This is just appalling

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

We are not talking weeks or months. Years multiple years, we aren't talking 3.1 or 3.3 even. They could have taken people out of University and trained them over the course of two plus years. Maybe all the defenders will need to send the dev team another gift.

You don't "take people out of university and train them" lol.

They are looking for a specific skillset. The battle content team has doubled since 3.0 DOUBLED. apparently you didn't understand that.

[Moonlite]

And 9 weeks different throughout an entire product cycle is nothing.

If we were truly getting a patch every 12 weeks (equal 3 months). 9 weeks is almosy another patch cycle. But to you just blow it off. They almost miss a whole patch big deal.

You don't "take people out of university and train them" lol.

They are looking for a specific skillset. The battle content team has doubled since 3.0 DOUBLED. apparently you didn't understand that.

Because skilled people just A) appear out of thin air B) can not be developed in house. I also believe it was mentioned in passing about training in house. Simply put two problems Japan has a very weak MMO market. Two they have trouble(not impossible) hiring non japanese staff. Which equals a small pool. You must have also missed the point where the amount of content will go down. If this is a training/cohesion issue. They waited way to long. 4.1 will not have two dungeons plus diadem 3.o it will only have 1. My math might be weak but double staff two years to hire/train equals less content?

[savageink]

If we were truly getting a patch every 12 weeks (equal 3 months). 9 weeks is almosy another patch cycle. But to you just blow it off. They almost miss a whole patch big deal.

As you said, 9 weeks is NOT even a full patch cycle. There are 5.5 patches. not counting the in between 'fix broken stuff' patches, which if you use your trick of averages, including those fixes would make each patch only missing by a few days, and ignoring the little ones, a week and a couple days. Yeah, I would call that making a mountain out of a mole hill. Since obviously you didn't look up WoW patches, there was over a year between The Siege of Ogrimmar and WoD, the patch before that over half a year. Patches for Cata were as bad as those for MoP, and there was only a marginal improvement during WoD. A week or so delay per patch (On average) isn't anything.

Plus, I'm not sure if they ever specified a new patch exactly every 3 months. Where is that written?

[MisterLucie]

Since obviously you didn't look up WoW patches, there was over a year between The Siege of Ogrimmar and WoD, the patch before that over half a year.

I really don't think you should compare a patch that had more bosses in a single raid instance than HW had over the entire course of the expansion and bash the single patch for its length.

[savageink]

I really don't think you should compare a patch that had more bosses in a single raid instance than HW had over the entire course of the expansion and bash the single patch for its length.

I really don't care how many bosses were in the seige of Ogrimmar. Lol! I'm trying to give this guy a sense of perspective. And I never said anything bad about the patch itself.

[MisterLucie]

I really don't care how many bosses were in the seige of Ogrimmar. Lol! I'm trying to give this guy a sense of perspective.

An extremely flawed sense, maybe. Don't use patches that contain tons of class changes, revolutionary mechanics for dozens of bosses in massive, sprawling environments, and large amounts of side content with the little fluff patches full of the same routines and the same mechanics and the same everything that SE pushes out every few months.

Blizzard's patches take time because they put everything they can into them. SE's are (relatively) consistent because they have their stale formula that they reuse every. single. time.

[savageink]

An extremely flawed sense, maybe. Don't use patches that contain tons of class changes, revolutionary mechanics for dozens of bosses in massive, sprawling environments, and large amounts of side content with the little fluff patches full of the same routines and the same mechanics and the same everything that SE pushes out every few months.

Blizzard's patches take time because they put everything they can into them. SE's are (relatively) consistent because they have their stale formula that they reuse every. single. time.

LOL! ummm.. not going there.


Edit: I do need to point out once again, that I said nothing about the content of said patches. We were discussing the time between them. (And obviously you been hooked on Blizzard crack.)

[Belhi]

I really don't think you should compare a patch that had more bosses in a single raid instance than HW had over the entire course of the expansion and bash the single patch for its length.

Your ignoring trials there. If we count Trials and Alliance raids, FF14 actually holds its own in the number of encounters pretty well. The only difference is the variation in difficulty levels and FF14 has less combat encounter developers. Considering FF14 has a smaller playerbase and almost certainly smaller budget it holds it's own pretty well.

WoW is guilty of massive content droughts. They may have fixed that in Legion though we are yet to see what the break between the end of Legion and the next expansion is yet but after WoD, no one should be pointing at WoW for any idea of quality content development.

[Moonlite]

As you said, 9 weeks is NOT even a full patch cycle. There are 5.5 patches. not counting the in between 'fix broken stuff' patches, which if you use your trick of averages, including those fixes would make each patch only missing by a few days, and ignoring the little ones, a week and a couple days. Yeah, I would call that making a mountain out of a mole hill. Since obviously you didn't look up WoW patches, there was over a year between The Siege of Ogrimmar and WoD, the patch before that over half a year. Patches for Cata were as bad as those for MoP, and there was only a marginal improvement during WoD. A week or so delay per patch (On average) isn't anything.

Plus, I'm not sure if they ever specified a new patch exactly every 3 months. Where is that written?

I also said 9 weeks is a lot closer to a whole patch then a oh we had a bug and delayed a till Thursday. They have repeatedly in live letters mentioned a three month cycle. But one of the media tour videos said 4.0 would use 3 to 3.5 months. It is not written in stone/blood anywhere. Don't just come out and preen the whole three month thing. We had a patch that was 16 weeks but in theory fell in three months. I am sure that is not a translation error.

This is WoW cycle for the 2.X series.

2.0 December 5/06 2.1 May 22/07 2.2 Sept 25/07 2.3 Nov 13/07 2.4 Mar 25/08

16 instances 8 raids 63 weeks.

3.0 Oct 14/08 3.1 April 19/09 3.2 Aug 4/09 3.3 DEC 8/09

16 instances 10 raids 63 weeks

We got 18 instances over a much longer time. Raids are a little bit odd one boss isn't a raid how would you like to count the trials/raids?

But when 14 gets to 5 or 6 I will revisit how well they are doing in comparison. I posted 2 and 3 from WoW for you I consider a ARR a base game considering what 1.0 was. But if you want to consider ARR the first expansion the info still stands.

[savageink]

I also said 9 weeks is a lot closer to a whole patch then a oh we had a bug and delayed a till Thursday. They have repeatedly in live letters mentioned a three month cycle. But one of the media tour videos said 4.0 would use 3 to 3.5 months. It is not written in stone/blood anywhere. Don't just come out and preen the whole three month thing. We had a patch that was 16 weeks but in theory fell in three months. I am sure that is not a translation error.

This is WoW cycle for the 2.X series.

2.0 December 5/06 2.1 May 22/07 2.2 Sept 25/07 2.3 Nov 13/07 2.4 Mar 25/08

16 instances 8 raids 63 weeks.

3.0 Oct 14/08 3.1 April 19/09 3.2 Aug 4/09 3.3 DEC 8/09

16 instances 10 raids 63 weeks

We got 18 instances over a much longer time. Raids are a little bit odd one boss isn't a raid how would you like to count the trials/raids?

But when 14 gets to 5 or 6 I will revisit how well they are doing in comparison. I posted 2 and 3 from WoW for you I consider a ARR a base game considering what 1.0 was. But if you want to consider ARR the first expansion the info still stands.

A decade ago Blizzard was on the ball. Not sure that's relevant, but hey, I'm done. I don't see your point but feel free to feel neglected.