1.14 will destroy small countries

[grandadmiralbob]

Good one Jake.

 

[Peachrocks]

I'm incredibly weary of Revanchism as a mechanic. From what little I've seen the number seem completely out of whack, and seem, and yes, this is that old boogeyman again, like something that was created primarily as a multiplayer assisting tool rather than a mechanic based on a simulation of what plausibly would be expected to happen given the conditions of the game.

Additionally, COMMAS, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COMMAS.

If this is aimed at me... Well, excuse, me, Princess,,,,, I'm too busy thinking of the best way to word something so it doesn't get misinterpreted and run over by the lynch mob.

So... is everyone ignoring the point already stated in this very thread that War Contribution is based on size, so a smaller country will have a much easier time gaining WC than a larger one? If you're playing Navarra, and France is helping you fight Aragon or something, just go and siege a damn province. It's not that hard, and you'll get a lot more WC for doing it than France would for doing the same thing.

Actually I wasn't aware of this . Even so, I'm still very wary of how this will play in practice because of past experiences and how smaller nations have been shafted in the past.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In terms of things working out in practice, we'll just have to see, in my opinion.

Obviously. But the game has fallen short on basic mechanics as recently as last patch. Testing (and making adjustments for QA results) to tweak WC to avoid intolerable nonsense or obvious abuses is not trivial...rather it's something quite challenging. That's in contrast with, say, accurate/consistent patch notes or a mechanic like the "can't take province you can't core", which from implementation until now (many months) has not worked properly for even a single moment, despite being a lot more straightforward an issue to fix.

I hope to be pleasantly surprised though, I really do, because Wcontribution is attempting to address something the game really needs; incentive for allies in wars to actually do something.

I'm incredibly weary of Revanchism as a mechanic. From what little I've seen the number seem completely out of whack, and seem, and yes, this is that old boogeyman again, like something that was created primarily as a multiplayer assisting tool rather than a mechanic based on a simulation of what plausibly would be expected to happen given the conditions of the game.

Unlike Wcontribution, revanchism is fundamentally flawed as a design concept.

 

[tinculin]

There seems several 'features' that are really just bandages to fix what is ultimately the result of an AI which is prone to abuse by players.

The focus should be on making the AI more intelligent and therefore less prone to falling into commonly used traps.

For example - The fact the AI will send it's entire army across a straight that can be blockaded by a human player has a simple fix - just send what's necessary, and if 1-6k troops get trapped in Ireland, or Corfu etc, it's no big deal.

 

[grommile]

For example - The fact the AI will send it's entire army across a straight that can be blockaded by a human player has a simple fix - just send what's necessary, and if 1-6k troops get trapped in Ireland, or Corfu etc, it's no big deal.

Wiz's signature seems apposite here. Your simple fix creates a new (albeit rather more tedious to carry out) trap.

 

[doktorstick]

people complaining about a new expansion days before its release without actually playing or any other concrete evidence?
now that's something i've never seen around here.....
just kidding, we see this a lot

This isn't exactly true anymore. With Paradox granting access to popular Youtubers, you can see the "concrete evidence". Nation A sieges 95% of the provinces (including the capital fort) and has 25% contribution, the ally fights one battle and sieges one province and gets 75% contribution.

 

[IceTytanFang]

This isn't exactly true anymore. With Paradox granting access to popular Youtubers, you can see the "concrete evidence". Nation A sieges 95% of the provinces (including the capital fort) and has 25% contribution, the ally fights one battle and sieges one province and gets 75% contribution.

As DDRJake would say again and again and again, "This is all Hot Code, it's being worked on as we speak"

So... is everyone ignoring the point already stated in this very thread that War Contribution is based on size, so a smaller country will have a much easier time gaining WC than a larger one? If you're playing Navarra, and France is helping you fight Aragon or something, just go and siege a damn province. It's not that hard, and you'll get a lot more WC for doing it than France would for doing the same thing.

Wouldn't it be funny if instead of this destroying small nations, that compensated to much and now small nations can rise with ease and it'll be larger nations that fall? And then the once small but now large nations will fall being replaced by the once big countries that are now small but will soon be big again.

 

[OldmansHQ]

This has always been the case... Blobs get less coalition risk than small nations; more monarch points through more expensive advisors; less of a threat from rebellions and invasions because they control a more geographically sprawling territory; more bandwidth for expanding on multiple fronts simply by virtue of having more troops and money. There haven't been many changes over the development history of EU4 that have moved this in the opposite direction, sadly...

Excuse me? What about that time when all nations were given base income and increased base forcelimit? Does that not benefit smaller countries?

 

[Quaade]

It makes sense and I figured they'd have something to offset to leave nations playable to at least average players, but I don't have much confidence in it working well in practice...at least not initially. There are a LOT of ways wars can shake out.

I actually believe they have gotten better at release... As they explained earlier this year, there´s only so much QA can find in the hours they have, also with the choice of scenarios (meaning ways to play) and nations, we´d have to wait well into 2017 before the game is released, if we want QA to discover ALL bugs. I´ve got over 2000 hrs in my belt, haven´t played every nation and every setup,

At least they do a great job fixing the obvious (yes... just think of how it would have been if not for QA ;-) ) and at least PDX makes a fix in the first week, follows it up the week after if needed and then makes a large patch with balancing within the first month not something you see from any other publisher... They have made a "perfect" game, so what´s there to fix? but we do sell this DLC that will allow you to actually save the game

In terms of things working out in practice, we'll just have to see, in my opinion.

They do seem to be better at balancing and spotting gamebreaking bugs than last year, if you guys can remember that thing. But since then, it hadn´t been that bad just my opinion of course, and this could very well be where they drop the ball for sure

I'm incredibly weary of Revanchism as a mechanic. From what little I've seen the number seem completely out of whack, and seem, and yes, this is that old boogeyman again, like something that was created primarily as a multiplayer assisting tool rather than a mechanic based on a simulation of what plausibly would be expected to happen given the conditions of the game.

not too fond of how revanchism as it looks now... Do like the concept and can see it´s uses, also for AI, but I´d wait and see how it works before making any suggestions to changing it ;-)

it was obviously for MP reasons, to give players a hand to get back up on his feet, since they would rage-quit knowing the never-ending cycle of doom was upon them. It does work in SP too, sure, but the reasoning was between the lines, just because they argument from a SP POV, they have also prior stated they focus on making the game MP friendly, while this isn´t a bad thing since most will work for SP too, sometimes it just doesn´t make sense elsewhere than MP.

It´s like sugar-coating a turd, you can talk all you want about the sweetness it gives and how much it´s been improved but in the end... It´s still a turd... It still needs to get down...

If this is aimed at me... Well, excuse, me, Princess,,,,, I'm too busy thinking of the best way to word something so it doesn't get misinterpreted and run over by the lynch mob.

Nope... can´t be done, they´d lynch you anyway they always find a way those guys... The sharpened pitchforks shouldn´t go to waste, should they ;-) I mean... the torch has already been lit... it´s been lit man, there´s no way to turn it off

Obviously. But the game has fallen short on basic mechanics as recently as last patch. Testing (and making adjustments for QA results) to tweak WC to avoid intolerable nonsense or obvious abuses is not trivial...rather it's something quite challenging. That's in contrast with, say, accurate/consistent patch notes or a mechanic like the "can't take province you can't core", which from implementation until now (many months) has not worked properly for even a single moment, despite being a lot more straightforward an issue to fix.

Yeah that´s a tough one, and wonder why they haven´t been able to fix it... Perhaps it´s not that straightforward though... But bugs me, like the idea however

Unlike Wcontribution, revanchism is fundamentally flawed as a design concept.

Wouldn´t say flawed really, I can see it working for AI. Might have implemented it differently with other mechanics to prevent dogpiling, while tweaking other areas too to make it both easier and harder to do, make the game more interesting but not game over just because you lost

For example - The fact the AI will send it's entire army across a straight that can be blockaded by a human player has a simple fix - just send what's necessary, and if 1-6k troops get trapped in Ireland, or Corfu etc, it's no big deal.

Yeah, could need some tweaking there, but really, you can´t blockade anymore when you don´t control provinces anymore so in this case, trapping in corfu wouldn´t be possible if you don´t control the oppossite province. It doesn´t really fix the AI making sensible choices closer to humans, but does fix the exploit.

Wiz's signature seems apposite here. Your simple fix creates a new (albeit rather more tedious to carry out) trap.

It´s difficult to prevent entirely, sure, but at least give AI some better weigh instead of sending the whole stack onto Corfu, the player at least weigh the risk of being trapped with how many troops they actually need to take it

This isn't exactly true anymore. With Paradox granting access to popular Youtubers, you can see the "concrete evidence". Nation A sieges 95% of the provinces (including the capital fort) and has 25% contribution, the ally fights one battle and sieges one province and gets 75% contribution.

Did you know the CB used? since some CB focus on battles more than land, also, who were the aggressor since if it was the larger nation it makes sense that they don´t "contribute" as much.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

At least they do a great job fixing the obvious (yes... just think of how it would have been if not for QA ;-) ) and at least PDX makes a fix in the first week, follows it up the week after if needed and then makes a large patch with balancing within the first month not something you see from any other publisher...

Tangential to thread topic, but related to what you're saying here:

Spoiler

There are teams that will never fix the bugs, and there are teams that have far fewer issues in the first place. PI is something in between, obviously well intentioned and with engaging gameplay overall, but with large holes that wouldn't be there with slightly different choices made. My disagreement here is that I don't think it's acceptable to have longstanding, every-patch inaccurate UI, or to leave constraint mechanics with no agency, or to advertise something that hasn't been supported in what, a year and a half or so? To me, these things deserve higher priority than most things that have appeared in the hundreds of lines of patch notes...especially the first or third. We're still talking about a game that crashes routinely if exiting to menu after playing a while.

Simply put, once you leave TBS/Grand Strategy, with the former genre in a dark age at the moment, these are not consistently acceptable standards, even from sub-AAA publishers.

Building from that, my point is that when you have multiple beta confirmed UI bugs such that the mechanics lie to the player about what's happening and a base modifier that allows AIs to stubbornly refuse deals 40% less than the WS at no penalty, it does not engender much confidence in another mechanic that interacts with the peace deal screen. We are getting 1.14 peace deal mechanics when 1.13 peace deal mechanics do not work properly and have not worked properly a single moment for the entire life of the patch...including two hotfixes which made balance changes. All that said, I'm still happy to see something that needs addressing get addressed. Wcontribution is a welcome concept if it works.

Wouldn´t say flawed really, I can see it working for AI. Might have implemented it differently with other mechanics to prevent dogpiling, while tweaking other areas too to make it both easier and harder to do, make the game more interesting but not game over just because you lost

When I say revanchism is *fundamentally* flawed as a design concept, I'm not pulling punches. This isn't an implementation issue like the UI, cross platform MP, or your monarch point costs to diploannex being displayed wrongly. This is a poor design choice similar to, though not quite as spectacularly terrible as, regency councils being unable to declare war while there's no realistic agency against regency councils.

1. For the vast majority of possible starting nations in the game, getting 100% means that you're either gutted or dead outright.
2. Therefore, the only nations that can possibly benefit materially from revanchism are nations large enough to sustain 100% losses without being gutted completely (or dead literally).
3. The nations that can sustain such damage are, almost without exception, the nations that are already superpowers in the world.
4. These nations already have enormous, by-design advantages without revanchism and already sustain 100% losses better than small nations without revanchism.

Revanchism is therefore read as a buff to large nations, which already scale linearly into runaways and are least in need of the help. Revanchism is the conceptual equivalent of tripling every modifier in the administrative idea group for single player, with the only difference between the two being that revanchism is less extreme.

I don't think you can possibly make a rational case that any of 1-4 are inaccurate. Therefore, you have to make a case that for some reason, mega-blobs aren't strong enough already...else it is a flawed concept by design.

 

[theKLR]

Its all good.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Its all good.

Can you tie this into the discussion?

As DDRJake would say again and again and again, "This is all Hot Code, it's being worked on as we speak"

We're a *little* close to release day to be expecting anything aside some tweak pre-release. In contribution isn't factored properly it's going to be a cheesy nightmare for casual and hardcore players alike.

 

[rohirrimelf]

I`ll bet there must be 800+ countries to choose from. You could lower the difficulty or savescum. Or you just create your own. So what is the problem here?

(Riga must still give Jake bad dreams)

 

[Quaade]

Tangential to thread topic, but related to what you're saying here:

Spoiler

There are teams that will never fix the bugs, and there are teams that have far fewer issues in the first place. PI is something in between, obviously well intentioned and with engaging gameplay overall, but with large holes that wouldn't be there with slightly different choices made. My disagreement here is that I don't think it's acceptable to have longstanding, every-patch inaccurate UI, or to leave constraint mechanics with no agency, or to advertise something that hasn't been supported in what, a year and a half or so? To me, these things deserve higher priority than most things that have appeared in the hundreds of lines of patch notes...especially the first or third. We're still talking about a game that crashes routinely if exiting to menu after playing a while.

Simply put, once you leave TBS/Grand Strategy, with the former genre in a dark age at the moment, these are not consistently acceptable standards, even from sub-AAA publishers.

Building from that, my point is that when you have multiple beta confirmed UI bugs such that the mechanics lie to the player about what's happening and a base modifier that allows AIs to stubbornly refuse deals 40% less than the WS at no penalty, it does not engender much confidence in another mechanic that interacts with the peace deal screen. We are getting 1.14 peace deal mechanics when 1.13 peace deal mechanics do not work properly and have not worked properly a single moment for the entire life of the patch...including two hotfixes which made balance changes. All that said, I'm still happy to see something that needs addressing get addressed. Wcontribution is a welcome concept if it works.

I believe we had the talk before, and I agree that it hurts my eyes when the UI blatantly lie to you, the best and most "stupidiest" thing I can think of and best example are warnings. It states you attack or will be attacked if going to war, though this has NEVER been the case and has always been (AFAIK) only been able to be used if you attack a neighbour to the warning nation, which only shows when you try to declare war. But when you read it, why would you try to declare war when you believe it´s unwinnable? These has been reported and should be easy to fix, I agree, it´s not something that should take one man a long time to fix, mostly due to the reports coming in.

I do like how peace-deals aren´t too easy to make, since there are ways to exploit it otherwise, I do however agree that the limits they have made seems arbitrary and senseless and could have been made better. Like having occupied the whole target nation, well you´d have to wait, since Cherokee that´s landbased with no boats and no way to actually join the war or do anything about it, or the case where the ally can but are unwilling to aid in the war. Well you could attack them... But why? I´m Switz I don´t own a boat, nor do I feel like it or have the option to actually get one, and why should I travel across the ocean to attack that OPM before winning the war against my neighbour?

I do agree that there should be limits, and you shouldn´t be able to make a swift peace to prevent larger nations to join the battle, but this should be tied to,
1. Can the ally actually join the war.
2. Can the ally make a difference in the war.
If both are no, you should have it "easier" (as in I´m cool with not being able to take 100 %) to make peace.

Another great example, can´t make peace do to having controlling an enemy fort in the area... Well I really only wanted this one provice, it´s effectively in my forts ZoC, so why do I need to march 8-10 provinces away to siege down a fort that has no control, no significance to this one province? usually this ends with me taking way more than I initially intended since when I´m already there and have sieged that fort, might as well take the rest.

When I say revanchism is *fundamentally* flawed as a design concept, I'm not pulling punches. This isn't an implementation issue like the UI, cross platform MP, or your monarch point costs to diploannex being displayed wrongly. This is a poor design choice similar to, though not quite as spectacularly terrible as, regency councils being unable to declare war while there's no realistic agency against regency councils.

Yeah... reg not being able to declare war, at least when it´s for cores or something the council would most likely react upon... My suggestion for awhile ago, give the council a behaviour that restrict the player actions. You might be unlucky to gain administrator or diplomat, which could still declare an easy war for cores or when the issue can´t be resolved by their personality. But a war-like reg, should at most be able to take back cores or the new "strong claims".

1. For the vast majority of possible starting nations in the game, getting 100% means that you're either gutted or dead outright.
2. Therefore, the only nations that can possibly benefit materially from revanchism are nations large enough to sustain 100% losses without being gutted completely (or dead literally).
3. The nations that can sustain such damage are, almost without exception, the nations that are already superpowers in the world.
4. These nations already have enormous, by-design advantages without revanchism and already sustain 100% losses better than small nations without revanchism.

1. Yup, true for the vast majority and I have many times argued reworking CBs into minor and major while limiting the amount of provinces gained in war, so 100 % would be easier to get and not destroy smaller nations that have under 10 provinces. Target should be, if focused on ONLY taking land, 4-5 and if making other demands, 1-3.
2. Yes, since it relies on warscore loss, while it should apply to loss of nation de facto. A loss of one province in a nation sized 5-6 is way more damaging than France losing 3-4 provinces.
3. See above.
4. Could work wonders with medium nations...

The idea is great, the implementation... I agree... not so great... I would personally have adressed it in another way, while I might still have used revanchism I would have changed other things and made it calculate differently, and must really be an oversight from PDX, since most players end up being larger than 4-5 provinces they have never had issues with losing 100 %, thus it would seem to be working as intended. They should however give reason to those who want to play small or simly haven´t grown large yet.

 

[Quaade]

We're a *little* close to release day to be expecting anything aside some tweak pre-release. In contribution isn't factored properly it's going to be a cheesy nightmare for casual and hardcore players alike.

Haven´t seen the video, so doesn´t know how "old" it is, might be from yesterdays playing in which case... Problematic I agree and should be addressed swiftly, which they still can, though managing to balance it properly might be difficult to in such short time.

I`ll bet there must be 800+ countries to choose from. You could lower the difficulty or savescum. Or you just create your own. So what is the problem here?

Yeah... the solution to mechanism not working well or logical is, play another nation or cheat... That sure sound like the premise of this game

 

[tinculin]

Yeah, could need some tweaking there, but really, you can´t blockade anymore when you don´t control provinces anymore so in this case, trapping in corfu wouldn´t be possible if you don´t control the oppossite province. It doesn´t really fix the AI making sensible choices closer to humans, but does fix the exploit.

You'll have to explain how it fixes the exploit, because I don't believe it fixes the exploit at all. What will now happen is the otto's will land a large portion of their army in corfu (or the english in ireland) and while they are sieging down the fort, you just put 1k troops on the other side of the straight and take it for yourself. (thereby not giving the AI control of both sides).

Even removing the fort in Corfu or Meath won't stop this from happening (it will just make the required timing more clinical for the human).

The fix (like most things) is to make the AI smarter......

 

[Subbak]

When I say revanchism is *fundamentally* flawed as a design concept, I'm not pulling punches. This isn't an implementation issue like the UI, cross platform MP, or your monarch point costs to diploannex being displayed wrongly. This is a poor design choice similar to, though not quite as spectacularly terrible as, regency councils being unable to declare war while there's no realistic agency against regency councils.

1. For the vast majority of possible starting nations in the game, getting 100% means that you're either gutted or dead outright.
2. Therefore, the only nations that can possibly benefit materially from revanchism are nations large enough to sustain 100% losses without being gutted completely (or dead literally).
3. The nations that can sustain such damage are, almost without exception, the nations that are already superpowers in the world.
4. These nations already have enormous, by-design advantages without revanchism and already sustain 100% losses better than small nations without revanchism.

Revanchism is therefore read as a buff to large nations, which already scale linearly into runaways and are least in need of the help. Revanchism is the conceptual equivalent of tripling every modifier in the administrative idea group for single player, with the only difference between the two being that revanchism is less extreme.

When you're playing SP, past the first part of the game where your goal is to become the biggest regional power, you know what's scary? Big nations. Especially big nations that stand in your way, I just finished a Najd game where the PLC had everything in Europe that was west of the Caucasus, east of the HRE and south of Scandinavia (including, Moskva, Ryazan, Hungary and Greece), so I just got my provinces in Africa and Asia.
But if Otto or Russia had been buffed, then neither I nor the PLC could have taken such large chunks out of them that easily, and I wouldn't have had such an easy way. Small countries are food anyway once you reach a certain size, making them more crunchy food is not going to change anything.

I for one, welcome a change that will help the game stay a challenge longer. And I wasn't planning on doing any of the OPMs achievements anyway (I did an exception for the Knights because they have an okay starting situation), so I don't consider the fact that some may become much harder such a shame. Being next door to a superpower that will warn you (something that can't happen to Knights or Cyprus because islands) at the first occasion is no fun.

 

[theKLR]

Can you tie this into the discussion?

I mean that its not even out yet and its abot redundant to speculate before its tested - i like the changes and im sure that even if it needs tweaks that will happen.

 

[Quaade]

You'll have to explain how it fixes the exploit, because I don't believe it fixes the exploit at all. What will now happen is the otto's will land a large portion of their army in corfu (or the english in ireland) and while they are sieging down the fort, you just put 1k troops on the other side of the straight and take it for yourself. (thereby not giving the AI control of both sides).

Since I´m not sure how this will work directly, since I rely on statements frem @DDRJake on this being fixed this way, it does seem like if you or AI controls both sides of the straits, you or AI can´t block movements. Like Denmark owning both Seeland and Scania, Sweden can´t block their army from moving into Scania. But it´s not clear yet, whether Sweden controlling (not owning) Scania will make them able to block, but is a likely scenario depending on what devs weight most reasonable due to their testing.

Personally I´d like the option to blockade straits, but have it limited. So one cog can´t block that 50k army trying to cross. Would have it tie to blockade efficiency or damage fleet can inflict due to ship types and efficiency. So having cogs for 50 % block will damage the units crossing less than heavy ships blocking 50 %. Whether a 100 % block should negate movement, I´m not sure since it does seem rather easy, at least until they implement some mechanics to make use of ships elsewhere much more needed, thus trying to keep a 100 % strait block would damage you otherwise.

However, and knowing it´s not good to come with suggestions prior to release, I would have liked to see ships blocking still being useful, like they actually damage the crossing army, since this only nerfs naval nations which has even less to do with them. But with damaging crossings, which kinda makes sense to me, after all they must use some sort of boats be it rowboats or something to cross, it makes sense that the heavy ship actually tries to hunt them down and shoot the tiny boat thus damaging the army. This would make a smaller nation that focuses on naval perfomance being more even, since the damage done crossing will limit the attacking army size.

But to address your example, if control is used to negate blocks, yes the army would have to wait for the fort to be sieged down. Honestly I´m fine with this, since it does grant you some tactical approaches and this could buy you the time to get the last 2 % WS that you need to get a minimum peace. However, why should the larger nation care for you feeble attempts to take provinces that are outside ZoC? I, as a player, would also more likely siege down the fort to regain or gain control, since the WS from forts are mostly better than a few provinces. And as a player I then know, when I gain control I can simply walse over and punish the minor bug claiming my provinces

The fix (like most things) is to make the AI smarter......

Totally agree, and as stated, they should give the AI more weight with options like humans do. Not sure how this would affect perfomance, but since humans weight attrition, army size and army needed which seems like something that could be coded easily (not the greatest programmer!) it would be great if AI did the same, instead of putting the 50k stack on corfu which only needs 6, leaving the rest of the countryside open for sieges, as it seems senseless (while have been improved in a fix) that they put the 50k stack in siberia.

Have not done the calculations, so this is an estimate and a rough glance at how they could balance it...
A: Province attrition < army needed to siege = use army this large (ie. 6 units with a regular fort).
B: Province attrition > army needed to siege = use army that is large enough to effectively siege for a period of a year.
These are simple and there could be some added weight due to circumstances, the basis is that the AI should always use a little more troops that´s needed but not the whole army. So "modifiers" to this could be.
1: Enemy nearby = use bare minimum with only a few more (ie. 7-8 troops to keep effective siege due to losses), if "main" army are large enough to engage enemy. If not, they should either decide not to siege or siege and then attack the army afterwards.
2: Straits, risk of blocking = Either use a larger force, if not a single island, to prevent army being attacked and destroyed by enemy armies (like anatolia and greece crossing) or add just a few more than usual to make sure the province can be sieged until end (ie. 8-10) to prevent casualties dropping below and the risk of not being able to reinforce during siege due to blocking.

Again... A rought estimate, but to me it makes little sense the AI pulls the whole army into a siege when they are big enough to both siege and prevent the enemy from sieging.

 

[Quaade]

I mean that its not even out yet and its abot redundant to speculate before its tested - i like the changes and im sure that even if it needs tweaks that will happen.

I agree, that making suggestions to something we don´t know how really works is... bothersome... However if the correct amount of data is present, in youtube videos or dev statements, we could actually make an educated guess as to the problems it creates and the need to fix them, along with suggestions. We do want this game to be the best, and when it´s evident that something could be exploited or simply bad design, why must we wait until release? They will most likely not fix it, or they have already tested various scenarios including those suggested and deemed their choice the most balancing and representive to their design or gameplay.

But there´s the rare occasion where they simply by oversight or not applying to many scenarios, causing balancing issues, could have done better and thus have the time to actually correct it or find a solution to it Afterall, if it´s clear that something is off, why have to wait a week for the hotfix, when they could easily fix it prior to release? in this case, if Wcon does seem balanced, it would be nice if fixed by release instead of waiting a week or two