Where Did Prot Holo Come From?

[Ragnar.4257]

5 minutes ago, razaelll.8324 said:

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

And what good is diversity if there is 1 build which is clearly superior to all others?

 

You're conflating the diversity of "possible" options with diversity of "viable" options. These are not synonymous, and it is possible to increase one while decreasing the other.

 

ANet could go and add 1000 new classes tomorrow, but if they all have less than 100 HP then the game has not been improved in any way, because nobody would play them.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Ragnar.4257

[razaelll.8324]

7 minutes ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

And what good is diversity if there is 1 build which is clearly superior to all others?

 

You're conflating the diversity of "possible" options with diversity of "viable" options. These are not synonymous, and it is possible to increase one while decreasing the other.

Please read my previous post.

I never said that this is good. 

"You're conflating the diversity of "possible" options with diversity of "viable" options. These are not synonymous, and it is possible to increase one while decreasing the other."

No i am not , Math is not specifying the diversity which he speaks of, while i do specifically say the diversity of the game  (possible options). And in my previous post to Math i said that i agree with him if he speaks about diversity of viable options (just with other words).

I understand completely that you are affected by Justice and your fight with him, but i am the wrong person to go on. Since i also agree with you that nerfs and bufs are not meaningless and i supported your claim in the previous thread

Edited June 3, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[Ragnar.4257]

6 minutes ago, razaelll.8324 said:

Please read my previous post.

I never said that this is good. 

"You're conflating the diversity of "possible" options with diversity of "viable" options. These are not synonymous, and it is possible to increase one while decreasing the other."

No i am not , Math is not specifying the diversity which he speaks of, while i do specifically say the diversity of the game  (options). And in my previous post to Math i said that i agree with him if he speaks about diversity of viable options (just with other words).

I understand completely that you are affected by Justice and your fight with him, but i am the wrong person to go on. Since i also agree with you that nerfs and bufs are not meaningless and i supported your claim in the previous thread

It just seems blindingly obvious to me that Math was referring to diversity of viable options, not diversity of possible options, and therefore your rebuttal to him is misguided.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Ragnar.4257

[razaelll.8324]

10 minutes ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

It just seems blindingly obvious to me that Math was referring to diversity of viable options, not diversity of possible options, and therefore your rebuttal to him has no basis.

Thats why i specifically said that agreed with him in my first post to him , but also mentioned that there is also different point of view. Because Justice is referring the diversity of possible options while Math is referring the diversity of viable options and non of them specify exactly of which is speaking of.

So my whole point was that both of them are right, but speaking for different things.

Edited June 3, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[Math.5123]

39 minutes ago, razaelll.8324 said:

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

No. Because A gatekeeps BCD, meaning only A is relevant. BCD can live in a symbiosis and gatekeep A, then we have a 300% increase in what is viable. I don't understand how this is even a discussion still. 

[razaelll.8324]

6 minutes ago, Math.5123 said:

No. Because A gatekeeps BCD, meaning only A is relevant. BCD can live in a symbiosis and gatekeep A, then we have a 300% increase in what is viable. I don't understand how this is even a discussion still. 

Again that will increase the diversity of viable option, but will not affect the diversity of possible options. You are talking about diversity of viable options , while Justice is talking about diversity of possible options (viable or not). And in my opinion this is where the whole miscommunication is coming from. You 2 are just speaking about 2 different things.

Edited June 3, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[Sereath.1428]

Crazy to think that some people would rather have reskinned warriors for all classes than diversity. Why are you even playing an MMO in the first place?
The state of PvP  just keeps getting worse and worse with each passing year. Balance, diversity and fun wise. Because every time they try to balance their game by purposely trying to kill off metas, diversity is what suffers the most. And this is because they only seem to care and balance around Monthly Automated Tournaments.
"Oh, this Elite Spec keeps having a strong presence during MATs, what should we do? Right, nerf something of the Core Class."

"Teams don't really stack Scourges during MATs so the spec is mostly fine."

The lovely Feb 2020 patch only happened thanks to the nerfs outcries of these forums.

Edited June 3, 2021 by XxsdgxX.8109

[Math.5123]

2 hours ago, razaelll.8324 said:

Again that will increase the diversity of viable option, but will not affect the diversity of possible options. You are talking about diversity of viable options , while Justice is talking about diversity of possible options (viable or not). And in my opinion this is where the whole miscommunication is coming from. You 2 are just speaking about 2 different things.

Judging by how I've phrased myself during all of my posts, it's painstakingly clear that I meant diversity of viable options and not of possible options. 

[razaelll.8324]

8 minutes ago, Math.5123 said:

Judging by how I've phrased myself during all of my posts, it's painstakingly clear that I meant diversity of viable options and not of possible options. 

Same can be said about Justice posts, yet again you both are arguing for 2 different points, as was stated by Kuma too

Edited June 3, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

39 minutes ago, Math.5123 said:

Judging by how I've phrased myself during all of my posts, it's painstakingly clear that I meant diversity of viable options and not of possible options. 

 

There's no logical consistency behind making a distinction between viable and non-viable, when those things are contained in the inequality already. 

 

A>B>C>D.

A is viable, D is the least viable.

A is the most selected for, D is the least selected for.

if A through D are all the objects in the system, then it describes the meta hierarchy of that system.

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[razaelll.8324]

22 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

There's no logical consistency behind making a distinction between viable and non-viable, when those things are contained in the inequality already. 

 

A>B>C>D.

A is viable, D is the least viable.

A is the most selected for, D is the least selected for.

if A through D are all the objects in the system, then it describes the meta hierarchy of that system.

 

Well its better to have 3 viable and 1 dead , instead of having 1 supreme and 3 dead classes, so what Math is saying is pretty logical, but again it just on local scale

Edited June 3, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[apharma.3741]

13 minutes ago, razaelll.8324 said:

Well its better to have 3 viable and 1 dead , instead of having 1 supreme and 3 dead classes, so what Math is saying is pretty logical, but again it just on local scale

You said on page 3 that you thought Justice was being overcomplicated, this isn't correct, s/he isn't being complicated enough and simplifying to a horrifying extent. The snide remarks and arrogance doesn't help either.

 

This formula works on a micro scale when looking at as few dimensions as possible however GW2 has a high number of dimensions and complexity scales with this.There are a lot of factors missing from these calculations like the skills value as part of a build as well as skill requirement to utilise while also ignoring the complexity of working out these values themselves. You can write it as an expression that A_s is skill however we're glossing over the complexity of actually working this out and applying it.

 

This is without touching anything else that could be a factor in the overarching system such as interpretation of game balance, fairness, ability to monitize, stakeholder expectations, customer expectations and aesthetics to name a few rolling off the top of my head.

 

Finally, here's something to think about and not reply to. If the math was as easy as you seem to think don't you think Arena Net with over a decade of game experience would have figured it out? Don't you think other games companies would?

[razaelll.8324]

15 minutes ago, apharma.3741 said:

You said on page 3 that you thought Justice was being overcomplicated, this isn't correct, s/he isn't being complicated enough and simplifying to a horrifying extent. The snide remarks and arrogance doesn't help either.

 

This formula works on a micro scale when looking at as few dimensions as possible however GW2 has a high number of dimensions and complexity scales with this.There are a lot of factors missing from these calculations like the skills value as part of a build as well as skill requirement to utilise while also ignoring the complexity of working out these values themselves. You can write it as an expression that A_s is skill however we're glossing over the complexity of actually working this out and applying it.

 

This is without touching anything else that could be a factor in the overarching system such as interpretation of game balance, fairness, ability to monitize, stakeholder expectations, customer expectations and aesthetics to name a few rolling off the top of my head.

 

Finally, here's something to think about and not reply to. If the math was as easy as you seem to think don't you think Arena Net with over a decade of game experience would have figured it out? Don't you think other games companies would?

I am wondring where the arrogance came from? If i sounded arrogant please excuse me that was not the point at all.

Look like i didnt chose the right words to explain my self, let me try again please. I never said nor claimed that balancing is easy, nor that there is simple formula to it. If i left that feeling in you i am sorry that was not my intend. 

What i tried to say is that sometimes Justice is overcomplicating his explanations on some simple topics and not using the correct words to describe his point, which leads very often to him not being understood correctly as it happend in this thread again. 

I agree with almost everything which Justice is saying and we had pretty big discussion with him on balance too, i disagree with him on just few minor things which i have stated. If you readed my other posts too you would see that

Edited June 3, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

  

6 minutes ago, razaelll.8324 said:

Well its better to have 3 viable and 1 dead , instead of having 1 supreme and 3 dead classes, so what Math is saying is pretty logical, but again it just on local scale

 

I'm gonna address this here because this discussion is finally now making progress. @Math.5123 introduced a very important concept (symbiosis) which is one of the key things behind how balance in diversity is supposed to work... but it's used in such a logically fallacious way to abuse the concept, and support the counter argument that removing things fixes diversity...again this comment sounds "logical" but there's a logical inconsistency here....that if removing things from a system was the most efficient way to produce diversity, then why does anything exist at all. The reason is because the example used by Math here is basically statistically unlikely to happen, and that unlikeliness goes up the more things there are in a system and I'll explain why this is the case in detail : 

 

First thing : Symbiosis doesn't mean B,C and D are equal. It means that one thing, is dependent on the survival of another thing. A good example are sucker fish stuck to sharks. Sucker fish are not equal to sharks...they actually depend on their survival in order to survive themselves, and gw2 works in the same way. The presence of Scourge, is dependent on the presence of a Deadeye or PP thief...too many PP thieves, and Scourges go extinct. Too many scourges, and more thieves will appear. Remove or nerf one or the other, and the equilibrium of that relationship get's interrupted.

 

The behavior of symbiosis is far from simple, they are highly complex. So for example, Scourge and thief live in some kind of equilibrium.. Many thieves start to appear, and in response, many guardian's appear to protect the scourge 's from the thieves. In addition PP thieves' invoke classes that have reflections to come about, so scrappers start appearing. In this example,  The existence of scrapper, is dependent on PP thief, which is dependent on scourges, which are dependent on guardian, and all 4 are now connected and they depend on each other for their existence. 

 

If you were to look at this system in isolation of just Thief and Scourge, one would immediately assume that thief is an apex predator, and the meta hierarchy takes the form of A>B. This is a mistake at looking at the system in isolation... when looking at the system as a whole, it looks like this; A>B>C>D where all 4 are in symbiotic equilibrium.

 

So upsetting the equilibrium of highly complex relationships between these things, can change the system in completely unpredictable ways, and it's not always certain whether you actually increase local diversity, completely ruin it or change nothing at all with a balance change.

 

So when Math puts forth the concept of A suppressing the equilibrium of B C and D, he's kind of abusing the situation in which, A has no symbiotic relationships of it's own....It can happens but it's statistically unlikely that things ever not have some kind of relationship with some other things. The net effect on a system when you remove an element, just lowers diversity overall because somewhere the diversity increases, and somewhere else the diversity decreases through the loss and gain of these symbiotic relations, and by contrast, the introduction of elements into a system does the opposite, it just makes diversity higher overall for the same reasons....In both cases the net effects of adding or removing relationships through symbiosis are essentially statistically equal. This is one of the key components of anthropic reasoning...the more stuff you have, the more symbiotic relationships there can be, the more balance there is through the forming of symbiotic relationships. In contrast, the less stuff you have, the less symbiotic relationships there can be, the less balance there is, and you get more situations like Math's example, because they become statistically more likely as the system gets smaller.

 

It's the same idea that when an outlier exists, the more counters to that outlier exists, and so that outlier is statistically more likely to be silenced because there are more things in the system. By contrast, in a system with less things, when an outlier exists, there are less counters to that outlier that exist, and statistically it's less likely to be silenced because there are less things in the system.

 

[razaelll.8324]

12 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

  

 

I'm gonna address this here because this discussion is finally now making progress. @Math.5123 introduced a very important concept (symbiosis) which is one of the key things behind how balance in diversity is supposed to work... but it's used in such a logically fallacious way to abuse the concept, and support the counter argument that removing things fixes diversity...again this comment sounds "logical" but there's a logical inconsistency here....that if removing things from a system was the most efficient way to produce diversity, then why does anything exist at all. The reason is because the example used by Math here is basically statistically unlikely to happen, and that unlikeliness goes up the more things there are in a system and I'll explain why this is the case in detail : 

 

First thing : Symbiosis doesn't mean B,C and D are equal. It means that one thing, is dependent on the survival of another thing. A good example are sucker fish stuck to sharks. Sucker fish are not equal to sharks...they actually depend on their survival in order to survive themselves, and gw2 works in the same way. The presence of Scourge, is dependent on the presence of a Deadeye or PP thief...too many PP thieves, and Scourges go extinct. Too many scourges, and more thieves will appear. Remove or nerf one or the other, and the equilibrium of that relationship get's interrupted.

 

The behavior of symbiosis is far from simple, they are highly complex. So for example, Scourge and thief live in some kind of equilibrium.. Many thieves start to appear, and in response, many guardian's appear to protect the scourge 's from the thieves. In addition PP thieves' invoke classes that have reflections to come about, so scrappers start appearing. In this example,  The existence of scrapper, is dependent on PP thief, which is dependent on scourges, which are dependent on guardian, and all 4 are now connected and they depend on each other for their existence. 

 

If you were to look at this system in isolation of just Thief and Scourge, one would immediately assume that thief is an apex predator, and the meta hierarchy takes the form of A>B. This is a mistake at looking at the system in isolation... when looking at the system as a whole, it looks like this; A>B>C>D where all 4 are in symbiotic equilibrium.

 

So upsetting the equilibrium of highly complex relationships between these things, can change the system in completely unpredictable ways, and it's not always certain whether you actually increase local diversity, completely ruin it or change nothing at all with a balance change.

 

So when Math puts forth the concept of A suppressing the equilibrium of B C and D, he's kind of abusing the situation in which, A has no symbiotic relationships of it's own....It can happens but it's statistically unlikely that things ever not have some kind of relationship with some other things. The net effect on a system when you remove an element, just lowers diversity overall because somewhere the diversity increases, and somewhere else the diversity decreases through the loss and gain of these symbiotic relations, and by contrast, the introduction of elements into a system does the opposite, it just makes diversity higher overall for the same reasons....In both cases the net effects of adding or removing relationships through symbiosis are essentially statistically equal. This is one of the key components of anthropic reasoning...the more stuff you have, the more symbiotic relationships there can be, the more balance there is through the forming of symbiotic relationships. In contrast, the less stuff you have, the less symbiotic relationships there can be, the less balance there is, and you get more situations like Math's example, because they become statistically more likely as the system gets smaller.

 

It's the same idea that when an outlier exists, the more counters to that outlier exists, and so that outlier is statistically more likely to be silenced because there are more things in the system. By contrast, in a system with less things, when an outlier exists, there are less counters to that outlier that exist, and statistically it's less likely to be silenced because there are less things in the system.

 

 

I agree with all that. Thats why i said the both of you are right, but arguing for different things


 

Quote

It's the same idea that when an outlier exists, the more counters to that outlier exists, and so that outlier is statistically more likely to be silenced because there are more things in the system. By contrast, in a system with less things, when an outlier exists, there are less counters to that outlier that exist, and statistically it's less likely to be silenced because there are less things in the system.

 

This is exactly why prot holo became meta duelist currently (the builds which kept it in check got nerfed). 

Edited June 3, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

3 minutes ago, razaelll.8324 said:

 

I agree with all that. Thats why i said the both of you are right, but arguing for different things


 

 

This is exactly why prot holo became meta duelist. 

 

Right exactly.

 

Whatever was suppressing prot-holo before or whatever relationships have formed since then have brought prot holo back into the spot light from where it was to where it is now...and I guess this goes full circle back into what the OP's thread was really about, which is "Where did prot-holo come from?" and it's cause almost everything is basically connected to everything else. 

[razaelll.8324]

4 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Right exactly.

 

Whatever was suppressing prot-holo before or whatever relationships have formed since then have brought prot holo back into the spot light from where it was to where it is now...and I guess this goes full circle back into what the OP's thread was really about, which is "Where did prot-holo come from?" and it's cause almost everything is basically connected to everything else. 

Exactly!

The removal of mender/marshal amulets which targeted self sustain of support builds as scrouge and support guardian actually affected duelist builds as weaver and decap druid which need the healing power much more than prot holo to survive , now when the self sustein is reduced prot holo got "unintended buff" , because it does not count that much on healing power to survive.

Edited June 3, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[apharma.3741]

14 minutes ago, razaelll.8324 said:

What i tried to say is that sometimes Justice is overcomplicating his explanations on some simple topics and not using the correct words to describe his point, which leads very often to him not being understood correctly as it happend in this thread again. 

 

My reply was to it working on a local scale from your comment but the rest is all referencing Justice not you, sorry for not being clear on that.

 

16 minutes ago, razaelll.8324 said:

What i tried to say is that sometimes Justice is overcomplicating his explanations on some simple topics and not using the correct words to describe his point, which leads very often to him not being understood correctly as it happend in this thread again. 

 

Yes and this is exactly why my initial post I was pushing Justice to explain their use of a term and definition in context and state what the constent was explicitly.
 

20 minutes ago, razaelll.8324 said:

I agree with almost everything which Justice is saying and we had pretty big discussion with him on balance too, i disagree with him on just few minor things which i have stated. If you readed my other posts too you would see that

 

I don't think anyone has really disagreed about the basic premise too much other than it being too simplistic, missing multiple factors and that we're not accounting for ANet being able to at a whim change anything they want, adding, removing or straight up changing relationships in certain ways exclusively for an exception.

[razaelll.8324]

2 minutes ago, apharma.3741 said:

 

My reply was to it working on a local scale from your comment but the rest is all referencing Justice not you, sorry for not being clear on that.

 

 

Yes and this is exactly why my initial post I was pushing Justice to explain their use of a term and definition in context and state what the constent was explicitly.
 

 

I don't think anyone has really disagreed about the basic premise too much other than it being too simplistic, missing multiple factors and that we're not accounting for ANet being able to at a whim change anything they want, adding, removing or straight up changing relationships in certain ways exclusively for an exception.

got it, thank you very much for clarifying i was a bit confused.

[Kuma.1503]

We keep pushing for builds to get nerfed and removed so that we can level the playing field, but, Ironically... I think the game was more balanced before the Feb Patch dropped, when the outcries about "power creep" were loud and clear. 

 

I know what people are going to say. "Are you really defending pre-nerf holo? Sidenode staff mirage? evade spam weaver? Boonbeast that could spam every boon in the game with permenant uptime, Degen staff daredevil that took a minimum of 20 seconds to kill if they properly chained their evades, scourge and firebrand running rampant, power herald?..."

 

Yes! You could, for good reason, make the argument that every one of these builds were broken, but pay attention to what I just did there. I was able to effortlessly name a build for every class that was not only strong, but a legitimate threat to the meta, capable of duking it out with some of the strongest builds out there. 

 

It didn't matter what class you played, if there was an outlier build running rampant that you wanted to contend with, you had a build, often, multiple builds on your class that could go toe to toe with them. 

 

The balance came from each of these powerful builds checking one another. It was great, It was fun. Combat was punishing if you didn't ration your dodges properly, but once you learned how it was like watching a delicate dance between two skilled players. 

 

And yes, there was certainly room for build craft. Arguably more than there is now. You had more amulets to work with. You didn't have entire traitlines with traits nerfed to unplayability, you had fewer butchered weapons. (Remember when druid's staff 3 still evaded, and druid pets had 100% of their damage?).

 

I don't see how what we have now is better, outside of the fact the fact that combat is less punishing. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Kuma.1503

[razaelll.8324]

20 minutes ago, Kuma.1503 said:

We keep pushing for builds to get nerfed and removed so that we can level the playing field, but, Ironically... I think the game was more balanced before the Feb Patch dropped, when the outcries about "power creep" were loud and clear. 

 

I know what people are going to say. "Are you really defending pre-nerf holo? Sidenode staff mirage? evade spam weaver? Boonbeast that could spam every boon in the game with permenant uptime, Degen staff daredevil that took a minimum of 20 seconds to kill if they properly chained their evades, scourge and firebrand running rampant, power herald?..."

 

Yes! You could, for good reason, make the argument that every one of these builds were broken, but pay attention to what I just did there. I was able to effortlessly name a build for every class that was not only strong, but a legitimate threat to the meta, capable of duking it out with some of the strongest builds out there. 

 

It didn't matter what class you played, if there was an outlier build running rampant that you wanted to contend with, you had a build, often, multiple builds on your class that could go toe to toe with them. 

 

The balance came from each of these powerful builds checking one another. It was great, It was fun. Combat was punishing if you didn't ration your dodges properly, but once you learned how it was like watching a delicate dance between two skilled players. 

 

And yes, there was certainly room for build craft. Arguably more than there is now. You had more amulets to work with. You didn't have entire traitlines with traits nerfed to unplayability, you had fewer butchered weapons. (Remember when druid's staff 3 still evaded, and druid pets had 100% of their damage?).

 

I don't see how what we have now is better, outside of the fact the fact that combat is less punishing. 

 

 

 

 

I didnt experianced the pre 2020 patch combat, but from what i heard about it it was too bursty (please correct me if i am wrong) ... I have tryed gw2  at the begining of 2016 and i remeber back then what drove me off was again the combat being too bursty. What i am trying to say is too bursty combat is very unfriendly to new people and often they leave before even learn as i did back in 2016. The current state gave me the chance to learn and have fun while doing so. Please dont get me wrong since i dont have experiance druing the period you are talking about i am not saying which is better or not, just saying that if it was as some people describe it (too bursy) then that probably is not much better than bunker meta

 

I definitely agree that removal of options and amulets is not the right way.

Edited June 3, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[Ragnar.4257]

1 hour ago, Kuma.1503 said:

We keep pushing for builds to get nerfed and removed so that we can level the playing field, but, Ironically... I think the game was more balanced before the Feb Patch dropped, when the outcries about "power creep" were loud and clear. 

 

I know what people are going to say. "Are you really defending pre-nerf holo? Sidenode staff mirage? evade spam weaver? Boonbeast that could spam every boon in the game with permenant uptime, Degen staff daredevil that took a minimum of 20 seconds to kill if they properly chained their evades, scourge and firebrand running rampant, power herald?..."

 

Yes! You could, for good reason, make the argument that every one of these builds were broken, but pay attention to what I just did there. I was able to effortlessly name a build for every class that was not only strong, but a legitimate threat to the meta, capable of duking it out with some of the strongest builds out there. 

 

It didn't matter what class you played, if there was an outlier build running rampant that you wanted to contend with, you had a build, often, multiple builds on your class that could go toe to toe with them. 

 

The balance came from each of these powerful builds checking one another. It was great, It was fun. Combat was punishing if you didn't ration your dodges properly, but once you learned how it was like watching a delicate dance between two skilled players. 

 

And yes, there was certainly room for build craft. Arguably more than there is now. You had more amulets to work with. You didn't have entire traitlines with traits nerfed to unplayability, you had fewer butchered weapons. (Remember when druid's staff 3 still evaded, and druid pets had 100% of their damage?).

 

I don't see how what we have now is better, outside of the fact the fact that combat is less punishing. 

 

 

 

 

Some pretty rose-tinted glasses there.

 

Basically from PoF launch through to 2020, the meta was fixed at FB + Scourge + Thief of some kind + Power Herald. Only the 5th slot varied, shifting between Mirage, SoulB, SpellB, Holo, Herald, Weaver depending on FoTM. And I guess there was that 6 months where Scourge disappeard...... and people replaced it with a 2nd FB.

 

Sure you could tinker with whatever in ranked. Same is also true now. To be honest I saw more experimenting going on in the 6 months after Feb 2020 than at anytime in the previous 3 years. I've seen more berserkers in the last year than I saw in the previous 3 combined. Same with DH's, tempests, druids, renegades, core necros, core warriors.....

 

What I will heartily agree with is that the removal of amulets and intentional obliteration of certain traits/weapons has been extremely detrimental. To be honest, I'm still salty about losing the vanilla trait system.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Ragnar.4257

[Kuma.1503]

13 minutes ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

Some pretty rose-tinted glasses there.

 

Basically from PoF launch through to 2020, the meta was fixed at FB + Scourge + Thief of some kind + Power Herald. Only the 5th slot varied, shifting between Mirage, SoulB, SpellB, Holo, Herald, Weaver depending on FoTM.

 

Sure you could tinker with whatever in ranked. Same is also true now. To be honest I saw more experimenting going on in the 6 months after Feb 2020 than at anytime in the previous 3 years. I've seen more berserkers in the last year than I saw in the previous 3 combined. Same with DH's, tempests, druids, renegades, core necros, core warriors.....

 

What I will heartily agree with is that the removal of amulets and intentional obliteration of certain traits/weapons has been extremely detrimental. To be honest, I'm still salty about losing the vanilla trait system.

 

"Okay Boomer" 

 

-Ragnar 2021

 

This is a reasonable response though. Pre Feb meta definitely wasn't perfect. I had my fair share of grievances with balance then just as I do now (*cough Fb+Scourge). Nontheless, looking back, I can say with certainty that I prefer how things were then to how they were now.

 

Firebrand + Scourge meta is an obvious example of a low point in the PvP history. That sucked, and I was glad when Anet finally did something about it. I didn't entirely agree with how they went about it (removing self-shades was a clunky nightmare), but it worked. 

 

That said, as bad as that was. Is what we have now any better? 1-2 bunker scourges and a support guard lording over the mid node, forcing you to avoid them in teamfights if you don't also have your own scourge + support to contest them? It seems to me like we've come full circle, but with even less build viariety to show for it. 

 

 I'm aware of the rose-tinted effect and how it can shape our perception of the past. This is why I went on a spiel about several, potentially frustrating builds that existed back in the day. The meta had it's flaws. 

 

But it was fun. The one thing a game like Gw2 should try it's absolute hardest to be, because if it's not... why play? Unless you decide to make this game your job, or you suffer from sunk cost fallacy, why bother? Coming to terms with that is why I rarely play PvP these days. Despite trying my hardest to find the fun in PvP, it's just not enjoyable in it's current state. 

 

 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 hour ago, Ragnar.4257 said:

To be honest I saw more experimenting going on in the 6 months after Feb 2020 than at anytime in the previous 3 years.

  

I guess I'll be that guy again and frame the above in terms of mathematics.

 

Diversity is not static, it's dynamic and changes over time because of the process of selection. The most diverse periods in the game, are right after expansions and balance patches are released. Players explore and compare different combinations, they run through those combinations in SPVP matches, and they undergo the selection process, in which we choose the combinations that are able to achieve our autonomous goals, such as winning the pvp match, killing players etc...

 

The selection process is always collapsing this system toward an eventuality of one single meta build. The time it takes to reach this eventuality is dependent on the complexity of the game. The more complex the game, the longer time it takes for the game to go from highly diverse, to completely homogenous (A meta game where one build on one class is the meta).

 

Striking an equilibrium is dependent on whether things exists to oppose other things and whether these things are capable of achieving their goal...which is to defeat their opponent. So a very generalized example, if the counter to scourge is thief, but thief is shut down hard by guardians, then thief is not selected for, and scourge prances around with impunity without another counter to contest it.

 

So you can imagine, as more builds become nerfed into obscurity, less builds exist that can achieve these primal goals, and the stronger builds that can achieve goals walk around with less builds to contest them, and the faster the evolution of the system takes to go from highly diverse to completely homogenous.

 

I share the same disposition as Kuma, as a boomer that's been around since launch. watching all the build diversity kind of disappear over the years is apparent as a theory-crafter. I remember back in the day, having made a condi-staff Daredevil and running it with a friend in ranked...wow what a stupid build but it worked to an extent, enough for me to play it a number of times. It was hard nerfed when condition proc sigils were removed so...ya anyway just a personal anecdote.

Edited June 3, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Kuma.1503]

14 hours 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. 

 

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?

 

I would like to highlight this. Partially because I think there's value in strong-manning arguments that contradict your own, and partially because there is truth in what this person is saying. 

 

It is possible to achieve greater diversity by removing something from a system. The logic is a tad bit flawed here because he uses the example of B = C = D > A because this scenario describes is three different variables that are effectively the same. A homogenous game where 3 different builds (B C and D) are carbon copies of each other. See the previous posts for an explanation for why this is the case. 

 

The logic behind it is sound however. 

 

Lets look at a real life example. You have an ecosystem that sits in a delicate balance. It contains a wide variety of life, from plants and insects, to mammals and fish. 

 

You introduce an invasive species to the equation. The animals in the ecosystem did not evolve alongside this species, so they have not yet adapted the necessarily defense mechanisms to deal with it. This species exerts strong selective pressures on the organisms within the ecosystem. Selective pressures that they have not evolved to deal with. The ecosystem is thrown into shambles and collapses. 

 

This is why we has humans generally try not to release wild animals into habitats not suited to handle them. (*cough* Emphasis on "try". Looking at you cats).

 

Lets take this to its logical extreme. Humans of the future create a species of godzilla-like monsters. They ravage the landscape, killing off plants, wildlife, people, leveling buildings. The world becomes a wasteland. In this instance, removing the monster as soon as possible is the proper course to preserve the  diversity of life in the world... This is basically the premise of any large monster movie. 

 

The same can occur in Guild Wars 2 where one or more builds are so good and produces such a harsh selective pressure on the meta that any build not able to handle it goes extinct. 

 

If I had to compress it all down to the same variables as before. The argument being made here is that

 

B < C < D < A  is a more diverse system in practice than B < C < D <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< A

 

A is so far off in it's own planet in terms of power level that you had better either play it or play something that can handle it, or you are an irrelevant side character in any match that A is a part of. 

 

Where the common mistake comes in is that some people ( including Anet ) have taken the approach of "It works in these very specific scenarios, therefore it must work in all circumstances". So they resort to deleting or butchering as the default action whenever something becomes problematic. 

 

This is a problem. 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Kuma.1503