Guild Wars 2

Spoj The Second.7680:

Raine.1394:

I, as an American English speaker have the same problem with ‘maths’ as I have with ‘gears’. To my ears it sounds the same as discussing how many deers were in the road. Maths may be allowed in the UK but I will reserve my right to state my preference.

I don’t know why but I found this pretty funny considering how many words have simplified spelling in american english. And how saying gas instead of petrol is considered correct in America. Not to mention american english came from english.

Oddly enough I am an anglophile. And, I spell honor, honour…usually. I even adopted continental dining practices as in fork in the left hand, knife in the right. That said, I can’t ever refer to the number a deers in a group or ‘gears’, and in this case ‘maths’. It just doesn’t work for me. British English is English. Americans, most unfortunately, improved it worse, to partially borrow a quote from Prince Charles. This is simply a personal issue I have and I hope you will forgive me here.

Wethospu.6437:

To be honest I wouldn’t really call this a discussion.

If I had a problem using the word ‘option’ properly, I probably wouldn’t call this a discussion either.

If you merely assert that someone is wrong it bears no weight. If you have an esoteric tool, say, a dictionary, you can at least argue that, conventionally, a person might be wrong in their use of a common word like option. The person who can’t function at the level of basic English, however, is unlikely to move beyond assertions. Generally they function at the level of the ad hominem, never actually engaging with a stated proposition. Unfortunately, that is where you find yourself.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

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.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

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.

Hey, feel free to revise as you wish. I do it all the time. And, I love all of the above and have nothing to say in response . It pretty much speaks for itself. As do all of our preceding posts. I am sorry that Weth has left the tread. Perhaps he was too easy to dispatch but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

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?

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

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.

What was the rebuttal? This should be instructive.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

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.

Raine.1394:

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?

DaveGan.8065:

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

Your decision (or reading comprehension level) in making such an interpretation is noted.

I wasn’t reponding to your functions with x=4, I was simply discussing what I was discussing. Do you honestly think that only you can determine the subject matter of the discussion? And, can you please explain your understanding about what my comprehension level is or my interpretation. I actually desire to understand what you are saying here.

Wethospu.6437:

All I can hope that at this points it’s pretty evident for most readers that Raine has no idea what he is talking about.

Oh, you’ve certainly demonstrated that, right. You could, of course, state an instance of this specifically. That pretty much is the way it works here. But that may be asking more of you than you are capable.

You talked specifically of functions as equations. I talked about one specific form of equation. Your function is not too complex for me, I have regarded it as irrelevant of the purposes of the current discussion. Soldier gear may be superior to zerker under any given assumption about the dynamics of a fight. I’m not at all tethered to zerker as the best solution to any problem. I do believe that there is an obvious solution to any given problem. And, as I have stated, I believe that there are optimal solutions to given problems and that they will be discovered and adapted to by players. 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.

I, as an American English speaker have the same problem with ‘maths’ as I have with ‘gears’. To my ears it sounds the same as discussing how many deers were in the road. Maths may be allowed in the UK but I will reserve my right to state my preference.

I’ve only talked, in context, about the expression I was discussing. Read my posts. The context was always an algebraic experssion of the nature of x=4. (I simplified it to capture the nature from Nevet’s original equation.) Again, I’ve said this repeatedly. Values for X will never be optimal as the best choice among many, there simply aren’t many choices, they will simply be true or false. There is no optimal solution, by definition, for an equation of this nature as there aren’t any alternate options to a simple true or false. This should be self-evident.

And, in this context it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about values of x being optimal. There is no optimal value for x. The equation simply becomes true or false for differing values of x. Understanding this, however, does require a mathematical mind.

And, look, this is rather straightforward,, how many threads do you see about zerker stats being predominant in terms of gearing choices? That is, I got kicked because I wasn’t zerker? And, as I’ve mentioned the math is already done for you in many threads. How many appear complaining about or even discussing multiple optimal equivalent gearing choices in the game? Why is that? Is there zero difference between soldier’s (A) and zerker (B)? Are stats A and B both optimal under given current game performance criteria? A simple consideration of correspondence to reality will reveal all to you. I won’t endeavor to explain this to you again. You will either understand it or not; it’s not about like or dislike it’s about what is and what is not.

Wrong I never talked about a function as I said. I was talking about a simple algegraic exrpesssion of the nature of x=4. And, the solution or solution set would never be optimal, simply true or false. Read the definition of optimal, I’ve quoted the cheapo version several times. And, I have said this repeatedly. And, why did I choose this nature of expression? Simply because that is what was originally presented to me.

“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.”

You neglected to mentiion where I fell guilty of any of this, again, you are just making assertions, an obvious common problem with you. You are rather light on actual argument for a supposed mathematician.

@DaveGan, You still haven’t done it, have you. You haven’t shown that anything that
I have said is in error. Just pointing it out here. Would you like to have another go at it?

DaveGan.8065:

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.

There was no point at which I addressed a function as it had no bearing at any point in the discussion. We don’t need recourse to a function of x to understand builds and their demonstrated value in this game. And, it is simply not of the nature of the simple algebraic equation that was raised in the thread and that I addressed. How a function functions is a non sequitur in terms of the current thread. We are talking about builds and their perceived value in this game.

You, more and more, are appealing to authority, i.e., your mathematics education (see above), which I have shown is deficient, and which would indicate insecurity in your position. I won’t say argument as you haven’s made one.. “bottleneck me within the confines of Pure Math” Where, exactly did that occur in our discussion? Bizarre.

Have you considered a propositional statement I have made and demonstrated that it is wrong. If so, I haven’t seen it.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

rapthorne.7345:

Dalanor.5387:

1. Nothing stops you from equiping other gear sets.
2. Nothing stops you from changing your build, including skils and traits.
3. Nothing stops you from finding a group of likeminded individuals via the LFG tool.
4. Nothing stops you from making friends in game to hang together.

Nothing stops you, only yourself.

ps: There is a huge thread already about a similar topic, please merge/delete the thread.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/This-Meta-has-to-end

I’m not addressing popularity of the build and whether I can party with people when not using a berserker set (I use Soldier as a guardian) but rather addressing the fact that nothing has been done by ANet to make other builds as effective as berserker in pve

Yes, you can gin up scenarios where zerker and soldier’s gear are equal. However, as soldier’s and zerker represent different trade-offs they will never be equal in terms of optimal dps given survivability. They are different choices with different results. And, as has been mentioned before, in this game dps is king—logically there will always be an optimal solution to the dps/survivability problem. Players have found it in zerker gear. Realistically, yes, Anet can change the meta, but only by establishing a new meta. Different gearing choices can’t be equivalent as they represent different options (trade-offs).

Jordo.5913:

other stats can’t be as effective as berserker

the reason beserker is so good is because you sacrifice all defensive stats for pure power because you are good at dodge rolling

Sinister is pretty much the effective “zerker” form for condi damage, but you still have to realize that condi dmg is bleeding them out rather than big hits.

If you have the skill to dodge roll, you are doing yourself a dis-service by using soldier’s gear.

Soldier’s and Knight’s are for people who need a little more Vitality and Toughness because sometimes they make mistakes when dodge rolling, or their skill build is lacking condi removal and evasion skills.

Has condition damage changed in this game? I honestly don’t know as I haven’t played in ages. There was a cap previously and in any given grouping you were likely to be applying zero damage (beyond ‘white’ damage) with a condition build. It would be great if they fixed this. And, in terms of zerker you don’t sacrifice all defensive stats as you still have defensive stats with zerker gear, just less of them. It’s simply that, in the current game universe, zerker gear offers the optimal dps/survivability ratio. That is, the highest dps given the ability to stay alive. We hold player ability constant and assume players can play the class in order to understand changes in the other variables.

Andred.1087:

As has been said time and time again, there will always be an optimal style of play, and people will always converge upon it. The different stat combinations exist so you the player can find whatever style of play you like best, but with the caveat that for any given activity, one of them will be the most efficient.

By the way, DPS will always be the most optimal for PvE, regardless of how it is achieved, because maximizing DPS is the way to minimize time spent.

Whoa, wasn’t expecting an accurate assessment. But yes, the game is about depleting an enemies health before yours is, and players will always find the most efficient path to this end. It happens in every game everywhere and should really not be viewed here as atypical and problematic. Check out worldofwargraphs.com and look at the builds of all the top WoW PvE players in the world. They are virtually identical except for those abilities that represent differing raid utility. And, WoW is not unique in this either. In games with a more complex build system you will find more shades of variation, but not true build diversity. Build diversity is simply a myth that only exists as a design goal of most games. It sounds good but a quick review of reality should disabuse one of the notion.

This is what is commonly called the zerker ‘meta’. I’m not particularly interested in the term but will use it for clarity in this game. What many don’t realize is that Anet could change it in a heartbeat. Sadly it would then simply be ‘zerker’ by another name. I suppose this might make for interesting variety, kinda like when the hunter population in WoW would switch from survival to marksmanship to beastmaster, en masse, with any given patch.

Contrary to the opinion above, the ‘meta’ really has nothing to do with player behaviour, other than players recognizing what works best and adopting it. Whatever ‘meta’ we have is solely a product of game design.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

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

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

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

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

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

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

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

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

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Sins.4782:

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

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

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

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

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

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

DaveGan.8065:

Raine.1394:

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

So how about:

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

DaveGan.8065:

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

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

Here it is again:

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

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

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

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

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

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

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

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

Wethospu.6437:

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

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

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

Wethospu.6437:

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

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

For equations

• x^2 = 4
• x^4 = 16
  *x =1

values 2 and -2 would be optimal.

For equation(s)

• x^2 = 4

values 2 and -2 would be optimal.

Raine.1394:

Wethospu.6437:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerus.4350:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wethospu.6437:

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

-snipped for length-

Solve this problem, “friend:”

x^2=4

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

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

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

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

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

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

-snipped for length-

Solve this problem, “friend:”

x^2=4

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

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

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

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

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Just to play devil’s advocate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps a better example demonstrative of more tradeoffs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those two things say the SAME THING.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seera.5916:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Just to play devil’s advocate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps a better example demonstrative of more tradeoffs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those two things say the SAME THING.

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

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

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Just to play devil’s advocate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps a better example demonstrative of more tradeoffs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Raine.1394:

Nevets Crimsonwing.5271:

Just to play devil’s advocate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps a better example demonstrative of more tradeoffs:

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

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

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

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

Because of the complexities of class design it is highly unlikely that you will end up with two identical classes in terms of anything—or with two sets of gear the same. Remember the trade-offs—you want them different. You want broadly comparable sustained damage across the board with classes, but it will never be exact. And the differences (trade-offs) with gear should never yield the same results. And, this optimal solution is a function of game design. Players will discover what works best and they will practice it. And, in terms of the current conversation, you will not obtain zerker results without wearing zerker gear.

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

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. So, apart from any given desired utility, there is no reason to not focus on zerker builds when composing a team. No gimmicky scenario is going to change this reality.

It’s interesting that OP apparently thinks there is a zerker meta because people choose to play zerker over other options at a whim. That is, if they chose something else they would change the meta. In every game I’ve played all top players play essentially the same builds. Maybe with differing utility options for raid composition. Why? Because they are the best builds to play in terms of dps/survivability. Anet could change the meta in a heartbeat if they wanted, but then it would simply be a new meta. Players are simply responding to objective reality—i.e., someone has done the math.

I think true build diversity is a bit of a myth. Well, it exists for those who don’t min/max, but will never be widely represented in a game. What is being called a meta here will emerge, it’s a function of game design not player choice; it doesn’t much matter what it is.

Compared to Rata Sum the Sylvari home is quite expansive. And, the Sylvari have the best music.

I suggest we handle this the same way we handle it IRL. Dueling is probably the best way for players to develop their PvP skills—no question. And, we have an analog IRL: martial arts. I love to spar, but I have no interest in being challenged to a duel while walking to the movie theater. And, luckily, there is a place for sparing, the martial arts studio.

What we need, and already have, is a place for people who wish to duel, to duel. The problem is already solved. It makes as much sense to put dueling in open world PvE as it does to put sparring on IRL open world streets.