Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help
- - - - -

As a casual player......


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#1 Darthbaz

Darthbaz

    Fahrar Cub

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Profession:Thief
  • Guild Tag:[SFH]
  • Server:Gandara

Posted 02 February 2014 - 06:08 PM

I am constantly in awe of you guys and gals who work out ALL the stats on armour/weapons to the nth degree...seriously I look at the stuff you write and I get a headache !  one guy writes " yeah the might Sword of Dobber gives you 50 Health and an extra dps of 30 and on a full moon it also turns into a kick arse Axe with flames" then someone replies and adds " AHA! if you have a Sword of Dobber and add a Rune of Everlasting Honey twice a day for a week it gives you unlimited skill of ''Stop throwing stuff at me!' it's people like you who help people like me survive for maybe a split second longer than we did before to finish off a target so here's a big thank you off me



Thank you!!

#2 Robsy128

Robsy128

    Golem Rider

  • Members
  • 2916 posts
  • Location:Rata Sum
  • Profession:Ranger
  • Server:Yak’s Bend

Posted 02 February 2014 - 06:47 PM

I wish Guild Wars 2 had runes of everlasting honey and weapons that changed according to the moon cycle...

#3 XSevSpreeX

XSevSpreeX

    Asuran Acolyte

  • Members
  • 145 posts

Posted 03 February 2014 - 06:44 AM

View PostRobsy128, on 02 February 2014 - 06:47 PM, said:

weapons that changed according to the moon cycle...
That actually sounds interesting. It's Eternity to the extreme.

#4 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 531 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 03 February 2014 - 07:52 AM

To be fair, they'd have to create a moon cycle first.  Right now it's just static. ;)

#5 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 03 February 2014 - 02:04 PM

Careful; some of the math is wrong. Also, nice KoL referencing.

#6 Desild

Desild

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 985 posts
  • Location:New Eden
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[DKAL]
  • Server:Piken Square

Posted 03 February 2014 - 03:05 PM

You do know that theorycrafters are the first ones to shout "stop having fun guys", right?

#7 raspberry jam

raspberry jam

    Vigil Crusader

  • Members
  • 4787 posts

Posted 03 February 2014 - 09:40 PM

No, theorycrafters just say "it's fun to have fun, but here's how you can have more fun (whether you like it or not)".

View PostDarthbaz, on 02 February 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

I am constantly in awe of you guys and gals who work out ALL the stats on armour/weapons to the nth degree...seriously I look at the stuff you write and I get a headache !  one guy writes " yeah the might Sword of Dobber gives you 50 Health and an extra dps of 30 and on a full moon it also turns into a kick arse Axe with flames" then someone replies and adds " AHA! if you have a Sword of Dobber and add a Rune of Everlasting Honey twice a day for a week it gives you unlimited skill of ''Stop throwing stuff at me!' it's people like you who help people like me survive for maybe a split second longer than we did before to finish off a target so here's a big thank you off me



Thank you!!
I would actually play a game like that.

#8 Desild

Desild

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 985 posts
  • Location:New Eden
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[DKAL]
  • Server:Piken Square

Posted 03 February 2014 - 10:29 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 03 February 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

No, theorycrafters just say "it's fun to have fun, but here's how you can have more fun (whether you like it or not)".

You haven't really seen true horror until you step into the den inequity that is the Elitist Jerks website.

#9 Featherman

Featherman

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1028 posts
  • Location:Frolicking in Kalos

Posted 03 February 2014 - 10:48 PM

What's so difficult about stacking DPS and utility?

*shrug*

I'm pretty sure I had a more difficult time in grade school math than theorycrafting in GW2.

#10 MazingerZ

MazingerZ

    Golem Rider

  • Curse Premium
  • Curse Premium
  • 2274 posts
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[CYRL]
  • Server:Tarnished Coast

Posted 03 February 2014 - 10:52 PM

View PostDesild, on 03 February 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

You haven't really seen true horror until you step into the den inequity that is the Elitist Jerks website.

Eh, they don't do that much harm.  Blizzard balances around a berserk timer, thereby setting a hard limit on DPS/coordination requirements of the fight.  I'm sure they also consider how they thing a fight should actually take to be considered engaging.  With a game such as this one, lacking in berserk timers where a singular entity is setting the performance requirements for success (as well as adding a metric to what can be considered an engaging, and complex fight), you instead have the players pushing the upper boundaries because the fights have no reasonable conclusion.

Basically, GW2 allows you take however long you want (unless you're now raiding Marionette style), so without setting expectations  on the length of an encounter, other players make hard demands on DPS and performance.  Consider it like this: when the teacher tells everyone 'you have 30 minutes to finish the test' how does that hold up to the teacher just giving you the test without a word and every other student around you telling you to 'hurry up, it should only take you 30 minutes to do this.'  The teacher has applied a metric to everyone, versus the feeling that your peers are judging you and applying a metric to you.

The only time quickly killing anything in WoW mattered was largely dictated by the berserk timer. (facerolling dungeon trash towards the end of an xpac being something of the exception.)  The only time killing anything quickly in GW2 mattered is because '♥♥♥♥ it, this is boring, hurry it up' from the 'zerker players.

Edited by MazingerZ, 03 February 2014 - 10:56 PM.

It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.
Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

#11 Miragee

Miragee

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 03 February 2014 - 11:04 PM

View PostDesild, on 03 February 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

You haven't really seen true horror until you step into the den inequity that is the Elitist Jerks website.

There are those and there are other. Don't generalise. :( There are also a lot of Elitists that aren't theorycrafter as well.

#12 Desild

Desild

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 985 posts
  • Location:New Eden
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[DKAL]
  • Server:Piken Square

Posted 04 February 2014 - 01:22 AM

View PostMiragee, on 03 February 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:

There are those and there are other. Don't generalise. :( There are also a lot of Elitists that aren't theorycrafter as well.

You misunderstood me. I hate math. And that site is like my bane of existence. So much math...

Plus, my brain is hard wired to paint things in broad strokes. Like, black and white. Salt and pepper. Berserker Clerics and everything else.

#13 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 04 February 2014 - 03:38 PM

View PostFeatherman, on 03 February 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

What's so difficult about stacking DPS and utility?

*shrug*

I'm pretty sure I had a more difficult time in grade school math than theorycrafting in GW2.

People are kind of dumb. Once you accept this into your life a lot of headscratching goes away.

#14 Featherman

Featherman

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1028 posts
  • Location:Frolicking in Kalos

Posted 05 February 2014 - 06:31 AM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 04 February 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

People are kind of dumb. Once you accept this into your life a lot of headscratching goes away.
People are just good at different things. I have a friend who trouble understanding the very basics of chemistry, but her knowledge and skill in the arts blows me away.

But in the case of GW2 it's just basic math, like groceries shopping kind of math.

#15 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 01:08 PM

View PostFeatherman, on 05 February 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:

People are just good at different things. I have a friend who trouble understanding the very basics of chemistry, but her knowledge and skill in the arts blows me away.

But in the case of GW2 it's just basic math, like groceries shopping kind of math.
Exactly. You see, the people are not dumb because of the mathematics, it's because of the handling of the mathematics. "Theorycrafting" in a game with nothing to hash out is pretty pointless. Other than calculating your real-time damage rate the values for all components are pretty simple:

[ Highest Coefficient * Highest Weapon Base * Highest Power / Lowest Defense = Win ]

There's really nothing more it. Condition damage is completely stand-alone. Precision effects damage stability.

#16 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 531 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 05 February 2014 - 02:45 PM

Ehh...I'm pretty dumb when it comes to mathematics.  But even so, and this probably means I'm hurting myself here, why cater to the least common denominator?  Does turning a co-op dungeon-crawler into an MMO mean you have to "dumb down" the theorycrafting?

#17 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 03:15 PM

View PostKonzacelt, on 05 February 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

Ehh...I'm pretty dumb when it comes to mathematics.  But even so, and this probably means I'm hurting myself here, why cater to the least common denominator?  Does turning a co-op dungeon-crawler into an MMO mean you have to "dumb down" the theorycrafting?

The problem is that there's nothing to dumb-down. All damage is handled by a singular component, Power or Condition Damage; everything else just handles separate instances and events.

#18 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 531 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 05 February 2014 - 03:45 PM

I meant dumbed-down from GW1(or a similar game with a high degree of skill crafting) to GW2, not within GW2 itself.

#19 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 04:57 PM

Well there are benefits to using lower-tier mathematics and simpler equations rather than complex algorithms. The first is that lowered game complexity opens the world to a lot of people, the second is that extensive theorycrafting in games is actually a bad thing*, and the third is that it makes things easier to test, create, alter, and function without breaking entire segments of the game.

*Extensive theorycrafting is actually a sign of the game being too dependent on mathematical calculations and therefore almost "player independent" if you will. For instance some games are so dependent on math that you can break them by finding keypoints that the developers would naturally miss in testing because they aren't out to necessarily break their own game with thousands of combinations. Making sure you can't put on Platemail and win everything is their goal; in short when handed over to millions of other people that team, obviously, will find all the problems, bugs, nooks, and cranniers and completely destroy the game.

Actually this used to be a problem that plagued games all the time. Exploits in released discs and whatnot that never got updates were pretty common. You'd find a character who couldn't be damaged, a character who could trigger a specific state all the time, a way to get your ultimate move super-early, etc. and there was nothing the devs could do about it. Of course this worked both ways; you could also find the immovable walls in the game and either go around them or die.

Now let me be clear that theorycrafting itself isn't bad at all. It's just that math dependent games are typically not games of skill or games of depth. GW2 and various other games are moving away from the model simply because cleaner presentation with greater attentive requirements is better. We're moving on to a new age of gaming where people want to have to be drawn in; if you wanted an example of the times look at the success of MOBAs, they've been around forever but became really popular recently due to their intensity, the same is true of rogue-likes and other retrogaming phenomena where instead of worrying about the Dwarven Pick having +2% crit you're worried about whether you can outsmart, outmove, and conquer various tasks.

#20 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 531 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 05 February 2014 - 05:37 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 05 February 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

Well there are benefits to using lower-tier mathematics and simpler equations rather than complex algorithms. The first is that lowered game complexity opens the world to a lot of people, the second is that extensive theorycrafting in games is actually a bad thing*, and the third is that it makes things easier to test, create, alter, and function without breaking entire segments of the game.

Ahh, so from your first and third reasons: simply having more players is better than anything else($$$), and simpleness makes the devs jobs' easier( :zzz: ).  From that I get ANet seems to be making the classic mistake of trying to please everyone at the same time, and that they would rather keep the design simpler so that there are less potential problems.  The first is just plain depressing, the second I can get partially onboard for, but they have to find some kind of middle ground: uber simplicity isn't necessarily better than uber complexity, there should be a sweet spot between the two that is the goal...and I would probably lean a little toward the complex side.

Quote

Now let me be clear that theorycrafting itself isn't bad at all. It's just that math dependent games are typically not games of skill or games of depth. GW2 and various other games are moving away from the model simply because cleaner presentation with greater attentive requirements is better. We're moving on to a new age of gaming where people want to have to be drawn in; if you wanted an example of the times look at the success of MOBAs, they've been around forever but became really popular recently due to their intensity, the same is true of rogue-likes and other retrogaming phenomena where instead of worrying about the Dwarven Pick having +2% crit you're worried about whether you can outsmart, outmove, and conquer various tasks.

This paragraph is a true gem.  You're implying that physical, twitched-based, combat is more a skill than strategic, thought-provoking combat.  They are both skills in their own right, they just require different parts of the brain to work.  The former is akin to playing basketball while the latter is akin to playing chess.  I'd reeeeally love to see your figures on why the former is better than the latter.  I don't doubt that, we'll call it, "action"-based combat is on the rise.  What I truly doubt is that they inherently provide more depth and "draw in" the player better.  I've found the opposite to be true, and that certainly seems to be the case with GW2.  I really don't see how this action-heavy and strategy-light, "console-type" gaming meta is the wave of the future.

Edited by Konzacelt, 05 February 2014 - 05:38 PM.


#21 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 06:01 PM

View PostKonzacelt, on 05 February 2014 - 05:37 PM, said:

Ahh, so from your first and third reasons: simply having more players is better than anything else($$$), and simpleness makes the devs jobs' easier( :zzz: ).  From that I get ANet seems to be making the classic mistake of trying to please everyone at the same time, and that they would rather keep the design simpler so that there are less potential problems.  The first is just plain depressing, the second I can get partially onboard for, but they have to find some kind of middle ground: uber simplicity isn't necessarily better than uber complexity, there should be a sweet spot between the two that is the goal...and I would probably lean a little toward the complex side.
Actually yes on both parts of that original sentence though not for the reasons you propose. Having more players is better because it makes the game ... better. It's an MMO. I know, right? Simplicity however does make for a better game; a lot of the changes, nerfs, buffs, and other forms of content manipulation were easily implemented without anywhere near as many bugs as there could have been if the game had a complex algorithm system. Actually, I shouldn't say that, because the game does have a complex system in it: Enemy AI. The way that enemies choose their targets is definitely a form of algorithm and of course is incredibly difficult to change, tweak, or otherwise revamp without tearing the whole thing down. Integrated system complexity is a really bad thing. Think of the modding community for instance; if you wanted to make a mod in a creation kit that changed something simple or added an effect the difficulty difference between Dragon Age, where you needed to actually know C++, and Torchlight where you could just alter numbers is magnanimous, yes?

Same thing here. It's not that these games cannot have complex elements, they can, but that does not mean that they need to be mathematically complex. Games where there are 50 different stat subcategories exist and they still work off of simple addition and subtraction. You're not thinking like someone working on a project you're thinking like someone who is looking for pain. You yourself said that you're not the best at math, right? So if you build a combat system would you really want to work with exponents, logarithmic diminishing returns, quadratric damage based on complex multi-element figures such as taking into account things no one would think of like the number of strikes made within the last minute?

Probably not. Doesn't mean you will produce a shit game though. Most of the world's highly popular games use simple numbers ranging from rolling dice to rogue-likes with 60 different stats.


Quote

This paragraph is a true gem.  You're implying that physical, twitched-based, combat is more a skill than strategic, thought-provoking combat.  They are both skills in their own right, they just require different parts of the brain to work.  The former is akin to playing basketball while the latter is akin to playing chess.  I'd reeeeally love to see your figures on why the former is better than the latter.  I don't doubt that, we'll call it, "action"-based combat is on the rise.  What I truly doubt is that they inherently provide more depth and "draw in" the player better.  I've found the opposite to be true, and that certainly seems to be the case with GW2.  I really don't see how this action-heavy and strategy-light, "console-type" gaming meta is the wave of the future.
I want to focus on that sentence because you're incorrect about what mathematically heavy gaming actually is. Theorycrafting is the art of building equations, no matter how simple or complex, and then using that information to beget some form of ultimate balance between numbers to produce an effect. It is that simple. The problem is: It is that simple. It is not "thought-provoking", it is not "strategic", and it is definitely not "deep". The people who enjoy reverse engineering things, props to them, but the rest of us actually just benefit from their desire.

You mentioned chess, think of theorycrafting as playing chess against a computer that will always use the same moves. There is an initial challenge but after you figure out the pattern there is nothing more than to capitalize and cannibalize the program.

#22 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 531 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 05 February 2014 - 06:26 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 05 February 2014 - 06:01 PM, said:

Actually yes on both parts of that original sentence though not for the reasons you propose. Having more players is better because it makes the game ... better. It's an MMO. I know, right? Simplicity however does make for a better game; a lot of the changes, nerfs, buffs, and other forms of content manipulation were easily implemented without anywhere near as many bugs as there could have been if the game had a complex algorithm system. Actually, I shouldn't say that, because the game does have a complex system in it: Enemy AI. The way that enemies choose their targets is definitely a form of algorithm and of course is incredibly difficult to change, tweak, or otherwise revamp without tearing the whole thing down. Integrated system complexity is a really bad thing. Think of the modding community for instance; if you wanted to make a mod in a creation kit that changed something simple or added an effect the difficulty difference between Dragon Age, where you needed to actually know C++, and Torchlight where you could just alter numbers is magnanimous, yes?

Same thing here. It's not that these games cannot have complex elements, they can, but that does not mean that they need to be mathematically complex. Games where there are 50 different stat subcategories exist and they still work off of simple addition and subtraction. You're not thinking like someone working on a project you're thinking like someone who is looking for pain. You yourself said that you're not the best at math, right? So if you build a combat system would you really want to work with exponents, logarithmic diminishing returns, quadratric damage based on complex multi-element figures such as taking into account things no one would think of like the number of strikes made within the last minute?

Probably not. Doesn't mean you will produce a shit game though. Most of the world's highly popular games use simple numbers ranging from rolling dice to rogue-likes with 60 different stats.

If simplicity is innately better, why did GW2 make such a complex system in terms of keeping track of all the various effects one player does to another in W3?  The lag that everyone complains about there is largely due to the servers trying to keep track of every single players' myriad condition/boon/attack values affecting everyone else around them every milisecond.  Why use large numbers like 20k when 200 would do the same thing if everything else was lowered accordingly?  Why create such an intricate system of player-to-player interactions when the system can't handle it well?  Why base the combat telegraphs purely on visual cues when 100 players are in the same spot and the particle effects are montrous?  Why base large-scale PvP combat on thousands of instantaneous calculations taking place on a global scale?

Quote

I want to focus on that sentence because you're incorrect about what mathematically heavy gaming actually is. Theorycrafting is the art of building equations, no matter how simple or complex, and then using that information to beget some form of ultimate balance between numbers to produce an effect. It is that simple. The problem is: It is that simple. It is not "thought-provoking", it is not "strategic", and it is definitely not "deep". The people who enjoy reverse engineering things, props to them, but the rest of us actually just benefit from their desire.

Ehh...that's a narrow definition of theroycrafting.  GW1 had a ton of theorycrafting involved in it, especially the PvP, and it was very "thought provoking", "strategic", and "deep".  Granted the PvE metas were simpler once you learned them, but that's more a case of the introduction of customizable heroes and over-powered skills.

Quote

You mentioned chess, think of theorycrafting as playing chess against a computer that will always use the same moves. There is an initial challenge but after you figure out the pattern there is nothing more than to capitalize and cannibalize the program.

I would counter this that the real meat and potatoes of an MMO, especially one with the Guild Wars name attached to it, should be PvP and not PvE.  The theorycrafting complexity should be coming from how to beat another human first, and how to beat an random world boss second.  AI doesn't have to play by the same rules we do, i.e. it doesn't have to play fair.  You can add all sorts of components to a PvE mob that human players can not, and should not, have access to.

#23 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 531 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 05 February 2014 - 06:56 PM

Think about best and worst characteristics of an AI.

The best is obviously speed.  They can react in nanosecond timing, humans simply can't compare to that.  So players develop other ways to beat it like...

The worst is predictability.  Once you figure out how the AI operates, it's simply a matter of playing it against itself.

Theorycrafting vs the AI is dull, but theorycrafting against another human...that is where it gets interesting.  Yes, PvE can be like chess where you're playing a computer, but in PvP it's infinitely more difficult.  And yet ANet chose to blanket all of GW2, PvP and PvE, in an overarching "action" combat meta with little theorycrafting involved.

The reason can be summed up in one word: casuals

Since they are the fastest growing segment of the market, ANet effectively left the die-hard GW1 PvP segment of the playerbase out to dry.  And all that comes back to money.  ANet prides itself on being innovative, yet in this regard they caved hard to gaming trends out of fear of being "just another niche game" like GW1 was known for.  Essentially, by choosing to go all-out as an MMO, they discarded one of the very things which made them unique and relevant in the gaming world.

They became trendy.

#24 Epixors

Epixors

    Vanguard Scout

  • Members
  • 401 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Profession:Guardian
  • Guild Tag:[LSL]
  • Server:Seafarer’s Rest

Posted 05 February 2014 - 07:26 PM

I'd argue theorycrafting still isn't just solving equations, those are just means to an end. You consider the environment, the utility, the actions around you and your team and this is usually where the core comes from. If all we did was solve equations Guardians would go balls deep into Valor :wacko:

Though yes, against AI it does become a very basic thing, and after you define the core of your build based on environment, utility required etc. it is a question of solving equations.

#25 Featherman

Featherman

    Seraph Guardian

  • Members
  • 1028 posts
  • Location:Frolicking in Kalos

Posted 05 February 2014 - 07:31 PM

If numbers are really a problem then isn't it best to keep the scale low and the calculations simple whilst designing intuitive, but deep and engaging elements around them? GW2 calculations are simple but the relevancy the variations in numbers is low. It really boils down to more DPS being better in every scenario, because there's little or no context surrounding that DPS due to the lack of mechanisms regulating it (e.g. energy). I wouldn't call it intuitive either, given that lack of feedback in combat (you can attack through hits/being hit) and the fact that and the floaters make it difficult to see numbers. Players eventually tune it all out and it becomes just another motion.

The original Guild Wars gets it right by keeping the scaling and calculations low, but increasing the amount of relevancy to each of the calculations made by the player. In effect it doesn't take a math genius to theorycraft, but it requires a bit of imagination and understanding of the context with which your skill set is being used.

Even action games balance the relevancy of stats and player and player skill, but good ones keep both relevant to one another at all times. For instance in Dark Souls players are often required to calculate the number of hits they need connect to kill an enemy in order to leverage their positioning against other ones. This is because all enemies are threatening and punish the players if they approach them the wrong way, regardless of the players stats (unless you're like soul level 200 playing not playing on new game+, then skill becomes irrelevant).

#26 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 531 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 05 February 2014 - 07:35 PM

balls deep...rofl.  Haven't heard that phrase in so long lol.

I agree, it's not just about balancing equations.  And for those very reasons you mention and more.

I'd like to add that in PvE, I'm actually probably a casual.  I just don't find beating an AI something to be especially proud of.  Not to say it's never hard, it certainly is at times.  But there's something lackluster in knowing you're up against something that doesn't really know the definition of adaptation.

#27 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 531 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 05 February 2014 - 07:40 PM

View PostFeatherman, on 05 February 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

-snip-

Agree.

I heard a really good descriptor of GW2 combat awhile back, I can't remember who said it:

In GW2, you're not playing your character, you're playing the mechanics.

Something about that sentence strikes me as very apt, but I'm at a loss as to how to explain it. :mellow:

#28 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 08:46 PM

View PostKonzacelt, on 05 February 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

If simplicity is innately better, why did GW2 make such a complex system in terms of keeping track of all the various effects one player does to another in W3?
"Complex" and "Convoluted" are not the same thing. If you add 1+1 on a computer once a modern computer will not struggle. If you open a million calculators and attempt to do it at the same time the computer will freeze.

Quote

Ehh...that's a narrow definition of theroycrafting.  GW1 had a ton of theorycrafting involved in it, especially the PvP, and it was very "thought provoking", "strategic", and "deep".  Granted the PvE metas were simpler once you learned them, but that's more a case of the introduction of customizable heroes and over-powered skills.
Theorycrafting is a very specific thing. It is a mathematical analysis. The application of this daya is where you get into your "thought provoking, strategic, deep" elements. TC would be equivalent to reading a book on chess.

The third portion is addressed by understanding the definition of Theorycrafting and what part it plays in Applied Gaming Strategy.

#29 gw2guruaccount

gw2guruaccount

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 892 posts

Posted 05 February 2014 - 08:55 PM

View PostFeatherman, on 05 February 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

If numbers are really a problem then isn't it best to keep the scale low and the calculations simple whilst designing intuitive, but deep and engaging elements around them? GW2 calculations are simple but the relevancy the variations in numbers is low. It really boils down to more DPS being better in every scenario, because there's little or no context surrounding that DPS due to the lack of mechanisms regulating it (e.g. energy). I wouldn't call it intuitive either, given that lack of feedback in combat (you can attack through hits/being hit) and the fact that and the floaters make it difficult to see numbers. Players eventually tune it all out and it becomes just another motion.

The original Guild Wars gets it right by keeping the scaling and calculations low, but increasing the amount of relevancy to each of the calculations made by the player. In effect it doesn't take a math genius to theorycraft, but it requires a bit of imagination and understanding of the context with which your skill set is being used.

Even action games balance the relevancy of stats and player and player skill, but good ones keep both relevant to one another at all times. For instance in Dark Souls players are often required to calculate the number of hits they need connect to kill an enemy in order to leverage their positioning against other ones. This is because all enemies are threatening and punish the players if they approach them the wrong way, regardless of the players stats (unless you're like soul level 200 playing not playing on new game+, then skill becomes irrelevant).
Some things will always be a mystery. There isn't always rhyme or reason behind the mathematics.

Take for instance the difference between Skyrim and Oblivion. Oblivion's armor had a direct reduction rating so you would have 2 defense and that was a reduction in 2% total damage. The max armor was 80. Simple. Skyrim's max armor is something around 6xx. Obviously this isn't linear, simple, or rational and we still can't figure out why they did it.

Actually what you said about DS is important; first this is "Applied Theorcraft" not theorcraft and second the actual level of theorycrafting is low. WYSIWYG is the basic notion where if a weapon does 100 damage it will do 100 damage affected only by resistances whether positive or negative. The mainstay of the GW2 runs under a model closer to this; applied theorycraft dictates that DPS is the best option in relation to basic or advanced playerskill. Simple.

Edited by gw2guruaccount, 05 February 2014 - 09:31 PM.


#30 Konzacelt

Konzacelt

    Sylvari Specialist

  • Members
  • 531 posts
  • Location:a prairie under a clear, blue sky
  • Guild Tag:[PD]
  • Server:Sanctum of Rall

Posted 05 February 2014 - 09:32 PM

View Postgw2guruaccount, on 05 February 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

"Complex" and "Convoluted" are not the same thing. If you add 1+1 on a computer once a modern computer will not struggle. If you open a million calculators and attempt to do it at the same time the computer will freeze.

Alright, I'll buy that.  But then it begs the question: why is W3 combat so convoluted?

Quote

Theorycrafting is a very specific thing. It is a mathematical analysis. The application of this daya is where you get into your "thought provoking, strategic, deep" elements. TC would be equivalent to reading a book on chess.

I respectfully disagree.  I can theorycraft on certain areas and not use numbers.  It's an all-encompassing term, not defined by equations.  Perhaps you're using some textbook definition, but I would say most players use of theorycrafting involves all sorts of variables.  It's not a science experiment.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users