Guild Wars 2

IndigoSundown.5419:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

I’ve shown examples above about how there can be two equally good solutions. Can you please refute those examples?

The fewer the variables in any comparison, the more likely it is that you might find parity between options. The more variables you introduce, the more likely it is that one option will be better. Within the very narrow range of your example, your premise cannot be refuted. However, the premise is of limited use in the discussion.

Might it be possible to have as many variables as one finds in a five-player MMO grouping and still have two equally good options? Theoretically possible, sure. Realistic, not so much. Given the amount of skull and spreadsheet work to arrive at two such equal options when proponents of all of the other myriad options will still kvetch, not worth the effort.

I agree.

spoj.9672:

@Azhure

You have a logic deficiency if you believe there can be multiple equally optimal solutions to a problem. Ill assume this is just down to being blinded by fantasy. So dont take offense.

There can be multiple solutions. But they cannot be equal. One will always be superior in some aspects such as speed. Whereas others will be superior in aspects such as safety or consistency.

So to answer you. Yes what you want is just a dream and it will remain that way. Because it is logically impossible to realise your desire.

Quoted for truth.

Azhure.1857:

@ spoj
“Logic deficiency”. Insulting me is completely unnecessary.

He is right. The definition of optimal outright exclude your wishes. Grow up if you take this as an insult.

You only bring as much defenses as is necessary and then you load up on as much damage as possible. This will always be true if the way you defeat an encounter is to reduce its health to 0 via dealing damage. Dealing more damage will always be the optimal solution.

There are two types of damage in this game: Direct damage, and condition damage. No matter what the “meta” is, one of those two will be optimal. Even if direct damage and condition damage were somehow equalized, some professions would be more optimal as direct damage and others as condition damage.

And there will always be an optimal solution to any problem.

Nokaru.7831:

And there will always be an optimal solution to any problem.

No.

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Just to play devil’s advocate:

What if you had a boss with 4 hp and a party size of two.

Say the two highest damage dealers are Class X, and Class X has a fire attack that deals 2 damage and a water attack that deals 2 damage, everything else being the same.

So there are a few equally good ways to kill the boss. Class X1 can use fire while Class X2 can use water, or both can use fire or both can use water.

Good class design is all about trade-offs. There is the basic dps/suvivability trade-off. There is also the direct damage/damage over time trade-off. Arguments can be made for differing classes in team composition as they may bring unique utility. The broader topic implied in the thread, however, is more about sustained DPS (given the ability to stay alive). Whenever someone considers DPS, say, in raid parses it is largely around sustained damage; i.e., how much did this character contribute to achieving the goal, which is always about depleting an enemies HP before they deplete yours.

I believe the zerker meta has to do with sustained damage (while staying alive) and that damage can be determined by math. No gimmicky scenario is going to change this reality.

I understand what you’re getting at, and I agree that in a complex game like this with trade-offs there is an optimal way to do things. But, and this is more aimed at the conversation Spoj was having, I don’t think there HAS to be an optimal way.

Perhaps a better example demonstrative of more tradeoffs:

Same situation as before, Class X can do 2 dps with fire or water and the Boss has 4 health and you get 2 party members. But now, what if Class Y can use a skill that causes Class X to do 2x dps?

So now you can bring 2x Class X to do 2 dps each for a total of 4, OR you can bring Class X and Class Y, and use Class Y’s support skill to allow Class X to do 4 dps.

In both scenarios the situation is the same: 4 dps, and yet the mechanism by which this was accomplished varies. So here there would be no optimal solution, but rather a variety of equally good solutions.

Well as spoj will undoubtedly be happy to tell you, there will be an optimal solution by definition. So, by definition, there HAS has to be one optimal way to achieve a given goal, let’s say max DPS.

And, this optimal solution is a function of game design. Players will discover what works best and they will practice it. And, in terms of the current conversation, you will not obtain zerker results without wearing zerker gear.

Bottom line, games always work this way. Check out worldofwargraphs.com and take a look at what builds the top PvE players in the world (WoW) are running. They are all virtually the same except for utilities. There will always be a best way to build a character. Players will discover it, and there will be a shared ‘meta’.

That’s not the argument Spoj was making, I don’t think. Spoj was saying the word “optimal” means there will only be 1. He’s right. If an optimal solution exists, there will only be 1 because optimal means 1. But I didn’t see him make the argument that an “optimal” solution always exists. It doesn’t.

Edit: I’m mistaking arguments here. Harper was the one who said “optimal” only means one. He’s right. You and Spoj and wrong I think.

Can you point to a propositional statement of mine that is wrong?

Yes. “There will be an optimal solution by definition.” I think that should read:

If an optimal solution exists, the solution will be singular by definition.

Those two things say the SAME THING.

You want to know why? Because there is optimal solution for EVERYTHING

Yep, the problem for Nevets is that optimal is understood by definition. You either know the definition or you don’t. You can say the same thing two ways by tautology, but changing the meaning is really not an option. I therefore take it that Nevets couldn’t find anything wrong with what I said.

Raine.1394:

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Just to play devil’s advocate:

What if you had a boss with 4 hp and a party size of two.

Say the two highest damage dealers are Class X, and Class X has a fire attack that deals 2 damage and a water attack that deals 2 damage, everything else being the same.

So there are a few equally good ways to kill the boss. Class X1 can use fire while Class X2 can use water, or both can use fire or both can use water.

Good class design is all about trade-offs. There is the basic dps/suvivability trade-off. There is also the direct damage/damage over time trade-off. Arguments can be made for differing classes in team composition as they may bring unique utility. The broader topic implied in the thread, however, is more about sustained DPS (given the ability to stay alive). Whenever someone considers DPS, say, in raid parses it is largely around sustained damage; i.e., how much did this character contribute to achieving the goal, which is always about depleting an enemies HP before they deplete yours.

I believe the zerker meta has to do with sustained damage (while staying alive) and that damage can be determined by math. No gimmicky scenario is going to change this reality.

I understand what you’re getting at, and I agree that in a complex game like this with trade-offs there is an optimal way to do things. But, and this is more aimed at the conversation Spoj was having, I don’t think there HAS to be an optimal way.

Perhaps a better example demonstrative of more tradeoffs:

Same situation as before, Class X can do 2 dps with fire or water and the Boss has 4 health and you get 2 party members. But now, what if Class Y can use a skill that causes Class X to do 2x dps?

So now you can bring 2x Class X to do 2 dps each for a total of 4, OR you can bring Class X and Class Y, and use Class Y’s support skill to allow Class X to do 4 dps.

In both scenarios the situation is the same: 4 dps, and yet the mechanism by which this was accomplished varies. So here there would be no optimal solution, but rather a variety of equally good solutions.

Well as spoj will undoubtedly be happy to tell you, there will be an optimal solution by definition. So, by definition, there HAS has to be one optimal way to achieve a given goal, let’s say max DPS.

And, this optimal solution is a function of game design. Players will discover what works best and they will practice it. And, in terms of the current conversation, you will not obtain zerker results without wearing zerker gear.

Bottom line, games always work this way. Check out worldofwargraphs.com and take a look at what builds the top PvE players in the world (WoW) are running. They are all virtually the same except for utilities. There will always be a best way to build a character. Players will discover it, and there will be a shared ‘meta’.

That’s not the argument Spoj was making, I don’t think. Spoj was saying the word “optimal” means there will only be 1. He’s right. If an optimal solution exists, there will only be 1 because optimal means 1. But I didn’t see him make the argument that an “optimal” solution always exists. It doesn’t.

Edit: I’m mistaking arguments here. Harper was the one who said “optimal” only means one. He’s right. You and Spoj and wrong I think.

Can you point to a propositional statement of mine that is wrong?

Yes. “There will be an optimal solution by definition.” I think that should read:

If an optimal solution exists, the solution will be singular by definition.

Those two things say the SAME THING.

You want to know why? Because there is optimal solution for EVERYTHING

Yep, the problem for Nevets is that optimal is understood by definition. You either know the definition or you don’t. You can say the same thing two ways by tautology, but changing the meaning is really not an option.

A problem does not always have an optimal solution. You are wrong.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Just to play devil’s advocate:

What if you had a boss with 4 hp and a party size of two.

Say the two highest damage dealers are Class X, and Class X has a fire attack that deals 2 damage and a water attack that deals 2 damage, everything else being the same.

So there are a few equally good ways to kill the boss. Class X1 can use fire while Class X2 can use water, or both can use fire or both can use water.

Good class design is all about trade-offs. There is the basic dps/suvivability trade-off. There is also the direct damage/damage over time trade-off. Arguments can be made for differing classes in team composition as they may bring unique utility. The broader topic implied in the thread, however, is more about sustained DPS (given the ability to stay alive). Whenever someone considers DPS, say, in raid parses it is largely around sustained damage; i.e., how much did this character contribute to achieving the goal, which is always about depleting an enemies HP before they deplete yours.

I believe the zerker meta has to do with sustained damage (while staying alive) and that damage can be determined by math. No gimmicky scenario is going to change this reality.

I understand what you’re getting at, and I agree that in a complex game like this with trade-offs there is an optimal way to do things. But, and this is more aimed at the conversation Spoj was having, I don’t think there HAS to be an optimal way.

Perhaps a better example demonstrative of more tradeoffs:

Same situation as before, Class X can do 2 dps with fire or water and the Boss has 4 health and you get 2 party members. But now, what if Class Y can use a skill that causes Class X to do 2x dps?

So now you can bring 2x Class X to do 2 dps each for a total of 4, OR you can bring Class X and Class Y, and use Class Y’s support skill to allow Class X to do 4 dps.

In both scenarios the situation is the same: 4 dps, and yet the mechanism by which this was accomplished varies. So here there would be no optimal solution, but rather a variety of equally good solutions.

Well as spoj will undoubtedly be happy to tell you, there will be an optimal solution by definition. So, by definition, there HAS has to be one optimal way to achieve a given goal, let’s say max DPS.

And, this optimal solution is a function of game design. Players will discover what works best and they will practice it. And, in terms of the current conversation, you will not obtain zerker results without wearing zerker gear.

Bottom line, games always work this way. Check out worldofwargraphs.com and take a look at what builds the top PvE players in the world (WoW) are running. They are all virtually the same except for utilities. There will always be a best way to build a character. Players will discover it, and there will be a shared ‘meta’.

That’s not the argument Spoj was making, I don’t think. Spoj was saying the word “optimal” means there will only be 1. He’s right. If an optimal solution exists, there will only be 1 because optimal means 1. But I didn’t see him make the argument that an “optimal” solution always exists. It doesn’t.

Edit: I’m mistaking arguments here. Harper was the one who said “optimal” only means one. He’s right. You and Spoj and wrong I think.

Can you point to a propositional statement of mine that is wrong?

Yes. “There will be an optimal solution by definition.” I think that should read:

If an optimal solution exists, the solution will be singular by definition.

Those two things say the SAME THING.

You want to know why? Because there is optimal solution for EVERYTHING

Yep, the problem for Nevets is that optimal is understood by definition. You either know the definition or you don’t. You can say the same thing two ways by tautology, but changing the meaning is really not an option.

A problem does not always have an optimal solution. You are wrong.

No my friend you are wrong. Again, you would have to understand the definition to know this, but here it is for you:

op·ti·mal
?äpt?m?l
adjective
best or most favorable; optimum.

Of problems such as are considered in this thread, every problem has an optimal solution. That doesn’t mean that it is the ‘true’ for all time solution, simply the best known at the present time. It is the best or most favored solution of which we are aware. It is the optimal solution. In the current context that would be zerker for most purposes.

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Just to play devil’s advocate:

What if you had a boss with 4 hp and a party size of two.

Say the two highest damage dealers are Class X, and Class X has a fire attack that deals 2 damage and a water attack that deals 2 damage, everything else being the same.

So there are a few equally good ways to kill the boss. Class X1 can use fire while Class X2 can use water, or both can use fire or both can use water.

Good class design is all about trade-offs. There is the basic dps/suvivability trade-off. There is also the direct damage/damage over time trade-off. Arguments can be made for differing classes in team composition as they may bring unique utility. The broader topic implied in the thread, however, is more about sustained DPS (given the ability to stay alive). Whenever someone considers DPS, say, in raid parses it is largely around sustained damage; i.e., how much did this character contribute to achieving the goal, which is always about depleting an enemies HP before they deplete yours.

I believe the zerker meta has to do with sustained damage (while staying alive) and that damage can be determined by math. No gimmicky scenario is going to change this reality.

I understand what you’re getting at, and I agree that in a complex game like this with trade-offs there is an optimal way to do things. But, and this is more aimed at the conversation Spoj was having, I don’t think there HAS to be an optimal way.

Perhaps a better example demonstrative of more tradeoffs:

Same situation as before, Class X can do 2 dps with fire or water and the Boss has 4 health and you get 2 party members. But now, what if Class Y can use a skill that causes Class X to do 2x dps?

So now you can bring 2x Class X to do 2 dps each for a total of 4, OR you can bring Class X and Class Y, and use Class Y’s support skill to allow Class X to do 4 dps.

In both scenarios the situation is the same: 4 dps, and yet the mechanism by which this was accomplished varies. So here there would be no optimal solution, but rather a variety of equally good solutions.

Well as spoj will undoubtedly be happy to tell you, there will be an optimal solution by definition. So, by definition, there HAS has to be one optimal way to achieve a given goal, let’s say max DPS.

And, this optimal solution is a function of game design. Players will discover what works best and they will practice it. And, in terms of the current conversation, you will not obtain zerker results without wearing zerker gear.

Bottom line, games always work this way. Check out worldofwargraphs.com and take a look at what builds the top PvE players in the world (WoW) are running. They are all virtually the same except for utilities. There will always be a best way to build a character. Players will discover it, and there will be a shared ‘meta’.

That’s not the argument Spoj was making, I don’t think. Spoj was saying the word “optimal” means there will only be 1. He’s right. If an optimal solution exists, there will only be 1 because optimal means 1. But I didn’t see him make the argument that an “optimal” solution always exists. It doesn’t.

Edit: I’m mistaking arguments here. Harper was the one who said “optimal” only means one. He’s right. You and Spoj and wrong I think.

Can you point to a propositional statement of mine that is wrong?

Yes. “There will be an optimal solution by definition.” I think that should read:

If an optimal solution exists, the solution will be singular by definition.

Those two things say the SAME THING.

You want to know why? Because there is optimal solution for EVERYTHING

Yep, the problem for Nevets is that optimal is understood by definition. You either know the definition or you don’t. You can say the same thing two ways by tautology, but changing the meaning is really not an option.

A problem does not always have an optimal solution. You are wrong.

No my friend you are wrong. Again, you would have to understand the definition to know this, but here it is for you:

op·ti·mal
?äpt?m?l
adjective
best or most favorable; optimum.

Every considered problem has an optimal solution. That doesn’t mean that it is the ‘true’ solution, simply the best known at the time. It is the optimal solution. In the current context that would be zerker for most purposes.

Solve this problem, “friend:”

x^2=4

I’m totally with you Nevets, I think you summed up what i was trying to say earlier very well too.

The only example I have from a game though is back in EQ we had a few discussions and a ton of parsing to find some options were within the margin of error of our testing (we had very nasty math in that game so all testing was done through parsing… and extensive parsing, 6hours minimum to be considered valid and even then there were variances, the error I was referring to).

I’d argue that there are optimal setups, of course there are going to be things better than others, but it doesn’t have to be one, it could be multiple, likely, no, but possible.

I’d add to that, what’s the point of that discussion? How often are people running optimal? Does everyone run 2 mesmer 2 ele 1 war in SEp1 now that they set the record with that? I doubt it.

Now of course everything is going to be glass gear, because the content allows it, but there is diversity and min/maxing in this game through the other aspects. I think it’s a far more fruitful and entertaining discussion to try and min/max for given situations. Learning tradeoffs and making those decisions to best accomplish a goal is what’s fun.

There are enough intangible variables in the game that arguing about on paper optimization just seems silly to me. And blinding yourself to alternate options just because someone sets a new bar also seems silly.

Props again to all 3 of those teams in the recent SEp1 race, they demonstrated the diversity of the game pretty well as far as I’m concerned. 3 different compositions all racing for the best time and it was a pretty tight race.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

-snipped for length-

Solve this problem, “friend:”

x^2=4

That’s a mathematical equation. There is no optimal answer to a mathematical equation. Optimal means there are sub-optimal options. Mathematical equations do not have sub-optimal solutions.

Find an example of a game rated T or above where there is no optimal set of conditions. Then come back to us and present your case.

Until then, you’re just proving that you fail to grasp the fact that there will always be an optimal build for every situation.

Jerus.4350:

I’m totally with you Nevets, I think you summed up what i was trying to say earlier very well too.

The only example I have from a game though is back in EQ we had a few discussions and a ton of parsing to find some options were within the margin of error of our testing (we had very nasty math in that game so all testing was done through parsing… and extensive parsing, 6hours minimum to be considered valid and even then there were variances, the error I was referring to).

I’d argue that there are optimal setups, of course there are going to be things better than others, but it doesn’t have to be one, it could be multiple, likely, no, but possible.

I’d add to that, what’s the point of that discussion? How often are people running optimal? Does everyone run 2 mesmer 2 ele 1 war in SEp1 now that they set the record with that? I doubt it.

Now of course everything is going to be glass gear, because the content allows it, but there is diversity and min/maxing in this game through the other aspects. I think it’s a far more fruitful and entertaining discussion to try and min/max for given situations. Learning tradeoffs and making those decisions to best accomplish a goal is what’s fun.

There are enough intangible variables in the game that arguing about on paper optimization just seems silly to me. And blinding yourself to alternate options just because someone sets a new bar also seems silly.

Props again to all 3 of those teams in the recent SEp1 race, they demonstrated the diversity of the game pretty well as far as I’m concerned. 3 different compositions all racing for the best time and it was a pretty tight race.

Your bringing up that not all dungeons use the same build set up as the record breaker does not invalidate that they likely had the most optimal set up discovered.

Just because there is the most perfect optimal set up does not mean that players are required to use it. There are sub-optimal builds that are perfectly capable of completing the content. Some more optimal than others.

And I would bet that a good portion of what made them have the best record comes down to luck and skill rather than their just their build set. Meaning it would take them specifically to reach the optimal conditions because no one else will have the same ratio of skill levels present. Of course luck is in a perpetual state of change so no one ever always runs at the most optimal conditions. Something always is against the optimal most times.

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

-snipped for length-

Solve this problem, “friend:”

x^2=4

That’s a mathematical equation. There is no optimal answer to a mathematical equation. Optimal means there are sub-optimal options. Mathematical equations do not have sub-optimal solutions.

Find an example of a game rated T or above where there is no optimal set of conditions. Then come back to us and present your case.

Until then, you’re just proving that you fail to grasp the fact that there will always be an optimal build for every situation.

I’m pretty sure the definition of an optimal solution doesn’t mention T-rated games in any way.

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

-snipped for length-

Solve this problem, “friend:”

x^2=4

That’s a mathematical equation. There is no optimal answer to a mathematical equation. Optimal means there are sub-optimal options. Mathematical equations do not have sub-optimal solutions.

Find an example of a game rated T or above where there is no optimal set of conditions. Then come back to us and present your case.

Until then, you’re just proving that you fail to grasp the fact that there will always be an optimal build for every situation.

Quoted for truth. Equations may be true or false for differing values. They are true under certain conditions. They have absolutely nothing to do with the word under consideration, optimal. This is simply misunderstanding made manifest.

Wethospu.6437:

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

-snipped for length-

Solve this problem, “friend:”

x^2=4

That’s a mathematical equation. There is no optimal answer to a mathematical equation. Optimal means there are sub-optimal options. Mathematical equations do not have sub-optimal solutions.

Find an example of a game rated T or above where there is no optimal set of conditions. Then come back to us and present your case.

Until then, you’re just proving that you fail to grasp the fact that there will always be an optimal build for every situation.

I’m pretty sure definition of a optimal solution doesn’t mention T-rated games in any way.

No, but he’s trying to use things that aren’t even relevant to prove his point. So I’m giving him a specific area to look in to find an example to support his claim. Because he apparently doesn’t get the concept of optimal.

Jerus.4350:

Like the idea of having less dodges unless you gear into Vitality.

The thing I don’t get, when this is suggested is: why would I need Vitality if I have more dodges? And thus it becomes a worthless stat in itself.

Wethospu.6437:

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

-snipped for length-

Solve this problem, “friend:”

x^2=4

That’s a mathematical equation. There is no optimal answer to a mathematical equation. Optimal means there are sub-optimal options. Mathematical equations do not have sub-optimal solutions.

Find an example of a game rated T or above where there is no optimal set of conditions. Then come back to us and present your case.

Until then, you’re just proving that you fail to grasp the fact that there will always be an optimal build for every situation.

I’m pretty sure the definition of an optimal solution doesn’t mention T-rated games in any way.

Certainly can’t fault the statement in any way. But, it is a non sequitur in terms of the current discussion. Did you intend to contribute to the discussion?

I think recent developments prove your assertion incorrect. Teams don’t necessarily have the most optimal setup discovered.

Back during FGS era everyone did that, now we’re finding people are going even faster now that they have looked at simply killing bosses where they stand.

Getting caught up with the bar of “optimal” that someone sets has blinded people to the fact that there are other options. 2 teams went back and forth with 3ele1mes1war then both got beat when a team decided to go with 2 mesmers.

And I still agree with Nevets, as far as I’m concerned 1+3 = 4 and 2+2 = 4 is enough proof to me to say that optimal doesn’t necessarily have to have one option, is it likely to have 2, maybe not, but it isn’t out of the question.

And again, I’ll say that I did run across a few debates in EQ where things were so close that they were within the margin of error in our tests, maybe one was optimal but we’d never know which…

@Cheezy, first not suggesting that at all, I think it’s a terrible idea, but the idea is that we’d have say 1.5 dodges without any gear on, but with enough vit we could raise it to say 2.5 dodges in our bar. If we felt we needed at least 2 dodges worth in our bar at any time then we’d actually value vitality, not for it’s current HP giving attribute but just for the dodges. It’d give an actual reason to get vit because as we all know active defense in it’s current state renders Vit and Toughness basically irrelevant in PVE. The idea is to make other gear give us things we actually value instead of being unused stats.

Optimal doesn’t actually mean anything. First you have to define what is considered optimal.

I can define that a solution for a set of equations is optimal when a maximum amount of equations are true.

For equations

• x^2 = 4
• x^4 = 16
• x =1

values 2 and -2 would be optimal.

For equation(s)

• x^2 = 4

values 2 and -2 would be optimal.

I could also define that a solution is optimal when equations are false.

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

I’m pretty sure the definition of an optimal solution doesn’t mention T-rated games in any way.

Certainly can’t fault the statement in any way. But, it is a non sequitur in terms of the current discussion. Did you intend to contribute to the discussion?

I will let you guys go when you stop hurting my maths.

Jerus.4350:

I think recent developments prove your assertion incorrect. Teams don’t necessarily have the most optimal setup discovered.

Back during FGS era everyone did that, now we’re finding people are going even faster now that they have looked at simply killing bosses where they stand.

Getting caught up with the bar of “optimal” that someone sets has blinded people to the fact that there are other options. 2 teams went back and forth with 3ele1mes1war then both got beat when a team decided to go with 2 mesmers.

And I still agree with Nevets, as far as I’m concerned 1+3 = 4 and 2+2 = 4 is enough proof to me to say that optimal doesn’t necessarily have to have one option, is it likely to have 2, maybe not, but it isn’t out of the question.

And again, I’ll say that I did run across a few debates in EQ where things were so close that they were within the margin of error in our tests, maybe one was optimal but we’d never know which…

@Cheezy, first not suggesting that at all, I think it’s a terrible idea, but the idea is that we’d have say 1.5 dodges without any gear on, but with enough vit we could raise it to say 2.5 dodges in our bar. If we felt we needed at least 2 dodges worth in our bar at any time then we’d actually value vitality, not for it’s current HP giving attribute but just for the dodges. It’d give an actual reason to get vit because as we all know active defense in it’s current state renders Vit and Toughness basically irrelevant in PVE. The idea is to make other gear give us things we actually value instead of being unused stats.

Being blinded by getting caught up with what is optimal is nonsense. It is the nature of humans to notice what is optimal and adjust behavior according to it. It has nothing to do with truth and it is free to change over time. The team composition that changes over time has to do with what is perceived as optimal—it doesn’t suggest that sub-optimal choices are now ruling the day.

Wethospu.6437:

Optimal doesn’t actually mean anything. First you have to define what is considered optimal.

I can define that a solution for a set of equations is optimal when a maximum amount of equations are true.

For equations

• x^2 = 4
• x^4 = 16
  *x =1

values 2 and -2 would be optimal.

For equation(s)

• x^2 = 4

values 2 and -2 would be optimal.

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

I’m pretty sure the definition of an optimal solution doesn’t mention T-rated games in any way.

Certainly can’t fault the statement in any way. But, it is a non sequitur in terms of the current discussion. Did you intend to contribute to the discussion?

I will let you guys go when you stop hurting my maths.

You misunderstand the definition of optimal…hugely. I’ll give a handy one again:

op·ti·mal
?äpt?m?l
adjective
best or most favorable; optimum.

There is no relation whatsover with mathematical equations. There isn’t an optimal solution to an equation, there are simply true and false solutions. Suggesting that it does is simply to misunderstand mathematics…as well as the definition of optimal. You don’t talk about optimal solutions to equations.

Those are the best solutions (in other words, the best set of solutions). Any other set of solutions would be worse. True is better than false.

I just talked about optimal solutions to equations so that proves your last statement wrong.

Low-brow mouth breathers on this forum keep trying to claim that all problems have an optimal (singular by definition) solution. It’s simply not true. I’ve provided theoretical examples on how it could be done in video games, and I’ve provided examples in math. If a problem has two solutions that are equally valid, an optimal solution does not, by definition, exist. Evolve more before you try to out logic me again please. K thx.

Jerus.4350:

I think recent developments prove your assertion incorrect. Teams don’t necessarily have the most optimal setup discovered.

Back during FGS era everyone did that, now we’re finding people are going even faster now that they have looked at simply killing bosses where they stand.

Getting caught up with the bar of “optimal” that someone sets has blinded people to the fact that there are other options. 2 teams went back and forth with 3ele1mes1war then both got beat when a team decided to go with 2 mesmers.

And I still agree with Nevets, as far as I’m concerned 1+3 = 4 and 2+2 = 4 is enough proof to me to say that optimal doesn’t necessarily have to have one option, is it likely to have 2, maybe not, but it isn’t out of the question.

And again, I’ll say that I did run across a few debates in EQ where things were so close that they were within the margin of error in our tests, maybe one was optimal but we’d never know which…

@Cheezy, first not suggesting that at all, I think it’s a terrible idea, but the idea is that we’d have say 1.5 dodges without any gear on, but with enough vit we could raise it to say 2.5 dodges in our bar. If we felt we needed at least 2 dodges worth in our bar at any time then we’d actually value vitality, not for it’s current HP giving attribute but just for the dodges. It’d give an actual reason to get vit because as we all know active defense in it’s current state renders Vit and Toughness basically irrelevant in PVE. The idea is to make other gear give us things we actually value instead of being unused stats.

Dictionary. com defines Optimal as the most optimum. It defines Optimum as: “the greatest degree or best result obtained or obtainable under specific conditions.”

Mathematical equations do not have have optimal solutions. Best means there is more than one solution and that only ONE comes out on top.

Just because we players can’t perform like androids and it’s impossible to reach the true optimal conditions doesn’t mean that there is not an optimum. You just couldn’t reach it consistently enough. So you used the next best build. And even if two builds were almost exact, I’m sure one build did certain things better than the other and vice versa.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Low-brow mouth breathers on this forum keep trying to claim that all problems have an optimal (singular by definition) solution. It’s simply not true. I’ve provided theoretical examples on how it could be done in video games, and I’ve provided examples in math. If a problem has two solutions that are equally valid, an optimal solution does not, by definition, exist. Evolve more before you try to out logic me again please. K thx.

Sorry, but I took some high tech math stuff on my elementary school and I copy paste some random stuff from internets so whatever you say must be wrong.

Wethospu.6437:

Those are the best solutions. Any other solution would be worse. True is better than false.

I just talked about optimal solutions to equations so that proves your last statement wrong.

I’ve studied math, sorry, but we never once talked about an optimal solution to an algebraic expression. True and false, yes, optimal never. True is not better than false it is true. You couldn’t have talked about optimal solutions; they were either true or false. And, therefore, your statement is false.

If we want to talk about studies, I’m about to finish university with mathematics as my main subject. Mathematics is not as restrictive as you seem to think.

Seera.5916:

Jerus.4350:

I’m totally with you Nevets, I think you summed up what i was trying to say earlier very well too.

The only example I have from a game though is back in EQ we had a few discussions and a ton of parsing to find some options were within the margin of error of our testing (we had very nasty math in that game so all testing was done through parsing… and extensive parsing, 6hours minimum to be considered valid and even then there were variances, the error I was referring to).

I’d argue that there are optimal setups, of course there are going to be things better than others, but it doesn’t have to be one, it could be multiple, likely, no, but possible.

I’d add to that, what’s the point of that discussion? How often are people running optimal? Does everyone run 2 mesmer 2 ele 1 war in SEp1 now that they set the record with that? I doubt it.

Now of course everything is going to be glass gear, because the content allows it, but there is diversity and min/maxing in this game through the other aspects. I think it’s a far more fruitful and entertaining discussion to try and min/max for given situations. Learning tradeoffs and making those decisions to best accomplish a goal is what’s fun.

There are enough intangible variables in the game that arguing about on paper optimization just seems silly to me. And blinding yourself to alternate options just because someone sets a new bar also seems silly.

Props again to all 3 of those teams in the recent SEp1 race, they demonstrated the diversity of the game pretty well as far as I’m concerned. 3 different compositions all racing for the best time and it was a pretty tight race.

Your bringing up that not all dungeons use the same build set up as the record breaker does not invalidate that they likely had the most optimal set up discovered.

Just because there is the most perfect optimal set up does not mean that players are required to use it. There are sub-optimal builds that are perfectly capable of completing the content. Some more optimal than others.

And I would bet that a good portion of what made them have the best record comes down to luck and skill rather than their just their build set. Meaning it would take them specifically to reach the optimal conditions because no one else will have the same ratio of skill levels present. Of course luck is in a perpetual state of change so no one ever always runs at the most optimal conditions. Something always is against the optimal most times.

Just to let you know, we knew that SC was going to run double mesmer. But it required them tons of resetting, because Tazza and Kaeyi are a pain with two Mesmers, doing that in a daily run does not pay off.

Using 1 war, 1 mes, 3 ele is more conveniant than that. And 1 war, 1 mes, 1 guard, 2 ele makes Tazza almost a breeze. So the “meta” in this path is about how much DPS/time advantage you are willing to sacrifice for safety. 1 war, 2 mes, 2 ele was the riskiest and afaik SC took about 7 hours of resetting to get it done. Props to them for that, but it wouldn’t be a viable option in a daily run.

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

Those are the best solutions. Any other solution would be worse. True is better than false.

I just talked about optimal solutions to equations so that proves your last statement wrong.

I’ve studied math, sorry, but we never once talked about an optimal solution to an algebraic expression. True and false, yes, optimal never. You couldn’t have talked about optimal solutions; they were either true or false.

That’s wonderful, but I’m sure when you studied math you did talk about math problems and you talked about math solutions and so when people on here claim that ALL PROBLEMS HAVE OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS they are clearly wrong. What you just wrote is another way of showing it. You didn’t talk about optimal solutions to math problems because they don’t exist. Which is what I’ve been saying.

Wethospu.6437:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Low-brow mouth breathers on this forum keep trying to claim that all problems have an optimal (singular by definition) solution. It’s simply not true. I’ve provided theoretical examples on how it could be done in video games, and I’ve provided examples in math. If a problem has two solutions that are equally valid, an optimal solution does not, by definition, exist. Evolve more before you try to out logic me again please. K thx.

Sorry, but I took some high tech math stuff on my elementary school and I copy paste some random stuff from internets so whatever you say must be wrong.

DICTIONARY RIGHT U WRONG BRO!!!1111!!! HERE LET ME QUOTE IT SOME MORE AND NOT THINK!!!!

Raine.1394:

There is no relation whatsover with mathematical equations. There isn’t an optimal solution to an equation, there are simply true and false solutions. Suggesting that it does is simply to misunderstand mathematics…as well as the definition of optimal. You don’t talk about optimal solutions to equations.

So how about:

Find x such that f(x) = -(x^2 – 4)^2 is “optimal” (maximum). f(x) can be understood as some mechanic translated to an equation. (Hint: x^2 – 4 = (x+2)(x-2)

I think what the others are saying is that optimal does not require uniqueness. In the example above, there are multiple values for x (2 and -2) that optimize the value of f(x). To be optimal requires a unique value for f(x), but not for x.

PS: In a statistical sense, it can also be argued that two solutions are so close that there is no practical way to distinguish which is statistically better (as our knowledge of some mechanics is approximated with precision lost to rounding).

PPS: Now, if we want to be really technical, optimums are only guaranteed to exist if the function (whatever we are trying to maximize) is continuous.

f(x) = -(x^2 – 4)^3/(x^2-4) has no optimal solution, as f(x) is equivalent to before except that it is undefined at x = 2 and -2.

DaveGan.8065:

I think what the others are saying is that optimal does not require uniqueness.

Close. As dictionary boy pointed out above, the word optimal implies uniqueness. I’m saying when uniqueness doesn’t exist, optimum doesn’t exist.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

Those are the best solutions. Any other solution would be worse. True is better than false.

I just talked about optimal solutions to equations so that proves your last statement wrong.

I’ve studied math, sorry, but we never once talked about an optimal solution to an algebraic expression. True and false, yes, optimal never. You couldn’t have talked about optimal solutions; they were either true or false.

That’s wonderful, but I’m sure when you studied math you did talk about math problems and you talked about math solutions and so when people on here claim that ALL PROBLEMS HAVE OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS they are clearly wrong. What you just wrote is another way of showing it. You didn’t talk about optimal solutions to math problems because they don’t exist. Which is what I’ve been saying.

All problems having optimal solutions is your thing, not mine. I am saying that the best builds for certain purposes are known and therefore best for the purposes intended. I talked about the error of talking about optimal solutions to the math problems under consideration as they are true/false and have nothing to do with being optimal. You suggested an algebraic equation as somehow fitting into this discussion of optimal and I disagreed. There is nothing optimal about a mathematical solution, there is only true or false.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

Those are the best solutions. Any other solution would be worse. True is better than false.

I just talked about optimal solutions to equations so that proves your last statement wrong.

I’ve studied math, sorry, but we never once talked about an optimal solution to an algebraic expression. True and false, yes, optimal never. You couldn’t have talked about optimal solutions; they were either true or false.

That’s wonderful, but I’m sure when you studied math you did talk about math problems and you talked about math solutions and so when people on here claim that ALL PROBLEMS HAVE OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS they are clearly wrong. What you just wrote is another way of showing it. You didn’t talk about optimal solutions to math problems because they don’t exist. Which is what I’ve been saying.

And were not talking mathematics in this thread. We’re talking game meta. Please find an example that relates to game meta where there is no optimal solution.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

DaveGan.8065:

I think what the others are saying is that optimal does not require uniqueness.

Close. As dictionary boy pointed out above, the word optimal implies uniqueness. I’m saying when uniqueness doesn’t exist, optimum doesn’t exist.

Here it is again:

op·ti·mal
?äpt?m?l
adjective
best or most favorable; optimum.

Nothing about uniqueness in the definition. Best and most favorable yes. If optimum doesn’t exist why do we have the word in the dictionary?

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

Those are the best solutions. Any other solution would be worse. True is better than false.

I just talked about optimal solutions to equations so that proves your last statement wrong.

I’ve studied math, sorry, but we never once talked about an optimal solution to an algebraic expression. True and false, yes, optimal never. You couldn’t have talked about optimal solutions; they were either true or false.

That’s wonderful, but I’m sure when you studied math you did talk about math problems and you talked about math solutions and so when people on here claim that ALL PROBLEMS HAVE OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS they are clearly wrong. What you just wrote is another way of showing it. You didn’t talk about optimal solutions to math problems because they don’t exist. Which is what I’ve been saying.

All problems having optimal solutions is your thing, not mine. I am saying that the best builds for certain purposes are known and therefore best for the purposes intended. I talked about the error of talking about optimal solutions to the math problems under consideration as they are true/false and have nothing to do with being optimal. You suggested an algebraic equation as somehow fitting into this discussion of optimal and I disagreed. There is nothing optimal about a mathematical solution, there is only true or false.

Let me quote your unedited post above. “Every considered problem has an optimal solution.”

I see that you changed your wording to actually make sense, and now that you did, we’re mostly in agreement.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

Those are the best solutions. Any other solution would be worse. True is better than false.

I just talked about optimal solutions to equations so that proves your last statement wrong.

I’ve studied math, sorry, but we never once talked about an optimal solution to an algebraic expression. True and false, yes, optimal never. You couldn’t have talked about optimal solutions; they were either true or false.

That’s wonderful, but I’m sure when you studied math you did talk about math problems and you talked about math solutions and so when people on here claim that ALL PROBLEMS HAVE OPTIMAL SOLUTIONS they are clearly wrong. What you just wrote is another way of showing it. You didn’t talk about optimal solutions to math problems because they don’t exist. Which is what I’ve been saying.

All problems having optimal solutions is your thing, not mine. I am saying that the best builds for certain purposes are known and therefore best for the purposes intended. I talked about the error of talking about optimal solutions to the math problems under consideration as they are true/false and have nothing to do with being optimal. You suggested an algebraic equation as somehow fitting into this discussion of optimal and I disagreed. There is nothing optimal about a mathematical solution, there is only true or false.

Let me quote your unedited post above. “Every considered problem has an optimal solution.”

I see that you changed your wording to actually make sense, and now that you did, we’re mostly in agreement.

Glad we’re mostly in agreement. The issues should be fairly straightforward.

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

DaveGan.8065:

I think what the others are saying is that optimal does not require uniqueness.

Close. As dictionary boy pointed out above, the word optimal implies uniqueness. I’m saying when uniqueness doesn’t exist, optimum doesn’t exist.

Here it is again:

op·ti·mal
?äpt?m?l
adjective
best or most favorable; optimum.

Nothing about uniqueness in the definition. Best and most favorable yes. If optimum doesn’t exist why do we have the word in the dictionary?

Ok, to be fair to you, let me explain a bit more. Best is a superlative, and in the English language that means a degree unsurpassed by any other. But you’re right, that does not imply singularity. HOWEVER earlier Spoj argued that optimal implies singularity, and you yourself said that a given problem has an optimal solution, singular. The entire time I’ve been arguing that a problem can have 2 equally valid solutions, which would mean, under Spoj’s definition, that an optimal solution doesn’t exist.

Let me amend my argument:

A problem can have multiple equally valid solutions, and each of these can be considered “best” solutions or “optimal” solutions, in the superlative, if they each individually maximize whatever parameters one uses to define “best” or “optimal.”

Edit: And in most modern games including this one it’s likely that there will be a singular solution due to the multi-variable nature of the content.

Edit edit: And Harper. Spoj and Harper were saying the concept optimal implies a singular solution. I agreed at first, but I no longer do.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

There is no relation whatsover with mathematical equations. There isn’t an optimal solution to an equation, there are simply true and false solutions. Suggesting that it does is simply to misunderstand mathematics…as well as the definition of optimal. You don’t talk about optimal solutions to equations.

So how about:

Find x such that f(x) = -(x^2 – 4)^2 is “optimal” (maximum). f(x) can be understood as some mechanic translated to an equation. (Hint: x^2 – 4 = (x+2)(x-2)

I think what the others are saying is that optimal does not require uniqueness. In the example above, there are multiple values for x (2 and -2) that optimize the value of f(x). To be optimal requires a unique value for f(x), but not for x.

---

PS: In a statistical sense, it can also be argued that two solutions are so close that there is no practical way to distinguish which is statistically better (as our knowledge of some mechanics is approximated with precision lost to rounding).

PPS: Now, if we want to be really technical, optimums are only guaranteed to exist if the function (whatever we are trying to maximize) is continuous.

f(x) = -(x^2 – 4)^3/(x^2-4) has no optimal solution, as f(x) is equivalent to before except that it is undefined at x = 2 and -2.

When Bertrand Russell graduated in mathematics he then changed his major for graduate work to philosophy. His stated reason was that math was simply tautology and had no chance at approaching truth. If you understand math you understand the nature of proofs. They are simply a matter of stating that the big house is large. This is the heart of it and the way Russell chose to sum it up. x=4 is a statement of truth. The solution will demonstrate truth or falsehood.

The discussion at hand is not about mathematical expression but rather whether there may be builds preferable to other builds based on certain criteria. Those discussions are not truth discussions per se, but rather math applied narrowly to certain criteria. The answers can be known and lie in the definition of optimal: best or most favorable.

Raine.1394:

The answers can be known and lie in the definition of optimal: best or most favorable.

Yes, we agree. My apologies for the insults earlier.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

The answers can be known and lie in the definition of optimal: best or most favorable.

Yes, we agree. My apologies for the insults earlier.

Hey no worries. I think I got a bit high-handed and pompous so my apologies as well.

I see now that this is the true endgame of Dictionary Wars 2. I just now realized that I had been playing the game wrong this entire time.

Sins.4782:

I see now that this is the true endgame of Dictionary Wars 2. I just now realized that I had been playing the game wrong this entire time.

The endgame here is actually the realization of PvP in this game. Dictionaries are simply abilities employed.

Wethospu.6437:

If we want to talk about studies, I’m about to finish university with mathematics as my main subject. Mathematics is not as restrictive as you seem to think.

Fault me for a propositional statement I made, but don’t fault me for thinking math is restrictive. Math is not restrictive, but a simple algebraic expression will have a rather precise meaning. I faulted you on not understanding the meaning of a simple expression.

Raine.1394:

When Bertrand Russell graduated in mathematics he then changed his major for graduate work to philosophy. His stated reason was that math was simply tautology and had no chance at approaching truth. If you understand math you understand the nature of proofs. They are simply a matter of stating that the big house is large. This is the heart of it and the way Russell chose to sum it up. x=4 is a statement of truth. The solution will demonstrate truth or falsehood.

The discussion at hand is not about mathematical expression but rather whether there may be builds preferable to other builds based on certain criteria. Those discussions are not truth discussions per se, but rather math applied narrowly to certain criteria. The answers can be known and lie in the definition of optimal: best or most favorable.

That’s a cop-out and appeal to authority. I offered up a function (similar to total damage/dps) with an independent variable (similar to traits/gear/stats) and asked for the function to be optimized.

At first you argued that equations are not optimized so I offered you a function. Now you come back with a non-sequitur bit about Bertrand Russell that addresses equations and tautologies, which is precisely what I avoided in my first reply.

However, as you seem to have made peace with the others, I am posting this only to make it clear that I strongly believe my example still stands, and that you’ve failed to address or refute any part of it.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

When Bertrand Russell graduated in mathematics he then changed his major for graduate work to philosophy. His stated reason was that math was simply tautology and had no chance at approaching truth. If you understand math you understand the nature of proofs. They are simply a matter of stating that the big house is large. This is the heart of it and the way Russell chose to sum it up. x=4 is a statement of truth. The solution will demonstrate truth or falsehood.

The discussion at hand is not about mathematical expression but rather whether there may be builds preferable to other builds based on certain criteria. Those discussions are not truth discussions per se, but rather math applied narrowly to certain criteria. The answers can be known and lie in the definition of optimal: best or most favorable.

That’s a cop-out and appeal to authority. I offered up a function (similar to total damage/dps) with an independent variable (similar to traits/gear/stats) and asked for the function to be optimized.

At first you argued that equations are not optimized so I offered you a function. Now you come back with a non-sequitur bit about Bertrand Russell that addresses equations and tautologies, which is precisely what I avoided in my first reply.

However, as you seem to have made peace with the others, I am posting this only to make it clear that I strongly believe my example still stands, and that you’ve failed to address or refute any part of it.

I never argued that equations were not or could not be optimized. I argued that an equation of the nature of x =4 has nothing whatsoever to do with being optimal. Read the posts. And there is no appeal to authority. My knowledge of Russell is simply good kittentail party banter—no more no less. You have, in essence, not stated anything that I need to refute. You simply have demonstrated that you don’t understand what x=4 means.

Raine.1394:

You simply have demonstrated that you don’t understand what x=4 means.

Do you understand the difference between an equation and a function?

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

You simply have demonstrated that you don’t understand what x=4 means.

Do you understand the difference between an equation and a function?

Yes. I was talking about an algebraic expression, in this case an equation, because that’s what Nevets presented to me. You do understand what an equation is, right?

Raine.1394:

Yes. I was talking about an algebraic expression, in this case an equation, because that’s what Nevets presented to me. You do understand what an equation is, right?

Yes. I acknowledged your tautology argument as legitimate and successfully refuting Nevet’s equation example.

I then countered with my own example using a function (which can be optimized), and I expected more than you trying to hide the same exact tautology argument behind Bertrand Russell.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

Yes. I was talking about an algebraic expression, in this case an equation, because that’s what Nevets presented to me. You do understand what an equation is, right?

Yes. I acknowledged your tautology argument as legitimate and successfully refuting Nevet’s equation example.

I then countered with my own example using a function (which can be optimized), and I expected more than you trying to hide the same exact tautology argument behind Bertrand Russell.

Nope. Not trying to hide anything behind anything, and certainly not wanting to overexercise Russell. I’m simply arguing that some builds can be preferable to other builds, given certain criteria, based upon the math. This should be straightforward though I see it is not.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Just to play devil’s advocate:

What if you had a boss with 4 hp and a party size of two.

Say the two highest damage dealers are Class X, and Class X has a fire attack that deals 2 damage and a water attack that deals 2 damage, everything else being the same.

So there are a few equally good ways to kill the boss. Class X1 can use fire while Class X2 can use water, or both can use fire or both can use water.

If mechanically they’re not different then it’s just cosmetics.
It’s saying " i shoot fire " instead of " i shoot water". Just like skins are in game right now.

You can kill the boss the same with a legendary GS or just a regular skin over that GS. there’s no difference.

I’m talking about builds that differ in more than a cosmetic way.