The best strategy for balancing EP

[musketeer925]

@iNcog I think a more democratic approach is the right approach, but that approach needs some well-defined method of operation. Not having a well-defined process is how we got here in the first place.

[RefluxSemantic]

@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.

Democracy = rules? I'm just suggesting the normal things. Discuss, compromise, vote. Maybe decide upon some threshold for accepting certain changes and when to do community votes. It's the simple way to do things, and this is how basically any democracy works actually. Any commission for any company basically discusses, compromises, then votes. It's the bread and butter of western society.

[RefluxSemantic]

@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.

This is true at lower levels of a company. I think almost every company has to answer to their board or shareholders at some point. On a corporate level it's more efficient to have some executive power or CEO, but that's because corporations are large. We're talking about 5-8 people here making decisions.

[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.

Democracy = rules? I'm just suggesting the normal things. Discuss, compromise, vote. Maybe decide upon some threshold for accepting certain changes and when to do community votes. It's the simple way to do things, and this is how basically any democracy works actually. Any commission for any company basically discusses, compromises, then votes. It's the bread and butter of western society.

yes, democracy requires rules. this is exactly why:

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.

last time we tried to have discussions and compromise, put everyone together in a big forum, said "discuss and compromise!", and guess what? it turned out to not be very democratic

[RefluxSemantic]

Because it didn't have voting in the end... It ended up not being democratic because there was a dictator from the very beginning.

[Challenger_Marco]

Team Council please

[RefluxSemantic]

Let's make it democratic: The current coalition of people vs zoi. Let's actually do an ESOC election. Next election in 6 months.

[iNcog]

@iNcog I think a more democratic approach is the right approach, but that approach needs some well-defined method of operation. Not having a well-defined process is how we got here in the first place.

Yep. Here's what I can come up with in 360 seconds flat:

Balance:
- EP team members talk about concerns of patch balance openly in Thread 1.
- EP lead selects a set amount of balance concerns that need to be addressed, chooses to address those.
- EP team members now collectively come up with solutions to said balance concerns.
- EP lead selects which solutions, out of all the ones tested/discussed, to retain.
- EP closed beta where changes are tested a bit.
- EP team + EP lead gives feedback and agrees on which changes are good/bad.
- EP lead formalizes and publishes changes.

Design:
- EP lead proposes a few design changes (e.g. Mahout change, Banner army change, etc.)
- EP team gives feedback.
- EP lead retains a design change to play-test.
- EP team play tests design change, gives feedback on if it's good/bad.
- EP lead + team decides to implement or scrap change.
- Log that a design change was tested and log that it was scrapped. Log what reasons for scrapping were.

Idk. Just make it a step by step formalized process. It's just a clusterf right now.

[musketeer925]

- EP team

who gets to be on the EP team?

[RefluxSemantic]

@iNcog I think a more democratic approach is the right approach, but that approach needs some well-defined method of operation. Not having a well-defined process is how we got here in the first place.

Yep. Here's what I can come up with in 360 seconds flat:

Balance:
- EP team members talk about concerns of patch balance openly in Thread 1.
- EP lead selects a set amount of balance concerns that need to be addressed, chooses to address those.
- EP team members now collectively come up with solutions to said balance concerns.
- EP lead selects which solutions, out of all the ones tested/discussed, to retain.
- EP closed beta where changes are tested a bit.
- EP team + EP lead gives feedback and agrees on which changes are good/bad.
- EP lead formalizes and publishes changes.

Design:
- EP lead proposes a few design changes (e.g. Mahout change, Banner army change, etc.)
- EP team gives feedback.
- EP lead retains a design change to play-test.
- EP team play tests design change, gives feedback on if it's good/bad.
- EP lead + team decides to implement or scrap change.
- Log that a design change was tested and log that it was scrapped. Log what reasons for scrapping were.

Idk. Just make it a step by step formalized process. It's just a clusterf right now.

Here is an actual democracy:
Balance:
- EP team members talk about concerns of patch balance openly in Thread 1.
- EP 'lead' summarizes the list of discussed points.
- EP team members vote for each point.
- EP team members now collectively come up with solutions to said balance concerns.
- EP 'lead' summarizes the list of possible solutions to each of the problems
- EP team votes on the best set of solutions
- EP closed beta where changes are tested a bit.
- EP team gives feedback and votes on which changes are good/bad.
- EP 'lead' formalizes and publishes changes.

Design::
Same as balance, but in the end each design change is polled with the community and only accepted for more than 75% of the votes.

The lead here is just a chairman, who does the administrative stuff.

[iNcog]

- EP team

who gets to be on the EP team?

limit it to 10 - 15 players

I'd put the following people: drouga, mitoe, lukas, somppu, hazza

After that it comes a voluntary basis. Look for pr35+ and who has a desire to help, to discuss changes and play test them. I mentioned those 5 because they tend to be, off the top of my head, implicated in patch changes more than most. I think you can toss in a few Pr25+, if they have seemingly good understanding of the game. So someone like Harrison, Gibson, Riotcoke.

[Goodspeed]

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

I think you're mistaken here. Maybe you are open-minded, but you're not the only top player. In my XP (and I have some XP in this), people don't want anything to change.

[iNcog]

@iNcog I think a more democratic approach is the right approach, but that approach needs some well-defined method of operation. Not having a well-defined process is how we got here in the first place.

Yep. Here's what I can come up with in 360 seconds flat:

Balance:
- EP team members talk about concerns of patch balance openly in Thread 1.
- EP lead selects a set amount of balance concerns that need to be addressed, chooses to address those.
- EP team members now collectively come up with solutions to said balance concerns.
- EP lead selects which solutions, out of all the ones tested/discussed, to retain.
- EP closed beta where changes are tested a bit.
- EP team + EP lead gives feedback and agrees on which changes are good/bad.
- EP lead formalizes and publishes changes.

Design:
- EP lead proposes a few design changes (e.g. Mahout change, Banner army change, etc.)
- EP team gives feedback.
- EP lead retains a design change to play-test.
- EP team play tests design change, gives feedback on if it's good/bad.
- EP lead + team decides to implement or scrap change.
- Log that a design change was tested and log that it was scrapped. Log what reasons for scrapping were.

Idk. Just make it a step by step formalized process. It's just a clusterf right now.

Here is an actual democracy:
Balance:
- EP team members talk about concerns of patch balance openly in Thread 1.
- EP 'lead' summarizes the list of discussed points.
- EP team members vote for each point.
- EP team members now collectively come up with solutions to said balance concerns.
- EP 'lead' summarizes the list of possible solutions to each of the problems
- EP team votes on the best set of solutions
- EP closed beta where changes are tested a bit.
- EP team gives feedback and votes on which changes are good/bad.
- EP 'lead' formalizes and publishes changes.

Design::
Same as balance, but in the end each design change is polled with the community and only accepted for more than 75% of the votes.

The lead here is just a chairman, who does the administrative stuff.

Voting sucks, I prefer a competent leader who just makes decisions. Note that competent leader means that they will have a team that is satisfied that they were listened to to begin with. The team is happy with their leader just making decisions in this world.

I'm talking from experience. A good boss makes my life so much easier.

[RefluxSemantic]

Then at least have an election for EP leader.

But really, voting would be the normal human thing to do.

[iNcog]

Then at least have an election for EP leader.

Perhaps, yes

edit: btw careful because we've both had a lot of ninja edits

[RefluxSemantic]

I think it's pretty ridiculous to expect a group of equals to make decisions by having one dictator. That goes completely against every form of normal human behaviour.

[[Armag] diarouga]

You're overstating Zoi's inability to listen. I actually think Zoi listens a fair amount and much more than people give him credit for. It just doesn't show.

In the last EP iteration, there were some vocal concerns about changes. e.g. the Rod change, etc. The change was redacted. Among other changes.

And he didn't revert the mahout change.
Also it's frustrating to have to spend hours arguing for nothing, while it would have a point in a balance team.

[[Armag] diarouga]

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.

In our discord discussion, we managed to reach agreements by explaining why we think a change is good. It was a lot easier than with Zoi in the middle who ignores the arguments sometimes. Obviously, we'd have to find a way to solve a disagreement, I guess it could be a vote in that EP team.

[bobabu]

Neither let the community decide based on polls created by the community. Only obviously ridiculous or not serious changes should be disregarded.

[iNcog]

@iNcog I think a more democratic approach is the right approach, but that approach needs some well-defined method of operation. Not having a well-defined process is how we got here in the first place.

Yep. Here's what I can come up with in 360 seconds flat:

Balance:
- EP team members talk about concerns of patch balance openly in Thread 1.
- EP lead selects a set amount of balance concerns that need to be addressed, chooses to address those.
- EP team members now collectively come up with solutions to said balance concerns.
- EP lead selects which solutions, out of all the ones tested/discussed, to retain.
- EP closed beta where changes are tested a bit.
- EP team + EP lead gives feedback and agrees on which changes are good/bad.
- EP lead formalizes and publishes changes.

Design:
- EP lead proposes a few design changes (e.g. Mahout change, Banner army change, etc.)
- EP team gives feedback.
- EP lead retains a design change to play-test.
- EP team play tests design change, gives feedback on if it's good/bad.
- EP lead + team decides to implement or scrap change.
- Log that a design change was tested and log that it was scrapped. Log what reasons for scrapping were.

Idk. Just make it a step by step formalized process. It's just a clusterf right now.

- EP team

who gets to be on the EP team?

limit it to 10 - 15 players

I'd put the following people: drouga, mitoe, lukas, somppu, hazza

After that it comes a voluntary basis. Look for pr35+ and who has a desire to help, to discuss changes and play test them. I mentioned those 5 because they tend to be, off the top of my head, implicated in patch changes more than most. I think you can toss in a few Pr25+, if they have seemingly good understanding of the game. So someone like Harrison, Gibson, Riotcoke.

@[Armag] diarouga what do you think? @deleted_user2 @Hazza54321 @Goodspeed @Mitoe @iNcog @Riotcoke @Rohbrot

[[Armag] diarouga]

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.

That's another topic, we'd need to discuss it.
First give the power to that EP team, then we'll solve that issue.

[Mitoe]

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

I think you're mistaken here. Maybe you are open-minded, but you're not the only top player. In my XP (and I have some XP in this), people don't want anything to change.

These are people I interact with almost daily. They are really not as resistant to change as you think.

[deleted_user0]

@iNcog I think a more democratic approach is the right approach, but that approach needs some well-defined method of operation. Not having a well-defined process is how we got here in the first place.

Yep. Here's what I can come up with in 360 seconds flat:

Balance:
- EP team members talk about concerns of patch balance openly in Thread 1.
- EP lead selects a set amount of balance concerns that need to be addressed, chooses to address those.
- EP team members now collectively come up with solutions to said balance concerns.
- EP lead selects which solutions, out of all the ones tested/discussed, to retain.
- EP closed beta where changes are tested a bit.
- EP team + EP lead gives feedback and agrees on which changes are good/bad.
- EP lead formalizes and publishes changes.

Design:
- EP lead proposes a few design changes (e.g. Mahout change, Banner army change, etc.)
- EP team gives feedback.
- EP lead retains a design change to play-test.
- EP team play tests design change, gives feedback on if it's good/bad.
- EP lead + team decides to implement or scrap change.
- Log that a design change was tested and log that it was scrapped. Log what reasons for scrapping were.

Idk. Just make it a step by step formalized process. It's just a clusterf right now.

Show hidden quotes

- EP team

who gets to be on the EP team?

limit it to 10 - 15 players

I'd put the following people: drouga, mitoe, lukas, somppu, hazza

After that it comes a voluntary basis. Look for pr35+ and who has a desire to help, to discuss changes and play test them. I mentioned those 5 because they tend to be, off the top of my head, implicated in patch changes more than most. I think you can toss in a few Pr25+, if they have seemingly good understanding of the game. So someone like Harrison, Gibson, Riotcoke.

@[Armag] diarouga what do you think? @deleted_user2 @Hazza54321 @Goodspeed @Mitoe @iNcog @Riotcoke @Rohbrot

Definitely
But only if gs zoi step down or are only members on the same line with others.

[Cometk]

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?

That doesn't make sense though, because balance is not in a vacuum. If 70% of players vote to pass one change, and only 10% of players vote to pass a different change, but these changes were both crucial to go through for the purpose of inter or intra civilization balance, then you come out with a gimped patch iteration.

[RefluxSemantic]

I think when it comes down to disagreement, people will try to look for compromise usually. When you can't reach compromise, you can start voting on stuff. For example when people can't easily reach a compromise with regards to how to balance for example india, then each team member could give their ideal set of balance changes. Then the different members can rank the sets from most desirable to least desirable. Based on that, there might be a most preferable set of changes. In the extreme case that they can't democratically find a good set of changes still, it's also a possibility to start negotiating. If that still doesn't work, yet the players agree that a civ needs nerfs/buffs, it might then be possible to even poll the community. If the players don't agree that a certain civ needs nerfs or buffs, then it's not going to be very urgent to have that civ changed.