The understated case for Zoi

[gamevideo113]

the patch has now become what it said it wouldnt......it’s not even close to the original game.

Funny

[gamevideo113]

EP is not just about balancing the game. At least, it think it isn't anymore, if it ever was. So, while i agree that top players should be entitled to speak for balance matters and that the ultimate balance related decisions should be up to them, i don't think it should be the same as far as design goes. After all the game is everyone's game. It is true that top players might have more insight than the average player on what design aspects make a game great, but this matter is surely not as exclusive as balance understanding.

Balance -> Aristocracy
Design -> Democracy

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

EP is not just about balancing the game. At least, it think it isn't anymore, if it ever was. So, while i agree that top players should be entitled to speak for balance matters and that the ultimate balance related decisions should be up to them, i don't think it should be the same as far as design goes. After all the game is everyone's game. It is true that top players might have more insight than the average player on what design aspects make a game great, but this matter is surely not as exclusive as balance understanding.

Balance -> Aristocracy
Design -> Democracy

As far as I can see this looks more like a monarchy.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Why not create a group of a few people (say 5) that would lead the patch instead of having just one person in charge ?

[richard]

The fact that he has no pateience for the social aspect isn't just a flaw, it makes him unable to do the job.

That s not true. It makes it even easier to do the job, if he does not care too much about what people are talking. As long as he has got the legitimation to dictate the implementation of the changes. That s what he needs for the job.

[Goodspeed]

You're not the only top player. And zoi isn't perfect. The fact that he has no patience for the political aspect is a flaw indeed. Excuse my big ego comment. I got carried away a little, was thinking of a specific incident.

I didn't mean I'm the only top player at all, not sure what's that about. But okay

You seemed to be taking it personally. I wanted to clarify that I was thinking of other players when I wrote that comment.

I do not think that.

Okay I exaggerated, but you still said you'd take Zoi over all the top players together to lead the EP.

I explained why in that thread. In case you missed it:

Players tend to favor standardizing changes, and don't tend to care as much about design issues because they've long accepted them as truths of life. Particularly worrying is that they are inclined to make changes that encourage playstyles that are already prevalent in the meta without much of a second thought. Also, top players tend to want to play the game rather than spend many hours discussing and polling changes. I think people underestimate how much work it is. Zoi is the only one who showed me over the years that he is able and willing to make the necessary time investment. He also has a ton of experience with the project at this point, which I consider to be important because it means he's invested and understands choices made early on.

Beyond all that, there are many problems you run into when you have people make something together rather than have someone with a vision take responsibility and use others' input as necessary (which Zoi does, believe it or not). In R&D projects, combining the collective knowledge and ideas of many is not a trivial task. Why? It's a pretty complicated subject and it would take me too much time to write a post even scratching the surface. Suffice to say I don't think it would work very well here.

And to clarify (also @Kaiserklein), I don't mean to say that Zoi knows balance better than top players combined. He needs player input, and uses it. Rather I think that with his understanding of game design, experience with the project, lack of bias, strict quality control and willingness to invest a large amount of time into it I think he's in a unique position to create a good patch. Sometimes that means making changes that people aren't particularly excited about.

And let's not forget a patch team has been tried before, and ended up not working out. It's also how we made ASFP, which made some mistakes from a design pov, and that was with a whole lot less bad blood between players

I'm not trying to compare. Just saying I'm not talking out of my ass, I've discussed enough with him to know he has sometimes very flawed views on the game, and very stubborn about it. To a point where even if there's basically a consensus among top players, he might just not really care. For reasons I call petty, such as cross patch compatibility. But I think I've explained my point enough times and you know what I mean

It seems to me that if he had such flawed views on the game and wasn't listening to top players even if there is consensus among them, he wouldn't be cranking out such excellent patches.

[Sargsyan]

@Goodspeed
Very nice writing. In my personal opinion, things are getting better with every patch, at least from viewers perspective.
Why?
Because aoe3 has lot of mismanaged strategical assets the hinder us to use the full potential of the game. Same type of bot play is kinda boring. The reason that the options were limited or sub par. EP at least tried to expand the limits of strategies and its impact is very positive.
Keep up the good work.

P. S. ASFP has some very nice changes, we can adopt more from there.

#TRAINABLE SPAHI

[[Armag] diarouga]

EP is not just about balancing the game. At least, it think it isn't anymore, if it ever was. So, while i agree that top players should be entitled to speak for balance matters and that the ultimate balance related decisions should be up to them, i don't think it should be the same as far as design goes. After all the game is everyone's game. It is true that top players might have more insight than the average player on what design aspects make a game great, but this matter is surely not as exclusive as balance understanding.

Balance -> Aristocracy
Design -> Democracy

Sure, but when a design change is controversial, what do you do ?
If the community it's split 50/50, or even 55/45, do you implement the change or not ?
As you said, it's everyone's game, and it's even more going to be the case with DE, so what's the best choice ?

In my opinion, controversial design changes shouldn't be implemented because the reference when people disagree is the RE, ie the game we all like.

Other than that, I agree that everybody should be involved when it comes to design.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Why not create a group of a few people (say 5) that would lead the patch instead of having just one person in charge ?

If I remember correctly, this option was considered but Goodspeed decided to nominate Zoi when he retired.

[[Armag] diarouga]

The fact that he has no pateience for the social aspect isn't just a flaw, it makes him unable to do the job.

That s not true. It makes it even easier to do the job, if he does not care too much about what people are talking. As long as he has got the legitimation to dictate the implementation of the changes. That s what he needs for the job.

Eh, that's the definition for a dictatorship.
Don't listen to people and don't care about them, that way it will be easier to do your job xD.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Also, top players tend to want to play the game rather than spend many hours discussing and polling changes.

Not sure this is true. What do you base this on ?

Beyond all that, there are many problems you run into when you have people make something together rather than have someone with a vision take responsibility and use others' input as necessary

By saying this, you're saying that a dictatorship is better than a democracy. If you're going in the right direction, it is as there are less discussions and you don't have to explain your choices, but in my opinion we're not. Your argument is "trust me, I know we're going in the right direction", how am I supposed to believe you ? Is that because you know better than us what's good for us ? I'm not a huge fan of pure democracy but this is too much for me.

Besides the EP team worked very well in the first versions of the ESOC patch, and it stopped working when people stopped getting involved. And the reason some of them did that, is that they believed that the game was fine as it was, and that it didn't need to be changed.
For example _H2O got bored because he didn't want big changes to be implemented.

Zoi isn't biased

He is, he is biased toward his vision of the game, which is to change every unit and every shipment in the game to achieve a "better design" in his opinion. But his opinion of a "better design" isn't the same as other's.

It seems to me that if he had such flawed views on the game and wasn't listening to top players even if there is consensus among them, he wouldn't be cranking out such excellent patches.

EP 6 was an excellent patch, but that's because he eventually decided to listen to the players.

I've already explained that but initially EP 6 was supposed to be EP 7 with 123153 changes. Fortunately, he decided to listen to the top players and follow the minimal change policy. Thus he implemented the balance changes which were suggested, and it was an excellent patch.

The EP 7 making was different, he suggested a list of change, and it was the top players' job to prove that some of the changes were bad (some changes are still considered to be bad by most of the players, such as the chinese banner army changes which couldn't be reverted).
That's why EP 7 is overall a worse patch than EP 6, because of the bad changes that couldn't be reverted. Fortunately, the top players managed to implement some good balance changes such as :
- treasure reword
-Russia nerf
-abus range fix
-Iro WC aura
-Spain buff

Now in EP8, top players weren't involved at all, and it's going to be an even worse patch than EP7, because we can't block the bad changes (such as the mahout change, the native TP change etc), and our suggestions weren't listened.

[Garja]

I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.

When Garja and rouga agree about the EP, you know that there's something wrong.

[deleted_user0]

here is zoi plus and minus list because im too lazy to write a wall of text !

+nice and intelligent guy :))
+talks with me about age of empires and counter strike, also worried for example if I get sick :)!
+makes good ep patches despite being flame
+makes baguettes mad
+doesn't play this game so he is quite unbiased about not nerfing own civs and so on
-doesn't play 24/7 that could help to see civ problems
-sepoy and ceasefire

[deleted_user0]

Bishop politician now provides 2 Settlers, 1 Priest, and 1 Church Wagon
this would be unironically a good change btw!

also cow up should be buffed. a lot.

[Mitoe]

GoodSpeed, I understand where you're coming from and applaud the defense of your friend. Zoi has made two pretty good patches, with a few hiccups. There have always been problems in the list of "beta changes" so to speak before a patch, and this should be expected and players should probably not be as upset as they are about them all the time. Ultimately I really like that certain things are being improved and am happy to see the increase in the options available to players.

That being said, however, this latest list of changes has lots of problems from a design perspective and doesn't address many of the game's issues, in my opinion. Let's take a look at a few of the problematic changes:

India

– Mahout Lancer “heavy infantry” multiplier increased to 1 (from 0.5); “infantry” multiplier decreased to 1.6 (from 2); Mansabdar adjusted accordingly — This slight and tweakable revamp of the unit will help differentiate it from the Sowar, giving the two more different roles, by increasing Mahout Lancer damage output against heavy infantry (hand infantry and musketeer-type units) by 50%, while decreasing it against non-heavy infantry (archer and rifle units) by 25%.

While I understand that Sowars and Mahouts performing the same role could be seen as awkward, I don't think this change really solves anything at all. Mahouts are already useful situationally, arguably quite good in some situations while they can definitely be quite bad in others. This is totally fine, in my opinion; I would even go so far as to say mahouts were in a decent spot and didn't need any major changes. If anything I would consider something like a small cost decrease by 10-20f if we really wanted to make them more useful.

In any case, though, the real problem with this change is that while Sowars and Mahouts perform similar functions, the Mahout is actually useful sometimes whereas the Sowar is not useful beyond the Colonial age. Therefore, there isn't really an issue because you never see both Sowar and Mahouts in a game anyway. If anything the solution should have been to improve Sowar somehow, not the other way around. Perhaps improving British East India Company or something similar could've been a preferable change here, IMO.

Russia

– Settler batch train-time decreased to 50s (from 53s) — Although a slight buff to any strategy, this change is especially targeted towards increasing the viability of 17-Settler age-up builds, which is the most important step towards making the civilization less one-dimensional. While I doubt that a roughly 5% decrease in Settler-batch train-time will cause Russians to become overpowered, the civilization will be balanced according to feedback.

I'm happy to see that feedback will be taken into account with this change, because I don't think this change really works as intended either.

If I recall correctly GS you said that the choice to do 14 or 17 villager age up was always core to Russia's identity in the past. While this change does make the 17 villager age up more viable, it doesn't really solve the problem (and actually, I don't think the 17 villager age up being poor or unviable is really a problem, compared to Russia's other issues such as a poor early Fortress or an overwhelmingly powerful late Colonial / lategame which I would much rather see addressed instead).

Instead, this change actually targets Russia's strengths: they can now potentially age up even faster, be more aggressive, and scale a little faster whilst denying you map control. Arguably yes, being able to age with 17 villagers a few seconds sooner might make something like a Fortress age strategy more viable, but in my opinion it definitely helps the strategies Russia is already quite good at even more.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a good solution to making the 17 villager age up more viable without buffing the 14 villager / rush style even more, but I also don't think that's necessarily a bad thing overall. There are much larger issues to tackle than age up times, and I actually think that improving their early Fortress and stuff would have a better chance of making the 17v age up more worthwhile than decreasing villager training speed does.

Portuguese

– Cassador cost reduced to 70f, 35c (from 80f, 35c); bounties adjusted to 11xp (from 12xp) — This buff to training the unit should slightly help Portuguese, overall – especially in 1vs1 games.

This change has a similar issue to the Russian change. For one thing, a 10f decrease is simply too much. It makes much more sense to start with 5f, IMO.

But the real issue is that it already arguably targets one of Portuguese's strengths: their economy. They can now train Cassadors much more easily and with less strain on their already good economy. This is simply going to be quite strong, IMO, especially now that Cassadors are much more upgradeable and being able to mass more of them more easily makes the upgrades more useful.



I could discuss some more changes in detail, but I don't really think that's necessary and I'm also running out of time before I need to leave for work.

Ultimately, I agree a lot with Zoi's philosophy for changes, but I don't think he is going about it in the best way. Many of the other changes are also just too "wacky" (+60% crossbow hp) to feel like a natural part of the game, which is definitely important.

My main concerns are that the current process is too slow and too bogged down with changes that aren't going to work, and as a result we end up with lots of drama and time wasted. If there was another person or small group of people who could help mediate / discuss the pros and cons of the changes ahead of time, that would probably help a lot. I know Zoi talks to a lot of players about balance, and not just top players, which I think is good. But I know from personal experience that he can oftentimes seem overly dismissive of mine and other's opinions when we know for sure that we have more experience with the issues and have put more time into thinking about them, and that often he will disappear for days at a time only to return to you with a list of 20 questions and a few text walls in reply to anything you wrote before, which just feels like it slows the process down a lot and definitely increases the frustrations of working with him.

[iNcog]

The core problem of the patch process can be described in a single line: a lack of compromise and dialogue on changes.

[Cometk]

i think the current patch process is backwards: we start discussions with a big list that includes a mish-mash of balance adjustments, viability changes, and et cetera riff-raff, then whittle away at the list before getting something acceptable

this is hugely frustrating though, as, if all of these initial changes were implemented at once, we'd have a cacophonous storm where we don't know if balance concerns are truly being addressed.

the best way imo would be akin to what Wossack proposed.

1) identify balance concerns (Brit is OP, Sioux is UP)
2) make minimal changes to address balance concerns (135w -> 140w Manors, 4v -> 5v)
3) then, consider making viability changes (stuff like the rajput & samurai buffs) within the scope of the iteration

[iNcog]

True dis. step 1 = find problem
step 2 = how we fix problem

see, 2 lines now? very ez

[[Armag] diarouga]

i think the current patch process is backwards: we start discussions with a big list that includes a mish-mash of balance adjustments, viability changes, and et cetera riff-raff, then whittle away at the list before getting something acceptable

this is hugely frustrating though, as, if all of these initial changes were implemented at once, we'd have a cacophonous storm where we don't know if balance concerns are truly being addressed.

the best way imo would be akin to what Wossack proposed.

1) identify balance concerns (Brit is OP, Sioux is UP)
2) make minimal changes to address balance concerns (135w -> 140w Manors, 4v -> 5v)
3) then, consider making viability changes (stuff like the rajput & samurai buffs) within the scope of the iteration

Yea, I couldn't agree more.
The EP 8 change list shouldn't be longer than 5-6 balance changes and some changes reverted.

[SoldieR]

Haven't read much but I will say that he does clearly care and does take a uniquely unbiased approach to things, which is good.

Worst thing is his poor personal skills. It took me literally years to even care to hear what he says based on how he would deliver things, and what I regarded as racist comments in chats. How can you attempt have a balance discussion with someone you don't even respect?

I say this having warmed up to him in the past 6 months.

[Kaiserklein]

Okay I exaggerated, but you still said you'd take Zoi over all the top players together to lead the EP.

Is there anyone actually stepping up to put all the work in and lead it instead of Zoi?

Yeah I would have. Not sure I would start doing this right now, but in the past years I definitely would have. And others would

[knusch]

one can only hope DE comes out and no more patch from the troll in person....

[Kaiserklein]

Many of the other changes are also just too "wacky" (+60% crossbow hp)

Yeah can we take a second to reflect upon that change? Like I think it perfectly illustrates the problem.
Just why the fuck is this change a thing? Is there any logic, any reason behind it? Did he ask anyone else what they think about this change before adding it?
It seems absolutely random and useless. And horrible in terms of design and consistency. Like just why

[Dim1000]

Despite not playing this game anymore, I always tune in to streams when possible and follow the forum a bit.
Pretty ridiculous that one person acts like a control freak and makes patch decisions on his own. It's not like he owns the game or esoc patch was his brain child. Success of all these tournaments are because ultimately viewers like the top players competing and they make generous donations to keep the show running. All it takes is a consensus among top players to boycott one tournament on the patch and that would end the dictatorship