CV Rework Discussion

[1MajorKoenig]

CVs were never popular. Neither are DDs - so what?

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

18 minutes ago, Asakka said:

Oh yeah flammus poll is so accurate 

Even if it is shotgun accuracy it still hits where it hurts 

[Beaker71]

2 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Really? Didn't know that ALL the playerbase is just the 5000 players that took part in the poll ...

 

I repost what I posted on reddit: The same poll for the RTS CVs would've probably netted the same results. So yeah, that's that.

 

And regarding 'accurate': Apparently it was possible to vote multiple times. Go figure.

 

 

 

In the end: In a poll you'd need to filter those out that woud've voted 'NO/Against CVs' in any poll simply because they don't like CVs (since WG wants CVs in the game). That is, if your intention is to find out if players like the reworked system more than the RTS system. Or since Fara worded it: How many voted (during Rework tests), that the rework is so much better simply because they didn't like the RTS system.

 

Well unlike most polls on the subject i've seen - it doesn't ask a leading question - and unless i've missed something i haven't seen anything official from WG. I would say it's of more value that this forum, which tends to be dominated by a few people. One person saying the CVs are broken (or fine), 200 times over & over again is of no use

 

I'm no Flamu fanboi, and don't really know his position on CVs (although i can probably guess). Yes, I'm sure these polls can be "hacked" if you really want to via vpn/browser scripting - but if anybody is doing that - they are one sad individual.

 

But you're 100% right I would have voted the same for RTS - but the difference being - they were rare, i could put up with them. They didn't make me consider giving the game up,  or even bother posting an opinion in this forum. 

[Allied_Winter]

2 minutes ago, Beaker71 said:

Yes, I'm sure these polls can be "hacked" if you really want to via vpn/browser scripting - but if anybody is doing that - they are one sad individual.

According to reddit all that was necessary was to change your IP adress ... which can be quite easily done. But I digress.

 

I never disputet that the poll in and of itself is flawed overall. It certainly has some merit to it due to the larger sample size. It's just ... well .. WG wants CVs in the game. It didn't really work out with RTS (due to low popularity - and I'm not restarting the discussion on who's fault that was). They aimed for 10% of the player population which would resulted imho in a 1 in 2 battles with a CV per team (now I know there was a discussion with @eliastion and @El2aZeR regarding the comparision of pre- and post-rework state, I'd say it's a bit of both: You have to take pre-rework as so far into account, as to what WG wanted with the CVs = 10% population). Now - post rework - we have this 1 in 2 battles with a CV per team (and according to WG that's on the lower end of the target area).

 

So there's no point (imho) in listening to those that don't want CVs in the game in either system. But that's just my personal opinion and maybe things will change in the future (2024 year of the CV??). For now, all we can ask for is regarding what is worse about the new system compared to the old system. And my answer to that is a very short: Not really that much.

[xxNihilanxx]

29 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

According to reddit all that was necessary was to change your IP adress ... which can be quite easily done. But I digress.

 

I never disputet that the poll in and of itself is flawed overall. It certainly has some merit to it due to the larger sample size. It's just ... well .. WG wants CVs in the game. It didn't really work out with RTS (due to low popularity - and I'm not restarting the discussion on who's fault that was). They aimed for 10% of the player population which would resulted imho in a 1 in 2 battles with a CV per team (now I know there was a discussion with @eliastion and @El2aZeR regarding the comparision of pre- and post-rework state, I'd say it's a bit of both: You have to take pre-rework as so far into account, as to what WG wanted with the CVs = 10% population). Now - post rework - we have this 1 in 2 battles with a CV per team (and according to WG that's on the lower end of the target area).

 

So there's no point (imho) in listening to those that don't want CVs in the game in either system. But that's just my personal opinion and maybe things will change in the future (2024 year of the CV??). For now, all we can ask for is regarding what is worse about the new system compared to the old system. And my answer to that is a very short: Not really that much.

 

WG can have CVs in the game, if they like, just have the aircraft as deck ornaments like the depth charges on some DDs. It won't be much fun for the CV player, granted, but welcome to the world of the surface ship player. You should know by now that WG want one thing and one thing only - money. If revenue started dropping badly they would ditch CVs in a flash if they thought they were the reason, don't kid yourself otherwise.

 

Your final paragraph sums the whole thing up perfectly - WG want CVs in the game so what's the point of listening to the majority of their customers? Maybe someone on the board of Blockbusters could answer that question for you.

[Allied_Winter]

12 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

If revenue started dropping badly they would ditch CVs in a flash if they thought they were the reason, don't kid yourself otherwise.

I'm not. But so far it looks (!) as if WG would've lost money if they ditched CVs (as the player numbers so far aren't dropping like flies - like some posters here suggest. Quite the contrary, they look rather stable). 

 

12 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

what's the point of listening to the majority of their customers?

Yeah ... about that: Unless you show me evidence (e.g. a list of ALL players on which the actual majority of ALL players voted 'leave no CVs'), I don't buy the 'majority' thing. So far we had a few more or less biased polls (to which Imho Flamu's poll belonged to the less biased). But WE as players don't have the numbers. Only WG has. Which leads me to believe: Hey, maybe the majority isn't the 'CV OUT' voting player.

[Uglesett]

It'd probably help if WG actually put some effort into finding out exactly what the user base felt about the CV rework... I mean, they have the framework for putting polls into place, but the last one I got was about pointless BS like what kind of music I like...

[Allied_Winter]

8 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

I mean, they have the framework for putting polls into place,

True. But on the other hand: Do you know they did not so far? All we see is a ship steering in one direction and later in another. But we know neither the actual inputs nor the planned course.

[Uglesett]

1 minute ago, Allied_Winter said:

True. But on the other hand: Do you know they did not so far? 

Well, if they did, then:

a) I certainly haven't seen anything of it, if anyone else has then please enlighten me.

b) They do an absolute shite job of communicating the results (possibly because they're thoroughly embarrasing).

[xxNihilanxx]

17 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

I'm not. But so far it looks (!) as if WG would've lost money if they ditched CVs (as the player numbers so far aren't dropping like flies - like some posters here suggest. Quite the contrary, they look rather stable). 

 

Yeah ... about that: Unless you show me evidence (e.g. a list of ALL players on which the actual majority of ALL players voted 'leave no CVs'), I don't buy the 'majority' thing. So far we had a few more or less biased polls (to which Imho Flamu's poll belonged to the less biased). But WE as players don't have the numbers. Only WG has. Which leads me to believe: Hey, maybe the majority isn't the 'CV OUT' voting player.

 

You do understand that polls are representative, it isn't necessary to ask every single person to determine the views of "the masses"?

 

There are two types of people in this world - those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

 

As for the numbers being stable, WG introduce what was essentially a whole new class yet there was no spike in player numbers? Nobody came back to the game to see what all the fuss was about?  That must be a first in gaming history.

Every poll I have ever seen on the subject, wherever I have seen that poll, has the majority of players preferring there to not be CVs but fine, those polls weren't conducted in a scientifically controlled environment so it is safe to ignore them. The reality is the complete opposite of every single result ever. Sounds plausible. Even if the playerbase has stayed stable, do we know the same about the "payerbase"? I know I went from spending constantly on this game to not having spent a penny in months, many months. That isn't going to change anytime soon with the game in its current state. I know from talking to people that I'm not alone. Hopefully others that didn't pay have started to instead, but who knows?

 

Do WG even follow gaming news? This is a particularly volatile point in gaming history with gamers rapidly reaching breaking point with the amount that companies are trying to milk them for every penny and refusing to listen to their complaints. Companies that were once held up as a shining beacon by gamers are seeing their reputation in tatters. National governments are getting involved to shut down certain revenue streams (well done Belgium, and from what I have read the EU as a whole is also looking into it) and WG seem to rely heavily on that exact revenue stream. This is not the time for gaming companies to keep their fingers in their ears.

 

[Allied_Winter]

8 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

I certainly haven't seen anything of it, if anyone else has then please enlighten me.

Every once in a while. Sometimes about the music stuff you pointed out, sometimes aobut the result/impression a PTS had on me. On top come the stats we don't see about ships, battles played, money spent.

 

9 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

They do an absolute shite job of communicating the results (possibly because they're thoroughly embarrasing).

The question is: Why should they? I know companies that share results from customer polls and companies that don't. Among those there are successfull and less successfull companies. Sharing results isn't necessarilly a deciding factor in that regard. I mean ... of what use for me as a player is it to know, that e.g. 25 of the players on the latest PTS found the UI still unresponsive?

 

9 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

And those who don't. 

 

The thing is: What should polls uncover: That players don't want CVs in the game no matter what system? Or that the rework is better/worse than previous systems? So far all the polls (being unbiased or not) never made a clear distinction. The former is like the question about taxes. WG said the want CVs in the game! That's the same as a govenrment saying you have to pay taxes. If a player/citizen likes it or not. Unlike with taxes however you can stop spending/playing the game (or start a revolution in the country you live in). The only thing citizens can decide is how the taxes they pay have to be set up. Much like the CV rework.

 

And so far (much like Uglesett pointed out) there is no official data, no communication regarding a poll that solely focused on the later (apart from the polls one had to fill out during the CV Rework Beta tests). We simply don't know.

 

17 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

Nobody came back to the game to see what all the fuss was about?  That must be a first in gaming history.

Which leads me to belive (coupled with your following points): If WG would removed CVs, player numbers would've dropped immediately. Since the rework, player numbers stay the same. Maybe ... just maybe Warships reached its maximum amount of players already. And we transition now from 'gathering new players and get money from them' to 'getting more money from existing players'.

 

21 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

This is not the time for gaming companies to keep their fingers in their ears.

Maybe you're right. I don't know. I mean .. if WG knows their modell is doomed, why not go out with a bang and try to cash in as much as possible (like certain OEM managers that drive companies down the drain, but get cashed out like Royals). We'll see.

[El2aZeR]

35 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

As for the numbers being stable, WG introduce what was essentially a whole new class yet there was no spike in player numbers? Nobody came back to the game to see what all the fuss was about?  That must be a first in gaming history.

 

Even worse, the reception of the first new CV line ever has been rather... subdued to say the least.

Which may partially be because they're all garbage except for the T10 (which is meh to okayish) but still, one would think that such a historic release for the game would garner more attention.

 

I can only reiterate what I've said before, RN CV release will make or break this rework. Looks more like the latter to me now. Big surprise.

[Uglesett]

9 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Every once in a while. Sometimes about the music stuff you pointed out, sometimes aobut the result/impression a PTS had on me.

That's my point. They have the framework in place. So they should bloody well use it to actually gather opinions on the post-CV rework gameplay rather than annoying us with questionnaires for the marketing department. I have seen multiple polls, but the later ones have never felt relevant to the actual development of the game.

 

Quote

The question is: Why should they?

Because right now their credibility is hanging by a thin and rapidly fraying thread. If the CV rework is actually as well received as WG claim it is, then they should communicate this in a concrete manner, not just vague PR statements that basically just sound like someone who's been told not to share an unpleasant truth.

 

Quote

The thing is: What should polls uncover: That players don't want CVs in the game no matter what system? Or that the rework is better/worse than previous systems?

The latter.

 

Right now, everything about WG's behaviour suggests that they are sticking their heads in the sand and don't want to hear whether their effort was worth it or wasted. And sure, being told that your work is bad and you should feel bad is never nice, but it's some times necessary. 

 

It just looks so much as if WG have stumbled completely in the sunk cost fallacy, and just don't want to get the feedback that verifies that this is the case.

[xxNihilanxx]

5 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Even worse, the reception of the first new CV line ever has been rather... subdued to say the least.

Which may partially be because they're all garbage except for the T10 (which is meh to okayish) but still, one would think that such a historic release for the game would garner more attention.

 

I can only reiterate what I've said before, RN CV release will make or break this rework. Looks more like the latter to me now.

 

Completely off topic but god I wish you weren't such a prolific poster. Every time (and I mean EVERY time) I read one of your comments I get completely entranced for several minutes watching the animation in your signature. I am sure that one day you will find a way to put the message "Bring back RTS CVs" into it subliminally.

 

[Allied_Winter]

13 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Looks more like the latter to me now.

We'll see, either we still have the rework one year from now, or end up without CVs at all (which could lead to World of Warplanes like playernumbers ... )

 

13 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

but the later ones have never felt relevant to the actual development of the game.

The only reason I can think of why that is the case: Maybe that's no longer necessary: Why ask a player which ships he likes to play, when I can deduct that from the battle numbers. People can lie when ask, numbers don't lie. If a player doesn't play a certain ship, that gives you a certain info. Sure the info is lacking on WHY the player stays away from the ship. But asking the player should only be done if he'd be able to give a qualified answer. And imho 'No fun' isn't a great answer.

 

So: You get 50% of your data by stats and know that the other 50% are quite hard to extract (nearly impossible) so ... why waste money/time on that?

 

18 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

Because right now their credibility is hanging by a thin and rapidly fraying thread.

Fair enough. I don't see it like that, but I get your point. 

 

I still say though that if they'd come forward, there'd be a larger number of players that wouldn't believe them. So damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[xxNihilanxx]

2 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

We'll see, either we still have the rework one year from now, or end up without CVs at all (which could lead to World of Warplanes like playernumbers ... )

 

 

 

This presumes that there are a significant proportion of the playerbase who play CVs exclusively. If, and it is a big if, removing aircraft from the game caused a number of players to leave where would they go? WoWP maybe? Would WG care if players moved from one of their products to another?

[Allied_Winter]

7 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

This presumes that there are a significant proportion of the playerbase who play CVs exclusively

I should've added that this is my personal view, based on the fact, that if the current CV rework nose dives, I heavily doubt that WG would take up money for yet another 2 year rework run. Cut your losses and call it quits would then be the the motto of the day.

 

Or at least, that's how I'd react.

 

9 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

Would WG care if players moved from one of their products to another?

Maybe not. But since Warships made attempts to seperate from the other products (seperate Warships premium time) I assume, that there'd be a little internal ruffle going on.

[DFens_666]

25 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

 

Completely off topic but god I wish you weren't such a prolific poster. Every time (and I mean EVERY time) I read one of your comments I get completely entranced for several minutes watching the animation in your signature. I am sure that one day you will find a way to put the message "Bring back RTS CVs" into it subliminally.

 

 

Puh, i thought i was the only one

 

 

[Uglesett]

16 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

The only reason I can think of why that is the case: Maybe that's no longer necessary: Why ask a player which ships he likes to play, when I can deduct that from the battle numbers. People can lie when ask, numbers don't lie. If a player doesn't play a certain ship, that gives you a certain info. Sure the info is lacking on WHY the player stays away from the ship. But asking the player should only be done if he'd be able to give a qualified answer. And imho 'No fun' isn't a great answer.

It's entirely possible to design more detailed questionnaires that can discern what any given respondent thinks is/isn't fun about any given subject. And when aggregated, these answers can tell you something about which direction you need to go in order to make a weak design into a success. Whereas observed behaviour without context tells you nothing of what direction you should be taking your design.

 

I mean, consumer polling isn't exactly sorcery. It's a pretty well developed science, with techniques for mitigating the inevitable troll answers and getting useful information about current and future behaviour. 

 

So: You get 50% of your data by stats and know that the other 50% are quite hard to extract (nearly impossible) so ... why waste money/time on that?

For one thing, it's not nearly impossible. Any number of companies and consumer interest organizations do this all the time. As I said, it's a pretty well established science.

 

As for why spend money on it: Because knowing what proportion of your customer base likes and dislikes which aspects of your product can help you keep and grow that customer base. This stuff is "Marketing 101".

[Uglesett]

10 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

I should've added that this is my personal view, based on the fact, that if the current CV rework nose dives, I heavily doubt that WG would take up money for yet another 2 year rework run. Cut your losses and call it quits would then be the the motto of the day.

Well... you know, they don't need to spend two years on another rework... they have a working system in the archives 

[Allied_Winter]

6 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

getting useful information about current and future behaviour.

Fair enough. That is however: If you want these answers in the first place. And here I can see why some of you are bothered, by not getting more detailed questionnaires.

 

8 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

with techniques for mitigating the inevitable troll answers

Shame. I like to give troll answers to companies/things I don't really care about.

 

6 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

they have a working system in the archives

Which they stated more often than not, they don't like.

 

And when the options after a failed CV rework are: A) remove CVs entirely or B) return to the old system ... Personally I'd vote for ditching CVs entirely then. I mean: You have a fruit shop and every day a customer comes in, buys stuff but also complains about the apples you offer, one day - in an attempt to work towards the customer - you change the from one sort of apples to another. The customer still complains.

 

At a certain point, I'd tell the customer then to leave my shop for good.

 

 

Or in other words: Reworked CVs are better than RTS. But so are no CVs.

[ghostbuster_]

2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

CVs were never popular. Neither are DDs - so what?

Aand he keeps blowing minds...

[Uglesett]

6 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Fair enough. That is however: If you want these answers in the first place.

Well, that's sort of the point I'm trying to make. It doesn't seem like WG want to know what people think of the CV rework, because they fear it'll be unpleasant and they'd rather stick their heads in the sand.

 

Unfortunately, that's the kind of attitude that has killed many products and companies over the years.

 

Quote

Which they stated more often than not, they don't like.

It doesn't help what WG does and does not like. Since they're not in the luxurious position of being able to make art for its own sake, but rather are purveyors of a commercial entertainment product, what's important is to make something that their customers like.

 

Quote

Or in other words: Reworked CVs are better than RTS. But so are no CVs.

I'd swap the first two ones around.

[ghostbuster_]

25 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

I should've added that this is my personal view, based on the fact, that if the current CV rework nose dives, I heavily doubt that WG would take up money for yet another 2 year rework run. Cut your losses and call it quits would then be the the motto of the day.

 

We had a system which needed some changes/fixes/adjustments. And it would be ready to go. They didnt need couple of years to develop this crap. They had to work with the already functioning system. Besides they had sh.t ton of suggestions about RTS CVs. So, it would have been a lot eaaier for WG and game situation would be a lot better than now.

People started to play on chinese server.  That alone should be able to give you an idea about how awful the rework is. Before 8.0 i didnt hear anything about chinese server. 

[Allied_Winter]

8 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

Unfortunately, that's the kind of attitude that has killed many products and companies over the years.

To which my standard answer would be: That's live ... 

 

8 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

Since they're not in the luxurious position of being able to make art for its own sake, but rather are purveyors of a commercial entertainment product, what's important is to make something that their customers like.

Depends. If they are of the same idealistic sort than me (rather driving a business to the ground because I decide how I run my business) than listening to the customers ...

I mean, if working with a certain plane manufacturer told me something: Always start projects. Never finish them. That way, you're the guy that started something big and it was your successor that screwed it up.

 

8 minutes ago, Uglesett said:

I'd swap the first two ones around.

Fair enough. We all like different things. I'm not necessarilly bad at RTS .. I simply don't like RTS games where I can't pause, observe and decide. And for that reason alone I like the rework more. But, to each his own.

 

 

5 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

We had a system which needed some changes/fixes/adjustments.

A system that even after it would've been fixed would probably never attract more than 5% of the playerbase. But, we had the discussion on why the RTS system w/couldn't be salvaged a few times by now. In short: WG never wanted to keep it. Plain and simple.