Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Ragnar.4257

Members
  • Posts

    679
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Ragnar.4257's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. > @"Ganathar.4956" said: > > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > > TBH, Lava Font is fine. Has the same function as a guardian symbol, and does more damage, on a lower CD, castable at 1200 range. Traited its nearly 100% uptime. > > > > Fire and Earth attunements for Staff are both pretty decent, it's Air and Water that are letting it down in PvP. That, and the fact that nearly all it's skills have minimum 3/4s cast time as well as slow projectile travel time. > > Symbols actually have a larger radius and are bloated skills that can potentially do 5 different things. No, they don't. They're both 180 radius. I'm obviously not arguing that staff-ele > guardian, just that lava font is not the weakness here. It's everything else about staff.
  2. TBH, Lava Font is fine. Has the same function as a guardian symbol, and does more damage, on a lower CD, castable at 1200 range. Traited its nearly 100% uptime. Fire and Earth attunements for Staff are both pretty decent, it's Air and Water that are letting it down in PvP. That, and the fact that nearly all it's skills have minimum 3/4s cast time as well as slow projectile travel time.
  3. I really don't understand why the matchmaker is still set up to allow silvers in the same matchups as plats. And also why the 'default' rating for new players is apparently gold. NOBODY benefits from this setup. Silvers getting 1-shot and raged at, Plats getting infuriated that despite holding a node 1v3 their team still can't achieve anything. If narrowing the matchmaker window makes queues 12 minutes instead of 2 minutes, so be it. I'd rather have 1-2 good games per hour, than have 4-5 pointless wipeouts.
  4. > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > > No, I can put an equals sign between guardian and warrior, if I'm defining my metrics and stating what is being approximated and what is not. Just as I can say that Apple = Orange, if I qualify that the metric is monetary value. > > And that's how approximate your evaluation will be...it's monetary value and nothing more, if you come to me selling me an apple when i ask for an orange, I'm gonna look at you funny. Say if you were to use DPS Benchmarks as your metric for equality in SPVP I wonder how far that will actually get you...well A-net kind of already did this once upon a time so we can "see" what the consequence of using such broad metrics actually do to the game. > > >We can take a black-box approach and simply observe the resultant performance in games, leaderboards, tournaments. This approach, incidentally, has the added bonus of also covering several other factors which are not directly part of the builds themselves, such has how players approach playing them, how they interact with maps, objectives, etc. > > CMC 'probably' uses performance in AT's as a metric for his balancing in SPVP...that's gotten us pretty far this past year hasn't it...If you think that this is the best balance in the history of every game ever because of his usage of this godlike metric then...okay whatever that's your opinion if you think this is remotely a healthy state of the game. > > > And no, we don't need to go to the level of each individual skills, down to every minute detail. > > This is what I basically said. It's non-sensible to try to balance every metric of every skill into equality because it leads to the inevitable conclusion I've said many time before now, that a perfectly balanced game is the heat death of player choice in a game like gw2 which survives at it's core, on player choice. Balancing using broad. mediocre metrics like AT performance is at best, throwing darts at a dart board, especially when the only changes that can be made are numerical ones, which are by proxy of the already mentioned concepts are meaningless to the balance of the system as a whole. > > > Yeah, and if you come to me for an apple, and I present you an apple, and you say "but it doesn't have the exact same quantum state as the apple I meant" I'm going to tell you to get lost. And I never suggested that the current state of balance was perfect. Merely that it is possible to reach a state that is functionally balanced "enough" for us to be happy with. Your contention is that if a given build is even 0.001% more efficient than the rest, then everyone will play that build, and thus balance is impossible. I disagree, and all the evidence I need is to point at the playerbase. I would suggest that if all builds are within ~5% strength of each other, then that is sufficient for practical purposes, and that the outstanding 5% difference will be negated by differences in player preference, skill, maps and objectives, team compositions, etc. Let's say that revenant has a strength-rating of 100, and guardian has a strength rating of 90. So I should play revenant right? But that assumes that I can play both of them at maximum efficiency. If I personally can play guardian at 95% efficiency, and revenant only at 70% efficiency, then guardian is actually the better choice for me, and that may not be the same for someone else. Provided those initial strength-ratings are close enough that the deciding factor is my own skill, the balance is good enough.
  5. > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > > By this logic, no 2 warrior builds are the same, since they're equipped at different times by different users in different locations etc etc. Even if they select the exact same traits, equipment, utilities, they're still not equal to each other. > > > There you go! Now your catching on. Even in a perfectly balanced, completely deterministic game of stick wars 2, because agents exist in a world governed by real world physics, you can NEVER have a perfectly balanced game there will always be near infinite amount of variables and metrics that you can not evaluate, like player skill. This is why it is important to understand why you can't just insert an equal sign willy nilly into whatever equation you want to create, especially in complex systems and games like gw2. > > > Now, I ask, is it really useful to go to this level of detail, or can we grow up a bit and use a sensible approximation? Newtonian physics is a suitable approximation for day-to-day usage. I don't need to define the exact quantum state of every particle in the universe to make a statement on GW2 PvP balance. > > I mentioned this earlier but DPS Benchmarks is the metric Anet and other game companies use to determine balance between classes that are different to one another. It is merely an approximation based on repeated observation and experiment, much like the real world. > > So now when you talk "sensible" you have to define your metric. You want Warrior to equal Guardian but by what metrics? By their DPS benchmark on a golem? By their performance in AT's? By their individual skills and their coefficients...There are an infinite number of metrics you can attempt to define the equality between the elements in a system, and it doesn't stop at the level of classes...it goes down to skills and their mechanics... > > How do you evaluate the equality between Thief dagger autoattack and Elementalist staff autoattack? How do you evaluate the equality between Stability and Immobilize? The truth is that it is non-sensible to attempt to equalize things based on metrics at all. Such mechanics are so estranged that they can't be compared in any truly meaningful way, and therefor changes in the coefficients or whatever other numerical changes in an attempt to make them equal actually becomes non-sensible. > > No, I can put an equals sign between guardian and warrior, if I'm defining my metrics and stating what is being approximated and what is not. Just as I can say that Apple = Orange, if I qualify that the metric is monetary value. And no, we don't need to go to the level of each individual skills, down to every minute detail. We can take a black-box approach and simply observe the resultant performance in games, leaderboards, tournaments. This approach, incidentally, has the added bonus of also covering several other factors which are not directly part of the builds themselves, such as how players approach playing them, how they interact with maps, objectives, etc.
  6. > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > > The notation of "warrior" and "guardian" there is obviously representative of their strength. > > > > Oranges and apples are bought and sold with currency. If both are valued at 1$ I can write an equation that states Apple = Orange, where those terms are representations of their values. It is obviously not meant to imply that an apple is actually the same thing as an orange. I thought you were smarter than this? > > > > You're the one that invoked algebra. Now you're saying it's not possible to employ it in this scenario. Make up your mind. > > We are just getting started, don't worry. > > You've taken your first step. In order to define one thing to be equal to another, you define that equality with a common metric, in the case of the apple and the orange, it's monetary value. But now, you know that the apple and the orange even though they have one metric that is equal, you know they still aren't the same right... Do they have the same weight? The same shape? The same color? The same composition? The same malleability? The same mass? The same Buoyancy? > > To define the equality of two objects, you further and further evaluate it for an infinite number of metrics, which you will eventually find that the two objects are never and can never be equal. This is because if they were, the two objects would have to be in the same exact quantum states, which by no-cloning theorem is impossible to have. This is why the apple will NEVER be equal to the orange, because down to their very atoms they can never occupy the same quantum state. This is the hallmark of why chaos theory exists. Any small difference between elements in a system, even if it's a deterministic system, cause the system to become chaotic and unpredictable to due those said infinitesimally small differences between each element. In addition, even if many of those metrics are equal, their equality further determines that the two objects become closer and closer to being the same object. If they are both red, both made of carbon, with the same mass, have the same buoyancy, and shape...the description of the objects converge to being the same object. > > Therefor, apples and oranges are never the same, and the equal sign is an approximation based on the number of metrics used to define that equality. > > In the case of Warrior equals Guardian, this is the exact reason why the two classes aren't equal, and in fact are inherently different. You simply can not say that Warrior equals Guardian because it's simply not true, and when you do say Warrior equals Guardian, you are using in your case just a single metric to define that, which is like again saying that the apple is equal to the orange. If you wanted to say the two are the same, then you have to go down skill by skill, metric by metricto see if both are equal to make such a determination. If every metric is equal, then the guardian is infinitely non-different then the warrior, where the two are no longer considered to even be different classes...again because if all metrics define that they are equal, means they are descriptions of the same object. By this logic, no 2 warrior builds are the same, since they're equipped at different times by different users in different locations etc etc. Even if they select the exact same traits, equipment, utilities, they're still not equal to each other. Now, I ask, is it really useful to go to this level of detail, or can we grow up a bit and use a sensible approximation? Newtonian physics is a suitable approximation for day-to-day usage. I don't need to evaluate the exact quantum state of every particle in the universe to make a statement on GW2 PvP balance. This whole conversation is like Einstein trying to get out of a speeding-ticket by arguing with the policeman that he wasn't reeeaaally going over the limit, it just looked like that because of frames of reference, time dilation, and are you even qualified to define speed? Do you know who I am?. Mate, you were speeding. Your doctorate and years of research aren't relevant.
  7. > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > > Since you like algebra, here you go: > > > > Guardian = Warrior + 1 > > -> > > Guardian + 1 = Warrior + 2 > > > > Adding +1 to both sides results in no change to the relative strength of guard and warrior. > > > > Guardian = Warrior + 1 > > -> > > Guardian = Warrior > > > > To make guardian=warrior, we have to add +1 only to the right hand side, (or -1 to the left and shift if across). Which, of course, is not something you can do in an equation. > > > > However, GW2 is not an equation. It is perfectly within the devs power to +1 to warrior without also +1 to guardian. > > Idk if you are trolling or serious right now. But like I thought, I think you're just not ready to have a conversation about how diversity and balance in systems and games like gw2 actually work. I mean you don't even understand the significance of the equal sign or why you can't just willy nilly use it for everything because you think you can. > > Listen to what I'm bout to say very carefully. You have an apple, and an orange.**..just because you put an EQUAL SIGN between them does not make the apple and the orange the same.** Do you understand that concept? Go read up on chaos theory and understand why perfectly equal ordered systems don't exist in reality. Everything is different and nonlinear down to the very atoms or bits of data they are made of. This is true in all systems, even perfectly linear ones, in both reality and in computer games...it doesn't matter....why? Because it's a feature of mathematics...not science. > > In simple terms, your algebra is complete nonsense, because Warrior does not equal guardian...am I being clear enough? The notation of "warrior" and "guardian" there is obviously representative of their strength. Oranges and apples are bought and sold with currency. If both are valued at 1$ I can write an equation that states Apple = Orange, where those terms are representations of their values. It is obviously not meant to imply that an apple is actually the same thing as an orange. I thought you were smarter than this? You're the one that invoked algebra. Now you're saying it's not possible to employ it in this scenario. Make up your mind.
  8. > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > > It's as relevant as anything you've brought in. > > Funny cause i actually remember that book. > > Look if you want to actually talk about diversity and balance, then you got to at least show me some shred of evidence that you know something about nonlinear dynamic systems, Thermodynamics, or Evolution...if you don't then you won't get past the first couple sentences...because surprise surprise, diversity is FROM the understanding of evolution, and "balance" comes from study of thermodynamics and complex chaotic systems. If you don't have at least a basic grasp of those things then you can't really talk about any of those subjects without being total nonsense derived from your experiences in gw2. Newsflash, just cause you play gw2 doesn't mean your actually able to talk coherently about diversity and balance. > Why do I have to prove anything to you? Shocker, but I'm not gonna post my CV here. You've provided no credentials either, just some claims that I take as seriously from someone on an internet forum as I take this: _"I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces."_
  9. Since you like algebra, here you go: Guardian = Warrior + 1 -> Guardian + 1 = Warrior + 2 Adding +1 to both sides results in no change to the relative strength of guard and warrior. Guardian = Warrior + 1 -> Guardian = Warrior To make guardian=warrior, we have to add +1 only to the right hand side, (or -1 to the left and shift if across). Which, of course, is not something you can do in an equation. However, GW2 is not an equation. It is perfectly within the devs power to +1 to warrior without also +1 to guardian.
  10. > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > > > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > > > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > > > Look buddy you can cop an attitude all you want, but you're stubbornness is not my problem. This is all stuff you can do research on and figure out on your ownbecause it's it's mathematics that you can learn online or in school. I'm doing you the favor of explaining it to you in simple terms so that you don't have to go and do years of research into diversity and complex systems which I've done. > > > > > > So ya, people like you that think you know it all and have it all figured out without going into the books and doing the work is your issue and I don't have to deal with that snarky-ness. > > > > > > > I don't have to deal with your inferiority complex. As I've said to you before, you aren't the only one capable of reading a book. > > lol and what book have you read exactly cause i think you should start with 101 Algebra The Hungry Caterpillar. It's as relevant as anything you've brought to this thread.
  11. > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > Look buddy you can cop an attitude all you want, but you're stubbornness is not my problem. This is all stuff you can do research on and figure out on your ownbecause it's it's mathematics that you can learn online or in school. I'm doing you the favor of explaining it to you in simple terms so that you don't have to go and do years of research into diversity and complex systems which I've done. > > So ya, people like you that think you know it all and have it all figured out without going into the books and doing the work is your issue and I don't have to deal with that snarky-ness. > I don't have to deal with your inferiority complex. As I've said to you before, you aren't the only one capable of reading a book.
  12. > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > Read my comment above, there's more that i added there. > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > I warned you that the topic on diversity goes deep i don't know if your exactly ready for that conversation. I'm so glad I read that. Really added alot. And FYI nothing you added in counters my following comment. A patronising tone doesn't substitute for content. You're not opening my 3rd eye here.
  13. > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > > If Guardian and Mesmer are +/- 5% strength of each other, that's a better scenario than if they're +/- 50% strength of each other. These are not equally good situations. > > if A and B are within 5% "Strength" of each other (where A is 5% stronger then B ), then they are closer to a perfectly balanced state then if A is 50% stronger then B to each other. This is correct. Both states of this system however are imbalanced, and this is what I said. It's either a perfectly balanced state, or it's not. Any player looking for optimal strategy will by default choose A in both scenarios, and even at .000001% strength, A will still be the most optimal choice until A becomes equal to B. This is why it's either perfect balance or failure, there's no middle ground, if the goal is to reach a perfectly balance state (through equality). > > > No, it is better, and it is acceptable. Many highly competitive fighting games with large rosters of characters have characters which are generally considered stronger or weaker. Provided that the difference between them is not *too* great, then player skill and other factors can over-ride the difference in pure character strength. You don't need to achieve absolute parity. You need the disparity to be small enough that other factors become more significant.
  14. > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > > Yes, you can achieve the same result by either buffing or nerfing, I've already agreed with that several times. > > > > But if mesmer < guardian currently, i.e. the game is not balanced, then you can either buff some of the numbers on mesmer, or nerf some of the numbers on guardian, to make mesmer = guardian. The fact that they are numerical changes does not make them meaningless. How is that so difficult to grasp? > > Great, this is better question. **Why exactly are numerical changes meaningless?** > > They are meaningless in the sense that all changes are the same as any other change you can make in the system, thus no change is more significant than any other change to the system as a whole. Like you said, you can either buff Mesmer, or nerf Guardian, by any set of operations with any scale and you'd still get the same result state of the balance in the system...it's either perfectly balanced, or it's not. If it's not perfectly balanced, then what is the point of that change if it wasn't to perfectly balance the game...then the end result is that any and all changes HAVE to be changes that make things equal (to set the state of the system to be equal) in order to be "balanced." This is a flawed procedure because if all things are equal, then there is no diversity in player choices. Yeah, no. If Guardian and Mesmer are +/- 5% strength of each other, that's a better scenario than if they're +/- 50% strength of each other. These are not equally good situations.
  15. > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said: > > @"Ragnar.4257" said: > > Buffing damage by 10%, yes, you CAN offset that by also buffing healing by 10%, but if you don't buff healing by 10% then you've not kept it equal. > > Exactly, you are not making the game equal therefor you are NOT balancing the game. What is so hard to understand about that? You are literally pushing numbers around and that is all it amounts to. > > >Just because you "could" have buffed healing by 10%, doesn't mean that buffing damage by 10% has a net-zero effect. It only has a net-zero effect if you actually DO buff healing by 10%. > > No that's exactly what happens. It's net zero. Buff damage by 10% or nerf healing by 10% gives you the same result. Nerfs and Buffs are cut from the same cloth, one gives you power creeping, the other gives you power dipping, and both give you a universal increase in power level, or a universal decrease in power level, which is NET ZERO. Yes, you can achieve the same result by either buffing or nerfing, I've already agreed with that several times. But if mesmer < guardian currently, i.e. the game is not balanced, then you can either buff some of the numbers on mesmer, or nerf some of the numbers on guardian, to make mesmer = guardian. The fact that they are numerical changes does not make them meaningless. If we go from a state of "mesmer
×
×
  • Create New...