I don’t disagree that the information should be provided, but that’s probably not happening because it ties them to a schedule for major patches. The 3-4 months could be a goal, but because it’s not a scheduled time frame officially provided by EHG on how long cycles will actually last, holding them to it is a bit… Ridiculous?
Imagine if Mike had said LE would provide the top 3 players in the arena a steam gift card as a reward. Would you expect them to do this without an official confirmation, just because Mike said it on stream one time?
Even if EHG does provide more accurate information, people won’t be as informed as they like to think. That’s a general theme I experienced with people, and I am guilty of this, too.
They want to try new things and gather data/feedback, that’s what I read into this.
Well, players asked repeatedly about cycle length. Mike answered that they want to do between 3-4 months, with delays for the first ones likely. People pick it up and repeat it ad nauseum in several official channels. No official answer ever comes, which is mandatory to do if a widespread misconception comes up to avoid the current situation specifically.
So nah, expected, not ridiculous.
As for the Mike imaginative example: Yes, I would.
Mike is seen as a official channel, and if EHG doesn’t provide it then Mike should in that case, obviously so.
Specifically for such things you don’t make things known before they’re 100% confirmed and you’re sure not to promise it prematurely.
Having a “goal” and having a “schedule” are two entirely different things. My goal is to lose 50lbs in 3 months (by January), that’s not a schedule though. It’s just a guideline to aim for. If I lost that weight in 2 months, did I fail? What about if it takes 4 or 5 months? No, because it’s not a set in stone date. It’s just a target date, and EHG never officially accepted 3-4 months as the scheduled timeline for cycles… Because it’s not a schedule? So people saying “they said 3-4 months” and it not being corrected, when the official schedule for a cycle is “the duration between two major patches”. They don’t need to correct people, because their “goal” for that duration is 3-4 months.
You… You do know the difference between a schedule and a goal right? I don’t need to keep going about this?
Regarding the hypothetical, man I don’t know what to tell you except that you shouldn’t follow people who tell you they have candy because you’re really naive. Just because someone says something, doesn’t not obligate them to follow through.
Edit: it’s different if it’s announced in an official capacity. Hence my gripe with Fatshark about Solo Mode. The official timeline for cycles is “between two major patches.”, that can be 3-4 months, but it could be 6, it could be 2, it could be 16
But not everything he says is an official statement & you know this, as much as you might wish to ignore it. You’ve also even said yourself that he’s used aspirational language (“want” rather than “will”) rather than given a “cast iron guarantee”.
Which is why they don’t talk much about balance changes or patch notes or if they do it’s in much more general language (“some ward generating skills are overperforming & need to be rebalanced”). But if you want to go really hard on them for “lieing” or “shitting on players”, all1 that’ll happen is that they’ll clam up & stop talking to us, which I think most people would agree is a bad thing.
Well, let’s do a bit of digging, shall we? Luckily, youtube has a transcript function that I can search, so it took me like ten minutes to find something really telling:
From the transcript, slightly edited since the automatic generation is not that great
Question: Was the cycle cadence you guys were going for three months or four months?
Mike: I don’t seem to remember, uh, because we never told you, um, we don’t want to lock ourselves into somethig quite as specific like three or four months.
What we generally say is awfully similar to, um, like the industry cadence.
When I say that I mean like Diablo and Path of Exile come out. You know like we’ve talked about how fast we done things in the past and like all those numbers are roughly in that three to four-ish months range. We’re going to try to fall into this.
The next section after that was quite interesting/pertinent as well.
I’ve highlighted the pertinent bits. So yes, they want (aspirational term) to be able to be relied upon to deliver leagues in a reliable cadence but aren’t there yet.
Problem with exploit gold was on previous Cycle aswell, why it isn’t fix yet? And please
don’t make us wait for new cycle again more than 4 months, when you say about 3-4 months, it will be horrible.
Test it out for the entire cycle if it doesnt work well remove it or tweak it. Dont reset cycles mid cycle. Only time a reset should happen is when a new cycle patch is coming.
We where told for a long time now resets wouldnt happen till a new cycle patch
I dont want to see EHG start testing things mid cycle for other cycles. GGG tesring stuff in poe1 for poe2 is part of why i quite playing the game about 3-4 yrs ago. Haven’t played since
Also Theres a CT program EHG needs to start using that for stuff like this. Even for the patch they had to roll back. I bet had they used the CT program for that patch. They wouldnt have had to roll that patch back. The issue would have likely been found. Before it went live
EHG should be using this program to its fullest extent. Currently its being under used
Poe also launch a brand new league each time they did this.
Ending a cycle/league early isnt a problem when a new cycle/league patch drops along with it.
Thats not happening here with LE its still 1.1 cycle
Items are also a part of the economy, so items should be reset too.
“new” or “not new”, it’s a fresh start. Just a fresh start without changes is a reason to come back to play.
I don’t see “many players complaining”. Several players complaining doesn’t mean “many”.
As I said, majority of the players (including me) is done with the cycle a long time ago. And a fresh start is a good reason to come back.
The one thing I don’t understand is why they didn’t make a new, parallel server for the reset. This would allow the people still playing the cycle to stay if they want. And those that want a reset can play on the new short term server.
This is not the only form where people talk about the game.
Many yes are complaining about it. Are there a few that are going into detail about the issues it has? Yes this is true. U can see it on steam as well Iv not looked at reddit i bet u will find plenty there as well.
I said economy reset the word economy ties in all that.
To a point ur right.
However its still mid cycle when this reset will happen. Its already cauaed players that were still playing to be completely done with this cycle till 1.2 drops. (Myself as well)
Im also not sure im even going to play 1.2 cycle 3 patch. Due to know as a CoF player i have no clue or any way of knowing whether or not a new gold dupe will happen. And it triggers another cycle restart.
As well as not knowimg if EHG plans to do another cycle event mid way through or at any time. Which based on the devs post here. A reset is also now triggered by a cycle event.
Im all for cycle events. I will not keep playing this game if cycles will be reset everytime they wamt to run a cycle event.
My suggestion would be run these event parallel with the current cycle like POE does events. This away those still enjoying the current cycle. They can do so and players that want to come back and try the event can do so with a fresh start
Not a reason to restart any give current cycle mid way through it. Thays what cycle patches are for. 1.2 1.3 .1.4 ect
Now if this reset was bring in 1.2 cycle 3 patch complaining u see wouldnt reallyy be happening.
Resets we where told would happen with major patches 1.2 is a major patch this cycle event isnt a major patch.
I am not sure if their software can do this on the fly, creating a 3rd instance. It probably means additional work. Server selection in the client, for example.
My guess is that they want to maximize the amount of people starting anew because they want to gather data and observe stuff before 1.2 drops. Testing ‘large scale’ so whatever stuff they would like to test doesn’t prove to be a dud. Like some background monitoring of gold, making sure they detect future exploits early… But that is just wild guesswork, so it’s basically of no use but fodder for thought.
They don’t get created by the dupe though, gold did get created to be fair.
And this actually is a fundamental core issue for the future with this decision.
Umh… yes… they can?
The got Legacy + Cycle, this means their framework allows already for adjusting where players go and how that’s handled on the background. A third shouldn’t be an issue unless they hard-coded that stuff… which would be fairly dumb though.
It will definitely require some extra work, but I think being able to have additional short term servers for races and events is something they should of already had. And this was the perfect time to do that.
I quit in part because of the duped gold permanently damaging the market. But this isn’t really enough to get me to return. Especially since there’s a non zero chance another economy breaking dupe pops up again. And their band aid fixes do nothing to fix the economy.
I mean, they could rework their client, but currently it doesn’t support a selection option for more than legacy vs cycle, correct? That’s part of their software, too. So they would have to do a bit of work on the GUI and all, which will take a bit of time to do and test.
I mean… I would absolutely hope they’ve got the framework for event cycles handled already, would be really really late to add that rather then having it. That should’ve been done when cycle + legacy were created in the background to support it.
Would be a fairly gross oversight to not do that, it’s one of the things where you immediately go ‘could we need a third type of cycle anytime in the future?’ and obviously a ‘yes’ is the answer
