Hello everyone! I’m 1000Water, the producer of Esports Godfather. It’s a pleasure to connect with you all once again! Yesterday, we updated the beta testing branch of the game in preparation for the upcoming major update. I’ve compiled some of your questions and concerns to address here. Hopefully, I can clarify some of the design philosophies and issues surrounding certain systems. [b][h3]1. Why doesn’t the beta branch have custom starting options? [/h3][/b] From our perspective, this feature is essential, and we’ve already completed the interface design for it. We estimate it will take another 1–2 weeks to finalize development. Rest assured, this feature is our top priority. [b][h3]2. Why did we choose the “Variants” concept instead of “Buffs and Nerfs”? [/h3][/b] This is the main topic I’d like to discuss with you today. Based on current feedback, opinions are quite polarized. Here’s the design philosophy behind Variants: In the existing framework, a hero's in-game strength within a patch is primarily influenced by rules and equipment. For example, the synergy between the "Bounty Hunter" patch’s Mo and gloves-wielding Nuris achieves a 1+1 > 2 effect. Even before introducing Variants or Buffs and Nerfs, heroes were prioritized differently across versions based on these dynamics. Building on that, we proposed three concepts: Variants, Buffs and Nerfs, and the rejected idea of “General Numerical Adjustments” (e.g., tweaking baseline stats such as armor or crit mechanics). We excluded the latter because patch rules already serve this purpose, making additional changes redundant. Choosing “Buffs and Nerfs” This approach could increase complexity further. For example, patch rules and equipment determine a hero’s strength ranking (e.g., Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3). Introducing *Buffs and Nerfs* would shift some heroes between tiers—e.g., a Tier 1 hero could drop to Tier 2 due to nerfs. While feasible and thematically fitting for an esports game, this method comes with a trade-off: it makes the adjustments too explicit. Players can immediately identify which heroes are buffed or nerfed without much thought. This approach risks making strategies overly formulaic and reduces the depth of decision-making, leaving players to rely primarily on numbers rather than creative thinking. Why Variants? Instead of simply buffing or nerfing heroes, we aim to create more diverse gameplay experiences. This is why we approached the problem from a macro decision-making perspective. For example: - Dylan’s Variant reduces his in-combat strength while enhancing his support capabilities. Players must now consider which heroes benefit more from Dylan’s support rather than relying solely on his combat potential. - Another example is Arelio’s Variant, which reduces crit rate but increases crit damage. This changes equipment needs and opens up synergies with heroes who provide crit rate bonuses. With *Variants*, we’re adjusting relationships between heroes, equipment, and gameplay, influencing decisions across multiple levels. Future Adjustments Depending on feedback, we may refine or pivot away from the *Variants* concept. However, I firmly believe this experimentation is worthwhile. It’s a chance to validate ideas, improve upon them, and potentially carry forward innovations to future projects. So, I kindly ask for your understanding and patience with this experiment. Please try it out and share your feedback—I’m genuinely excited to hear your thoughts! [b][h3]3. AI Adjustments [/h3][/b] AI remains a complex and challenging aspect of development, often due to insufficient testing samples. This is why we launched this round of testing, even though some other components are still incomplete. Improvements in AI Logic Previously, AI decision-making was simpler: 1. Determine if it can eliminate the player’s hero. If so, prioritize the most secure approach. 2. If elimination isn’t possible, focus on development or harassment. Now, AI evaluates card combinations more effectively. For example, it calculates the expected damage from pairing harassment and combat cards to decide whether a hero can be eliminated. However, new logic introduces challenges, especially in scenarios where AI must weigh choices, such as: - Eliminating a hero for bounty gold, assist gold, or kill gold. - Playing development cards to enhance its attributes. To address this, we’ve implemented a monetary value system alongside adjustment parameters. Core gold (e.g., 1000 gold for a key hero) is valued higher than non-core gold to reflect its strategic importance. Hero-Specific AI Issues Certain heroes, like Raven and Finlay, present unique challenges: - Raven: Movement-related calculations significantly increase computational complexity, often causing the AI to overthink. A simplified version is currently in use. - Finlay: We lack sufficient data to accurately evaluate the value of his “momentum” mechanic. These issues sometimes result in AI making seemingly poor decisions. However, the improved logic framework ensures the AI will be stronger by the end of testing compared to its earlier iterations. --- Thank you for your continued support and understanding as we refine these systems. Your feedback is invaluable, and we can’t wait to hear your thoughts on these updates!