Patches: Small and frequent, or Large and infrequent???

[White Elk]

Would you prefer rapid batches of small patches which fixed the game incrementally and overtime; or do you prefer the long waits for big honkin patches which contain all the fixes? Or in other words, would you like to have some things fixed ASAP and not be delayed by other fixes; or do you not mind waiting for the whole kit and kaboodle?


I don't know how reasonable "rapid batches of small patches" would be from the developer side of this game; but I can't help but wonder if the patches would be more reliable if they didn't try to tackle so much in one patch. From the gamer side, I would much prefer the frequent small patch over the infrequent mega patch. I would like to get some fixes ASAP instead of having some things delayed.

 

[Craterus22]

I don't know how reasonable "rapid batches of small patches" would be from the developer side of this game; but I can't help but wonder if the patches would be more reliable if they didn't try to tackle so much in one patch.

Couldn't agree more... in the business world (I know - I know - that doesn't apply here) we prioritize issues and determine how long our customers should be inflicted with different levels of wrongness.

Some issues are prioritized for fix ASAP and others are lower priority.

 

[CivAgamemnon]

Small fixes are the way to go. Much more sensible, easier to keep track of, easier to test, and much more efficient. Look at how quickly Bhruic came up with some fixes to the 3.13 patch. This kind of thing is perfect!

 

[jray]

Large and infrequent for me, since I feel like the game is unplayable without mods, and it takes a while for mods to adjust to patches. If they ever integrate the BUG mod into vanilla and actually stick with the paradigm of aggressively developing awesome features for streamlined gameplay, then I'll waffle over to the "small and frequent" side. I don't mind waiting a while for a patch. I just want 'em to get the darn things right!

 

[Blaarg]

I'm just happy they're patching at all, a lot of video game studios don't really bother after one or two.

 

[Shoot the Moon]

I think small "Beta" patches may be the way to go. By beta, I mean that the patches have not gone through quality assurance and are basically out there for people who want the fix quickly, but the patches are not guaranteed to work completely (kinda like what Solver did, only a little more official). T
Then there could also be a large patch that goes through quality assurance and is the "official" patch.

 

[White Elk]

Yeah jray I didn't think about the Mods. And for me the Mods are a Huge part of this game. To just name my top two... FFH and Ryhes are both better than the epic game in my mind. Firaxis was very wise to invest in the time and energy it took to develop such a Mod friendly game. They earned a great deal of brownie points for that!

I suppose I should have selected the "Something Else". That being that the initial release of the game be solid to begin with so there is no need for Major patching. Just some minor tweaks and polish along with the unforeseeable software compatibility and other unfortunate yet understandable issues.

 

[DigitalBoy]

Honestly, I like lots of little patches. I couldn't explain exactly why, except to say that I like the feeling that the game is always being improved and built upon a small bit at a time.

 

[Powerslave]

Actually, I don't care nearly as much about mods as I do about having a core game that works. I can make my own mods or adapt mods made by other people, which work with the current, small and frequent patch.

Most mods are simply XML tweaks, anyway. The ones that aren't usually have maintainers who are competent enough to know how to quickly adjust to new features or changed APIs.

 

[reclaimer122]

I would definitely pick small but frequent patches. The only exception would be when they try to release a patch that fixes two unimportant bugs because they have nothing else to fix

 

[White Elk]

I think small "Beta" patches may be the way to go. By beta, I mean that the patches have not gone through quality assurance and are basically out there for people who want the fix quickly, but the patches are not guaranteed to work completely (kinda like what Solver did, only a little more official). T
Then there could also be a large patch that goes through quality assurance and is the "official" patch.

I like that idea and it sounds great on the surface. Some of us feel like Beta Testers already anyway ;~P And in this way the Modders would get some heads up as to the changes and they would have the opportunity to play an even more proactive role than they do already. I would think that software and hardware compatibility issues would be more readily resolved, and little things like this latest culture bug could not possibly slip past. The casual Civer can kick back and wait for in game updates while the fanatic Civer can sit on the edge of their seats for the next Beta tweak.

Of course organizing all these people into something more effective than a mob would be something of a task. But I wouldn't think it would be all that much more than what takes to manage a massive fan forums like CFC. And I don't know that Firaxis would have to relegate any human resources for this so long as there was some leadership by Civer volunteers who could communicate effectively and efficiently. Firaxis is already obviously involved with fan feedback via fan forums, so perhaps if this was done well then they would actually save time by being able to access abridged and focused fan feedback?

 

[mjs0]

I voted 'something else...'

Almost 25 years in S/W devt doing everything from QA Testing to Lead Developer to Field Support to Architect to VP of Development has taught me that there is no one correct approach.

You have to be flexible and adapt to the circumstances, modern development methodologies make this easier but even back in the day of monolithic systems and 'waterfall' development when a customer raised a Sev 1 or 2 problem you had to react fast. Either you put in place a plan to fix it and deliver a solution ASAP regardless of other development priorities, or you got replaced by someone who could!

Obviously there is no such thing as a real Sev 1 for games but there should still be a process for delivering important fixes to game breaking issues on a different schedule to design changes and minor fixes that can be rolled up into a larger service pack type deliverable.

So the correct answer is both...regular small updates for critical issues and larger planned fixes on longer schedules for the rest especially significant design changes that require extensive balancing.

I must admit the thing that confuses me the most is the reticence of the developers to make better use of the tremendous community resources available for beta testing. It is so much easier to fix problems before they get released that an open beta of new fixes through a willing community of users should be a no-brainer. I would have been thrilled to have such an opportunity to beta test more thoroughly some of the projects I ran.

Off topic...but for the record...my most memorable sev 1s involved:

Spoiler :

...a police department and a total outage of their online criminal database. (Sorry officer, the computer is still down so there is no way to tell you whether that license plate you just called in is a stolen car driven by a gang member or just Aunt Daisy who had one sherry too many at the WI meeting again)
...A nuclear power station. (Don't ask!)

 

[Will9]

Small and Frequent patches would be too buggy. I vote for somewhere inbetween.

 

[White Elk]

I must admit the thing that confuses me the most is the reticence of the developers to make better use of the tremendous community resources available for beta testing. It is so much easier to fix problems before they get released that an open beta of new fixes through a willing community of users should be a no-brainer. I would have been thrilled to have such an opportunity to beta test more thoroughly some of the projects I ran.

I agree so much that I think I must be missing something. Why wouldn't they use this vast volunteer resource of fanatical civers? Particularly since there has been so much fan negativity in regards to Quality and Assurance testing? Ever since Civ4 was released a vocal minority has expressed dismay about 'paying to be a beta tester' (as in buying a buggy product requiring heavy patching, which in turn requires patching etc..). I sense that this minority is rapidly growing. But I would suspect that many of them would be quite happy to be actual Beta testers if given the opportunity. Those that don't participate in the Beta program would benefit from those that will. Problem solved... right?

So why doesn't Firaxis take this Beta patch approach? Does it involve questions of proprietary rights or something? Or is it just a question of logistics? From my angle on this I would think the managing of it would be near as simple as managing a large forums such as CFC. And the human resource could be in large part, if not in the whole, volunteers. The financial resources required, including the forums hosting and the releasing of the patches etc, is a mystery to me. But I can't help but think of the phrase "a stitch in time saves nine". Resources are expended fixing broken fixes. Perhaps expending a little more resource towards preventative patching would be cost effective? On the surface it sounds about right.. but of course I know nothing of the mechanics which govern planet Firaxia.

But I do know that Firaxis takes time to incorporate fan feedback into their plans. I don't know if this occurs on the 'payroll' or if Civing Fanatics at Firaxis use their own time for this. In any case I don't see how Firaxis would be bogged down, or have to expend a great deal of resource to manage this when there is such an active CivCom from which they could draw upon. If the input from a mob of testers can be organized and abridged into focused feedback by a few volunteer leaders, then Firaxians wouldn't have to wade through the muck of OT chat, longwinded posters such as myself etc. They could cut right to the chase and glean kernels of relevance from the harvests of the beta group moderators. Think along the lines of an expanded version of the good works that ainwood has done in the "Civ4 BTS - Bug Reports" forum, and that which Methos did with the "Civ IV: Beyond the Sword Info Center". Information collected, sorted, graded, abridged and presented for efficient effect.

 

[Psyringe]

I'd like small and frequent beta patches (on a "use at own risk, and we're grateful for bug reports" base), and bigger "official" patches which should then be thoroughly tested.

We have a community of people who are not only quick in finding and reporting bugs, but even in fixing some of them. Firaxis should make better use of this resource. This system works very well for Stardock, I think it would work even better for Firaxis (due to the larger community).

 

[Ethric]

I'd settle for patches that does what they're supposed without breaking anything new (and in that regard support Psyringe in wanting betas for testing, at least in cases such as this with 3.13 where the developers don't seem to have the resources to do any testing themselves).

As for size/frequency: not too big, and not too small A patch for any fix right away would be a dreadful tedium of work, whilst waiting too long to catch as much stuff as possible makes it unwieldy.

 

[marioflag]

Small and Frequent patches would be a lot better particularly if there are serious bugs, because ome of the most urgent bugs would be fixed earlier, and if new problem arises with patches they could be spotted a lot earlier without waiting longer times.
I could support huge patches and longer times if they would allow public beta testing of patches like what Stardock is doing with GC2.