Seasonal patches are every 3 months. So if 3 patches between, that would be a month between each.
I haven't played much this week. Maybe 4 games, think it happened in 2 of them.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say unless your error rate is in the low single digits, you have a problem. Not sure why people are defending this or not acknowledging the issue.
BTW, this team absolutely sucks at regression testing. This is when you test to ensure new features or builds don't break existing features.
I don't think anyone here is defending or not acknowledging it. It's clearly something that's happening. It's in the list of 4.0 bugs on reddit and there have been separate threads about it.
I didn't personally experience it once playing for hours this weekend (and that's *all* I said), but maybe it has to do with specific maps, or even specific walls within those maps. I played a ton of Favelas, Border, and House this weekend, and didn't experience it once. Like I said, I did see the "shoot charge through walls" glitch a few times, which was frustrating.
3-4 patches between content drops is pretty solid. They're not necessarily one month apart, either. I remember early in Siege's life, we were getting patches once every 2 weeks or so, then it slowed, then it didn't really follow any kind of pattern.
4.0 7/31
3.4 7/11
3.3 6/16
3.2 5/26
3.1 5/11
3.0 5/9
2.3 3/24
2.2 3/6
2.1 2/10
(this is as far back as I can find)
I agree about their poor regression testing. I'm sure you know this, but it's also naive or short-sighted to think that more frequent patches are inherently better or easier than less frequent patches. There are unique challenges associated with continuous/frequent deployment schedules. The more often you change the code base, the more often you increase the chance for a failure and make it hard to run specific types of tests. It also requires constant/frequent changes to your staging environments. It's completely possible that the work done for the quarterly release follows a different development and QA process compared to the more frequent releases, too.
My company recently removed continuous release processes from our Engineering cycle. Since they were continuous, they didn't always hit the staging environment before release and didn't undergo the same amount of testing, automated or otherwise.
At the same time, all of this IS solvable. Pump more money into the Engineering department for more testing resources, improve staging/automation processes, or (the more severe options) switch development philosophies.
Honestly, I don't think Siege has been broken to the point to demand a change like this. There are plenty, PLENTY, of more broken games, with inept developers, out there--even within Ubi, as a company.
