- Score 550 overall in Bell Choir
550? Please, that’s insulting. 600 or kick.
Yeah I agree. My list was not hardcore enough.
Festival content needs to exclude even more people than 550 would.
Oh no….1 gold…whatever shall I do…..?
It looks like you’re too hardcore for the proposal.
You go girl!
You seemed to understand the context of “meta” the first time it was used here. Faking sarcastic ignorance is also noted.
Almost well played. Almost.
NOPE. Too hard. It has to match the difficulty of the other easy achievements. I mean, what if people have shoddy connections and drop thus missing the completion and having to do it all over again? Totally unfair.
The meta continues I see.
Your refusal to participate in a more constructive discussion is also noted.
So there seems to be a group of people in this forum that enjoys feeding on the tears of those who are unable to complete either the Bell Choir or the JP. Because the stuff is supposedly so trivial, surely they would support the proposal to replace the casual achievements with “real” ones?
I mean, come on, why should festival content be easy anyways? We already have loot pinatas world bosses for that! Those filthy casuals deserve nothing and should stop feeling entitled!
The thing is, it’s not really lol. I mean the choir bell daily can be done with just one finger. Is easy.
I’ve gotten 100 on a song while losing HP for pretty much every note played (no I’m not spamming them). And this is on an American ISP. I can imagine the problems people may have with slower reflexes, a crappy computer, or a foreign connection.
So anet made the mistake and didn’t contact the op to make sure their list of six daily achievements met his playing capabilities.
So what we need here is a fifth daily that is as trivial as the others. So no snowball mayhem….could drink five festival tonics, but we already have a copper spent on ho-ho-tron, so that’s too much……hmmm…..
Oh I know! Just visit the holiday vendor! Just like the old laurel vendor achievement! There! Then everyone can feel like that really accomplished something…
We could kill Toxx for starters?
But apparently making a strawman out of the situation is more meta here.
Why are all of you rallying around festival rewards as being proper “challenging content”? lol…
Where were most of you in the threads about the game in general being too easy/casual? A good number of you are defending these dailies simply because it’s the status quo.
OP is simply pointing out that there isn’t much precedent based on the history of this game. I would personally welcome such a shift, but I realize I am probably not the target audience, and I don’t believe a festival daily is the most appropriate place to begin such a shift.
You need to do sufficient damage to the boss to get kill credit, and the boss needs to actually die. Not to mention that you have to get to the right place at the right time. And to get the organ, you need to have the organ gathering buff on. And to get the full 3 rares and the Key, you need to be on a map where all the bosses are killed.
While it is possible to ‘leech’ some rewards for little effort in that instance, you still have to be part of a group effort where a lot is actually achieved. It isn’t a valid comparison to ‘logging into a solo activity and doing absolutely nothing.’
The standard for “sufficient damage” is not much at all. 1-2 autoattacks on any non-Nomad gear will get you over the threshold.
Organ gathering buff is a net gain, not loss, so I don’t see why you’d even list that as if it was some kind of effort.
Additionally, the boss does not need to die to give you an organ (although dead bosses do help with the multiple organ leech run).
While the rares and key depend on the group effort, the point is that individually the game does not require much personal contribution.
Quite honestly, with the standards ANet has set for individual contributions, there would be a reasonably strong argument that simply taking the portal into the Bell Choir/JP zone could count as “sufficient effort”.
PS: this opinion is brought to you by someone who has the JP on farm and gets 590+ in Bell Choir. I am not advocating this be easier because it would help me.
I don’t think it would be too much to ask to change the “complete” in both cases to “attempt”. I would hope OP and others would at least agree to put in that bit of effort if anything ever came out of this.
How would you define “attempt”? Go into the activity and stand around for a minute? The game can’t tell the difference whether you’ve done that, or actually made some effort to succeed.
Why does it need to? If hitting one single autoattack at one boss in the Silverwastes is enough to get 30+ bandit crests, an organ, 3 rares, and a Greater Nightmare Key, why does the game need to be an “enforcer” for Wintersday events?
I don’t think it would be too much to ask to change the “complete” in both cases to “attempt”. I would hope OP and others would at least agree to put in that bit of effort if anything ever came out of this.
The Wintersday reward track was one thing they did extremely right. Daily [Profession] win was the wrong way to get people to try PvP. Reward track was just what the game needed.
This game already has so much PvE-exclusive stuff that people are getting an expectation (even entitlement?) that everything should continue to be available in PvE, often without alternatives.
I also highly doubt that the exotic or stat-selectable nature of the underwater backpiece is why most players are seeking to get it.
PS: remember that the alternative to the reward track is more likely to be something like the mini holographic wolf, rather than some 100% guaranteed acquisition method for PvE.
well 2k games is almost nothing btw….expec if it’s total games and not only team tournament ones…hotjoin/custom arena games count 0 as pvp experience, high level players probably just go there because there’s no reason to tryhard atm, ladder rewarding farmers with less than 60% win/loss ratio and top 100 full of nonames…pretty much the opposite of what “competitive” means
I never said 2k games was extra special It was only used to set a contrast demonstrating why I might be in hotjoin playing like a headless chicken on 5 classees, and I would definitely consider myself on the more casual side of PvP.
As far as the rest of your rambling about the ladder that has little to do with my post and nothing to do with this thread, last I checked I had about a 80% win rate on the new leaderboard. Please leave me out of your agenda against the leaderboard, and go cry about it in a relevant thread.
MMOs have a lot of introverts. Some are such extreme cases to the extent that they close off completely thinking nobody could possibly be trustworthy.
Tom, your logic is not going to work on these people.
1. Dodge rolling
2. Minimal vertical progression, and none in PvP
3. No monthly sub
I have about 1400 games on warrior, 500 on guardian, and 400 on ranger.
For the other classes combined I have…about 40 (with 25 of them on ele). If I’m in practice mode it’s extremely likely I’m doing one of the PvP dailies on one of the classes I don’t play much.
Because even at rank 80 I probably play those classes like a rank 10 headless chicken.
Sure! You are talking about something nobody has raised as an issue, you continually convolute the point that is being made otherwise by ignoring it to steer towards your morass of agenda text. No more than you can argue with a dictionary can you debate the meaning of a term that was given meaning by something other than yourself with an authority different than your own.
Meta doesn’t mean what you want it to, it means what it means. And the incorrect application of the term and related terms is what the thread is about, not your definition of success or destruction or how you think the players feel, all of that is completely irrelevant.
He didn’t overstep anything, you and most of the other posters just sniped 3 or 4 words from the original post and are now so far from the real intention of the OP that you can’t see it for the thick fog of misdirection. Evidence: every post poor Wind makes has a clear purpose, and every response is off on a different tangent like a skritt after a shiny.
Feel free to reply, I won’t. If I could no-bump this thread I would, but my old post was infracted and now sits in your quote without context so I thought I should make myself clear. You can feel however you want, you are missing the point over and over.
How can you possibly say any less with any more words, yet ironically accuse me of missing the point?
My point was that “meta” means whatever the group using it wills it to mean. OP overstepped himself by proclaiming his personal definition superior, based on being a “words nerd” and an assertion that the commonly accepted meaning is toxic/destructive.
Sorry that you’ve chosen to remove yourself from the conversation (not that you’ve contributed anything with substance yet), but don’t expect to throw that many weak subtle jabs with nothing behind them and expect not to get called out.
snip
We don’t seem to be in disagreement.
My post was aimed at the hypocritical white knights who defend the status quo because simple because it is the status quo. I simply wanted to see if the guy was actually 100% serious that every achievement should be required for the meta.
PS: The Queen’s Gauntlet meta allowed flexibility, and Winter Wonderland is not required in the current meta.
I have never said anything about the amount of work.
You sort of did with your dictionary citation of “great effort etc etc”
As for the rest, it’s good to see that you passed the hypocrisy test while others have been asked a very similar question and dodged.
It is relevant because people seems to dislike the fact that you have to actually do or work a bit for the achievements.
If we actually look for the definition it is rather clear that an achievement is something you actually should have to work for. Either with skill or with time.
So a tiny bit of work is okay? But not too much?
What is your opinion if I made a new thread asking for achievements to be modified so they represent “great” effort as noted in your dictionary definition? We could start with the earlier examples I mentioned…
You should be all for this, right? After all, that would bring things more in line with your own citation.
a•chieve•ment (??t?iv m?nt)
n.
1. something accomplished, as through great effort, skill, perseverance, or courage.
2. the act of achieving; attainment or accomplishment.I’ll just leave this here.
And this is relevant how? Are we suggesting achievements should be like getting a perfect score in Bell Choir (one for 100 song and one for 600 round)?
Chopping every single tree in Plains of Ashford?
Killing the Great Jungle Wurm (instead of the dinky one)?
Donate 100 gold to Ho-Ho-Tron?
Hit 25 players with snowballs without getting hit back?
If you’re going to talk about how achievements should fit some dictionary definition of the word, would you care to explain how most of the current ones fit this definition?
Just means people like me, who are only in the training arena to slowly earn the rewards, will invade your ranked arenas, you know.
I wouldn’t mind that at all.
Hotjoin is such a cesspool of everything not to do in a PvP match that it may be best to end its misery once and for all.
For every player who manages to look past the spawncamping, team stacking 4v5, and autobalance abuse to find actual arena matches, there are at least 10 who decided this putrid filth represented the rest of PvP in this game and left, never to return.
Like DanGan here, who once again completely misses the point and spouts 5 paragraphs of nonsense.
Will this person who has made no actual attempt at discussion (bandwagoning doesn’t count) either show himself out or make an actual attempt?
The point is that OP way overstepped in the point he was trying to make, and that this is a two-way discussion.
PS: bandwagoning a post that fails to refute (deliberate avoidance?) any points brought up in the previous round of discussion may not be the best move either.
At worst I’m arguing that some of the attitudes associated with it are destructive, but even that is not a demand, maybe unsolicited advice.
Most of us consider that a rather serious accusation, rather than some afterthought. At least that you seem to hold “us” accountable for this “destructive” nature is something “we” cringe at.
Your arguments about the “destructive” nature of the direction of meta seem similar to ones offered by ones who were bitter about theorycrafting and DPS meters in WoW long ago. As people learn how to master the content in efficient ways, diversity gets discouraged in favor of cookiecutter, future content difficulty is focused around these theorycrafters, and people who didn’t keep up fall behind as former “achievements” are now “prerequisites” and “requirements”.
And to that we say…most of it does not apply to this game.
Using the very same argument you use (that “meta” is not a requirement for completing the content) is proof that nobody has become left behind as a result of the “meta”.
Especially under GW2’s more casual philosophy, we can say that no player shall be excluded from being able to complete content. But that is all that any player is entitled to, if even that. If they want to get there faster, if they want to be able to join higher level groups, then they need to do some things in exchange (join a guild, put on zerker gear, learn their class better, etc).
Please come back and talk about a destructive meta when it actually results in new content being so hard that players are actually excluded from being able to complete it. Because I don’t think we’ll see that any time soon.
Your essential misunderstanding
I believe the essential misunderstanding may lie with you…
I’m telling you that you’re describing it in the wrong way.
…starting with you describing it differently than you imagine the situation
Why should you be rewarded for something you can’t do? Bell choir is one of the activities of wintersday.
And this, agreed. You simply cannot say “Hey, I cannot or don’t want to play Bell Choir, but you know, I should still get rewarded for achieving it”. Erm, no? You just said you don’t want to achieve anything in regards to Bell Choir, so why would you get the achievement for it? You just said that you shouldn’t!
@Lothirieth: Unfortunately this is a required achievement for the meta achievement.
It’d be very weird if it were not.
Wintersday has a meta achievement.
“Achieve all achievements associated with Wintersday.” Makes sense, right?
So next year can we make Winter Wonderland one of the required achievements for the meta?
Can we put in Liadri as part of the next time the Queen’s Jubilee (or whatever it’s called) returns?
You’d be okay with this, I presume? And okay with using this same reasoning in the inevitable QQ threads?
life is a lot less painful once you get that your desires and personal likes don’t define everyone elses desires and personal likes.
You would do well to follow this advice yourself.
2) I’m a ‘words have meanings’ nerd, and the misusage annoys me in general
Words do have meaning. “Meta” has the meaning of being whatever is currently the most efficient. It has been that way in every game.
Words also do not have to have the same meaning to everyone. Case in point: “optimal”, “elitist”, “jerk”. Just because you disagree with the usage of one word does not invalidate its meaning and usage to others.
Take FFXIV. People used to run Titan Hard Mode with 3 tanks or 3 healers (party of 8 ) for safety, but the meta will always try to use 1-2 tanks/healers because having more DPS makes things go faster. Even your standard that “meta” needs to be required to succeed is one that does not hold in other games.
Your personal goals only apply to you, you can call whatever you want a failure. You Cannot apply that meaning to other players and expect them to respect it.
There is already a community of other players that accepts this meaning. They not only respect it, but follow it themselves. The word “meta” is an invitation for those other players to come and run according to that standard. In fact, the word “meta” is an invitation for the entire community to follow the standard.
We will stop using this word “meta” on one condition: you (or whoever) are able to get the community to adapt another word and get us to use it on the same level that we use the word “meta” now.
Quoting Trahearne as an authority figure on ethics is about as silly as the guy who quoted Sword Art Online a few days ago.
Sorry Star, but all you did was object that some of us do not consider being uninformed or underinformed as being a valid excuse. None of us here has been a “condescending jerk”, and we’re only here to offer the opposing viewpoint (as a two-way discussion is more healthy than a one-way one).
i love what you find on webster’s for ‘subjective’: ‘based on feelings or opinions rather than facts.’
Weth, are you saying that you have come to your personal build(s), the one(s) you use for top of the game content, through your feelings and opinions? Have any facts ever intruded themselves?
Weth has been saying that “optimal” must be defined clearly and objectively (axiomatically) before any discussion on “optimal” can occur. As the parties in the discussion must first agree on this definition, this bit is subjective.
Your ability to catch context seems lacking for someone who seemingly took English classes beyond the required General Ed. ones.
The entire thing is that we’re left with partially informed people thinking you have to play in reference to ‘meta’ because in just about every real use of the word that’s how it works.
Ignorance is not an excuse. It’s not our fault that some people are misinformed.
‘Our’. What does group identity have to do with anything? ><
Meaning, the non-uninformed people will not take responsibility or accountability for the failures of the uninformed people for being uninformed.
Please address my first post.
So the absence of any statements on functions indicates the absence of knowledge of functions. That seems legit logic. Humor me though, since everyone’s attempts have flown over my head just show me one more time what you are talking about. (This should be educational for you.) As queen of assertion (and not proof) this may, of course, be impossible for you. Maybe I’ll win big and get the king to chime in here, but I’m looking at you dear.
And, really, ’everyone’s’ attempt to show me? What is this an appeal to and what weakness does it display?
Haven’t I already said? It’s far more educational to do the work yourself instead of asking others to do it for you.
It’s why we’re stuck in this mess right now, and it would also explain the deficiencies in your education coupled with that that putrid egocentric arrogance.
Your continued denial and failure to understand the relevance of functions demonstrates your own lack of understanding and failure to keep up.
As everyone’s attempts to show how you have been wrong have flown over your head or ignorantly dismissed as irrelevant and off-topic, there is nothing more we can say other than to tell you to educate yourself.
The entire thing is that we’re left with partially informed people thinking you have to play in reference to ‘meta’ because in just about every real use of the word that’s how it works.
Ignorance is not an excuse. It’s not our fault that some people are misinformed.
But, let’s play. Have you caught me being ‘not right’ and therefore ‘dumb’? Let’s discuss this; I think it should be fun. Don’t say it, show it.
Every time you’ve been shown to be wrong you simply deny having been shown anything. It’s like talking to an evangelical Christian creationist who listens to conservative talk radio.
Why even attempt to discuss proper math when you continually confuse who you’re talking to and can’t tell the difference between an equation and a function?
What was the rebuttal? This should be instructive.
I think that is the whole point. There was no rebuttal, because you were rebutting Nevet while writing a post with my name in the quote box. This is why I used the word “attempt”.
But as far as being instructive, it would seem more instructive to do the work yourself instead of asking me.
Wrong. I was making a propositional statement. Can you refute it?
Wrong. Using the same amount of logic that you just did. /thread
EDIT: A serious reply below. As you are so hung up over the “rebuttal” part, allow me to revise my previous statement.
Do you honestly think that only you can determine the subject matter of the discussion?
When you are responding to me, then yes, I absolutely can have that expectation. You can, however, transition from my subject to your own.
(edited by Dave.2536)
nah there’s a definite prioritization as stab/prot are always stripped last no matter what
If this is really true, doesn’t that mean the current coding kind of sucks and should be avoided with a 30 ft pole? lol
What was the rebuttal? This should be instructive.
I think that is the whole point. There was no rebuttal, because you were rebutting Nevet while writing a post with my name in the quote box. This is why I used the word “attempt”.
But as far as being instructive, it would seem more instructive to do the work yourself instead of asking me.
Do you honestly think that only you can determine the subject matter of the discussion?
When you are responding to me with an attempted rebuttal, then yes, I absolutely can have that expectation.
That you were not talking about x=4 simply demonstrates that you and I were not talking about the same thing. It’s always helpful to be aware of the subject matter under consideration.
Please heed your own advice when I bring up functions and you respond with rebuttals involving x=4.
You talked specifically of functions as equations.
I did no such thing. I introduced the function as a contrast to the equation you were trying to rebut, declaring it something that fell outside the scope of your rebuttal to Nevet.
I don’t suppose the following line gave away my attempt to contrast rather than compare?
Do you understand the difference between an equation and a function?
Your decision (or reading comprehension level) in making such an interpretation is noted.
Nullification should not be intended to focus certain classes that hard, but it definitely does need to prioritize (or randomize) the boon it does remove.
I had a list of buffs (and stacks/duration) in a previous thread which I would consider “priority”, and any boon removal sigil should be looking at more than just might.
Ideally removal should be prioritized in roughly the order above.
The alternative (and probably significantly easier to code) would be to RNG the removal.
DOES TARGET HAVE A BUFF?
Boomsdont need to change anything, things like corrupt boon and path of corruption already have a priority for boon strip
They seem to only prioritize the last-applied boons. To prioritize might and/or other boons, more coding is definitely necessary.
(edited by Dave.2536)
Improving might stripping options, nerfing just ele, war, and engi, nerfing might stacking in genral, nerfing the amulet itself are all suitable solutions with one flaw. All of these answers will effect FAR MORE than just pvp, they will cause problems in WvW, PVE, etc.
How does nerfing the item “Celestial Amulet (PvP)” affect the rest of the game outside of PvP?
I’ve already offered my rationale on why Celestial stats in PvE are balanced and justified, and how the change should not extend over.
WvW will remain unchanged (and unbalanced) as it is seen more as a PPT match with some sandbox PvP. I wouldn’t worry about WvW being affected by Celestial changes until things like guardian dodge heal non-PvP trait, the Dire stat set, and Nourishment buffs get looked at.
I never talked about equations. I talked about functions. Nevet talked about equations. Please stop trying to rebut Nevet when talking to me.
We agree that equations cannot be optimized. Functions can. This extends to in-game functions such as “group DPS” or “completion time”, all functions that include “gear stats” as an independent variable.
We agree that the current meta is generally unique (zerker). That the current meta is unique does not prove that the meta must necessarily always be unique. It’s like saying that “It is always dark outside because it is dark outside now.”
Perhaps my function f(x) = -(x^2 – 4)^2 was too complex for you.
Perhaps the Intermediate Value Theorem (tl;dr—A difference of 0 must exist when we know of the existence of both a positive difference and a negative difference, and the difference function is continuous) flew over your head.
Or, perhaps the fact that I am not Nevet and was never talking about “x=4” was too much.
Please sort out these issues before implying that I don’t have a mathematical mind. It reeks of the same uncultured egocentric air that you showed Weth regarding “maths”.
PS: Soldier gear is superior to Zerker gear when attacking world bosses that cannot be crit. This is due to increased passive defense requiring less time spent on active defense, more +power from sharpening stones, and potential traits that grant extra power from toughness/vitality.
For the Metagame to be a consideration it needs to be just about required for success.
Why? Some define meta to be optimal or approaching optimal. Why is your definition necessarily the one we must all agree to use?
Joking aside, the attempts to impose a meta have a destructive effect on the game’s culture and limits players in ways that just aren’t productive.
How is it (objectively) destructive?
How are players limited other than how they choose to feel limited?
Celestial currently offers more total stats than other focused sets.
This was fine in PvE because the emphasis on DPS placed a greater weight on the damage stats.
In PvP all stats can be effectively utilized, so it should not be unreasonable to make the total stats of Celestial equal to that of a more focused amulet. There may even possibly be an argument for making the total stats a bit less.
I never talked about a function as I said. I was talking about a simple algegraic exrpesssion
No. You talked about (all) algebraic expressions in your math studies. And given that functions are algebraic expressions, I have found a single and sufficient counterexample to your sweeping claim.
And, the solution or solution set would never be optimal, simply true or false.
Solutions are true/false. Values for variables can be optimal. You can say “x = 2 or x = -2” or “2 and -2 are are optimal values for x to maximize f(x)”
You haven’t shown that anything that I have said is in error.
I just did, and I’ve done so multiple times. I’ve concluded that as you do not hold the basic principles of logic as one of your core values, we do not have the necessary shared logic base to continue this discussion.
EDIT: I suppose I’ll summarize everything here.
(edited by Dave.2536)
You, more and more, are appealing to authority, i.e., your mathematics education
The first and last person to appeal to authority has been you.
“bottleneck me within the confines of Pure Math” Where, exactly did that occur in our discussion?
Perhaps with this epic “toast” (re-quoted below) which I believe has been blown up completely by my “counter-toast”? Forgive me for coming to the conclusion that you were labeling (and thus limiting) people based on their disclosed education level and experiences. I thus made the conclusion that it was necessary to postscript (not preface like you) my posts further detailing my educational experiences.
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.
Have you considered a propositional statement I have made and demonstrated that it is wrong. If so, I haven’t seen it.
Welp, we can start with the fundamentals
op·ti·mal
?äpt?m?l
adjective
best or most favorable; optimum.
While this is an appropriate definition in the context of the English language, “best” and “most favorable” remain subjective and of little value in the context of math.
Let’s now move a bit further.
I’ve studied math, sorry, but we never once talked about an optimal solution to an algebraic expression.
A function is an algebraic expression. That you’ve never talked about an optimal solution (often defined as a minimum or maximum) to a function says quite a bit about your claims (or even your studies of math).
You can say that “x = 2 and x = -2” are optimal solutions to maximize the function f(x) = -(x^2 – 4)^2, or you can say that the statement “x = 2 and x = -2 are optimal solutions to maximize f(x) = -(x^2 – 4)^2” is true.
On to your egocentric line of ridicule to Weth who was using a perfectly fine and widely accepted term
And, I don’t know maths. I know math. (Do you really call it maths?)
So far you’ve disregarded the importance of commonly agreed-upon axioms (definitions), made sweeping false statements about basic principles, and demonstrated your (unqualified) egocentric condescension.
No, you do not get to dodge definitions (objective ones, not subjective) and axioms by referencing your one semester as an English major. At least commit the fallacy properly if you’re going to do so.
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.
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).
Apologies again for a late reply, as I was in PvP.
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.
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.
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.
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.