Current update schedule or longer one?

[Mordt]

Would you rather have a longer update schedule, but less bugs, more polishing, or the current schedule?

Edited September 29, 2023 by Mordt

[SunkCostFallacy]

That's actually an interesting question, which I hadn't considered in the past.

I think the problem, for me, with answering that question is that patches tend to come with other 'stuff' associated with them. Things like the Battle Pass, events, etc tend to run for the duration of a patch, or multiple patches in the case of Dockyards. So much is designed around the normal update schedule.

If we decreased or increased the duration between patches, would WG be able to adjust those sorts of things ... without making them harder to complete in the allotted time, or resulting in players having finished their tasks long before the patch is due.

And of course would it be seen as an opportunity to further reduce the players ability to gain rewards.

I think changing the update schedule would cause more problems than it would solve.

[Wolfswetpaws]

16 minutes ago, Mordt said:

Would you rather have a longer update schedule, but less bugs, more polishing, or the current schedule?

I'd prefer a longer period of time between updates (except for "hot fixes").
Having the game be smooth and trouble-free seems more important, to me.  

[Ensign Cthulhu]

Patches used to be three weeks. I was there when it became four.

While a bit more development time wouldn't be a bad thing, I'm not sure everyone would be keen to have every battle pass be fifty stages.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Patches used to be three weeks. I was there when it became four.

While a bit more development time wouldn't be a bad thing, I'm not sure everyone would be keen to have every battle pass be fifty stages.

As if completing the battle pass or dockyard is worth doing...

 

[I_cant_Swim_]

more time between patches would be better, I think. And the battle pass stages should remain the same, just spread over more days. It needn't always be such a tough grind.

[Gnirf]

3 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

As if completing the battle pass or dockyard is worth doing...

 

If you play a lot I think they are. post rewards after 40 (50) stages in BP are worth a lot when ýou reach 20 stages or so beyond the end rewards.

[Dareios]

A lot of bugs don't get discovered until full release. There's only so much that can be seen by the limited number of internal developers and closed testing. Much, MUCH more is discovered by tens of thousands of people playing millions? of matches once a cycle goes live. Thus extending the update schedule in order to reduce bugs as suggested by the OP will have a diminishing return.

[Nevermore135]

A longer development cycle would be nice to allow for more polished content, allow WG to stretch developed content further, and also help relieve some of the burnout that a lot of players feel with the constant time/gated content (although this last would not be in WG’s interest). The devs can also recycle old content that hasn’t been available for years (for example, old EA event camos) if they need to pad out the schedule between new releases.

Regarding the battle pass, ever since it was introduced it has always entailed 10 stages of progress per week for completion. A four week patch with 40 stages becoming a five week patch with 50 stages or a six week patch with 60 stages doesn’t change that.

Edited September 30, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Wulf_Ace]

I would say longer IF they put more work into a new patch and more things to it. If you have less time there is less effort in it, bad content.

Sometimes you dont even have time to finish it all, especially if you are a casual gamer ( so people quit), let people enjoy the game, dont rush them.

Would like more effort in new mods and current mods gameplay, not in new content, work on the stuff you already have .

[CFagan_1987]

I'm of the opinion that we have too much going on with each patch so I'd like to see longer periods of time in between new patches ... maybe 5 or 6 weeks instead of the current 3 or 4.

[yss_turtleship]

IRC, they start planning for a patch a year in advance. The current 4-week cycle works fine since it breaks down the year into manageable pieces planning-wise. 

Having so many events going on at the same time is what the issue really is. It's like having so much on your mind that it makes it harder to prioritize things. Outside of those events we have Clan Battles, King of the Sea, Naval Battles, etc. It makes the game feel overwhelming and you don't feel like you have time to breathe. As much as I enjoy CB, I also look forward to the downtime in between the seasons.

The ironic thing about this is we play the game to get away from IRL but it's starting to feel like they are too similar and we need to find time away from both.

EDIT: TLDR: Keep the update schedule the same but reduce the amount of events.

[NMA101]

This is not an entirely theoretical question. A couple times per year, Christmas holidays, Victory in Europe Day (May 8th), the update cycles are extended to 5 or 6 weeks instead of the usual 4. What is the community's reception to this?

For me, I have no issue. Sure, it takes longer to reach the end of the battle pass, but the rewards have been so low value lately I do not really care that much. Plus, it gives you a cushion to take time off and reduce burnout since there is less FOMO. 

Conversely, if you do want to grind resources (say a coal ship will be removed from sale soon), this gives you more time to do so. 

Edited October 1, 2023 by NMA101