PvP Fights Now Be Like:

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"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 (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.

>

 

This is exactly my point. We are NOT making them equal. YES I am purposefully im-balancing the system. YES.

 

However, that assumes that the system was balanced to begin with. You are assuming that A and B were equivalent before the operation. I am saying that they were not. If A is 10x stronger than B, then buffing B **and only B** by 10x is not making the system more im-balanced.... because it wasn't a balanced system to begin with.

[Ragnar.4257]

Let's imagine that there are only 2 classes, mesmer and guardian, each with only 1 build. And lets say that guardian is twice as strong as mesmer.

 

You're actually saying that there are no number tweaks you could possibly do to make them equal to each other, either by nerfing guardian or buffing mesmer.

 

Just..... what??

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> 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).

>

> Just..... lol.

> This is exactly my point. We are NOT making them equal. YES I am purposefully im-balancing the system. YES.

 

Yes in fact you could have just added HP and damage into the game and you'd still have the same state of the system as we have in the game now... Is that not obvious to you? Add a bunch of 0's to the end of each skill and attribute, or whatever operation. The overall state of the balance of the system doesn't change. Go a step further and realize that, even trying to QUANTIFY a system with as many parts as gw2, and see if it's even logical to assume one can even balance gw2 by trying to make things equal. Hint, it's impossible. To even attempt balancing a system to be equal actual means removing build diversity. That's why this argument exists at all, because mathematically, this is what happens. You can now understand the logic behind why buffs and nerfs when aiming for balance through equality lead to less build diversity and not more of it.

 

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> This is exactly my point. We are NOT making them equal. YES I am purposefully im-balancing the system. YES.

>

 

Right there you go...Now if you aren't making things equal then what are you trying to accomplish? Because surely it's not balance...and that is my point.

 

> However, that assumes that the system was balanced to begin with. If A is 10x stronger than B, then buffing B **and only B** by 10x is not making the system more im-balanced.... because it wasn't a balanced system to begin with.

 

Great Now you are starting to use your thinking cap.

 

But It doesn't assume that the system was balanced to begin with. You can take any state of any system and the same rules of math apply. The reason this happens is because it is a CONSEQUENCE of trying to make things in a system equal. If a system is already equal, then any change you introduce will purposefully imbalance the system, or raise or lower the universal power level if the changes you make are again, equivalent.

 

This idea of making things equal goes far beyond the scope of just gw2 and is just the tip of the iceberg....it's also the reason your struggling to grasp the concept because it seems intuitive to think of it the way you do, but it's wrong. These things go so deep into mathematics that you will find that it is these kinds of basic misunderstandings about equality that it is one of the main reasons why Newtonian physics had to be replaced with Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Yes it was as simple as the idea of how things in a system inherently can't be equal to one another.

 

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > 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).

> >

> > Just..... lol.

> > This is exactly my point. We are NOT making them equal. YES I am purposefully im-balancing the system. YES.

>

> Yes in fact you could have just added HP and damage into the game and you'd still have the same state of the system as we have in the game now... Is that not obvious to you? **Add a bunch of 0's to the end of each skill** and attribute, or whatever operation. The overall state of the balance of the system doesn't change.

 

Just stop. This is driving me insane.

 

You said add a bunch of 0's to the end of each skill. I've bolded it in the quote for you.Each skill. Each skill. As in, every single one. In that case, yes, you've not changed any balance. But that is not the scenario being discussed.

 

What if you only change one skill, and none of the others? How can you possibly say that that doesn't affect balance? If we leave every single thing the same EXCEPT changing 1 single skill, that single skill becomes stronger/weaker compared to the rest.

 

You keep talking about scenario's different to the one I've posited. Why don't you let me know when you're ready to actually address even a single one of the points I've made instead of making up points of your own to argue against.

 

For the millionth time, I am not positing a scenario where you universally adjust all attributes by the same amount. I am positing a scenario where you change ONLY ONE attribute, and leave everything else unchanged. I am also not positing a scenario where you offset that one changed attribute by an equal and opposite change on some other attribute. Once again, ONE change to ONE attribute.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> Let's imagine that there are only 2 classes, mesmer and guardian, each with only 1 build. And lets say that guardian is twice as strong as mesmer.

>

> You're actually saying that there are no number tweaks you could possibly do to make them equal to each other, either by nerfing guardian or buffing mesmer.

>

> Just..... what??

 

I'm saying that whatever nerf or buff you make to this system are meaningless. Because whatever Nerf you introduce you can instead give it an equivalent Buff to the other. Thus nerfs are no different then buffs. If you do make both of them equal (which realistically you can't without removing what makes both classes different) then you are just pushing the power level of both classes either up or down.

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > Let's imagine that there are only 2 classes, mesmer and guardian, each with only 1 build. And lets say that guardian is twice as strong as mesmer.

> >

> > You're actually saying that there are no number tweaks you could possibly do to make them equal to each other, either by nerfing guardian or buffing mesmer.

> >

> > Just..... what??

>

> I'm saying that whatever nerf or buff you make to this system are meaningless. Because whatever Nerf you introduce you can instead give it an equivalent Buff to the other. Thus nerfs are no different then buffs. If you do make both of them equal (which realistically you can't without removing what makes both classes different) then you are just pushing the power level of both classes either up or down.

 

Okay, so we can buff guardian forever, and leave mesmer where it is, and it doesn't matter. Okay, great. I'm sure the mesmers will be thrilled to hear it.

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > Let's imagine that there are only 2 classes, mesmer and guardian, each with only 1 build. And lets say that guardian is twice as strong as mesmer.

> >

> > You're actually saying that there are no number tweaks you could possibly do to make them equal to each other, either by nerfing guardian or buffing mesmer.

> >

> > Just..... what??

>

> I'm saying that whatever nerf or buff you make to this system are meaningless. Because whatever Nerf you introduce you can instead give it an equivalent Buff to the other. Thus nerfs are no different then buffs. If you do make both of them equal (which realistically you can't without removing what makes both classes different) then you are just pushing the power level of both classes either up or down.

 

The fact that you can achieve the same effect by either buffing A or nerfing B, doesn't change the fact that you can improve or reduce the balance of the game with numerical tweaks.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> You said add a bunch of 0's to the end of each skill. I've bolded it in the quote for you.Each skill. Each skill. As in, every single one. In that case, yes, you've not changed any balance. But that is not the scenario being discussed.

>

> What if you only change one skill, and none of the others?

> You keep talking about scenario's different to the one I've posited. Why don't you let me know when you're ready to actually address even a single one of the points I've made instead of making up points of your own to argue against.

 

Dude i keep saying this, you need to go back and just re-read what I keep saying because you clearly do not understand this basic math here.

 

Buffing ONE skill is just as meaningless of an operation as any other, because you can do the same inverse operation to SOMETHING ELSE and get the same result. If what you are doing makes the two things EQUAL then you could have made them equal at a lower power level or a higher one, and this is now relative to their HP, to their toughness, to their whatever attributes you can list in the game. If even one thing is not equal to everything else, you purposefully imbalance the system. Therefor balancing using nerfs and buffs to make things equal means nothing. Again even further you cant even make things equal without stripping the game of build diversity. That's the other half of the topic but you haven't even gotten past the first one.

 

> For the millionth time, I am not positing a scenario where you universally adjust all attributes by the same amount. I am positing a scenario where you change ONLY ONE attribute,

 

Again, read above, very slowly and use your thinking cap.

 

 

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"JusticeRetroHunter.7684" said:

> > @"Ragnar.4257" said:

> > You said add a bunch of 0's to the end of each skill. I've bolded it in the quote for you.Each skill. Each skill. As in, every single one. In that case, yes, you've not changed any balance. But that is not the scenario being discussed.

> >

> > What if you only change one skill, and none of the others?

> > You keep talking about scenario's different to the one I've posited. Why don't you let me know when you're ready to actually address even a single one of the points I've made instead of making up points of your own to argue against.

>

> Dude i keep saying this, you need to go back and just re-read what I keep saying because you clearly do not understand this basic math here.

>

> Buffing ONE skill does not matter, because you can do the same inverse operation to SOMETHING ELSE and get the same result. If what you are doing makes the two things EQUAL then you could have made them equal at a lower power level or a higher one, and this is now relative to their HP, to their toughness, to their whatever attributes you can list in the game. If even one thing is not equal to something else, you purposefully imbalance the system. Therefor balancing using nerfs and buffs to make things equal means nothing. Again even further you cant even make things equal without stripping the game of build diversity. That's the other half of the topic but you haven't even gotten past the first one.

>

> > For the millionth time, I am not positing a scenario where you universally adjust all attributes by the same amount. I am positing a scenario where you change ONLY ONE attribute,

>

> Again, read above, very slowly and use your thinking cap.

>

>

 

You keep saying "can do the same inverse operation to something else and get the same result". But in the scenario I am positing, you DON'T do that.

 

Having the possibility to do something, and actually doing something, are very different things.

 

Buffing guardian by 10%, yes, you CAN offset that by also buffing mesmer by 10%, but if you DON'T buff mesmer by 10% then you've not kept it equal. Just because you "could" have buffed mesmer by 10%, doesn't mean that buffing guardian by 10% has a net-zero effect. It only has a net-zero effect if you actually DO buff mesmer by 10%. The fact that the possibility of buffing mesmer by 10% theoretically exists, doesn't matter if you don't actually action it.

 

This is just such a stupid argument. I say "buffing guardian 10% has an effect", and you say "no, because you COULD also buff mesmer by 10%". But I didn't say also buff mesmer by 10%. I ONLY posited buffing guardian by 10%. The theoretical possibility of buffing mesmer has no impact on the game if it is not actioned.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"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 applying both give you a universal increase in power level, or a universal decrease in power level or no change in power level at all, which is NET ZERO. That's what it really means to make things equal to each other, both sides of an equation have to cancel out.

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"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

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"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.

 

Now we can move on to the other half of the conversation...which is about build diversity, and how it's an additional level of complexity that further tears apart the idea of balancing for equality.

 

The question : How do you get Mesmer equal to Guardian? What operations do you have to do to get them equal to one another. Do they have to do the same amount of auto-attack damage? Do they have to have the same range? Is 600 range more op then 300 range if this does X amount more damage then Y.

 

Every metric you adjust can be broken down into components similar to the first example proposed at the start of this conversation. You have a skill with some number of metrics, being weighed against some other skill or set of skills with some other number of metrics. If you want to make the two classes equal, start by making the metrics on these skills equal. Start making those things equal, and you quickly find yourself in the same situation as before. That any number you change on one skill can be done inversely on another, and at that point the amount of damage each skill actually does, doesn't matter. If you wanted them both to be equal, you'd give Skill A 100 damage, 300 range, 500 projectile speed, with 10 second cooldown, and Skill B 100 damage, 300 range, 500 projectile speed with a 10 second cooldown. Any change you make to any of these metrics, if they are not equivalent, result in an imbalance...and thus how do you reconcile two metrics that aren't alike in any way? Like Projectile speed and range. Does 100 projectile speed justify 100 more damage and 100 more range? You can go on and on and realize that in order for these two skills to even be balanced via equality, they need to be exactly the same across all of their metrics, otherwise it is just guessing between what one believes one metric is balanced to another.

 

This form of guessing is CURRENTLY how most games like gw2 balance their games when it comes to numerical changes. And there are all sorts of more and more clever ways to do this kind of thing. You're probably also familiar with DPS benchmarks. This is essentially what ANET looks at, as a general form of trying to see how different classes and builds do damage against a golem to see if they do the same DPS. If one build is "underperforming" they give it some more damage or whatever until they observe it doing the same benchmark damage as everything else. This is basically how sciences approach problems through repetitive experiment. Because of all the variables and differences between things in a system, one can only guess and estimate what things in that system are doing with a finite level of accuracy, and this accuracy is determined by repetitive observation and experiment. This applies to gw2's current balance regiment and many other games that test player choices.

 

So the point here is that this form of guessing is what current balance models are based on, because you simply can not make Class A equal to Class B, without them being the same class with the same skills and the same XYZ attributes. This is why Build Diversity comes into the fold here. If Class A and Class B were to be equal in everyway, they would HAVE to be the same in every way possible...again because it is impossible to make two things that are different equal to one another. One thing is always going to be stronger then another thing in one situation or another until all elements in the system become equal to one another, and when those elements are equal, they are just the same class, with the same skills with the same metrics.

 

Diversity itself as a topic is a huge can of worms, that goes into why nerfs generally are worse then buffs, which i briefly allude to in one of my first comments here about barrier for entry for build variety. Diversity is a very complex topic and it's intricately connected to balance...in many ways they are one in the same thing. In fact the many reasons you are misunderstanding the key concept of balance for equality is because diversity is literally the other half of that concept that is required to understand why the two are both the same and also incompatible (They have what's called [complementarity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)))

 

 

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"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.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"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).

 

It's like looking at the difference between an attack that does 9 damage and an attack that does 10 damage. You're always gonna pick the attack that does 10 damage. You're always gonna pick the class that does 10 damage over the class does 9 damage. The differential between what players will choose to play, is always going to be down the path of most optimal usage of what they have available to them...Whether that's 5% or 50% doesn't actually matter until we look at how these paths of optimality are spread out between richer and richer variety of choices. If something does 50% damage but punishes you by taking away 50% of your health, is that a better attack then something that does X damage from 600 range and is a slow projectile. The question of whether it's stronger or not becomes harder to solve. This is one of the key components of what diversity really establishes. It's the differences between the two attacks that make it harder to quantify if the two skills are actually imbalanced or not.

 

I warned you that the topic on diversity goes deep i don't know if your exactly ready for that conversation.

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"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.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"Ragnar.4257" said:

 

Read my comment above, there's more that i added there.

 

 

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"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.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"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.

 

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"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.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"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

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"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.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"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.

 

[Ragnar.4257]

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.

[Ragnar.4257]

> @"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."_

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

> @"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?