The best strategy for balancing EP

[deleted_user0]

Which one would you prefer? Legit question, diarouga asked me to create this poll.
In discord group a shit ton of balance of different civs was discussed in 30 minutes. Of course, more players (with different mains) could be included.

[RefluxSemantic]

I spotted zoi presumably playtesting the next EP iteration with a 1st lt/captain player. Good stuff.

[vividlyplain]

shit poll, where is garja option?

[[Armag] diarouga]

Zoi understands the game better than any top player, face it.

[deleted_user0]

Of course one can say the "options" are bias. If somebody explains a better way to explain the second option neutrally, I'll include it.

[iNcog]

"Zoi incorporates feedback from various different players and community members of his choosing, but ultimately the final changes are decided by him."

[deleted_user0]

"Zoi incorporates feedback from various different players and community members of his choosing, but ultimately the final changes are decided by him."

I edited but this statement has problems. There are various of changes I can not find any source, anybody who recommended requested them?
or at least many with massive disagreements.

[iNcog]

"Zoi incorporates feedback from various different players and community members of his choosing, but ultimately the final changes are decided by him."

I edited but this statement has problems. There are various of changes I can not find any source, anybody who recommended requested them?
or at least many with massive disagreements.

I think the lack of transparent sources is part of the problem. I believe Zoi discusses all of his changes with at least one other person, we just don't see it. Or maybe he doesn't. You're correct that the lack of transparency makes things awkward.

Appreciate your willingness to discuss this one as neutrally and fairly as possible.

[deleted_user0]

"Zoi incorporates feedback from various different players and community members of his choosing, but ultimately the final changes are decided by him."

I edited but this statement has problems. There are various of changes I can not find any source, anybody who recommended requested them?
or at least many with massive disagreements.

I think the lack of transparent sources is part of the problem. I believe Zoi discusses all of his changes with at least one other person, we just don't see it. Or maybe he doesn't. You're correct that the lack of transparency makes things awkward.

Appreciate your willingness to discuss this one as neutrally and fairly as possible.

But you can't make conclusions/changes based on conversation with one?
There's like a massive, at least +80% support against so many changes.

[BrookG]

Suggestions for fixing any balance problem needs to be done before the process beta starts. A list of problems has to be compiled and the changes have to tackle each of these problems. Then you announce a beta with potential fixes and lastly you publish the patch.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Which one would you prefer? Legit question, diarouga asked me to create this poll.
In discord group a shit ton of balance of different civs was discussed in 30 minutes. Of course, more players (with different mains) could be included.

Maybe explain who is/would be in that group, how we discuss changes and our first conclusions.

[n0el]

What would be that group's goal? Because it shouldn't be constrained to balance.

[iNcog]

Show hidden quotes

"Zoi incorporates feedback from various different players and community members of his choosing, but ultimately the final changes are decided by him."

I edited but this statement has problems. There are various of changes I can not find any source, anybody who recommended requested them?
or at least many with massive disagreements.

I think the lack of transparent sources is part of the problem. I believe Zoi discusses all of his changes with at least one other person, we just don't see it. Or maybe he doesn't. You're correct that the lack of transparency makes things awkward.

Appreciate your willingness to discuss this one as neutrally and fairly as possible.

But you can't make conclusions/changes based on conversation with one?
There's like a massive, at least +80% support against so many changes.

Yeah that's the problem.

There is merit to pushing an unpopular albeit good change. However it's hard to know if it's a good change or not and I think more often than not it feels like an unpopular change is perhaps not worth pushing through.

EP Uhlans is a good example of this. Germans are arguably quite balanced in current iteration of EP, which is a good thing. The change itself is not overwhelming popular because of its repercussions in 3v3 as well as the overall role of Uhlans.

Many are also vocal about the position of India these days and I think that many points made by yourself and WickedCossack are very, very valid.

It's an issue that needs to be addressed.

[deleted_user0]

What would be that group's goal? Because it shouldn't be constrained to balance.

For example, with India find a compromise which everybody approves. This was really easy. Of course, if EVERYBODY is invited, there is SOMEBODY who disagrees with something, but I mean, at least to achieve +80% support to implement a change among the most active/high level players.

[iNcog]

What would be that group's goal? Because it shouldn't be constrained to balance.

Correct.

There is a lack of consensus as to the right direction for the patch.

It's two camps. One is sticking closer to RE patch and just fixing balance/broken things. So changes like better maps, getting rid of broken mechanics, etc. are good.

The other camp is revamping the game on a much more fundamental level. This is the goodspeed and zoi vision. In a way, it's also mine and I think many others'.

I believe that we should find a good middle ground. First is making sure that we fix balance and broken shit. Second is that we refresh some of the more niche options of the game to increase strategic diversity. We don't want every civilization to be another god damn skirm/goon bot civ or a god damn musk/huss civ. We cannot repeat the mistakes of ASFP which standardized too much.

[[Armag] diarouga]

What would be that group's goal? Because it shouldn't be constrained to balance.

Get popular changes among the top players. To be fair, we, top players, kinda agree on what the top civs and weak civs are, just need to fix them.
And good design will come naturally if all the players agree.

[iNcog]

And good design will come naturally if all the players agree.

? Are you sure? I don't see the correlation. Asking neutrally. Good design is quite hard to come up with.

[RefluxSemantic]

"Zoi incorporates feedback from various different players and community members of his choosing, but ultimately the final changes are decided by him."

But then how do some of the completely random, totally unpopular changes happen? Zoi takes suggestions for changes if he likes them, and comes up with a bunch of changes on his own which are just implemented.

[RefluxSemantic]

And good design will come naturally if all the players agree.

? Are you sure? I don't see the correlation. Asking neutrally. Good design is quite hard to come up with.

Aoe3 already has good design.

[n0el]

What about making other things more viable? Zoi is good at that, when he has another set of good opinions to counter making things too strong.

[Mitoe]

I think top players are more open-minded toward changes that aren't specifically targeted at balance than you think @n0el @kami_ryu

The perception that they are not comes mostly from the frustration that real balance issues aren't being addressed and instead "random" changes are being thrown in before the main issues are fixed.

[RefluxSemantic]

Why is other things being viable good exactly? There's no reason to just assume that more things being viable means the game is better or more fun.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Show hidden quotes

"Zoi incorporates feedback from various different players and community members of his choosing, but ultimately the final changes are decided by him."

I edited but this statement has problems. There are various of changes I can not find any source, anybody who recommended requested them?
or at least many with massive disagreements.

I think the lack of transparent sources is part of the problem. I believe Zoi discusses all of his changes with at least one other person, we just don't see it. Or maybe he doesn't. You're correct that the lack of transparency makes things awkward.

Appreciate your willingness to discuss this one as neutrally and fairly as possible.

But you can't make conclusions/changes based on conversation with one?
There's like a massive, at least +80% support against so many changes.

Yeah that's the problem.

There is merit to pushing an unpopular albeit good change. However it's hard to know if it's a good change or not and I think more often than not it feels like an unpopular change is perhaps not worth pushing through.

EP Uhlans is a good example of this. Germans are arguably quite balanced in current iteration of EP, which is a good thing. The change itself is not overwhelming popular because of its repercussions in 3v3 as well as the overall role of Uhlans.

Many are also vocal about the position of India these days and I think that many points made by yourself and WickedCossack are very, very valid.

It's an issue that needs to be addressed.

There is merit to pushing a good change, even if it's unpopular indeed. However, what makes you think that Zoi knows better than all the top players combined ?
If anything, experience has shown that Zoi was wrong to force some unpopular changes so I guess democracy is better than Zoi's dictatorship.

[n0el]

I think top players are more open-minded toward changes that aren't specifically targeted at balance than you think @n0el @kami_ryu

The perception that they are not comes mostly from the frustration that real balance issues aren't being addressed and instead "random" changes are being thrown in before the main issues are fixed.

It doesn't come off that way.

[n0el]

However, like has been discussed before, I think it would be useful for everyone to have two separate change lists. Balance and Quality of Life/Viability.