diarouga vs snowww

[ListlessSalmon]

The the large minority really dislike it that much? Or is the opinion skewed because the minority’s voices are overpowering?

Fair point, I'm uncertain in this case.

[rsy]

The the large minority really dislike it that much? Or is the opinion skewed because the minority’s voices are overpowering?

Hard to say for sure. But maybe the majority doesn't care too much and trusts the minority to make a good decision?

That's what we do with Esoc staff anyways, right?

[Garja]

What are you even refering to now? Current patch? Next patch?

[n0el]

The the large minority really dislike it that much? Or is the opinion skewed because the minority’s voices are overpowering?

Hard to say for sure. But maybe the majority doesn't care too much and trusts the minority to make a good decision?

That's what we do with Esoc staff anyways, right?

Maybe. It’s an interesting question I’ve been thinking about a lot. My other question is, what about the people who left because there were no changes, they might come back with changes but aren’t represented in polling

[[Armag] diarouga]

Does the large minority really dislike it that much? Or is the opinion skewed because the minority’s voices are overpowering?

It doesn't really matter. I'm still all for fixed crates, and I would love to play with fixed crates, but if more than 40% of the community is against it, then we should not implement it, because it might ruin some fun for 30% of the community.
That's why "nerfing fast age up", "changing the bow/pike cost" and all these super controversial changes shouldn't be implemented, because so many people are going to dislike it.

[[Armag] diarouga]

The the large minority really dislike it that much? Or is the opinion skewed because the minority’s voices are overpowering?

Hard to say for sure. But maybe the majority doesn't care too much and trusts the minority to make a good decision?

That's what we do with Esoc staff anyways, right?

Maybe. It’s an interesting question I’ve been thinking about a lot. My other question is, what about the people who left because there were no changes, they might come back with changes but aren’t represented in polling

Nobody left because there were no changes. Literally nobody, I've never seen anyone complain about "no changes" first, and of course never to the point it would make people leave.
However, controversial changes make people leave. Some guys claimed that they wouldn't play the EP anymore with fixed crates, and I'm not going to play the Zoi Patch 6.0.
Finally, back to my initial point, it's better to have no changes, than "bad" changes, and a "bad change" is subjective.

[n0el]

Ofc no left because of no changes. They left because they got bored.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Ofc no left because of no changes. They left because they got bored.

Yes, which would have happened anyway tbh. As I said, if you're creative you can always go for anti meta builds.

[Goodspeed]

Yeah you wouldn't see people complain about something like that, but a stale or strategically uninteresting/unchallenging meta can definitely make people leave.
I got bored of the game because I ran out of things that I enjoyed experimenting with. With changes to obsolete units like halbs, bow/pike etc I may have stayed longer.

[n0el]

Ofc no left because of no changes. They left because they got bored.

Yes, which would have happened anyway tbh. As I said, if you're creative you can always go for anti meta builds.

You can but there's limits to that. Plus, making a build using the same units and cards isn't as interesting to most people as say, using different units or cards.

[Imperial Noob]

Yeah you wouldn't see people complain about something like that, but a stale or strategically uninteresting/unchallenging meta can definitely make people leave.
I got bored of the game because I ran out of things that I enjoyed experimenting with. With changes to obsolete units like halbs, bow/pike etc I may have stayed longer.

Agree. Countless threads to make interesting changes ended with the arrival of people who said "yeah, I like the idea too, but nothing is going to be changed anyway, so the discussion of merits or logic of anything is pointless". With all due respect, we would have triple the number of diarouga-level players if the game was dynamic. Bold-and-frequently-changed, with lots of community voting on fun things as a business model. People would have inclination to take part in these polls and we would see how numerous exactly are the illuminati who keep grenadiers broken bad. People would experiment and surprise at tournaments. There would be more activity of every sort in the community.

Official patches to nilla, TWC and TAD moved units across ages, changed tags, changed units purposes, and reworked some numbers hard. Multiple times. WTF are the RE predestination zealots even talking about?

That being said, I find this New Year's Classic to be the most reliable ESOC tournament ever (in terms of fun as a viewer). And all that with 3 best players absent. The tournament format is mostly responsible for this, but credit to the current balance is due too.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Yeah you wouldn't see people complain about something like that, but a stale or strategically uninteresting/unchallenging meta can definitely make people leave.
I got bored of the game because I ran out of things that I enjoyed experimenting with. With changes to obsolete units like halbs, bow/pike etc I may have stayed longer.

Agree. Countless threads to make interesting changes ended with the arrival of people who said "yeah, I like the idea too, but nothing is going to be changed anyway, so the discussion of merits or logic of anything is pointless".

This was because the community was split, and you can't impose changes a part of the community don't like, and that's how it should work. Honestly, nerfing the fast age up and changing the bow/pike cost without even asking the community is shocking to me.

With all due respect, we would have triple the number of diarouga-level players if the game was dynamic. Bold-and-frequently-changed, with lots of community voting on fun things as a business model. People would have inclination to take part in these polls and we would see how numerous exactly are the illuminati who keep grenadiers broken bad. People would experiment and surprise at tournaments. There would be more activity of every sort in the community.

I'm fine with that. Poll the changes, and if they get less than 70% don't go for it because it will upset a big part of the community. Also you can already experiment and surprise at tournaments, people are just too lazy to do that.
I mean, you can be innovative with your main civ, but you can also learn new civs. For example, I myself almost never play Sioux, Dutch and Germany.
I've almost never seen kaiser play China, India, Aztecs or Spain. Same for Mitoe with Aztecs, Otto and Russia.
Honestly, I can't think of a player who can play all civs competitively, we all have at least 3 civilisations we can't play. It means that, by learning these civs, we would become innovative and surprising.

Official patches to nilla, TWC and TAD moved units across ages, changed tags, changed units purposes, and reworked some numbers hard. Multiple times. WTF are the RE predestination zealots even talking about?

Yes, but it had some legitimacy. Here Zoi doesn't, so instead of making random changes, I think it would be better to keep the game as it is.

That being said, I find this New Year's Classic to be the most reliable ESOC tournament ever (in terms of fun as a viewer). And all that with 3 best players absent. The tournament format is mostly responsible for this, but credit to the current balance is due too.
Yep, drastic changegs would upset the balance, and we would go back to the first EP, where only 4-5 civs were really playable competitively, which means less diversity. I guess it's better to keep the game as it is and to host more one civ tourneys.

[Garja]

Next patch changes have little to do with the argument of improving the game vs keeping it as close as possible to the original one. Most of those changes are for the sake of it, they are not even going to improve balance. There isn't even a trade off, it's just lose-lose situation.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Next patch changes have little to do with the argument of improving the game vs keeping it as close as possible to the original one. Most of those changes are for the sake of it, they are not even going to improve balance. There isn't even a trade off, it's just lose-lose situation.

+1

[P i k i l i c]

*proceeding on taking a screenshot of diarouga liking Garja's post*