What do you think about monthly rebalances in the most recent fighting games?

[Jyu_Viole_Grace]

Recently I'm noticing that in games like Smash Bros Ultimate, SoulCalibur VI and now Dead or Alive 6 (with a new rebalance coming this week), devs are willing to tweak the mechanics and characters monthly or each two months, something unthinkable years ago where rebalance patches were common mostly only for re-releases.

SoulCalibur VI had some drama due the team tweaking the game balance also having online players into consideration and even adding some new moves in the most recent patch to a game that isn't even a year old.

This may bring more activity to the games, because people will always have something new to look but this also requires to be constantly re-learning the games, something really hard if you play two.

This also makes me wonder if now people is more impatient instead to working hard in techs and just want "broken characters" being "fixed" as sooner as better.

What do you think about this "trend"?. Me as someone that is used to old fighting games this is something that is getting hard to be used to.

 

[Raansu]

I hate it. Let the game flesh itself out first. If something is super broken then fix it, but the constant tweaks makes it hard for tournaments, especially of theres some major changes right before a big event.

Revisions are fine, but they should be like once a year kind of a thing. And I feel this way for any game really. One of the reasons I stopped playing overwatch was because of the constant patching. My favorite character changed so much that I could never adjust and now hes unrecognizable from his original play style.

 

[KasumiLover]

I don't think it should be a monthly thing since that'll make all players fear who's gonna get buffed and nerfed but maybe a knock off T7 season rebalance would be good where characters get needed overhauls in the beginning of each season but only if needed

 

[Strangerinmytub]

I think every two months is a good schedule for balance changes in DOA6 for several reasons.

1. It's 2019 we shouldn't have to deal with horrible balance issues or busted characters for years when the technology exists to fix it overnight.
2. There aren't enough characters or a large enough playerbase to justify monthly balance changes, but considering that the game is still early in its lifetime it is completely OK to make bi-monthly balance changes.
3. Game balance is iterative, you can only find the best balance by releasing patches and seeing how they play out. Let's say you collect two years worth of data and release a massive balance patch based on that data. When the new patch comes out people may end up discovering that certain characters are now way too strong or way too weak, there might be unforeseen balance issues that the devs didn't expect, maybe the DLC characters are fundamentalbusted. Do you force yourself to wait 2 more years to change these characters? Do you force these players to deal with awful or overpowered characters for extended periods of time? If you never change the game you will never be able to pinpoint what the ideal numbers are.

 

[Rubedood]

This is a surefire way to make pro players hate your game. There is absolutely no way you can make a proper suggestion on balance unless the games been out for at least a few months, because it takes time to make notes and to agree on these things. Buffing/Nerfing shit a month in means you're only listening to the loudest, most annoying players. Only major bugs and glitches should be patched out early on.

 

[RayBellion]

Companies like Blizzard are renowned for balance patching even after many years of play (e.g. Starcraft) and they get praise for it. MMORPGs get balance patches constantly, too, in part because the game world/level cap etc. is evolving. Patching of game mechanics is becoming a habit like day one patches are already (which were once an uncommon thing). I think I remember several high profile players complaining about NRS since they balance patched MKX too often (have no own experience here, though). It's a growing thing and I do not like it. Changes in the game mechanics devalue prior playing time and gained experience. I'd prefer balance patches to be restricted to the removal of glitches or game breaking issues and to be rare.

 

[TheTHCGamer]

There are so many variables to a fighting game and all it takes is one move being over powered to make a character seem stronger then they really are.

Without wanting to get too technical in my opinion the soonest you should be doing any MINOR balance changes is every 3 months and even that for me is pushing it.

Ideally if it was up to me I would try for minor balance changes every 6 months to appease impatient fans. We have to remember bug fixes themselves are often times balance changes.

 

[Raansu]

Companies like Blizzard are renowned for balance patching even after many years of play (e.g. Starcraft) and they get praise for it. MMORPGs get balance patches constantly, too, in part because the game world/level cap etc. is evolving. Patching of game mechanics is becoming a habit like day one patches are already (which were once an uncommon thing). I think I remember several high profile players complaining about NRS since they balance patched MKX too often (have no own experience here, though). It's a growing thing and I do not like it. Changes in the game mechanics devalue prior playing time and gained experience. I'd prefer balance patches to be restricted to the removal of glitches or game breaking issues and to be rare.

Blizzard does not get praised for their balance patches. The ones that pay attention to their patches hate what Blizzard does because they "fix" what didn't need to be fixed and then turn a balanced character broken. Blizzards balancing is a joke.

 

[Brute]

Some people need a considerable amount of time to digest things. Other people don't need months to confirm what they can discern in much less time.

 

[Strangerinmytub]

Some people need a considerable amount of time to digest things. Other people don't need months to confirm what they can discern in much less time.

I agree that you don't need 6+ months to realize some things need to be rebalanced, but why do you have to phrase it in such an insulting and pretentious way? No one is levitating over the rest of us with their 9000 IQ intellect just because they figured out Rig can't be throw punished after SSA.

 

[Brute]

I agree that you don't need 6+ months to realize some things need to be rebalanced, but why do you have to phrase it in such an insulting and pretentious way? No one is levitating over the rest of us with their 9000 IQ intellect just because they figured out Rig can't be throw punished after SSA.

I don't think it's possible to re-phrase that point in a way that wouldn't sound condescending to someone, but it still bears mentioning.

Hypothetically, an excellent fighting game simply wouldn't need frequent balancing patches since the base game state would be properly considered prior to release. But now there's a trend where devs release games that clearly aren't finished, partially with respect to content/features, but it's also with respect to gameplay mechanics. Make no mistake, Team Ninja released a game that is still in development. Games in development are frequently updated and adjusted. That's inevitable. The alternative would be to simply not finish the game.

There are some people who think that you can't properly assess certain elements, dynamics or mechanics until X amount of time has passed, and the time assigned is generally some absurdly long period that is debilitating both to the game's progress and to its community. The longer they wait to finish their game, the more the game and its playerbase suffer.

TL;DR version: The people who insist that changes are bad are generally the aspiring "competitive" egos that glorify the ability to "adapt" anyway, so pandering to them at the expense of refining a rough draft is pretty pointless.

 

[RayBellion]

Some people need a considerable amount of time to digest things. Other people don't need months to confirm what they can discern in much less time.

Don't you underestimate the complexity of the system? To see that something might be broken is one thing, but to fix it in a way that doesn't break something somewhere else is much more difficult.

There are some people who think that you can't properly assess certain elements, dynamics or mechanics until X amount of time has passed, and the time assigned is generally some absurdly long period that is debilitating both to the game's progress but also to its community. The longer they wait to finish their game, the more the game and its playerbase suffer.

I see your point that the game's not finished yet. But frantically turning screws can do more ill than good. Diagnosting a desease and finding the right cure are two different things with very different time requirements. Re-Balancing too often (because you hadn't done it right the first few patches) can have a negative effect as well.

TL;DR version: The people who insist that changes are bad are generally the aspiring "competitive" egos that glorify the ability to "adapt" anyway, so patting them on the back at the expense of refining a rough draft is pretty pointless to me.

I have a limited amount of free time - IMHO that's the main reason why I don't want to re-learn mechanics. But indeed, I want to get better at mastering them, so in a way I have a competitive mind (though I dislike your use of double quotes for this word). But wanting to gid gud and wanting to re-learn how the mechanics are broken this time are different things: Learning to understand a mechanic is progress, but forgetting things you'd already learned mechanic-wise is an annoying back-step.

TL;DR: Don't rush balancing. You might do it wrong and you might frustrate players of all levels just for making adjustments (as I've read above, players much better than me seem to hate re-balancing as well). Of course, one can frustrate players for not patching, too...

 

[Brute]

Don't you underestimate the complexity of the system?

No.

I see your point that the game's not finished yet. But frantically turning screws can do more ill than good. Diagnosting a desease and finding the right cure are two different things with very different time requirements. Re-Balancing too often (because you hadn't done it right the first few patches) can have a negative effect as well.

I have a limited amount of free time - IMHO that's the main reason why I don't want to re-learn mechanics. But indeed, I want to get better at mastering them, so in a way I have a competitive mind (though I dislike your use of double quotes for this word). But wanting to gid gud and wanting to re-learn how the mechanics are broken this time are different things: Learning to understand a mechanic is progress, but forgetting things you'd already learned mechanic-wise is an annoying back-step.

TL;DR: Don't rush balancing. You might do it wrong and you might frustrate players of all levels just for making adjustments (as I've read above, players much better than me seem to hate re-balancing as well). Of course, one can frustrate players for not patching, too...

Yes, you absolutely can get things wrong by rushing changes. You can also get stuff wrong after five years of stagnation.

Making changes, additions or alterations is always going to be something of a gamble, so my general philosophy is that attempts to modify something should scale inversely with its present competence. If something is a mess, it's probably better to try and tackle the problems than just leave it a miserable heap in the corner. When a publisher releases an incomplete game, I'm generally more willing to roll the dice. Worst case scenario, at the end of it all, it's still a mess. Best case scenario, it cleans itself up a little.

 

[Kuga]

Of course that rebalancing patches are needed. Even once a month if they are (rarely) well considered ones.

I dont get why that would be bad in terms of tournaments. Famous pro players are getting paid to learn and play the game. Its their job.
And all other players, well - do you prefer to adjust a little to minimal changes each month, or to learn character almost from scratch after one huge patch with lots od changes once a half/full year?

Real problem is not really how much of these patches are out, but what changes they implement in them. Its often a blind circle in my opinion. But that's a talk for another topic.

 

[Raansu]

Some people need a considerable amount of time to digest things. Other people don't need months to confirm what they can discern in much less time.

That's not the fucking point and you know it. Good players can adapt just fine, but the lack of consistency is not a good thing. Having a character changed within days of a tournament is not a good thing.

 

[UncleKitchener]

You need to give a few months before balancing a game. So far, I think the game is alright. Some minor things such as SSA ignoring shallow hits.

If they change the game too often, it'll just be early DOA5 all over again. 5U and LR pretty much had everything balaned out nicely for the most part that TN only needed to balance the game every couple months. We're in a good place regarding changes where immediate changes like infinites and bugs can be fixed in a matter of a week or two.

 

[Brute]

That's not the fucking point and you know it. Good players can adapt just fine, but the lack of consistency is not a good thing. Having a character changed within days of a tournament is not a good thing.

Keeping a bad game in a bad state is also not a good thing. If the good players adapt fine then there's no sense in pushing things out.

If you can fix something at the eleventh hour, fix it. If tourney-mongers are really that terrified of progress, the TO can opt not to update the game for a couple days and host the tournament with the previous patch. Any more than a few days and players can be reasonably expected to have adjusted to the changes that come with patches. At that point it's not a logistical concern so much as a sentimental one.

 

[Raansu]

You're mixing fixes with balance patches. Its one thing to fix bugs/infinites etc....but I'm talking about character changes that impact the character in a negative or positive way when said character is balanced and doesn't need any changes. Fixing something like SSA pushback so that a -15 is actually -15? Yes 100% patch that. Constantly tweaking characters though is not a good thing. Its literally the biggest reason I stopped playing overwatch.

 

[Brute]

You're mixing fixes with balance patches.

No, I'm not. If it takes more than a few days to adjust to a move changing from -6 to -8 on guard that's entirely on the player.
There are very few changes that ever "need" to be made. You could make Nyo's P+K +8 on guard or some crazy shit and it still wouldn't "need" to be fixed. There would be ways to combat that. But if it were +8, should it be changed? Yes. Delaying those modifications to preserve the competitive integrity of a half-finished game is not at all compelling to me.

Overwatch gives certain kits complete overhauls. I don't think any FG character has changed through mere patches (within one game iteration) as drastically as Symmetra has since OW's launch, for example. That said, most of the reworked kits are actually better than their original incarnations, with a few exceptions. What's killing Overwatch, IMO, is the new heroes, who generally debut with busted kits that can't really be salvaged without remaking the character from the ground up.

 

[RayBellion]

If it takes more than a few days to adjust to a move changing from -6 to -8 on guard that's entirely on the player.

I do not see it that clear-cut. The dose makes the poison. Multiple adjustments at regular intervals might overstrain the players with less time or less dedication, leading to additional unsureness and frustration for them - just because changes at the mechanics happened, no matter how beneficial they are in itself. Even a change on a moveset of a character one never plays has an impact, because sooner or later you may play against that character. And I do not want to be the laboratory rat for quick adjustments all the time that soon turn out to need readjustments again (true, buying an unfinished game has put me in that position already in a certain way...).

Hence my vote to be careful with the frequency of balance patches.