought on the subject is no where near enough effort needed to to solve one of the hardest problems in modern science.

 

31 minutes ago, Math.5123 said:

Edit; look at it this way. What is preferable? A > B > C > D  or B = C = D > A?

Which of these examples lead to more diversity?

 

B = C = D is not valid...this entire thread was dedicated to this entire concept. That if B = C = D, means that B,C and D are descriptions of the same object. Things that are different, can not in principle be the same object. Again, i just refer you to the previous counter argument i asked for before...try to perfectly balance Deathly Claws, Flame Jet and Rapid Fire, so that Deathly Claws=Flame Jet=Rapid Fire.

 

It can not be done in principle without making them all the same skill...aka meaning it's not diverse. diversity means differentiation. Things that are the equal (the same), can not be different.

Edited June 3, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Math.5123]

2 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

I understand your analogy. Your argument is just flawed because your analyzing diversity on a local level, when diversity is a global system wide analysis.

 

Again, looking at this example A>B>C>D. This is the meta hierarchy. No matter how strong A is...so long as it is stronger then B,C and D, you will have the same relative effect on the diversity of the system as if A was a monster T-rex or the dominant germ in a petri dish.

 

In other words, A will still be selected for no matter how strong it is, so long as it is stronger then B C and D.

 

My guy I have studied diversity science for years. Do you really think I haven't thought about all these different scenario's and did the proper research to address every possible argument you could throw at me right now? I encourage you to actually think deep and do  some hardcore research on what is being said right now, so that you can come to a logically consistent conclusion as to what actually impacts the diversity of a system. It's a math problem and it's not a simple one....but I'll give you one hint. Removing things from a system does not give you more diversity. If removing things from a system was the most efficient way to produce the most diversity...then why would the universe have anything exist in it at all? You need to really think and apply yourself... Your 15 minutes of thought on the subject is no where near enough effort needed to to solve one of the hardest problems in modern science.

 

 

B = C = D is not valid...this entire thread was dedicated to this entire concept. That if B = C = D, means that B,C and D are descriptions of the same object. Things that are different, can not in principle be the same object. Again, i just refer you to the previous counter argument i asked for before...try to perfectly balance Deathly Claws, Flame Jet and Rapid Fire, so that Deathly Claws=Flame Jet=Rapid Fire.

 

It can not be done in principle without making them all the same skill...aka meaning it's not diverse. diversity means differentiation. Things that are the equal (the same), can not be different.

Good for you for studying diversity science for years buddy, you're still not understanding the base of all our argument. If player skill can make up for the gap between two classes, that's good. If a player on class A will beat a player on class B, that's bad. It's as simple as that. 

 

I understand what argument you're trying to make, but like I stated in my OP. This isn't black or white, are not running a computer simulation a billion times to get an accurate estimation of intra-class dynamics. Like I said, there are too many variables for either one of us to determine an absolute solution to what perfect balance will be when based off of diversity. 

 

There was an experiment conducted based on 18000 NASA applicants. Maybe you've heard of it. The candidates were based on physical, mental and prior studies to determine who got in. These three factors weighed 1-1-1 in relation to one another. 

In this experiment, they added a luck factor that was counted at 0.05 in relation to the rest and they ran the simulation 1.000.000 times, for a total of 18 billion applicants. The sum average of the luck meter was at 95+%.

 

So applying these to a non- static equation you, as a diversity analyst. Should be able to see why it isn't as black and white as if A is stronger than B, B has no place. Depending on how small the difference actually is. 

 

This will be my last response to you as we've literally made full circle and we won't meet any middle ground. 

[ThrakathNar.4537]

Intermission:
For anyone who managed to make it to page 4, here's some nice, calm, and relaxing (relatively speaking) vietnam war music for you to unwind to:

 

[razaelll.8324]

3 hours ago, Math.5123 said:

Nice try, trying to put my comments in a vacuum thus not conveying the obvious sarcastic tone it had to it. 

Let me explain those two comments, in the name of diversity of course. 

The one about dh is sarcastic because of Trevor's crusade against the one rune that keeps the spec somewhat viable. The second comment about deleting unhealthy builds, leads to more diversity. 

 

Say you nerf dp thief and renegade today right? Other roamers would see the light of day. You're potentially going to see sic'em ranger, FA weaver,  power mirage and core guardian. So by killing a few, you give birth to many. Thus leading to the diversity, you so crave. It has nothing to do with having to prove myself having a big enough "e-peen".

 

Let's put this into two real life scenarios, first a hypothetical one. Then a real one. 

Say you introduce a tyranus rex into the modern day ecosystem. While on paper it would increase the amount of species in any designated place, it would over time absolutely destroy the biodiversity of said biome, if the rex will thrive. 

Take modern day Portugal, Asian murder wasps was introduced to its ecosystem by mistake through a fruit delivery a year and a half something ago. These are much bigger, much more aggressive than the bees that have existed there for 100s of years. It has now killed a lot of those bees, leading in shortage of pollination and its slowly but surely killing off plants and other insects that relied on pollinating in order to survive. 

 

You can continue trying to solve everything as a mathematic equation if you'd like. But if you see how things actually work, in the world and in the game. You would stop spouting the nonsense that you have for the past 2 days. 

 

Removing something, can lead to more diversity. 

If i understand correctly what are you saying (please correct me if i am wrong) , you are saying that if we have classes A,B,C,D

and A >>>> B>C>D , meaning A is much much more stronger than anything other, and you delete A you will see more play by B,C,D because A was just suppressing them so you will have more diversity. That is right on local scale, but on global one its not because you are deleting option from the game so making the game less diverse overall. If you tone down A to acceptable levels or bring other 3 up you will have more diversity without deleting things from the game. While i dont agree with @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 that nerfs or buffs are meaningless , he is right that with deleting things from the game your are not making the game more diverse , but less.

Also as far as i am aware there are 2 common types of balance used in games;

1. A=B=C=D= .... =Z - balance through equity;
2. A->B->C->D-> ... ->Z->A - balance through everything having counter

-> is used as sign showing which counters which not as bigger/greater value (A counters B counters C and so on)

Option 1 everything is same so no diversity at all,

Option 2 can bring a lot of diversity.

Edited June 3, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[Math.5123]

21 minutes ago, razaelll.8324 said:

If i understand correctly what are you saying (please correct me if i am wrong) , you are saying that if we have classes A,B,C,D

and A >>>> B>C>D , meaning A is much much more stronger than anything other, and you delete A you will see more play by B,C,D because A was just suppressing them so you will have more diversity. That is right on local scale, but on global one its not because you are deleting option from the game so making the game less diverse overall. If you tone down A to acceptable levels or bring other 3 up you will have more diversity without deleting things from the game. While i dont agree with @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 that nerfs or buffs are meaningless , he is right that with deleting things from the game your are not making the game more diverse , but less.

Also as far as i am aware there are 2 common types of balance used in games;

1. A=B=C=D= .... =Z - balance through equity;
2. A->B->C->D-> ... ->Z->A - balance through everything having counter

-> is used as sign showing which counters which not as bigger/greater value (A counters B counters C and so on)

Option 1 everything is same so no diversity at all,

Option 2 can bring a lot of diversity.

As stated, I said I didn't mean delete literally. I meant it figuratively. It will still be an option to play, only it won't be an alpha predator. 

[razaelll.8324]

4 minutes ago, Math.5123 said:

As stated, I said I didn't mean delete literally. I meant it figuratively. It will still be an option to play, only it won't be an alpha predator. 

excuse me, my bad then.

 

Quote

Removing something, can lead to more diversity. 

Then you understand that this was not used correctly right? since you dont remove it but adjust it

Edited June 3, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[Math.5123]

2 minutes ago, razaelll.8324 said:

excuse me, my bad then.

 

Then you understand that this was not used correctly right? since you dont remove it but adjust it

Removed from viability, just like BC and D currently is. The option remains, only lower on the food chain.

[Ragnar.4257]

6 minutes ago, Math.5123 said:

Removed from viability, just like BC and D currently is. The option remains, only lower on the food chain.

You probably also need to explain that when you say "food chain" that it is not literally a chain made out of food.

[razaelll.8324]

7 minutes ago, Math.5123 said:

Removed from viability, just like BC and D currently is. The option remains, only lower on the food chain.

Okay, yet that does not bring more diversity to the game just shift the viability of the options which are already there.