Discussion Patches overwhelmingly help NRS games not hurt them

[rev0lver]

Talking to people taht wrok with casters & netcodes that is bullshit

I mean, NRS isn't just that stupid that they hadn't looked into using it. You can make fun of them all you want but there's a reason they weren't able to

 

[buyacushun]

Understood.

From the standpoint of a gamer, I love that it came out in April though. Otherwise, what the he!! would we play?

Lol man there are a ton of fighters out now. If you don't mind not playing NRS games there is too much honestly. Guilty Gear, BlazBlue, Persona, Tekken, Street Fighter, KoF, Skullgirls, Dead or Alive, KI (which is soon to be on PC). I personally think everyone should be playing Virtua Fighter (me included )

 

[rev0lver]

So, did they start out developing MKX to be on Ps3/360?

I wouldn't know, but I'd imagine a lot of it was pre-planning stages like theory, character design, etc. Also they probably had access to the tools to create next-gen stuff before the consoles were released.

 

[RM_NINfan101]

My whole view on the patches: They would work better if the game had more time to be polished before release.

What I mean is, go back to launch day.

Look at Shinnok, a character that absolutely was incomplete. He had very little tools compared to the rest of the cast, little damage. It was such a joke that I literally thought he was the "Dan" of the game. I couldn't quite believe it at the time, that only in Impostor was the character getting anything above 30 meterless. Not only that, but he had a MB move that should of worked but was not implemented in in Hellsparks by MBing the ball for + advantage. It was listed in the frame data, but we thought it was wrong until we thought about it, and it made sense. Also had plenty of whiffing mids on crouching opponents due to how they breathe I guess.

He had no overhead that was useful, and people were able to place top 16 with Bone Shaper with it's 50/50 mixup and tools because it at least had safe strings and Shinnok was generally an unsafe character all around.

He needed a few patches to get up to speed just like Kitana, Reptile, Goro etc...

But more importantly, I would rather the patches be used for bug fixes before we even do balance. Obviously new things come up, but here are two examples of what I mean:

Kano is still a character that has bugs or things that are not as intended to be. Obviously this comes from a thread that was asking for fixes (And reasonable buffs, but that's just how this game is at this point. You cannot fault them.) He still has the whiffing mids problem, something that seems to be universal in this engine and only Shinnok got fixed... I have a feeling by the end of the game's patching cycle they will all be fixed, but why not now?

Credits to @ando1184 for making that video.

On to my next example, courtesy of @Tom Brady

EX Clone still doesn't work as intended and hasn't for over multiple patches now, I understand these last two patches were made practically neck and neck to each other, but I cannot believe that this has not been addressed yet. This is clearly a bug and I could see Sub mains dropping the character due to it. It's one thing to adapt around a nerf, but then discovering a bug and not fixing it makes it hard for anyone.

I suppose my point is, there is obviously a need for the patching system to be the way it is. My whole thing about it though, is that bugs need to be fixed. I would much rather the game be way more complete (yes I know deadlines play a factor, hence why I still think MKX was rushed and WB wants them to keep pumping games every two years and stop focusing on previous games to fully focus on the new one.) so that then perhaps these buffs/nerfs are more warranted.

Even as an NRS fan and someone who has played these games since MK1 onwards, I cannot say the patch system is flawless. If there were to be improvements and to make the game a more legitimate threat towards the SF crowd and other games, I would recommend more development time (wishful thinking), netcode that absolutely needs to work, and NRS themselves discuss the changes and why they made them whether it's via developer notes or a video. No ghost buffs/nerfs either, that aggravates me to a T. Yes I know USF4 has them too, I hate it just as much, but they only come out so often with patches it's not that big of a deal to me so long as I keep informed.

I honestly think the patch system is under fire when in reality it's not so much the patch system but how certain things go under the radar that immediately need to be addressed. We all know by now NRS patches the games around the DLC. I hate that practice personally, but I accept it for what it is. Without rambling on, I think what I said above would be dramatic improvements.

 

[RM_NINfan101]

Ultimately, we are in a lose-lose situation.

Patch the game to address apparent issues and change up characters where necessary. Lose portions of the player base as a result of leaving them unable to learn the game at its fullest.

Don't patch the game for an extended period of time and allow the players time to brainstorm solutions to nonsense like the Tanya teleports, and still lose players as a result.

The only way around both scenarios is for the game to receive long-term support and we all know that is simply not NRS's style. That or Warner Bros. imposed a time limit on how long NRS has to adjust the game where necessary.

Regardless of what route we travel, no-one wins.

Quoted For Truth as well, this is really my main sticking point, but Blake said it better than I could. It's something the community is gonna have to adapt around.

 

[Audit]

They help the game, but they hurt the community. With patching there's hope you don't have to go level up to play the character you want and despair when you realize the character you like is going to get crushed in the next patch cycle. This leads to crying in the forums because the unbelievable precedent has been set that you have a good chance to get the game changed to how you like it, rather than put the endless hours trying to find tech and level up. In short it makes the community whiny pansies that hope the game adapts so they don't have to.

This is the only game/series where this attitude is even close to accepted, and that attitude does no one any favors.

 

[RM_NINfan101]

They help the game, but they hurt the community. With patching there's hope you don't have to go level up to play the character you want and despair when you realize the character you like is going to get crushed in the next patch cycle. This leads to crying in the forums because the unbelievable precedent has been set that you have a good chance to get the game changed to how you like it, rather than put the endless hours trying to find tech and level up. In short it makes the community whiny pansies that hope the game adapts so they don't have to.

This is the only game/series where this attitude is even close to accepted, and that attitude does no one any favors.

I also agree with this. Personally, I knew Shinnok was bad. I never cried or asked about buffs because I knew they were coming regardless. I simply switched to War God Kotal and had a better time.

But, that's me as a fighting game player who's been forced to adapt to these situations before.

 

[Scoot Magee]

Can we all agree that the current model NRS has for balancing their fighting games isn't really optimum compared to other games? Other games seem to be tested and developed a lot longer before release and are then supported a lot longer after release.

NRS seems to be on a 2 to 3 year development cycle and they can only make changes within 6 months after release. After that it's done and on to the next game. If they want to patch/upgrade their game this is what we're going to have to deal with unless they change the whole process. I'm not a fan of it but whatever, it is what it is.

On the other hand our community will cry at any chance to get something changed which doesn't help anything. Even the guys considered to be top players bitch that their character isn't that good as if they're forced to play that character. The mentality is an issue imo.

Also anyone that was against the way NRS is patching so soon and bitched for nerfs at the same time is a fucking hypocrite.

 

[Big Pampering]

Can we all agree that the current model NRS has for balancing their fighting games isn't really optimum compared to other games? Other games seem to be tested and developed a lot longer before release and are then supported a lot longer after release.

NRS seems to be on a 2 to 3 year development cycle and they can only make changes within 6 months after release. After that it's done and on to the next game. If they want to patch/upgrade their game this is what we're going to have to deal with unless they change the whole process. I'm not a fan of it but whatever, it is what it is.

On the other hand our community will cry at any chance to get something changed which doesn't help anything. Even the guys considered to be top players bitch that their character isn't that good as if they're forced to play that character. The mentality is an issue imo.

Also anyone that was against the way NRS is patching so soon and bitched for nerfs at the same time is a fucking hypocrite.

It has to be somewhere in between. Yes, a game like street fighter is supported longer than MK, but here are a few things to keep in mind, lets have sf4 as the example:

- You pretty much have to pay for a patched version of the game almost every year.
- The game is from 2008, the game is 7 years old. I would like for a game to survive more than 3 years, but I think the majority would like a new game after 5 years.
- The game only gets patched once a year. If there is any BS in the game you would have to clench that shit and stfu for a whole year, which might kill the game and if they don't do the patching right after the first year you would have to tighten your butthole and try to not get raped for another year.

I don't speak for NRS, but maybe they just don't want people abusing bullshit and winning tournaments with it. Maybe they want the tournament results based on a game that is as balanced as possible. Maybe they don't want people to be discouraged to travel, because their character has little chance to win. People always say MK loses a lot of players because of patching, but is it really arguable that NRS is able to retain more players by making the game more balanced?

At the end of the day, the patching and probably ''paulos philosophy'' of balancing games are also dependant on Warner brothers' support and business model. So people can complain about this everytime a game comes out or just stick with it if you really intend to take this game serious to begin with. This is the 3rd game NRS has brought out and it is time people would just accept it as it is and stop saying oh well but these fighting games are patched this and that way.

Patching a game once a year or barely patching anything is not necessarily the best way to balance a game. People want to make this out to be a fact, but it isn't. Every method has its advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Audit]

- The game only gets patched once a year. If there is any BS in the game you would have to clench that shit and stfu for a whole year, which might kill the game and if they don't do the patching right after the first year you would have to tighten your butthole and try to not get raped for another year.

This is a factor, though that's why we get the whiners. How bad did AE Yun hurt SF4? You constantly hear the counterpoint "Yun didn't win a major" but having a really strong character dominating the casual game didn't do it any favors.

 

[RM_NINfan101]

It has to be somewhere in between. Yes, a game like street fighter is supported longer than MK, but here are a few things to keep in mind, lets have sf4 as the example:

- You pretty much have to pay for a patched version of the game almost every year.
- The game is from 2008, the game is 7 years old. I would like for a game to survive more than 3 years, but I think the majority would like a new game after 5 years.
- The game only gets patched once a year. If there is any BS in the game you would have to clench that shit and stfu for a whole year, which might kill the game and if they don't do the patching right after the first year you would have to tighten your butthole and try to not get raped for another year.

I don't speak for NRS, but maybe they just don't want people abusing bullshit and winning tournaments with it. Maybe they want the tournament results based on a game that is as balanced as possible. Maybe they don't want people to be discouraged to travel, because their character has little chance to win. People always say MK loses a lot of players because of patching, but is it really arguable that NRS is able to retain more players by making the game more balanced?

At the end of the day, the patching and probably ''paulos philosophy'' of balancing games are also dependant on Warner brothers' support and business model. So people can complain about this everytime a game comes out or just stick with it if you really intend to take this game serious to begin with. This is the 3rd game NRS has brought out and it is time people would just accept it as it is and stop saying oh well but these fighting games are patched this and that way.

Patching a game once a year or barely patching anything is not necessarily the best way to balance a game. People want to make this out to be a fact, but it isn't. Every method has its advantages and disadvantages.

I highly disagree with some of these points and it's time someone who's played Capcom games tell you some really obvious stuff.

You pretty much have to pay for a patched version of the game almost every year.

Wrong. AE V. 2012 was free. The only thing you are paying for is the extra characters. That balance patch was free, as are the ones with Ultra SF 4 that even nerfed E. Ryu after 5-6 months. Game is still patched. Why do you think you could upgrade the game for a cheap price instead of buying a new disk? It was likely because there wasn't on-disk/on-patch DLC yet, which is now prevalent in every fighter now. For SFV, Capcom has even said you will only ever need one disk to upgrade or buy DLC in the future for future installments.

The game is from 2008, the game is 7 years old. I would like for a game to survive more than 3 years, but I think the majority would like a new game after 5 years.

That is personal opinion and I honestly think if they let a game rock for two years, then released an update like UMKX, it would be fine. I also think games lasting 10 years is a done thing, but I also don't think there needs be a new fighting game every two.

The game only gets patched once a year. If there is any BS in the game you would have to clench that shit and stfu for a whole year, which might kill the game and if they don't do the patching right after the first year you would have to tighten your butthole and try to not get raped for another year.

The closest the game has ever came to this was AE Yun, and it never killed the game. Hell, USF4 Yun is still one of the best characters, but they also say this about Juri, Ibuki etc... Few of these top tiers ever win tournaments, and their tiers are based upon their tools, not tournament wins or placements like I see sometimes on here. Top tiers do not kill fighting games, bad balance does. Most upper high tiers win more than the top.

I don't speak for NRS, but maybe they just don't want people abusing bullshit and winning tournaments with it. Maybe they want the tournament results based on a game that is as balanced as possible. Maybe they don't want people to be discouraged to travel, because their character has little chance to win. People always say MK loses a lot of players because of patching, but is it really arguable that NRS is able to retain more players by making the game more balanced?

At the end of the day, the patching and probably ''paulos philosophy'' of balancing games are also dependant on Warner brothers' support and business model. So people can complain about this everytime a game comes out or just stick with it if you really intend to take this game serious to begin with. This is the 3rd game NRS has brought out and it is time people would just accept it as it is and stop saying oh well but these fighting games are patched this and that way.

Patching a game once a year or barely patching anything is not necessarily the best way to balance a game. People want to make this out to be a fact, but it isn't. Every method has its advantages and disadvantages.

I would think nerfing my character four days before a tournament midflight would be a good way to lose me as a player.

I think NRS patching their games to match the sub sequential DLC releases of characters would piss me off further. I have learned at this point, if I ever decide to compete in an NRS game, that if a new character is about to come out? Brace for a patch. The patching cycle is only done like this due to business, I don't really know if that's on WBGames, NRS, or certain people, and quite frankly I really don't care. It's extremely obvious after three games, look when all the patches start hitting and when they stop.

I do agree however it is something that if you want to compete in this game, you will have to get used to. Just don't be surprised if the game starts taking massive hits to it's viewer count, tournament numbers, and more. NRS can help stop the damage by having a game that actually does cater to casuals, such as a working netcode that is arguably the worst I have seen yet with the exception of KOFXIII Console version, and a story mode that doesn't feel rushed or bland, or maybe not have very discouraging things like wonky microtransactions for easy fatalities. That is not that difficult, unless you have deadlines to meet, and it's very clear NRS does.

 

[Scoot Magee]

It has to be somewhere in between. Yes, a game like street fighter is supported longer than MK, but here are a few things to keep in mind, lets have sf4 as the example:

- You pretty much have to pay for a patched version of the game almost every year.
- The game is from 2008, the game is 7 years old. I would like for a game to survive more than 3 years, but I think the majority would like a new game after 5 years.
- The game only gets patched once a year. If there is any BS in the game you would have to clench that shit and stfu for a whole year, which might kill the game and if they don't do the patching right after the first year you would have to tighten your butthole and try to not get raped for another year.

I don't speak for NRS, but maybe they just don't want people abusing bullshit and winning tournaments with it. Maybe they want the tournament results based on a game that is as balanced as possible. Maybe they don't want people to be discouraged to travel, because their character has little chance to win. People always say MK loses a lot of players because of patching, but is it really arguable that NRS is able to retain more players by making the game more balanced?

At the end of the day, the patching and probably ''paulos philosophy'' of balancing games are also dependant on Warner brothers' support and business model. So people can complain about this everytime a game comes out or just stick with it if you really intend to take this game serious to begin with. This is the 3rd game NRS has brought out and it is time people would just accept it as it is and stop saying oh well but these fighting games are patched this and that way.

Patching a game once a year or barely patching anything is not necessarily the best way to balance a game. People want to make this out to be a fact, but it isn't. Every method has its advantages and disadvantages.

But you can't ignore the longer development cycle of games like SF4 (just using it as an example). That game was probably in development 2 times longer than MKX was and went through a lot more testing. It's not like people were finding shit they thought was broken every other week in the game. Vanilla SF4 is still a playable game to this day but is outdated due to it's newer versions.

NRS games seem to be all types of fucked up when they're released and they try to fix as much as they can within a 6 month period. It's a flawed way of going about it imo but tons of people still support the games. The thing is there's always broken shit left over in the game that the old broken shit could have went toe to toe with but honestly it's all speculation. We'll never know due to how the games get patched for 6 months and seem to die after 2 years. IMO the games never really get fully fleshed out due to the community migrating to the newer games, lots of patching, spread out local scenes and terrible online play.

 

[MortySeinfeld]

Can I bring up a hypothetical situation that may end up happening (not likely).

The newest patch with significant balance changes dropped recently on PS4, however still has not released on X1. Technically PS4 players are currently at a competitive advantage over X1 players.

More than likely, I think it's safe to assume that the patch will be out tomorrow with the release of Predator on both systems. Also who knows, maybe we'll get even more balance changes tomorrow.

If however, the patch does not drop tomorrow on X1 prior to the July 8th Evo deadline; Will the newest patch be used at Evo? If not, how do I as a PS4 player that has an already patched system roll back to the version that would be used at Evo?

 

[RM_NINfan101]

Can I bring up a hypothetical situation that may end up happening (not likely).

The newest patch with significant balance changes dropped recently on PS4, however still has not released on X1. Technically PS4 players are currently at a competitive advantage over X1 players.

More than likely, I think it's safe to assume that the patch will be out tomorrow with the release of Predator on both systems. Also who knows, maybe we'll get even more balance changes tomorrow.

If however, the patch does not drop tomorrow on X1 prior to the July 8th Evo deadline. Will the newest patch be used at Evo? If not, how do I as a PS4 player that has an already patched system roll back to the version that would be used at Evo?

Pretty good hypothetical, but I'm pretty sure the game is being played on PS4 right? I think they would just go with the current patch because it's on the console they use and eventually XB1 will get it around a very close timeframe.

The troll response would be "Level up."

 

[buyacushun]

Can I bring up a hypothetical situation that may end up happening (not likely).

The newest patch with significant balance changes dropped recently on PS4, however still has not released on X1. Technically PS4 players are currently at a competitive advantage over X1 players.

More than likely, I think it's safe to assume that the patch will be out tomorrow with the release of Predator on both systems. Also who knows, maybe we'll get even more balance changes tomorrow.

If however, the patch does not drop tomorrow on X1 prior to the July 8th Evo deadline; Will the newest patch be used at Evo? If not, how do I as a PS4 player that has an already patched system roll back to the version that would be used at Evo?

I think your only 2 options are either play day 1 MKx version or whatever the latest patch is. NRS didn't implement a way to play on older versions. I wouldn't mind that feature honestly it must be easy to tell the game to use certain rules when it is selected. If EVO is playing on PS4 they'll most likely use the latest version. I would ask Mr. Wizard or the EVO twitter for definite response.

Pretty good hypothetical, but I'm pretty sure the game is being played on PS4 right? I think they would just go with the current patch because it's on the console they use and eventually XB1 will get it around a very close timeframe.

The troll response would be "Level up."

But what about PC ? And no telling him to "level up" is the FGC equivalent to teaching him to fish. Your dog either sinks or swims to eat.

 

[MortySeinfeld]

This is their philosophy for their game and there is always going to be differing opinions on how it should be handled. I see the patches as healthy and although at times their timing can be questionable, its overall better for the game and its one of the reasons the games can be exciting IMO. Going into EVO it was a gloomy look after CEO with the threat of Tanya causing another Evo 2013 situation. Now we can look at EVO with more wonder about what characters will truly perform rather than the Yomi + Sonic train of tanyas.

I'm expecting the Yomi + SonicFox top 8 trend to continue because lets be honest, the same players have been getting top 8 with or without Tanya.

MIT is probably the most affected player by the changes because, as far as I can tell, he was the only Yomi player actually dedicated to maining Tanya. Scorpion and Sonya also received nerfs and appear to be his fallback characters. As much as I like MIT, I think his Evo performance will be the most negatively affected by the changes unless he can pull something new together in a short period of time.

Expect a lot of Kung Lao at Evo; Expect Erron Black and probably expect more Bone Shaper Shinnok to start making his tournament debut.

 

[Zoidberg747]

I'm expecting the Yomi + SonicFox top 8 trend to continue because lets be honest, the same players have been getting top 8 with or without Tanya.

MIT is probably the most affected player by the changes because, as far as I can tell, he was the only Yomi player actually dedicated to maining Tanya. Scorpion and Sonya also received nerfs and appear to be his fallback characters. As much as I like MIT, I think his Evo performance will be the most negatively affected by the changes unless he can pull something new together in a short period of time.

Expect a lot of Kung Lao at Evo; Expect Erron Black and probably expect more Bone Shaper Shinnok to start making his tournament debut.

Bone Shaper Shinnok littered CEO, including one in the top 8. He made his debut...and then got nerfed lol.

 

[RM_NINfan101]

I'm expecting the Yomi + SonicFox top 8 trend to continue because lets be honest, the same players have been getting top 8 with or without Tanya.

MIT is probably the most affected player by the changes because, as far as I can tell, he was the only Yomi player actually dedicated to maining Tanya. Scorpion and Sonya also received nerfs and appear to be his fallback characters. As much as I like MIT, I think his Evo performance will be the most negatively affected by the changes unless he can pull something new together in a short period of time.

Expect a lot of Kung Lao at Evo; Expect Erron Black and probably expect more Bone Shaper Shinnok to start making his tournament debut.

Expect Summoner Quan and D'Vorah as well. I would also say Raiden, Sonya, and Cassie.

I don't see that changing anytime soon. And I will also say that I don't expect YOMI or SonicFox to not make top 8. I think it's very clear that this might be how the game looks for a long time, hopefully a large player pool leads to some exciting upsets, but that would require a lot of players in this community to level up to the challenge and I don't think mid tier characters are gonna cut it either. Expect to barely see any surprises in top 8, maybe a counter-pick or two.

 

[RM_NINfan101]

The nerf really doesn't do shit to Shinnok. +14 means he can just do it off the first ball, go for a F4, guess on whether to back dash a B3, or get grabbed.

I actually laughed at the nerf, he definitely needed it, but I see it as more of an actual fix. Yeah it lowered his meter gain a slight smidge, but nothing more than that aside from the crazy chip.

 

[CrimsonShadow]

I suppose my point is, there is obviously a need for the patching system to be the way it is. My whole thing about it though, is that bugs need to be fixed. I would much rather the game be way more complete (yes I know deadlines play a factor, hence why I still think MKX was rushed and WB wants them to keep pumping games every two years and stop focusing on previous games to fully focus on the new one.) so that then perhaps these buffs/nerfs are more warranted.

The thing is, I don't think people realize that from a programming perspective, a lot of times it takes actual additional code or changes to the codebase to fix game bugs and strange behavior. There's a hotfix system that lets designers tweak things like frame data easily by just changing a few values -- but it doesn't apply to things like fixing glitchy behavior, which can also require a true gameplay programmer making changes alongside the designers.

Devs have to dedicate their time to diff. things, so they aren't always going to be able to immediately priotize design's retrofix concerns. For example, if they are trying to get character functionality for WB's DLC release schedule, or they are working on the netcode, resources might temporarily have to go in that direction.

In addition, even when you know that there's an issue in-engine, you have to figure out how exactly to approach fixing it -- and how to do it without breaking other things that depend on the same code. It's not always as easy as it sounds, and it's definitely not as straightforward as knocking a couple recovery frames off someone's launcher.

So the TL/DR is that bug fixes and minor balance adjustments are two totally different types of patches, and they should not be put in the same category. Design should not be holding off on balance adjustments waiting for engineers to fix bugs. Whatever can be done should be done as it's ready.

 

[RM_NINfan101]

I don't think people realize that from a programming perspective, a lot of times it takes actual additional code or changes to the codebase to fix game bugs and strange behavior. There's a hotfix system that lets designers tweak things like frame data easily by just changing a few values -- but it doesn't apply to things like fixing glitchy behavior, which can also require a true gamplay programmer making changes alongside the designers.

Devs have to dedicate their time to diff. things, so they aren't always going to be able to immediately priotize design's concerns. For example, if they are trying to get a character ready for WB's DLC release schedule, or they are working on the netcode, resources might temporarily have to go in that direction.

In addition, even when you know that there's an issue in-engine, you have to figure out how exactly to approach fixing it, and how to do it without breaking other things.

The TL/DR is that bug fixes and minor balance adjustments are two totally different types of patches, and they should not be put in the same category. Design should not be holding up on balance adjustments waiting for engineers to fix bugs.

I wouldn't make it as cut and dry as it sounds Crimson, but I can't really refute the argument. It's clear they already know how to fix the hitbox issue with Shinnok's changes, yet Kano still has them? I think Jacqui as well?

I know they aren't in the same category and they shouldn't be, but I still think ultimately my point stands. There's something wrong, and there's really nothing the community can do. I think that's the worst. I feel like we have literally no factor to how the game is made or developed in house and what they do. The buff/nerf threads don't even meet the majority of the things we ask for most of the time except for obvious fixes with moves and damage values that do not work as intended, and there were plenty upon launch. You wouldn't get that in any other game.

They still should look at other possible solutions going forward, god forbid this whole scenario happens again at CEO two years later with their new game. Then who will really be able to stand for it?

 

[CrimsonShadow]

I wouldn't make it as cut and dry as it sounds Crimson, but I can't really refute the argument. It's clear they already know how to fix the hitbox issue with Shinnok's changes, yet Kano still has them? I think Jacqui as well?

I know they aren't in the same category and they shouldn't be, but I still think ultimately my point stands. There's something wrong, and there's really nothing the community can do. I think that's the worst. I feel like we have literally no factor to how the game is made or developed in house and what they do.

They still should look at other possible solutions going forward, god forbid this whole scenario happens again at CEO two years later with their new game. Then who will really be able to stand for it?

I understand what you're saying -- just trying to explain that a lot of times when certain things go unfixed for some time while balance changes are happening, it's not the balance changes that are holding them up. It takes a different type of developer and that developer may have a list of other things that will take weeks to fix.

You can't fix every gameplay issue at once, and even fixing a glitch that seems simple to us may require changes that affect 50 other things in the codebase. So given that we're only 3 months into the game, they're actually doing pretty well, and we shouldn't be criticizing them for not having fixed exactly what certain people want to be fixed at this early date.

 

[Big Pampering]

I highly disagree with some of these points and it's time someone who's played Capcom games tell you some really obvious stuff.



Wrong. AE V. 2012 was free. The only thing you are paying for is the extra characters. That balance patch was free, as are the ones with Ultra SF 4 that even nerfed E. Ryu after 5-6 months. Game is still patched. Why do you think you could upgrade the game for a cheap price instead of buying a new disk? It was likely because there wasn't on-disk/on-patch DLC yet, which is now prevalent in every fighter now. For SFV, Capcom has even said you will only ever need one disk to upgrade or buy DLC in the future for future installments.



That is personal opinion and I honestly think if they let a game rock for two years, then released an update like UMKX, it would be fine. I also think games lasting 10 years is a done thing, but I also don't think there needs be a new fighting game every two.



The closest the game has ever came to this was AE Yun, and it never killed the game. Hell, USF4 Yun is still one of the best characters, but they also say this about Juri, Ibuki etc... Few of these top tiers ever win tournaments, and their tiers are based upon their tools, not tournament wins or placements like I see sometimes on here. Top tiers do not kill fighting games, bad balance does. Most upper high tiers win more than the top.



I would think nerfing my character four days before a tournament midflight would be a good way to lose me as a player.

I think NRS patching their games to match the sub sequential DLC releases of characters would piss me off further. I have learned at this point, if I ever decide to compete in an NRS game, that if a new character is about to come out? Brace for a patch. The patching cycle is only done like this due to business, I don't really know if that's on WBGames, NRS, or certain people, and quite frankly I really don't care. It's extremely obvious after three games, look when all the patches start hitting and when they stop.

I do agree however it is something that if you want to compete in this game, you will have to get used to. Just don't be surprised if the game starts taking massive hits to it's viewer count, tournament numbers, and more. NRS can help stop the damage by having a game that actually does cater to casuals, such as a working netcode that is arguably the worst I have seen yet with the exception of KOFXIII Console version, and a story mode that doesn't feel rushed or bland, or maybe not have very discouraging things like wonky microtransactions for easy fatalities. That is not that difficult, unless you have deadlines to meet, and it's very clear NRS does.

Dude I said almost every year, not every year. We are talking about patching for tournament play, whether you pay for the patch or the new characters doesn't matter. Who takes tournament play seriously, but doesn't own all characters in the game.

Also I don't think anyone disagrees that the timing of the patches could be better and not be a few days before a big tournament. But to's can choose to either use or not use these patches and play the older version that everyone is used to. Not that it fixes the problem, but this could be an option.

 

[RM_NINfan101]

Dude I said almost every year, not every year. We are talking about patching for tournament play, whether you pay for the patch or the new characters doesn't matter. Who takes tournament play seriously, but doesn't own all characters in the game.

Also I don't think anyone disagrees that the timing of the patches could be better and not be a few days before a big tournament. But to's can choose to either use or not use these patches and play the older version that everyone is used to. Not that it fixes the problem, but this could be an option.

I wasn't attacking you btw or saying you were wrong that front, I was just saying that so many people say so many wrong things about Capcom games on here that I was tired of it. If it was factual, it'd be one thing.

Super Street Fighter IV had new mechanics, a ton of new characters, and other things to boot hence it's price tag and disk release.

Arcade Edition was 15 bucks if you had Super, for 4 characters. I mean, you have to buy them to lab up against them anyway when it comes to DLC, so there really isn't any harm done there.

AE V. 2012 was free and was played for two years.

USFIV: 15 bucks, five new characters, new mechanics. All current patches (It's on 1.06 on anything not PS4 I think) have been free. The patches are released every so often, a couple of months to half a year.

You were not required to buy anything but Super in order to upgrade to Ultra.

So, I never quite understood the whole 40 dollars for a balance patch per year argument. If we're talking Arc Sys games, I say that I think they need to realize two new characters, some balance changes, added system mechanics and a new story does not equate to 40 dollars a year after your last game was released. Anime community is a conundrum.

 

[GAV]

Lol man there are a ton of fighters out now. If you don't mind not playing NRS games there is too much honestly. Guilty Gear, BlazBlue, Persona, Tekken, Street Fighter, KoF, Skullgirls, Dead or Alive, KI (which is soon to be on PC). I personally think everyone should be playing Virtua Fighter (me included )

Those games are either way too anime for most people or they've been around so long that the newness factor is over.

MKX in April, IMO, was a real blessin'.