Welcome to Beta Discussion

[zoom]

This is a public read-only forum (invite only posting and voting rights), dedicated to improving beta development and community involvement. It will remain active throughout the beta. Ultimately, what makes it into the full release, will depend largely on player feedback – including polls. What better way to make a case than by playing and recording games!

Be sure to read the beta release post, if you haven't already. Full patch notes are also available, at the top of this forum.

I only ask that you express your thoughts – whether they are negative or positive – in a way that allows for progress, and is reasonably respectful to others. Repeated misconduct might result in posters being stripped of their #ESOCprivileges. Please keep in mind that topics are, by default, about 1vs1 game-play, too.

I look forward to developing the patch, together with you!

I'll end this post with some paraphrased pearls of wisdom, of Goodspeed's:

"Playing the game is great; it helps you gain a general sense of where balance is at. But test games may place too much importance on a particular set of games you played, which may or may not have been decided by balance issues. The following tends to happen: Players struggle to stay objective and patient. They tend to draw conclusions, based on a single game, and move on to a different match-up. Then, all theoretical discussion arguing against conclusions drawn from these games, is not taken seriously, in favor of perceived test results."

Something to keep in mind, and yet another reason to record any games you play!

[Hazza54321]

I dont get why theres such a long list of changes. It was quite clear which ones were too strong (ger india sioux) and which were too weak (azzy spain port jap) surely just little changes to these civs. Its gonna be more imbalanced with all these changes as well as making aoe3 a different game

[[Armag] diarouga]

I have to agree, there are too many changes.

[deleted_user]

I think so, some changes are borderline unnecessary

[[Armag] diarouga]

I expected the op civs (Germany/Iro/India) to get nerfed, while the UP civs (Spain/Port/Aztecs) are buffed.
Germany, Iro and India aren't really getting nerfed while Spain and Port don't get the buffed they deserved.

It's clear to me that the goal of this patch is to give people more options, but that's at the cost of the balance currently.

[deleted_user0]

Plz make me a favour and delete me from this forum group. I'd rather discuss direct with zoi if I want to say something, it's way more time-efficient than here.

[edeholland]

Plz make me a favour and delete me from this forum group. I'd rather discuss direct with zoi if I want to say something, it's way more time-efficient than here.

You could just not post in this board. It's visible for everyone, so removing you from the forum group won't make it invisible to you.

[deleted_user0]

Plz make me a favour and delete me from this forum group. I'd rather discuss direct with zoi if I want to say something, it's way more time-efficient than here.

You could just not post in this board. It's visible for everyone, so removing you from the forum group won't make it invisible to you.

It's like you are telling a gambling addict "not to go gambling sites again". Knowing he will even though it's really bad for him, instead of blocking the website for him.

[edeholland]

Plz make me a favour and delete me from this forum group. I'd rather discuss direct with zoi if I want to say something, it's way more time-efficient than here.

You could just not post in this board. It's visible for everyone, so removing you from the forum group won't make it invisible to you.

It's like you are telling a gambling addict "not to go gambling sites again". Knowing he will even though it's really bad for him, instead of blocking the website for him.

I guess I don't see how it's bad for you.

But I'll remove you. You can PM/tag me if you want to be added again.

[lordraphael]

justg a thought. Maybe you should really split changes that are designed to make unviable units viable and changes that are directly aimed towards improving balance. I endorse trying to make the game better, which can unltimately only be achieved by buffing the useless stuff that currently exists. But its just really hard to do that while also making general balance adjustements. In the end you might end up worse just because theres been to many changes and its hard to pinpoint the exact change that casued the mess. @zoom

[Mitoe]

Agree with Raphael.

[Goodspeed]

justg a thought. Maybe you should really split changes that are designed to make unviable units viable and changes that are directly aimed towards improving balance. I endorse trying to make the game better, which can unltimately only be achieved by buffing the useless stuff that currently exists. But its just really hard to do that while also making general balance adjustements. In the end you might end up worse just because theres been to many changes and its hard to pinpoint the exact change that casued the mess. @zoom

I agree and think this is important.

There is a real chance you'll lose track of balance for like 2 years after this patch because so many things will need to be explored and it takes time for people to do that. What would help a lot is to split the balance changes with the viability changes so you are able to pinpoint which (set of) changes caused which shift in the meta, and can act accordingly. It also really helps to keep the discussion focused; with this many changes, people simply don't have the time or energy to really consider what they think of each one much less discuss each one in depth, and you might be missing obvious problems that someone would have seen otherwise.

[zoom]

justg a thought. Maybe you should really split changes that are designed to make unviable units viable and changes that are directly aimed towards improving balance. I endorse trying to make the game better, which can unltimately only be achieved by buffing the useless stuff that currently exists. But its just really hard to do that while also making general balance adjustements. In the end you might end up worse just because theres been to many changes and its hard to pinpoint the exact change that casued the mess. @zoom

I agree with you, to a great extent. I did just that, for EP6, and I'm doing just that, yet again – only not as absolutely (to the extreme). Doing it absolutely is an option – but an impractical, inflexible and sub-optimal one, to me.

Entirely unlike intra-civilization balance, inter-civilization balance is relatively good—most likely the best it's ever been, having received EP's full attention, so far—and it certainly could stand to sit one out; that's true. Preferably, though, it would keep improving simultaneously.

I realize it might not seem like it, to some, but the initial beta iteration is actually quite restrained. In perspective, little viability changes are actually being made. I want to combine the inter-civ balance changes, with the top priority improvements & viability buffs. This is due to three reasons:

1. I am confident enough that they aren't disruptive enough to inter-civ balance, to necessitate postponement of testing them.
2. It would be a terrible shame if the most egregious problems were neglected for yet another year.
3. Viability changes help facilicate inter-civilization balance changes (the current Aztecs and Japanese changes are good examples of this).

I neither expect not intend for most viability changes (certainly not the Chinese ones) to significantly impact inter-civilization balance. If they do, they will be updated, accordingly. To this end, play-testing and not jumping to conclusions – or decisions, of any kind – on changes is very useful. I'm confident in testing these changes. Based on feedback, I will consider updating them, and ultimately whether I am confident in making them. If testing is insufficient, over time, I will have to consider what risks are worth taking.

I greatly appreciate all constructive feedback, and play-testing. I'm not going to make any rushed decisions, and I will definitely consider scaling things down, further, during the beta development process.

P.S. I intend to read and respond to all messages and threads, in the coming days. Admittedly, I'm slow. Please bear with me. Thankfully, it's not a matter of hours.

[deleted_user]

My suggestion is moving to EP7 before ESO-C Premier League Tournament. So we have like 9 days to test out things.

[Cometk]

nah EPL will be played on ep6

[Goodspeed]

Aww. Should seriously consider playing it on the beta. I think it would be more fun as well as help with the patch

[Cometk]

it’s an idea to host an event on the beta, but to host a completely untested patch on an already experimental tournament format (for the age3 community) would be unnecessarily risky

a weekend tournament would be good though

[lordraphael]

i think you could host it on ep 7. In the end prizepool is pretty much neglible for that /500$ split to 7-8 persons) and it can speed up balancing. Ultimately only time can proof if changes are good or not given the limiting testing that is done.

[Goodspeed]

it’s an idea to host an event on the beta, but to host a completely untested patch on an already experimental tournament format (for the age3 community) would be unnecessarily risky

It won't be completely untested. Besides if you run into bugs in a certain series you can always play the rest of it on EP6

[[Armag] diarouga]

@zoom
When do you plan to make changes to the beta?
I really feel like you're ignoring us (although you probably don't) because we've made so many suggestions (nerfing iro, russia, reverting the ger uhlan change) and many people disagree with some changes (the aztec and china ones for instance) and the only answers we had were "you're too impatient" or "this is not a priority".

I'm sure we would feel more involved if you answered our concerns and said something like "Fine, I'm going to revert this, change this in the next beta" or at least "I'll make a statement in 2 weeks".

[[Armag] diarouga]

@zoom It's been 4 days. Can you answer the above questions?

[Mitoe]

@[Armag] diarouga changes were made to the beta the same day or shortly after your post.

[[Armag] diarouga]

@[Armag] diarouga changes were made to the beta the same day or shortly after your post.

What were the changes? Couldn't find them.

[Mitoe]

@[Armag] diarouga changes were made to the beta the same day or shortly after your post.

What were the changes? Couldn't find them.

https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php?f=80&t=17932
The date in the thread title is August 26. There was a post somewhere in this thread when it was updated.

Edit: Here it is - https://eso-community.net/viewtopic.php?f=80&t=17932&start=75#p385226

[[Armag] diarouga]

Thanks.