Where Did Prot Holo Come From?

[apharma.3741]

2 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

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. 

 

 

Then explain to me what I originally asked for, what is the constant in "The very definition of Relative means that things vary in order to keep something a constant"

 

Last I checked, and I linked it as such, there is no constant in the definition of relative.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

14 minutes ago, apharma.3741 said:

Then explain to me what I originally asked for, what is the constant in "The very definition of Relative means that things vary in order to keep something a constant"

 

Last I checked, and I linked it as such, there is no constant in the definition of relative.

 

zzz dude, You didn't CLICK the link that I posted to you earlier in the thread...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_relation

 

My guy this is like trying to explain something as primeval as why 2+3 = 5 is the same as 6-1 = 5...

5 is the constant, the other variables change with respect to the constant... Both equations are therefor relative.

 

You won't understand anything in the links, it's much too formal for most people to understand at all in a gw2 forum so the above is literally me doing you the courtesy of explaining it in the simplest way imaginable.

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[razaelll.8324]

26 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

Hey mate,

 

 

 

Excuse me for entering the discussion , but what both @apharma.3741 and @Eugchriss.2046

are trying to say is that you are explaining simple stuff in a bit overcomplicated way , because of which many people are not getting your point. Correct me if i am wrong.

 

Please dont get me wrong , i mean no offence to you at all and i understand and agree with what you are explaining, just it can be simplified as @Eugchriss.2046 did.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by razaelll.8324

[apharma.3741]

15 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

zzz dude, You didn't CLICK the link that I posted to you earlier in the thread...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_relation

 

My guy this is like trying to explain something as primeval as why 2+3 = 5 is the same as 6-1 = 5...

5 is the constant, the other variables change with respect to the constant...

 

You won't understand anything in the links, it's much too formal for most people to understand at all in a gw2 forum so the above is literally me doing you the courtesy of explaining it in the simplest way imaginable.

 

I did click the link actually and I do understand however you're still not getting it.

 

Your definition of relative is only applicable in YOUR niche.

 

Is it sinking in? Guild Wars 2 does not rely on that 2 or more things vary in order to keep a constant. In other words to simplify it for you.

 

In Guild Wars 2 sometimes 2+3 = 5 then sometimes 6-1 = 4, this is not constant as the goal of balance is not to keep a constant.

 

Edit: I know the above sounds stupid, because it sort of is but I have to use the analogy given. ANet writes the rules, controls the game, sets the standards.

Edited June 2, 2021 by apharma.3741

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 minute ago, apharma.3741 said:

In Guild Wars 2 sometimes 2+3 = 5 then sometimes 6-1 = 4, this is not constant as the goal of balance is not to keep a constant.

 

bro what am I reading right now...

 

I think the concepts being discussed here, are just a bit too complicated for you to follow no offence dude. Math does not change from person to person or from game to game.

 

6-1 always equals 5...I don't care who you are or what you do for a living. 

[razaelll.8324]

9 minutes ago, apharma.3741 said:

I did click the link actually and I do understand however you're still not getting it.

 

Your definition of relative is only applicable in YOUR niche.

 

Is it sinking in? Guild Wars 2 does not rely on that 2 or more things vary in order to keep a constant. In other words to simplify it for you.

 

In Guild Wars 2 sometimes 2+3 = 5 then sometimes 6-1 = 4, this is not constant as the goal of balance is not to keep a constant.

 

Edit: I know the above sounds stupid, because it sort of is but I have to use the analogy given. ANet writes the rules, controls the game, sets the standards.

 

 

6 - 1 = 4 ... What?

[apharma.3741]

12 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

bro what am I reading right now...

 

I think the concepts being discussed here, are just a bit too complicated for you to follow no offence dude. Math does not change from person to person or from game to game.

 

6-1 always equals 5...I don't care who you are or what you do for a living. 

I was using the analogy you gave, there is no constant to the balance, ANet has free reign to make things vary in whatever way they want either as a constant or as we often see not, which woud produce the effect of game wide "power creep" as a whole that we saw in HoT and PoF.

 

This is because the constant was not a constant.

 

Edit: I will have to explain it more.

In your analogy 3+2 = 5 and 6-1 = 5. You state that 5 is the constant.

 

So let's replace this with letters so that we don't get confused by basic maths going awry.

C + B = E and F - A = E. E is our constant right?

 

Except ANet doesn't do this. They are free to make A super strong and you can write (C+B+F) - A = E except E is now not the same in value it was before, it is vastly different. This is not really a constant, constants do not change, instead E is now a variable and varies in relation to the others.

 

This is why I was asking why you consider this to be constant as it is not constant, it is a variable in the equation.

 

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

Edited June 2, 2021 by apharma.3741

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

33 minutes ago, apharma.3741 said:

I was using the analogy you gave, there is no constant to the balance, ANet has free reign to make things vary in whatever way they want either as a constant or as we often see not, which woud produce the effect of game wide "power creep" as a whole that we saw in HoT and PoF.

 

This is because the constant was not a constant.

 

Edit: I will have to explain it more.

In your analogy 3+2 = 5 and 6-1 = 5. You state that 5 is the constant.

 

So let's replace this with letters so that we don't get confused by basic maths going awry.

C + B = E and F - A = E. E is our constant right?

 

Except ANet doesn't do this. They are free to make A super strong and you can write (C+B+F) - A = E except E is now not the same in value it was before, it is vastly different. This is not really a constant, constants do not change, instead E is now a variable and varies in relation to the others.

 

This is why I was asking why you consider this to be constant as it is not constant, it is a variable in the equation.

 

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

 

Your literally just not understanding, or getting confused on what the relation is. Nobody is talking about how strong things are...it's the same strawman Ragnar makes, it's a strawman to the actual argument, the actual argument, is the fact that the game will ALWAYS follow the following meta hierarchy; A>B>C.

 

It doesn't matter HOW strong or weak any of these objects are.... A, B or C could be 10 billion zillion damage class or 3 damage class...the game will always fit into this kind of inequality.

Edited June 2, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Math.5123]

2 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Your literally just not understanding, or getting confused on what the relation is. Nobody is talking about how strong things are...it's the same strawman Ragnar makes, it's a strawman to the actual argument, the actual argument, is the fact that the game will ALWAYS follow the following meta hierarchy; A>B>C.

 

It doesn't matter HOW strong or weak any of these objects are.... A, B or C could be 10 billion zillion damage class or 3 damage class...the game will always fit into this kind of inequality.

I have to chime in here and say; what an incredibly bleak reality you must live it to only look at numerical figures and live by them. 
While your argument is technically correct in that you will always have A>B>C with A being the meta class of this balance patch, what the rest of the people are talking about is bringing A and C closer to eachother.

You will never reach an equilibrium in a dynamic mmo game, like you do in something like chess. Because regardless if A = B = C, you still have other factors skewing the end results. Like ping, reaction time, physical instabilities, etc.

 

You're saying that the values of A B and C could be anywhere from 10 billion zillion (where Zillion is fictitious and not actually a real number) and 3, like you stated. People are advocating for Anet to move the numbers closer in relation to one another. 
So A = B+0,2 = C+0,4 instead of A = 10 "billion zillion and C = 3. 
How someone can write such convoluted posts about arbitrary numbers can not understand something as basic as bringing the numbers closer into relation with one another so that the X variable (being player skill) A (being the class mechanics and dmg) is beyond me. 
I hope this clears it up.

[apharma.3741]

4 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Your literally just not understanding, or getting confused on what the relation is. Nobody is talking about how strong things are...it's the same strawman Ragnar makes, it's a strawman to the actual argument, the actual argument, is the fact that the game will ALWAYS follow the following meta hierarchy; A>B>C.

 

It doesn't matter HOW strong or weak any of these objects are.... A, B or C could be 10 billion zillion damage class or 3 damage class...the game will always fit into this kind of inequality.

Yes and I understand that, the thing is ANet can add D or remove C, it doesn't matter the numbers they can add what they want and take what they want, change the relationships and everything as they see fit and there's no rules you can impose onto that.

 

There isn't a constant other than the fact that they exist and have a relationship with each other, a relationship that has no obligation to be constant or consistant.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

 

Quote

"You're saying that the values of A B and C could be anywhere from 10 billion zillion (where Zillion is fictitious and not actually a real number) and 3, like you stated. People are advocating for Anet to move the numbers closer in relation to one another. 
So A = B+0,2 = C+0,4 instead of A = 10 "billion zillion and C = 3. "

 

And like i said, many times now, that you can't do such an operation and get what you want, because as you make things MORE equal, you make the system LESS different aka, less diverse. This is the most common mistake everybody makes when analyzing the diversity problem and believe me this is what I thought too when I was young and stupid...but it's wrong. You can not get more diversity by making things more equal to each other...think about that sentence for a moment and you realize how it doesn't make logical sense...it doesn't make mathematical or practical sense either because you look at the real world and you see the exact opposite behavior of what you describe....there's a reason for that and I'm explaining those reasons in painstakingly great detail right in front of you, with as very basic examples as I can muster up. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Math.5123]

4 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

 

And like i said, many times now, that you can't do such an operation and get what you want, because as you make things MORE equal, you make the system LESS different aka, less diverse. This is the most common mistake everybody makes when analyzing the diversity problem and believe me this is what I thought too when I was young and stupid...but it's wrong. You can not get more diversity by making things more equal to each other...think about that sentence for a moment and you realize how it doesn't make logical sense...it doesn't make mathematical or practical sense either because you look at the real world and you see the exact opposite behavior of what you describe....there's a reason for that and I'm literally explaining the reason right in front of you, giving you very basic examples of why such is the case. 

No one except you brought diversity into the equation though. 

[MrForz.1953]

7 minutes ago, Math.5123 said:

How someone can write such convoluted posts about arbitrary numbers can not understand something as basic as bringing the numbers closer into relation with one another so that the X variable (being player skill) A (being the class mechanics and dmg) is beyond me. 
I hope this clears it up.

As pertinent as it is, I'm afraid this point is no longer relevant to the current discussion. These usually, and ironically, devolve into maths for the sake of maths between people having to prove something to one another.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

4 minutes ago, Math.5123 said:

No one except you brought diversity into the equation though. 

 

 Listen I've had enough of the nonsense going on in this thread. Everyone seems to be able to ask me for logical proofs, which I give in great detail, but now its time for someone else to PROVE their own counter arguments.

 

You can do the proof of your claims right now. Take 3 different skills, and follow a series of numerical nerfs and buff operations to make all three equally balanced, and take it to the logical end, and see how diverse your skills are gonna be. 

 

You will find that as you do those operations, you just end up making them the same skills...aka loss of diversity

 

Go head and try it with the three skills I provided earlier : Deathly Claws, Flame Jet and Rapid Fire. I will sit here and wait for someone to actually prove the above statement false.

Edited June 2, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[apharma.3741]

1 minute ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

 Listen I've had enough of the nonsense going on in this thread. Everyone seems to be able to ask me for logical proofs, which I give in great detail, but now its time for someone else to PROVE their own counter arguments.

 

You can do the proof of your claims right now. Take 3 different skills, and follow a series of operation to make all three equally balanced, and take it to the logical end, and see how diverse your skills are gonna be. 

 

You will find that as you do those operations, you just end up making them the same skills...aka loss of diversity

 

Go head and try it with the three skills I provided earlier : Deathly Claws, Flame Jet and Rapid Fire. I will sit here and wait for someone to actually prove the above statement false.

Nobody asked for this.

 

What I asked was how you came to the assumption that anything has to vary in order to keep something constant. There is nothing in this game that is constant other than it exists and has a relationship.

[MrForz.1953]

15 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

 Listen I've had enough of the nonsense going on in this thread. Everyone seems to be able to ask me for logical proofs, which I give in great detail, but now its time for someone else to PROVE their own counter arguments.

 

You can do the proof of your claims right now. Take 3 different skills, and follow a series of operation to make all three equally balanced, and take it to the logical end, and see how diverse your skills are gonna be. 

 

You will find that as you do those operations, you just end up making them the same skills...aka loss of diversity

 

Go head and try it with the three skills I provided earlier : Deathly Claws, Flame Jet and Rapid Fire. I will sit here and wait for someone to actually prove the above statement false.

 

Hm... how to even say this? You're absolutely right but you really need to control yourself, you're all over the place.

 

It wasn't smart to give in to that debate to begin with, it doesn't even take maths to get to that conclusion it takes common sense. That's why people with said common sense will be more than fine with simply bringing classes closer to eachother rather than being perfectly balanced, so that skills, and combinations of skills, and designs and all may still remain different either in their core or based on a variety of circumstances.

 

Very few people will mind playing something that is a bit on the weaker side if there's a good probability to succeed, especially if whoever is in front of the keyboard can make up for it.

Edited June 2, 2021 by MrForz.1953

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

10 minutes ago, apharma.3741 said:

Nobody asked for this.

 

What I asked was how you came to the assumption that anything has to vary in order to keep something constant. There is nothing in this game that is constant other than it exists and has a relationship.

You wanted to know if it's applicable...well there's the application...go and come back to me with a proof that shows me that I'm wrong...it's not hard. I'm asking you to perfectly balance 3 skills using numerical buffs and numerical nerfs.

 

  

3 minutes ago, MrForz.1953 said:

That's why people with said common sense will be more than fine with simply bringing classes closer to eachother rather than being perfectly balanced

Which means the game will always follow the meta hierarchy of A>B>C. Again this proves exactly what I've been saying and is my argument the entire time. i don't understand the resistance going on here, but i'm done, it's time for someone else to step up with a proper counter proof.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Math.5123]

22 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

 Listen I've had enough of the nonsense going on in this thread. Everyone seems to be able to ask me for logical proofs, which I give in great detail, but now its time for someone else to PROVE their own counter arguments.

 

You can do the proof of your claims right now. Take 3 different skills, and follow a series of numerical nerfs and buff operations to make all three equally balanced, and take it to the logical end, and see how diverse your skills are gonna be. 

 

You will find that as you do those operations, you just end up making them the same skills...aka loss of diversity

 

Go head and try it with the three skills I provided earlier : Deathly Claws, Flame Jet and Rapid Fire. I will sit here and wait for someone to actually prove the above statement false.

There is nothing to prove. You say that A > B > C where the contents of each variable does not matter. While this is true, you're just spouting illogical numbers trying to prove a point no one asked for. 
To bring up your example 
30 dmg | 1s stun | 30 healing has a net-total value of 61. This is correct.
1 dmg | 58s stun | 1 healing has a net-total value of 60. This is correct.

While the first option is technically a more powerful number, what the sub-values actually mean proves that relation wrong. The first example is the bigger number, in relation to the second. But the second would make a far stronger skill because you don't place values on the separate variables within the equation. 
Stuns weigh higher in this equation than damage does. 
Same as saying, class A does 100.000 damage (thus one shotting everything) but can't move. Class B does no damage but can teleport anywhere (giving it 100/100 on the mobility scale) but can't do any damage. While these classes are technically and numerically equal, when put into practice. They are not.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Math.5123

[Ragnar.4257]

Please don't stop.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 minutes ago, Math.5123 said:

There is nothing to prove. You say that A > B > C where the contents of each variable does not matter. While this is true, you're just spouting illogical numbers trying to prove a point no one asked for. 

 

Perfectly balance Deathly Claws, Flame Jet and Rapid Fire.

 

Stop dodging the counter proof. We are past arguing about my argument, it's time to prove YOUR arguments now.

[Ragnar.4257]

2 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Perfectly balance Deathly Claws, Flame Jet and Rapid Fire.

 

Stop dodging the counter proof. We are past arguing about my argument, it's time to prove YOUR arguments now.

You're asking for proof for a claim that nobody made.

 

Nobody claimed that you could perfectly balance these things.

 

There are multiple posts in this thread from many different people all saying the same thing; it is not necessary to perfectly balance these things, it is only necessary to make them sufficiently close.

 

Maybe spend 10% as much time reading as you do writing.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Ragnar.4257

[MrForz.1953]

9 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Which means the game will always follow the meta hierarchy of A>B>C. Again this proves exactly what I've been saying and is my argument the entire time. i don't understand the resistance going on here, but i'm done, it's time for someone else to step up with a proper counter proof.

I... was just agreeing. Okay.

 

5 minutes ago, Math.5123 said:

To bring up your example 
30 dmg | 1s stun | 30 healing has a net-total value of 61. This is correct.
1 dmg | 58s stun | 1 healing has a net-total value of 60. This is correct.

While the first option is technically a more powerful number, what the sub-values actually mean proves that relation wrong. The first example is the bigger number, in relation to the second. But the second would make a far stronger skill because you don't place values on the separate variables within the equation. 
Stuns weigh higher in this equation than damage does. 
Same as saying, class A does 100.000 damage (thus one shotting everything) but can't move. Class B does no damage but can teleport anywhere (giving it 100/100 on the mobility scale) but can't do any damage. While these classes are technically and numerically equal, when put into practice. They are not.

 

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.

[Math.5123]

1 minute ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Perfectly balance Deathly Claws, Flame Jet and Rapid Fire.

 

Stop dodging the counter proof. We are past arguing about my argument, it's time to prove YOUR arguments now.

Are you actually trolling? 

I literally stated in my original post that there is no equilibrium in a dynamic game. You want me to prove that? Is that what you're asking of me?
I feel like you've watched one too many episodes of  a "welcome to 5th grades math" and try to sound way smarter than you actually are, with your vague, off topic comments of how nothing matters unless compared to a global constant and everything relative to each other. 
Say you are losing your mother, right? That would suck and I hope that you don't. 
But relative to the people that lose their entire families to war and famine, only losing your mother is relatively better. That does not mean that it doesn't suck for you.

[apharma.3741]

This is what I asked

On 6/1/2021 at 4:47 PM, 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

 

Then once again I asked and you wrote maths again instead of answering the question of what the constant is.

 

16 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.

 

You finally answered and I said the game is under no obligation to make the values equal to a constant which is your false assumption. I even used letters as basic maths doesn't blend well with the concept of "We have complete control over this game and can make the rules and relationships as we see fit" without confusing people who don't understand this concept.

 

Now I fully expect you to be condescending and make out that I'm not understanding but really I do. There is no obligation for it to be constant, not in relationships to each other or a hidden value, numbers of entities/variable or anything as Anet can and has added, removed, changed and straight up been inconsistent in execution of everything at varying points in time.

[Kuma.1503]

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. 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Kuma.1503