Early Release and Patches vs Later Release w/ None

[Azarashi Elder]

Tekken 7 just gave me this idea... Let's say that Injustice 2 got delayed a year, BUT, when it drops it's 100% done. All the base characters are as balanced as they can be, and no major changes would be made. You'd still get more characters, skins and stages as DLC, but no changes to the frame data or character gameplay in general.

Would you happily wait another year, to get INJ2, or would you rather get it sooner, with multiple patches down the road? Let's say 4 before year end.

 

[Gooberking]

I'm saying no. A year is a long time extra to wait on what generally amounts to adjustments. Adjustments that your average player won't even be clued in enough to notice are happening because frame data doesn't mean anything to 99% of people that buy a game. They will notice a year.

It's one thing if you are arguing a lack of bugs and content (SFV style release) but your hypothetical doesn't bring in any benefit to the masses and arguably nothing of merit for anyone. And that's not even getting into the feasibility of it.

Balancing isn't just a matter of not having enough time, it's letting something into the wild and seeing the wild do stuff to it you could never have predicted in the lab. The changes that get made are related to it being out, and aren't guaranteed to be something you could replicated without a everyone playing, discovering, and suggesting.

I think there is a balancing act between pushing a rushed product, and getting something you can build on with whatever season model you have. Games are kind of "living" these days, so it's very anti-current trend to withhold a functional product just because it may change. I do think there is some good debate in there as to what the merit living games are when you are forced to adopt new seasons and you can't go back if something happens you don't like. But that's a whole different thing.

 

[Overlord Pram]

I'd just rather there be less knee jerk patches overall, like nerfing stuff people lose to in week 1 is very silly.

 

[ghostwriteous]

People will complain no matter which route is chosen.

 

[SaSSolino]

I like the mad men patching style NRS adopted, it keeps the game fresh for me.

So absolutely not.

 

[Eddy Wang]

I was wondering how long it would take so get to this conversation again lol

Its impossible to have a truly balanced game, even namco who takes on legacy gameplay its taking them more than 3 years to balance the game out.

NRS just needs to pay more attention to not utterly fuck up characters who were designed with a meta in mind from the beginning, i honestly wouldn't mind if from I2 towards NRS could pick up on legacy curve for their games, continuing to reinvent the wheel makes it even harder to balance ou the games itself.

 

[The Lone Wolf]

I prefer and still do, the old way of games. (Wysiwyg) as long as bugs and infinites are addressed.

All the moaning and bitching about nerfs and buffs ruins everything. I couldn't care less about this move, string is +10 on block, etc, when playing casual.

However, there should be two versions, one for competitive play and one for casuals, as i'd still wanna play MKX pre patch Tanya and Kung Lao Tempest before it got nerfed for fun.