Honestly I'm quite happy with the recent patches, they don't generally have any completely game breaking bugs in them, such as constant crash problems or really horrible framerates. The general theme has been slow but steady progress for the past several patches which is about what I'd expect, the new issues are understandable and generally get at least partially addressed in the following patch, and the patches are also coming fairly regularly which is also good.
<!--quoteo(post=1913976:date=Mar 16 2012, 06:45 PM:name=JuCCi-PuCCi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JuCCi-PuCCi @ Mar 16 2012, 06:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1913976"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thanks for a reply. I my self would rather have a monthly patch or bi-weekly patch. It would allow more content and make sure the missed stuff has a better chance of getting caught. I feel the only patches i my self would like to see weekly is performance patches, new content ever month. Any one else agree?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, the problem is that it would slow development down.
See, it isn't just that stuff gets added monday and tuesday, tested wednesday and thursday, they're constantly adding new stuff, so even if you spent a month on a patch, it'll still have just as many bugs in it.
Because they'll still have that week-long lag.
The bugs in the game are ones that arise from a delay between testing and fixing, unless you spend a week or so every patch not developing and only fixing bugs, you're still going to have that delay and those bugs.
The trend is up but development will always have its ups and downs. If you get to emotionally invested in each build your heart will break every other week. I'm probably approaching the 1500 hour mark and still love playing because the game is evolving. Things will really start to solidify in the coming months and once all the features are in they can really polish this thing.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1913976:date=Mar 16 2012, 02:45 PM:name=JuCCi-PuCCi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JuCCi-PuCCi @ Mar 16 2012, 02:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1913976"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thanks for a reply. I my self would rather have a monthly patch or bi-weekly patch. It would allow more content and make sure the missed stuff has a better chance of getting caught. I feel the only patches i my self would like to see weekly is performance patches, new content ever month. Any one else agree?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i few weeks ago i would have maybe agreed on that with you. because weekly patches slow me down (i thought). but that's not entirely true. the sooner you get a bigger amount of people to play with a new feature, the faster you get feedback and can tweak everything (while working already on the next feature). then next week already new stuff is in, and the problems from the previous patch have been eliminated. monthly patch would mean 4 times more features, but also 4 times more possible problems per patch. which is not very enjoyable i think :)
DghelneshiAims to surpass Fana in post edits.Join Date: 2011-11-01Member: 130634Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
Whether you patch weekly or monthly, you will always have the <b>current bugs</b> to deal with. And as Schimmel said, you get faster feedback if you patch more often.
You could, of course, make a feature lock after 3 weeks and polish up the game for 1 week and then patch, but that would not really make sense in a closed beta and would also tremendously slow down development.
Feels like we're making high risk changes that sometimes are great, but usually are steps backwards. I'd prefer smaller, balancing changes, and when we choose to redo game mechanics (which as of late seems to be happening in every patch), lets approach each, one at a time so we can most accurately understand how they would fit into the game, and if they actually are needed improvements.
Slow and steady wins the race, I'm not a gambling man, I'd rather bet small on good odds, than bet everything on bad ones. Even though high risk gambling can work, it usually doesn't. Also, for those of us who've played quite extensively by now, it can sometimes feel like this high risk gambling is being done with our money.
I want a game model established to work from and polish, not a constantly changing one.
I'm not trying to point a finger, complain, or flame, I just want to share a perspective many may not see. Thanks for reading.
Comments
<!--quoteo(post=1913976:date=Mar 16 2012, 06:45 PM:name=JuCCi-PuCCi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JuCCi-PuCCi @ Mar 16 2012, 06:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1913976"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thanks for a reply. I my self would rather have a monthly patch or bi-weekly patch. It would allow more content and make sure the missed stuff has a better chance of getting caught. I feel the only patches i my self would like to see weekly is performance patches, new content ever month. Any one else agree?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, the problem is that it would slow development down.
See, it isn't just that stuff gets added monday and tuesday, tested wednesday and thursday, they're constantly adding new stuff, so even if you spent a month on a patch, it'll still have just as many bugs in it.
Because they'll still have that week-long lag.
The bugs in the game are ones that arise from a delay between testing and fixing, unless you spend a week or so every patch not developing and only fixing bugs, you're still going to have that delay and those bugs.
I'd kind of rather they kept making the game.
i few weeks ago i would have maybe agreed on that with you. because weekly patches slow me down (i thought). but that's not entirely true. the sooner you get a bigger amount of people to play with a new feature, the faster you get feedback and can tweak everything (while working already on the next feature). then next week already new stuff is in, and the problems from the previous patch have been eliminated. monthly patch would mean 4 times more features, but also 4 times more possible problems per patch. which is not very enjoyable i think :)
You could, of course, make a feature lock after 3 weeks and polish up the game for 1 week and then patch, but that would not really make sense in a closed beta and would also tremendously slow down development.
Slow and steady wins the race, I'm not a gambling man, I'd rather bet small on good odds, than bet everything on bad ones. Even though high risk gambling can work, it usually doesn't. Also, for those of us who've played quite extensively by now, it can sometimes feel like this high risk gambling is being done with our money.
I want a game model established to work from and polish, not a constantly changing one.
I'm not trying to point a finger, complain, or flame, I just want to share a perspective many may not see. Thanks for reading.