1) They added a number of random changes like reducing gang saw research time by 10 sec;
2) Most team cards were renamed (for example TEAM Barracks Hitpoints -> TEAM House of Romanov), so next time you get a message that you received a team card from your ally you need to check his deck to see what he sent you;
3) Ethiopia prize bull nerfed, Inca fort also nerfed;
4) A lot of African maps and some old maps that you were used to were removed from the standard map set, many new European maps added;
5) Some bugs fixed, thank you;
6) 2 new civs, 2 new game modes and new event.
This situation make me feel weird cause I have already paid for new dlc a week ago. They released the new patch. New civs added to the game. Some of ppl could play it in qs because they have early access but I could not play it in qs even I paid for the new dlc. Its not a big deal to wait for 1 day or more but it just doesnt make sense. I could not get the logic. Why only a few players can play it even the civs is officially relesead on public version of the game.
privilege.Afroholic wrote: ↑26 May 2022, 11:36
- they moved adv buildings to age 4, but not the inca one
- long lines age 3 now
- chasquis not receiving strongholds (Was it this patch?)
if you intentionally change lancer train time for treaty balance, is it really a bug when it takes longer?
apparently bugs can be in there for a long time, even the roger's ranger right now is apparently bugged cause it still gives access to the old age 4 version.
Apparently it was a bug and not a treaty change. So it's worse than we thought, some dev really just turned a 40 into 66 by accident
For someone who supposedly is a programmer, how is it that every time you talk about development you prove you dont know anything about it? Nobody "accidentally" changed 40 to 66. That would have been changed in one of their internal builds for testing and than simply wasnt reverted.Kaiserklein wrote: ↑31 May 2022, 08:13
"supposedly"? Like I'd pretend to be one? Lol
Also you're the one telling me I don't know anything about development? What makes you qualified to do so? Are you even a developer?
Why the fuck would they need to do this for? Testing a 66 sec train time? How does that make more sense?
Even if that's the case, and I'm not sure why it would be, they're still just as trash? You're supposed to review changes before merging them? Tell me how that shit happens since you're always smarter than everyone
Vividlyplain said that it was never meant to be a treaty change, that it's just a bug, but okay interesting assumption.gibson wrote: ↑04 Jun 2022, 23:49You seriously post that dumbass shit and wonder why I think you're actually a programmer? You think its more likely that someone somehow just accidentally changed some values that were getting floated for a potential treaty change rather than someone intentionally changed them?
I think we can't know how/why that change went through, all we know is that it accidentally did, hence my post. It just shouldn't happen regardless
No, I don't understand how it could make it to a live build, because you're supposed to have a bunch of processes to avoid that? You should check your code before committing it? Even if you don't, there should be someone else reviewing your changes and approving them or not? Then there should be playtesting to ensure the changes are correct, or at least once released and players start complaining about this bug, you hotfix it asap?
And yet, basically every patch there's shit like this that's not in any change log and goes through. But you're right, it's totally normal, they're definitely not just being amateurs...
I'm gonna repeat what I had to tell you already a while ago. I know a lot more about what's going on behind the scenes than you think, and a lot more than you do. It's easy for you to claim that since obviously I'm not gonna be able to go into details here. I'll just say I've been told the backend team has been doing a terrible job from day 1. But you won't believe me so whatever
Yeah so essentially you have very little experience, but as usual you act like you know better. Reminds me of when you kept acting like you know the game better than top players, it's just annoying really.gibson wrote: ↑04 Jun 2022, 23:49I'm not so smart, I just have the ability to use basic critical thinking skills. I'm not even a professional programmer, I know some R and have done some small projects on the side at various jobs I've had, and that small experience combined with the fact that I have the ability to observe things around me has made me realize 2 things, which I would have thought anyone who had any programming experience at all would understand. 1) People change things to test and 2) Sometimes those things, things that are not meant to go live go live and sometimes things have bugs. The biggest games and the biggest apps and the biggest programs have bugs, but you don't understand how aoe3 DE could possibly have a bug? Jesus Christ.
Yeah "sometimes" you have this kind of bug. How often is the real question... On DE we get dumb bugs every single fucking patch. Do you think I'd have flamed them if the lancer train time thing was our main issue lol? It's just yet another stupid bug among so many others. Also there's a difference between a real bug that you don't necessarily spot easily at first, and a fucking 40 being turned into a 66 committed by accident...
I think you have absolutely no idea about how source control, branching, versioning, testing, best practices, processes overall work. So you think it's normal devs just change stuff and they accidentally go live. No, it's fucking not, at least not in a professional team. Obviously it happens sometimes, but it shouldn't be everytime. We've even had bugs that you could spot instantly 5 mins after opening the game. I'm convinced they don't even open the game at all and no one playtests anything.