Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
UncappingBadger

WG - This is how you communicate

3 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
45 posts

Edit: this might be a longer post than I anticipated but I feel strongly about the issue at hand, and with Notser bringing it up in his video today I decided to voice my frustration!

 

So a lot of people are complaining that Wargamings current efforts to relay information to the community is...well to be polite rubbish.

 

The current situation with the Benham is a prime example. We have no idea what the direction Wargaming is going to take with the ship once the current event is over. We’re still no closer to understanding exactly what they’re trying to achieve with CV gameplay other than make it as frustrating as possible for players on both sides of the coin. 

 

A lot of the frustration and anger that a lot of us have could easily be solved by the developer being more transparent in the development process of new ships, and game features/mechanics. Oh sure the CC’s get hints and snippets of information but by the time it reaches the audience at large it’s more Chinese whispers than what was actually said, leading to more confusion and frustration.

 

Guys, you have a great community, who probably know the game better than you do in terms of what works and what doesn’t. Utilise us! You give ships to CC’s for testing but judging by how blatantly bemused Flamuu is about the Slava at the moment you don’t seem to listen to the feedback you’re giving. That, or you just don’t care.

 

A prime example of what I’m talking about can be seen in the attached images. The F18c for DCS has been out a year now but is still classed as early access. New systems are being brought online all the time to create the most comprehensive simulation of the aircraft. Ever. For months the targeting pod the Hornet uses to self designate ground targets has been promised to us. Finally a few weeks back we got told next beta release the TGP should hit public beta for testing. Monday one of the guys came on and said that they’re pushing it back because they didn’t think it was ready. Look at the reaction. I could only get a few posts, but if you look at the post properly you’ll see for yourself people are disappointed but also thankful that the Dev didn’t just go quiet and kept them in the loop. Not one person out of the 15-20 comments I checked flamed the dev for being open and honest. You’ll also see mention that the dev did the whole cloak and daggers thing years ago and I can tell you, it damn near almost cost them their player base! 

 

Why can’t you guys do that? Are Russians just incapable of it left over from your communist days, or do you have a massive skeleton in the wardrobe you don’t want us to know about? 

27DFF98C-534D-49C5-B664-705C537A14AC.png

FFE22B78-D769-4D00-A8BB-C7BA56598930.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[R3B3L]
Players
537 posts
12,274 battles
1 hour ago, UncappingBadger said:

Edit: this might be a longer post than I anticipated but I feel strongly about the issue at hand, and with Notser bringing it up in his video today I decided to voice my frustration!

Notser is a payroll PR for WG that lost all of his credibility a long time ago. You should not take his words more seriously than Dasa's.

1 hour ago, UncappingBadger said:

 

So a lot of people are complaining that Wargamings current efforts to relay information to the community is...well to be polite rubbish.

As has been since beginning of time

1 hour ago, UncappingBadger said:

 

The current situation with the Benham is a prime example. We have no idea what the direction Wargaming is going to take with the ship once the current event is over. We’re still no closer to understanding exactly what they’re trying to achieve with CV gameplay other than make it as frustrating as possible for players on both sides of the coin. 

What do you mean you have no idea? The direction is to make an impossible grind, so it makes it close to impossible, that another bunch of Darwin award candidates spend a crap load of money for another unbalanced ship.

1 hour ago, UncappingBadger said:

 

A lot of the frustration and anger that a lot of us have could easily be solved by the developer being more transparent in the development process of new ships, and game features/mechanics.

Wow so true... when they read this, their hears will cry. I am sure they will change their attitude compleatly now that you brought it to their attention.

 

1 hour ago, UncappingBadger said:

Oh sure the CC’s get hints and snippets of information but by the time it reaches the audience at large it’s more Chinese whispers than what was actually said, leading to more confusion and frustration.

Really? Shocking?!

1 hour ago, UncappingBadger said:

Guys, you have a great community, who probably know the game better than you do in terms of what works and what doesn’t. Utilise us!

Really? You mean great whiners? As there seem to be a problem to find a compromise on what is broken and what is underpowered. At least that is my impression.

1 hour ago, UncappingBadger said:

You give ships to CC’s for testing but judging by how blatantly bemused Flamuu is about the Slava at the moment you don’t seem to listen to the feedback you’re giving.

The only feedback WG is listening is the one from the bank. The more OP is a ship, the more it will sell. And if it turns out to be slightly OP like the Slava (or Pobeda, or whatever the name is), I am sure WG will find the proper way of ballancing it. Insane accuracy could be perfectly ballanced by reducing HP for the ast mid range AA guns by 2%

1 hour ago, UncappingBadger said:

A prime example of what I’m talking about can be seen in the attached images. The F18c for DCS has been out a year now but is still classed as early access.

So your proposal is to actually test the ships before the release? Who would want to buy a premium ship that is not overpowered and why?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
45 posts
20 hours ago, B051LjKo said:

Notser is a payroll PR for WG that lost all of his credibility a long time ago. You should not take his words more seriously than Dasa's.

As has been since beginning of time

Really? He's on WG's payroll? Can you back this up with actual evidence? According to WG themselves CC's get no monetary compensation for their work. So unless you can back that up i'd retract the statement. I would hate for you to get accused of lying...

 

20 hours ago, B051LjKo said:

What do you mean you have no idea? The direction is to make an impossible grind, so it makes it close to impossible, that another bunch of Darwin award candidates spend a crap load of money for another unbalanced ship.

Show me where it says the Benham will be available for cash and not for an ingame currency like coal or steel. You can't cause they haven't told us and that's my point. How are we supposed to know if it's worth the effort of grinding and throwing away a month of our lives, or if it's not really a big thing if those of the community who are so inclined can just buy it. 

 

20 hours ago, B051LjKo said:

Wow so true... when they read this, their hears will cry. I am sure they will change their attitude completely now that you brought it to their attention.

Was that sarcasm? If it was you need to work on it. That's weak. 

 

20 hours ago, B051LjKo said:

Really? You mean great whiners? As there seem to be a problem to find a compromise on what is broken and what is underpowered. At least that is my impression.

 

Every community has whiners, and its natural for everyone to have differing points of view. I'm not suggesting that EVERYONE will agree to everything. I'm saying WG should open the floor to everyone to voice feedback and then take action based on what the MAJORITY want. 

 

20 hours ago, B051LjKo said:

The only feedback WG is listening is the one from the bank. The more OP is a ship, the more it will sell. And if it turns out to be slightly OP like the Slava (or Pobeda, or whatever the name is), I am sure WG will find the proper way of balancing it.

Really? Wargaming is only interested in selling OP ships? Explain to me exactly how Azuma is overpowered. Last I checked she was a "for sale" ship. Likewise explain to me how the King George, or Atlanta are overpowered? 

 

20 hours ago, B051LjKo said:

So your proposal is to actually test the ships before the release? Who would want to buy a premium ship that is not overpowered and why?

You see, if you had paid any attention instead of trying to be a sarcastic [edited] you would know it has nothing to do with the way WG test ships. I simply want better communication from a company that expects me to spend money with them - Wargaming should be more communicative and transparent in what they are doing. Give us approx timescales in regards to the developing of new features with the usual caveat that its subject to change. Same goes for how ships will be available.

 

I couldn't give a toss if only ST's and CC's get early test versions of ships. But whats the point in giving access to them if any feedback they have is ignored. As you say, its a great strategy if you just want to sell overpowered ships and make lots of money. Not so great for community retention though which provides them with said cash. How many players in say the last 6 months have they lost because of the way they do business? How much potential profit have they lost as a result of those losses? Short term they may make tons of cash, but in the long term they're shooting themselves in the foot by behaving the way they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×