The best strategy for balancing EP

[RefluxSemantic]

Why can't we just replace Zoi by any other random guy?

[deleted_user0]

-

[Guigs]

How about : "Changes and balance will be discussed between top players and suggested to Zoi. Then Zoi's final proposal will be polled to be approved by top players"

Why not just remove the middle man? What's the point of having Zoi in the middle of the process? What's so special about this guy anyways.

Someone has to formulate and submit changes I guess

[deleted_user0]

Seems like the feedback is kind of twisted - I guess it's good - depends from which perspective you wanna hear it

[musketeer925]

How about : "Changes and balance will be discussed between top players and suggested to Zoi. Then Zoi's final proposal will be polled to be approved by top players"

Why not just remove the middle man? What's the point of having Zoi in the middle of the process? What's so special about this guy anyways.

If there's not dictator, who makes the final decision on what get implemented? is there some kind of voting? who gets to vote? does everyone get the same amount of votes?

how do you vote on individual changes? often two changes may have to go together to make sense for balance, but voting individually could cause some changes to pass and others fail.

[iNcog]

This thread is pointless if you guys just keep pointing a finger at Zoi without addressing some of the underlying issues with the EP process. I don't think Zoi is the problem as much as its a problem that the community as a whole cannot collectively agree on what they want the patch to be in the first place.

And so far, top players managed to agree on some changes, so top players can definitely agree as a whole.

This is, imo, probably the best way to do it. Agreed. I think a team needs to be reformed. times have changed and we can perhaps scrounge up some more top players and a change only goes through if it's been found to be a good consensus among of a group of people. however I don't know if that group of people should be only top level players. there are lower level players who still have excellent game knowledge and thoughtfulness about aoe3 design.

However this does not address the other core issue:
The EP vision. Do we stick to RE or go for variety? Imo, it should be a mix of both. this is a separate topic almost but it's one that's important. right now everyone is pissed off because EP is both too different from RE and because it's not as developed as it could be.

[RefluxSemantic]

How about : "Changes and balance will be discussed between top players and suggested to Zoi. Then Zoi's final proposal will be polled to be approved by top players"

Why not just remove the middle man? What's the point of having Zoi in the middle of the process? What's so special about this guy anyways.

If there's not dictator, who makes the final decision on what get implemented? is there some kind of voting? who gets to vote? does everyone get the same amount of votes?

how do you vote on individual changes? often two changes may have to go together to make sense for balance, but voting individually could cause some changes to pass and others fail.

How about using a simple democratic approach? Like what humans normally do when they work together?

[deleted_user0]

Who has empowered GS-Zoi duo in the first place?

All this decision process is very shady for me. Seems like Goodspeed-Zoi duo is behind it entirely? Are there others?

[iNcog]

Who has empowered GS-Zoi duo in the first place?

All this decision process is very shady for me. Seems like Goodspeed-Zoi duo is behind it entirely? Are there others?

it's obviously a conspiracy.

[RefluxSemantic]

How about : "Changes and balance will be discussed between top players and suggested to Zoi. Then Zoi's final proposal will be polled to be approved by top players"

Why not just remove the middle man? What's the point of having Zoi in the middle of the process? What's so special about this guy anyways.

Someone has to formulate and submit changes I guess

As if top players are some sort of mentally and socially handicapped human beings. What makes it so that they don't have the ability to just suggest things and then compile them into a list?

[musketeer925]

Show hidden quotes

How about : "Changes and balance will be discussed between top players and suggested to Zoi. Then Zoi's final proposal will be polled to be approved by top players"

Why not just remove the middle man? What's the point of having Zoi in the middle of the process? What's so special about this guy anyways.

If there's not dictator, who makes the final decision on what get implemented? is there some kind of voting? who gets to vote? does everyone get the same amount of votes?

how do you vote on individual changes? often two changes may have to go together to make sense for balance, but voting individually could cause some changes to pass and others fail.

How about using a simple democratic approach? Like what humans normally do when they work together?

I'm trying to point out that the democratic approach isn't simple.

Obviously a coherent list of changes will not arise from random discussions on the forums. There has to be organization, and decisions have to be reached somehow.

[deleted_user0]

Who has empowered GS-Zoi duo in the first place?

All this decision process is very shady for me. Seems like Goodspeed-Zoi duo is behind it entirely? Are there others?

it's obviously a conspiracy.

I've asked this so many times. Never got serious answer.

[princeofkabul]

they empowered themselves by starting to work on a patch on their free time for you ungrateful fucks.

[RefluxSemantic]

Isn't it completely normal to have group of some good players work together and discuss their POV on balance? It's not like when they disagree with eachother, they'll instantly resort to hurling their feces at eachother or something. Disagreement is a normal thing within any group, and any functioning adult will be able to find a compromise. If the entire system is fair, I'm willing to believe that any of the currently listed players would agree to a majority of the votes. That's what normal human beings do.

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

How about : "Changes and balance will be discussed between top players and suggested to Zoi. Then Zoi's final proposal will be polled to be approved by top players"

Why not just remove the middle man? What's the point of having Zoi in the middle of the process? What's so special about this guy anyways.

If there's not dictator, who makes the final decision on what get implemented? is there some kind of voting? who gets to vote? does everyone get the same amount of votes?

how do you vote on individual changes? often two changes may have to go together to make sense for balance, but voting individually could cause some changes to pass and others fail.

How about using a simple democratic approach? Like what humans normally do when they work together?

I'm trying to point out that the democratic approach isn't simple.

Obviously a coherent list of changes will not arise from random discussions on the forums. There has to be organization, and decisions have to be reached somehow.

Whenever I need to do anything with friends, we always do the democratic approach and it never fails. We just discuss it a bit, add some suggestions and then vote. Majority wins, nobody complains, problem solved. I don't see the problem.

[musketeer925]

Show hidden quotes

How about : "Changes and balance will be discussed between top players and suggested to Zoi. Then Zoi's final proposal will be polled to be approved by top players"

Why not just remove the middle man? What's the point of having Zoi in the middle of the process? What's so special about this guy anyways.

If there's not dictator, who makes the final decision on what get implemented? is there some kind of voting? who gets to vote? does everyone get the same amount of votes?

how do you vote on individual changes? often two changes may have to go together to make sense for balance, but voting individually could cause some changes to pass and others fail.

How about using a simple democratic approach? Like what humans normally do when they work together?

I'm trying to point out that the democratic approach isn't simple.

Obviously a coherent list of changes will not arise from random discussions on the forums. There has to be organization, and decisions have to be reached somehow.

Whenever I need to do anything with friends, we always do the democratic approach and it never fails. We just discuss it a bit, add some suggestions and then vote. Majority wins, nobody complains, problem solved. I don't see the problem.

How long have you been in this community? your proposal is totally unrealistic. You can't just say "do it democratically" but have no organization

EAGLEMUT is supposed to just decide what to implement based on a bunch of people arguing on the forums?

[deleted_user0]

they empowered themselves by starting to work on a patch on their free time for you ungrateful fucks.

I empowered myself to break windows of other people on my free time and they're still ungrateful fucks.

No, seriously. If there are other volunteers to do it and people want to swift the power, I don't see how this is relevant argument.

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

How about : "Changes and balance will be discussed between top players and suggested to Zoi. Then Zoi's final proposal will be polled to be approved by top players"

Why not just remove the middle man? What's the point of having Zoi in the middle of the process? What's so special about this guy anyways.

If there's not dictator, who makes the final decision on what get implemented? is there some kind of voting? who gets to vote? does everyone get the same amount of votes?

how do you vote on individual changes? often two changes may have to go together to make sense for balance, but voting individually could cause some changes to pass and others fail.

How about using a simple democratic approach? Like what humans normally do when they work together?

I'm trying to point out that the democratic approach isn't simple.

Obviously a coherent list of changes will not arise from random discussions on the forums. There has to be organization, and decisions have to be reached somehow.

Whenever I need to do anything with friends, we always do the democratic approach and it never fails. We just discuss it a bit, add some suggestions and then vote. Majority wins, nobody complains, problem solved. I don't see the problem.

How long have you been in this community? your proposal is totally unrealistic. You can't just say "do it democratically" but have no organization

When was democratic balancing tried? This community has never done things democratically..

[RefluxSemantic]

Also this is all assuming that adults don't have the ability to find compromises. That's totally unrealistic.

[iNcog]

Also this is all assuming that adults don't have the ability to find compromises. That's totally unrealistic.

is your faith in human ability that high? lol!

it's extremely realistic

[musketeer925]

When was democratic balancing tried? This community has never done things democratically..

The first several iterations of the patch, there was a private forum where all top players were invited, and discussed changes. Goodspeed put together change lists based on that until pretty much everyone agreed.

It basically collapsed due to arguments and being too much effort.

[musketeer925]

@RefluxSemantic you are proposing literally no organization except that everyone is supposed to agree and compromise and then a list of coherent changes magically appears. There's a reason every democratic government in the world has formal rules for making decisions.

[iNcog]

When was democratic balancing tried? This community has never done things democratically..

The first several iterations of the patch, there was a private forum where all top players were invited, and discussed changes. Goodspeed put together change lists based on that until pretty much everyone agreed.

It basically collapsed due to arguments and being too much effort.

Yep;

However I think that we've matured a bit and that this approach can work this time around. :) because players will be more willing to compromise properly. because you can't shit on zoi for doing a bad job and then be given the leeway to use the "democratic" approach and then fail to find a consensus

[RefluxSemantic]

When was democratic balancing tried? This community has never done things democratically..

The first several iterations of the patch, there was a private forum where all top players were invited, and discussed changes. Goodspeed put together change lists based on that until pretty much everyone agreed.

It basically collapsed due to arguments and being too much effort.

I don't think that was actually democratic. I don't think it was the case that if something that goodspeed disagreed with got the majority, that it would pass. That's when people get annoyed and feel like their voice wouldn't matter. I'm pretty sure that's why many people left pretty quickly.

[iNcog]

@RefluxSemantic you are proposing literally no organization except that everyone is supposed to agree and compromise and then a list of coherent changes magically appears. There's a reason every democratic government in the world has formal rules for making decisions.

Yeah not to mention, if you've ever worked on a project at work, there is no democratic approach. someone is given the responsibility of the project and people are assigned to do that person's bidding to further the project.