When is the right time for patches?

[Incognito]

With all of the controversy that comes from each balance patch in a fighting game, when do you guys think is the right time to do a giant balance patch? Also, is it better to do tiny hotfixes or is it better to do giant balance patches that affect everyone?

 

[MagicMan357]

With all of the controversy that comes from each balance patch in a fighting game, when do you guys think is the right time to do a giant balance patch? Also, is it better to do tiny hotfixes or is it better to do giant balance patches that affect everyone?

The number of patches i personally dont think is an issue, its what they patch. They keep catering to scrubs and then we get shit like mk9, theyre tryna get scorpion nerfed now because they blow.

 

[chores]

With all of the controversy that comes from each balance patch in a fighting game, when do you guys think is the right time to do a giant balance patch? Also, is it better to do tiny hotfixes or is it better to do giant balance patches that affect everyone?

hot fix bugs and glitches, balance patch once per year or 6 months at the most

 

[Incognito]

The number of patches i personally dont think is an issue, its what they patch. They keep catering to scrubs and then we get shit like mk9, theyre tryna get scorpion nerfed now because they blow.

While I agree that Scorpion shouldn't be knee jerked nerfed, (I actually think that he's getting nerfed because he was announced to be legal for evo) the argument that the game should only be balanced for top level play is interesting as there are more people that are effected by mid level play than high level. So should the game be balanced for the minority or the majority?

 

[MorbidAltruism]

Whenever any given issue becomes a detriment to the continuity of the game?

 

[KingShaz]

Giant balance patches are better. I would rather the patch address a number of issues and try to get the game as close to perfection as possible. These patches are usually released when they are tested and approved. **Usually takes a couple weeks.(If the creators pay attention to their game and cares about our cries).

 

[Incognito]

Whenever any given issue becomes a detriment to the continuity of the game?

The issue with statements like this is that "a given issue that is a detriment to the continuity of the game" is subjective to the players playing the game. For example the hate that Scorpion is getting right now. Should it get nerfed because "it hurts the continuity" of the game when Scorpion hasn't even been out for a WEEK yet?

 

[MagicMan357]

While I agree that Scorpion shouldn't be knee jerked nerfed, (I actually think that he's getting nerfed because he was announced to be legal for evo) the argument that the game should only be balanced for top level play is interesting as there are more people that are effected by mid level play than high level. So should the game be balanced for the minority or the majority?

Minority for obvious reasons. Majority is just gonna bicker no matter what even when you do what they ask.

 

[Under_The_Mayo]

The right time for patches is now, because the game is still fucked up in places, and they keep releasing untested DLC characters. Bring on the patches.

 

[SilverKeyMan]

There are a few ways to look at this:

(1) Fix initial issues as soon as they arise, as frequently as needed, until most major balancing issues have been addressed. Then sit and let the game "mature" for awhile before readdressing any potential issues.

• Benefits: Immediate balancing keeps game more accessible; Fixes huge balancing issues.
• Drawbacks: Game changes frequently (albeit in minor ways each time) during it's initial stage.

(2) Sit on major issues, letting the game "mature", then make massive changes all at once.

• Benefits: Game is fully explored before balancing is addressed.
• Drawbacks: Any multitude of changes later in the games shelf life will greatly disrupt balancing, and changes may create unforeseen issues of their own, possibly requiring immediate fixes.

I know that a lot of people support "option #2", but I cannot imagine the disruption of having 6 months worth of balancing changed all at once. I do wish, however, that NRS was a little more conservative in their changes.

 

[MorbidAltruism]

The issue with statements like this is that "a given issue that is a detriment to the continuity of the game" is subjective to the players playing the game. For example the hate that Scorpion is getting right now. Should it get nerfed because "it hurts the continuity" of the game when Scorpion hasn't even been out for a WEEK yet?

That is why I added my winking emoticon.

 

[Incognito]

The right time for patches is now, because the game is still fucked up in places, and they keep releasing untested DLC characters. Bring on the patches.

I just hope that Scorpion gets a little compensatory buff once his teleport gets destroyed

 

[Incognito]

The right time for patches is now, because the game is still fucked up in places, and they keep releasing untested DLC characters. Bring on the patches.

Do you think that General Zod/Martain Manhunter is going to have issues too?

 

[MorbidAltruism]

Do you think that General Zod/Martain Manhunter is going to have issues too?

I hope one of them is Kenshi 2.0 and the other is Freddy 2.0.

 

[Incognito]

I hope one of them is Kenshi 2.0 and the other is Freddy 2.0.

If that happens then M2Dave will finally have his zoning master. (Pig is switching to Zod regardless)

 

[cpmd4]

I think many small patches over a period of months is the way to go. Adjust things slowly so you don't have anyone dropping or rising great amounts instantly and becoming too powerful or too weak. If it turns out that a patch had changes that turned out to be worse for the character/game they can be reverted and have other places on a character touched up instead.

Having only a few patches over long periods of time can have the game stagnate, allow major issues that come up stay for a long time and make it so that when something is fundamentally changed people that have adapted themselves to play a certain way have to relearn the game. As well, if new tech is found that changes a character's strength NRS can respond with minor changes quickly. Not to mention bugs that need to be addressed.

I'm not saying we should patch EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW, I'm just saying that obvious issues (like unusable traits, characters with poor wake-up options, etc.) should be eased into buffs/nerfs, to allow the characters that have trouble to more easily deal with the rest of the cast. In the end we'll have a more balanced game if we don't have characters be completely destroyed and then left to rot when patching stops.

 

[MashPotatoTower]

NEVER patches are a fucking privilege we don't deserve

 

[Incognito]

NEVER patches are a fucking privilege we don't deserve

So you would be cool with Batgirl having an infinite?

 

[Sage Leviathan]

When DLC characters come out.

 

[MorbidAltruism]

When DLC characters come out.

You are probably pretty happy with the state of things then.

 

[ApertureBlack]

The right time for patches is now, because the game is still fucked up in places, and they keep releasing untested DLC characters. Bring on the patches.

This

Im pretty sure throwing out clearly untested DLC characters/skins with gamebreaking glitches warrents some patching.

 

[Protagonist_1]

I feel 6 months is pretty good, unless an issue is gamebreaking as well as clearly unintended along side that(batgirl infinite, Cyborg block infinite, etc.). I'm not a huge fan of patches, because it can create major backlash and knee jerk reactions (although that could apply to patches in general). With 6 months, most things that need to be changed are going to be much more evident and clear, than per say, 2 weeks, and players will have to adapt with what you have.

Is it the best way? It's subjective. 6 months can leave pretty broken mechanics untouched (imagine mk9 in it's early stages). At the same time, a series of early patches could prevent the game to evolve or play out, and can discourage players if they feel what they learned can be gone in two weeks.

Still, I feel 6 months for character balances in general, and game breaking mechanics (infinites for example) could be patched out quickly. I also will say I have major respect for the old school FGC players that had to play with what they had out of the box, and still played through difficult match ups. Shout outs to them.

 

[Incognito]

I feel 6 months is pretty good, unless an issue is gamebreaking as well as clearly unintended along side that(batgirl infinite, Cyborg block infinite, etc.). I'm not a huge fan of patches, because it can create major backlash and knee jerk reactions (although that could apply to patches in general). With 6 months, most things that need to be changed are going to be much more evident and clear, than per say, 2 weeks, and players will have to adapt with what you have.

Is it the best way? It's subjective. 6 months can leave pretty broken mechanics untouched (imagine mk9 in it's early stages). At the same time, a series of early patches could prevent the game to evolve or play out, and can discourage players if they feel what they learned can be gone in two weeks.

Still, I feel 6 months for character balances in general, and game breaking mechanics (infinites for example) could be patched out quickly. I also will say I have major respect for the old school FGC players that had to play with what they had out of the box, and still played through difficult match ups. Shout outs to them.

What's interesting is that players like IFC Yipes love MVC2 despite its flaws

 

[MashPotatoTower]

So you would be cool with Batgirl having an infinite?

Kinda, I would call em out on it and then steal who ever let that slide job

 

[redeyes]

patch every 6-9 months imo

hot fix things that are discovered that are too game breaking for competitive play.