Discussion Patches overwhelmingly help NRS games not hurt them

[Slips]

I made an account specifically to talk about this. Not only is this a really bad attitude to have when it comes to competitive games, it's wrong.

Let me give you some examples.

Street Fighter 4 is probably the single most dissected game in the history of fighting games. A game with strong scenes in North America, multiple Asian countries, multiple European countries, multiple South American countries, on and on. Top players everywhere, with relative parity across scenes. If anything, evidence has shown us that North America is one of the weaker regions in that game. A million monkeys at a million typewriters for the new age (a million dudes making youtube videos?). Our scene has never collectively been better at a game than we have been at SF4. Only other possible contender would be Melee I guess.

And yet we've made a lot of critical errors on estimating the balance of the game. Towards the end of the AE 2012 version (early 2014), Smug started making noise locally, then nationally, all with Dudley. It was assumed that Dudley wasn't just a weak character but probably a bottom 5 character. One of the rare hopeless characters in a game that was pretty well balanced overall. Matchup discussion regarding Dudley could be fit onto an index card “oh just do ________, he can't do anything, easy match”. Then Smug started winning. And winning some more. And finally taking out some big fish way out of his weight class. Were we wrong? Had we been wrong for FOUR YEARS?

Actually yeah. We probably were. Smug is a fantastic player but one of the most important things to take away from his rise as a player is that EVERYONE was wrong about a character. Smug was winning matches that we thought were unwinnable at top level just by playing BETTER. Landing “show off” combos reliably. Making reads and creating counter hits in positions previously assumed to be unwinnable. We had all the frame data. We had people from 30 countries all grinding and trying new things. We had 4 years of Dudley tournament results. How could we have made such critical errors in assessing matchups?

It's not without precedent. Vanilla SF4 we all collectively whiffed on Cammy and Fei Long, characters whose tools (intact in that version) would come to dominate future versions. In retrospect we underrated Seth also. Our understanding of that game, a game that had been out in one form or another for over a year and a half by the time we stopped playing it was very shallow in retrospect.

Let's look at other games. Our estimation of balance in another modern game reads like a comedy of errors in retrospect. The biggest debate in vanilla Marvel was “Wesker or Magneto?” Most people were with Wesker. And most people were wrong. Watching old tournament vanilla Marvel matches you will notice that not only is Magneto not optimized, what we now understand as his best move (magnetic blast) is almost NEVER used. All the best tournament players in the world DIDN'T UNDERSTAND how to use his best move! We grossly underestimated Dante (and we already thought he was a top tier character). We grossly OVERestimated Wolverine. Move forward into Ultimate. People actually seriously considered banning Wesker, a character who has become very rare because the game passed him by. We thought Morrigan was a bottom 5 character. She's actually top 3 (and the point character for what is—at worst—the 2nd best team in the game).

I could go on with repeated failings of the community at large as pertains to game balance but I've made my point and you probably don't care. The point is saying that “we know” how a game is going to balance out in the end after a couple weeks is wrong. Hilariously wrong. Without tooting my own horn, I've basically built my tournament career on being slightly more accurate at assessing general balance in 3 months than most people are at 12 months. Really that's the only fighting game skill I'm even above average at. Figuring out what a game is going to look like in the end is HARD. It takes time. Experience teaches me that no matter how good you are, a 2-3 month assessment of the game is going to be wrong. No matter how basic the game. No matter how much information is at your disposal. Hell we were wrong about DIVEKICK balance at that point in the game's lifespan!

Now, having said that.

Over the past couple pages you've named 5 characters as “obviously broken” and that there would be “no way” to adapt to them. You know enough history to know that this isn't true, but it also shows that the word “broken” shouldn't be used here at all. If you're right about those characters being that strong (and nobody's saying you're wrong), then they're not broken, you have a top tier with multiple strong characters. This is good, not bad.

So what you're really saying is that you want the game to be balanced from the bottom, not from the top. That every time any character sticks their head above a (now arbitrary) level of “too good” they should be whacked down into the pack without stopping to consider if other characters could reach that high in time. Not only is this an unsatisfying way to balance a game, it puts character balance at a premium over strategic balance when older games have shown us that players will tolerate weak character balance but NOT weak strategic balance.

And on a personal level I strongly dislike the metagame of MKX and NRS games. What results have shown us is that choosing a “main character” in this game is strongly discouraged at the tournament level. You run the risk of having your legs chopped out from under you. At any time. For any reason. Imagine now if you were a Scorpion player on June 22nd. You'd spent a long time practicing, getting ready for the end of the tournament season. You had your tickets booked for CEO and Evo. Sure there were other good players but you liked your chances.

You no longer like your chances.

If you don't play any other character well besides Hellfire Scorpion you're officially out of the running and out of the money. You've said that with the amount of money on the line and the amount of exposure for NRS that they have to engineer the results. To avoid the embarrassment of the Superman/Black Adam situation, they have to manipulate results for maximum enjoyment. I see it a different way. For players with this much money on the line it's not fair either. If you're training for a major tournament, you need to know that the game you're practicing is the game you'll be playing. And that simply isn't what happens.

To dedicated NRS players you're used to it but this is empirically unacceptable to people who play any other type of game. The potential to go into a major tournament having to digest major chances on TWO DAYS NOTICE? Ridiculous. You can't specialize in anything in this environment, game theory wise it's just a bad decision to choose to excel in something as opposed to raising your general level in multiple characters and multiple styles. The biggest factor in the metagame up to this point isn't players, it's the patch cycle! And this is OK? Is it worth putting in extra time this week to grind for Evo? Who knows! For my hypothetical guy, it sure wasn't worth putting in that extra time on June 22! All your work is down the drain.

I'm just not interested in playing "patch roulette" even though so far as a Sonya player I've been winning this game up to this point. I enjoy the game, but the constant patching prevents the game from getting to the later stages of understanding, which is the most satisfying part and the only reason I still play and enjoy fighting games these days.

It's just one man's opinion but I'm definitely not alone.

First of all I'll say I appreciate you being passionate enough about the subject to create and account on TYM to debate about it. It's not often some a member from a different community will actually take the time to try and explain why they dislike NRS's patching system without a derpy response.

Your first 6 paragraphs is pretty much the long way saying sometimes players and the community are wrong about a character and their place on the tier list. And I agree. Sometimes we are. What's ironic is that this very thread is based on positive changes versus negative changes due to patching. You can literally scroll up and see that the OP went through every patch note and determined there was 150 positive changes versus 32 negative ones in Injustice. That means 82% of the time each change is a positive one. Those are tremendously good odds.

Like yourself, I too have built my tournament career on being slightly more accurate at assessing general balance better than most. I did it in Tekken with Eddy, Soul Caliber IV with Voldo, and Injustice with Deathstroke. And I totally agree, it's very hard to determine what the end game will look like.

But I think we are smarter as fighting game players now. We have more experience. We have a better understanding of fighting game mechanics. We have a better understanding of character designs. We have a better understanding of what humans can and cannot react to. What we as players can and cannot overcome through the logic of risk vs. reward. We aren't as naive as we were back then. We have frame data. Great training modes and some games (not NRS) have great online so matchup knowledge that was only theory can be fleshed out at any time.

UltraDavid was saying he quit MK9 when Cyrax's command grab got changed as if it was a bad thing. The end game of MK9 is that Cyrax is still top 3. Hell Cyrac WON the last major MK9 tournament at Evo. If he would've kept that command grab he would've destroyed the game. Aquaman got nerfed in Injustice and is still considered top 3. Superman got nerfed and he's still considered top 8. I can come up with countless more examples of the patches helping things, not hurting them, now that we know the end game of MK9 and Injustice is like.

I'm glad you bring up about how Scorpion and D'Vorah players essentially got screwed at CEO. I agree they did. It's a shame, but it happens with this patching format. And if they want to quit because of the harshness of timing of the patch before a major, then fine, it's their own prerogative. But to me, the real talk is that Scorpion and D'Vorah are still good characters and the true fans of the game and representatives of those characters will bounce back. This is a case of sacrificing a few for the good of the many. How many Kitana players are still playing MKX because of patches? How many Kenshi's and Mileena and Liu Kang and Reptile players have been saved by the patches?

It's easy to sit back and point out one glaring example of how frequent patching can backfire on a player. But I don't think you realize how much NRS games have benefited from them. Did you know there were two bottom 10 characters that made top 8 for Injustice at last year's Evo? That's unheard of in most fighting games at Evo. 16 Bit made multiple top 8's with Catwoman and is considered one of the best Injustice players because NRS patched Catwoman to make her viable. He wouldn't even be in the discussion of being a top player if those patches didn't happen.

I'm not claiming to be a Capcom expert, but isn't Jan being considered a 'low tier god' using Haggar and Hulk when they are actually mid tier in most people's eyes? Mike Ross is known for doing exceptionally well with lower tier Honda in SFIV but pretty much ended up quitting partly because the end game of SFIV means he has no chance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how is that fair to him? Or fair to any other character who ends up getting screwed because they ended up liking a low tier character and they'll stay that way because Capcom doesn't patch their game until a year or 2 later? Hell I started off playing Vega in SFIV and quit because he was ass and by the time he became viable (barely) I had fallen so far behind the game's meta it didn't even matter. How is that fair to me? Low tier heroes have to hope for some miracle mechanic or glitch to hook their character up. Now THAT is ridiculous.

Either way you slice it, the player can get screwed over. But I'll say it here first and maybe I'll get blown up for saying it; NRS games will end up making more balanced games than Capcom because of their patching. It's already proven true with Injustice so far and I think MKX is already close to it. If some players can't stomach a few hiccups along the way and can't see how much the patches are for the greater good of the game, then screw'em. The players who stick with it and put in the work will reap the benefits of a healthier and more interesting tourney scene because of the balance the patches bring to the end game.

 

[M2Dave]

That means 82% of the time each change is a positive one.

But what about the other 18% of the time? Like, for example, with Deathstroke and low gunshots?

Apologize.

Spoiler

In all seriousness, who were the top tier characters the first week of the game? D'Vorah, Erron Black, Jax, Kung Jin, Kung Lao, Quan Chi, Raiden, Sonya, Sub Zero, etc. All of these characters are either still top 10 or slightly outside of the top 10 while the previous low tier characters (i.e., Kenshi, Kitana, and Shinnok) are much better. But if you read TYM after a patch, you would think 80% of the characters are not viable. LOL.

 

[I GOT HANDS]

You think SZ is higher than Shinnok and Kenshi.


Please, tell us more wisdom

 

[Slips]

I don't feel like anything in MKX approaches how stupid & boring and dominant prepatch Superman was. The closest is prepatch Tanya but there's no way she was as good as Superman and in any case she's at least not boring. NRS learned some good lessons about charter design and balance from Injustice that it applied reasonably well to launch state MKX. But it hasn't learned about patches alienating potential players I guess.

I can tell you this, however many people were turned off by prepatch Superman etc, at least as many were turned off by overpatching. Now in MKX, there really aren't any boring over-dominant characters to turn people off, but the overpatching is still there turning as many people off as ever.

Anyway, again, not necessarily opposed to patching. But patching frequently, with no schedule, with no public justifications, with no warning, with no info as to whether even patching will continue or end tomorrow? That turns a lot of people off, and it's a big part of why MKX will go back to being a niche game competitively and why NRS games in general always seem smaller than their excellent gameplay might allow.

I would argue pre-patch Kung Jin, Raiden, D'Vorah and Tanya were on the level of pre-patch Superman. Maybe we'll never know for sure, but you know what, I'm glad they just nipped it in the bud now instead of waiting for Evo to be a potential MKX laughing stock. So to me, that was a lesson learned by NRS and they shouldn't be slammed for it.

I think part of the reason why MKX will go back to being a niche game competitively is because the elite Capcom players know they have more influence over the FGC than we do. When the going gets tough and they aren't being as successful it's much easier to blame the patches and say NRS doesn't know how to make fighting games. In turn, because people are sheep, they regurgitate this excuse when they aren't successful as well and this perception eventually becomes reality.

Imagine if the Capcom community embraced the patches. Imagine if the FGC took the attitude that it's pretty awesome there is a fighting game developer who will proactively do whatever it takes for their players to play a balanced game. That they will fix anything that corrupts their vision of how the game should be played whether it being a glitch or just an error or miss on their end. And do all of this in a timely fashion with no charge.

It's crazy to me that this patching structure is considered a bad thing.

I will agree that the lack of communication to the players about potential up-coming patches and what may be tweaked could be better.

 

[I GOT HANDS]

You nip something in the bud, not the butt

 

[RM slacked]

I enjoy the patches, since my character got buffed (and got a small, fair nerf)

 

[MrSoloLobo]

To me, it seems like a lot of Capcom players are complaining and, to me, it seems like it's their excuse as to why they aren't good and will stop playing. A lot of these players claim they have to "learn the game again every week" and it doesn't make sense to me. You just learn what character X was given or what was taken, and learn how to deal with what was changed. How that makes you learn the whole game again is beyond me.

The truth is that IGAU got better and better after every patch, it only sucks that they had to stop after 6 months but they went out with a bang and gave us a patch that made many viable characters and gave us some diverse and hype top 8s to watch. The game was pretty balanced and it wasn't towards the end of the game's life that everyone started using Aquaman and Martian. Imagine how great it would be had they kept patching it to tone down some of Martian's frames or some of Aquaman's chip damage or make Batgirl's vortex more punishable.
I for sure would watch more Marvel and maybe even play it more if they toned down Vergil, Doom, etc and buffed Rocket, Modok, and whoever else is considered bad.

I hope they keep patching MKX because I know how successful it was for IGAU and because I agree with most they have done so far.

 

[MrSoloLobo]

My issue with NRS and frequent patching is this: Why don't they know what is likely to happen with the characters they design? Is it that they do know what is likely to happen with a particular character's set of moves, but because they are pressed for time the future patches are their best option to hit deadlines; or is it that they are as surprised as everyone else when one of their own designs appears to be too strong? The former is acceptable, but the latter is not, especially since they have made three competitive games: MK9, Injustice, MKX, and are probably working on Injustice 2.

I think it's backwards. The first should not be acceptable but the second should. I'm sure they didn't know Superman was that stupid. Like they had to know he was good but not like that good lol. I mean what about Capcom? They've been making competitive fighters for a really long time. Yet when I watch a Marvel stream it's all Doom, Virgil, etc. Did they not know their design was maybe too strong? They probably didn't expect it to be so bad, or at least I hope so.

 

[gottagofast]

I think it's backwards. The first should not be acceptable but the second should. I'm sure they didn't know Superman was that stupid. Like they had to know he was good but not like that good lol. I mean what about Capcom? They've been making competitive fighters for a really long time. Yet when I watch a Marvel stream it's all Doom, Virgil, etc. Did they not know their design was maybe too strong? They probably didn't expect it to be so bad, or at least I hope so.

I think that game was intended to be broken.Seems like they gave every characters strong tools and let players figure things out on their own,I'm not sure.

 

[TrulyAmiracle]

Imagine if the FGC took the attitude that it's pretty awesome there is a fighting game developer who will proactively do whatever it takes for their players to play a balanced game. That they will fix anything that corrupts their vision of how the game should be played whether it being a glitch or just an error or miss on their end. And do all of this in a timely fashion with no charge.

Skullgirls does this in case you weren't aware, since release it's been getting constant updates that are free iirc and you can even test them out on the PC beta before they're officially out to make sure no crazy bugs or BS slips through.
They also do big changes like game mechanics (adding redizzy, mvc2 style jumps, how double snapbacks work etc), combo system (been adjusted more times than I count), adding or removing moves (Painwheel's charge move removed, later added as a lvl3 super, added unfly, install taking 2 bars instead of 1 etc), and so on and so forth.

NRS games are the only other FGs that I know of that get patches on the regular, but they stop around the 5-6 months timeline to move on to the next game.

 

[rev0lver]

Skullgirls does this in case you weren't aware, since release it's been getting constant updates that are free iirc and you can even test them out on the PC beta before they're officially out to make sure no crazy bugs or BS slips through.
They also do big changes like game mechanics (adding redizzy, mvc2 style jumps, how double snapbacks work etc), combo system (been adjusted more times than I count), adding or removing moves (Painwheel's charge move removed, later added as a lvl3 super, added unfly, install taking 2 bars instead of 1 etc), and so on and so forth.

NRS games are the only other FGs that I know of that get patches on the regular, but they stop around the 5-6 months timeline to move on to the next game.

But skullgirls isn't an NRS game so it won't get as much shit

I agree that the notification is better, but that's not the reason the patches get hate

 

[MrSoloLobo]

It's not backwards. Would you rather have NRS be able to meet their release deadline with the trade-off of having to download future patches, or would you rather have NRS not understand what they are making? The first example is that NRS fully understands that certain elements of their games are not as polished as they would like on release, but they had to compromise in order to meet release dates; the other example is that NRS doesn't have a complete idea about the direction of their designs when they make a new game. As for Marvel, Marvel was intended to have highly skewed character balance. Mortal Kombat is not supposed to resemble a versus game.

I still don't understand why their games get patched so often because either example (deadline problem or design flaws) would provided them with more than enough data to be able to see pitfalls before starting a new project. This is the third competitive game. Why should Injustice 2 require as many patches as these games as often? Don't carry things over into Injustice 2 that were problematic in MK9, Injustice, and MKX.

NRS is not stupid. I suspect they patch the way they do because they are under heavy deadline constraints. Basically, we can either have the game when it's supposed to come out, or we don't get a game, NRS loses money, WB loses money, and people get fired. NRS has embraced the competitive scene, but they only have limited time and resources.

Well that's definitively possible and could be what's going on but I feel like the game they shipped is a game they felt was in an acceptable state. Then they will react accordingly to what we find and what we abuse.
I just hope thats not the case cause I'm upset with the way game developers in general are shipping unfinished games so that's why I was opposed to that option. I mean after 7 tekken games isn't the newest ttt2 unbalanced? Or the newest guilty gear? Or even street fighter 4 released broken right? I always hear stories of vanilla sagat.

 

[Scoot Magee]

But skullgirls isn't an NRS game so it won't get as much shit

I agree that the notification is better, but that's not the reason the patches get hate

I'm mostly against the way they handle the patches and not so much against patches in general. They just pop up out of nowhere and they seem to be influenced heavily by nerf/buff request threads made here on tym. I'm not a fan of that method at all. Also theres always some sort of stealth change not listed in patch notes.

I look at the changes made to scorpion as well and they just seem rushed. They reduced the cancel advantage on some of his strings and moves in order to prevent the fbc jail but affected him in a bunch of other ways. It just seems sloppy to me. Also the fact that I know they knew about the fbc jail pre release kinda makes wonder why they waited till right before ceo to nerf it.

 

[Zoidberg747]

To me, it seems like a lot of Capcom players are complaining and, to me, it seems like it's their excuse as to why they aren't good and will stop playing. A lot of these players claim they have to "learn the game again every week" and it doesn't make sense to me. You just learn what character X was given or what was taken, and learn how to deal with what was changed. How that makes you learn the whole game again is beyond me.

That is unless you play the characters that were patched. Tanya players have to essentially relearn her entire strategy/gameplan. All that MU knowledge is useless now because her main tool was nerfed significantly. Things that were second nature before are now not practical at a high level, so you have to start removing those tactics from your general gameplan.

Dont get me wrong, she was broke and probably needed some tweaks before EVO. And she is still really good, maybe even top 10 material. But you make it sound like it takes a day or two to adjust to changes, when that is not the case for a lot of player.

 

[MrSoloLobo]

That is unless you play the characters that were patched. Tanya players have to essentially relearn her entire strategy/gameplan. All that MU knowledge is useless now because her main tool was nerfed significantly. Things that were second nature before are now not practical at a high level, so you have to start removing those tactics from your general gameplan.

Dont get me wrong, she was broke and probably needed some tweaks before EVO. And she is still really good, maybe even top 10 material. But you make it sound like it takes a day or two to adjust to changes, when that is not the case for a lot of player.

You're right, sorry for that but I more meant for a less extreme case like Cassie isn't 0 on block on f34 anymore and is now -8. From reading that you learn ok its my turn after she does that string now. Tanya and Kitana are kind of extreme though cause they both got a lot of changes and I do understand it sucks for Tanya mains. However I doubt everyone that's complaining specifically plays Tanya.

 

[GAV]

Tanya was no match for her chief rival...

 

[Juggs]

Both side of the argument have their merit. One thing that needs to be understood is how different NRS is from other companies, Capcom in particular. The business model itself is different, which is the key reason (imo) that the patching is different.

NRS games have around 2+ years of a life span. This is because a new NRS game usually comes out by this time, and also NRS have stopped supporting the current game. You can blame the community if you want, but they only play a small part in the current NRS game dying. Since NRS stops supporting their game(s) in order to focus their time and money on the new one, they patch early and often because they know once they get past the 2 year threshold, they will have put the game out of their sight.

While as a competitor I don't like this approach, it makes sense. Both as a business decision and logically reasonable decision. Instead of building on a game and making a "UMK9" for instance, they just make a new game.

The "problem" with patching early and often in regards to the health of the game, is that we can't know with any amount of certainty if the nerfs and/or buffs were actually warranted. Now there are exceptions to this, and I'm not talking about things that are obviously broken such as bugs and infinites. But the way they patch the game now, they aren't giving themselves the best opportunity to "get it right". We've experienced before things getting changed early and finding out later on that maybe those things should have never changed to begin with.

The other problem is, the "shut up and level up" mentality is no longer the best option. Unfortunately the best options is to "cry until nerf/buff". Complaining actually has an effect, and the more complaining the more you're going to be heard. Now there's some people in the community that deny we have any impact at all on the patches, but that's just silly. It's no coincidence that whatever is cried about the most and loudest changes in the very next patch.

At the same time though, NRS does make mistakes. There's things that are so obviously too good or not good enough that we don't need half a year to figure it out. But in this day and age, I'd rather suffer through the game changing (for the better) a bunch of times, than the game staying the same when there are things that obviously need to change.

@UltraDavid @Slips @coolwhip @Scoot Magee

 

[UltraDavid]

uh ohhhh the "capcom players" canard lol. that's not real folks, that is not a group of people that identifies as such. street fighter 4 players are not marvel 3 players or street fighter 3 players and vampire savior players are not marvel 2 players, and in fact there's some enmity all among them. it's especially stupid because some people who wanted to play mkx are from blazblue and tekken and guilty gear and stuff. but then, i've seen people on this site include people like aris, chris g, and ryan hart in the list of capcom players.

but anyway, i actually interact with CAPCOM PLAYERSSS UH OH, and I can tell you that a) they're not salty at not winning things immediately, they want and expect to grind it out like usual, and b) yes actually the real reason they're dropping the game is because of the patching, that actually is real for reals.

I will agree that the lack of communication to the players about potential up-coming patches and what may be tweaked could be better.

oh, how magnanimous, the entirety of my complaint distilled into an "i guess" agreement. the other stuff about CAPCOM PLAYERSSS is just in your head.

 

[rev0lver]

btw can we not use marvel as an example of why patching's bad

the game's gone to shit because it's not being updated. wouldn't it be so much more interesting if the infinites were toned down and characters like hsien ko, spiderman, and nemesis were allowed to compete? i used to be a huge fan and watch every tournament, but in the past year especially it's become incredibly stagnant and top-heavy.

if a character like wesker was nerfed early instead of in ultimate, in the way nrs does, they can tone him down a little bit and see if it's too little/too much. that would probably be a much better game with regular patching, maybe every few months.

 

[dotunderscore]

Until someone demonstrates a better working model for a console based game this is simply modern software development. Millions of players and actual tournament play demonstrating exploits gives a developer more valid information and over the air updates allows them to be flexible.

If SFV doesn't have an arcade cycle I would expect to see frequent patching/balance changes as well.

 

[Slips]

oh, how magnanimous, the entirety of my complaint distilled into an "i guess" agreement. the other stuff about CAPCOM PLAYERSSS is just in your head.

At least I gave you that much, unlike you who just ignores all the facts that me and other contributors to this thread have presented as to why patching is more helpful than harmful. But please, continue the attitude of belittling me to some NRS cheerleader.

 

[Big Pampering]

uh ohhhh the "capcom players" canard lol. that's not real folks, that is not a group of people that identifies as such. street fighter 4 players are not marvel 3 players or street fighter 3 players and vampire savior players are not marvel 2 players, and in fact there's some enmity all among them. it's especially stupid because some people who wanted to play mkx are from blazblue and tekken and guilty gear and stuff. but then, i've seen people on this site include people like aris, chris g, and ryan hart in the list of capcom players.

but anyway, i actually interact with CAPCOM PLAYERSSS UH OH, and I can tell you that a) they're not salty at not winning things immediately, they want and expect to grind it out like usual, and b) yes actually the real reason they're dropping the game is because of the patching, that actually is real for reals.



oh, how magnanimous, the entirety of my complaint distilled into an "i guess" agreement. the other stuff about CAPCOM PLAYERSSS is just in your head.

How many of these players you are talking about would stick with the game regardless of patches. You could probably count those people on one hand.

 

[rev0lver]

but anyway, i actually interact with CAPCOM PLAYERSSS UH OH, and I can tell you that a) they're not salty at not winning things immediately, they want and expect to grind it out like usual, and b) yes actually the real reason they're dropping the game is because of the patching, that actually is real for reals.

A lot of us actually talk to these CAPCOM PLAYERSSS too, and we know a lot of them just want to pick a top tier and not have to worry. There's exceptions, of course, but a lot of the complaining is disingenuous and could possibly hurt our game.

I mean I played hakan in sf. I don't avoid those tournaments because I didn't keep up with his ultra changes, I don't enter them because I don't actually care about playing it.

 

[Slips]

@UltraDavid

And maybe you're right and Capcom players aren't disingenuous and it's just a wild theory. It still doesn't mean the Capcom way of doing things is better. I've layed out, as well as others in this thread, how their lack of patching hurts their games too. I am a victim from their lack of patching because I played low tier. And I'm not alone.

I just think it's wrong for players to quit a game because their devs are being proactive with how their game is being played and how they want it to be played. Instead, the players have this arrogance of thinking they know how fighting games work better than the designers and they shouldn't try and fix things because they'll figure it out for themselves beyond what the intended design was.

You're asking for the game designers to adjust their game to the players when it should be the other way around. I understand that's how we did it in the past and that's how Capcom does things but times have changed. Players should be helping their devs create a better game and work together with them to make the competitive scene thrive. Not just leave it all up to the players and hope they'll figure it out through some whacky mechanic or glitch the devs missed.

 

[Shark Tank]

There's a lot of things we can blanket chalk up to WB because we don't know if NRS doesn't have a say in it or not. This isn't one of them.

WB doesn't control NRS's studio, if they want to work on patching their own game because they care about their customers / competitive scene they are fully free to do so. The publisher likely has its hands in a lot of things, but NRS doing this will only benefit WB so they will not restrict them from doing so.

Pretty sure when they're putting a couple of million into a game they have a decent say, and not having a lifecycle of a game for 6+ years like SF4 is most likely definitely one of them.