For those of you who play non-NRS fighting games...

[GGA Max]

The Big Question:

How does NRS compare with other FG creators? (Long term game support/patches)


NRS gets criticism for patching their games for the first 6 months, and then start working on another game.

• For MK9 this led to Kabal... you know where that's going.

• In I:GAU it might lead to a reign of MMH, we don't know yet.
• Several other imbalances that I'm sure you can think of.

Now, I only play NRS games seriously, but this is just something I wondered about. So I ask you, people who know what it's like playing a non-NRS fighting game.

• Do any other creators support their game for longer than NRS?

• Has history shown that patching a game for longer than 6 months has a significant positive effect on the game's balance in tournaments?
• Do "OP" characters / imbalances always emerge no matter when the patches stop?

My thoughts are that the patching is done in an economically sound way. As patching costs time and money, and does not bring in revenue. So its done as infrequently as possible, while still taking care of big problems in the games early life. However for people like myself who want to play and watch a relatively balanced game, this style of patching could be a draw-back.

 

[Zoidberg747]

The Soul Calibur series met sort of the same fate as MK9, except the SCV Kabal has 100% combos from anywhere on the screen(might be an exaggeration but she was hella broke)

Tekken has always been pretty balanced but they usually test it in Asia for like a year before world launch

SF benefits from its multiple patches but costs players more money

The general rule is the longer the game is being patched the more balanced, but it depends on the creators tbh

 

[rurounikenshin]

Well, I am a pretty good SCV player.

Project soul can support its games as long as namco gives them the money and time to do so, SCV is probably the most balanced game I have ever seen, there are only three characters that you can complain about, mitsu being the really stupid one, Viola being broken by design, which could have been fine without her buffes and Apat, who is theorically hyper-broken, but noone will ever use at its level, so you cant really complain about him.

The game was patched around 3 times in a rather short period of time, it was mostly nerfs that helped balance the game, nothing too serious, just Viola. If there had been another patch, the game could have been perfect.

EDIT:

The Soul Calibur series met sort of the same fate as MK9, except the SCV Kabal has 100% combos from anywhere on the screen(might be an exaggeration but she was hella broke)

Yes, pretty much, but I feel like NRS did a really bad job in comparison to project Soul, in SCV every character is viable.

 

[AK coolcmcgee]

Soul Calibur V was left alone after a couple of patches but the balance is pretty goood some people like to point out that Viola is broke but she is no where near Kabal. there are 2 characters in that game who are arguably unviable and people have gotten top 8's with these so called unviable characters

 

[RIF]

I will answer this as someone who plays UMVC3.

UMVC3 was Capcom's only legitimate 'patch'. It was an attempt to make more money after releasing what was, essentially, an unfinished game. It is impossible to say that UMVC3 wasn't a VAST improvement over the original, but it was an obvious money grab. There were far too many issues with the original version.(Invincible assists, Dante, Phoenix) They no longer support UMVC3. I do believe it would be wise to release a version for the next-gen consoles and apply some general changes to improve the game. (Removing tac infinites, reduce x-factor efficacy, nerf various hitboxes, increase throw scaling damage, etc...etc..)

There is an obvious gap between the top tier characters and what many consider the 'B' tier of the cast. However, given the fact that one touch normally equals death, it allows lower tier teams to compete. (Not win) The very nature of a team-based game allows for more variety and ways to compensate for having a weaker character in the team's composition. The long-term prognosis for the game is that while certain characters might be 'viable', it will be mandatory to pick a top-tier configuration if you want to win. There will always be tiers. The game designers cannot foresee everything that will pop-up as the game evolves in the hands of its players. Injustice is fairly well balanced with a few outliers. (MMH and Joker being the 2 that come to mind on opposite sides of the spectrum)

Marvel games have layers and layers of complexity not found in most other fighters. It's a little over-the-top, but the amount of diversity offered by the engine and cast of characters is very deep.

 

[Protagonist_1]

I've played tekken since T5, and Namco usually balance their characters for each iteration of their game. This has lead to the game to be a lot more balanced, but at the same time, newcomers struggle against vet players already familiar to the system. They also give each character some new moves or strings for each iteration, so that the characters aren't drastically different. (MK is known for changing character inputs for each game for no apparent reason).

Furthermore (someone feel free to correct me), they also balance characters with execution to an extent. Mishima's have just frame moves(Electirics) that are hella good but difficult to master. This makes it that you can't pick up a Mishima and dominate with him in week (takes tons of time to use them effectively). The character I use (hwoarang) has a Just Frame Sky Rocket, although you don't have to master it to be able to use him, it can go a long way to pushing the character to the next level.

Also I believe Kunimitsu had a hitbox issue where she could duck under certain mids, and they fixed it immediately in Tekken Tag 2. (as far as hitbox issues go) Although the bears still have funky hit boxes, so certain juggles don't work on them.

In addition, tekken is heavily reliant on movement. For this reason, a top player (good example: Knee), can use a character he is not as familiar with and still do relatively good. This is because a player can have solid movement with most characters to outspace and effectively whiff punish an opponent. It's one of the main reasons why I like tekken so much, there's always room to improve your movement/execution.

 

[OnlineRon91]

I come from SF4 and the game got patch after a year, then after two years, and finally after two more years with the upcoming USF4:

SF4 was not balanced, but it was their first attempt.
SSF4 was more balanced and added characters and stages.
SSF4AE was arguably worse than the original in terms of balance. The lead designer purposely set out to make two characters stronger than everyone else. New characters were added.
SSF4AE 2012 is the first iteration where the designers simply focused on balance, as balanced if not more balanced than SSF4, this was a free update and not a new version.

MK and Injustice sold very well and people love these games. The main difference is that NRS has a predetermined plan already set out and move on once the project is done.
Whereas Capcom keeps making new versions with more content bundled with their patches, as long as they see interest and can benefit out of it, which they have.

No one with half a brain can expect a company like NRS or Capcom to dish out yearly updates at no cost, it's just bad business. Capcom has decided to provide additional content for a premium and bundle it with a patch.

 

[Mr. Mileena]

I know NRS means well, but patching the game once, sometimes more than once a month, for the first 5 or 6 months then stop doesn't help.

They do listen to the community for the first 6 months, then start working on their next game.
Their flaw is patching the game too often too soon, I would have loved for them to lessen their patches by fixing what could have been fixed in 3 patches in 3 months, in one bigger patch at the 3 month mark.

etc

 

[OnlineRon91]

I know NRS means well, but patching the game once, sometimes more than once a month, for the first 5 or 6 months then stop doesn't help.

They do listen to the community for the first 6 months, then start working on their next game.
Their flaw is patching the game too often too soon, I would have loved for them to lessen their patches by fixing what could have been fixed in 3 patches in 3 months, in one bigger patch at the 3 month mark.

etc

I think a better approach would be to simply hot fix game-breaking bugs and glitches and let the game stay in the over for awhile, ignore the crybabies. The reason they probably patch often though is because they only have a certain window that they can patch before they need to move on to a new project. Even then, I agree with you that they should patch every 3 months or so.

 

[RM Truth]

Well, I am a pretty good SCV player.

Project soul can support its games as long as namco gives them the money and time to do so, SCV is probably the most balanced game I have ever seen, there are only three characters that you can complain about, mitsu being the really stupid one, Viola being broken by design, which could have been fine without her buffes and Apat, who is theorically hyper-broken, but noone will ever use at its level, so you cant really complain about him.

The game was patched around 3 times in a rather short period of time, it was mostly nerfs that helped balance the game, nothing too serious, just Viola. If there had been another patch, the game could have been perfect.

EDIT: Yes, pretty much, but I feel like NRS did a really bad job in comparison to project Soul, in SCV every character is viable.

I've always been under the assumption that Alpha Patrokolos was the dumbest character in the game.

 

[Zoidberg747]

I've always been under the assumption that Alpha Patrokolos was the dumbest character in the game.

Viola is by far the dumbest for a majority of reasons.

aPat is kind of like Kabal, really good but very high execution. The top 5 in that game are all pretty dumb though.

 

[rurounikenshin]

I've always been under the assumption that Alpha Patrokolos was the dumbest character in the game.

He is, by far, I think he is beyond broken and have been maining him since release, but the thing is that noone can do what he is actually capable of.

 

[AK coolcmcgee]

He is, by far, I think he is beyond broken and have been maining him since release, but the thing is that noone can do what he is actually capable of.

i would like to refer you to woahhzz

 

[rurounikenshin]

Viola is by far the dumbest for a majority of reasons.

aPat is kind of like Kabal, really good but very high execution. The top 5 in that game are all pretty dumb though.

The top 5 in the game is probably the most difficult to choose, I dont think there is even a solid one, many characters are really good. Viola is really retarded, but she is not as easy to use as mitsu or regular pat, those two are braindead.

 

[rurounikenshin]

i would like to refer you to woahhzz

I am sorry but Woahhzz is not in that level, even himself said so in the Alpha podcast. Noone can punish with the highest damage every time, that will force a mental block to the player. We are not robots.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post.

 

[AZ MotherBrain]

I play a street fighter, marvel, mk, injustice, and persona, some soulcal too.
I think the nrs community complains way too much. Kabal and Kenshi are still said to break the game and make it unplayable. that's so silly. Every fighting game has top tiers that run the show, yet they are still able to be taken down. Tom was able to take out kabals and cyraxs with sub-zero, that's saying something. I feel like Kabal and MMH for whatever reason have this "Broken" title that everyone just keeps throwing out whenever they are brought up.
For MK10, I would like to see NRS take there time and put out a good fighter with enough depth to keep people around. I feel that they really excel in the "casual" part of their games; story mode, challenges, mini games, etc. however, they should consider making patches after for the people that are sticking around to play their game.
Again I think the complaining from this community is the ultimate downfall of NRS games. Marvel received one legit patch "UMVC" yet it remains the most hype fighter out despite it being utterly broken, far beyond Kabal and MMH. Just my thoughts.

 

[cR WoundCowboy]

The Big Question:

How does NRS compare with other FG creators? (Long term game support/patches)


NRS gets criticism for patching their games for the first 6 months, and then start working on another game.

• For MK9 this lead to Kabal... you know where that's going.

• In I:GAU it might lead to a reign of MMH, we don't know yet.
• Several other imbalances that I'm sure you can think of.

Now, I only play NRS games seriously, but this is just something I wondered about. So I ask you, people who know what it's like playing a non-NRS fighting game.

• Do any other creators support their game for longer than NRS?

• Has history shown that patching a game for longer than 6 months has a significant positive effect on the game's balance in tournaments?
• Do "OP" characters / imbalances always emerge no matter when the patches stop?

My thoughts are that the patching is done in an economically sound way. As patching costs time and money, and does not bring in revenue. So its done as infrequently as possible, while still taking care of big problems in the games early life. However for people like myself who want to play and watch a relatively balanced game, this style of patching could be a draw-back.

Since I don't really play non-NRS FGs, all I can say is that the bolded section of your sentence should be led instead of lead. (Bane players...)

But seriously, I don't get why people complain about "all the patching" when for the most part they patched little things. I have never understood why people are so against patching. People who say to "let the game develop" seem to be fine with infinites and glitches, which is are not things that I want to put up with.

 

[Gurpwnder]

there are 2 characters in that game who are arguably unviable and people have gotten top 8's with these so called unviable characters

Who would you say are unviable in SC5?

 

[rurounikenshin]

Who would you say are unviable in SC5?

Raphael, Leixia, Z.W.E.I and Dampierre are usually the ones mentioned there, but they are actually all viable.

 

[AK coolcmcgee]

Who would you say are unviable in SC5?

Zwei and Dampierre are the usual 2

 

[GGA Max]

Since I don't really play non-NRS FGs, all I can say is that the bolded section of your sentence should be led instead of lead. (Bane players...)

Lol you got me there...

 

[T3rror]

Since I don't really play non-NRS FGs, all I can say is that the bolded section of your sentence should be led instead of lead. (Bane players...)

But seriously, I don't get why people complain about "all the patching" when for the most part they patched little things. I have never understood why people are so against patching. People who say to "let the game develop" seem to be fine with infinites and glitches, which is are not things that I want to put up with.

I think that is the problem some people have with the way they patch. In my opinion the real problems don't arise in the 1st six months for fighters.

 

[G4S KT]

IMO vanilla injustice should have been left to marinate for longer.

They fixed some outrageously wacky things early, which is good, but the game was actually remarkably well put together for a vanilla build when you compare it to capcom games.

Vanilla SF4, MvC3, and Cross Tekken all had serious issues with core mechanics that were around for at least a year before anything changed (please correct me if I'm wrong).

NRS put all of this stock in the one final "big patch" which overall was really good but buffed MMH. Presumably because he wasn't around long enough and no one was showing off how fucked up he is while the patch was getting put together. Now without a post-final patch, MMH in a position to become Kabal 2.0

 

[ZigZag]

At least it's not Street Fighter where instead of patching it over and over you just remake the same game 3-4 times

 

[d3v]

The Big Question:

How does NRS compare with other FG creators? (Long term game support/patches)


NRS gets criticism for patching their games for the first 6 months, and then start working on another game.

• For MK9 this led to Kabal... you know where that's going.

• In I:GAU it might lead to a reign of MMH, we don't know yet.
• Several other imbalances that I'm sure you can think of.

The problem with NRS (as generally agreed upon in other FG circles) is that they patch things too much, too early. This leads to a situation whether the the game isn't given a chance to truly breathe. And when the game does develop, it usually turns out that the patches have either missed stuff that is truly worth looking into, or have ruined the game at high levels.

Ideally a fighting game should be patched sparingly. One small patch to fix bugs within 3 months. After that, patches (if any at all) should come only after around 9 to 12 months.

• Do any other creators support their game for longer than NRS?

"Support" as a term needs to be defined and patches are not the only form of "support." Sponsorships, tournaments and prize money also count as support, even if the game isn't being patched any more.

• Has history shown that patching a game for longer than 6 months has a significant positive effect on the game's balance in tournaments?

Most fighting games that have lasted for years in the competitive circuit actually don't get patched that much, if at all. At most, games will get an updated rerelease that adds a few things, but nothing like NRS's questionable knee-jerk patching.

• Do "OP" characters / imbalances always emerge no matter when the patches stop?

My thoughts are that the patching is done in an economically sound way. As patching costs time and money, and does not bring in revenue. So its done as infrequently as possible, while still taking care of big problems in the games early life. However for people like myself who want to play and watch a relatively balanced game, this style of patching could be a draw-back.

Of course. There will always be characters that are better than other as long as character diversity exists. The only way to create a truly balanced game would be to have only 1 single character in it.

What people here need to learn (especially those without any background in other fighters), is that character diversity is NOT as important as the quality of the matchups. The problem is that improper balancing often times comes at the cost of interesting matchups due to the tendency to normalize the cast.

Now, coming from Capcom games, history has shown that for the most part, a game with four legitimately top tier characters is acceptable. As has been discussed in this article, what's more important is that the game is deep and rewarding and that the matchups even among those 4 top tiers (and any high tiers that follow) are interesting. For example, there is arguably more depth in the top 4 of MvC2 alone than there is in lesser fighting games. The game is at a point where the amount of tech developed for those characters and the supporting high tier cast is what makes the game. Playing low tiers makes the game less interesting because the match ups aren't as interesting. Other games like Alpha2, Alpha3 and CvS2 arguably fall into the same category as well. Then, there are games where the system itself is deep and interesting enough that it somewhat invalidates any tier differences. 3rd Strike, while dominated by Chun, Yun, Ken and Makoto has a system that actually helps skilled players negate their advantages (parry).