Jump to content
  • Sign Up

PvP Fights Now Be Like:


Recommended Posts

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > Because that is the only scenario in what you're saying makes any sense. If it was perfectly balanced beforehand, then you're right. But, it wasn't, so what are you talking about?

>

> The entire point is to illustrate how in it's fundamentality, changes to a system, whether it's already balanced or not, does not lead to any meaningful changes. I could have given you an unbalanced system (Feel free to go and do that yourself)... there is no operation that makes that system balanced without universally effecting all things in that system. This is a consequence of trying to make things equal.

 

Here's an operation for you:

 

Prepatch:

 

Class A: 100 Dmg / 200 HP

Class B: 50 Dmg / 300 HP

 

Class A > Class B, everyone will pick Class A

 

Postpatch:

 

Class A: 100 Dmg / 200 HP

Class B: 50 Dmg / 400 HP

 

Class A = Class B, people will split across Classes A and B depending on their playstyle preference. Balance achieved, greater diversity achieved.

 

But I suppose this is all meaningless, and relativity, and systems, and I'm just not smart enough, etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > And I've already demonstrated multiple times in this thread how changing the numbers DOES lead to meaningful changes.

> >So, you're wrong.

>

> Demonstration? Where?

 

Here, I'll quote it, and leave it as the only other quote in this post, so you can't possibly miss it for the 4th time.

 

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> If it was changed that baseline HP was 1,000,000, suddenly the way everyone would play the game would be different, because there'd be no danger of getting 1-shot, and you could maybe accept face-tanking a big burst to achieve some wider strategic goal. People would change their playstyle to min-maxing damage/healing efficiency, because the game would change from being based on twitch reactions, to being about strategically managing resources and maximising efficiency. Your contention that tweaking numbers changes nothing is untrue.

>

> Likewise, if we consider the inverse, where all damage numbers are multiplied by 1000, and HP remains the same, again people would have to change how they play, because taking even 1 hit would be death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> Here's an operation for you:

>

> Prepatch:

>

> Class A: 100 Dmg / 200 HP

> Class B: 50 Dmg / 300 HP

>

> Class A > Class B

>

> Postpatch:

>

> Class A: 100 Dmg / 200 HP

> Class B: 50 Dmg / 400 HP

>

> Class A = Class B

 

Which is the same as just making Class A do 75 damage, which is also just the same as multiplying each number in the above example by an order of magnitude (x10). In both cases, the NERFS are just as "meaningful" as the BUFFS you add. Do you not understand this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > Here's an operation for you:

> >

> > Prepatch:

> >

> > Class A: 100 Dmg / 200 HP

> > Class B: 50 Dmg / 300 HP

> >

> > Class A > Class B

> >

> > Postpatch:

> >

> > Class A: 100 Dmg / 200 HP

> > Class B: 50 Dmg / 400 HP

> >

> > Class A = Class B

>

> Which is the same as just making Class A do 75 damage. In both cases, the NERF is just as meaningful as the buff you added. Do you not understand this?

 

Okay, yes, correct. But this scenario is about balancing, not about changing the pace/flow of the game. While the Feb 2020 patch was actually changing pace/flow, not balance..

 

I'm still waiting for you to address the 1,000,000 HP scenario I posted above. You're strangely quiet on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > Here's an operation for you:

> >

> > Prepatch:

> >

> > Class A: 100 Dmg / 200 HP

> > Class B: 50 Dmg / 300 HP

> >

> > Class A > Class B

> >

> > Postpatch:

> >

> > Class A: 100 Dmg / 200 HP

> > Class B: 50 Dmg / 400 HP

> >

> > Class A = Class B

>

> Which is the same as just making Class A do 75 damage, which is also just the same as multiplying each number in the above example by an order of magnitude (x10). In both cases, the NERFS are just as "meaningful" as the BUFFS you add. Do you not understand this?

 

Wait, hold on, hold on.......

 

You said:

 

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> I could have given you an unbalanced system (Feel free to go and do that yourself)... there is no operation that makes that system balanced without universally effecting all things in that system.

 

?????????????

 

I just made it balanced, without universally effecting all things in the system. You said feel free to go and do it myself, and I did.

 

And no the solution was not just the same as multiplying each number by 10. What are you talking about? The solution was to add 100 HP to only 1 of the 2 classes, and to leave the damage numbers unchanged.

 

You have to be trolling at this point, because there was nothing in that scenario that in any way was equivalent to multiplying all numbers by 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

>

> Okay, yes, correct. But this, is scenario is about balancing, not about changing the pace/flow of the game. Which is what the Feb 2020 patch was actually about.

>

> I'm still waiting for you to address the scenario I posted above. You're strangely quiet on that.

 

You're writing a bit too fast, and I'm trying to keep up with that here and address all your talking points.

 

As for this example here :

>If it was changed that baseline HP was 1,000,000, suddenly the way everyone would play the game would be different, because there'd be no danger of getting 1-shot, and you could maybe accept face-tanking a big burst to achieve some wider strategic goal. People would change their playstyle to min-maxing damage/healing efficiency, because the game would change from being based on twitch reactions, to being about strategically managing resources and maximising efficiency. Your contention that tweaking numbers changes nothing is untrue.

>Likewise, if we consider the inverse, where all damage numbers are multiplied by 1000, and HP remains the same, again people would have to change how they play, because taking even 1 hit would be death.

 

The above example is just a varied version of the examples we've been talking about. The numbers themselves are all relative, and thus, any change you make, say to give Class A 1,000,000 HP is going to shift the balance of the game to be bunker meta...because the barrier for entry for doing damage is now much higher. To deal with an enemy of a million health, requires an enemy that does some significant fraction of that health. Likewise the same happens in reverse with damage. You either get Power-Dips or Power-creeps, and we've been down this road in gw2 history. Either attempt to move numbers around just leads to the above scenarios because making things equal is in itself a fundamentally flawed procedure.

 

Now i don't talk about this here, but the logic goes further when we talk about the meaninglessness of buffs and nerfs, and how from that, build diversity comes into play. Imagine if in your previous example, you added Class C, D, E...etc. All numbers when comparing them can essentially be different but they all average to the mean number. The mean number at infinity "classes" is going to have both sides equal one another. In other words, having more builds, even with widely varying numbers will equalize. Again this is why @"Arheundel.6451" point about why diversity is so important and comes into play here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> >

> > Okay, yes, correct. But this, is scenario is about balancing, not about changing the pace/flow of the game. Which is what the Feb 2020 patch was actually about.

> >

> > I'm still waiting for you to address the scenario I posted above. You're strangely quiet on that.

>

> You're writing a bit too fast, and I'm trying to keep up with that here and address all your talking points.

>

> As for this example here :

> >If it was changed that baseline HP was 1,000,000, suddenly the way everyone would play the game would be different, because there'd be no danger of getting 1-shot, and you could maybe accept face-tanking a big burst to achieve some wider strategic goal. People would change their playstyle to min-maxing damage/healing efficiency, because the game would change from being based on twitch reactions, to being about strategically managing resources and maximising efficiency. Your contention that tweaking numbers changes nothing is untrue.

> >Likewise, if we consider the inverse, where all damage numbers are multiplied by 1000, and HP remains the same, again people would have to change how they play, because taking even 1 hit would be death.

>

> The above example is just a varied version of the examples we've been talking about. The numbers themselves are all relative, and thus, any change you make, say to give Class A 1,000,000 HP is going to shift the balance of the game to be bunker meta...because the barrier for entry for doing damage is now much higher. To deal with an enemy of a million health, requires an enemy that does some significant fraction of that health. Likewise the same happens in reverse with damage. You either get Power-Dips or Power-creeps, and we've been down this road in gw2 history. Either attempt to move numbers around just leads to the above scenarios because making things equal is in itself a fundamentally flawed procedure.

>

> Now i don't talk about this here, but the logic goes further when we talk about the meaninglessness of buffs and nerfs, and how from that, build diversity comes into play. Imagine if in your previous example, you added Class C, D, E...etc. All numbers when comparing them can essentially be different but they all average to the mean number. The mean number at infinity "classes" is going to have both sides equal one another. In other words, having more builds, even with widely varying numbers will equalize. Again this is why @"Arheundel.6451" point about why diversity is so important and comes into play here.

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaand, you're STILL talking about balance. Not about pace/flow. Which is what this is actually about.

 

The 1 million HP scenario is not just a "bunker meta". It would entirely change how you play the game on a fundamental level. A -5% damage modifier would have more impact than dodging even the biggest burst skill in the current game. If a power-rev jumps on you with Shiro, in the current game you have to be IMMEDIATELY popping defensive skills, kiting, etc, whereas in the 1m HP scenario you'd be able to calmly stand still, re-assess, set up some combo fields, wait for certain skills to come off cooldown, and plan out how to win this fight over the next 5 minutes.

 

Likewise, the 1000x damage scenario, wouldn't be "no meaningful change". It would mean that everyone would have to prioritise stealth, invulnerabilities, evades and blocks, and things like healing skills, damage modifiers, regeneration over time, would all become redundant.

 

"No meaningful change" he says. Really? Really?

 

This, in a smaller way, is what the Feb 2020 patch did. It was NOT a balance patch. What it did was increase the time from first-contact to death, which places less emphasis on twitch muscle-memory, and more emphasis on resource management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> And no the solution was not just the same as multiplying each number by 10. What are you talking about? The solution was to add 100 HP to only 1 of the 2 classes, and to leave the damage numbers unchanged.

 

Prepatch:

 

Class A: 1000 Dmg / 2000 HP

Class B: 500 Dmg / 3000 HP

 

Class A > Class B

 

Postpatch:

 

Class A: 1000 Dmg / 2000 HP

Class B: 500 Dmg / 4000 HP

 

Class A = Class B

 

^^^Multply everything by an order of magnitude, and the changes are relatively the same, just with bigger numbers.

 

> @"Ragnar.4257"

>>@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

>>I could have given you an unbalanced system (Feel free to go and do that yourself)... there is no operation that makes that system balanced without universally effecting >>all things in that system.

>?????????????

 

>I just made it balanced, without universally effecting all things in the system. You said feel free to go and do it myself, and I did.

 

It's just a mistype. What i meant to explain, was that there is no operation you can do in the system, that has any meaning* That the system is only balanced, when all things are universally equal. This is why buffs are just as "meaningful" as nerfs. Just like how Class A Class B, you can have any configuration of numbers, so long as they are equal the system is balance EI nerfs and buffs have the same effect, so long as the two sides are equal...anything less then equal is imbalanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > And no the solution was not just the same as multiplying each number by 10. What are you talking about? The solution was to add 100 HP to only 1 of the 2 classes, and to leave the damage numbers unchanged.

>

> Prepatch:

>

> Class A: 1000 Dmg / 2000 HP

> Class B: 500 Dmg / 3000 HP

>

> Class A > Class B

>

> Postpatch:

>

> Class A: 1000 Dmg / 2000 HP

> Class B: 500 Dmg / 4000 HP

>

> Class A = Class B

>

> ^^^Multply everything by an order of magnitude, and the changes are relatively the same, just with bigger numbers.

>

> > @"Ragnar.4257"

> >>@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

> >>I could have given you an unbalanced system (Feel free to go and do that yourself)... there is no operation that makes that system balanced without universally effecting >>all things in that system.

> >?????????????

>

> >I just made it balanced, without universally effecting all things in the system. You said feel free to go and do it myself, and I did.

>

> It's just a mistype. What i meant to explain, was that there is no operation you can do in the system, that has any meaning* That the system is only balanced, when all things are universally equal. This is why buffs are just as "meaningful" as nerfs. Just like how Class A Class B, you can have any configuration of numbers, so long as they are equal the system is balance EI nerfs and buffs have the same effect, so long as the two sides are equal...anything less then equal is imbalanced.

 

I'll say, yet again, that the solution I gave was not to multiply by 10. And neither, as it happens, is the solution you posted here. You did NOT multiply by 10. You added 1000HP to Class B while leaving Class A untouched. That is NOT a universal operation. You're just straight up lying at this point, and very poor lies because it's easily disprovable by reading up a few posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> Aaaaaaaaaaaand, you're STILL talking about balance. Not about pace/flow. Which is what this is actually about.

 

Pace and flow is exactly what changed, Balance is exactly what DIDNT change and that is what i said...you responded to what i said right? you kinda hijacked my point to make your own i suppose.

 

Pace and flow is nothing more then the result of Powerdip / Powercreep. You could have a slower pace by just reducing damage...or you can have a faster pace by reducing HP...none of the changes made in February actually mattered in the interest of balance at all...that's my point man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> I'll say, yet again, that the solution I gave was not to multiply by 10. And neither, as it happens, is the solution you posted here. You did NOT multiply by 10. You added 1000HP to Class B while leaving Class A untouched. That is NOT a universal operation. You're just straight up lying at this point, and very poor lies because it's easily disprovable by reading up a few posts.

 

Dude you are MISSING the point here...im saying it doesn't matter what operation you do...it is ALL THE SAME because it's relative, therefor no CHANGE has any fundamental meaning...You could pump an extra 3 0's to the end of every skill and HP, toughness, whatever into the game, and you will still have the same balance.

 

Want a real example? Look at WoW gear Treadmill reset after Pandara. Level 100 Gear had stats skyrocketing into the 10's of millions, and it completely invalidated gear that was 10 levels below them, because they were WAY below the barrier for entry. You could take a level 90, and solo ICC 10 man, and invalidate a level 80 40 man raids. this was a clear result of how Powercreep and Powerdip are relative, and it is the reason why they were able to just reset the gear stats on gear so that dungeons could no longer be completely irrelevant 10 level above you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > Aaaaaaaaaaaand, you're STILL talking about balance. Not about pace/flow. Which is what this is actually about.

>

> Pace and flow is exactly what changed, Balance is exactly what DIDNT change and that is what i said...you responded to what i said right? you kinda hijacked my point to make your own i suppose.

>

> Pace and flow is nothing more then the result of Powerdip / Powercreep. You could have a slower pace by just reducing damage...or you can have a faster pace by reducing HP...none of the changes made in February actually mattered in the interest of balance at all...that's my point man.

 

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> Number tweaking in the above manner is pointless because it doesn't change anything about the system in any meaningful sense.

 

My whole point has been that number tweaking can, actually, have a meaningful impact. It does not always result in no change.

 

As is proven by the Feb 2020 patch, which did have an impact on the flow of the game, by reducing damage while leaving HP static.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > I'll say, yet again, that the solution I gave was not to multiply by 10. And neither, as it happens, is the solution you posted here. You did NOT multiply by 10. You added 1000HP to Class B while leaving Class A untouched. That is NOT a universal operation. You're just straight up lying at this point, and very poor lies because it's easily disprovable by reading up a few posts.

>

> Dude you are MISSING the point here...im saying it doesn't matter what operation you do...it is ALL THE SAME because it's relative, therefor no CHANGE has any fundamental meaning...You could pump an extra 3 0's to the end of every skill and HP, toughness, whatever into the game, and you will still have the same balance.

>

> Want a real example? Look at WoW gear Treadmill reset after Pandara. Level 100 Gear had stats skyrocketing into the 10's of millions, and it completely invalidated gear that was 10 levels below them, because they were WAY below the barrier for entry. You could take a level 90, and solo ICC 10 man, and invalidate a level 80 40 man raids. this was a clear result of how Powercreep and Powerdip are relative, and it is the reason why they were able to just reset the gear stats on gear so that dungeons could no longer be completely irrelevant 10 level above you.

 

But you're talking about a universal multiplier applied to everything.

 

The scenario I posted was ONE change to ONE number. NOT universal. It was therefore NOT relative. NOTHING TO DO WITH ADDING EXTRA 0's ON THE END.

 

I fully accept that a scenario where you just multiply everything by 10 results in no meaningful change. But. That. Is. Not. What. I'm. Talking. About.

 

Jesus christ.

 

Here it is again:

 

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > > Because that is the only scenario in what you're saying makes any sense. If it was perfectly balanced beforehand, then you're right. But, it wasn't, so what are you talking about?

> >

> > The entire point is to illustrate how in it's fundamentality, changes to a system, whether it's already balanced or not, does not lead to any meaningful changes. I could have given you an unbalanced system (Feel free to go and do that yourself)... there is no operation that makes that system balanced without universally effecting all things in that system. This is a consequence of trying to make things equal.

>

> Here's an operation for you:

>

> Prepatch:

>

> Class A: 100 Dmg / 200 HP

> Class B: 50 Dmg / 300 HP

>

> Class A > Class B, everyone will pick Class A

>

> Postpatch:

>

> Class A: 100 Dmg / 200 HP

> Class B: 50 Dmg / 400 HP

>

> Class A = Class B, people will split across Classes A and B depending on their playstyle preference. Balance achieved, greater diversity achieved.

>

> But I suppose this is all meaningless, and relativity, and systems, and I'm just not smart enough, etc etc

 

The effect of my "patch" here is NOT multiplying by 10. No multipliers of any kind. It is ONLY to add 100 HP to class B. The HP of class A remains static, and all the damage numbers remain static. The balance does NOT remain all the same relatively. Class B has gained strength compared to Class A, NOT retained relative strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> But you're talking about a universal multiplier applied to everything.

>

> The scenario I posted was ONE change to ONE number. NOT universal. It was therefore NOT relative. NOTHING TO DO WITH ADDING EXTRA 0's ON THE END.

>

> Jesus christ.

 

The point is that it doesn't matter if you change one number, 10 numbers 100 numbers...what makes you think the rules change between 1 number and infinity numbers? Surprise, there is no change in the rules. You're not thinking with your logic cap on and your trying to reconcile that the February patch had anything meaningful, other then "upsetting the establishment" or whatever reason someone could explain any meaningful change between then and now. The only thing that "changed" was what builds we used...the number of meta builds didn't increase (it decreased actually) the player population went down, and a whole lot of off meta builds were gutted, and a few off meta builds saw some shine (and sometimes quickly nerfed again)

 

Here's another clue. There will always be a meta game in a game like gw2....there will always be some set of traits, abilities or whatever that is the most optimal set of choices, and the only day when there will be no metagame, is when all choices are simply the same choice...and it's because of the effect in trying to bring nerfs and buffs together to make things equal, which is fundamentally impossible to do, especially in a game like gw2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > But you're talking about a universal multiplier applied to everything.

> >

> > The scenario I posted was ONE change to ONE number. NOT universal. It was therefore NOT relative. NOTHING TO DO WITH ADDING EXTRA 0's ON THE END.

> >

> > Jesus christ.

>

> The point is that it doesn't matter if you change one number, 10 numbers 100 numbers...what makes you think the rules change between 1 number and infinity numbers? Surprise, there is no change in the rules. You're not thinking with your logic cap on and your trying to reconcile that the February patch had anything meaningful, other then "upsetting the establishment" or whatever reason someone could explain any meaningful change between then and now. The only thing that "changed" was what builds we used...the number of meta builds didn't increase (it decreased actually) the player population went down, and a whole lot of off meta builds were gutted, and a few off meta builds saw some shine (and sometimes quickly nerfed again)

>

> Here's another clue. There will always be a meta game in a game like gw2....there will always be some set of traits, abilities or whatever that is the most optimal set of choices, and the only day when there will be no metagame, is when all choices are simply the same choice...and it's because of the effect in trying to bring nerfs and buffs together to make things equal, which is fundamentally impossible to do, especially in a game like gw2.

 

??????

Of course it makes a difference if you're only changing 1 number vs All numbers. You yourself made that very point earlier in this thread. If you multiply every number by the same amount, then there is no change. But if you only change 1 number while leaving all other numbers the same, then that DOES result in a change. You're actually arguing against your own points, which makes me think you're just a contrarian who wants to disagree with whatever the last person said, not someone with an actual principled opinion.

 

And no, what you listed aren't the only things that changed.

 

The pace and flow of the game changed.

 

Also: "The only thing that "changed" was what builds we used" - you say that like it doesn't constitute a change at all. What?

 

"the number of meta builds didn't increase (it decreased actually)" - wrong, the diversity of builds being played now is much greater than a year ago.

 

And no, the fact that 100% balance is perhaps unachievable, does not mean that it is not worth taking steps in that direction. It only needs to reach a point where it is not super-obvious to everyone that there are 2-3 optimal builds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> Also: "The only thing that "changed" was what builds we used" - you say that like it doesn't constitute a change at all. What?

 

If we used builds A, B and C pre-February and now we use builds X, Y and Z, then qualitatively how is that meaningful? We used 3 builds then, we use 3 builds now...there is no meaning in that.

 

>"the number of meta builds didn't increase (it decreased actually)" - wrong, the diversity of builds being played now is much greater than a year ago.

Look this is something that is much more complicated to argue about. You are gonna say there is more, I'm gonna say there is less...there is no real way to measure build diversity before and build diversity after Feb patch in gw2. We could go back and forth on this but we won't get anywhere.

 

>Of course it makes a difference if you're only changing 1 number vs All numbers. You yourself made that very point earlier in this thread. If you multiply every number by the same amount, then there is no change. But if you only change 1 number while leaving all other numbers the same, then that DOES result in a change.

 

no there is no difference at all, that's what you need to understand. both operations are meaningless. 1 operation, 10 operations, 100 operations...they do not amount to any meaning in the balance of the system, because any nerf you do can be done with an equivalent buff somewhere else. It's when they aren't equivalent, when the system becomes imbalanced...and if you make a change that doesn't make it equivalent to something else, then what are you even doing other then purposefully imbalancing the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> no there is no difference at all, that's what you need to understand. both operations are meaningless. 1 operation, 10 operations, 100 operations...they do not amount to any meaning in the balance of the system, because any nerf you do can be done with an equivalent buff somewhere else. It's when they aren't equivalent, when the system becomes imbalanced...and if you make a change that isn't equivalent to something else, then what are you even doing other then purposefully imbalancing the game?

 

Exactly, we're NOT making a change that's equivalent to something else.

 

We're NOT buffing A by 100, and also buffing B by 100. We're ONLY buffing A by 100. So yes there is a difference.

 

Scenario 1:

Buff A by 100, Buff B by 100

 

Scenario 2:

 

Buff A by 100, leave B untouched.

 

You do accept that scenarios 1 and 2 are different, right? They are not equivalent. Scenario 2 does not result in "no meaningful change". If it were accompanied by some other change that offsets it, then sure. But that isn't what is being posited here.

 

Don't respond by modifying my Scenario 2 to something you've imagined, by imagining some previously un-mentioned other changes that offset the 100 buff to A. Address my actual scenario 2 here. The one I've actually posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just straight up philosophical nonsense.

 

You're actually saying that it is not possible to buff or nerf anything, and that regardless of any change you make all builds/classes remain the same relative to each other.

 

What. The. F.

 

So if we leave everything else unchanged, but give guardian 1 billion HP, that doesn't result in a change to the game's balance, everything is relatively the same. Okay mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> Exactly, we're NOT making a change that's equivalent to something else.

>

> We're NOT buffing A by 100, and also buffing B by 100. We're ONLY buffing A by 100. So yes there is a difference.

>

> Scenario 1:

> Buff A by 100, Buff B by 100

>

> Scenario 2:

>

> Buff A by 100, leave B untouched.

>

> You do accept that scenarios 1 and 2 are different, right?

 

zzz. Listen they are not different.

 

Player A has 90 damage,

Player B has 100 damage.

 

You can either +10 to Player A, or -10 to Player B, and the result is you get

 

Player A 90 / Player B 90

Player A 100/ Player B 100

 

No matter what operation, buffs or nerfs you do to make it equal, you are just moving the power level up or down universally. Doesn't matter if it's 10, 100, 1000... You are just MOVING the basic power level.

 

Any other operation that is not equivelent makes it imbalanced. If you add +11 to Player A and do nothing for player B (or whatever configuration of operations you desire) then the two will not be equal

 

Player A 101/ Player B 100

 

This is not philosophical, this is mathematics. There is LITERATLY no operation you can do to change the system in anyway to make it equal without it being equivelent (duhh right?), and if it's equivalent it is just moving the power level up or down universally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > Exactly, we're NOT making a change that's equivalent to something else.

> >

> > We're NOT buffing A by 100, and also buffing B by 100. We're ONLY buffing A by 100. So yes there is a difference.

> >

> > Scenario 1:

> > Buff A by 100, Buff B by 100

> >

> > Scenario 2:

> >

> > Buff A by 100, leave B untouched.

> >

> > You do accept that scenarios 1 and 2 are different, right?

>

> zzz. Listen they are not different.

 

Thanks for once again not addressing the scenario I posited, and making up one of your own.

 

Let me ask once again:

 

Scenario 1:

Buff A by 100, Buff B by 100

 

Scenario 2:

Buff A by 100, leave B untouched.

 

You're actually saying that Scenarios 1 & 2 are equivalent and indistinguishable?

 

I fully accept that +100 to A and -100 to B are equivalent and interchangeable. But that is not the scenario I am positing. Can you please address the scenario I am positing.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make it more real:

 

Scenario 1:

Buff Guardian HP by 10,000, Buff Warrior Damage by 10,000 (result is no change in relative strength)

 

Scenario 2:

Buff Guardian HP by 10,000, leave Warrior untouched (result is guardian becomes much stronger relative to warrior).

 

How can you possibly say that these 2 scenarios are equivalent and indistinguishable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> Let me ask once again:

>

> Scenario 1:

> Buff A by 100, Buff B by 100

>

> Scenario 2:

> Buff A by 100, leave B untouched.

>

> You're actually saying that Scenarios 1 & 2 are equivalent and indistinguishable?

 

Yes, they are equivalent because you could do the same thing by just nerfing the other by 100. If you make both A and B equal through your operation, you are just moving the basic (universal) power level, and any operation you could have chosen would suffice to do just that. if you are not making them equal then you are purposefully im-balancing the system.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > Let me ask once again:

> >

> > Scenario 1:

> > Buff A by 100, Buff B by 100

> >

> > Scenario 2:

> > Buff A by 100, leave B untouched.

> >

> > You're actually saying that Scenarios 1 & 2 are equivalent and indistinguishable?

>

> Yes, they are equivalent because you could do the same thing by just nerfing the other by 100. If you make both A and B equal through your operation, you are just moving the basic power level, and any operation could have sufficed to do just that. if you are not making them equal then you are purposefully im-balancing the system.

>

 

Okay guys, we've reached peak idiocy.

 

It's totally fine to give guardian +10k HP, because we COULD have added damage to Warrior, even though we didn't. But we COULD have done (but we didn't). Giving guardian +10k HP and giving warrior nothing in compensation, is totally fine, because it's all relative and systems and nothing matters and blabla.

 

Just..... lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...