I don’t see a problem with launching on both servers, considering that legacy players like me are few and the game of one doesn’t interfere with the game of another. I would be happy with the release after the cycle, along the lines of PoE.
Leaderboards don’t interest me, so I don’t have to worry about fresh starts. Everyone is happy in the end
I am software developer with 20+years experience. is typically in cases like this, you just “disable” the code for leaderboards in case of Legacy, you do not have different source code for Cycle and for Legacy, is the same code with things like:
if(CyclePlayer)
{
/“player died in Arena, check if need to update leaderboards based on wave cleared”/
}
else
{
/“do nothing atm cause we hate non-season players”/
}
My point was that, without the incentive of cycle only rewards (either MTX or content), not many players will join cycles. The majority of players join the new PoE leagues because of the MTX rewards and the exclusive mechanics. Without that incentive, most players will simply default to legacy and cycles will be mostly empty in comparison.
Eventually there will be a difference. That’s what Mike said as well.
They don’t know the exact things or extend yet.
He named a few exampels such as some cycle exclusive uniques or runes/glyphs as possible things. They will probably slowly ramp over time.
If they will ever reach the extent of PoE, we don’t know but eventually it will come (or at least is planned).
And yet you seem to be unaware of modular design.
I am not familiar with their architecture (and definitely neither are you), but I highly doubt your “example” was the case. The more likely scenario, based on what I’ve seen from Mike comments, is that when you die in the arena in a cycle character, they call on the leaderboard module which then updates the necessary entries. So to implement this on legacy, they would have to make another module, very similar to that one, but not the same, that updates a different leaderboard.
Which means creating that module (even if mostly based on the previous one), implementing it, testing it and then rolling it out.
Which definitely won’t take as long as many other changes they need to make, but it’s definitely more than 1h.
EDIT: They would also need to change their database structure to have separate leaderboards.
First ARPG? The genre has been doing leagues, seasons, cycles, etc. since D2. In fact, D2 is what started this back in 2002. If you don’t like ARPGs don’t play them
You forgot about the competition part: Many people play cycles to compete with each other, which to me doesn’t make any sense. But regardless of that, I want to enjoy all the new mechanics as well as the cycle players.
I honestly don’t mind being a cycle late, as my min-max is quite long. I see no reason to hide a mechanic definitively and exclusively from temporary content, with exceptions such as PoE’s Synthesis League, which should not have even existed given the aberration it was. There are ways to please everyone.
It’s not just cycle players who should be encouraged. The legacy ones too
I did say, in the first reply, that you’d get leaderboard racers. They’re just a minority. As they have to be due to the nature of leaderboards.
I also think PoE system works fine. It’s mostly a testing ground for the mechanics. If they are fine, they get added to legacy. If they’re really broken they should just be discarded (even though PoE was quite late in deciding to do that instead of just adding everything).
But this means that, inevitably, something will be added to a cycle that won’t move to legacy. I’m fine with that, since I think the stability of legacy requires that to happen sometimes.
they already have that as they said each cycle leaderboard will be available, e g. when cycle 2 start you will still be able to browse cycle 1 leaderboard. so they just need to add another entry in database, Legacy.
That will depend a lot on how their structure is defined. If they simply have start date and end date, then they have to change it. I don’t know their DB structure either, so I don’t actually know. But when you make a structure considering only one object (leaderboard) quite often you don’t have the required structure to allow for multiple ones. They might have accounted for it. They might not have. The fact that 1.0 doesn’t have legacy leaderboard makes me think that the latter is more likely.
you have, because they already needed multiple entries for cycle1, cycle2…
Are you sure you’re a programmer? I’m saying that all you need, for the leaderboard to work right now is start date and end date. You only have one leaderboard at a time. If you add another leaderboard, then you also need to add a flag to identify if it’s a cycle or legacy one. And then change everything to reflect that.
Either way, there really is no point in continuing this discussion. Making even simple changes in such a complex and intricate structure as a videogame isn’t easy. @CaiusMartius might have more insight to give regarding this,
But even if it were, even if it just took 1h to change, I already pointed out that they probably have hundreds or thousands of changes like that already. And many of those will affect more players than a legacy leaderboard will.
So if you want, you may continue going on and on about it, but I don’t feel like repeating myself constantly, so feel free to do so on your own.
ok, we can stop the doscussion here as your attitude is clear: “let’s just throw hate”.
I’m not throwing hate. But you say you’re a programmer (for 20+ years) and seem unable to accept that complex systems might require more than removing an if clause to implement.
I’m also a programmer, also for 20 years, and I can tell you that even simply adding a column to a table can require days to implement when it’s a complex software with many linked systems in it.