Two replies interested me from the "pistol sideways" thread:



and



I'd like to specifically draw discussion and attention to good and bad ways to patch a game

I'm reminded by the latter post above of how Jedi Outcast had much of the skill "patched out" in versions 1.03 and 1.04. In 1.02 the game was (virtually) perfect. When you used a special attack (there were two primarily - a lunging downward hack with a saber, and a backspin with the same weapon) you had the option to pivot while doing so. The game then removed this functionality, first from the lunging attack in 1.03, then from the backspin in 1.04.

These removals were wholly unneccessary. They were applied, as far as I can see, purely to stop "spamming" of "lame" attacks, which is utterly stupid if it really is the case, because these attacks were incredibly easy to counter.

Contrast this technique with how Counter-Strike has been patched. Small changes were made, and one large change happened between 1.3 and 1.4, but the major gameplay elements remained intact. CS has enjoyed a long life that would have been fractured and segregated as was Jedi Outcast if it hadn't kept its "franchise" standardized throughout iterations.

The point I'm making is that the first type of patching mentioned is idiotic, and this post is intended to spark discussion about what constitutes a "good patch" vs a "bad patch". Such elements to consider are:

- Is the game broken?
- If not, - is any change necessary? People don't like disruption - if it is, then why implement it?
- If so, what needs to be changed?

- Is the change fun?
- Is the change "fixing a problem" or "creating a better game"?
- Is the change worth the developers' time? What else could it be spent on?
- Is the change going to break the game at the highest levels of play?
- Is the change going to make it prohibitively difficult for newbies to learn the game?
- Does the change respect the skill of the players?*
- Is the change thematically fitting with the game's look and feel?
- Is the change something the community wants? (This bullet purposely left last.)

* That is, will advanced players have to re-learn massive elements of the game to play it well? If so, the change should be a sequel, not a patch.

A patch should (in a perfect world) fix any game problems and make the game fun and (again in a perfect world) bug free. However we all know this is not the case because patch tend to fix one bug well it bugs another part of the game. As you have said before patches are often made because the devs think that people are taking advantage of this and "ruining" the game for others. The problem being is that a game idea could work fine but when some ppl (Particularly those who tend to voice there problems) find that one person is beating them with a unpopular idea and ppl call that a bug that needs to be fixed. Look at counter-strike they have many weapons and all very balanced, but patches changed a think here a thing there, and now you only use faviorites that will out preform other weapons they shoulden't.

Don't ever nubify a game with a patch.

Lerk example:
1.04 lerk had old flight model, spikes, bite gas and umbra.
2.0 had old flight but removed bite. This was not a balance issue at the. It was actually stated that lerk bite was useless and not a balance issue. Only the better lerk players used bite and only they were agry about it. So this was party a balance issue in that the attemp was to make the lerk more divers and useful. All in all it was about the same. Weaker but equally diverse, just more different. I don't have a problem with making a class play different than before. The difficultly of using the lerk diversly required completly different tactics, but still equally diverse. Overall a little weaker, but that's balance.
3.0 new flight model implemented and bite reinstated. Bite was reimplemented after recognition that bite might be useful but a new flight model was created to make it easier for lerks to bite. The lerk has officially been nubified. A new model was implemented for the sake of simplification but at the sacrifice of diversity.

Umbra was repeatedly nerfed, but that's a balance issue and not nubification. I support balance patches and bug fixes.

I think this is a relavant topic because although the original patches made the game better, towards the end they just nubified the game, reduced diversity for the sake of simplicity, and ruined game balance. 2.0 era for the game overall.

As a huge JO player myself, I was disappointed by how the developers choose to go about patching their game. Obviously, 1.02 was the best in terms of skill and fun. That said, I'm pretty sure the developers removed pivot because it was undermining their attack system. For example, the light blue backstab could be pivoted to turn and hit an opponent in front of you. While I agree the changes were horrible and that's how the game should have stayed, I can see why the developers thought they were 'doing good' by 'fixing their system.' (example: only allowing a backstab to hit players behind you)

Also, while my next paragraph doesn't necessarily relate to the thread's contents [good/bad patches] it is about 'movement skill' which is the topic of this thread.

I was kind of curious if the fast paced action of NS1 was a fluke due to the game being on the HL engine, or if it was developed with a fast paced gameplay in mind. For example: Bunny hopping is a huge part of movement skill and allows a player who's truly mastered it to bunny hop off rails, steps, whatever s/he can hop off of in order to get more distance between the aliens. This system was kind of the 'default' system for HL mods at the time so I hope that movement skill isn't overlooked for NS2 just because its on a different engine.

Movement skill is huge. A game just feels so much different when a developer removes a player's movement skill.

I don't understand how the 3.0 lerk flight model change can be considered "nubifying". Yes, it made the lerk easier to use offensively, but the change greatly increased the lerk's maximum(as in, for pros) close-combat fighting ability. It was an overall improvement to the lerk class, allowing nubs and pros alike to do more with the lerk than was possible with the old flight model.
For example, if the damage on the LMG was doubled, nubs would kill skulks easier, but so would pros-in this example the pros actually gain more benefit because much of the challenge in shooting a skulk is locking on to it. Making something work better isn't necessarily catering to nubs.



Also I agree with the topic. One of, if not the most important, the main reasons NS is still fun and other FPSes aren't is because of the role movement plays in NS. Players can always get better(well, to a point) at the movement in NS, and it's something that fits seamlessly into the gameplay because it's an underlying base of the game-everyone moves. I worry that NS2 might try to abandon bunnyhopping and other jumping maneuvers-not that that's the only part of movement, proper positioning, and re-positioning in the middle of a battle is also key-and replace it with something that would seem forced-some sort of item or such. Please note that movement-based skill works so well because the only actions required are ones that all but the worst players are already doing-running, strafing, turning and jumping, and the skill increase is gained by simply doing those actions more precisely.

Hm. I'm quite interested in the way you see 3.2 lerk changes. Do you think the speed decrease was a nubifier?

I've always thought it was a necessary change for the good of the overall gameplay. First of all it removed the early game carryform effect. No more lerks going 12 - 2 in first 8 minutes. Another reason was that the 3.1 pancaking relied quite heavily on bugged hitboxes. I recall Bugstah saying that the method of pancaking to every lmg and hoping your hitbox isn't where it is supposed to be got quite boring after a while. Now the lerk is maybe a little too passive lifeform in general and the 3.1 lerks were fun to shoot at, but I think the improvement in the overal ns was worth it.

3.2 removed pancaking, which can only be regarded as a good thing imo. Lerks are a support class, so to have the game reward them for playing as an attack class more than as a support class is bad design.

Now Lerks can be played offensively, for semi-offensive scouting or purely as support classes. This allows experienced Lerks to play offy if they want to and it allows newer players to get to grips with the Lerk by playing in a more standoffish style but still helping the team with Spore chip damage. I myself may take Lerk early to do quick laps of the map and find out which RTs need chomping on and which areas of the map Marines are pushing.

The fact is the Lerk has been made more versatile for a wider section of the overall NS playerbase. I think it's far more important to let more players enjoy playing a different class according to their own style and get good at playing it than for it to require complicated button presses and in-depth knowledge of engine exploits for it to be effective.

Pre 3.2 lerk was broken, because of the simple fact that the game couldn't handle anywhere near those speeds. "Sparks" galore!

Basically the lerk was able to do all the before, now it only has less mobility and survivability. The change balanced the competetive game nicely, but made lerk even more off a glass cannon for pubbers. Right now its the most fragile 30 res you can have unless your team parasites a lot or the enemy can't aim. In addition I think its now possible to compensate the lack of accelration by jumpscripts (3 jump works a bit like a pscript on this, right?), which isn't my idea of leveling the playing field.

Nevertheless, it was all very much worth the change.

I think that's a well reasoned list of priorities. A lot of it would apply to game design in general and not just patching. It's also interesting that you use the word "patch" and not "update". When I think patch I think mechanical updates (ie: bug/exploit fixes, pure balance tweaking). When I think update I think new lerk flight, cat packs, and other major changes which you labeled under "sequel". I like the idea of a SC style system where patching is mechanical and changes are in expansions, but NS's iterative development leads me to believe both can work. Since UWE won't have the same budget to devote to testing Blizzard does, I think "updating" like NS1 may not be a bad route, at least until the game is at a place where the devs want. Maybe they'll be able to fit in all of the wanted features and they'll do a system like Blizzard's, but that seems like a tall order.

WRT to movement I try to look at "new" features with the following priorities weighted equally:

Does it provide depth to keep players in the game?/Is it easy enough to draw players into the game?

I look at it as a scale with each on a side. I would promote a feature that adds a lot of depth to the game even if it wasn't easy to master as long as I thought the benefits outweighed the negatives. For example, bunny hop fails the easy-to-learn big time, especially because it's heavily FPS dependent, but is worth the depth it brings to movement. I would love for it to be replaced with something better, but it's definitely better than nothing.

Well, I have to say that's a very good list. Sometimes there might be the extra step of modifying a feature that they didn't get to implement yet, which is a big issue for smaller companies that can't afford 3 year development cycles. Some games like Insurgency have been slowing adding features that are non-essential, but good nonetheless. However, there should always be evaluation if that feature that was intended still has a place considering new information from the current release. Just because the devs wanted it to begin with doesn't mean it will make a good addition, so taking a little time to evaluate what that change will do to the currently played/tested version is still vital.


As far as movement, I enjoy good movement. Some games forgo this for hiding behind walls at long distance and relying on pixel recognition and a steady hand. I enjoy jumping to dodge the skulk or flying as a Lerk avoiding fire. As far as bunnyhopping, I'm not a super huge fan after this one guy managed to kite me as a marine shooting my skulk avatar. However, I do see it's ability to allow skill depth and its versatility in allowing movement and control in the game. Much like locallyunscene, I would like something a bit better due to its high initiation price, but it's a pretty good system unlike the restrictions in CS. TF2 is interesting due to the varying movement speeds, but no bunnyhopping speed increase. So I like going Scout and dashing through the enemy lines. Heavy is too slow for me, and soldier now don't take reduced dmg for rocket jumps, so I tend to only play them if needed.

Jedi Outcast was an awsome game, much better than its sequal.

My main concern with patches is it can seem to allow developers to be complacent because its a saft net for any errors thaey make, so we seem to get a lot of games with bugs in them. The flip side of the coin is that they can correct unforseen errors, i dont expect UW to be complacent but it hasnt stopped many games from being released unfinished in the past.

inevitably players are going to find strategies in ns2 that the devs never thought of, hopefully these stratergies will add diversity and fun to the game, but if they dont the patching system will give the devs some control over the games future, whether this is good or bad depends on your point of view on the specific stratergy or action they are altering. Whos view is correct, i dont know

warsow walljumping system could definitely be implemented to skulking, and dash system also.

Check out this thread: http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=104340
and add it (with pictures or videos), if you so please.

I'm not very familiar with the Warsow walljump, but how about the Prince of Persia styled bounce off the walls? Basically it would be just a stronger bounce than the wallhop nowadays.

Example at 45 second mark.

For those not versed in Jedi Outcast, let me fill you in on what the OP is talking about... There was a special move dubbed Death From Above(DFA) which consisted of doing a flying leap and bringing your saber down in front of you. You could do it whenever you wanted and it was an instakill. On top of that, the instakill effect applied throughout the entire attack, even after the swing when the saber isn't moving. At first you could spin freely while using this attack, and so people would spam DFA, and when the other player dodged it and went in to punish, they would spin around blindly, swinging their instagib lightsaber in a full circle to kill anyone that came near them. It could be countered with careful timing but soon enough every fight revolved around watching like a hawk for any sign that your opponent was going to use it and running like hell. They probably went too far on the nerf but the silliness before the fixes was pretty obviously not how the special moves were meant to be used. It baffles me that anyone would use this as an example of skillful "tricks" that are uncovered in games deserving to be left alone, but I don't even think it's relevant compared to stuff like bunnyhopping.

I think the question here is the tradeoff between depth and intuitive gameplay. Yes, depth is a good thing because it adds longevity by giving people who play the game for a long time ways to keep learning and improving. However, mechanics that are glitchy and/or unintuitive are not a good way to accomplish this. Intuitive depth is something that follows naturally from playing the game and being familiar with its intricacies. Developing your aim, learning combat tactics, memorizing strategies/counters, etc. Counterintuitive depth, on the other hand, is stuff like bunnyhopping which does not follow game logic and can not realistically be learned except from outside sources. It creates an artificial gap between people who actively seek tricks to improve their game and people who just want to play.

I think that all players should be playing within the same set of game rules. Encouraging the use of exploits or questionable tricks because they add depth just ostracizes normal players. It's not fun to play against someone who can do things that are physically impossible for your character unless you dedicate hours outside the game to learning it.

TLDR: I'm in favor of movement skill, but only if it's clearly defined and intentional within the game's controls. Things like bunnyhopping should be removed as they're found.