Sanya Weathers's MMO Underbelly: The Evolution of a Patch Note
How patch notes come into being, or at least how they should. This week, Sanya looks behind the curtain.
There was once this… patch note:
“Class adjustments have been made.”
This is a terrible patch note. What class? How many classes? Were the adjustments global for the class, or situational changes that only apply to dungeons or instances? Adjusted which way? Why was it adjusted? How much was it adjusted?
Imagine this instant messenger exchange taking place every time a crappy patch note like that appears on a community manager’s desk:
Community Person: Hey dude.
Producer: Yeah?
CP: This note. “Class adjustments have been made.” No soap, man.
P: Why?
CP: What class? What adjustments? That’s not a patch note, that’s a /taunt at our players.
A patch note has multiple functions. It informs the players what changes have been made, and it serves as documentation for the development team. To post less than full information is to actively harm both sides of this MMO paradigm. And while some would argue that to post exact numbers and formulas would cause trouble, I say “BAH” to them.
First of all, players can and will achieve marvelous feats of reverse engineering with or without the patch notes. They might as well have accurate data to start with. I’m not advocating that anyone post the server side reckonings, but how much does it really hurt to just post that such and such an ability has increased by 5%?
Second, if there’s no record of the degree of an intended change, it’s not possible for anyone to run intelligent tests. And for reasons that probably relate more to Asperger’s Syndrome than we really want to admit to ourselves, the MMO niche has a lot of players ready, even eager, to produce spreadsheets and complex formulas. Harness the insanity, because there is no way to duck it.
Of course, if the reason you’re afraid to post numbers is because there are too many factors going into one equation to give a cut and dried formula, you can certainly say so. The sort of player who sits down to reverse engineer armor ratios will respect that, and the casual patch note reader won’t care. It’s not that hard to say “X, Y, and Z are the primary factors and A, B, and C, are minor factors.”
What’s the next step up the patch note evolutionary ladder?
“Caster classes and tank classes have been adjusted to better clarify their roles in close quarters combat.”
Better, but still almost meaningless. Players assume that all adjustments are nerfs. That’s because players are not insane. If it’s an improvement, a producer or an executive of some flavor does the posting, not the community weenie, and it’s not buried in a patch note post. Being coy with terms like “adjusted” is a waste of time and insults the reader’s intelligence.
Instead of being coy, why not provide the background? Players skilled in reading between the lines will see a note like that and think “Oh, right, the devs must have realized that dungeon instances for eight man groups in the level 30 range are unplayable because casters suck up aggro like bums suck up Thunderbird.” However, the kind of mind that will make such a leap is a slightly paranoid, vaguely unstable mind that will eventually lose the ability to understand direct statements. Too much coyness in patch notes creates people who don’t believe you when you say the sky is blue.
And again, there’s no information on what to test, and in what context. Return to the chat between our community person and our producer:
P: Dungeons in the 30-40 range were nearly unplayable. Casters were building up agg faster than tanks could taunt it off. We think the problem was in the Jazzhands Sparklebutt chain.
CP: The first move in that chain is pretty big, and the progression is linear, right?
P: Right. I don’t know the exact details. The way the designer explained it to me was that now the first move is small, and it doesn’t grow in a straight line. The fourth step does exactly the same damage as before, so the casters won’t care.
CP: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
P: What?
CP: Nothing. What about tanks? The note says both casters and tanks.
P: Minor modification to deal with the aggro issue – all tanks now do 1% more damage and taunts are 5% more effective.
After more discussion, and explanation that the people who were nerfed could use assurances that it’s not a killer, the patch note evolves to this:
“The Jazzhands Sparklebutt progression has been changed to create less aggro. The final step in the chain still does the same amount of damage.
“Tanks have received a minor bonus to taunt, and a very, very minor bonus to damage.”
But a really good patch note can’t be written without some input from actual players. That’s because it is highly unlikely that top quality producers/designers/coders/community people have played every possibly iteration of every class in the game. (If they’re that good at their jobs, they simply don’t have time. And it’s not enough to just play the class, for as we all know to our sorrow, there’s a world of difference between a fire specialization and a water specialization, or a sword wielder versus a two handed axe wielder.) There’s no need, anyway, if they’re willing to trust specially vetted players to glance over the notes and try the changes on an internal server. If this player group is working closely with the actual QA team (bugs submitted from this group go straight into the bug tracker, QA works with these players to duplicate bugs, etc), the power of QA is magnified.
Let’s face it, even if the QA team is big and powerful, it is possible to verify that a game change is working exactly as the documentation says it is… and have it still be horrible in terms of the public’s perception.
More Developer Perspectives Features:
More Columns:
More Features:
The only thing worse than vague patch notes are undocumented patch notes. Do the devs really think that because they didn't list it, that people won't notice something?
Example back in Age of Conan, my best friend was playing one of the classes and logged in after a patch to find out that one of his main attacks had its damage reduced by 50-70%. It's almost like they want to make you think it is some sort of bug, a bug that mysteriously gets reported all over the forums and never gets fixed. I don't think they have the heart to tell people that their class just had its balls cut off and is now effectively useless.
I can't comment as to that particular change, being as I haven't worked on the game. And not documenting the change is inexcusable.
BUT
No developer, anywhere, at any time, would nerf an attack by 70% unless it's the opening move in a chain that eventually grows, or unless 30% of the original is still pretty damn good. If it was an intentional change, then "effectively useless" is only accurate if you are comparing the attack to its bloated original. If you had started out with the smaller version, you would almost certainly have taken it to be normal, not useless. If the change has rendered most of the players of the class "useless," then they were overly reliant on that one single attack, which is pretty much proof positive that the class was broken. A class shouldn't ever have an I WIN button.
A 90K/year salary only sounds like chump change if you're used to making 200K/year, but there are millions of people who would take that 90K and cackle.
And as I implied in my article - it's always better to do one big nerf than two little ones, because there's a real cost in lost subs when you spread out the pain.
So, yeah, my only problem with the scene as you describe it is that it wasn't noted.
I find it ironic that Sanya is writing about this since DAoC was notorious for incomplete, vague and even undocumented (stealth nerf) patches.
I guess she of all people would really know about this
I have to agree that it's the undocumented changes that get people going off like train whistles. After a while, the response of "Sorry!" starts to read like "Sorry, Charlie!" to folks, and they get wound up over the perceived sarcasm.
I also find it interesting that I rarely see patch notes that make it to the last step, as described in this article. When they do, the next patch will fail to do so. Or, as insinuated, the "can't talk about details" excuse pops up, and the players get to go on an Easter Egg hunt to discover if they got the lollipop or the rock in this round of changes.
Sadly, even if a game spelled out all the facts, every time, every patch, they will still get rabblerabbled with those facts, instead of speculation. It makes it easy to see why effort might be withheld on a process that will have the same results, at least at a superficial level.
I find it ironic that Sanya is writing about this since DAoC was notorious for incomplete, vague and even undocumented (stealth nerf) patches.
I guess she of all people would really know about this
Well, I was trying to illustrate that whether the company is really good at it or really bad at it, it's a group process consisting of multiple departments and user feedback.
Everyone has to be on the same page for the process to work.
Though for the record, there was never a stealth nerf in my time. There were some things that weren't documented, but that was a failure of documentation, never an attempt to sneak things in.
EDIT: Okay, there was one attempt at sneaking, but neither I nor the producer was told about it, or it wouldn't have happened, and it certainly never happened again :)
The first was one of those things I never satisfactorily solved. I *always* cared and I was *always* truly regretful, but the 400th time does ring a bit hollow. But the front line people can't do anything about that. All the front line people can do is keep being sincere even if no one believes it.
The last is pretty much the main argument faced by everyone who advocates transparency.
I'm going to stop posting now :) Can you tell this is something I care about?
I find it ironic that Sanya is writing about this since DAoC was notorious for incomplete, vague and even undocumented (stealth nerf) patches.
I guess she of all people would really know about this
Knowing Sanya and her experience with Community Management, I am pretty sure she wouldn't have allowed stealth nerfs, unless unbeknownst to her.
This post was mainly to reflect on how communication and honesty is vital for the healthy growth and sustainability for a community in an online game.
I also would have to agree with the fact that when something is patched there needs to be enough information to inform players of the changes, leaving little room for misunderstandings. But even then there will always be those who don't read things fully and end up with wrong conclusions.
Thank you Sanya
Again with your type of dry humor (that I like) you have written a great article about things that should be looked at by both players and devs.
That's pretty much what I felt after reading this article. I really enjoyed the dry humor and at the same time it was interesting reading about it from someone on "the other side". Thanks.
Personally I have always been happy with simplistic and non numerical description.
Just telling me that "aggro has been changed" is fine. I do however want to know if skills have been changed "firebolt damage increased" is enough for me, I dont need to know the numbers, i can see that in game.
I think the reason I prefer not to see the numbers is that surfing through long lengthy patch notes just gets frustrating and keeping it short is essential to get the idea across without hassle.
Perhaps developers could make 2 sets of notes, one for the simple statements that goes with the patch, and a lengthy one on their website for those that want to know?
I can't comment as to that particular change, being as I haven't worked on the game. And not documenting the change is inexcusable.
BUT
No developer, anywhere, at any time, would nerf an attack by 70% unless it's the opening move in a chain that eventually grows, or unless 30% of the original is still pretty damn good. If it was an intentional change, then "effectively useless" is only accurate if you are comparing the attack to its bloated original. If you had started out with the smaller version, you would almost certainly have taken it to be normal, not useless. If the change has rendered most of the players of the class "useless," then they were overly reliant on that one single attack, which is pretty much proof positive that the class was broken. A class shouldn't ever have an I WIN button.
A 90K/year salary only sounds like chump change if you're used to making 200K/year, but there are millions of people who would take that 90K and cackle.
And as I implied in my article - it's always better to do one big nerf than two little ones, because there's a real cost in lost subs when you spread out the pain.
So, yeah, my only problem with the scene as you describe it is that it wasn't noted.
Actually under whatshisname's reign (Gaute Godager), the game was notorious for swathing, debilitating changes being made to the game and never being documented.
At all.
For a good long time, patch day meant for a good number of players, that it was time to test and document the changes that never made it to the notes.
One specific iteration of that was the Bear Shaman's Internal Bleed talent, Gaute felt that a bleed effect combo was too powerful with an opener that did damage. And maybe he was right, but by reducing the opener's damage to 0...he nullified a talent (a 5 point one at that) that increased the opening damage of the combo by an incremental amount based on points invested.
None of this was documented.
Or even changed until recently. When the new game director was made aware of the change, I doubt he'd admit it, but I am fairly sure he had no idea of such a glaring issue. He certainly seemed surprised by it.
This all took almost a year, from beginning to end, to be fixed. Because a game director felt it unnecesary to document what he felt was a minor change.
Anyway, that is just one game, and it's tale of being mishandled grossly.
i complety agree that we need more transparency. Take City of Heroes for a moment. Sometimes the patchnotes and nerfs were massive, game changing things. They felt the could get away with it and well the players caught them on day one. They wised up eventually bu their were same major exodoses in the game because of outright lies or vage notes that changed the nature of the game.
Controler pet nerf comes to mind "ficed controlers to only summon one pet, as intended"
except that in their own game manual they specificaly talk about multiple pets.
or the agro cap nerf which put tanker tants to 5 but blaster AOEs to 16, and then haved every tanker defense across the board, then then halved all enhacments across the board. whichthey argued was a balance issue for a addition comming (invention sets) but it took months for that addition to come in leaving players will litterly crippled players.
Or the fact that the players reported that invunerability was broken, having paperthin defenses to anythignthat wasnt smash/lethal.
The devs really need to understand players will disect your game and then post the exact details on the notes on the forums
That's pretty much what I felt after reading this article. I really enjoyed the dry humor and at the same time it was interesting reading about it from someone on "the other side". Thanks.
lol.. felt same :P
the reverse engeneering of formulas reminds me of old swg
some players reported that some specials did not work
pages of testing the specials and the resulting numbers were posted
after a while more and more players did that to show and proof that some professions were completly buged
sonys reaction ?
they removed the combat log and said " it is to confusing for players " .............
Hahahahaa
Hahahahaa
i seriously wonder what goes though sony's heads.
They make some king ass hardwere, heck you can turn a PSP int a free skyphone with the latest firmware update. The PS3 is pratically a super cmputer...
then you have SWG
Thank you Sanya. You are a true talent and you never fail to make me laugh when reading your articles. I look forward to your future writings and ridirik :)
Nice article as always Sanya. In fact it kind of hits on the same subjects the AoC director was blogging about last week (linky)- a general fear of saying the wrong thing affecting what you do say, and that developers need to get over it and try and improve there. Not because they are bad people, they are just people with all the same thought processes as we all have :p
I wish more people thought like that and patch notes could be by and large less cryptic...
I very much agree with this, although I would go a lot further in restricting details.
I really don't want to know the statistical information. It's offputting. I do realise that many MMO players come from a tech background, but plenty don't. While I am perfectly capable of understanding the technical details, they don't interest me much and unless something has been changed so very much that I will no longer be able to play at all (happened in EQ2 at least twice that i can recall), a very general description is entirely fine.
I'd actually prefer to play an MMO that didn't provide any numbers to players at all. Not even basic stats on gear or basic damage numbers on attacks. I'd be fine just experimenting in-game to see which sword seemed to kill creatures faster or which shield I seemed to die less using. I actually like it much better when no-one really knows what's going on.
Sanya, I think your the best commentator on mmorpgs that there is right now. But that being said....
I think your dead wrong on this. The type of detail demanded by the very small percentage of people who "reverse program" has serious consequences on the game. WIthout a doubt, the detailed responses of the final patch note in your hypothetical scenario would make life a lot easier for a community manager, but really isn't that why you have a community manager? To make his/her life miserable (just kidding, but not really!) ??
Community Managers whole existence is to shield the developers from the community. (which is reverse from what they say they do, which is provide feedback from the community to the developers) Let's be realistic. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. In many ways, it's an important thing. It's like the press secretary for the president. As much as we complain about transparency, we really don't want to know how the sausage is made. (confused metaphor for the win!!)
What happens when you give so much info out, is that you LOSE IMMERSION! You have people like Elitist Jerk reverse program everything, and create the most optimal way to play the game, and since this genre is built around competition, you have everyone playing their class one specific way instead of having people develop different styles and different solutions to the same problem. Albeit some will work better than others, but no one will no for sure why. That is a good thing!!!
By keeping the community in the dark, you have them testing what works and what doesn't by actually PLAYING THE GAME!! And not doing searches on whoever has the best spreadsheets.
My theory on patch notes should be taken from that line in the Departed.
What's your theory on patch notes to the community, Detective Dingham?
"They're like mushrooms. Feed them shit and keep them in the dark."
This is the reason this, in my opinion, is the best column at MMORPG.com.
That said, I think that mentioning "great read" now would be redundant :P
Knowing Sanya and her experience with Community Management, I am pretty sure she wouldn't have allowed stealth nerfs, unless unbeknownst to her.
This post was mainly to reflect on how communication and honesty is vital for the healthy growth and sustainability for a community in an online game.
I also would have to agree with the fact that when something is patched there needs to be enough information to inform players of the changes, leaving little room for misunderstandings. But even then there will always be those who don't read things fully and end up with wrong conclusions.
I'm curious. When did "community managers" become developers and/or in charge? A community manager manages the community for the benefit of the developer, not the customer.
Regardless how some may try to make their job seem like more than it is, a community manager boils down to two functions: provide a firewall between the devs and the customers and act as a mouthpiece for those same developers. A community manager doesn't tell you anything the company doesn't authorize them to, unless they like being unemployed.
So to say a community manager would "never allow" something is pretty presumptuous, unless you know for a fact that cm enjoys eating ramen while looking for another job.
Sanya pretty much redefined the job of community manager. I'm sure if it was anyone else then they probably wouldn't have a say in the matter... her job was a lot more than was it is. Good communication between the two is of great importance in this genre and it would be asinine to underestimate that. Customers measure the success of a MMO, so I would think that a CM's job is kind of important.
I've been an Art Director for 3 different companies and each time my responsibilities have been different. It's a little hasty to say that a community manager is only to play a certain role, it depends on the company to define the job title. If you are good at your job the company will listen, if not it's time to move on. Who's to say it was your loss or the companies? I'm pretty sure Sanya isn't eating ramens... unless she likes them. There is always something comforting about a good bowl of ramen noodles.
Sanya wrote a great article about what goes on behind that firewall you where talking about. I'd take the article for what it is.
Certainly that is true at some companies. It is not true at all of them.
Some community people are mouthpieces, and they get paid accordingly. Other CMs have specialized communication skills that have value, skills the rest of the team does not necessarily have (because they have other skills like "game design" and "knowledge of programming languages").
Companies that hire the latter are looking to build long term relationships with their players.
Companies that hire mouthpieces are betting that their product alone is enough to hook you, such that they don't need to form a relationship.
Both kinds of companies can be successful.
TankTester: I’d have said something sooner, but the note didn’t say how much of a bonus…
CP: serghjklgeshdthui
(The community person goes AFK with the imprint of his keyboard still on his forehead.)
Hahahahahaa! Excellent.
Very nice article.
You are correct in one instance, a Community Manager cannot overstep their bounds and release information to the community that does not benefit the company nor any information that is strictly verboten. However, a CM is supposed to be there for both the Developers and the Players.
Yes CMs provide a filter between players and devs, but not all CMs have to act solely as a mouthpiece. You're thinking more along the lines of Community Liaisons or Community Reps. Now this is also depending on whatever company that employs them, they are mostly used for moderation. A Community Manager should be someone with the skill to grow and sustain a community.
Generally a CM won't post any information that they are stricly forbidden from releasing, but they are employed to help keep the customers informed and have a pleasant experience in any social function, dependant on company.
On the other hand, you're pretty presumptuous yourself thinking that CMs get fired at the drop of the hat for being nothing more than a mouthpiece. Try working as a CM for a few years, then you will be singing a different tune. Sanya is a great Community person who love loves doing community work and is looked up to as a role model by others in the Online Entertainment Industry. Someone else even stated that she was one of the key figures who helped "redefine" the role of Community Manager.
I'd suggest doing some actual investigation toward what all entails in community management. It may open your eyes up to a whole new world.
NOT EVERYONE IS GOOD AT MATH
the ability for everyone to understand a change is a myth.
Don't ask for the real change, If yo aren't ready for Hard Math.
no, jimmy, you will *never* understand the changes on the code.
Certainly that is true at some companies. It is not true at all of them.
Some community people are mouthpieces, and they get paid accordingly. Other CMs have specialized communication skills that have value, skills the rest of the team does not necessarily have (because they have other skills like "game design" and "knowledge of programming languages").
Companies that hire the latter are looking to build long term relationships with their players.
Companies that hire mouthpieces are betting that their product alone is enough to hook you, such that they don't need to form a relationship.
Both kinds of companies can be successful.
Wow Sanya,
I know a company that just hired a new CM who they feel reflects the one way you describe but really does the other way. In other words they wanted a community builder as the game needs it. What they have is a BIG "mouth piece".
I will leave it to you to decide what game.
<,<
Great read and thank you again. :)
I used to play a Korean MMO.
Actually, let me rephrase that: I used to play the English Version of a Korean MMO.
The Korean version opperated as many standard MMOs did, with patches, testing, incremented versions, content updates and what have you. The English version was somewhat different. Specifically, the update schedule was.. well, it lagged behind. Updates were implemented in odd orders. Picture the following scenario: Update 5 in the Korean version would have a new landmass, some new quests, and some class balances. Update 5 in the English version would be implemented about a year later, and it would have some quests from update 6, some landmass from update 5, and the class balances from update 4.
Now this in itself was odd, but not truly horrifying. No, what was truly terrifying was that the patch notes attached to said game never mentioned any of the class balance changes. The average update would be a page along the lines of:
"MMO Company presents Grind Online's newest update: The Sizzleblack Mountains! In the deep forests of Yornbecker, <lore lore lore lore lore> and many other adventures! The update will include the Sizzleblack Mountain region and many new monsters and quests!"
If there was a major update like, say, adding a new class, they'd talk about it. But the patch notes never mentioned balance changes ever. I recall one particular patch.. One of the game's two Rogue classes was, until that point, incredibly gimped, and restricted to stealth only whilst next to solid geometry such as walls. This update changed this: Said class could now stealth away from walls. In addition, the primary stealth detection moves in the game (belonging to Clerics and Mages) were reduced to about 20% of their original effectiveness. Did I mention this was a game with PvP, and that the most valuable items in the economy were only available through hardcore large scale guild vs guild PvP? Did I further mention that said Rogue class was one of vital importance to winning in these guild wars?
Yeah, that patch upset the balance a bit.
The best part was when they removed the balance changes a week later without warning, only to reimplement them in another patch about six months down the line. The funny thing is, I actually knew about the balances a long time in advance. How? Fan forums actually uploaded the Korean patch notes, usually about a year and a half ahead of us. Did I mention that my main was of the same Rogue class which got buffed that patch? Imagine me, having anticipated that patch for about a year, seeing it implemented, being incredibly happy, getting to play with it, and then seeing the patch removed a week later.
Now imagine me calmly composing a polite letter to customer service/community management inquiring about the details of the update, if the patch was taken out due intentionally or not, and if it would get reimplemented in the future.
Now imagine me getting a stock letter in response which answered none of my questions.
Now imagine me going apeshit.
I will always remember that MMO with a sad fondness like I remember my first girlfriend (whom, incidentally, I played that MMO with). But I will never forget how incredibly incompetent the administration was. And I swear, if I ever find myself in a position of power within an MMO company, I will never let such things happen to my players. And if I ever do, and the players of my game ever start obsessively googling my name, and they find this post, I want them to show it to me and remind me of my god damned roots.
Well, I was trying to illustrate that whether the company is really good at it or really bad at it, it's a group process consisting of multiple departments and user feedback.
Everyone has to be on the same page for the process to work.
Though for the record, there was never a stealth nerf in my time. There were some things that weren't documented, but that was a failure of documentation, never an attempt to sneak things in.
EDIT: Okay, there was one attempt at sneaking, but neither I nor the producer was told about it, or it wouldn't have happened, and it certainly never happened again :)
In my experience of IT, just about every developer there ever was at the very least dislikes documentation - some get the experience, eventual realisation or even enough beatings to realise that documentation IS a part of the process, but so far I havent met a single dev type that enjoys writing swathes of documentation. And typically the more junior they are, the more they grumble about it. They'd much rather code away, possibly, maybe, if you are lucky throw a few comments in the code, and then fill out the Job Done bureaucracy part as quickly as possible.
So that changes go through undocumented ? Ha ha. About par for the course. Should it happen ? No, everything should be documented, ticked, properly versioned, peer reviewed. And whilst there, all projects should come in on time, all clients should have a grasp of what they want to achieve, there should never be feature creep and so on and so forth. In the real world, documentation is often the thing that gets dropped - no time, too busy, dont want to do it , or even just forgotten ! I've seen documentation go from essential, to nice to have, to lets do it afterwards, to why arent there any for this live system ? On numerous occasions.
So personally I wouldnt get too paranoid about devs or whoever not always providing complete documentation. If its raining, you are likely to get wet. A policy of universal umbrellas for all ? Sure. An umbrella utopia. Never going to happen.
Secondly, I disagree with airing all the equation underwear in public. To me this is not far from issues regarding mechanics when playing Pen and Paper old school RPGs. Just how much of the mechanics, decisions and dice rolling do you show to players ? IMO Invariably the more under the hood mechanics that are shown, the worse the experience for players. Sure there are players that want to tweak every stat and grasp every roll, but allowing players to see all that goes on behind the GM's curtain is never a good idea. Kudos on information sharing, shame about spoiling the game. The wizard of Oz is much more impressive when hes hidden behind the curtain, and you are all staring at the big impressive light show instead.
Publishing lists of cold hard formulas destroys some of the "magic" of the game. Where there is doubt, people tend to invent their own theories - and in the best case scenario you get content for free that never existed - I've heard it said these boots make your loot drops better. Ever since I've worn them my drops have been awesome... blah blah blah.
All programmers know how to write code, but writting the documentation is something else.
To write good documentation you have to have a multiple personality disorder. You have to think like a programmer to understand the code, and you have to think like a user, to understand the change from the user point of view. This multiple personality disorder is painfull. Once you have it, you are able to make a traduction. Anyway theres always something that is Lost In Translations. Programmers writting documentation sould be paid for code and for doing translations works. Is two jobs in one.
What the OP describe here is varing degrees of quality on translation. The first example is a "Babelfish" like literal translation, latter ones are less literal, more interpretation-free translations.
Translating ideas is hard, and often imposible. the idea you want to transmit, maybe exist on source, but not on target.
I'd be curious to find out what percentage of subscribers read patch notes. I would bet it's pretty small. I further postulate that the percentage of people who obsess about the contents is a small percentage of that percentage. I rarely even scan patch notes, most of the time I don't read them at all...or even care. Just push the patch so I can keep playing.
depends on the game. in City of Heroes we get pretty anal when a patch stripes of the armor from our tanks or encourages the blasters to refuse healing (true stories)