The case of Amanda Todd

But what WAS possible, was to boil everything down to very exclusive scenarios - like if you were 100% stationary and the mob you were fighting was absolutely stationary - and you knew exactly what buffs/debuffs came into play - and you could rely 100% on everyone else doing exactly what was required for the conclusion to be true - then yes, you could come up with a correct answer for that tiny and completely useless (in a pragmatic sense) scenario. That sort of answer would then be translated by the uninformed masses into some kind of universal truth - and a "cookie cutter build" was the result.

I don't know about WoW much, but it's not a bad example.

All you have to do to get a better model is to add one more variable to it. So add movement or buffs/debuffs to it.

Now you wouldn't get a model that worked 100% of the time but let's say 96% of the time. Now the question is if that's acceptable or not ?
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
No, you wouldn't get a model that would provide a single and correct answer to a wholesome or complex question. That's my entire point. You have to boil down the question until it no longer resembles the original question, which is where it loses its meaning.

To get a 100% exclusively correct answer, you have to ask very, very simple questions. That's fine - but it's also nearly useless for what we're talking about here.

In the case of WoW - the original question is "What is the best build for optimal DPS?" - and the only way to provide a useful and 100% correct answer is something like:

If you do this very specific task under these extremely specific conditions and everyone else does exactly what he or she is supposed to do - then this build will be the best.

See? You're getting an answer that's about 1% as useful as you wanted. Because in a game like WoW - you can be put in hundreds of situations that differ from each other. Do you raid, do you solo, do you do 5-man groups, do you PvP, what level of gear do you have, what are the other people doing, are you moving, are you able to stay in melee range, are you fighting at a distance, is your enemy in motion, does it use debuffs, what is it immune to, what happens at what stage of the fight, what is your cycle, what is the cycle of your fellow party members, and on and on and on.

Now, factor in life and the amount of things you have to consider - and you can reduce the usefulness of such an answer a thousand times.

Is that still useful? Maybe in a very limited way. Is it a 100% exclusively correct answer to the original question? Most definitely not.
 
I blame it on your question being too broad rather than the answer being bad. :p

It's like people talking about the answer to everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)
he number has received considerable attention in popular culture as a result of its central appearance in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as the "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything".

The answer for the WoW thing is correct, you just didn't specify in what situations.
It's correct for someone who is always standing still, and knows exactly what buffs are used.

:D

But yeah, basically, it's not the one correct answer, just a good approximation to it, which would suffice.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
It's not my question - it's the nature of life and the questions pertaining to it :)

As for WoW, yes - it's an answer to a useless question. What a wonderful model that is ;)

Anyway, we're going in circles.
 
Yup, since I don't remember saying there is just ONE answer to things. And that's what you seem to be arguing against.

If that's what dte meant, then I'm with you on that point, but I don't think that's what he did mean.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Yup, since I don't remember saying there is just ONE answer to things. And that's what you seem to be arguing against.

If that's what dte meant, then I'm with you on that point, but I don't think that's what he did mean.

You seem to be saying there is one if you ask the right question, and I'm saying that question is useless for the purpose of determining answers to the questions of life that's anywhere near complex.

As for DTE - let's let him speak for himself ;)
 
You're treating it as a pull system, DArt. It's a push system, which changes the dynamics significantly.

Let's run with your DPS example. You're standing at the end of the assembly line looking back and expecting some universal truth. That's not how it works. You tell me what's important to you. Standing still? Check. Mobs? Check. Wearing the +4 Mystical Plate of MC Hammer (Can't Touch This)? Check. Winds out of the west at 5 knots? Check. Further, you tell me (possibly by omission) what's not important to you. Don't want to be locked into a certain weapon type? Check. Don't want to specify which kind of monsters you're fighting? Check. I turn the crank and out pops the one and only Best Build Evah According to DArt. Is it The Best Build in a global sense? Probably not, but even simple systems are too complex for global solutions. Tomorrow you might decide that you're only going to fight koalas. Today, monster type doesn't matter, but tomorrow it does so the equation changes based on your new critical input list. Maybe the Best Build Evah According to DArt stays exactly the same, but maybe the introduction of koalas changes everything. There's still just one and only one answer, and it still has value TO YOU.

Now, in order for it to have value to anyone beyond you, they have to accept the same inputs as you did. If they vary, the "machine" still works but the answer at the end of the line gets a little more fuzzy. Not pointless by any stretch, but certainly not in precise focus. That is why it's important to discuss the inputs to a problem rather than the answer. If everyone agrees on the inputs (give or take), the answer is a foregone conclusion!
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
Yeah, I'm afraid we've reached an impasse. It's just repetition at this point with very little variation.

Don't really see the point in going on and on :)

But it was interesting until this point.
 
I knew it would end like this. There's no overwhelming objective evidence in either of your guy's court.
Probably not. It's rooted in inherently subjective personal philosophy and, as I mentioned a few posts back, we don't share the same personal philosophy. In fact, one might say that we have different critical inputs and, as such, are highly unlikely to end up with the same unique answer. ;)

Still, it was entertaining and I'm particularly proud of my +4 Mystical Plate of MC Hammer.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,535
Location
Illinois, USA
Back
Top Bottom