"
I'd be happy with daily patches if that were somehow viable. If there is a problem try to at least fix the problem and move to the next problem.
There's bound to be various type(s) of problems that need to be addressed from things like "quick fixes" all the way up to "redesign from scratch" so I'd be happy with frequent patching as long as the patches don't hurt the game [I.E. introduce new bugs, cause more problems, etc.]
Agreed.
|
Posted byLeFlesh#9979on Jan 31, 2025, 2:40:41 PM
|
|
[/quote]But D4 is balanced[/quote]
Yeah, I will end the conversation here. You have no idea of what you are talking about. That's why you care about ''art'' so much.
|
Posted byThreeBelowZero#2968on Jan 31, 2025, 2:44:58 PMOn Probation
|
"
"
"
OP is generally correct that in an Alpha/Beta situation consistent updates work much better than large patches. Players like to see things being hammered out daily.
Persistent patching also allows for easy micro changes to those changes. Larger patches bring about multi-layer issues that can be harder to track down or parse as easily.
Nowadays, game companies have a common problem, that is, they have to wait until a large update to fix problems that can be quickly fixed with a small patch. By releasing a large number of fixes at one time, they want to appear to have solved a large number of problems at one time and attract the attention of new players.
However, players who are playing the game have to endure the same problem every day and wait for a large patch update to solve it. During this period, players must endure the pain brought by the problem to respond to the company's means of attracting new players, that is, large update patches.
And the players who are currently playing the game are the victims of the company's means of attracting new players.
I honestly don't know if the tactic really works. I guess it does or they wouldn't do it.
In my experience constant updates keeps the players you have playing and reporting more problems of which you hammer out quickly and they're happy to keep playing more. The whole 'Let them leave and come back' approach is inefficient from a development standpoint.
Currently I feel as the last 3 years of supporter packs I bought (knowing it was mostly for PoE2) feels like it was wasted. I've never been on board with the idea they can keep both games going.
Because compared with launching skins that suit players' preferences and letting players buy them, it is more efficient to publish advertisements, publish big update announcements and videos to attract new players to buy test qualifications and warehouse pages. After all, if you want to play POE2 now, you have to buy test qualifications, and buying skins is not a necessary option for playing the game.
There is greater uncertainty about the consumption of players who are already playing the game. To attract new players to play, they must pay. This is where the company decides to focus its work after considering maximizing revenue.
|
Posted byki784340143#8116on Jan 31, 2025, 2:48:02 PM
|
|
If you look at the patch log sub forums for PoE2, they basically release a patch once a week. The problem is the patches are very minor. 0.1.1 was great but I don't expect such a big log every week but they can probably release something that's 1/3 or 1/2 of that patch with the lastest changes. It's a beta so I agree that we should be able to test their stuff sooner (and report bugs sooner as well).
Tech guy
|
Posted byWarrax#2850on Jan 31, 2025, 3:03:13 PM
|
