A bit concerned about the promise of a patch a week

[Sensuki]

I thought I'd just make a post regarding Brandon Adler's post on weekly patches

 

We are hoping that we can start releasing patches weekly at some point.

 

The current rate of patches is probably a little bit slow, but I also think that a patch every week might be a bit too quick. 

 

inXile promised weekly patches for Wasteland 2 during the beta but were unable to achieve it because the studio/team was simply not built for that quick of a turnover. You guys likely have a larger in house team than they did (I guess?) and have been adding extra programmers over the last few months (nice to hear that Dan Spitzley is on the team ).

 

You guys might be able to handle a patch a week, but is a patch a week worth it ?

 

The beta backers are not on the project full time, and while many people are usually pretty keen on a patch day, it's because the wait for the patch was long and people have been hanging out for it. I have a feeling that a patch a week will kill many people's enthusiasm and result in less overall testing being done, especially when the smaller patches will not be containing 'big' changes like the last few have.

 

Most of the bug reports come in the first week of the new patch, particularly in the first few days, and then bug reports slow down. Suggestions/new threads tend to come after a few days/bit longer as people have had a chance to thoroughly play the new version and formulate an opinion.

 

I think every two weeks would probably be more ideal, it would allow you enough time to get in moderate fixes, it gives more of the backer base time to get to try the build and it at least allows for some anticipation. There are a lot of people that are simply jumping into the new patch for an hour or two and posting about it on the forums, and this is reflected in the hours logged on their steam profile. I don't know if a patch a week gives people enough time to fully test the patch - particularly with stuff like changes to ability and spell mechanics, it's very hard to go through all the classes in a week and respond to the changes, particularly when the changes are not documented (as they were not in the last patch).

 

I think this could end up promoting less 'thorough' testing overall.

 

I might be wrong, but I thought I'd post my concerns anyway.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Sensuki

[Nonek]

Patches, we don't need no stinking patches.

[vril]

I suspect the reason they'd become weekly is that right now they're taking large swipes at bugs and some of them are very large and take weeks to figure out.  They're probably hoping at some point the bug list will begin to get smaller and less critical, thus the ability to release mini-patches weekly.

[Hormalakh]

I thought I'd just make a post regarding Brandon Adler's post on weekly patches

 

We are hoping that we can start releasing patches weekly at some point.

 

The current rate of patches is probably a little bit slow, but I also think that a patch every week might be a bit too quick. 

 

inXile promised weekly patches for Wasteland 2 during the beta but were unable to achieve it because the studio/team was simply not built for that quick of a turnover. You guys likely have a larger in house team than they did (I guess?) and have been adding extra programmers over the last few months (nice to hear that Dan Spitzley is on the team ).

 

You guys might be able to handle a patch a week, but is a patch a week worth it ?

 

The beta backers are not on the project full time, and while many people are usually pretty keen on a patch day, it's because the wait for the patch was long and people have been hanging out for it. I have a feeling that a patch a week will kill many people's enthusiasm and result in less overall testing being done, especially when the smaller patches will not be containing 'big' changes like the last few have.

 

Most of the bug reports come in the first week of the new patch, particularly in the first few days, and then bug reports slow down. Suggestions/new threads tend to come after a few days/bit longer as people have had a chance to thoroughly play the new version and formulate an opinion.

 

I think every two weeks would probably be more ideal, it would allow you enough time to get in moderate fixes, it gives more of the backer base time to get to try the build and it at least allows for some anticipation. There are a lot of people that are simply jumping into the new patch for an hour or two and posting about it on the forums, and this is reflected in the hours logged on their steam profile. I don't know if a patch a week gives people enough time to fully test the patch - particularly with stuff like changes to ability and spell mechanics, it's very hard to go through all the classes in a week and respond to the changes, particularly when the changes are not documented (as they were not in the last patch).

 

I think this could end up promoting less 'thorough' testing overall.

 

I might be wrong, but I thought I'd post my concerns anyway.

 

it's not our job to test for them. if we find bugs and report our experiences that should be enough. They also can but -likely wont- change everything in the beta every week. For completionists like you, you can just test the parts that have been changed. That would require the devs to mention what changes they've made.

 

I think one week might be a little ambitious because of the overhead time it takes to upload a patch and obsidian's "need to appease the backers" but a two weeker or a one and a half week per update shouldn't be too bad.

[Hormalakh]

also, giving more frequent beta updates will allow the devs to waste less time on things that the backers don't think matter too much and focus more time on things that do matter (like combat). if the up[dates are too far apart, the devs will be going down a path and then changing course (after having spent too much resources in that way).

[DCParry]

 

I thought I'd just make a post regarding Brandon Adler's post on weekly patches

 

We are hoping that we can start releasing patches weekly at some point.

 

The current rate of patches is probably a little bit slow, but I also think that a patch every week might be a bit too quick. 

 

inXile promised weekly patches for Wasteland 2 during the beta but were unable to achieve it because the studio/team was simply not built for that quick of a turnover. You guys likely have a larger in house team than they did (I guess?) and have been adding extra programmers over the last few months (nice to hear that Dan Spitzley is on the team ).

 

You guys might be able to handle a patch a week, but is a patch a week worth it ?

 

The beta backers are not on the project full time, and while many people are usually pretty keen on a patch day, it's because the wait for the patch was long and people have been hanging out for it. I have a feeling that a patch a week will kill many people's enthusiasm and result in less overall testing being done, especially when the smaller patches will not be containing 'big' changes like the last few have.

 

Most of the bug reports come in the first week of the new patch, particularly in the first few days, and then bug reports slow down. Suggestions/new threads tend to come after a few days/bit longer as people have had a chance to thoroughly play the new version and formulate an opinion.

 

I think every two weeks would probably be more ideal, it would allow you enough time to get in moderate fixes, it gives more of the backer base time to get to try the build and it at least allows for some anticipation. There are a lot of people that are simply jumping into the new patch for an hour or two and posting about it on the forums, and this is reflected in the hours logged on their steam profile. I don't know if a patch a week gives people enough time to fully test the patch - particularly with stuff like changes to ability and spell mechanics, it's very hard to go through all the classes in a week and respond to the changes, particularly when the changes are not documented (as they were not in the last patch).

 

I think this could end up promoting less 'thorough' testing overall.

 

I might be wrong, but I thought I'd post my concerns anyway.

 

it's not our job to test for them. if we find bugs and report our experiences that should be enough. They also can but -likely wont- change everything in the beta every week. For completionists like you, you can just test the parts that have been changed. That would require the devs to mention what changes they've made.

 

I think one week might be a little ambitious because of the overhead time it takes to upload a patch and obsidian's "need to appease the backers" but a two weeker or a one and a half week per update shouldn't be too bad.

 

 

Of course, then one wonders what the point of such rapid patches actually is. To me, it feels like any sort of plan that Obsidian had has gone out the window. Hopefully I am wrong. 

[Cubiq]

I won't be testing combat anymore untill the next update, so i can see what is actally a bug, what isn't, and what direction do they even plan to go down.

Nothing i posted in the bug report forum got a confirmation on wheter or not that is intended.

[Hormalakh]

 

Of course, then one wonders what the point of such rapid patches actually is. To me, it feels like any sort of plan that Obsidian had has gone out the window. Hopefully I am wrong. 

 

 

i said it in my second post: earlier feedback means less time and resources wasted on things that are getting bad feedback. see also cubiq's response.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Sensuki]

also, giving more frequent beta updates will allow the devs to waste less time on things that the backers don't think matter too much and focus more time on things that do matter (like combat). if the up[dates are too far apart, the devs will be going down a path and then changing course (after having spent too much resources in that way).

 

That's a good point, they have made a few changes in the recent patch which I really disliked but if they are made optional it should be ok.

[Cubiq]

We'll I'll admit it's a double edge argument on the release time. If they push out an unstable build that keeps crashing then they will lose a week of feedback.

It's a shame i can't test combat, but if they feel that the build isn't stable then i think they shouldn't release it.

[Karkarov]

Personally I concur with Sensuki, weekly isn't really needed.  I think a patch every two weeks would be a pretty solid rate though.  Gives time for feedback, lets the posters see what there is to see, and gives time for the devs to disseminate all of that info and make some changes for the next patch that won't just be trivial or minor tweaks.

[morhilane]

People don't get it, you shoot for a weekly patch and end up delivering something every two weeks.

[Marceror]

Based on what I've seen, I'm doubtful that weekly patches will ever happen. We can't even get a patch released every 2 weeks, which was the original projection. And more, what's the rush? We have some time.

 

I'd be totally okay with monthly backer updates that can all show meaningful progress in the game's development life cycle, and which minimizes resources having to worry about getting the "perfect update" out to backers on such a consistent basis.

[Marceror]

People don't get it, you shoot for a weekly patch and end up delivering something every two weeks.

You must not be familiar with the concept of under promising and over delivering. If you want weekly patches, tell everyone every two weeks, and you might just achieve or slightly exceed your commitment. You don't say weekly and set everyone up for disappointment.

[Lephys]

I am rather surprised that they seem to only be using a forum to collect bug reports. I don't know how extensive it is to set up a bug-reporting system in the actual beta program itself, but I would think that would work a lot better, automatically categorizing and sorting the bug reports before they even get to the team, AND making it that much more convenient to snap a screenie, type a report, and attach and send, then continue playing.

 

*Shrug*

[morhilane]

 

People don't get it, you shoot for a weekly patch and end up delivering something every two weeks.

You must not be familiar with the concept of under promising and over delivering. If you want weekly patches, tell everyone every two weeks, and you might just achieve or slightly exceed your commitment. You don't say weekly and set everyone up for disappointment.

 

 

I'm very familiar with software development and always busting the delivery date actually

[Rumsteak]

I am rather surprised that they seem to only be using a forum to collect bug reports. I don't know how extensive it is to set up a bug-reporting system in the actual beta program itself, but I would think that would work a lot better, automatically categorizing and sorting the bug reports before they even get to the team, AND making it that much more convenient to snap a screenie, type a report, and attach and send, then continue playing.

 

*Shrug*

 

They're copy/pasting forum bug reports into a bug tracker of their own. So it's fine really, they don't have too much overhead (as long as people follow the general actual/expected/etc structure). Most of the time they don't even need to copy/paste since most bugs were already reported by their QA team.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Rumsteak

[Lephys]

^ I suppose. 8P

[teknoman2]

the key here is "hoping...at some point", meaning they will try it if they think it's possible to be done. 

[Aigni]

I'm okay with the "less but bigger patch releases" philosophy. This allows (at least for me) to test each patch and look for changes. Weekly releases will be somewhat chaotic and probably more buggy (less in house testing).

[wanderon]

the key here is "hoping...at some point", meaning they will try it if they think it's possible to be done. 

 

Perhaps what they are saying is they are hoping at some point the number of things needing fixing will dwindle to the point where a new build every week showing the latest polish makes sense. 

[Azrael Ultima]

Nothing i posted in the bug report forum got a confirmation on wheter or not that is intended.

Get used to it. That's normal.

 

It's not really worthwile to give a confirmation or denial to every report, especially when you don't have a dedicated community team to do so.

 

 

Also, this thread's title is a major misnomer. There is no promise involved in this anywhere.

As for the actual topic, it depends on what your goals are. Sometimes you need frequent iteration to test the impact of changes.

[Fiebras]

Right now theres very little discussion and feedback happening because most of the feedback on the last patch has already been given. I agree that weekly patches would be a bit too much but having a patch a month kinda slows down dicussion to a crawl tot he point were theres hardly any beyond bug reports (but if people arent testing because "Ive already tested this new patch" then you arent gonna get that many bug reports and some others have never even completed the beta´s every nook and cranny for various reasons). Id say every 2 weeks would be nice.

[Lephys]

It would be nice, methinks (where applicable) if they'd take the feedback for a week or so after a new patch, then present us with a developer-created poll, in the backer beta forums, so that they could gather more useful feedback specifically on options/changes they're currently considering. Since it would be posted AFTER they take in a bunch of feedback from us, anything they hadn't already thought of but liked as an option would be included. *shrug*

 

It just feels really inefficient (even though I get that it's not pointless, and is, indeed, helping them) for us to all just play the beta build, then spew out a bunch of feedback. It'd be nice, at least, to know (after we've voiced our initial feedback and suggestions) what's actually on the table, and what isn't.

[wanderon]

It would be nice, methinks (where applicable) if they'd take the feedback for a week or so after a new patch, then present us with a developer-created poll, in the backer beta forums, so that they could gather more useful feedback specifically on options/changes they're currently considering. Since it would be posted AFTER they take in a bunch of feedback from us, anything they hadn't already thought of but liked as an option would be included. *shrug*

 

It just feels really inefficient (even though I get that it's not pointless, and is, indeed, helping them) for us to all just play the beta build, then spew out a bunch of feedback. It'd be nice, at least, to know (after we've voiced our initial feedback and suggestions) what's actually on the table, and what isn't.

 

Yes that's what we need more stuff to argue about