Jump to content


Why don't WG micro-patch balance changes (a.k.a their mistakes) more often?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

Simeon85 #1 Posted 05 June 2018 - 10:55 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,310
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

This is a PC game, WG can patch whenever they want, so why do we have to wait for 3 months plus and major patch before something like the Bobject gets nerfed?

 

It's obviously been OP from day one (it was obviously OP from the first released stats but that is another issue), it's annoying loads of players, it's now ruining the CW campaign, why not just bring in a micro-patch to nerf it?

 

Same goes for the bad maps, why not just chuck in a micro-patch that removes Fjords from the map rotation until they fix it? 

 

Other major PC titles are often quick to fix major issues, don't understand why it needs 3 months,  super testing and public testing to nerf something as obviously broken and over powered as the bobject for example or to take a map that is unbalanced out of the rotation until it is fixed. 



Jumping_TurtIe #2 Posted 05 June 2018 - 10:56 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6115 battles
  • 836
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-26-2015
The sound when you get hit please. They can micropatch every day, as long as they fix this.

mikedee #3 Posted 05 June 2018 - 11:14 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 21648 battles
  • 82
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010
They don't make mistakes. We do, by continuing to play this crap

Simeon85 #4 Posted 05 June 2018 - 11:24 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,310
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostJumping_TurtIe, on 05 June 2018 - 10:56 AM, said:

The sound when you get hit please. They can micropatch every day, as long as they fix this.

 

Another one that has been around for a while.

Zoggo_ #5 Posted 05 June 2018 - 11:34 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 27255 battles
  • 245
  • Member since:
    05-11-2013

They overbuff tanks on purpose so people will use more gold and credits to free xp the line, re-train crews etc.

WG perfectly knew the Bobject was stupidly over powered on the super test and just ignored the testers feedback. They could have nerfed it within days on it going live but that was never going to happen until they had squeezed as much income out of it as possible. 



The_Georgian_One #6 Posted 05 June 2018 - 11:35 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35225 battles
  • 1,578
  • [KOFN] KOFN
  • Member since:
    01-05-2015
This seems to be WG's business model, especially with the OP tanks. They need to milk the community before they can fix them.

In fact, this and other 'features' of this game recently totally sucked the joy of playing it out of me. It seems WG really doesnt care if people have fun playing this game, as long as they pay.

Dorander #7 Posted 05 June 2018 - 11:36 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17854 battles
  • 2,302
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

There's probably a bunch of potential reasons, let's think out loud for a second.

 

First off, patching isn't per se easy. Games have many lines of code, and finding where exactly one specific thing went wrong (such as the sound glitch) may take time.

Secondly, there's always the risk of breaking something else when you patch, patches need proper testing, which may be time-consuming.

Thirdly, they may not *want* to patch the Bobject quickly. The WT Auf E 100 was in the game for a very long time before it was finally removed for being a "stupid design". Why though? Some kind of rotation balance of which country gets the OP tank next? Do they simply want a lot of people to own/play the tank as it's relatively new, so that their design gets used and they see something happening with their invested time? Perhaps they don't consider it a very urgent problem given data they may have that suggests not many people play the tank anyway. Perhaps the problem got stuck in committee, and they couldn't agree on the developmen team what the proper adjustments would be.

 

Could any of this be done faster than 3 months? Maybe. Dunno. Not a programmer/developer myself, but even I can think of potential reasons why things go slowly. Maybe there's a financial component or effort component that is far greater for releasing micropatches than it is for big patches.



Dava_117 #8 Posted 05 June 2018 - 11:59 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18578 battles
  • 2,757
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

A friend of mine plays LoL. It said they got a balance patch every 2 week, that slightly tweek the hero stats to balance them. 

WG could make like this too, if it wasn't milking players.

Bobject is OP, then lower the telemeter armour. After 2 week is it still OP? Yes, nerf the engine power, and so on.



lgfrbcsgo #9 Posted 05 June 2018 - 12:06 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29968 battles
  • 990
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    04-04-2012

View PostDorander, on 05 June 2018 - 11:36 AM, said:

First off, patching isn't per se easy. Games have many lines of code, and finding where exactly one specific thing went wrong (such as the sound glitch) may take time.

 

I am working as a software engineer and am currently maintaining a rather large project which involves lots of bug fixing. Finding the code which breaks is easy, but finding the bugs hidden within the code is hard. Bugs, like the sound bug, are especially hard to find as they are not deterministic, i.e., can not be reproduced reliably.

 

View PostDorander, on 05 June 2018 - 11:36 AM, said:

Secondly, there's always the risk of breaking something else when you patch, patches need proper testing, which may be time-consuming.

 

It can sometimes take well over a month before a bug fix is in production. All changes have to be tested in the test environment and then have to wait for the next deployment cycle. If you are deploying on a monthly basis and just missed the last deployment, you'll have to wait another month for the next deployment. You should also avoid hot fixing bugs, as the code in production is one deployment cycle behind the current code base which can lead to all kinds of conflicts and funny side effects. 

 

View PostDorander, on 05 June 2018 - 11:36 AM, said:

Perhaps the problem got stuck in committee, and they couldn't agree on the development team what the proper adjustments would be.

 

Happens more often than you'd think.

 

View PostDorander, on 05 June 2018 - 11:36 AM, said:

Not a programmer/developer myself, but even I can think of potential reasons why things go slowly.

 

You can safely drop the potential :P

 

EDIT: Balance changes should be mostly independent of the rest of the code base though and could easily be deployed more frequently.


Edited by lgfrbcsgo, 05 June 2018 - 12:12 PM.


Balc0ra #10 Posted 05 June 2018 - 12:40 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64443 battles
  • 15,457
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
WG never dined it was overperforming. But nerfing it in a few days with a micro-patch, without balance checking it to see it's new effect is equally stupid. 

Edited by Balc0ra, 05 June 2018 - 12:40 PM.


Junglist_ #11 Posted 05 June 2018 - 12:43 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36006 battles
  • 1,332
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013

View PostSimeon85, on 05 June 2018 - 09:55 AM, said:

This is a PC game, WG can patch whenever they want, so why do we have to wait for 3 months plus and major patch before something like the Bobject gets nerfed?

 

It's obviously been OP from day one (it was obviously OP from the first released stats but that is another issue), it's annoying loads of players, it's now ruining the CW campaign, why not just bring in a micro-patch to nerf it?

 

 

Exactly why it's obvious that it's a bussines decision and has nothing to do with actual balance



Thejagdpanther #12 Posted 05 June 2018 - 12:54 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34113 battles
  • 4,341
  • [TKBS] TKBS
  • Member since:
    07-16-2012

Totally agree.

 

I'm playing They are Billions since the release of this winter and they are throwing out fix after fix without even change the number of the patch.

Now the game is more stable and of course they are concentrating on add new contents but the game passed after a ton of little fixes.

Of course the wot is bigger but damn, it's inconceivable that must pass MONTHS for understanding that some contents are broken and are bad for the game.



malachi6 #13 Posted 05 June 2018 - 01:11 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 49264 battles
  • 3,238
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
I am sure it is part of a business model.  Make a tank deliberately OP.  Encourage people to buy premium accounts / convert XP to get to it.  Nerf in an update or two.  Rinse, repeat = profit.  Says more about us players than  WG.

_Sensation_ #14 Posted 05 June 2018 - 01:19 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6651 battles
  • 529
  • [FAIME] FAIME
  • Member since:
    01-10-2017
Cause then they admit they did something wrong... And theyre Russians...

tankqull #15 Posted 05 June 2018 - 01:35 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20542 battles
  • 1,477
  • [-FD-] -FD-
  • Member since:
    08-31-2011
because with regular micro patches you do not spend cash to free-xp the flavour of the month.

arthurwellsley #16 Posted 05 June 2018 - 01:51 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 51268 battles
  • 2,814
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

1. Igfrbcsgo gives a good example of why patching large critical systems is much harder than it would seem to the lay person.

 

2. Through work I became aware that Transport for London were moving to a new system. Instead of the major patches they were putting software engineers into much smaller groups, giving them a tigher deadline, but asking for each of these smaller tighter deadline groups to make more minor changes, and then adding them incrementally when ready rather than having larger groups working on larger patches. Seems to be working quite well for TfL so far, and there is talk about trying to export their systems and ways of operating. So maybe one to watch.[You would not believe the ridiculous in house name they have for the small groups].

 

3. A recent example of large patches going very wrong is https://www.bbc.co.u...siness-43890408

even WG have performed better than TSB.


Edited by arthurwellsley, 05 June 2018 - 01:53 PM.


Somnorila #17 Posted 05 June 2018 - 01:51 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 55694 battles
  • 2,020
  • [4-YOU] 4-YOU
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostThe_Georgian_One, on 05 June 2018 - 11:35 AM, said:

This seems to be WG's business model, especially with the OP tanks. They need to milk the community before they can fix them.

 

Of course, but how are they milking the community through bugs like jumping_turtle talked about? 



The_Georgian_One #18 Posted 05 June 2018 - 02:28 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35225 battles
  • 1,578
  • [KOFN] KOFN
  • Member since:
    01-05-2015

View PostSomnorila, on 05 June 2018 - 01:51 PM, said:

 

Of course, but how are they milking the community through bugs like jumping_turtle talked about?

 

They don't. They just have a schedule for patches and they stick to it. Because they really don't care about the customer satisfaction as long as they are getting paid.

Lord_Barbarozza #19 Posted 05 June 2018 - 03:39 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 6061 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015

It saves them time and money, WG like to see how things fare before they evaluate and then 6 months later put out a 1 GB patch. Which allows them to postpone fixing minor things meanwhile.

 

The main reason IS(Iousef Stalin) WG do not play their own game in such a way the active community plays it. If WG dont feel the pain of their own game then they wont feel the frustration of the players.

Problem is not only they dont play their own game properly, but they hesitate to listen to the feedback.

 

AND WHEN THEY REPLY TO THE FEEDBACK IN AN UPDATE YOU FIND VERY LITTLE WHAT THE COMMUNITY SAID AND INSTEAD YOU READ ABOUT WG BAD LOGIC AND EVEN LIES.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users