Patch Size & Speed

[Dallane]

i would prefer a large patch every 3 months or so, annoying to have a bunch of new **** to catch up on and then having another shovel full before your half done with the first.

This. Give yourself more then enough time to fully test and balance stuff. Just don't extend it out like jorbtar

[MarpTarpton]

i would prefer a large patch every 3 months or so, annoying to have a bunch of new **** to catch up on and then having another shovel full before your half done with the first.

I agree with this from a player perspective and developer. Rapidly pushing things out leaves room for error and too much to catch up. I would rather give people the opportunity to catch up (and catch any mistakes we might have made) before plowing forward with the next patch and not having it be addressed until 5 patches later.

That being said, hotfixes are always OK and we shouldn't not fix something just because a patch isn't "due".

[Potjeh]

Which option is better for dev productivity?

[Scilly_guy]

Whilst it would be great if you could spend 3 months getting a perfectly balanced bug free patch together, I can also see that some problems and issues with balance don't become apparent until released upon the masses. I know you have the test server to try and iron out the game breaking bugs but ultimately we are all here to beta test the game. I believe you are capable of weeding out the genuine feed back from the people whining, and I think a month is a good pace to gather that feed back and produce changes and fixes. Ultimately though, its whatever works best for the team.

[JohnCarver]

Which option is better for dev productivity?

The 1 month timetable for sure. I just wanted to be sure that we were not 'losing player interest' by having the 30 day stretch of no updates. Numbers historically per week have been

Record Breaking Population
5% less population
5% less population
10% less population
PATCH
Record Breaking Population

Every single time this has happened. My general concern was just if it was necessary to lose 20% of the population from logging in because they were 'waiting' for more content or changes. That being said, I tend to agree with most people here, and don't believe people are 'conquering' all that we are delivering each month so I do want to believe that we are not doing the community a disservice by having the 30 day schedule.

[Potjeh]

Just stick with the 30 day schedule. Worry about population after you've completed the roadmap.

[TotalyMeow]

Record Breaking Population
5% less population
5% less population
10% less population
PATCH
Record Breaking Population

IMO, there will always be a segment of the population that is here mainly for the thrill of new content. They'll come and go, and maybe go for good once development is over, or just become very casual. But by then, we'll be able to advertise and get some people in here who expect a mostly finished game and are here for that game, not because patches are fun (though they are).

Anyway, I think the monthly patch is best, there's time then to do a fairly large and complete system instead of trying to implement something half assed and then finish it. Can you imagine if we'd done the food patch in 5 pieces? It would have meant removing most of the food functionality on the first week. There'd have been riots and cannibalism in Boston by the time we got to the third week and had a decent number of recipes updated or added.

[Ukhata]

That being said, I tend to agree with most people here, and don't believe people are 'conquering' all that we are delivering each month so I do want to believe that we are not doing the community a disservice by having the 30 day schedule.

let us know at least what we havent figured out yet then!
not how it works, but like
havent found how to get shell from turtle
havent found how to make a simple bonnet
etc etc etc

so we dont rub every item againt everything else for ***** all

[agentlemanloser]

Why not both? Darwoth is correct: large systems certainly need extended time to think through and implement. Meow is correct: gluttony would have been asinine if released in five parts. PVP and arson clearly require a month or more of planning.

That said, not all of the avenues of content production require vast amounts of time or are even that related to other systems, at least not in new, untested ways. For instance, I believe you intend to expand the bestiary significantly be reskinning existing types and adding variation in size and strength. Since this wouldn't require extensive AI rebuilding or new animation, you could easily release, say, an expanded critter group every 10 days.

You might even be able to do this with some darkness mobs, though I'd imagine they are much more complex to balance into the existing economy.

Personally, I'd rather your team not distract themselves with frivolous low hanging fruit just to please the player base - it seems like Jorbtar tried that for a while and it ended badly. But, releasing flavor content like reskinned animals with varying values is or should be part of the overall plan to flesh out the gameworld, so it wouldn't be a distraction in any real sense. Things like that would be nice as mini-updates, serving to give more depth to the game environment. Take your time with the major system overhauls, though, or you will waste time proofreading before you finish editing, so to speak.

[alprice]

I have been a bit overwhelmed with all the new content since the food patch hit. I wanted to take time and learn all I could. I have great teachers now and want to soak up the knowledge but with new stuff and a lot of it hitting at once, it's been a bit hard for me. 2 to 3 months is good for me.