Path of Exile 2: Content Update Timeline

"

LeFlesh#9979 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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

This already happens.

"

LeFlesh#9979 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

"

LeFlesh#9979 wrote:

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.

That's not simultaneous deployment - that's sequential. League A content goes to Standard when League B launches, not when League A launches. There's a crucial difference between deploying refined content from a concluded league versus deploying untested content from an active league.

Your own example proves my point. When League A content hits Standard during League B launch, it's been through months of testing and refinement. What you're proposing is deploying that same content to Standard when it's still raw and untested during League A's launch.

The timing matters. Deploying tested content during a new league launch is fundamentally different from deploying untested content during an active league's run. One creates known variables, the other creates unknown ones.

You keep conflating these two scenarios as if they're identical when they clearly aren't. The "only thing that changes" is actually the most important thing - when problems are discovered and how much testing has been done beforehand.

"

Blooper#6330 wrote:

That's not simultaneous deployment - that's sequential. League A content goes to Standard when League B launches, not when League A launches .

B is launched simultaneously with A’s content going into Standard. New content is being launched simultaneously into two new environments.

"

Blooper#6330 wrote:

When League A content hits Standard during League B launch, it's been through months of testing and refinement .

That process of refining A inherently pulls resources away from B’s launch. Either way, a league has to wait for Standard. If data from A is collected earlier, it can be refined earlier.

"

LeFlesh#9979 wrote:

B is launched simultaneously with A's content going into Standard. New content is being launched simultaneously into two new environments.

That's a semantic dodge. League B is new content launching in league. League A is old, tested content moving to Standard. You're trying to make "simultaneous" do heavy lifting it can't handle when the content states are completely different.

"

LeFlesh#9979 wrote:

That process of refining A inherently pulls resources away from B's launch. Either way, a league has to wait for Standard.

Wrong again. League A refinement happens during League A's runtime, not during League B's development. By the time B launches, A's refinement is done. No resources are pulled from B's launch.

"

LeFlesh#9979 wrote:

If data from A is collected earlier, it can be refined earlier.

"Earlier" refinement means doing it during A's active period when player engagement and retention are critical, instead of during the natural downtime between leagues. That's objectively worse timing for disruptive changes.

You're basically arguing for creating artificial pressure during peak periods instead of using the natural workflow that already exists. But sure, keep pretending that's an improvement.

"

Blooper#6330 wrote:

That's a semantic dodge.

Translation: You have no counterargument and are too proud to concede.

"

Blooper#6330 wrote:

League A refinement happens during League A's runtime, not during League B's development. By the time B launches, A's refinement is done. No resources are pulled from B's launch.

This is patently false. B's development would have more resources available earlier if A didn't take so long being "refined". You can't claim that refinement during A doesn't delay B while simultaneously claiming that it does when Standard is involved, especially since this already happens.