Debunking Some Myths About Patching -- Looking at SF4 Ultra

[CrimsonShadow]

So the purpose of this thread is to take another look at some common myths about fighting game patching. For the purposes of 'modern' game comparison, we'll be taking a look at the newest iteration of the community's currently most popular fighting game: Ultra Street Fighter 4.

Note: I'm not going to make this comparison to SF4's original version, as it's now numerous years later and patching philosophy/community interest are a bit different. So I'm taking the most current version, in Ultra.

For anyone who isn't already familiar, Street Fighter 4 was originally released in 2008 in arcades, and 2009 on console. SF4 Ultra is the 4th major update to the game, following Super Street Fighter IV, Super Street Fighter IV Arcade edition, and Super Street Fighter Arcade Edition: 2012.

So to put this in perspective, that means these pacthes we're talking about are being made to a roughly 6-7 year-old core game with incremental system and character updates.

The story of Ultra so far:
-April 2014: Arcade release in Japan - initial version
-June 2014 (Two months later): Patch coinciding with the release of the console 'Ultra' upgrade, featuring an additional list of changes to a large portion of the cast

So just to pause here -- remember that this version of the game (Ultra) was released in Arcade, was extensively tested in arcades before coming to home systems, and then was further rebalanced across the cast two months later to coincide with the next release.

-August 2014: Bug-fix release. According to Capcom, this release was mainly to fix things that were not working as intended in the game system. This did not just mean 'infinites and game-breaking bugs'; it also meant many minor changes to a big group of characters, some with differences as small as a frame. Basically, everything that wasn't working as the developers had wanted it to work. In addition, there were some unlisted 'stealth changes' to members of the cast, like the charge time on Decapre's Ultra 2, changes to Rolento, etc.

Characters affected included: Blanka, Vega, M. Bison, El Fuerte, Seth, Fei Long, Hakan, Juri, Yang, E. Ryu, Poison, Rolento, Hugo, Decapre

-October 2014: Ultra Patch 1.03. Balance changes and fixes across another chunk of the cast.
Characters affected: Decapre, Rolento, Abel, Chun-Li, Cody, Dhalism, Dudley, E. Honda, Fei Long, Rose, Sagat, Seth, Vega, Yun

-December 2014: Ultra Patch 1.04. Sweeping balances changes across much of the cast.
Characters affected: Pretty much the entire cast of SF4.


Points to take away:

• The original move to the Ultra version from SF4:AE 2012 was released in Arcade -- which allowed them to test it extensively for a couple of months prior to releasing on console
• By the time the game came to console two months later, they had already accumulated a significant list of new balance changes and fixes, which they made in June, and people were able to start adjusting to before EVO
• When added together, during 2014 Capcom made 4-5 updates to SF IV within a year's time (Ultra, Ultra 1.01, Bugfix patch, 1.03 and 1.04)
• They made these updates to a game that, at the core, is 6-7 years old
• They did not just patch infinites and game-destroying bugs; they also fixed tons of minor things that weren't working as they had intended them to work, and made various balance adjustments
  
• They fixed many things because they *needed to be fixed* given that things weren't perfect at release. Which is why it's impossible to pre-determine when a patch needs to be made.
• This goes to show that, even with a game engine that at the core is several years old, introducing some new mechanics and characters is still hard to perfect on the first shot.
• Also, Capcom is willing to take back some changes they've made in previous patches and correct some of their own mistakes

Now, try to imagine releasing a game in 2015 that is:

• A brand new game, with mostly new movesets, movement and fighting mechanics
• Has no prior arcade release and no extensive open testing
• Has a cast with a huge chunk of brand new franchise characters
• Has a relatively new engine, with different gameplay mechanics than the previous iterations, and is jumping to a new console generation
• Has multiple variations of each character with different moves, and in some cases, strings and frame data

When you put it all in perspective, it just reinforces the fact that developers patch their games when they need to patch them. They patch them based on the state of the game at release, and based on things they've determined need to be fixed. No one sitting at home in their armchair can authoritatively tell a developer not to patch their own game until a certain time -- and even suggesting it flat-out doesn't make any sense. No one who cares about their game, not even Capcom, is only patching 'infinites and game-breaking glitches' until the end of the year.

Not to mention there are different strategies that are valid: you can patch some characters at one time, then more characters at another time, giving people a chance to adjust to the changes (like League of Legends) -- or you can save all the changes and change much of the cast all at once, leading to bigger ripple effects. You can use both strategies, at different times. There are multiple ways to do it, and no one way is 'the right way'.

As we move forward into MKX, hopefully people will consider all the factors and just keep their minds open. It'd be great to accept the fact that patches will happen, and just roll with them and adjust as need be, rather than vilifying and flaming the game dev for making changes to their game as they see fit.

In any case, I'm posting this to open some more realistic discussion about the matter -- feel free to post and let everyone know what you think!

 

[NkdSingularity]

Yes, completely agree.

I just hope that this time there will be a large patch re-balancing the game between 12 and 18 months after release. Though I couldn't make a good case to WB for doing so, unless they were somehow way more interested in developing their FGs as esports than it (overtly) appears.

 

[WraithLord]

Reading this reminds me of how fucked up NRS is for not patching Cyrax's 80% 1-bar combos after years of the game's launch.

 

[SaltShaker]

I would much rather they do MKX like Capcom did SF4. Update the game throughout the year, and then release "Super Mkx" with four new characters, say Noob, Sektor, Guest, New, and then play that game for a year or two with patches keeping it fresh and then a new game again.

Capcom gets a lot of criticism, and rightfully so, but I much rather than method than the "balance until a little after the last dlc then it's a wrap" method.

 

[Juggs]

I don't think anyone is actually against patching things that are necessary. You also can't really compare Ultra SF4 to a completely new game. SF4 had been through extensive testing years in the making (2009-2014). At this time (Ultra), it was so much easier to know what worked and what didn't. NRS does balance patching early and often, which isn't inherently a bad thing. The problem is when you nerf or buff characters in such a short time frame from the release of the game (or even from patch to patch), you aren't giving yourself the best chance to "get it right". Like I said, with USF4, they already knew what worked and what didn't, as the core gameplay hardly changed in the 5 years of the game. This isn't to say that they got it right or will automatically get it right in a scenario like this, but the experience and evidence behind the changes made sense and were warranted.

No one is expecting for NRS to do things how "we" want them to. NRS is one of the most successful fighting game franchises in history, they aren't exactly doing things wrong. But making balance changes within a couple of months of the release of the game makes it really hard on the competitive community, especially when we can't say with any amount of certainty that the changes are warranted. The balance changes have often been knee jerk reactions, which is simply not a good thing. Of course, we are grateful we get any kind of patches at all, but constructive criticism for a game we love and are passionate about isn't us being ungrateful or disrespectful either. I want the best for the game and the community, and unfortunately, the competitive community is just a fraction of who NRS is making their game for. So while I will have to accept what ever they decide to do, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

 

[xWEBSx]

When the patches are tested, balanced and/or warranted they are terrific!

When patches are knee jerk reactions to public outcry- that is inexcusable!

The dev's know their game man.. They know what's right, they know what's wrong..what I believe it comes down to is the integrity and work ethic of said developer.
By the way.. Nice work @CrimsonShadow

 

[Pakman]

I think we just have to be careful when clammering for patches.

Dominant strategies in the first few weeks don't equate to broken or in need of a patch, in most cases everybody needs to adapt or figure things out.

Knee jerk buffs/nerfs can turn characters into monsters or cripples...let's try and avoid that this time around and instead work together to provide solutions to those situations instead

 

[xWEBSx]

I think we just have to be careful when clammering for patches.

Dominant strategies in the first few weeks don't equate to broken or in need of a patch, in most cases everybody needs to adapt or figure things out.

Knee jerk buffs/nerfs can turn characters into monsters or cripples...let's try and avoid that this time around and instead work together to provide solutions to those situations instead

Where is the option to like X 100000000?

 

[TotteryManx]

I think we just have to be careful when clammering for patches.

Dominant strategies in the first few weeks don't equate to broken or in need of a patch, in most cases everybody needs to adapt or figure things out.

Knee jerk buffs/nerfs can turn characters into monsters or cripples...let's try and avoid that this time around and instead work together to provide solutions to those situations instead

ALLLLLLLLL of this.

 

[Compbros]

I would much rather they do MKX like Capcom did SF4. Update the game throughout the year, and then release "Super Mkx" with four new characters, say Noob, Sektor, Guest, New, and then play that game for a year or two with patches keeping it fresh and then a new game again.

Capcom gets a lot of criticism, and rightfully so, but I much rather than method than the "balance until a little after the last dlc then it's a wrap" method.

I'm not for paying 15-40 dollars for a patch in this day.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Knee jerk buffs/nerfs can turn characters into monsters or cripples...let's try and avoid that this time around and instead work together to provide solutions to those situations instead

Most of the things people think are "knee jerk buffs/nerfs" are actually things the developer was planning and testing for weeks, in any case. I guarantee that no FG developer under a major publisher is releasing patches without having thoroughly evaluated them first, run them through plenty of testing and QA, gone through the certification process etc.

Also a lot of times with NRS the game designers are aware that things might be issues long before the general public even begins to complain about them. They're watching streams themselves and checking out plenty of gameplay to see if things are working as designed -- not just just reading the forums to do whatever people say.

Or put another way, despite what people think on the forums, we don't patch the game -- they do

 

[xWEBSx]

Most of the things people think are "knee jerk buffs/nerfs" are actually things the developer was planning and testing for weeks. I guarantee that no FG developer under a major publisher is releasing patches without having thoroughly evaluated them first, run them through plenty of testing and QA, gone through the certification process etc.

Also a lot of times the game designers are aware that things might be issues long before the general public even begins to complain about them. They're watching streams themselves and checking out plenty of gameplay to see if things are working as designed -- not just just reading the forums to do whatever people say.

Or put another way, despite what people think on the forums, we don't patch the game -- they do

And then there was UMVC3 Sentinel

Tech from one pro..
Follow up and emulation from the community made the character obsolete...


Edit:
Here is how it went down
-Amazing Early Sent tech
-Sent nerf/changes
-Anti-Sent tech
-Sent sent to low tier

To the point that once anti-Sent tech caught up with the character- it blew him off the usable/viable charts

Edit II:
Another issue is lack of communication between dev's and the community. The console dev's are gaining ground and catching up to the PC, thanks to social media and streams, however it is still not as fluent.
Take a game like league of legends for example:
The Dev let's the community know what it is eyeing up for tweaks, when it will be tweaked, and then feedback from said tweak , and they also REVERT if it is not successful. I am wracking my brain to remember any memorable, if any nerf/change/patch was ever reverted on console- specially fighters.

Edit II.2-
(My god I am sorry, but I get fired up about this topic)
Which is part of the overall problem with console gaming, specifically. Not to knock NRS directly, but as an example..
How long do dev's support their newest baby? I am under the impression that as soon as MKX goes gold, the main focus will go to IGAU2, with maybe a handful left on the MKX team. The love of the newest title is not like what it use to be where a game was cared for and supported for years after. I know that $$ talks and it is a business, but it hurts, and we the gamer/consumer get hurt the most.

 

[Duck Nation]

Juggs nailed it. NRS has made an effort, but the games need time to breathe. I remember a long discussion on here at some point about nerfs made to Sub-Zero in MK9 and the ultimate response was, "no, he probably didn't need that to happen." Everyone is aware what MK9 settled into could have really benefitted from another patch, and IGAU definitely could too. If they can find a way to space it out more, to generate more time for the community to learn and figure out the game for better feedback, that would be positive.

 

[STRYKIE]

Reading this reminds me of how fucked up NRS is for not patching Cyrax's 80% 1-bar combos after years of the game's launch.

They actually already tried to while MK9 was actively being patched. The semantics in this thread aside, Cyrax was an entirely different ball game from the usual patching agenda and in all honesty, the damage alone only accounted for about 40% of his stupidity lol. It also speaks volumes that NRS apparently still aren't confident enough to bring him back for MKX where they can freely split up his collective tools into 3 different variations.

Granted, I could just be overthinking the last part and maybe WB wanted the cyborgs sieved out to plug Predator as the "poster boy Cyborg" for MKX.

 

[reptar]

No developers are good enough to know how the meta of a game is going to turn out 2-3 years from now. So with that in mind, making SIGNIFICANT balance changes within a couple months of a game's release is silly, and the only (somewhat) logical reasoning behind it I can think of is to cater to the clammering masses, who also probably won't even care about the game by that point.

The reasoning that *I* have for advocating 'no patches within 6-mos to a year' or 'only patch infinites' is it gives the game's meta more time to grow and breathe. Maybe a character that's very strong early on won't be as effective when figured out, maybe one character needs some silly abusable tech to be viable otherwise - I don't know. And the point is a few months into the game, no one else really knows either, despite how vocal they may be about it.

Not even just the characters, it's probably going to take a little while before people can fully utilize the stage interactables and different uses for the stamina meter on top of everything else.

Lastly, I'm not sure SF4 is a good example for anything. They had to put patches upon patches with Ultra SF4. What about Tekken Tag 2, which has had only very minor tweaks in its lifespan, even between the arcade and console versions? That game seems to have worked out just fine...

 

[xWEBSx]

No developers are good enough to know how the meta of a game is going to turn out 2-3 years from now. So with that in mind, making SIGNIFICANT balance changes within a couple months of a game's release is silly, and the only (somewhat) logical reasoning behind it I can think of is to cater to the clammering masses, who also probably won't even care about the game by that point.

The reasoning that *I* have for advocating 'no patches within 6-mos to a year' or 'only patch infinites' is it gives the game's meta more time to grow and breathe. Maybe a character that's very strong early on won't be as effective when figured out, maybe one character needs some silly abusable tech to be viable otherwise - I don't know. And the point is a few months into the game, no one else really knows either, despite how vocal they may be about it.

Not even just the characters, it's probably going to take a little while before people can fully utilize the stage interactables and different uses for the stamina meter on top of everything else.

Lastly, I'm not sure SF4 is a good example for anything. They had to put patches upon patches with Ultra SF4. What about Tekken Tag 2, which has had only very minor tweaks in its lifespan, even between the arcade and console versions? That game seems to have worked out just fine...

I believe 6 months is fair
1 yr is ideal

 

[TarkatanDentist]

IMO, it'd be cool if, when balance patches came in, you could still choose to set your game to different patch 'levels'.

So, for instance, while others are playing v1.3, you could still play v1.2 with others and figure stuff out there. Potentially, areas that seemed problematic at the time may not actually be so... and then v1.4 can accomodate for that.

Oh well, I can dream...

 

[HeroesNZ]

6 months to 1 year is too long. If there's something hella overpowered and nothing is done for 6 months then many people will have lost interest long before that patch is released.

Anyhow, NRS know what their doing - a lot more than I do that's for sure. I trust NRS to do it right.

NRS are like The Terminator - they're learning .

 

[SaltShaker]

I'm not for paying 15-40 dollars for a patch in this day.

It's the only way to keep a game alive. If MKX has one year of patching and then it's dropped, by Injustice 2 80% of the players are moving on to the next game.

That same $15-40 for playing the game a year or two until the next update, which will be new stages, new characters, balance adjustments isn't too different from paying $30 for a pre-release Kombat Pack.

The only difference is the game stays thriving longer with more support and players.

 

[M2Dave]

And then there was UMVC3 Sentinel

Tech from one pro..
Follow up and emulation from the community made the character obsolete...


Edit:
Here is how it went down
-Amazing Early Sent tech
-Sent nerf/changes
-Anti-Sent tech
-Sent sent to low tier

To the point that once anti-Sent tech caught up with the character- it blew him off the usable/viable charts.

Well-said. Capcom is far from the perfect example. Remember that in the early versions of Street Fighter IV zoning characters and characters who did a lot of damage via SRK -> FADC -> U1 were normalized despite the fact that vortex, a gameplay aspect that players would criticize in later versions, had always been in the game. Vortex and unblockable set ups even existed in the first iteration of Street Fighter IV, but they were simply unexplored at that time.

The reality is that fighting games now days are very dynamic. Players in a community complain about aspects of a game that are perceived to be broken. Changes are almost implemented the following day. Think back of Sinestro's push block glitch, which was fixed in less than a week after the community's outcry.

The lesson for the future is, if you use a top tier character in Mortal Kombat X, you can almost certainly expect some type of downgrades in some way, shape, or form. Normalizations in an NRS game are almost as certain as night following day.

 

[xWEBSx]

It's the only way to keep a game alive. If MKX has one year of patching and then it's dropped, by Injustice 2 80% of the players are moving on to the next game.

That same $15-40 for playing the game a year or two until the next update, which will be new stages, new characters, balance adjustments isn't too different from paying $30 for a pre-release Kombat Pack.

The only difference is the game stays thriving longer with more support and players.

I hate that this is right....
It also is the Bane of 1 Dev having 2 successful titles in the same genre.. If IGAU did not exist, more focus would be on MK...
Capcom really has nothing full time other than SF, they can afford to patch SF4 2 billion times over for the next 12 yrs, since their only other involvement is the MvC series which comes around once every 10-15 yrs.

 

[xWEBSx]

Well-said. Capcom is far from the perfect example. Remember that in the early versions of Street Fighter IV zoning characters and characters who did a lot of damage via SRK -> FADC -> U1 were normalized despite the fact that vortex, a gameplay aspect that players would criticize in later versions, had always been in the game. Vortex and unblockable set ups even existed in the first iteration of Street Fighter IV, but they were simply unexplored at that time.

The reality is that fighting games now days are very dynamic. Players in a community complain about aspects of a game that are perceived to be broken. Changes are almost implemented the following day. Think back of Sinestro's push block glitch, which was fixed in less than a week after the community's outcry.

The lesson for the future is, if you use a top tier character in Mortal Kombat X, you can almost certainly expect some type of downgrades in some way, shape, or form. Normalizations in an NRS game are almost as certain as night following day.

OMG 100% right.. And can you imagine what would happen if advance tech happened in vanilla SF4 at a quicker pace.. I am willing to bet the landscape would be 100% different for current SF, even going into SF5. People let it ride after Sagat tech was found, they got fat and lazy and did not push anyone else, at least til the first round of formal competitions.

I think your last paragraph is sound advice, in any fighter really...
(It's why I'm glad there is so much hatred for the Cage Family )

 

[SaltShaker]

I hate that this is right....
It also is the Bane of 1 Dev having 2 successful titles in the same genre.. If IGAU did not exist, more focus would be on MK...
Capcom really has nothing full time other than SF, they can afford to patch SF4 2 billion times over for the next 12 yrs, since their only other involvement is the MvC series which comes around once every 10-15 yrs.

Yep pretty much. Even if another update was done to MvC it is clearly their B game to SF being the A game. NRS "could" do this, but I doubt they ever would.

DLC is gonna total $30 + whatever else comes out after. It would work better in Capcom's updated games imo.

 

[Brutal Chimney]

When the patches are tested, balanced and/or warranted they are terrific!

When patches are knee jerk reactions to public outcry- that is inexcusable!

The dev's know their game man.. They know what's right, they know what's wrong..what I believe it comes down to is the integrity and work ethic of said developer.
By the way.. Nice work @CrimsonShadow

but they really dont. i cant think of a single developer than can play or even understand their game on the level of their best players. just saying "let them get around it" is difficult to them because for all they know their isn't a way around it and they're just throwing players to the wolves.

 

[Compbros]

It's the only way to keep a game alive. If MKX has one year of patching and then it's dropped, by Injustice 2 80% of the players are moving on to the next game.

That same $15-40 for playing the game a year or two until the next update, which will be new stages, new characters, balance adjustments isn't too different from paying $30 for a pre-release Kombat Pack.

The only difference is the game stays thriving longer with more support and players.

The game is kept alive by players. Games that haven't had a patch or update ever were still being played (Marvel 2, Smash) and games that get frequent updates aren't getting high numbers or even making main tournaments (Killer Instinct, Skullgirls). If people want to play the game it doesn't matter how many or few patches it gets, people just play it. All communities just hop on the next shiny thing, look at anime, I don't think Injustice getting a patch TODAY would have many more people playing it than are or keep them playing when MKX is out.

That's what DLC is for and it doesn't lock a patch behind it. The only way to get SF patches is to pay for them for SFIV, it's not the same. The NRS patches and balance are always free and the character, skins, and stages are there if you want to pay for them.

There is no proof of this. Let's look at a recent tournament and their pre-reg numbers: Final Round.

Ultra Street Fighter 4 = 343 = Recent Patch/update
UMVC3 = 189 = No update in 3+ years
GG Xrd = 186 = New-ish game
TTT2 = 139 = No Update in 2+ years (AFAIK)
Smash U = 122 = New-ish game
Under Night= 69 = New-ish game (for US)
KI = 55 = Frequent Updates
Smash Melee= 50 = No Update in 10+ years
DOA =42 = Recent Update
Soul Cal= 42 = No Update in 2+ years
Injustice = 24 = No update in 1+ year
Kof = 16 = No update in 2+ years


It's truly just a mixed bag.


Edit: The only way to get big SF patches I should say as they still get mini patches before the big update.