Path of Exile 2: Content Update Timeline

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

Cute fantasy. Nothing GGG does is immediate. Any potential issues detected from Standard's access to new content will be handeled the exact same way as they do now whenever a league concludes.

You're contradicting yourself again. If nothing GGG does is immediate, then what's the rush to get Standard players access during leagues? By your own logic, they can wait until the content is properly tested and balanced.

And if serious exploits or game-breaking bugs are found in Standard during a league, you think GGG just ignores them for three months? That's not how live service games work. Critical issues get hotfixed regardless of where they're found.

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

No problems are generated from giving Standard the same treatment.

Problems aren't "generated" - they're exposed earlier in environments GGG has less control over. Managing issues across two different rulesets simultaneously is objectively more complex than the current sequential approach.

Your entire argument boils down to "it's exactly the same work" while simultaneously admitting the environments are completely different. Pick a lane.

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

You're contradicting yourself again. If nothing GGG does is immediate, then what's the rush to get Standard players access during leagues? By your own logic, they can wait until the content is properly tested and balanced.

That isn't a contradiction. You falsely claimed anything detected in Standard places an immediate hold on everything. I said it doesn't. You then post this non-sequitur claiming that means Standard shouldn't be accessing content concurrently. My argument is that Standard should as it doesn't add anything to the workload.

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

Problems aren't "generated" - they're exposed earlier in environments GGG has less control over.

Less control? GGG has full control over both environments. Regardless, earlier detection of issues is only a boon to the game.

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

Managing issues across two different rulesets simultaneously is objectively more complex than the current sequential approach.

They already do this once a new league begins and the prior league's content is moved to Standard.

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

Your entire argument boils down to "it's exactly the same work" while simultaneously admitting the environments are completely different. Pick a lane.

It is the same work. No additional problems are generated. If a critical issue from Prior League A's content is only detectable in Standard, then it would crop up at the start of Current League B. GGG then has to 'pull resources away' to hotfix Standard in the middle of League B. If Standard were permitted access to League A's content with the launch of League A, the issue would be detected earlier and B wouldn't have been affected. Regardless, the workload of detecting/hotfixing the issue is the same.

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

It is the same work. No additional problems are generated. If a critical issue from Prior League A's content is only detectable in Standard, then it would crop up at the start of Current League B. GGG then has to 'pull resources away' to hotfix Standard in the middle of League B.

You just made my argument for me. In your own example, the critical issue forces GGG to pull resources away during League B - exactly what I said happens when problems are detected during active leagues.

The difference is timing and context. Finding that issue at League B launch gives them a clear window to address it. Finding it mid-League A means they're juggling that fix while managing League A's ongoing balance and support needs.

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

If Standard were permitted access to League A's content with the launch of League A, the issue would be detected earlier and B wouldn't have been affected.

Or it creates a domino effect where League A issues impact both environments simultaneously, requiring more complex coordination and potentially affecting League A's stability too.

You keep insisting it's "the same work" while describing scenarios that clearly involve different timing, coordination, and risk profiles. Earlier detection isn't always better if it comes at the cost of managing multiple unstable environments during peak player engagement periods.

But I'm sure you'll find another way to pretend complexity doesn't exist.

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

You just made my argument for me. In your own example, the critical issue forces GGG to pull resources away during League B

Good Lord, you're lost. It proves the opposite. The example demonstrates that the process as-is already has the undesireable effect you think concurrent release would have. If A had an issue that only Standard could detect, it will be detected in the middle of B and thus affect B. If they are released together, it will be detected in A and affect A. Either way, nothing in terms of workload is increased. The only difference is that the problem is detected earlier. Earlier detection is an argument for concurrent release, not against.

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

Good Lord, you're lost. It proves the opposite. The example demonstrates that the process as-is already has the undesireable effect you think concurrent release would have.

I'm not lost - you're just moving the goalposts. Your example assumes a fantasy scenario where issues "only Standard could detect" somehow exist. In reality, most balance and mechanical issues surface during league testing because that's where the bulk of players are actually stress-testing the content.

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

If they are released together, it will be detected in A and affect A. Either way, nothing in terms of workload is increased.

Wrong. Detecting issues in A affects A's stability and player experience during peak engagement. That's objectively worse than finding issues during the transition to Standard when fewer players are affected and ther
You're treating all detection timing as equivalent when it clearly isn't. Finding problems during an active league launch creates immediate pressure to fix them quickly to avoid damaging the league experience. Finding them during Standard integration allows for more measured responses.
But sure, keep pretending that context and timing don't matter in software development. Really demonstrates your deep understanding of the process.

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

I'm not lost - you're just moving the goalposts.

You really should stop using words you don't understand. My position hasn't changed.

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

Your example assumes a fantasy scenario where issues "only Standard could detect" somehow exist.

You have gone through great lengths to agree with me that the environments are different. Are you now trying to backpedal and claim Standard and the current league are the same?

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

In reality, most balance and mechanical issues surface during league testing because that's where the bulk of players are actually stress-testing the content.

This entire discussion you've been vomiting hypotheticals of how detecting issues in Standard will throw a wrench in the whole process. Yet now, you don't think that detection is realistic? You can't even remain consistent within your own flawed arguments.

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

Wrong. Detecting issues in A affects A's stability and player experience during peak engagement.

And detecting A's issues in Standard during the middle of League B affects B's 'stability and player experience during peak engagement'. See? Either way, an hotfix for Standard is spun out in the middle of a current league.Nothing has changed.

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

You really should stop using words you don't understand. My position hasn't changed.

Your position keeps shifting between "it's zero cost" and "it's the same cost" while ignoring the practical differences I've outlined. That's textbook goalpost moving.

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

Are you now trying to backpedal and claim Standard and the current league are the same?

No, I'm pointing out that your hypothetical "issues only Standard could detect" is largely irrelevant because most significant problems get caught during league testing where the playerbase is larger and more active.

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

This entire discussion you've been vomiting hypotheticals of how detecting issues in Standard will throw a wrench in the whole process. Yet now, you don't think that detection is realistic?

I'm saying your specific scenario is unrealistic, not that issues won't be detected. The problems will be mostly the same ones leagues find, just with added complexity from legacy interactions.

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

And detecting A's issues in Standard during the middle of League B affects B's 'stability and player experience during peak engagement'.

The key difference is that by League B, League A content has been tested and refined. Your approach means dealing with untested content in both environments simultaneously during peak engagement periods.

But keep pretending timing and context are irrelevant.

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

Your position keeps shifting between "it's zero cost" and "it's the same cost" while ignoring the practical differences I've outlined. That's textbook goalpost moving.

Concurrent release has the same cost as the current setup. Thus, switching to concurrent release has a net cost of zero.

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

No, I'm pointing out that your hypothetical "issues only Standard could detect" is largely irrelevant because most significant problems get caught during league testing where the playerbase is larger and more active.

Okay. Since anything Standard would detect is irrelevant, GGG can go ahead and concurrently release it with the league.

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

The key difference is that by League B, League A content has been tested and refined.

But not for Standard. The environments are completely different, remember?

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

Your approach means dealing with untested content in both environments simultaneously during peak engagement periods.

This already happens.

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

Concurrent release has the same cost as the current setup. Thus, switching to concurrent release has a net cost of zero.

That's not how cost analysis works. Same total cost distributed differently can still have worse outcomes - like managing two unstable environments during peak periods instead of one.

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

Okay. Since anything Standard would detect is irrelevant, GGG can go ahead and concurrently release it with the league.

Nice try twisting my words. I said most issues get caught in leagues, not that Standard detection is irrelevant. The point is that Standard's unique issues don't justify the added complexity during launch windows.

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

But not for Standard. The environments are completely different, remember?

Right, which is why they test it in Standard after league refinement. Your "completely different" environments argument cuts both ways - it's also why concurrent release creates more variables to manage.

"

LeFlesh#9979 schrieb:

This already happens.

No, it doesn't. New league content isn't simultaneously deployed to Standard during league launch. That's literally what you're proposing to change.

You're either being deliberately obtuse or genuinely can't see the difference between sequential and simultaneous deployment models.

"

Blooper#6330 schrieb:

No, it doesn't. New league content isn't simultaneously deployed to Standard during league launch.

Yes it is. Once B begins, A's new content is deployed in Standard during B's launch. The only thing that changes is potentially earlier problem detection.