It would not be the end of the world to give a tiny buff to machineguns tomorrow, then another tiny one the week after, until some semblance of balance was achieved.
0
Streamline Whatever Process Is Being Used For Minor Tweaks
Started by Sephlock, Apr 29 2013 01:49 PM
5 replies to this topic
#2
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 8,160 posts
Member
- LocationWazan, Zion Cluster
Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:01 PM
It costs money to push content.
I get the frustration, I'm used to big developers with big publishers behind them, where DLC was nothing and patches were almost weekly.
But I also get the concept of saving money unless it's REALLY important.
Recent data I've seen is $40k/patch for a console game, I don't know how well that translates to a PC title, but if it's similar. that's the average cost of a programmers yearly salary every month, on a two week patch cycle.
I get the frustration, I'm used to big developers with big publishers behind them, where DLC was nothing and patches were almost weekly.
But I also get the concept of saving money unless it's REALLY important.
Recent data I've seen is $40k/patch for a console game, I don't know how well that translates to a PC title, but if it's similar. that's the average cost of a programmers yearly salary every month, on a two week patch cycle.
#3
-
-
- 1,454 posts
Member
- LocationEast Coast, US
Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:02 PM
I think this is the purpose the test server is being created.
#4
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 10,819 posts
Member
Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:04 PM
How hard can it possibly be to change a value by 0.01 every week? They could probably automate the process.
Will that really help all that much though? The problem is the pace at which things are being addressed, and the lackluster way in which they are addressed.
FrostCollar, on 29 April 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:
I think this is the purpose the test server is being created.
Will that really help all that much though? The problem is the pace at which things are being addressed, and the lackluster way in which they are addressed.
#5
-
-
- 1,454 posts
Member
- LocationEast Coast, US
Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:08 PM
Sephlock, on 29 April 2013 - 02:04 PM, said:
Will that really help all that much though? The problem is the pace at which things are being addressed, and the lackluster way in which they are addressed.
I didn't say it would and I'm not sure it will. However, I still think that's part of the justification. PGI has shown a greater concern for stability rather than immediate fixes. Perhaps they think too many changes in a short period will scare off new players.
#6
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 10,819 posts
Member
Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:13 PM
FrostCollar, on 29 April 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:
I didn't say it would and I'm not sure it will. However, I still think that's part of the justification. PGI has shown a greater concern for stability rather than immediate fixes. Perhaps they think too many changes in a short period will scare off new players.
That's generally true, but its worth comparing the pace and nature of buffs to machineguns vs, say... nerfs to LRMs.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
