Nice. It would be annoying to reroll mid cycle if your build got nerf
5 Likes
Thank you EHG, for this write up. Outstanding. It is good to see confirmation of the vocal minorities on certain topics.
3 Likes
Appreciate sharing exact results.
Sure but I hope we won’t find ourselves in a situation balancing is all over the place and it is excused with “but community decided not to touch it if not a bug”. It is still an important topic and this only means you need to put more effort into better balance. Lets be honest, currently it is not great.
7 Likes
What is a bug?
Whatever the developers say is a bug of course.
So, balance bug fixes and balance changes are functionally the same thing.
1 Like
Uhhh actually bug is pretty clear from software engineering perspective. If your code is not doing what you intended it to do, it is a bug. Doesn’t matter if a number typo or some more complicated logic issue. Balancing is when your code does exactly what you wanted it to do but it is not balanced. Very simply,
20 Likes
Is it doing what it says it should? If not, it’s a bug. DuckWho beat me to it, but confirming from us as well 
18 Likes
‘While the above answer also addresses this question’
the above answers start
‘In the event that we release a change or bug-fix which was resulting in an item, skill, or build to overperform, the desire for leaderboards to reset has been quite mixed.’
Sorry but what? 51.3% of people want partial resets, 26.4% arent leaning either way. And you view this as mixed? Based on your previous read of other graphs, this is very much a strong response for partial leaderboard resets. (Example: Partial resets are more favoured, than not nerfing overpowered stuff is) Your reasoning on this doesnt track with the results, and feels liker you’re just trying to ignore that people want this.
People dont want full leaderboard results, most likely (based on written feedback) because they don’t want their, or others, legitimate non-bugged work removed. People do want partial resets, because they dont want the ladder to just be dominated by, even with added information, runs that cant be reached. It doesn’t matter if theres information on those runs, they’re still gonna be the only ones people see unless they go searching.
The rest of this post is great. The leaderboard stuff makes 0 sense. People clearly want a partial reset, you literally show that result, then say ‘the above answer addresses this’ when it just objectively doesn’t. 51% wanting it, and 26% not caring, isn’t mixed. Less people dont want a partial reset, than dont care either way. And nearly double the amount want a partial reset, to who don’t.
At the very least let us just view leaderboards based on each major patch in a cycle.
The rest of this stuff is good and cool though., Just dissapointed that you’re kinda glossing over the nuance of a full leaderboard reset, and a partial one. This really is just gonna make arena leaderboard meaningless, which is whatever for me, but I kinda assumed you wanted it to have meaning outside of ‘these people had the time to abuse the bug before it got fixed’.
7 Likes
“During a Cycle, you would like us to nerf skills or items that are highly overperforming, even if it is not caused by a bug.”
34% of responses indicated they strongly disagree.
100% of people currently benefiting from broken builds and imbalanced interactions that are VERY likely to be hit by mid-cycle nerfs responded that they strongly disagreed.
Seriously this is like when a corporation investigates itself.
We investigated and found we did nothing wrong.
Of course these people are going to vote to keep their broken builds untouched.
The 20% that disagreed instead of strongly disagreed are probably people who are less reliant on the broken interactions but still benefiting from them.
This survey is basically “Self-report if you’re currently playing an overpowered bugged build, an overpowered but not bugged build, or you already got nerfed”.
Overperforming is overperforming.
Fix it or don’t fix it. The reason for it overperforming is ultimately irrelevant. The whole server stability thing was a one-off and unlikely to ever be the reason something needs to be changed mid-cycle again.
Who cares if something does 100m DPS because of a bug, or because of a poorly thought out and poorly tested skill/item interaction? If it’s imbalanced and overpowered just fix it.
Why are you asking people for permission when so many people are benefiting from and abusing stuff that’s either a bug or just really badly designed? They’re just going to vote in their own self interest.
5 Likes
I propose leaning into ladder resets for bug fixes instead of shying away from it. This can be beneficial for both sides.
Early in this first cycle, with so many bugs yet to fix, I suggest a ladder reset every 2-3 weeks, giving EHG time to develop a suite of fixes to deploy and giving players enough time to develop a character and compete. Ladder winners could get a single cosmetic item reward. The notice for incoming fixes could be posted 3-5 days before the reset so people can perform their final pushes.
As the game gets more stable in terms of bugs, move the reset to monthly and make it a staple of the endgame, but up the reward to a pack or set of cosmetic items. This gives people more time to min-max for ladder but not so long people get bored and stop playing.
More ladder resets are not necessarily a bad thing, as players get more opportunities to compete and prove their skills and theorycrafting. Builds that get changed due to patches get reworked or new ones get discovered and more creativity can occur. With a monthly ladder we’ll get 3-4 chances to compete per cycle. More winners, more playing, more interesting builds, and more bugs fixed.
Ideally there is a historical record of each ladder with the winners/prize shown in a tab on the ladder panel in game, or at least a page on the website/forums.
4 Likes
Now we need a survey for gameplay
1 Like
Exp tomes being doubled as echo rewards for Circle of Fortune players was very consistent with the tooltip and description. Going by all the information players had, access to, that was working as intended.
This means there will be cases in which we create builds that will end up going against an intent we didn’t know about until an upcoming fix is announced.
You probably can’t eliminate all such incidents, but giving players time to find the META/Bugs after a big patch before jumping right to the new cycle could minimize it.
6 Likes
Thanks for the Recap, nice to see a Team really listen, and not just saying it look good.
iam quite happy with the results, its what i hoped / expected.
The reason we felt both questions were answered by the one system change was that we feel that having the information with the entries works in both situations. While it is correct that the majority of responses indicated that they wanted a partial reset, we felt that with the system of being able to track when an entry occurred, that would not be the case. So the results are different, the system change / extra information carries over as it supports groups from both questions. I apologize that it felt like we were saying the distribution of responses was the same.
5 Likes
We both know we will end up in exactly that situation though. 
Balance is a mess and lack of mid-cycle balancing is just going to create heavy player FOMO for the overperforming builds and drive people towards the “abuse early abuse often” mindset with anything new the community finds for broken builds.
I also really hate the idea that you’ll never know if whatever makes a certain build or interaction great is a “bug” or “working as intended” or “working as coded” and so you’ll never know if it’s going to be subjected to a nerf or fix later, or if it’s safe. (Which is just going to lead people to more FOMO and more chasing and more FOTMoment build chasing rather than just … playing what’s actually fun or interesting to them)
1 Like
Will the system being implemented, allow us to view leaderboard results based on current patch/remove entries that used the bug?
If not, then I disagree that it supports people wanting a partial reset.
3 Likes
Great to see an official stance on the issue. Consistency and reliability are really important.
Thanks for sharing this information and kudos for pretty much everything else 
As answered above, we don’t have the space in the scope to fit it in for 1.1, but it’s definitely something we’ll be looking at.
6 Likes
So the actual response is: ‘while people are showing they want partial resets, it’s not currently in the scope of what we can do during 1.0, and we’ll be looking to act on that feedback in 1.1’?
This is actually exactly why I personally feel that the power of the build shouldn’t really be considered in this case at all, as it’s difficult to find the right cut-off about how much a build is overperforming, when should it warrant a bug fix and when it shouldn’t. I’d say that bugs should all be fixed as fast as possible, whether they result in a highly overperforming build, only a slightly overperforming one or even an underperforming one. Of course significantly overperforming bugs should have priority, but all of them need fixing if they have any impact on the player experience.
One of the most frustrating experiences for me in the game so far have been when trying out a new skill upgrade or passive and noticing it simply doesn’t work as stated in the tooltip. And I don’t think these bugs should only be fixed quickly if the result makes it to the top of the leaderboard.
Whatever the case, it’s good that you’ll at least consider making these fixes from now on. I’m not too fussed with leaderboards personally, but it certainly makes a bad impression for potential players when so many videos and streams are filled with bugged interactions like these.
4 Likes
And if it still isn’t clear…it was a bug fix.
1 Like