PDA

View Full Version : Auto Patching mechanism


kafros
13th May 2005, 06:12 AM
I separated this thread from the one about bonus packs because I believe they are different subjects.


I would like to see patches to be auto-applied as soon as you go on-line. Apart from the self-evident benefits of having all server-clients at the same game version, this will allow EPIC to do more radical fixes/redesign of its code.

As it is now patches are compatible with previous versions. If for example EPIC finds a way which radically changes online play, but in order to do that they have to change the format of data being sent, then they will NOT do it because it would break network compatibility.

I faced the same problems when I deployed new versions of my software products and now the ability to bring any connecting client up to date allows me to do almost anything that makes the software better without having to think about cross-inter-backwards-compatibility between the server and the clients.

What do you think fellow forumers?

A note about filesize: 12mb once a month(or even twice) will not hurt anyone

Black_Seeds
13th May 2005, 06:19 AM
I really dont like the idea of being spoonfed stuff, as someone on the other thread stated. And although 12mb might not b much, slowly it will eat up alot of space.

kafros
13th May 2005, 06:32 AM
I really dont like the idea of being spoonfed stuff, as someone on the other thread stated. And although 12mb might not b much, slowly it will eat up alot of space.

Patching is not commulative. It replaces files.
e.g.
Patch 1 replaces network.dll(234kb) with a new network.dll(345kb)

Patch 2 replaces network.dll(345kb from patch 1) with a new network.dll(320Kb)

Patch 3 replaces network.dll(320Kb from patch 2) with a new network.dll(280kb)

If you dont like the idea of being spoonfed stuff I would advise to stay offline ;)

moonflyer
13th May 2005, 07:13 AM
i just don't like the idea
and this is not important

Radiosity
13th May 2005, 07:40 AM
I would like to see patches to be auto-applied as soon as you go on-line

No thanks. I, and I alone, dictate where and when my bandwidth is used. I don't want crap being installed unless I specifically download and install it myself.

edhe
13th May 2005, 07:56 AM
There are always issues with new patches, it's best to make them voluntary and disclaimed than forced and liable.

Bazzi
13th May 2005, 09:27 AM
Let me put it another way:

There are always issues, it's best to patch them quickly and for everyone than relying on people to download it from the official website where it appears 3 weeks late.

kafros
13th May 2005, 01:10 PM
How do you all (Bazzi excluded) think that issues will be solved fast and reliably?

Suppose (as it always happens) that an exploit is found or a gameplay weakness or a new online cheat gets spread.

Scenario 1: EPIC releases the fix which is installed to anyone who wants to PLAY online (if you are on DSL and are playing UT offline it does not patch. It patches only if you decide to play online)

Scenario 2(as it is now). EPIC releases the fix two months later in order to incorporate as many bugs/fixes as possible into a single release. It also takes extra time to make sure it is cross compatible with all server-client patch combination.

As I wrote in #1 post, the server-client patch compatibility will prevent EPIC from doing ANY radical overhaul of the code (which basically means that if they made a bad design choice they are stuck with it, and/or they cannot introduce into their code a very good new design idea)

Think! Think!

]SideWinder[
13th May 2005, 01:22 PM
I think it would be nice to have an auto patching app that comes with the game, That way I can just run it, it checks my game for updates. If it needs updates it will download and patch it for me, if not it will tell me im fine. It could have options to download and apply BP too.

carmatic
13th May 2005, 01:42 PM
or it can be like how steam does it, like it sits on the tray and theres a way to switch between automatically updating when your not looking, or i think when you turn off auto update, it checks for new versions when you launch the game and you might have to wait for it to download after you try to launch it , but before you get to play it...
or it can be like some method thats been used by windows and a few other programs before, like it only checks for updates, and it tells you when theres something available and you click on it to start the download...

RaptoR
13th May 2005, 01:47 PM
Epic have said they plan to implement a system with at least the functionality of Xbox Live. If they did then auto-patching wouldn't be so far-fetched.

Bazzi
13th May 2005, 06:01 PM
Plus, if it is incorporated in the game we might see delta patches again (yeah long forgotten), because the patch app can determine which file needs which patching.

Currently, all files must be in every patch because the patches patch any version to the latest. A version 3339-3355 patch with delta/binary-diff compression wouldnt have exceeded 2MB I think, maybe less.

1337
13th May 2005, 09:40 PM
I don't like this idea. I should be able to run whatever patch version I want on my server. It should be voluntary.

Discord
13th May 2005, 10:21 PM
I don't like this idea. I should be able to run whatever patch version I want on my server. It should be voluntary.

I agree. I dunno if you guys have ever started at release and then watched the patches roll out one- by- one over the life of a UT game, but it's not as smooth as you may be imagining.

Part of the trouble is that UT is cross- platform. It currently operates on 3 OSes, and 2 or 3 consoles are soon to be added to that mess. Mac and Linux patches are currently handled by one guy.... which means that they always come out after the PC version. God only knows how console patches will fit into the logistics.

Then there's the main problem, which is that the initial patches are often spotty, ie they can cause a number of new problems equal to or greater than the number of problems they solve. There were a couple of patches to UT2k4 that caused the game to be literally unplayable for a significant minority of people... luckily I wasn't among them, but that's got to suck big time. As a result of my firsthand observation of that situation, I expect I'd probably shoot you dead if you tried to autoinstall any of the first several patches on my machine. By the time the later patches roll out, it's usually smoothed out considerably... but the early days are typically hard going.

Now. Combine those two factors and you've got this third wacko situation: the Windows version of the patch will completely screw the game, but the Linux version (which comes later and learns from the Windows mistakes) is just fine. Or, other times, the Windows patch works great but has unforseen troubles when ported to Linux. And Linux is a BIG FREAKIN' DEAL, believe me. It's a minority of clients, but it represents a real force to be reckoned with in terms of servers.


In a perfect world, autopatching would be ideal. However, in the real world it's a disaster waiting to happen. Might not be that way for CS, but then CS only has one OS to contend with... UT has 3 and counting. IMO there needs to be notification built into the client (for people who aren't active on forums), but believe me, forced patching is a bad, bad, bad idea. I mean really bad. Just awful. Terrible, even. Possibly even catastrophic. Don't do it.

kafros
14th May 2005, 03:18 AM
to [Apoc]Discord:

It is true that a new patch can bring a few new bugs. When that happens what do you prefer?

1. Wait 2 months to get the next one that resolves these
OR
2. Wait 2 days and the auto-patch (which is transparent to you) fixes the bugs

I have used auto-patching myself for the software I deploy to my clients (ERP software). It is the best way to solve their problems fast and to cover up my screw-ups (a situation in which ,as you said, I may introduce a new bug with a new feature set). I can also introduce massive code changes (for the good of the program's functionality) with out having to worry about what problems an up-patched client will have because there will be NO up-patched clients.

Auto-patching for a "distributed software" (and online games are such software) is the best way to go!

Discord
14th May 2005, 04:34 AM
to [Apoc]Discord:

It is true that a new patch can bring a few new bugs. When that happens what do you prefer?

1. Wait 2 months to get the next one that resolves these
OR
2. Wait 2 days and the auto-patch (which is transparent to you) fixes the bugs

I've seen Epic in action and I have absolutely ZERO confidence that what you're after here is even remotely possible. As stated above (and restated here as you don't seem to get it) the variables involved in terms of operating system and hardware mean that it takes a certain amount of time for the patches to smooth themselves out. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but results are never the same across the board. This means that some individuals experience problems from a patch that don't go away for months, much less 2 days... regardless of how many more patches are issued in the interim.

I demand the option to install a patch or not at my discretion based on whatever info I can gather. This is more sensible for me and more sensible for the developers, since if my game were to become disabled for any significant period of time I assure you that neither party would be very happy about it.

The_Head
14th May 2005, 06:48 AM
At first I though great. No more people joining games and finding out that they aint got a patch. But reading this an auto update would indeed be annoying. I think having a pop up when you go to online play saying "There is a new UT200X Patch out, visit www.Unrea....." etc. Give it a clicky link so you can go straight and download it or can choose to leave it.

kafros
14th May 2005, 10:45 AM
Give it a clicky link so you can go straight and download it or can choose to leave it.

What happens if you decide not to download?

1. EPIC makes damn sure that the new patch (which runs on the server you are trying to connect) is compatible with yours (older patch). There is NO WAY for EPIC to introduce NEW CODE THAT OPTIMISES THE GAME because they HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU (that said no to the download link) CAN STILL PLAY.

2. You cannot play on this server.

I hope EPIC chooses (2).

Dedicated servers should be auto-patched to the latest version!!!

1337
14th May 2005, 10:49 AM
Dedicated servers should be auto-patched to the latest version!!!
You obviously don't have a server. :rolleyes:
It should be voluntary.

kafros
14th May 2005, 12:31 PM
You obviously don't have a server. :rolleyes:
It should be voluntary.

Since you seem to have a server:

How is this going to produce more work for u?
1. Server Auto-downloads new patch
2. Server Auto-patches
3. Server Auto-restarts

auto-patching solutions are always transparent to users (server admins in this case)

Why should you wait for a complaint from the ppl playing when there is cheating or exploiting that is resolved in a new patch but your server does not have it? (because you didnt have the time to do it)

Discord
14th May 2005, 01:30 PM
At first I though great. No more people joining games and finding out that they aint got a patch. But reading this an auto update would indeed be annoying. I think having a pop up when you go to online play saying "There is a new UT200X Patch out, visit www.Unrea....." etc. Give it a clicky link so you can go straight and download it or can choose to leave it.

Yep. That's the way it should be. :tup:

2. You cannot play on this server.

I hope EPIC chooses (2).

Dedicated servers should be auto-patched to the latest version!!!

You're obviously one of the guys whose high- paid job it is to make one's working life utter misery. Nice to finally meet you.

There is NO WAY for EPIC to introduce NEW CODE THAT OPTIMISES THE GAME because they HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU (that said no to the download link) CAN STILL PLAY.

I've got one simple word for you: WRONG. Your understanding of how the process works is wrong, wrong, wrong, it's just plain unattached to reality in even the most basic ways.

As an example, look here at the combined changelogs for the first two patches to UT2004:

Page @ unrealadmin.org (http://downloads.unrealadmin.org/UT2004/Patches/Windows/?action=prettyprint&filename=ut2004-winpatch3236.exe.txt)

First you'll note the disclaimer at the top:

This patch is completely compatible with the retail version - servers and clients of any flavor can connect with each other.
This patch will not overwrite your ut2004.ini and user.ini files, except to update settings as necessary. This patch includes all changes made in Patch 1.

That's in reference to patch 2, but it's also true for patch 1. Seems pretty clear to me, but just to elucidate: unpatched clients could connect to patched servers. Patched clients could connect to unpatched servers. There was no need to install this patch in order to keep playing or serving the game.

Now let's go down to the patch 1 changelist at the bottom and take a look at a couple of changes made:

- call takefallingdamage() on wall dodge to prevent it being used as an exploit for avoiding damage on long falls
(can still use wall dodging anywhere you could before, you just take damage if you are falling too fast).

- force same character as player is using - players using bForceDefaultCharacter must use a valid forced character as their own model

- Fixed Leviathan pushing exploits by limiting the Leviathans max speed.

Those are all exploit fixes, every one. I'm not entirely sure that the Leviathan- pushing fix worked... but the first one (which prevented players from avoiding fall damage altogther by walldodging at the bottom of a long fall) and the second one (which allowed players to view all other players as Gorge while themselves playing as Matrix) definitely did work. Go ahead and look through those (rather long) changelogs and take a look at all the other great stuff that Epic "couldn't" do thanks to the patch being optional. :rolleyes:

Now. Some servers ran those patches, some didn't. Some clients ran those patches, some didn't. Whether or not the changes were felt ingame was entirely dependent on whether the patch was installed on the server. Those servers that didn't run it chose not to do so because with both patches, particularly the windows versions, problems were rampant but nowhere near universal. If a problem isn't universal, it generally doesn't get prompt 2- day service from Epic.

And now let me explain to you how the UT2004 servers are run: in brief, it's done out of pocket. An admin either rents the server from a service provider, rents space at a colocated data center, or else kicks out the dough for his/ her own private T3 line and builds the server machine as well -- all from his/ her own funds. Option 1 is NOT cheap. Option 2 is even more expensive, and option 3 pretty much requires that you're fairly wealthy.

And so what you're asking is that these people pay all that money to a 3rd party so that Epic can force them to install a hurry- up early patch that may very well make their server either unplayable or unpopular for God only knows how long. There's a reason Communism failed, you know... :p

If you think this is such a good idea, here's what: just before UT2007 comes out, go rent a server for it (shouldn't cost you more than about $150 US per month) and then install each and every patch that comes out. Hope you've got a big bottle of Excedrin... the installs themselves are fairly easy and your provider will probably do them for you. The nightmare begins after installation.


Look, I'm not really arguing that this shouldn't happen. There's no need for that because I can guarantee you that at least for PC, it won't happen. I'm just trying to explain to you why that is. Srry if I've sounded a little uptight, but the very idea makes my skin crawl.

I doubt you've been around to see patching of UT games in action, but I can assure you of two things:

1. The bugs that need fixing after initial release are substantial, but not game- breakers. The game will be playable and enjoyable right out of the box unless you're extremely picky.

2. The patches come fairly quickly at first. Skipping a patch or even two only means a delay of a month or so before you finally find one you want to use.

The system is fine as is, with the exception that more notification needs to be made. As for "transparency," I don't want to play on servers with lazy admins... those servers usually die pretty quickly anyway. There are plenty of resources available to keep admins active and informed of what's going on with the game, and the better ones take advantage of them.

Mmmkay? :)

Bazzi
14th May 2005, 02:02 PM
Seems that you got it all wrong what kafros wrote.
Re-read it.

Discord
14th May 2005, 02:40 PM
Seems that you got it all wrong what kafros wrote.
Re-read it.

Uh... no. How else am I supposed to interpret this:

There is NO WAY for EPIC to introduce NEW CODE THAT OPTIMISES THE GAME because they HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU (that said no to the download link) CAN STILL PLAY.

?!

There is in fact a way for Epic to introduce new code and they do it all the time. Or is it just the case that no new code has been introduced at all and all servers and clients are still running the game as it was when first released?

Or, possibly, is this some strange language that only looks like English and is in fact something else?

:rolleyes:

Maybe you should explain it to me then, as I'm evidently too thick to read my own native language.

And while you're at it, try rereading my post. I gave a very clear example of an official patch that "optimized" the game while retaining backward compatability... which is exactly what the above quote maintains can't be done.

kafros
14th May 2005, 04:17 PM
Discord']

You're obviously one of the guys whose high- paid job it is to make one's working life utter misery. Nice to finally meet you.



To answer this quickly:

I am one of those guys whose middle - paid job was hell while trying to have every different version combination of (my) software compatible.

And guess what: When I found a better way to do things (that would speed up the program), if that would break multiple version compatibility I just scraped it! Who do you think got hurt from that? me? no! the customer!

And to put it in UT context:

When EPIC was doing UT2004 they anounced that it would be compatible in netcode with UT2003. Later they droped it because (as said by cliffyB) they had more optimised net code for UT2004 that was incompatible with UT2003.

Imagine if UT2004 was a patch!

IF you are a developer ask yourself: how many times have you released something that you later find out you can do better/faster?

Most of the times better/faster needs radical code redesign and a change in the way you model your data (e.g. the data UT sends back and forth between server & client to keep the game state in sync).

And please read my previous posts again for the benefits of fast bug-crashing and game cheating prevention.

Guild Wars has a very successfull implementation of auto-patching. I took part in 3 of their beta events and it was nice to see bugs reported and resolved in a matter of hours!

[Apoc]Discord also know this:
Before you judge a man walk a mile in his shoes.
This way when you judge him you are a mile away....and you have his shoes ;)

Discord
14th May 2005, 06:30 PM
[Apoc]Discord also know this:
Before you judge a man walk a mile in his shoes.
This way when you judge him you are a mile away....and you have his shoes ;)

OK, so that crack about the IT dep't was an unwarranted venting of work- a- day spleen. I do apologize, sincerely. :)

However, I still think you've got a really terrible idea by the tail here. And now, to bidness:

please read my previous posts again for the benefits of fast bug-crashing and game cheating prevention.

Nobody's doubting that that would be a nice thing. My point here is that issues arising from massive discrepancies in hardware and software make it such that that kind of speedy resolution of issues is in all likelihood completely impracticable.

In other words, you're saying "it'll be awesome if it works" and I'm saying "it won't work." Potential benefits don't enter into the question. Maybe with any other company it would work... but I've seen Epic go at it and I just don't think they can do to UT what you're asking them to do.



Re: cheating. The way you're describing it, it goes like this: one day, some bad person discovers that he can exploit the game to make it do... something, we'll call it The Cheat. This guy goes online and executes The Cheat and within 48 hours The Cheat is widely known to everybody, confirmed in 10 demos with screenshots and GUID hashes, Epic has created new code to disallow it, and they're ready to distribute.

IRL it doesn't work that way. Cheats can take weeks/ months to become confirmed, regardless of any time involved in creating a fix.

And anyway, I've found Epic's response times to clearly identifiable shennanigans to be quite acceptable as is. The three exploit fixes quoted in my previous post were all from patch #1, which was released IIRC within just a couple of weeks.

Your tendency here is to exaggerate their potential reaction time a long way towards the short end of the spectrum and their actual reaction time a long way towards the long end of the spectrum. I've found Epic's overall responsiveness to new problems to be quite satisfactory. Others will disagree, but IMO these people aren't being realistic.



Imagine if UT2004 was a patch!

OMG! The difference in size between 2k3 and 2k4 was 3 full CDs. That's 2 and a quarter gigabytes. I'm sorry, I just don't want my machine downloading that kind of quantity without my knowledge or consent.

When EPIC was doing UT2004 they anounced that it would be compatible in netcode with UT2003. Later they droped it because (as said by cliffyB) they had more optimised net code for UT2004 that was incompatible with UT2003.

Most patches under the current scheme replace UT2004.exe... which means that C++ source code is in fact altered... or can be at any rate. What makes your example there a bad one is that by the time they came up with all those improvements (and indeed, a new 2.5 iteration of the current engine), they were already looking at making a new game. With intent to sell, naturally. No way would they throw that cash away just to patch UT2k3. They didn't patch 2k3 after 2k4 was released, because A. it would have cut into sales and B. 2k3 was such a total flop that nobody really seemed to mind.


Guild Wars has a very successfull implementation of auto-patching. I took part in 3 of their beta events and it was nice to see bugs reported and resolved in a matter of hours!

Again, from a look at their site, we're talking about a single- platform application. Further, it's an MMORPG, which has far different staffing expectations from a FPS... not to mention that the game company runs (and monitors) the servers, not end users. And on top of that the experience you described was from a Beta, which is to say, a controlled circumstance with a limited number of participants. That's a far cry from the heavily- modded, chaos- infested thing that is UT in the wild.


No, the time to make "major design changes" is before general release, not after. I've read everything you have to say on the subject and frankly I'm still firmly convinced that it's a bad idea. Epic's been doing this for quite a while now, and a lot of us on the consumer end have been doing it just as long... and in the main it works just fine the way it is.

kafros
15th May 2005, 03:36 AM
Each Guild Wars beta had more than 100,000 concurrent players (no typos read ign, gamespy previews).

My example on UT2003->UT2004 was to show a situation were something beneficial for the players (new batter/faster net code) was never introduced to UT2003.

You do not seem to grasp the importance of being able to change the modeling of the game data in order to make it faster/better (such thing will 100% break version compatibility)

Here is an example: Let's see an implementation of UT client - server communication during a typical game (I do not know how EPIC does is this is just an example which shows a radical data modeling change).

The player dodges right and fires a shot off his shock rifle aiming at a particular coordinate.

The client sends an XML message containing a request to do the above to the server:
<UT>
<ACTION WEAPON="SHOCK RIFLE" MODE="PRIMARY" AIM="X,Y,Z" />
<ACTION DODGE="RIGHT" JUMP="NO" />
</UT>

The server decodes this and replies with a new XML message that lets the client update its location and know if he hit something.

3 months later someone at EPIC goes: hey let's dump this inefficient XML crap and encode the info in the messages with a better way. So we will cut the volume of data sent and improve online experience.

New message format:
1. Each action is encoded in 8 bytes
2. First byte is the type of action (256 actions)
3. Second byte is the first attribute of the action (256 possible attribute values for 1st attribute)
etc.

This is an exagerrated example since EPIC programmers are way too good to make such an inneficient communications method in the first place. I just made it like that so that it is easy to understand as an example.

If you do not have an auto-patching system you would never see the second implementation.





To finish up I will quote Bazzi:

There are always issues, it's best to patch them quickly and for everyone than relying on people to download it from the official website where it appears 3 weeks late.

Yes this is the real life for software: THERE ARE ALWAYS ISSUES.

Discord
15th May 2005, 04:10 AM
Heh. What you're talking about effectively amounts to a complete restructuring of a big chunk of the engine as a free gift to end- users. If they're going to do that kind of major overhaul, they're not going to release it as a patch to the current game... they're going to make a new engine and a new game. Seriously, why do all that work and not get paid for it?

So you see, I do grasp the very real and concrete importance of changing "the modeling of game data."

Your example about UE2.5 is just further proof of what I'm talking about. You're taking it out of context as if they had new netcode just lying around, which they didn't. They didn't develop the changes in question until they were already working on a new game... that code revision would never have been issued as a patch to 2k3, it's that simple. Method of delivery is therefore pretty well irrelevant. Once the new game is on, the old game is dead... pretty much for simple economic reasons.

Patches to current games amount to minor tweaks, and ever thus shall it be. Given that state of things, I would still much rather have plenty of notice, a changelog and the option to roll back if things go horribly, horribly wrong. Under your system, if I find myself on the short end of a bug that effectively bricks the game but only for about 10% of users (and that's a lot more common than you may think), well then I'm just screwed until they recognize, then solve, then test, then patch the problem -- and in the meantime my month- old $40 game is just dead space on my HD. The way things currently stand, all I have to do is backup my UT2004\System directory before patching, and I'll never miss a beat. So no, a quick, mandatory patch isn't best for everybody at all. I'm a lot more interested in uptime than transparency... and I think anybody who suffered through the early days of Steam will agree with me here.

kafros
15th May 2005, 04:23 AM
I quit......

Bazzi
15th May 2005, 04:42 AM
Discord']Heh. What you're talking about effectively amounts to a complete restructuring of a big chunk of the engine as a free gift to end- users. If they're going to do that kind of major overhaul, they're not going to release it as a patch to the current game... they're going to make a new engine and a new game. Seriously, why do all that work and not get paid for it?

So you see, I do grasp the very real and concrete importance of changing "the modeling of game data."

Your example about UE2.5 is just further proof of what I'm talking about. You're taking it out of context as if they had new netcode just lying around, which they didn't. They didn't develop the changes in question until they were already working on a new game... that code revision would never have been issued as a patch to 2k3, it's that simple. Method of delivery is therefore pretty well irrelevant. Once the new game is on, the old game is dead... pretty much for simple economic reasons.

Patches to current games amount to minor tweaks, and ever thus shall it be. Given that state of things, I would still much rather have plenty of notice, a changelog and the option to roll back if things go horribly, horribly wrong. Under your system, if I find myself on the short end of a bug that effectively bricks the game but only for about 10% of users (and that's a lot more common than you may think), well then I'm just screwed until they recognize, then solve, then test, then patch the problem -- and in the meantime my month- old $40 game is just dead space on my HD. The way things currently stand, all I have to do is backup my UT2004\System directory before patching, and I'll never miss a beat. So no, a quick, mandatory patch isn't best for everybody at all. I'm a lot more interested in uptime than transparency... and I think anybody who suffered through the early days of Steam will agree with me here.

I 100% disagree there, because:

1) Improved customer support will pay off later, happy customers likely buy another game by that company.
2) New free content and BC breaking patches are pretty much reality in strategy games. Even Starcraft (1998 title!) requires the users to be patched in order to play online.

Zur
15th May 2005, 04:48 AM
Sounds like Steam (referring to original post).

kafros
15th May 2005, 07:16 AM
Sounds like Steam (referring to original post).

You got it wrong. This is what I wrote:

I would like to see patches to be auto-applied as soon as you go on-line

EPIC releases the fix which is installed to anyone who wants to PLAY online (if you are on DSL and are playing UT offline it does not patch. It patches only if you decide to play online

Steam is NOT like that. Even if you want to play off-line or in your private LAN, the game will still require to connect to steam from time to time (even if you set the option to: do not keep my game up-to-date).

Also keep in mind that Valve made steam so that THEY COULD ACT as DISTRIBUTORS (and get a piece of the pie that publishers + shops get). I think they were even sued for that by their publisher.

Steam is a selling tool more than a development/deployment tool. And for a company the size of Valve it has TOO MANY issues (I will agree on that)

Discord
15th May 2005, 02:07 PM
I quit......


Yaaay! :clap:

Tell you what, I'll even go halfway for you... I'd support an optional autopatcher for the lazy. :p

But just to throw a few more things at you:

1. I don't want my install patched every day, that's for sure. During peak patching times (ie, first 3 months after release), the changelogs are extensive and piecemeal release of changes would essentially amount to a daily upgrade. That's bad news when you're trying to learn a game like UT.

2. I seriously doubt that piecemeal release would necessarily result in faster responses to new problems... as it is, everything gets patched on average every 3-4 weeks. Under piecemeal release, you'd see some changes every day but a lot of these would be things like "corrected spelling error in GUI." The net frequency of substantial and important fixes would likely remain just about the same.

3. As far as your claim that backward compatibility couldn't be broken without an autoupdater goes, I don't buy it for a second. After the ECE was released, the UT2k4 serverbrowser stopped advertising servers versioned below (then current) 3220. If there was a major change coming, that would have been the perfect time to do it.

4. .Exe replacement. Most patches replace UT2004.exe and UnrealEd.exe. Constantly and unnanounced? Please, no... talk about inconvenient. And anyway, how's that going to work if the game has to be running to do it?! :con:

5. "Open source" issues. UT and UScript are designed with modding in mind... it's a key element in the game's design. Constant, unannounced patching could prove to be a major headache for modders.

New free content and BC breaking patches are pretty much reality in strategy games. Even Starcraft (1998 title!) requires the users to be patched in order to play online.

Different games, different companies, different business strategies, waaay different networking model. Apples and oranges there.



Look, I see this from tech people all the time, I call it "Elegant Solution Syndrome." They come up with this amazing piece of tech that really seems super sexy to them and think, "this has got to go into the system." And it's got all these awesome features and it's just wonderful... until it turns out to be completely incoherent in relation to the needs/ wants of people who actually use the thing. Then, suddenly, the end- users who start complaining are uncomprehending Philistines who "just don't understand my genius."

When the truth is, you just made a supercool thing that nobody wants.

I don't want an autopatcher. I've been playing this game for 5 years now, I've seen how patching works here, I'm a big boy and know what I'm doing, and I don't want it. I kicked out to buy the games, I kicked out to run the servers, my financial contribution to the whole thing makes me a pretty good customer, so hey... just do me this one favor, willya?

samix
15th May 2005, 02:38 PM
I don't think we should have auto-patching, but I would like small patches like Tribes 2 had. They were like 5 megabyte patches, and I think there were 6 of them or something. It all depends on how well the game is polished when it's released, and whether they will wait for the bugs to pile up and fix them all at once or a new patch for each new bug (annoying as hell).

Bazzi
15th May 2005, 03:35 PM
Discord']
Different games, different companies, different business strategies, waaay different networking model. Apples and oranges there.


I dont accept that. Different companies doesnt really backs your argument up :p

You can make startegy game patches compatible to old versions as well, but still patching is prefered.

I just cannot see why theres so much paranoia there. Also replacing UT2004.exe why should that be inconvenient?

It's more or less a question of evolution, more and more games adopt auto patching for online play. And it is good that way.

Ryans_Privates
15th May 2005, 03:59 PM
Well then I believe that the Steam idea would work but allow the manager of the server/servers to have it patch their server or to just be able to say no I don't want to patch my server, same thing would go for the normal game player with no server.

A program like steam but with a questionnaire before the patch is installed asking would you like to patch this game or not.

Discord
15th May 2005, 04:34 PM
I just cannot see why theres so much paranoia there. Also replacing UT2004.exe why should that be inconvenient?

Buggers my start menu shortcuts and can cause probs with ASE. :lol:

And then, there's these:

http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=468623&highlight=patch+problem

http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=429363&highlight=patch+problem

http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=412223&highlight=patch+problem

http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=427305

http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=380827&highlight=patch+problem

http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=391202&highlight=patch+problem

http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=390541&highlight=patch+problem


Just a sample, happy reading. Option to roll back is crucial for a lot of people... it's not paranoia, it's just common sense. Manual patching/ unpatching keeps things nice.

It's more or less a question of evolution

So are the platypus, the dodo, the blind cave fish and solid state guitar amplifiers. Evolution != improvement.

]SideWinder[
15th May 2005, 04:58 PM
Discord']Different games, different companies, different business strategies, waaay different networking model. Apples and oranges there.I dont accept that. Different companies doesnt really backs your argument up :p
I agree there. I don't see how that proves anything.
If you ask me, your arguments in general dont make any sence Giscord.
.exe replacement inconvenient?
how's that going to work if the game has to be running to do it?
Im getting the impretion here that you have never seen an autopatching programe, in most cases (by most I meen all), the auto patching programe closes your game before it starts to patch it.

and as far as your "Elegant Solution Syndrome" stuff goes, I can see it happening. But if you ask me, I dont see it happening over a Autopatcher. There pretty simple really. Take starcrafts for example (because it was mentioned before) all it really does is check a master server to see if your vertion is the same. Then if its not, it says you need the new patch, asks if you want to download it now. If you click yes, it downloads it, cloes starcraft, runs the patch, and restarts starcraft.

I dont see whats so crazy about something like that! Thats all I want from an auto patcher. Nothing more.

Discord
15th May 2005, 05:21 PM
SideWinder[']your arguments in general dont make any sence Giscord.

That's "sense." And mostly, "Discord." Thx.

And to keep it simple, here it is: I don't want to be autopatched because a lot of times Epic's patches are crapola, and I'd rather wait for one that's trouble- free than have some junk shoved down my throat by an autopatcher. K?

Anyway, odds are excellent that it won't happen... and that's good :tup:. I've been through the patching drama before, and you can either trust me on this or (hopefully not) find out the hard way.

Bazzi
15th May 2005, 06:39 PM
But I won't give up on my opinion :p

Discord
15th May 2005, 06:54 PM
Well, since I'm about out of steam on this one (pun intended? Dunno...), I'll go here instead:


SideWinder[']Take starcrafts for example (because it was mentioned before) all it really does is check a master server to see if your vertion is the same. Then if its not, it says you need the new patch, asks if you want to download it now. If you click yes, it downloads it, cloes starcraft, runs the patch, and restarts starcraft.

On the face of it, as long as the patch is in no way required, I'd be fine with something like that.

Easier notification? Great, as long as it doesn't turn into pesterware.

Easier acquisition and install? Hey, awesome.

Easier uninstall? Why yes, you can definitely get a "hell yeah" from me on that one (although that won't happen either :( ).

Latest patch mandatory for online play or running a server? Game downloads stuff without my consent or knowledge? Over my dead frickin' body.

kafros
16th May 2005, 12:15 AM
[Apoc]Discord there seems to be a brick wall force field around your head :) (like the one Death Star Had) that is preventing you see how simple stuff is with auto-patching:

I see that your main concern is this: buggy patches

And to keep it simple, here it is: I don't want to be autopatched because a lot of times Epic's patches are crapola, and I'd rather wait for one that's trouble- free than have some junk shoved down my throat by an autopatcher. K?

If a buggy patch comes out and the community goes screaming in the forums then EPIC can just rollback their code changes and the very NEXT day the bugs disapear.

It has happened to me so many times :). I get heated support calls, and by magic 2 hours later (after I check out from CVS, recompile and set the new version) the problem is solved. Easy... no rocket science... no "unique super idea" as you accuse me. Just plain deployment design. (Don't tell my boss...he thinks I can solve stuff in 2 hours without rollbacks :) )

Guild Wars had some of these glithes too in the betas. They would introduce something then take it back. The autopatching gives the developers tremendous power for supporting their users.

UnlitPhoenix
16th May 2005, 12:41 AM
(Refering to original post)
It would be nice, but have an option if you'd like it to ask/check/download at all.

Denny
16th May 2005, 01:27 AM
I would like to see patches to be auto-applied as soon as you go on-line. Apart from the self-evident benefits of having all server-clients at the same game version, this will allow EPIC to do more radical fixes/redesign of its code.

What about people who only play Single Player vs. the bots, how would they get the updates? Normal patches? (sorry if this has been asked before).

Xipher
16th May 2005, 02:34 AM
I separated this thread from the one about bonus packs because I believe they are different subjects.


I would like to see patches to be auto-applied as soon as you go on-line. Apart from the self-evident benefits of having all server-clients at the same game version, this will allow EPIC to do more radical fixes/redesign of its code.

As it is now patches are compatible with previous versions. If for example EPIC finds a way which radically changes online play, but in order to do that they have to change the format of data being sent, then they will NOT do it because it would break network compatibility.

I faced the same problems when I deployed new versions of my software products and now the ability to bring any connecting client up to date allows me to do almost anything that makes the software better without having to think about cross-inter-backwards-compatibility between the server and the clients.

What do you think fellow forumers?

A note about filesize: 12mb once a month(or even twice) will not hurt anyone


Reminds me of Tribes 2. The Online started the patcher which did the download and started the installer. I never really noticed a problem with it.

Another person mentioned delta patches, this makes me think rsync (handy utliity, that would do exactly that)

As for code/protocol optimizations, Im sure they could do a versioning schem, and simply detect on connect which protocol to use, with the ablity for an admin to force a specific one (in case of big bandwidth or system usage enhancments/changes)

kafros
16th May 2005, 03:28 AM
What about people who only play Single Player vs. the bots, how would they get the updates? Normal patches? (sorry if this has been asked before).

They will be prompted to be auto-patched if they are connected to the internet.

This thread discusses the "compulsory" auto-patching of dedicated servers & clients that play on-line.

Read all the posts...It is a nice read...

To Discord: You cannot imagine the power of the dark side (auto-patching) :D

Bazzi
16th May 2005, 05:00 AM
To be fair, regular patches should also exist for the not-online-playing-56k-community ;)

krjal
16th May 2005, 09:23 AM
Just more options. That's what I think you're saying anyway.

Uninstall/rollback would be great but how often does that happen :rolleyes:

livingtarget
16th May 2005, 09:57 AM
[Apoc]Discord there seems to be a brick wall force field around your head :) (like the one Death Star Had) that is preventing you see how simple stuff is with auto-patching

Discord is right on his money you are taking this way out of context, just because you think this is how you would do it from experience. Ever heared of Q&A? That takes time, even if you are sure you can fix a minor bug in the code it will have to get tested.

Now maybe we are modifying ut2004 memory code that's different. Improvements like these might not work on a small number of systems because of the differences. Now lets take your assumption:


If a buggy patch comes out and the community goes screaming in the forums then EPIC can just rollback their code changes and the very NEXT day the bugs disapear.

Now how great we'll just roll back. First these might be improvements for X number of people, but X other people can now not play anymore. Why? Because it is forced. Therefor I predict patches like these will only be smaller changes rather then hardcoded changes.

You might think it gives the programmer more power, but all it does is fek over the customers who have a problem with those patches.

What you need is only better notification of patches and perhaps the option of downloading through the game if you'd like too.

Forced patching is BAD!

Now i'd like to take these lines out for people comparing RTS/MMORPG vs FPS games. That is not the same, RTS need forced patches because the stats change in each patch (balancing) and you CANNOT allow other people to run different stats. On UT2004 it is a lot easier to maintain compatibility because the server more or less does the decisions for you.

And heya to Discord :)

Discord
16th May 2005, 01:14 PM
Oh hell! Reinforcements. :eek:

Hiya LT, welcome to the argument... relax and have fun. :)

Anyway, the rollback isn't bad provided:

1. The bug you've got is widespread and obvious.
2. The guys at Epic aren't asleep at the switch.

#2 there is a dicey proposition, but #1 isn't that uncommon. Plenty of times you'll see a post go up in INA troubleshooting about somebody who's got one of those oddball bugs from a patch that most people don't have. Sometimes this is a case of somebody who needs to update their drivers, or who have an alternative firewall that's not treating them right... sometimes it's not.

The result, currently, is that you have a small minority (5% or less) of players running a couple of patches behind. And as things stand, that causes 0 issues. It's best for them and it's best for the game at large.

If everybody was forced to patch whenever Epic decided it was ready, you'd have that 5% minority just outright screwed, with no recourse but to desperately try to get the issue recognized... which may or may not happen. And if it does get recognized, what do you do? Roll back the whole thing which worked for the other 95%? Seems a bit unreasonable...

As it stands, those with minority bugs can report the bug and then rollback themselves and still enjoy the game while Epic (hopefully) fixes at their leisure.


Then, you're still ignoring two other admittedly quirky but nonetheless crucial elements of the game: alternate OSes and mods.

Mac users are not an insignificant portion of the UT playing community, but the big mover here is Linux. Linux clients probably number slightly less than Mac clients (to take a guess) but the number of servers running Linux is huge.

The way things stand, Epic has farmed out the OSX/ Linux development to one guy, Ryan Gordon. This is economical for Epic and still manages to work for alternate OS users because 1. it's still OK if the patches for those OSes are a little late and 2. Mr. Gordon is kickass enough not to let things go too far behind.

Consequently, any autopatching system that required current versions from everybody would either have a lot of "latency" built into it because of crossplatform issues or else Epic would have to expand at not inconsiderable cost just in order to get all OSes patched concurrently. And there's still the issue of "it works on one but not on the other."

As for the mods, well, those things are running an almost completely altered set of code on top of whatever it is that may or may not be getting patched. Under the current system the mod teams get plenty of notice as to what's getting changed and can decide for themselves if a patch needs to be skipped (which decision may or may not be in line with the good of the rest of the playing community).



And then there's the issue of beta testing. Epic's current formula is to sign up a certain amount of beta testers and allow the patch to be tested in the general population. This works well for the beta testers inasmuch as, assuming no major foul- ups, they can continue playing the game they paid for on whatever server they choose. It works well for Epic in that the patch gets tested on a wide variety of hardware/ software configs.

If there were autopatch with no backward- compatability, beta tests would have to be segregated from the general population and would be much more limited in the number of server configs they were tested on. Which is fine for a MMORPG since the server population is fixed and controlled... not so for UT, where end users run the servers.


What you've got to remember, Kafros, is that when you do this on your job you're dealing with a much cleaner environment. All the hardware is probably extremely similar if not identical, in all likelihood you've got one OS to deal with, and users are paid to work with what you give them and are furthermore almost definitely banned from adding or deleting software/ hardware.

With UT it's all the reverse. There's no telling what's running on any of these machines (sales statistics and questionnaires can give you a rough idea, but nothing terribly accurate), there are 3 OSes currently in the mix with consoles on the way, and the end- user is paying you... not the other way around.

Further, if something goes wrong on your job it's reasonably obvious... dept. X suddenly isn't getting squat done. If something goes wrong with a game, you might have 200 out of (at peak times) 6 or 7 thousand players not show up on the servers one day. And what to make of that? It's completely normal. Beyond that you've got ranting bug reports from 15 year- olds (and those who emulate them) to go on.

In short, an in- house commercial setup (which even sort of extends to the MMORPG and some RTS games) is built for that kind of efficiency and a game like UT isn't.

UT is designed to be as different as possible from one place to the next. That's both it's greatest strenght and most damning weakness, I'll admit, and it's also a big part of the charm. It's the DIY nature of the game that helps endear people to it, and the current system of patching reflects that by handling all that hard- to- wrangle diversity in the simplest, most convenient and above all flexible way possible. Trying to impose uniformity on that from one angle and one angle alone would in all likelihood make a considerable hash of things, particularly if you went for the kinds of sweeping changes you referred to earlier.


And as to the argument that "other games are doing it," take a look at the top 15 games on csports.net (http://www.csports.net/TopGames.aspx?Matrix=0&Mod=0)'s stats page. Among those top 15, you'll find two types of FPS game: the type that uses Steam, and the type that doesn't autopatch.

Steyr
16th May 2005, 02:37 PM
I really dont like the idea of being spoonfed stuff, as someone on the other thread stated. And although 12mb might not b much, slowly it will eat up alot of space.
12 mb a month? HA! by the time ut2007 comes out, 56k will probably be obsolete, and anyway I download more that 10 times that per month on mods alone! I would love to see auto update, but please no system tray thingie. just have it check when you start up. NOT when you go into the lobby though, as it would be much more convinent for it to download while you play a botmatch or two for warmup.

kafros
16th May 2005, 03:38 PM
to Apoc.Discord:

Dude you just buried me in paper-work....(what is you job by the way?)

I just wonder how MMO can get away with auto-patching since (as you say) there are always bugs for the 5% of the general population. And we are talking about pay per month customers. An MMO unhappy customer is 10xtimes worse than a UT pissed of player, the MMO WILL cost money...

anyway it is late...and I cannot compete with 3 pages...tommorow will be a new day

Discord
16th May 2005, 03:43 PM
to Apoc.Discord:

Dude you just buried me in paper-work....(what is you job by the way?)

Yeah, srry 'bout that. I'm stuck on night shift this week (about to go in in a few minutes), so that's how I had time :lol:. To answer, currently I drive a truck and also do some light drone work with "distributed" software (as a user, not a developer). ;)

Re: MMO and 5%er. My point is that instead of having an ultra- peeved 5%er with no recourse, you simply have 5% rollbacks to earlier version with no troubles at all... under the current UT scheme. It's flexible and offers more forgiving customer service.

Other stuff: with MMO, game co. runs the servers so hardware/ OS issues are way minimized.

Bazzi
16th May 2005, 04:42 PM
I've completely lost track now, cant you just summarize your 3 page post to 2 sentences?

KirinRiotCrash
16th May 2005, 05:28 PM
I kind of like the idea of an Auto Updater ... it makes sure everyone's running the same boat ... but I think there should be a few options such as:

Enable or Disable Auto Updater. As one mentioned, they don't being "spoonfed" so if you prefer to download the patches later on, you can do so if you want. If disabled, the Auto Updater can remind the user to download it at epicgames.com/blah/blah/blah or by re-enabling the Auto Updater.
Option to include or not include Beta Patches. For those who feel daring, they could beta test the patch before it becomes released to the general public. Personally, I love beta testing stuff.
Ability to view changelog. Before I download an Official non-beta patch, I'd like to know what has added/removed/changed. Patched a bug in UnrealEd? Why not? The minigun got nerfed ... hmm ... removed CD checker? Heck yeah!
Ability to show which files will be modified before installing ... Some people are paranoid that their INI settings will be hosed so I think it might be a hip idea.

UnlitPhoenix
17th May 2005, 02:26 AM
I've completely lost track now, cant you just summarize your 3 page post to 2 sentences?
I was thinking the same thing.. lol

Discord
17th May 2005, 04:03 AM
I've completely lost track now, cant you just summarize your 3 page post to 2 sentences?

Nope. There's a lot of stuff in there. Builds character. And besides, if I try to be concise I get accused of not making "sence." Or even better, of not having actually read the thread. :p

But if you really want the teaser trailer, here it is:

You've got three bad ideas: comparing a moddable FPS to an MMORPG, comparing UT to an in- house business setup, and mandatory patching for UT.

Why? "Too many variables" is the answer to that for all three, with a side order of "it's just not necessary" for the last one. Need more than that? Go read the post.

Suffice to say, I remain staunchly opposed to the idea. Make me an optional autopatcher and drop mandatory patching and I'm in. Don't do that, and we're looking at a detailed review of Epic's common business practices and their track record on such projects. :con:

Wowbagger
17th May 2005, 04:25 AM
Yup i would love this feature :tup:
Ive experienced it in HL2, Guild Wars, EQ2 etc and it has worked out extremely well.

Lets face it, Patches with UT2004 has been medioker.
With betas and then official patches not on the official site for weeks leaving people confused.

Also Anti cheating proggies and different Patches (working with some versions) out there has turned the community into chaos sometimes.

kafros
17th May 2005, 12:42 PM
I will ask EPIC to provide an auto-dispatcher (or unpatcher? hehe my english sucks) for Apoc.Discord

Discord
17th May 2005, 02:23 PM
I will ask EPIC to provide an auto-dispatcher (or unpatcher? hehe my english sucks) for Apoc.Discord

Thenkyew :D. Now just make sure I don't have to be patched to run a server or play online (at least for the first 4 months) and we'll be cooking with gas.

And no, your English is fine. :tup:

Bazzi
17th May 2005, 02:43 PM
As Wowbagger said, it's not just RTS or MMORPGs, it's also HL2, a very highly mdoded game, and FPS which doesn't only release patched but massively new content.

And while there are always some whiners(tm), it worked out great so far IMO.
Sometimes a patch for CS:S introduced some little glitches which were fixed in a matter of hours/days.

The Autopatching saves let's say half of the QA testing circle, so why abandoning it at all costs?

edit:

I forgot, 99% of the mods would also benefit because so far, almost all of them required the users to have the latest UT2004 version....

CloudConnected
17th May 2005, 03:39 PM
What happens if I'm in the middle of a clan match and the server just restarts? Or even if it restarts after the current game but we are playing a sequence of games. What if patches messup something so a mutator doesn't work anymore? What if I want my private server to be exploit full? What if someone finds a way to exploit this auto patching mechanism? How much funds will it take to develop this thing? Is it really worth it? The community could make mutators to fix extreme exploits, if the next patch isn't due in awhile. Will this make my server less secure? If there were extreme changes being made in patches, you could disable people with old patches from joining newly patches servers and etc. Sounds like a lot more work than it's worth to do.

Bazzi
17th May 2005, 03:56 PM
Hey dont ask too many questions at once.
And lists exist for a reason, use them.

Clan matches are an issue here, I agree. Maybe they should choose a fixed time to release patches, say 1 am GMT for example, so people wouldnt plan clan matches there anyway.

If some mutator breaks, it could be fixed. The auto patch mechanism could go as far es enabling the mutators/mods to update themselves aswell.

Think of how Firefox handles them. Firefox updates itself, lets extension update themselves and de-activates incompatible extensions automatically.

If there were extreme changes being made in patches, you could disable people with old patches from joining newly patches servers and etc.
The newest version would always be required.

The community could make mutators to fix extreme exploits, if the next patch isn't due in awhile.

Didnt work out for UT2004 so far. All those ant-exploit mutators were often more a PITA than a help...

For the amount of work to: It's not much. its a simple version against version check, download update, run update, restart game, done.
You can code a basic system within some hours.

Wowbagger
17th May 2005, 04:33 PM
Guild Wars Streams the updates but the servers never goes down. (its amazing bit GW has been down ONCE since it was released and that was for a couple of hours at the beginning)
You only get a message to restart the game BUT you can also neglect to do it and finish playing.

So it IS possible to do.

Wowbagger
17th May 2005, 04:38 PM
Now of course, UT is different with servers run by the customers so a direct comparison isnt 100% fair or accurate.

FireCrack
17th May 2005, 07:37 PM
All we need is for people to be alerted of patches. When a patch is released a big box should come up and ask you to clikec one of two buttons (patch or dont patch) before proceeding. It has directions on how to later obtain the patch should you select dont patch.

Xipher
17th May 2005, 11:10 PM
All we need is for people to be alerted of patches. When a patch is released a big box should come up and ask you to clikec one of two buttons (patch or dont patch) before proceeding. It has directions on how to later obtain the patch should you select dont patch.

Either give instructions, or just ask every time they start up the game and go into the online section.

UnlitPhoenix
18th May 2005, 01:59 AM
That sounds more reasonable. Maybe also add some mirrors to choose from, since quite a few UT players are in Europe, and the download speeds wouldn't be too good.

kafros
18th May 2005, 02:35 AM
For the anti-cheat mods note that game-engine modifications by EPIC (in the non released API that the modding community is using) are much more powerfull (more efficient and faster) than the released mods.

For people playing a match there is no need to stop in order to patch (since they are already playing they are all on the same version).

Their server will be auto-patched as soon as they change map. The only issue is that until this happens, people with the newer version will not be able to join this server for the duration of that particular game. But they will be able to join all others.

Xipher
18th May 2005, 04:09 AM
For the anti-cheat mods note that game-engine modifications by EPIC (in the non released API that the modding community is using) are much more powerfull (more efficient and faster) than the released mods.

For people playing a match there is no need to stop in order to patch (since they are already playing they are all on the same version).

Their server will be auto-patched as soon as they change map. The only issue is that until this happens, people with the newer version will not be able to join this server for the duration of that particular game. But they will be able to join all others.
Actually, I think it would be better to have the dedicated server admins to initiate the patching download (for bandwidth reasons), so they could have some sort of schedualed downtime. Autopatching is nice, but I do understand (and agree with) the necesity to have some control over the process

FireCrack
18th May 2005, 08:46 PM
I'm glad people agree wiht me. The biggest problem is not that people dont want to patch, it's that people dont know a patch exists.