Announcement Regarding Changes to Weekly Patches

Discussion in 'News and Announcements' started by dreamweaver, Feb 18, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gillymann Abusive Relationships Aren't Healthy. J S.

    This is exactly what I was thinking. The existing test server has like 11 people on it. It's hard enough to get a full raid together these days, yet an army of people are going to have time to test raid content (which even under the best of circumstances is not feasible)?

    I appreciate the dev's not having the staff to put timely fixes through. However, and as Errrorr noted, too many of the issues are front-end, so this test server stuff fixes nothing really.

    IOW: If you don't have the staff to produce a quality product, cutting the number of fixes down by half is not going to solve the problem.

    I also noticed no such announcement was made on the eq1 forums. This smells like a transition into maintenance mode. It's probably not, but that's what it smells like.
    Juraiya, Tekka, Tkia and 1 other person like this.
  2. Benito Ancient EQ2 Player: Lavastorm Server 2004.

    EQ1 runs on a monthly patch (yes, once a month) and it's definitely far from maintenance mode.
  3. Rosyposy Well-Known Member

    In-game announcements are not helpful for those of us who weren't logged in at the time.
    Juraiya, Breanna, Tekka and 4 others like this.
  4. dreamweaver Developer

    Hey guys, missing the downtime notification for the server reset was my fault, for some reason I have been thinking I was one day behind, so I thought tomorrow was the 19th. The in game notification saying it was a patch is unrelated and I am working on making sure the language in those notifications properly reflects the sort of down time you can expect, I am really sorry this caught everyone off guard.
    Marae, Cyrrena, Lateana and 9 others like this.
  5. Sigrdrifa EQ2 Wiki Author

    If I really believed that an intensive QA effort would be happening to check the fixes, I'd be happier. But I have a creeping suspicion that they laid off the whole QA team somewhere along the line and they're hoping new patches work rather than testing that supposition.

    So, I am reserving judgement for a month to see what happens.
    Juraiya, Cyrrena, Jaeded and 9 others like this.
  6. Noctew Active Member

    Using Test Server to actually test again? Yes please! I think Gninja has better things to do with his time than log into live servers to hotfix mobs b0rked by a patch.
    Cyrrena, Breanna, Tkia and 1 other person like this.
  7. Drona Well-Known Member

    But who is going to test it on the test server? There are like 10 to 12 players on the test server.
    Cyrrena, Tekka, Wulfgyr and 1 other person like this.
  8. Benito Ancient EQ2 Player: Lavastorm Server 2004.

    The longer patch interval may help by cutting wasteful overhead (procedural) time that's prepared for even minor weekly patches. Even without efficacious QA, devs will be able to devote more time to test substantive issues and content themselves instead of hours spent planning and packaging minor fixes just to meet some weekly but arbitrary goal. The patches themselves may be higher in quality.
  9. Gillymann Abusive Relationships Aren't Healthy. J S.

    Maybe they'll hand out infusers or essences as incentives to play on test....
    Tekka, Tkia, Wulfgyr and 2 others like this.
  10. Daalilama Well-Known Member

    For your insolence in being forgetful, you are to be flogged within an inch of your froglock life or clean up all the empty beer bottles in Gninja's office not quite sure which is worse.
    Juraiya, Cyrrena, Breanna and 4 others like this.
  11. Drona Well-Known Member

    Thats a good idea actually! Anyway if they simply allowed /testcopy then I am more than willing to do *some* testing even without incentives .
    Cyrrena and Tkia like this.
  12. Pixistik Don't like it? You're not alone!

    I will if it will keep the game going longer, the only reason I quit test is I was tired of reported bugs going live anyway..if they will listen and work with us this time I am all in, otherwise its a waste of even trying.
    Cyrrena, Jaeded, Breanna and 2 others like this.
  13. Pixistik Don't like it? You're not alone!

    This is not EQ1
    Breanna, Tekka, Tkia and 3 others like this.
  14. Benito Ancient EQ2 Player: Lavastorm Server 2004.

    Gillymann is inferring that, because EQ1 did not receive a similar announcement, EQ2 is going into maintenance mode. When the reality is that EQ1 has been on a much longer interval (once a month vs. once a week) for years.

    Edit: From a generic developer standpoint, there are benefits to having a longer patch interval. I've stated my reasoning above (i.e. less procedural - planning and packaging - time). There may be a correlation between the quality of patches over the quantity of patches.
  15. Kashue Member

    I'm hopeful that this change will give the remaining Devs an opportunity to further refine the patches before going on live, and possibly give them more substance... however, the little demon's advocate inside me wants to point out that if there is more substance in the patch, there may be more to go wrong once it has been implemented. It sort of feels like each successive patch has been a patch to a patch to a patch lately.

    I really love this game, but i just don't want to see any more of my friends disappear because they are frustrated with the current state of the game. I miss the house (EQ2) that i grew up in, and lately it feels like someone bulldozed it and put up a parking lot. (Sorry CC) We really didn't know how good we had it, did we? :(
  16. Eloise New Member

    I certainly hope so, even if it's just the Tier.
    Cyrrena, Breanna and Rosyposy like this.
  17. Gillymann Abusive Relationships Aren't Healthy. J S.

    Thanks for the clarification about the eq1 patching schedule. However, you misrepresented what I said, so I'll clarify that.

    My suspicions haven't changed. I'm inclined to believe the game is being whittled down to what is substantively a p2w raiding game with a home deco side game, and with just enough non-p2w overland, heroic, and crafting game to funnel people toward the raiding game and the shop. This is my >>>opinion<<<<. Time will of course reveal all.

    Also, here is what I actually said:


    In any case, the fundamental point I'm trying to make is that reducing the number of scheduled patches/fixes is inconsequential if staffing is insufficient to produce a quality product in the first place. That being the case, increasing the time between patches changes nothing, it just increases the amount of time customers are sitting on broken content.
    Juraiya, Rhodris and Tekka like this.
  18. Benito Ancient EQ2 Player: Lavastorm Server 2004.

    Thank you for the clarification.

    This is what you actually said in full (line quoted):

    The preceding statement (no announcent [on] eq1 forums) is an inferential clause to the subsequent statement (smells like...maintenance mode). No doubt your belief has changed after I have enlightened you.

    As for your new goal post, I've argued the opposite of inconsequence. Why rush patches for a weekly but largely arbitrary goal? It costs time and resources to plan and package these weekly fixes than actually address (and test - at least amongst the devs) substantive issues and content.
  19. Gillymann Abusive Relationships Aren't Healthy. J S.

    Was I not clear that I accepted your correction on eq1 patching? Cause, that's like the first thing I said.

    I then went on to explain (and it should be obvious) that the eq1 statement has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

    More accurately, the point I'm making does not change because of the eq1 correction I accepted.
    Tekka and Rosyposy like this.
  20. Benito Ancient EQ2 Player: Lavastorm Server 2004.

    It's possible that the weekly patches are causing mission creep. They could be nerfing more and putting band-aid fixes because of the largely arbitrary weekly deadline slog than actually making lasting solutions with more breathing room.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.