Guild Wars 2

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.

There always has to be a meta because people like me and people of the same mind want things done effectively.

In your scenario the meta is whichever group manages to deal that damage fastest.

Is it faster to run with two unbuffed class X? Are they more efficient like that? Then run that.

Is it faster to run with one buffed class X by one class Y? Is it more efficient like that? Then you run that.

It’s a matter of how fast the two class X can put out the damage. How demanding their rotations are. How failproof the buff class Y applies and so on.

Given a month or two players like me will discover that one of these options – for whatever reason – is better/faster/easier than the other and will proclaim it the new meta.

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.

What else there is to discuss in this topic?

Raine.1394:

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.

I thought we talked about solutions, not meaning of expressions. So far your arguments seem to consist of “you are wrong” and “I’m right”. If you know maths as good as you claim, I’m sure you can do better.

Show me why a set {2, -2} is not the best solution set for equation x^2 = 4.

Wethospu.6437:

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.

What else there is to discuss in this topic?

Raine.1394:

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.

I thought we talked about solutions, not meaning of expressions. So far your arguments seem to consist of “you are wrong” and “I’m right”. If you know maths as good as you claim, I’m sure you can do better.

The set {2, -2} is not the best solution set for the equation x^2 = 4.. It is either a correct or incorrect solution. And, I don’t know maths. I know math. (Do you really call it maths?) But, yes, the math has become a technicality in this discussion. However, it’s not about I’m right, you’re wrong, but rather reasoned arguments--sometimes involving the technicalities of math. The larger issue addressed in the thread is whether some builds, given requisite team utility, are to be preferred over other builds. That question can probably be adequately answered by the continuing presence of these zerker threads. It’s rather obvious that there are preferred builds, those that are more efficient in achieving the objectives of combat. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which ones those are.

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.

Bolded important point.
Real example required.
Maybe you should go build an MMO and show Anet how its done?

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

I thought we talked about solutions, not meaning of expressions. So far your arguments seem to consist of “you are wrong” and “I’m right”. If you know maths as good as you claim, I’m sure you can do better.

The set set {2, -2} is not the best solution set for the equation x^2 = 4.. It is either a correct or incorrect solution.
--

So an incorrect solution is as good as a correct solution?

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

I thought we talked about solutions, not meaning of expressions. So far your arguments seem to consist of “you are wrong” and “I’m right”. If you know maths as good as you claim, I’m sure you can do better.

The set set {2, -2} is not the best solution set for the equation x^2 = 4.. It is either a correct or incorrect solution.
--

So an incorrect solution is as good as a correct solution?

How on earth did you go from one statement, to the other? I’m not seeing how you came to interpret that in that way.

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

I thought we talked about solutions, not meaning of expressions. So far your arguments seem to consist of “you are wrong” and “I’m right”. If you know maths as good as you claim, I’m sure you can do better.

The set set {2, -2} is not the best solution set for the equation x^2 = 4.. It is either a correct or incorrect solution.
--

So an incorrect solution is as good as a correct solution?

No, a correct solution is correct, an incorrect solution is incorrect.

That’s exactly the restrictive mindset I was talking about.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

I thought we talked about solutions, not meaning of expressions. So far your arguments seem to consist of “you are wrong” and “I’m right”. If you know maths as good as you claim, I’m sure you can do better.

The set set {2, -2} is not the best solution set for the equation x^2 = 4.. It is either a correct or incorrect solution.
--

So an incorrect solution is as good as a correct solution?

How on earth did you go from one statement, to the other? I’m not seeing how you came to interpret that in that way.

A solution can be correct or incorrect.

If a correct solution is not the best then that means it’s not better than an incorrect solution.

That leaves two options.

1) An incorrect solution is better than a correct solution.

2) A correct solution is as good as an incorrect solution.

Wethospu.6437:

That’s exactly the restrictive mindset I was talking about.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

I thought we talked about solutions, not meaning of expressions. So far your arguments seem to consist of “you are wrong” and “I’m right”. If you know maths as good as you claim, I’m sure you can do better.

The set set {2, -2} is not the best solution set for the equation x^2 = 4.. It is either a correct or incorrect solution.
--

So an incorrect solution is as good as a correct solution?

How on earth did you go from one statement, to the other? I’m not seeing how you came to interpret that in that way.

A solution can be correct or incorrect.

If a correct solution is not the best then that means it’s not better than an incorrect solution.

That leaves two options.

1) An incorrect solution is better than a correct solution.

2) A correct solution is as good as an incorrect solution.

bolded key sentence.
This looks like an incorrect assumption resulting in a failure of logic to me..

edit: I suspect failure of logic causes the incorrect assumption initially mind you.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

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.

Using unrealistic examples doesnt help the arguement. As someone said earlier good design is about tradeoffs. So if you change the composition/builds slightly then they should amount to be slightly different. If they arent different then they are technically the same on a macro level. Which means that you have the same solution but with different cosmetics.

To put your example in perspective. You have demonstrated 2 different compositions which output the same damage. In game with the current system this would still be 2 berserker builds. The meta hasnt changed from being maximising damage. Its like selecting an ele and a warrior or just 2 eles. Your overall objective is still the same, you are maximising damage. However in reality only one of these solutions would be optimal.

From a realism point of view. There are far too many variables for a complex game to have 2 different solutions which are exactly the same. So the example can be completely discounted. Ill repeat, if they do amount to the same then they are most likely the same solution but with different cosmetics. So you end up still having a single optimal solution.

Wethospu.6437:

That’s exactly the restrictive mindset I was talking about.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

I thought we talked about solutions, not meaning of expressions. So far your arguments seem to consist of “you are wrong” and “I’m right”. If you know maths as good as you claim, I’m sure you can do better.

The set set {2, -2} is not the best solution set for the equation x^2 = 4.. It is either a correct or incorrect solution.
--

So an incorrect solution is as good as a correct solution?

How on earth did you go from one statement, to the other? I’m not seeing how you came to interpret that in that way.

A solution can be correct or incorrect.

If a correct solution is not the best then that means it’s not better than an incorrect solution.

That leaves two options.

1) An incorrect solution is better than a correct solution.

2) A correct solution is as good as an incorrect solution.

Perhaps you could demonstrate this by showing a defect in my logic. You haven’t so far. A correct solution is correct. If you assume it is better than an incorrect one that is your assumption. It has nothing to do with a state of reality.

So by your logic if I say that a car is a car then it can’t be red?

Being a correct solution and the best solution aren’t mutually exclusive. A solution can be both correct and the best.

The funny thing about math is that you can actually define what is the reality. And that’s what you and others are doing when talking about optimal solutions.

Now, why don’t you let me do the same?

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

That’s exactly the restrictive mindset I was talking about.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

I thought we talked about solutions, not meaning of expressions. So far your arguments seem to consist of “you are wrong” and “I’m right”. If you know maths as good as you claim, I’m sure you can do better.

The set set {2, -2} is not the best solution set for the equation x^2 = 4.. It is either a correct or incorrect solution.
--

So an incorrect solution is as good as a correct solution?

How on earth did you go from one statement, to the other? I’m not seeing how you came to interpret that in that way.

A solution can be correct or incorrect.

If a correct solution is not the best then that means it’s not better than an incorrect solution.

That leaves two options.

1) An incorrect solution is better than a correct solution.

2) A correct solution is as good as an incorrect solution.

bolded key sentence.
This looks like an incorrect assumption resulting in a failure of logic to me..

edit: I suspect failure of logic causes the incorrect assumption initially mind you.

I’m not really following you.

If there are two options and one is better than the other then that option is the best.

If there are two options and one is worse than the other then that option is not the best.

So if it’s not the best then it can’t be better than the other.

Wethospu.6437:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

That’s exactly the restrictive mindset I was talking about.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

I thought we talked about solutions, not meaning of expressions. So far your arguments seem to consist of “you are wrong” and “I’m right”. If you know maths as good as you claim, I’m sure you can do better.

The set set {2, -2} is not the best solution set for the equation x^2 = 4.. It is either a correct or incorrect solution.
--

So an incorrect solution is as good as a correct solution?

How on earth did you go from one statement, to the other? I’m not seeing how you came to interpret that in that way.

A solution can be correct or incorrect.

If a correct solution is not the best then that means it’s not better than an incorrect solution.

That leaves two options.

1) An incorrect solution is better than a correct solution.

2) A correct solution is as good as an incorrect solution.

bolded key sentence.
This looks like an incorrect assumption resulting in a failure of logic to me..

edit: I suspect failure of logic causes the incorrect assumption initially mind you.

I’m not really following you.

If there are two options and one is better than the other then that option is the best.

So if it’s not the best then it can’t be better than the other.

One is correct.
Others are incorrect.
Not seeing in any way how you got to your previous statements, they just plain don’t make sense. I cannot explain your nonsense..

edit:
“If there are two options and one is better than the other then that option is the best.”
How are you determining this? I don’t see “options”.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

That’s exactly the restrictive mindset I was talking about.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

I thought we talked about solutions, not meaning of expressions. So far your arguments seem to consist of “you are wrong” and “I’m right”. If you know maths as good as you claim, I’m sure you can do better.

The set set {2, -2} is not the best solution set for the equation x^2 = 4.. It is either a correct or incorrect solution.
--

So an incorrect solution is as good as a correct solution?

How on earth did you go from one statement, to the other? I’m not seeing how you came to interpret that in that way.

A solution can be correct or incorrect.

If a correct solution is not the best then that means it’s not better than an incorrect solution.

That leaves two options.

1) An incorrect solution is better than a correct solution.

2) A correct solution is as good as an incorrect solution.

bolded key sentence.
This looks like an incorrect assumption resulting in a failure of logic to me..

edit: I suspect failure of logic causes the incorrect assumption initially mind you.

I think you should keep re-reading that until you understand it. It makes perfect sense.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

One is correct.
Others are incorrect.
Not seeing in any way how you got to your previous statements, they just plain don’t make sense. I cannot explain your nonsense..

edit:
“If there are two options and one is better than the other then that option is the best.”
How are you determining this? I don’t see “options”.

Just like you guys are determining optimal solution. If you want to talk about optimal then you need to define what is the best. One definition is that the best means being better than everything else. Then you need to define what is better.

For GW2, you can define better as doing more damage, taking less damage, completing content faster, etc. There is no single way. Point is, you have to define something.

Similarly I can define for equations that a correct solution is better than an incorrect solution.

Whether you like it or not, definitions are important. A good example is this 27 page topic where people define things differently and then try to argue about them.

Wethospu.6437:

So by your logic if I say that a car is a car then it can’t be red?

Being a correct solution and the best solution aren’t mutually exclusive. A solution can be both correct and the best.

The funny thing about math is that you can actually define what is the reality. And that’s what you and others are doing when talking about optimal solutions.

Now, why don’t you let me do the same?

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

That’s exactly the restrictive mindset I was talking about.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

I thought we talked about solutions, not meaning of expressions. So far your arguments seem to consist of “you are wrong” and “I’m right”. If you know maths as good as you claim, I’m sure you can do better.

The set set {2, -2} is not the best solution set for the equation x^2 = 4.. It is either a correct or incorrect solution.
--

So an incorrect solution is as good as a correct solution?

How on earth did you go from one statement, to the other? I’m not seeing how you came to interpret that in that way.

A solution can be correct or incorrect.

If a correct solution is not the best then that means it’s not better than an incorrect solution.

That leaves two options.

1) An incorrect solution is better than a correct solution.

2) A correct solution is as good as an incorrect solution.

bolded key sentence.
This looks like an incorrect assumption resulting in a failure of logic to me..

edit: I suspect failure of logic causes the incorrect assumption initially mind you.

I’m not really following you.

If there are two options and one is better than the other then that option is the best.

If there are two options and one is worse than the other then that option is not the best.

So if it’s not the best then it can’t be better than the other.

A correct solution can only be best if you view that as valuable. If, on the other hand, you realize that a false result can be just as valuable to understanding as a true one, then?

Correct and incorrect have only to do with correct and incorrect. That’s the key to understanding this. You need to have a mathematical mind. Value judgments about state are just that, something you’ve added to the overall evaluation. There is no best in terms of correct or incorrect only correct and incorrect. Both are equally valuable results as both will lead yo,u to the truth.

In game context, “optimal” is what gives highest dps/needed survivability/whatever else for the player/group though. This is inherently going to be in a constant state of flux as every player is different. Individual knowledge and skill most notable will be different.

However with a numerical “problem” this (fundamental) variable doesn’t exist, so the comparison makes little sense to me.

Actually that is your definition. Someone else might for example define optimal as the fastest completion time or most fun.

Numerically someone may define optimal as the highest theoretical dummy DPS. Some may include estimated execution difficulty or other factors.

Raine.1394:

A correct solution can only be best if you view that as valuable. If, on the other hand, you realize that a false result can be just as valuable to understanding as a true one, then?

Correct and incorrect have only to do with correct and incorrect. That’s the key to understanding this. You need to have a mathematical mind. Value judgments about state are just that, something you’ve added to the overall evaluation. There is no best in terms of correct or incorrect only correct and incorrect. Both are equally valuable results as both will lead yo,u to the truth.

So can I say that a correct solution is better than an incorrect solution or not, if I define it that way?

You seem to over-complicate this whole thing with evaluations, calculators and mathematical minds.

To come clean, I don’t really care about this meta topic. But discussing logic is always fun.

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

So by your logic if I say that a car is a car then it can’t be red?

Being a correct solution and the best solution aren’t mutually exclusive. A solution can be both correct and the best.

The funny thing about math is that you can actually define what is the reality. And that’s what you and others are doing when talking about optimal solutions.

Now, why don’t you let me do the same?

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

That’s exactly the restrictive mindset I was talking about.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

I thought we talked about solutions, not meaning of expressions. So far your arguments seem to consist of “you are wrong” and “I’m right”. If you know maths as good as you claim, I’m sure you can do better.

The set set {2, -2} is not the best solution set for the equation x^2 = 4.. It is either a correct or incorrect solution.
--

So an incorrect solution is as good as a correct solution?

How on earth did you go from one statement, to the other? I’m not seeing how you came to interpret that in that way.

A solution can be correct or incorrect.

If a correct solution is not the best then that means it’s not better than an incorrect solution.

That leaves two options.

1) An incorrect solution is better than a correct solution.

2) A correct solution is as good as an incorrect solution.

bolded key sentence.
This looks like an incorrect assumption resulting in a failure of logic to me..

edit: I suspect failure of logic causes the incorrect assumption initially mind you.

I’m not really following you.

If there are two options and one is better than the other then that option is the best.

If there are two options and one is worse than the other then that option is not the best.

So if it’s not the best then it can’t be better than the other.

A correct solution can only be best if you view that as valuable. If, on the other hand, you realize that a false result can be just as valuable to understanding as a true one, then?

Correct and incorrect have only to do with correct and incorrect. That’s the key to understanding this. You need to have a mathematical mind. Value judgments about state are just that, something you’ve added to the overall evaluation. There is no best in terms of correct or incorrect only correct and incorrect. Both are equally valuable results as both will lead yo,u to the truth.

Even though in research people say both correct and incorrect results are equally valuable. That is technically not true. There is definately value in incorrect results. But to say all results are exactly equal is absurd. Incorrect results only confirm what you did wrong. That is argueably less valuable than proving you did something right.

Sorry for the late reply.

How do you want to define “optimal”? By max DPS? Max burst? Min clear time?

Regardless, these things are going to be functions, albeit with more than one independent variable. Optimal means we try to maximize or minimize the function.

Your (Raine) argument seems to be that there is always only one solution (collection of independent variables) that generates that “optimal” value (minimum or maximum value).

All I had to do to disprove that is provide a single counterexample. That is what the simple function f(x) = -(x^2-4)^2 does. There are multiple ways to “optimize” it, and the parallel would be multiple “metas” that were equally effective.

You can try to differentiate this from the “real game” situation by making some appeal to uncertainty or statistical unlikelihood, but either argument also severely weakens the significance of the uniqueness of “the meta” in game.

Wethospu.6437:

Actually that is your definition. Someone else might for example define optimal as the fastest completion time or most fun.

This is still relative to each player. In athletics the phrase “personal best” is often used. Your point seems hollow.

Wethospu.6437:

Actually that is your definition. Someone else might for example define optimal as the fastest completion time.

Raine.1394:

A correct solution can only be best if you view that as valuable. If, on the other hand, you realize that a false result can be just as valuable to understanding as a true one, then?

Correct and incorrect have only to do with correct and incorrect. That’s the key to understanding this. You need to have a mathematical mind. Value judgments about state are just that, something you’ve added to the overall evaluation. There is no best in terms of correct or incorrect only correct and incorrect. Both are equally valuable results as both will lead yo,u to the truth.

So can I say that a correct solution is better than an incorrect solution or not?

You seem to over-complicate this whole thing with evaluations, calculators and mathematical minds.

No, I think it best when discussing mathematics to simply understand math. True and false do not equal better and worse. That’s not the way math works. And, I’m actually attempting to simplify things by using math in it’s proper sense. True is not better, it’s true. False is not worse it’s false. It’s almost too simple.

If you had written “That’s not the way math works in elementary school.”, then I could agree with you because that would be true. Unfortunately I’m not in elementary school anymore and have learnt that I can define things.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

Actually that is your definition. Someone else might for example define optimal as the fastest completion time or most fun.

This is still relative to each player. In athletics the phrase “personal best” is often used. Your point seems hollow.

Could you define hollow?

A correct solution is better than an incorrect solution because it leads to the correct result, which in this case means the death of the enemy.

The meta is more akin to comparing 2+2=4 vs. 1+1+1+1=4. They are both correct, but one is a lot less tedious than the other, more efficient in reaching the goal.

The problem with the meta is that the game is lacking in mechanical depth such that 5-1, 2*2, or 8/2 has not been implemented in its core design. Its all addition, just like every other mmo, further compounded by the intensity of boons and non-damage conditions being completely decoupled from your stats, while offensive abilities gain a substantial boost from your gear.

There is no room for growth in any other direction the way the game currently stands, and if that was the intention from the onset, the other gear never should have been implemented, and traits should have been much more heavily focused on for affecting the behaviour of your abilities.

Gear should never be seen as a safety net. The game should take care of that by offering different levels of challenge and leave it at that.

DaveGan.8065:

Sorry for the late reply.

How do you want to define “optimal”? By max DPS? Max burst? Min clear time?

Regardless, these things are going to be functions, albeit with more than one independent variable. Optimal means we try to maximize or minimize the function.

Your (Raine) argument seems to be that there is always only one solution (collection of independent variables) that generates that “optimal” value (minimum or maximum value).

All I had to do to disprove that is provide a single counterexample. That is what the simple function f(x) = -(x^2-4)^2 does. There are multiple ways to “optimize” it, and the parallel would be multiple “metas” that were equally effective.

You can try to differentiate this from the “real game” situation by making some appeal to uncertainty or statistical unlikelihood, but either argument also severely weakens the significance of the uniqueness of “the meta” in game.

The basic trade-off at hand is dps vs survivability. The factors around these measures are, well, measurable. As it is there are not multiple metas that are equally effective and that is the reason for this thread and all others like it. I think we probably on some level all understand the meta though we may wish to quibble. This is the “real” game situation. If you are playing the game you are aware of the meta, if not then maybe not. The uniqueness of the meta, in terms of what it is, is either known or not. The continual presence of zerker threads would allude to a number of people understanding the current (and it’s been forever) meta.

Is it significant? I’ve argued, in this thread, that it’s inevitable, so probably not a thing to be feared and loathed but, hey, here it is.

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

I gave two examples. Neither were realistic?

Your example of “shooting fire” and “shooting water” are only cosmetically different. You can achieve balance by homogenizing everything, but that begs the question: If the classes are identical mechanically then there’s no point in them being “different” in the first place. I wouldn’t call your examples “unrealistic”, but more like not applicable. Confining your arguments within the parameters of Guild Wars 2 would achieve a stronger premise I think.

I also was confused as to why you fixated on me saying “optimal” and then went on a tirade about math. You yourself agreed to the point that "The more variables you introduce, the more likely it is that one option will be better. " Wasn’t this thread about the “Berserker’s gear meta”? Since I doubt you’re suggesting that someone wearing full Cleric’s is not sub-optimal in most PvE situations I don’t really know what it is you’re trying to argue for anymore. It just seems like people are caught up in semantics right now.

Wethospu.6437:

If you had written “That’s not the way math works in elementary school.”, then I could agree with you because that would be true. Unfortunately I’m not in elementary school anymore and have learnt that I can define things.

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Wethospu.6437:

Actually that is your definition. Someone else might for example define optimal as the fastest completion time or most fun.

This is still relative to each player. In athletics the phrase “personal best” is often used. Your point seems hollow.

Could you define hollow?

It’s easy to say that’s the way math works in elementary school, perhaps harder to describe in what way it works in elementary school and what way it works in whatever exalted state you find yourself in. I would love to know and specifically in what ways my logic may be deficient. I love to learn.

The problem is you cant teach logic.

You can either grasp it from what has already been said or you cant. Weths posts are pretty clear and concise. So i dont think i can do a better job at rephrasing.

Raine.1394:

It’s easy to say that’s the way math works in elementary school, perhaps harder to describe in what way it works in elementary school and what way it works in whatever exalted state you find yourself in. I would love to know and specifically in what ways my logic may be deficient. I love to learn.

Well, if I say that A is true you can’t disprove it by saying B is true unless B -> -A.

In this case:

A: Correct solution is better than an incorrect solution (when defined that way).

B: Correct solution is a correct solution.

B -> -A: ???

Oh my the twists and turns of this thread.

On topic,

Someone made a rather unlettered recommendation that having higher Vitality should increase dodges.

I’m down.

so long as we’re doing that, though, increased Power should lower weapon skill cooldowns. Increased precision should increase the damage of my attacks the closer I am to my target. Increased Ferocity should increase my attack speed.

Sounds fair to me. Let’s do it.

hybrid.5027:

Oh my the twists and turns of this thread.

On topic,

Someone made a rather unlettered recommendation that having higher Vitality should increase dodges.

I’m down.

so long as we’re doing that, though, increased Power should lower weapon skill cooldowns. Increased precision should increase the damage of my attacks the closer I am to my target. Increased Ferocity should increase my attack speed.

Sounds fair to me. Let’s do it.

That was always bugging me when they talk about giving a double use to vitality, toughness and clerics, but leaving Power, Precision and Ferocity with only 1 purpose. I always though this was a bias approach.

hybrid.5027:

Oh my the twists and turns of this thread.

On topic,

Someone made a rather unlettered recommendation that having higher Vitality should increase dodges.

I’m down.

so long as we’re doing that, though, increased Power should lower weapon skill cooldowns. Increased precision should increase the damage of my attacks the closer I am to my target. Increased Ferocity should increase my attack speed.

Sounds fair to me. Let’s do it.

The vitality idea is not one I agree with, but you could only equate it with power, ferocity and precision if those stats only affected your weapon auto attack, and absolutely nothing else.

And the simplistic way the core of the game currently works, that would still be offering more than raising any other stat.

DaveGan.8065:

How do you want to define “optimal”?

From a mechanic staindpoint if we exclude survivability in a dungeon run, i guess the only thing left is killing times. Of course the individual person can pack up defensive stats, utilities and make a complete bunkerish build, however every lethal attack can be mitigated. At least theoritically since it’s skill dependent.
And there is fun, where you don’t give a crap about efficiency and play how you want. The tools are given and working as intended. People just ignore it for some unknown reason.

Croc.5129:

hybrid.5027:

Oh my the twists and turns of this thread.

On topic,

Someone made a rather unlettered recommendation that having higher Vitality should increase dodges.

I’m down.

so long as we’re doing that, though, increased Power should lower weapon skill cooldowns. Increased precision should increase the damage of my attacks the closer I am to my target. Increased Ferocity should increase my attack speed.

Sounds fair to me. Let’s do it.

The vitality idea is not one I agree with, but you could only equate it with power, ferocity and precision if those stats only affected your weapon auto attack, and absolutely nothing else.

And the simplistic way the core of the game currently works, that would still be offering more than raising any other stat.

Buffing auto attacks only is bad because then simply auto-attacking rather than utilizing a proper DPS rotation would become optimal, which is far less skill intensive. This is already a problem for certain classes, I wouldn’t want it to be a problem for every class.

Apologies again for a late reply, as I was in PvP.

Raine.1394:

The basic trade-off at hand is dps vs survivability. The factors around these measures are, well, measurable. As it is there are not multiple metas that are equally effective and that is the reason for this thread and all others like it.

You’re being too specific to this game while making broad statements about how there can only ever be one meta.

This seems to disregard possible new encounter mechanics and possible trait/skill adjustments.

For the moment the meta is not even necessarily full Berserker but a mix of Berserker and Assassin. For mesmers a lot of the time Assassin itself will be optimal. I will not even argue that (some sort of) glass will always be meta.

But how precisely are we going to define it?

With different mechanics (high armor on Silverwastes husks, for instance), the meta may shift not from glass to non-glass, but from one type of damage to another (like from ferocity to hybrid condition). And because the change will be continuous, there is guaranteed to exist some point where the two types of damage are equal. If we made more radical changes where having passive defense allowed more focus on DPS, then we’d begin to see non-glass gear take the spotlight. Again, the function will be continuous, so there would be a “breakeven” point here as well.

The only thing I’ve been arguing is that it is possible to set up an encounter where there is no statistically significant difference between two setups. I am not arguing that this sort of encounter currently exists in game, just that it could.

And like Weth, my interest in this discussion is mainly theoretical and philosophical.

Croc.5129:

hybrid.5027:

Oh my the twists and turns of this thread.

On topic,

Someone made a rather unlettered recommendation that having higher Vitality should increase dodges.

I’m down.

so long as we’re doing that, though, increased Power should lower weapon skill cooldowns. Increased precision should increase the damage of my attacks the closer I am to my target. Increased Ferocity should increase my attack speed.

Sounds fair to me. Let’s do it.

The vitality idea is not one I agree with, but you could only equate it with power, ferocity and precision if those stats only affected your weapon auto attack, and absolutely nothing else.

And the simplistic way the core of the game currently works, that would still be offering more than raising any other stat.

Sure way. I approve! Let the warrior meta resurrect!

Iris Ng.9845:

Croc.5129:

hybrid.5027:

Oh my the twists and turns of this thread.

On topic,

Someone made a rather unlettered recommendation that having higher Vitality should increase dodges.

I’m down.

so long as we’re doing that, though, increased Power should lower weapon skill cooldowns. Increased precision should increase the damage of my attacks the closer I am to my target. Increased Ferocity should increase my attack speed.

Sounds fair to me. Let’s do it.

The vitality idea is not one I agree with, but you could only equate it with power, ferocity and precision if those stats only affected your weapon auto attack, and absolutely nothing else.

And the simplistic way the core of the game currently works, that would still be offering more than raising any other stat.

Sure way. I approve! Let the warrior meta resurrect!

Nah, Lightning Whip and Lightning Hammer autos would be insane.

Iris Ng.9845:

Croc.5129:

hybrid.5027:

Oh my the twists and turns of this thread.

On topic,

Someone made a rather unlettered recommendation that having higher Vitality should increase dodges.

I’m down.

so long as we’re doing that, though, increased Power should lower weapon skill cooldowns. Increased precision should increase the damage of my attacks the closer I am to my target. Increased Ferocity should increase my attack speed.

Sounds fair to me. Let’s do it.

The vitality idea is not one I agree with, but you could only equate it with power, ferocity and precision if those stats only affected your weapon auto attack, and absolutely nothing else.

And the simplistic way the core of the game currently works, that would still be offering more than raising any other stat.

Sure way. I approve! Let the warrior meta resurrect!

In case I somehow made myself unclear, I think this is a bad thing.

Its why I think the way toughness and vitality are currently implemented in the game do not work, but the vitality to stamina thing is not the way I believe it should be addressed.

Discrepencies in ability power scaling and expansion of game mechanics are my primary concern, because these are the factors which make it so that the meta stays as it is with little room for growth in other dimensions of combat.

hybrid.5027:

Iris Ng.9845:

Croc.5129:

hybrid.5027:

Oh my the twists and turns of this thread.

On topic,

Someone made a rather unlettered recommendation that having higher Vitality should increase dodges.

I’m down.

so long as we’re doing that, though, increased Power should lower weapon skill cooldowns. Increased precision should increase the damage of my attacks the closer I am to my target. Increased Ferocity should increase my attack speed.

Sounds fair to me. Let’s do it.

The vitality idea is not one I agree with, but you could only equate it with power, ferocity and precision if those stats only affected your weapon auto attack, and absolutely nothing else.

And the simplistic way the core of the game currently works, that would still be offering more than raising any other stat.

Sure way. I approve! Let the warrior meta resurrect!

Nah, Lightning Whip and Lightning Hammer autos would be insane.

Lightning hammer would not be affected by stats either, as it is a conjured weapon, not a base weapon. The whip would get some mileage though.

hybrid.5027:

Oh my the twists and turns of this thread.

On topic,

Someone made a rather unlettered recommendation that having higher Vitality should increase dodges.

I’m down.

so long as we’re doing that, though, increased Power should lower weapon skill cooldowns. Increased precision should increase the damage of my attacks the closer I am to my target. Increased Ferocity should increase my attack speed.

Sounds fair to me. Let’s do it.

First, if you’re referring to me I was just posting it as an example of things people came up with… I in no way support the idea and I think GW2 is beautifully designed as it is, we just need some more challenging and fun content to use the system already in place.

The idea though is that those 3 defensive stats don’t really do anything that makes them desireable in the current PVE setup (assuming you can use your active defenses correctly). The holy trinity of Power Prec and Ferocity do though, we love them. So the idea is to give those other 3 stats a purpose that makes them desirable in some way. And that suggestion would pull that off. It’s not really an issue of being fair as to how much a certain stat can do, it’s about making stats actually useful.

Again, I do not support the idea though, it’s far too late into the game to even think about making adjustments like that. Though I’d be even more opposed if it meant seriously increasing everyone’s damage potential that even bosses in lvl 80 zones are going down in a single rotation of IB4s like AC stuff does already.

Back to the previous topic.

I thought it was generally accepted that Meta/Optimal was accepted as “whatever accomplishes the goal the fastest” If we’re back to defining, personally I see value in ease of play, I like to go swiftly but I don’t usually like to stress myself out doing so. For example I am a big fan of Phalanx strength simply because it’s easy mode and it’s really not that bad of a trade off. Hammer guard is worth it if your team isn’t perfect at dodging. I don’t see a problem with dropping a kit for an elixer that will help defensively on my engi (another stab, another reflect, even possibly condi cleanse). So personally what I find best is whatever gets me through quick and easy, that changes depending on how well my group and I are playing.

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

It’s easy to say that’s the way math works in elementary school, perhaps harder to describe in what way it works in elementary school and what way it works in whatever exalted state you find yourself in. I would love to know and specifically in what ways my logic may be deficient. I love to learn.

Well, if I say that A is true you can’t disprove it by saying B is true unless B -> -A.

In this case:

A: Correct solution is better than an incorrect solution (when defined that way).

B: Correct solution is a correct solution.

B -> -A: ???

This would be a bit tortured, eh?. And, this will be the last time I say this. True (correct) and better, in terms of a simple algebraic expression, are different concepts. Yes, true can be defined as better (tautology, eh?), however true is not better, it is simply true. To fully understand this would require exposure to mathematics (your major) as embodied in logic. You are simply arguing that A equals something other than A. At esoteric levels we can argue this, but for our purposes at this very basic level ‘A’ can be assumed to equal ‘A’. And true will only and always be true.

Of course they are different concepts. Why else I would need to define what better means?

A is my statement. How can I argue that my statement is something else than it is? And if what I’m saying is a tautology why are you arguing against it?

DaveGan.8065:

Apologies again for a late reply, as I was in PvP.

Raine.1394:

The basic trade-off at hand is dps vs survivability. The factors around these measures are, well, measurable. As it is there are not multiple metas that are equally effective and that is the reason for this thread and all others like it.

You’re being too specific to this game while making broad statements about how there can only ever be one meta.

This seems to disregard possible new encounter mechanics and possible trait/skill adjustments.

For the moment the meta is not even necessarily full Berserker but a mix of Berserker and Assassin. For mesmers a lot of the time Assassin itself will be optimal. I will not even argue that (some sort of) glass will always be meta.

But how precisely are we going to define it?

With different mechanics (high armor on Silverwastes husks, for instance), the meta may shift not from glass to non-glass, but from one type of damage to another (like from ferocity to hybrid condition). And because the change will be continuous, there is guaranteed to exist some point where the two types of damage are equal. If we made more radical changes where having passive defense allowed more focus on DPS, then we’d begin to see non-glass gear take the spotlight. Again, the function will be continuous, so there would be a “breakeven” point here as well.

The only thing I’ve been arguing is that it is possible to set up an encounter where there is no statistically significant difference between two setups. I am not arguing that this sort of encounter currently exists in game, just that it could.

And like Weth, my interest in this discussion is mainly theoretical and philosophical.

For our purposes you can assume I am referring to this game, although I have noted the similarity here in all the games I have played. It is not a question of the admixture of beserker and some other stat choice, it is rather the existence of an optimal solution to the dps/survivability problem in a game where dps (given survivability) is king. That solution, apart from utility options, has been found, generally, and that is what is being discussed in this thread. That is what is being discussed in all these threads. You may like it or dislike it, but you can’t ignore that an optimal solution exists and that the players have discovered (and adapted to) it. And, there are threads where the math has been done—Weth, paradoxiacally, probably has contributed to our understanding of this phenomenon. He no doubt knows the mechanics of math. I just wish that the history of math, its origin and development, were more prominent in math education. It is altogether too possible to be able to do math without understanding math. Remember, the game is about depleting an enemies HP while maintaining yours. The solution in such a case is easy to find—and it has been found.

Wethospu.6437:

Of course they are different concepts. Why else I would need to define what better means?

A is my statement. How can I argue that my statement is something else than it is? And if what I’m saying is a tautology why are you arguing against it?

I have argued that true/correct means true/correct. Fairly straightforward I should think. You have argued that True/correct implies ‘better’—getting at the magic word optimal that has been a subject in this thread. I have argued that the solution to an equation of the nature of x=4 (what I was presented with initially) has no correspondence, whatsoever, with the notion of optimal. Values of x will be true or false for the equation, but none will be, in any sense, optimal. To understand this you would simply have to understand mathematics…and the definition of optimal. Optimal would imply the best or most favorable among options. You don’t have a lot of options in terms of the equation—simply true or false, correct or incorrect.

It’s gotten esoteric and probably incomprehensible for anyone who has not followed every post. My point is simply that ‘A’ = ‘A’. It is certainly interesting for me to watch someone argue against this proposition, but perhaps not beneficial for the topic at hand.

So,

Zerk Gear

• Killtime: 1 min
• Effort: 0.8 (80%)

Nomad Gear

• Killtime: 30 min
• Effort: 0.0 (0%)

Zerk: 1 × 0.8 = 0.8
Nomad: 30 × 0.0 = 0.0

With my high level math I just proved that nomad gear provides the best balance between time and effort, and therefore is the most optimal gear.

The meta is wrong. Casuals are right. You’re welcome.

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

Of course they are different concepts. Why else I would need to define what better means?

A is my statement. How can I argue that my statement is something else than it is? And if what I’m saying is a tautology why are you arguing against it?

I have argued that true/correct means true/correct. Fairly straightforward I should think. You have argued that True/correct implies ‘better’—getting at the magic word optimal that has been a subject in this thread. I have argued that the solution to an equation of the nature of x=4 (what I was presented with initially) has no correspondence, whatsoever, with the notion of optimal. Values of x will be true or false for the equation, but none will be, in any sense, optimal. To understand this you would simply have to understand mathematics…and the definition of optimal. Optimal would imply the best or most favorable among options. You don’t have a lot of options in terms of the equation—simply true or false, correct or incorrect.

It’s gotten esoteric and probably incomprehensible for anyone who has not followed every post. My point is simply that ‘A’ = ‘A’. It is certainly interesting for me to watch someone argue against this proposition, but perhaps not beneficial for the topic at hand.

I have never stated that true means optimal. I have stated that a solution which is true can be optimal, if optimal is defined that way.

You don’t need a lot of options to have the best or most favorable. Even one option will do.

Raine.1394:

You may like it or dislike it, but you can’t ignore that an optimal solution exists and that the players have discovered (and adapted to) it.

The way you’re talking to me seems to imply you think I am a skeptic PHIW meta denier. If you were to look at my initial posts in this thread many pages back you would see that this is absolutely not the case.

My argument with you has never been that the meta is GW2 is not unique. My issue has mainly been that I believe you’ve been trying to generalize beyond GW2 and beyond MMOs.

Again, the “uniqueness” of an optimal solution only deals with the fact that there is one single maximum/minimum. It does not say that there is only one collection of possibilities that gets us there. That’s what my function example has been doing.

I just wish that the history of math, its origin and development, were more prominent in math education. It is altogether too possible to be able to do math without understanding math.

Sorry, but I very strongly disagree here. The core and foundation of math is understanding the logic that goes into forming it: beginning at some axioms and then using logical reasoning to build the rest of the system. Although this approach has largely been abandoned in per-collegiate math classes, it persists proudly and defiantly at the university level, as the influence of frustrated parents fortunately has limits.

Weth and others have demonstrated this degree of understanding, attempting to work from the axiomic level (asking you how you choose to define things), and then deriving the rest of the system based on that.

PS: Although I believe my background itself grants me no additional credibility, I am of the impression that you may not. I have a degree in math and am in the process of finishing my Masters in Math Education. Being able to see math at the very basic conceptual levels allowed me to accelerate my studies in math by 4+ years. Before I entered university, I had already worked as a TA at my local university for classes up to the 300 level (Complex Analysis).

Wethospu.6437:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

Of course they are different concepts. Why else I would need to define what better means?

A is my statement. How can I argue that my statement is something else than it is? And if what I’m saying is a tautology why are you arguing against it?

I have argued that true/correct means true/correct. Fairly straightforward I should think. You have argued that True/correct implies ‘better’—getting at the magic word optimal that has been a subject in this thread. I have argued that the solution to an equation of the nature of x=4 (what I was presented with initially) has no correspondence, whatsoever, with the notion of optimal. Values of x will be true or false for the equation, but none will be, in any sense, optimal. To understand this you would simply have to understand mathematics…and the definition of optimal. Optimal would imply the best or most favorable among options. You don’t have a lot of options in terms of the equation—simply true or false, correct or incorrect.

It’s gotten esoteric and probably incomprehensible for anyone who has not followed every post. My point is simply that ‘A’ = ‘A’. It is certainly interesting for me to watch someone argue against this proposition, but perhaps not beneficial for the topic at hand.

I have never stated that true means optimal. I have stated that a solution which is true can be optimal, if optimal is defined that way.

You don’t need a lot of options to have the best or most favorable. Even one option will do.

Have you considered the word ‘option’?. Do you understand its meaning? Can you have one option? If you have one option it is not an option. An option is something to choose and having one choice involves no choice. I will admit to having spent only one semester as an English major, and while no expert, I did develop a lifelong appreciation of words and their meaning.

Edit: Options are actually rather central to this discussion. They are at the heart of class design and build choice. Do I need more survivability or can I invest in more DPS. It is about choice and trade-offs among options given perceived value. Given that, it is good to understand what an option is.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

You may like it or dislike it, but you can’t ignore that an optimal solution exists and that the players have discovered (and adapted to) it.

The way you’re talking to me seems to imply you think I am a skeptic PHIW meta denier. If you were to look at my initial posts in this thread many pages back you would see that this is absolutely not the case.

My argument with you has never been that the meta is GW2 is not unique. My issue has mainly been that I believe you’ve been trying to generalize beyond GW2 and beyond MMOs.

Again, the “uniqueness” of an optimal solution only deals with the fact that there is one single maximum/minimum. It does not say that there is only one collection of possibilities that gets us there. That’s what my function example has been doing.

I just wish that the history of math, its origin and development, were more prominent in math education. It is altogether too possible to be able to do math without understanding math.

Sorry, but I very strongly disagree here. The core and foundation of math is understanding the logic that goes into forming it: beginning at some axioms and then using logical reasoning to build the rest of the system. Although this approach has largely been abandoned in per-collegiate math classes, it persists proudly and defiantly at the university level, as the influence of frustrated parents fortunately has limits.

Weth and others have demonstrated this degree of understanding, attempting to work from the axiomic level (asking you how you choose to define things), and then deriving the rest of the system based on that.

PS: Although I believe my background itself grants me no additional credibility, I am of the impression that you may not. I have a degree in math and am in the process of finishing my Masters in Math Education. Being able to see math at the very basic conceptual levels allowed me to accelerate my studies in math by 4+ years. Before I entered university, I had already worked as a TA at my local university for classes up to the 300 level (Complex Analysis).

Sadly your disagreement would indicate that you will never understand the toast: “Here’s to pure mathematics—may it never be of any use to anybody.” And, I consider that a failure of mathematics in education.

And, in terms of anyone moving me to axioms, the way this is done is to take a propositional statement I have made and then to show where it’s in error. This is what I have done. I’ve demonstrated the misunderstanding of the nature of an algebraic expression and I’ve demonstrated the misunderstanding of words—that understanding would be conventional as in their dictionary definition. That’s the game and you haven’t done that. Simple assertion is not argument. Take a proposition that I have put forward and demonstrate my error. Good luck.

Edit: And, before you go further in your mathematics education I would suggest googling “the foundation of mathematics”. A thorough study will disabuse you of the notion that math is principally about ‘how’. It is principally about what, why, when, and where. How is simply mechanics, important but not central. I believe this knowledge is essential to a full-orbed education in mathematics.

Raine.1394:

Sadly your disagreement would indicate that you will never understand the toast: “Here’s to pure mathematics—may it never be of any use to anybody.” And, I consider that a failure of mathematics in education.

What about the other toast, “The journey is more important than the destination.”

Go learn about the history behind the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem. The result itself is basically meaningless, but because of the elegance of the proposed theorem and the inability to come up with a counterexample, much uncharted territory of mathematics was explored and uncovered in an attempt to get closer to the proof. [b]By the time the actual proof was finalized, these uncharted areas gave rise to applications reaching far beyond the confines of “pure” math.

Mathematics education is not about memorizing properties and what they do. It is about practicing, experiencing, and mastering the logic that flows naturally behind everything, inside and outside of math itself.

I’d say that in light of the above, your edit seems rather pointless to address at this point.

Your challenge for me to take a proposition remains open until you directly address the function f(x) = -(x^2-4)^2 I proposed. Are there not multiple ways to optimize (maximize) this function? You keep running to the “x=4” equation that was not offered by me, and with nothing to do with the discussion between the two of us.

PS: Before you continue to presumptively bottleneck me within the confines of Pure Math, understand also that I graduated with minors in Statistics and Computer Science (having been a TA for a university C++ course in Grade 10). I think I should know a little something about Applied Math. I hoped you could tell from the contents of my posts themselves, but it seems evident that you label (limit) people by the scope of their education.