Patch Size & Speed

[Dallane]

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

This^

[pistolshrimp]

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.

We didn't really want that 20% here any way.

That's 20% less ragequit threads over the their first deaths we don't have to read. Honestly tho, they weren't going to stick around in the long term so they shouldn't even be counted as part of the population. It's the upward, stable, or downward trend when nothing new is happening that really shows a state of a game.

[imrielle]

I voted for a 30 day time table, for several reasons, most of which were already brought up.

Patching in more involved systems every 10 days doesn't give the player base time to really test or learn the systems. It also doesn't really give the player base the time to find, confirm and report bugs. As for the population 'issue' - that 20% are players who don't stick around long, no matter the speed you push content at. As rude as it may be to say this, they are equivalent to the people who log into Facebook, try out the newest browser game for a few days, and then wander off to the next browser game.

If you really feel you 'must' keep that segment of the population logging in and interested, have small token patches every 10 days - something along the lines of adding in a few new clothing or inspiration recipes, or something relatively minor or 'fluffy' like that. They get their "Oooh, shiny." fix, while the 'real' 30 patches have the true content that the other 80% of the population are truly invested in. That 80% of the population is more important to a games healthy population and longevity in the long run, anyway.

[trungdle]

Actually, just keep the timetable and put out one sneakpeak per week, is it ok for you guys?