What is a substantial amount of requests to deem this a viable argument?
How to you decide if it comes from unrelated individuals compared to a group of players conversing with each other? That massively skews the data after all, it’s a vocal minority versus a non-vocal majority then.
This is a major danger of communication in those regards, you don’t go by quantity of requests unless it becomes such a substantial aspect that it becomes a necessity.
If you would go by quantity of requests we wouldn’t have the current LP system or Boss Ward System anymore.
As for rights of talking or asking things about cycle/legacy:
So, if I start a character now I get the right to ask for things? Not otherwise?
If not, when would I gain this right especially?
Don’t I get the right to ask for things if a single aspect stops me from engaging with it and this would instead cause my engagement?
How do you make sure you don’t create a echo-chamber hence if you’re only listening to people already engaged in that respective content? After all you’ve already ‘sold’ it to them.
As said, the whole argumentation is wonky. I understand your arguments and it also doesn’t warrant - for me personally - such a strong response, and the type of argumentation for the ladder is also not well worded but inflammatory.
This doesn’t reduce or increase the value of those posts though, and the point is viable. ‘Why isn’t it there?’
What the fuck matter how many players play Legacy? Many do, and even if they maybe a minority there is no reason whatsoever they shouldn’t have the chance to have Arena Ladders too, is literally few fking lines of code to add, it’s unbelievable that they don’t have it and yes is a fking lack of respect to Legacy players from EHG.
And yes they would love to have the same chance to compete with each others as they have Cycle players.
How hard is for you to understand this simple concept goes beyond me.
Absolutely fucking unreal how many dumb people are in this Forum, it seems almost to be on fking Reddit (mentally challenged well known hive) , not a video game Forum.
I’m not sure that you understand what those words mean either. They aren’t qualities that only people who agree with us display, people on the other side of the argument can, but don’t always, display them as well & likewise, “we” aren’t guaranteed to embody them either.
You are making an assertion but refuse to back it up, most likely because you can’t because EHG aren’t even slightly as “disrespectful” as Blizzard. You’ve not even mentioned why you think it’s “disrespectful”.
Have you heard of the concept of “cost benefit analysis”? If it takes X amount of resource to do one of two things, but one thing would benefit 90% of your customer base & the other would “only” benefit 10%, would it not be a good use of limited resources to do the thing that benefits the 90%? It’s not being “disrespectful” to the other 10%, it’s the company using their limited resources for the msost benefit.
Yeah, and it’s probably a larger minority in LE than it is in other similar games on account of LE not yet having league-specific content which is one of the big drivers for people to play a league rather than standard.
See, this is projection. If you have to go with a single argument (“it’s disrespectful”) & then just lace the rest of your post with swear words (seriously, man up, you can say fuck, this isn’t church) & then ad hominems, it doesn’t exactly help your argument.
I’m sure they would, but they’re never going to be able to have a fair or equal starting point, as I’ve mentioned previously.
My issue with this is that if it’s reset along with the season ladder, then surely it’s “disrespecting” or running counter to the usual ethos of standard/legacy? There’s never going to be a fair or equal start for anyone at the start of the new non-league-ladder, Billy Bob, who had a bonkers OP build that was based off exploiting a bug (Profane Veil ward, anyone?) & got to wave 10,000 (or whatever) shortly before the non-league league ended can immediately jump back in as soon as the servers come back up & after enduring the eye-gouging amount of time that it took to get to wave 10,000, set it again! Anyone who starts in legacy can’t compete with that.
Likely because they have more important or impactful things to do before getting round to it. Because, as you say, very few people are asking for it (just 1 person as far as I’m aware) so the benefit is minimal & they have more important things to do, like, maybe bug fixing, or balancing or implementing new stuff (skills, uniques, etc).
I’m not sure it is though, how exactly are EHG being “disrespectful”? It is a phenomenally hyperbolic argument to the point of it being useless. It ascribes malintent to EHG where they have never shown a propensity toward that. And whenever the person making the assertion is called in it, they simply say that the other person is projecting.
It’s like arguing with a 5 year old that’s been given a thesaurus. You & I don’t always agree, but at least you are capable of constructing an argument, whether I agree with it or not, and responding to replies.
Point taken, but definitely not even remotely a problem.
Games generally solve this issue with time based leaderboards.
We got the ‘all time’ leaderboard, the ‘season’ leaderboard, the ‘24 hour’ leaderboard. Be free to pick your poison basically. It’s all the same, just different timeframes, the core system is already there after all.
Well, likely true.
Albeit I’ll also argue that EHG has a great record of not thinking their implementations through, be it the half-baked dungeons, factions, boss ward… there’s a lot which have integral design mistakes.
That’s a lack of proper planning and systemic to them, and even I as someone who dislikes competitive environments (like leaderboards) knows that when setting up such systems you do them in as many places as once to ensure a large variety of people are affected and hence engaging with it. So it simply seems quite ‘odd’ to me why it wouldn’t be done right away rather then having to postpone it to ‘later’ because they couldn’t get it done properly the first time.
The core argument behind it is not the ‘disrespectful’ but the ‘it should be there’. As said, it’s badly argumented.
It is neither disrespect nor lack of time investment from EHG that there are no legacy arena ladders.
To not have them was an informed decision backed up by sound reason.
As with many slices of life, you can disagree with their reason, that’s fair. Intellectual honesty would be to acknowledge the existence of their reason and stop pretending that this has something to do with disrespect.
Why? If that (resetting a thing in a mode that, by definition, does not get reset) is “not a problem” then why is the mid-league reset such a massive problem? What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!
Part of it’s there, yes. You’d have to add new code to get the leaderboards to pull the right data at the right time. All perfectly do-able once an appropriate amount of resource is assigned to it.
That I disagree with. I know they spend a lot of time noodling around stuff to try & understand the implications of a particular thing. Just because they don’t nail it on the first attempt doesn’t mean that they’re not thinking things through. It can also mean that their valuation of the pros & cons is different to yours/mine/etc so they come up with different acceptable answers.
Prove it (see above).
Because they have a lot of core stuff to still add. It’s just not a priority. Several masteries are still missing several skills, let alone have them all balanced. The campaign isn’t finished, they’re missing several end-game systems, etc. There’s a lot of things to do that needed doing yesterday. Ladders for standard is pretty low down on the list of shit to do.
Then why, by the ever loving god, has he-who-shall-not-be-named-because-he’s-too-cool-and-edgy-for-me only ever said/asked “why it’s not there” once, out of all the many times he’s posted “it’s disrespectful”. It’s probably 9:1 at this point.
A ladder is part of a public competition.
With each of their cycles, EHG wants their competing players to have a fair starting point where nobody has an advantage, not even stash tabs.
In an eternal realm, there won’t be a fair starting point ever again.
If you include timed ladders in an eternal realm, it’s hardly eternal. Deleting/Removing ladder scores goes against the thought of an eternal realm. Some people will consider it unfair if their scores are removed. Some people might consider it unfair if they can never achieve a wave that previous builds reached due to changes in the game balance.
EHG gauged conflicting interests of players and made a decision. It is one of these situations where you can’t make everyone happy.
If you’d properly read what I wrote you would see that your argument there is illogical since I have written the solution.
Yeah… unless they fucked up it’s literally a day’s job.
Not even likely.
Yes, you said it… try. But not do sadly.
Some things need to be nailed on the first attempt or at least be reliably close to it. Single situations where it’s far off the goal is fine… regularly? Not fine.
oh for f… sake.
You’re the person using the argumentation line of ‘if you had children you would know xyz’ which was the dumbest piece of posting I’ve read in a long time… and now you want to tell me that you can’t infer meaning out of a post?
No matter how toxic or nicely written something is that’s a core concept of communication, and in written words it should be a lot easier to discern compared to person-to-person communication since there’s no non-verbal aspect to take into consideration.
Yes, some decent points there… but they don’t quite uphold.
First of all the legacy competition starts with the introduction of legacy, hence pre 1.0.
We’ve seen power creep in 1.0 in a quite substantial way which means that already any former ‘all time records’ would be broken, hence allowing such leaderboards to exist.
Secondly the leaderboards for legacy would likely be split into segments which are time based. Active characters actively participating in the content get listed, so you can choose which type of competition you’re actively trying to participate in, it would pose no problem there actually.
As for why:
The time-based competition on a fair starting basis already is - by design - cycle. Hence if you want that… you go into cycle.
Long-term competition would be legacy… hence you push in legacy.
With the different timeframes given in legacy leaderboards it would also allow long-standing players to compete against each other at specific timeframes with their pre-farmed equipment.
All it does is enhancing the variety of competition, it does uphold the fairness of it at any point.
There is no conflict of interest since it’s solely a addition to an already existing state. It doesn’t remove anything or changes the game-experience itself.
As for it not being eternal… huh? I don’t get why that cycle itself wouldn’t be… it’s not reset after all, everything stays, the respective boards either are reset or permanently saved and displayed.
A split leaderboard based on time (with a ‘all time’ one in existence) has exactly ‘0’ downsides and is just and extension to provide another type of competition compared to the one which is provided in cycle.
If you wanna go with that argument then any sports nowadays would be unfair since people were born at a different date and hence had a different amount of time to train… that would be as nonsensical.
Because you appear to have all the empathy & understanding of a brick. It’s like you cannot even attempt to understand something from someone else’s point of view.
Making assumptions (or “infering” as you say) about something that someone hasn’t said when they’ve said all of a few dozen words, most of which are repeated in subsequent posts, is dangerous work. We can make inferences about what you mean because you write copious amounts & attempt to convey your ideas in different ways. He however, does not.
Not always, sarcasm doesn’t always go over well in written form.
I’m going to follow your instruction.
No, you’re wrong, your argument is irrelevant because I’ve already written the correct answer that solves my needs but ignores anyone else’s if they disagree with me. insert 200-300 words to pad this out a bit
Yes, but we’re not talking about space travel here. So your “argumentation” is bunkum & about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
Clearly upholds as we can see when I’m literally arguing the majority of time outside of my own position…
It’s breaking down stuff to the core concept, not inferring new meaning.
If someone says ‘The LP system sucks since it ruins my items’ it’s not the loss of the item which is the problem but either the balance of the system, the feeling of it being ‘punishing’ rather then simply ‘not rewarding’ or a issue from a system below that hierarchically.
The same goes with that. ‘disrespectful’ has no meaning. The words actively where ‘why isn’t it there?’ and ‘it should be there’.
We got the reason for the why if @HorusKBZ arguments reflect those from EHG. The part if it ‘should’ though is the argumentation line we’re going into now.
So stop being a clown for once, you’re going off the rails at the slightest non-perfect way of wording stuff.
Yes, but this is not eternal. You could do it, but that’s more or less seasonal. You later bring up this point: ‘with an all time one in existence’.
If you have an all-time one in eternal, some people will want to break it. But that might be impossible due to balance changes. There is no guarantee for constant power creep that allows people to always go higher. Perhaps there will be legacy variants of unique items that newer people joining legacy won’t be able to get.
The same goes for eternal power creep. If set records are invalided the next patch cycle because we again got a huge power boost, legacy players might feel invalidated because of this. “Why did I made the effort if now everyone can easily achieve what I had to work so hard for?”
So you create unhappy players by the existence of an eternal record that can’t be broken or will to easily be broken. That is not ‘0’ downsides. That is conflicting interests.
Training or experience is not the argument. The argument is 1000 PS engine vs 500 PS engine.
But this is ‘e-sports’ at best, and people have different expectations towards e-sports. In e-sports, it should be all about playerskill, not about having a gameplay advantage.
You are always keen to bring in psychology, expectations and mentality into the discussion. Try to identifiy the different possible mentalities towards legacy ladders and see if you can find any possible conflict of interests between those mentalities. If so, to what players should EHG cater to?
I have no horse in this race, to be honest. I never cared for ladders and probably never will. It doesn’t affect me whether they are there or not. I think I have once opened the ladder in a previous discussion, but I am not even curious how far some people got.
That’s what I found when I scanned the dev stream transcripts and searched for keywords like legacy, (mid) cycle, and resets. It’s not verbatim and might include minor interpretation from my part, but I won’t go through it again to find the passage or quote.
Not immediately, true.
But LE - as every other game - will have power creep, which means the leaderboards will be broken as it goes forward.
If not that means that EHG hasn’t got a handle on their game anyway, power-creep is natural and normal, rampant is when it goes bad. When it’s missing a game becomes utterly stale and dies off.
It’s a common ongoing thing in several games. Shouldn’t be a new experience for people.
And it’s not ‘invalidated’ but rather gives incentive to push further ‘how much is possible to do?’ simply increases over time.
At least one rather then letting them all die I would say
No matter how the system is set up you can’t please everyone.
But without a system you can please none.
But didn’t you use different mentalities to argue that you can’t invalidate how people feel? When I tried to apply reason to the fact that the timeframe of 1.1 isn’t broken? Now you are trying to invalidate the fact that people can feel invalidated by later power creep instead of feeling incentivized to push further ‘a pointless endeavour since it will all be for nought next cycle’.
Yes, you can satisfy those who don’t want to have this system in place for whatever reason.
Having this system in place will just shift who gets displeased and for what reason. But as soon as EHG introduces it, they have to constantly evaluate all their changes to the game to not displease the playerbase who wants to participate in the legacy leaderboards, or people will start complaining, too.
I won’t pretend that I have a clue how many people would complain in which direction, but I highly expect - based on my experience with online gaming and humanity in general - that even more people will complain for various reasons each time a change to the game causes a balance shift.
Is it any different now?
But it’s unavoidable by design, what’s your solution to it?
Also… if you don’t get the option to even attempt a competition… how invalidating is that in comparison?
I’m not so sure about that there.
There is ‘0’ effect on people who don’t want to interact with a leaderboard unless it’s in direct competition in a versus mode. This is not the case in LE, hence a non-argument in this case at least.
Hrmm… in this specific case I’ll argue that baseline proper balance will be mandatory to keep those people pleased, I would say it’s a win/win for players there. A definite loose for the devs though since it’s more effort as it’s showcased easier when something goes ‘off’.
That would be my reasonable argument, too. But that is not how some people feel, if I recall a prior discussion in this forum correctly (which I might not, perhaps it was just a hypothetical back then). I think someone wrote something along the line of ‘If it is there, it would create ambition for me’.
Consider it hearsay, it was probably half a year ago, so my memory might be way off.
Or a loss since EHG can’t react agile enough if something is off the rail.
OK, I’m caught up with everything, @XHolyspawnX, feel free to join us on this thought experiment since Kulze is now taking the flak meant for you for some reason.
Let’s play hypothetical and say EHG adds Eternal Ladders to Legacy tomorrow.
I’m 99% positive that the vast majority of players who want to compete with other players would prefer to not have to compete against op builds staying on the Leaderboard after a nerf, power creep can help mitigate this, but a reset each cycle would help more. So EHG decides to leave the Eternal Board and add a Seasonal Board. The current players who care about legacy ladders are happy.
A new wave of players join Legacy that want to compete with other players, but with power creep and them competing against players that have thousands of hours on their one character don’t have a chance unless they to invest thousands of hours into playing the game. That doesn’t feel great so they decide to not compete. Some players who took a vacation from their sweaty grind are now a few days to a week behind their competitors and they lose interest. Eventually the only players still leaving their mark on the Leaderboard are the same 2- 3 players who have the most playtime.
EHG decides to fix this by resetting legacy characters every cycle so people in Legacy have a chance to compete on a level playing field each cycle. Now everyone in Legacy who didn’t even want Leaderboards are pissed that their characters are being reset when Legacy promised no resets.
Also, the Leaderboards are now effectively 1:1 with Cycle Leaderboards so EHG removes them and tells Legacy players that if they want to compete on the Leaderboard to go to Cycle.
And we’re back to square 1, Legacy doesn’t have Ladders and people who want to compete go to Cycle.
Thank you for taking this journey with me, I’m not taking questions at this time.
Yeah, there’ll be a subset of people obviously which feel ‘mandated to participate’ if it exists, there always are, you can’t avoid that.
I personally think that the quantity of people which would do it in a healthy manner and seeing a upside in it would outpace this mentioned group substantially though.
Yeah, the point is that a reset already is in cycle, which makes the competition ‘type’ a different one then from Legacy.,
Legacy as no competition element available currently, hence it would solely add a possible one.
The one which allows for those playing a lot ‘currently’ or a lot ‘overall’ to compete with others.
And yes, obviously Legacy would be more ‘stale’ in terms of the ranking then Cycle, that’s a given. But that’s why you have a variety of boards there. As mentioned… the ‘all time’ would be the permanent thing, upholding the permanence rule of Legacy.
So as a result this could - as an example - look like this:
‘All time’ Leaderboard, very stale.
-‘Cycle lifetime’ leaderboard, still stale less so.
-Weekly leaderboard, quite dynamic.
This way both ‘old dogs’ and newcomers would have a space to compete in. Not every play every week, hence it becomes viable to compete in.
This then leads to people which play for a bit to be able to compete in the cyclic leaderboard of legacy… and beyond that if they feel it worthwhile maybe in the ‘all time’ one too.
Like mountain climbing, you don’t start with Mt. Everest (actually you should never do but that’s another topic) but with a easy mountain first, working yourself up.
Legacy itself obviously is under the rule of permanence, that’s a given, I don’t even know why that comes even up.
The thought alone to reset legacy characters is utterly out of bounds.
The whole ‘journey’ you described was a bit… nonsensical to say it mildly
