For the Love of the Twelve Can We Get Smaller Patches At Faster Intervals?

[MizoreShirayuki]

Greetings!

In the future would it remotely possible to release smaller patches at an increased frequency (Maybe every 2-3 weeks) rather than release one behemoth of a patch every 3-4 months?

Having smaller patches come out every 2-4 weeks would give people a reason to log into the game more frequently to check out new content. When a mammoth sized patch gets released people log in for 1-2 weeks after watching the videos the elites posted on Youtube 1-2 days post-patch and walk through the scorched path already made. Then they log off for 2-3 months til the next patch, or in some cases (such as some of my LS mates) cancel their subscription until next patch (Or patch 1.xx that's on the development road-map).

Yoshida himself has stated that different aspects of the game (Story, Quests, Monsters, etc.) all get worked on independently of one another. So why can't they release patches at a more frequent rate if this is true? It all has to go through QA anyway...

It would also eliminate the need for time sink threesomes of horrid drop rates, Kupo Nut Charms/Inferno Totems, & a broken loot system to stretch out the life of content til next patch.... (I'm looking at you SE!)

It's better to eat a small portion of a cake rather than the entire thing because not only will it last longer, but you won't get sick of eating it. Why can't the same thing be said of patches for this game?

Thoughts?

[SirOleas]

I don't see why (or why not).
It honestly doesn't matter.
I would rather get larger chunks of the puzzle than tons of little chunks.

The game is in a rebuilding phase so having more released at once allows those smaller chunks to work together properly rather than a cluster f*ck of small confusing patches.

In the end I think it will just boil down to what you would prefer...Not what's best for the game (they aren't going to change pace.)

[zaviermhigo]

edited cause I misread, its late here.


Content won't come out fast for pre 2.0, maybe 2.0 we can get caster patches, OUR ENGINE IS CRAP! end of story. 2.0 new engine built for mmo

[Soukyuu]

I'd rather have them stop releasing redundant data for us to download. Last 3 patches were all the same size, differing in a few kb. I honestly doubt it's a coincidence.

[Coldfire]

Well I think SE said they would be releasing patches more frequently when payment starts. You got your goobbue what else you want???
/sarcasm off

[WOmega]

I'd rather have them stop releasing redundant data for us to download. Last 3 patches were all the same size, differing in a few kb. I honestly doubt it's a coincidence.

no its not a coincidence, if the patcher replaces whole files then it would obviously explain why they are like that

[Asiaine]

Patches need to be tested.
Each test pass takes time and is expensive.
To do it more frequently would mean more time spent testing the patches (which means more money/resources spent testing patches, rather than developing content).

Therefore, less frequent releases is better as it allows for higher levels of testing and quality (given the probable restriction on budget for testing).

[Altanas]

It would be quite refreshing if different monsters were cycled in every few weeks via minor patches (perhaps adjusting in game months/moon phases to account for lore etc), so for a few weeks in January we would see an Amaljaa uprise, then after that there is an Ixali uprise depending on x conditions. Basically, creating surges and dips in bestiary family presence every few weeks. It would make the world less static and perhaps have an impact on the economy where there is a surge and dip in related drops.

[Catapult]

They tried the more frequent & lesser volume releases thing. Didn't work so well with QA.

[Soukyuu]

no its not a coincidence, if the patcher replaces whole files then it would obviously explain why they are like that

That is not what I am talking about. What I'm talking about is the 15MB of completely identical data between patches. For example, here is the 1.20 vs 1.20a comparison:



There is a 15MB identical block (not ok), followed by data differing in a few bytes (patching in new files - ok), followed by 15MB of completely new data (ok).

So the patch could have been 15MB smaller! While it's not a big issue with a 40MB patch, it would be with a 200+ mb patch. It looks like they just threw a modificated 1.20 package in a torrent instead of only distributing the modified versions.