[Source Gaming] Are Updates a Bad Thing?

I want you to consider my perspective to be not one of a creator, but of a player that understands the situation comprehensively. I personally am extremely grateful for these updates. I’m very thankful for the various companies that put in the effort to do this.

Of course, it would be best if perfection was attained by the release date. However, that’s only possible if you completely understand both the final product and how it’s made, like creating a plastic model by strictly following the given instructions. This simply isn’t possible.

In the 494th iteration of Masahiro Sakurai's bi-weekly Famitsu Column, Thinking about the Video Games, Sakurai discusses his thoughts on video game updates. His viewpoints can be boiled down to four topics: Modern games are extremely complex, creators can't play the completed product, the "testing power" of players is very high, and patches are a voluntary service.

• Modern games are extremely complex

Previously, I’ve described modern games as “being similar to the human body.” They have an extremely complicated design and very complex mechanisms. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say they are 100 times—no, 1,000 times more complicated than games of the past. And this massive amount of data is subject to the variance and fluctuation that digital information is susceptible to. Making sure that everything works properly is a miracle in and of itself.

For the full translated column check out the post on Source Gaming. The post was translated by soma and @Masked Man (仮面の男) within an hour of being available.

PushDustIn thinks updates are great, but shouldn't excuse developers from releasing half finished games. You can send him your favorite ice cream flavor on Twitter.

 

The correct ice cream flavor is black raspberry by the way.

 

They're not bad, no. Think of it like some painting or book, for example. You finish the piece, then you have to take a break, stand back and observe it. Over time, you start noticing the minor flaws and then you have the luxury of tuning it. There's nothing wrong w/ updates as long as they improve the overall experience and/or brings more content to the table.

 

In my opinion, updates can go either way. They do help the metagame stray from a overly dominant character, but at the same time, can really hurt the stability of the metagame. This is also coupled with the fact that certain characters, regardless of their strength in the relevant meta, can be nerfed at anytime if complaints start rolling in.

A classic example being how Link's jab 1 was reworked and given like 20 frames of lag, due to a supposed infinite, which was in actuality, never an infinite. Therefore, we lost a lot of our great followups from jab 1, due to a misconception.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are some things that should be patched, like the Bowser Jr.'s Clown Car thing, or PAC-Man's Hydrant going through the stage, or Diddy Kong's Up Air. I do hope that patches begin to stop, despite the fact, or at least slow down, because I'd love to see a Smash 4 with a stable unvarying meta.

It might just be an unpopular opinion, but eh. I'll put it out there.

 

I still want Sakurai to discuss about Cloud.

 

I still want Sakurai to discuss about Cloud.

He said he will, in the broadcast.

 

I don't think in any way updates are a bad thing at all.

 

Updates for me are a good and a must thing, as Sakurai said moder games are very complex, and with todays demand they have little time too make the game flawless for release date so the game need updates to fix and finish some stuff.

 

He said he will, in the broadcast.

you know when will the brodcast be?

 

you know when will the brodcast be?

December™.

(There's a neogaf rumor saying that it'll be on the 16th.)

 

Updates are bad in terms of developing a competitive metagame.

Of course in the early stage of a game super broken stuff may be missed by playtesters and needs to be patched out.

But in the case of super smash bros. patches are really not necessary. Melee is still the most widely enjoyed smash game (for competitive smashers I'm not talking about salty casuals) and in my opinion the best and most balanced of all smash games (Yeah, tires exit, get over it. I'm saying it's balanced when it comes to the top tiers / high tiers vs the skill level of the players)

Imagine if melee had been subject to patches.... I can guarantee that either wavedashing, or being able to jump out of shine in 1 frame would have been removed. Marth would have been nerfed super early in the Ken / Azen glory days, shiek would have been nerfed, and the scariest thing is what if they had nerfed falcon after seeing Isai run a train on people with triple knee combos. I shudder at the thought.

Until smash 4 stops getting constantly patched it won't have a chance to truly develop as a competitive game.

Same thing with PM. I think the fact that there will be no further patches or updates is a good thing not a bad thing.

Basically, just leave smash the way it is, or better yet bring it back to the way it was. Every attempt to change thing in smash brothers since brawl / smash 4 (gameplay wise) has made the game thousands of times worse. They had it right with smash 64, they improved on it with melee, and it's all been downhill since.

In other fighting games like street fighter patches are a good thing, the developers look at the highest level players and patch out stuff that gives too much of an advantage, change frame data, etc.

In smash, especially smash 4 the feedback they look at is not from top players. It's salty scrub casuals. If enough scrubs collectivley whine about something (hoo hah for example) it gets removed, and that ****ing sucks. Scrubs should not have the power to influence developers to nerf things, it's a recipe for creating an extremely boring and stagnant game, which I'm sorry to say is the case with smash 4. The only update I would agree with would be a complete Project M style work over to bring back the real gameplay we know and love from smash 64 and melee.

 

Updates are bad in terms of developing a competitive metagame.

let me stop you rigth there xD.

balance changes are a must too create a competitive and balanced metagame, just look at LOL, they have balance changes all the time and its one of the most popular and competitive games out there, when there are broken characters and there is no way to fix them then ppl lose interest in the game, just look at what happened to MKX no one plays it anymore because they stoped with the balance changes and there where characers that where just plain broken, and the same thing would have happended with sm4sh if sakurai didint fix diddy....
Melee has lots of characters that are very bad like bowser, but it also has a big variety of broken characters and hard counters for them like jiggly vs fox, this is why melee has survived so much time with no balance changes it was quite balance since its release....i believe that in terms of developing a competitive games, balance changes are a must specially in todays gaming world where so many games are released with gliches, and there is so little time for the developers to test them...

P.S: SF4 is another highly competitive game that has recibed many balance chanegs.

 

Updates are bad in terms of developing a competitive metagame.

Of course in the early stage of a game super broken stuff may be missed by playtesters and needs to be patched out.

But in the case of super smash bros. patches are really not necessary. Melee is still the most widely enjoyed smash game (for competitive smashers I'm not talking about salty casuals) and in my opinion the best and most balanced of all smash games (Yeah, tires exit, get over it. I'm saying it's balanced when it comes to the top tiers / high tiers vs the skill level of the players)

Imagine if melee had been subject to patches.... I can guarantee that either wavedashing, or being able to jump out of shine in 1 frame would have been removed. Marth would have been nerfed super early in the Ken / Azen glory days, shiek would have been nerfed, and the scariest thing is what if they had nerfed falcon after seeing Isai run a train on people with triple knee combos. I shudder at the thought.

Until smash 4 stops getting constantly patched it won't have a chance to truly develop as a competitive game.

Same thing with PM. I think the fact that there will be no further patches or updates is a good thing not a bad thing.

Basically, just leave smash the way it is, or better yet bring it back to the way it was. Every attempt to change thing in smash brothers since brawl / smash 4 (gameplay wise) has made the game thousands of times worse. They had it right with smash 64, they improved on it with melee, and it's all been downhill since.

In other fighting games like street fighter patches are a good thing, the developers look at the highest level players and patch out stuff that gives too much of an advantage, change frame data, etc.

In smash, especially smash 4 the feedback they look at is not from top players. It's salty scrub casuals. If enough scrubs collectivley whine about something (hoo hah for example) it gets removed, and that ****ing sucks. Scrubs should not have the power to influence developers to nerf things, it's a recipe for creating an extremely boring and stagnant game, which I'm sorry to say is the case with smash 4. The only update I would agree with would be a complete Project M style work over to bring back the real gameplay we know and love from smash 64 and melee.

Snore.

 

let me stop you rigth there xD.

balance changes are a must too create a competitive and balanced metagame, just look at LOL, they have balance changes all the time and its one of the most popular competitive games, when there are broken characters, and there is no way to fix them then ppl lose interest in the game, just look at what happened to MKX no one plays it anymore because they stoped with the balance changes and there where characers that where just plain broken,

Yes, but in LOL they are evaluating the game play of top players, not giving in to scrubs whining about a broken hero because they can't find a way to counter it.

and the same thing would have happended with sm4sh if sakurai didint fix diddy....

No way. Maybe it would have turned some people off, but people that are truly competitive and love smash 4 would find a way around it.

Diddy was nowhere near as broken as fox is in melee, and nerfing fox in melee would have ruined the game plain and simple. Diddy kong did not need to be nerfed, people needed to just not get grabbed.

Don't get hit, and you don't have to worry about a guaranteed 2 piece combo. Simple. Adapt, don't patch.

Melee has lots of characters that are very bad like bowser, but it also has a big variety of broken characters and hard counters for them like jiggly vs fox, this is why melee has survived so much time with no balance changes it was quite balance since its release....i believe that in terms of developing a competitive games, balance changes are a must specially in todays gaming world where so many games are released with gliches, and there is so little time for the developers to test them...

P.S: SF4 is another highly competitive game that has recibed many balance chanegs.

Totally agree with you here, but melee is in no way "balanced" and if it was a modern era game would have been torn apart by patches and we wouldn't have an insanely awesome high level game. For all we know L cancelling / wavedashing / everything cool would have been removed. Brawl style.

I think I mentioned SF4 in my post already but I'm glad you bring it up.

Remember though,

Street fighter / LOL = Top players are analyzed and patches are made accordingly in the hopes of achieving as much balance as possible.

Smash 4 = Casuals are the target audience, casuals are usually scrubs and whine about everything. Things get patched out due to collective salty whining instead of in the goal of creating balance, like putting a bandage on something.

They go for the quick fix to try and please everyone, they are not truly trying to balance the game. They just want to keep casuals on the hook / give them the illusion that they might be able to win if Sakurai listens to them and nerfs any and all things that could harm their honorable scrubby gaming experience..... because that way they will continue to buy DLC content, plain and simple.

(Oh, I do think that updates where you get new characters or stages are super awesome by the way.... it's the changes to knockback / frame data / % damage that bug me)

 

Snore.

Way to further the discussion there buddy. Thanks for contributing.

 

Diddy kong did not need to be nerfed, people needed to just not get grabbed.

Don't get hit, and you don't have to worry about a guaranteed 2 piece combo. Simple. Adapt, don't patch.

I'd prefer not to get fully into this discussion, but this part I feel needs a response. Adapting and being perfect at the game (an impossibility) are two different things. You'll always get grabbed in Smash 4, since shielding is/was such a strong option. (Especially in earlier patches.) And you can't be serious when you say that you expect people not to get hit. Do you not see how silly this sounds? The core of Smash's gameplay revolves around getting hit. If no one got hit (often), every game would be a timeout. You can't expect players to "adapt" to an overpowered character by being perfect at the game.

 

And you can't be serious when you say that you expect people not to get hit. Do you not see how silly this sounds? .

Not silly in the slightest. Isai's words are gospel.

 

SAKURAI: On the other hand, looking at balancing, you cannot simply make adjustments by blindly accepting feedback from the Internet.

Absolutely true; this would result in a seriously messed-up game.

SAKURAI: For example, we could balance our game based on what high-level players say, but if that meant beginner-level players would no longer be able to play, that wouldn’t be an acceptable outcome.

I'm not entirely sure about this. I totally respect his opinion. However, most of the patches high-level players--or at least people who are competent and understand the game--request are to buff some of the lower-tiers or nerf overly strong setups or moves. I can't rightly see how this would really prevent beginners from playing. If anything, it would help everybody, especially beginners pick the game up and play and play well.
--
But, I'm not a game creator, so what do I really know?

 

Yes, but in LOL they are evaluating the game play of top players, not giving in to scrubs whining about a broken hero because they can't find a way to counter it.



No way. Maybe it would have turned some people off, but people that are truly competitive and love smash 4 would find a way around it.

Diddy was nowhere near as broken as fox is in melee, and nerfing fox in melee would have ruined the game plain and simple. Diddy kong did not need to be nerfed, people needed to just not get grabbed.

Don't get hit, and you don't have to worry about a guaranteed 2 piece combo. Simple. Adapt, don't patch.



Totally agree with you here, but melee is in no way "balanced" and if it was a modern era game would have been torn apart by patches and we wouldn't have an insanely awesome high level game. For all we know L cancelling / wavedashing / everything cool would have been removed. Brawl style.

I think I mentioned SF4 in my post already but I'm glad you bring it up.

Remember though,

Street fighter / LOL = Top players are analyzed and patches are made accordingly in the hopes of achieving as much balance as possible.

Smash 4 = Casuals are the target audience, casuals are usually scrubs and whine about everything. Things get patched out due to collective salty whining instead of in the goal of creating balance, like putting a bandage on something.

They go for the quick fix to try and please everyone, they are not truly trying to balance the game. They just want to keep casuals on the hook / give them the illusion that they might be able to win if Sakurai listens to them and nerfs any and all things that could harm their honorable scrubby gaming experience..... because that way they will continue to buy DLC content, plain and simple.

(Oh, I do think that updates where you get new characters or stages are super awesome by the way.... it's the changes to knockback / frame data / % damage that bug me)

Most of the balance philosophy of league asks questions of counter play, how strong the tools are and what ones are too weak.

Smash 4 follows that mostly and so does PM when it comes to changes at times. This is also is a question of core issues.

Fox's kit in melee is an old Lee Sin problem, he was too good at a lot of things and pushing everyone else out. Jack of all trades and a master of a few. Does he reward good tech skill like Lee Sin? Oh yes he does.

Was either fair in their respective times? (Season 2 - Season 4 for Lee Sin) hell no.

League tries to trim power when too strong and make characters unique in tools and options. Smash 4 development I recall Sakurai saying he was aiming for that as well.

Diddy was an issue he had one of the strongest low percent kill moves randomly on his Uair. People did try to play around it, but the tool in itself was too strong in itself.

Letting it play out and keeping an eye on it is what League devs say a lot. They still instant nerf or buff when something is clearly wrong.

Leaving Fox alone of ported from Melee would be a bad idea, that creates large power creep and is a lot more dev work than bringing him back on line, PM 3.02.

I agree with learning to adapt and letting it sit for a bit, but not in clear outlier cases.

 

I like the updates for patches but at the same time we always get robbed of our replays

 

Only if your main is OP to the community, then yes.

 

Buff Lucario.

That's almost all I care about when updates are released.

 

I'm not entirely sure about this. I totally respect his opinion. However, most of the patches high-level players--or at least people who are competent and understand the game--request are to buff some of the lower-tiers or nerf overly strong setups or moves. I can't rightly see how this would really prevent beginners from playing. If anything, it would help everybody, especially beginners pick the game up and play and play well.
--
But, I'm not a game creator, so what do I really know?

You're 100% right. Sakurai is just being a paranoid delusional anti-competitive jerk as always. I for one DO NOT respect any of his opinions. Melee was the highest selling game cube game BY FAR. Nothing needed to be messed with but because of his stupid mentality we ended up with Brawl. Brawl would have sold just the same amount of copies whether he had ruined the gameplay or left it the same, but he's blind to this fact.

we could balance our game based on what high-level players say, but if that meant beginner-level players would no longer be able to play, that wouldn’t be an acceptable outcome.

See, how does this even make any sense? How would balancing the game based off feedback from players that know what they're doing affect casual / beginner players IN THE SLIGHTEST????

"Oh snap, megaman's fair knockback was increased by 5% because of feedback from top players. AS A CASUAL I CANNOT ACCEPT THIS, THE GAME IS NOW LITERALLY UNPLAYABLE AND I AM NOW SOMEHOW GOING TO GET NINTENDO TO GIVE ME A FULL REFUND"

Dumb, Sakurai. Just... Dumb. You're dumb and I hate you.

*Charges DBZ type attack (again)*

Sakuraiiiiiiiiiiii!!

 

The correct ice cream flavor is black raspberry by the way.

It is really really good

 

See, how does this even make any sense? How would balancing the game based off feedback from players that know what they're doing affect casual / beginner players IN THE SLIGHTEST????

"Oh snap, megaman's fair knockback was increased by 5% because of feedback from top players. AS A CASUAL I CANNOT ACCEPT THIS, THE GAME IS NOW LITERALLY UNPLAYABLE AND I AM NOW SOMEHOW GOING TO GET NINTENDO TO GIVE ME A FULL REFUND"

Your example is invalid; a change that small wouldn't affect anyone on a noticeable level, casual or competitive.

Changes made based on feedback from high-level players do affect casual players, because both casual players and competitive players are playing the same game, with the same characters, and the same changes made to them; just a different ruleset. If, say, the Warlock Punch was made immensely more powerful (since it's so hard to land in 1v1s), then in free for alls (where the move is easier to land, since there are more players to distract one another), it may be overpowered.

Balancing Smash is a very difficult task, since it can be played in such a myriad of ways; heck, even 1v1 and FFA environments are radically different. I commend Sakurai and his team for making a game that's remotely balanced in so many different game modes, with this many fighters.

 

I don't think any of the changes made to Smash 4 "broke the game" or made it "uninteresting" in any way. Yeah, Diddy Kong was nerfed and I don't think he was anywhere near broken status, but he's still a top-tier threat he's not terrible after the nerfs he's just "less good". These updates as of right now are a good thing, but once all the character DLC is released for the game I think these updates (as far as balancing goes) will slowly come to a stop and only be released if some game-breaking bug is found. Soon after the updates stop the meta-game will start to stabilize and we can actually make an accurate tier list finally.

 

Letting top competitive players decide anything is the worst mistake. For one, good game design should include ergonomics, including not rewarding demanding inputs that could damage the hands. It is also unfair to reward faster inputs that are not possible for many players. Self-centered elitists will not understand this reasoning but good thing Sakurai does understand it and good thing only Sakurai's opinion matters. Hah.

 

Since when were they ever a bad thing?

Letting top competitive players decide anything is the worst mistake. For one, good game design should include ergonomics, including not rewarding demanding inputs that could damage the hands. It is also unfair to reward faster inputs that are not possible for many players. Self-centered elitists will not understand this reasoning but good thing Sakurai does understand it and good thing only Sakurai's opinion matters. Hah.

Competitive players can be good and cancer at the same time.

 

Updates keep the game fresh so that way we aren't seeing stuff like Fox VS Fox mirror matches constantly...unlike Melee this game will continue to get balanced with future updates.



P.S. Buff Link please Sakurai...

 

While I respect it, I'm sort of mixed on Sakurai's opinion. I mean, the competitive community has a very limited idea about actual game design, but we're quite knowledgable on the terms of balance. The competitive fanbase made Project M which had the best balance in the series hands down. Every character was viable in that game. Sure, there were a few broken things about certain characters, but they were taken care of.

Besides, a lot of people are asking for character buffs. Sure, there's people who want character nerfs, but the cry for buffs is quite prevalent. I really don't see why just buffing all of the lower tiered characters would have such a negative effect. Nintendo has proved they're able to handle significantly buffing low tier characters without breaking them through Ike and, to a lesser extent, Falco. If Sakurai is against buffing certain lower tiered characters because they're already good in free for all (like Bowser), I don't get why. Project M was balanced with a focus on 1 vs. 1 play, but that didn't make anyone seriously broken in free for alls.

What Sakurai sounds like he's trying to do is to listen to everyone, but that has negative effects. How would listening to top level players' balance opinions have a negative effect on the casual fanbase? First of all, the casual fanbase is exactly that. Casual. They play the game just for fun. For example, if they were to give Zelda the Ike treatment, most casual players would likely not even notice. Second, the part of the casual fanbase that does complain about characters are the younger players who accuse everything and anything that isn't positive towards them in a game to be cheap. It's stuff like "Oh, Mewtwo's Shadow Ball hit me and I died, so Mewtwo is cheap". Come on. We all know we've experienced this in some form in our younger days of gaming. Top level players are the metagame. Out of everyone who didn't actually work on the game, they likely have the best idea of what actually deserves to get buffed and nerfed.

 

I'm not entirely sure about this. I totally respect his opinion. However, most of the patches high-level players--or at least people who are competent and understand the game--request are to buff some of the lower-tiers or nerf overly strong setups or moves. I can't rightly see how this would really prevent beginners from playing. If anything, it would help everybody, especially beginners pick the game up and play and play well.

I saw a post on Reddit that summed up the issue being well, the main point being that casual and competitive players play the game very differently. In casual free-for-alls, and even casual 1v1s, heavy, hard-hitting characters like Ganondorf tend to dominate because they're easy to use (at this level of play), and are very rewarding because people don't know how to play around them. On the other hand, low-knockback, combo-oriented characters like Sheik are much less useful, since a new player isn't going to try and put together combos and strings to fully utilize her potential.

As a result, even though giving Ganondorf a buff to movement/damage/knockback would be amazing for him competitively, it would also make him even more centralizing in casual gameplay. At the same time, nerfing something like Sheik's damage/frame data would make her even more useless to casual players. Balance is really tricky when you're trying to appeal to both the casual and competitive crowd, since while making a small change can benefit the character in one scene, it can potentially have a negative effect on the other.

 

Letting top competitive players decide anything is the worst mistake. For one, good game design should include ergonomics, including not rewarding demanding inputs that could damage the hands. It is also unfair to reward faster inputs that are not possible for many players. Self-centered elitists will not understand this reasoning but good thing Sakurai does understand it and good thing only Sakurai's opinion matters. Hah.

Wow I can taste the salt from here.

Let's apply your line of thinking to some other things and see how ridiculous it sounds.

Good sports rule sets should include balanced ergonomics, including not rewarding demanding physical feats and upper body strength with which to gain advantages like throwing the ball farther or running faster.

Good university classes should include not be rewarding demanding exams and essays that students with higher levels of intelligence are better at doing.

Good jobs should not be rewarding difficult tasks the require more experience and knowledge in exchange for a higher salary. It is not fair to reward higher levels of talent and experience that are not possible for many employees.

...

Get what I'm trying to say here? Your way of thinking is that of a textbook scrub. Not trying to insult you, but you fit the definition exactly.

 

You're 100% right. Sakurai is just being a paranoid delusional anti-competitive jerk as always. I for one DO NOT respect any of his opinions. Melee was the highest selling game cube game BY FAR. Nothing needed to be messed with but because of his stupid mentality we ended up with Brawl. Brawl would have sold just the same amount of copies whether he had ruined the gameplay or left it the same, but he's blind to this fact.



See, how does this even make any sense? How would balancing the game based off feedback from players that know what they're doing affect casual / beginner players IN THE SLIGHTEST????

"Oh snap, megaman's fair knockback was increased by 5% because of feedback from top players. AS A CASUAL I CANNOT ACCEPT THIS, THE GAME IS NOW LITERALLY UNPLAYABLE AND I AM NOW SOMEHOW GOING TO GET NINTENDO TO GIVE ME A FULL REFUND"

Dumb, Sakurai. Just... Dumb. You're dumb and I hate you.

*Charges DBZ type attack (again)*

Sakuraiiiiiiiiiiii!!

And i thought i was the only one with these feelings... brings a tear to my eye knowing im not alone :')

 

Updates are only bad for one thing: ****in' up our replays.

 

Your example is invalid; a change that small wouldn't affect anyone on a noticeable level, casual or competitive.

Changes made based on feedback from high-level players do affect casual players, because both casual players and competitive players are playing the same game, with the same characters, and the same changes made to them; just a different ruleset. If, say, the Warlock Punch was made immensely more powerful (since it's so hard to land in 1v1s), then in free for alls (where the move is easier to land, since there are more players to distract one another), it may be overpowered.

Balancing Smash is a very difficult task, since it can be played in such a myriad of ways; heck, even 1v1 and FFA environments are radically different. I commend Sakurai and his team for making a game that's remotely balanced in so many different game modes, with this many fighters.

Come on broo, you have to admit some of the changes that they do make no sense, like given a move 1% more damage, or giving fox laser like 2 less ending laggg? really fox? why not falco he really needs some less ending lagg in his lasers!...also suited samus has some of her moves thats plain suck like her Dsmash (this smash dosent even kill in 180%)....i mean there are some very obvious changes he could make to help the lower tier characters and game per-say and he is just complaining about how it would affect casual players...casual players wont even notice any change....Sakurai thinking is just ilogical and dumb, i do thank him for smash but his thinking pisses me off sometimes

 

Now what if Smash 4's roster was constantly patched in order to purposely shift some fighters to be slightly ahead of the curve every so often, with there being another update every so often that does the same to other fighters, creating a meta that constantly changes?

Not saying this is a good design choice, but I'd find it interesting.

 

I've been really impressed by the updates we've had so far. For the most part, they've been smaller tweaks to characters that have avoided changing too much at once, and some well-needed nerfs have brought previously overpowered characters and moves down to earth. Sakurai's work still isn't done, of course, but every patch seems to make the game better balanced than the previous one, and I have a lot of respect for him because of that.

The only problem is losing replays...but it's a small price to pay, don't you think?

 

Now what if Smash 4's roster was constantly patched in order to purposely shift some fighters to be slightly ahead of the curve every so often, with there being another update every so often that does the same to other fighters, creating a meta that constantly changes?

Not saying this is a good design choice, but I'd find it interesting.

What'd be far more interesting though, would be doing this naturally. Like, having a powerful character (A), but then someone discovering a counter (B) to A. Then B dominates the meta, but B has its own hidden counter (C), and so on and so forth. That way, the community would be discovering these things naturally, on their own. The meta would change, not be forced to change.

Extra Credits did an episode on this; I think it's called "perfect imbalance." I'd recommend checking it out if you're interested in the subject!

 

Absolutely true; this would result in a seriously messed-up game.



I'm not entirely sure about this. I totally respect his opinion. However, most of the patches high-level players--or at least people who are competent and understand the game--request are to buff some of the lower-tiers or nerf overly strong setups or moves. I can't rightly see how this would really prevent beginners from playing. If anything, it would help everybody, especially beginners pick the game up and play and play well.
--
But, I'm not a game creator, so what do I really know?

Yeah, had a feeling he would say that silly analogy of fixing for the vocal minority when we're suggesting fixing the characters for everyone. People aren't a fan of their favorite characters being not viable (or overly broken) due to poor game balancing. Obviously we don't want everyone to be the same, but not everyone is into blondes at top and others with low amount of good matchups.

 

I'm perfectly fine with updates. Expands the game by incorporating new content and attempts to tweek gameplay. However, there has to be a definitive end to the updates and patches. More than likely, we will be ending the content updates but we may see patches that tweek gameplay continue in the future. There has to be a point of time where they stop tweeting and let players develop the meta game. I also think that suggestions/recommendations should be taken by pro players, scrubs (as Dylan so nicely put it), and the development team themselves. I do not believe that the team should look solely at one particular group.