WG i'm curious, what is the 'How satisfied are you…' feedback that pops up after a battle used for?

[ThePurpleSmurf]

Every now and then a feedback screen pops up after a battle with 'How satisfied are you with the battle you've just played?'. What's the point of this question, what is the result used for? Was there ever the intention to use this feedback to balance MM or something like this? And what does the question mean in first place? Satified with what? The MM? Match result? Personal result? Skill of teammates? Quality of chat? The map? What exactly do you wanna know when asking this question?

Or was there once an intent to use this for something useful but then it got ditched like the karma system but the devs didn't remove or disable it, but let it in the game as pseudo gizmo?

[Figment]

They just seem to want to have something that they can interpret in any way they want by not having themselves be pinned down to actually knowning the issues that frustrate players. :)

[DanSilverwing]

^^ We're all a bunch of cynics here.

[Aethervoxx]

Note also that this  'insta-survey' usually pops up after a blatant one sided roflstomp.

 It's almost as if WF knows what is going to happen before the battle has even started.

Since WF controls who is on both teams and also both teams RNG results, these joke battles should surprise no one, least of all WF. 

[Odo_Toothless]

I've a theory that it measures Your overall level of satisfaction, not this particular game.

 

Some time ago I've read an interview with a WG employee about how they are processing data. He said that automatic analysis, which they use, can tell with high probability ex: how long user will be playing this game and how much money he will spend in future. So Your satisfaction level could be very useful information for such purposes.

[Sir_Grzegorz]

You can with high probability assume it is used same way as all the feedback given from players.

 

Discarded upon delivery would be my gut feeling.

[Yedwy]

10 hours ago, ThePurpleSmurf said:

Every now and then a feedback screen pops up after a battle with 'How satisfied are you with the battle you've just played?'. What's the point of this question, what is the result used for? Was there ever the intention to use this feedback to balance MM or something like this? And what does the question mean in first place? Satified with what? The MM? Match result? Personal result? Skill of teammates? Quality of chat? The map? What exactly do you wanna know when asking this question?

Or was there once an intent to use this for something useful but then it got ditched like the karma system but the devs didn't remove or disable it, but let it in the game as pseudo gizmo?

 

[Ocsimano18]

7 hours ago, Odo_Toothless said:

I've a theory that it measures Your overall level of satisfaction, not this particular game.

 

Some time ago I've read an interview with a WG employee about how they are processing data. He said that automatic analysis, which they use, can tell with high probability ex: how long user will be playing this game and how much money he will spend in future. So Your satisfaction level could be very useful information for such purposes.

You can do the automatic analysis without the survey, using your past buying history and gameplay data and comparing it to other players. These surveys I quite infrequent, and I don't think they are reliable. I never know how to answer. I think it's rather they want to know which type of battle people enjoy in general. Are they happy to be on the winning side of a roflstomp, or do they prefer nailbiters, even if they lose?

[Nibenay78]

I find them very useful. If there are no CVs in game - very satisfied. IF there are CVs ingame - very dissatisfied.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

19 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

I find them very useful. If there are no CVs in game - very satisfied. IF there are CVs ingame - very dissatisfied.

 

I see you never try to do those 'shoot down X number of aircraft' missions?  Regardless, join the queue with a full AA build and all the CV's will disappear. It's magic, I tell you!

[Lord0]

8 hours ago, Odo_Toothless said:

I've a theory that it measures Your overall level of satisfaction, not this particular game.

 

Some time ago I've read an interview with a WG employee about how they are processing data. He said that automatic analysis, which they use, can tell with high probability ex: how long user will be playing this game and how much money he will spend in future. So Your satisfaction level could be very useful information for such purposes.

You are correct

[Pikkozoikum]

11 hours ago, ThePurpleSmurf said:

What exactly do you wanna know when asking this question?

They want know your satisfaction? That's what they are asking, not? :D

 

Guess you can't generalize, what they want do with the data, it's a general method to get feedback. They will be able to filter the statistics, analyze it and get a conclusion out of it.

[Panocek]

9 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

I see you never try to do those 'shoot down X number of aircraft' missions?  Regardless, join the queue with a full AA build and all the CV's will disappear. It's magic, I tell you!

You see, AA builds do work in this game

[Nibenay78]

1 minute ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

I see you never try to do those 'shoot down X number of aircraft' missions?  Regardless, join the queue with a full AA build and all the CV's will disappear. It's magic, I tell you!

I always do those missions because the CVs are as prevalent as they are. Here is one game 10 minutes ago in öster. Dead after 4 strikes by CV. The two first strikes (first squadron) I was going full speed, actively dodging only the attack aircraft and using sector reinforcement.

The two last strikes (second squadron), I was trying to hide behind an island, backing away while using DefAA, sector-reinf, and sitting in between 4 other ships.

 

Just see the amazing effect this had of my 4 minute long game! 3 fighters down! I'm sure I really ruined his ability to keep attacking other DDs.

Hmm wait, I distinctively remember a full rocket squad appearing again while I was sinking.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

9 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

I always do those missions because the CVs are as prevalent as they are. Here is one game 10 minutes ago in öster. Dead after 4 strikes by CV. The two first strikes (first squadron) I was going full speed, actively dodging only the attack aircraft and using sector reinforcement.

The two last strikes (second squadron), I was trying to hide behind an island, backing away while using DefAA, sector-reinf, and sitting in between 4 other ships.

 

Just see the amazing effect this had of my 4 minute long game! 3 fighters down! I'm sure I really ruined his ability to keep attacking other DDs.

Hmm wait, I distinctively remember a full rocket squad appearing again while I was sinking.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The funny thing about some CV's is that they can be strangely ineffective at times, only to deliver a killing strike at the worst possible moment, like when you are capping. That's the worst outcome IMO, if the CV gets my DD in the first couple of minutes, I can more easily shrug it off and go back to port.

[Nibenay78]

8 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

The funny thing about some CV's is that they can be strangely ineffective at times, only to deliver a killing strike at the worst possible moment, like when you are capping. That's the worst outcome IMO, if the CV gets my DD in the first couple of minutes, I can more easily shrug it off and go back to port.

I certainly don't mind dying, especially if I fark it up myself. Nor the fact that he got me while I was basically sitting still (backing full speed isn't exactly useful, but that was my option in the situation)

 

What is most annoying is that I really didn't overextend, didn't igore his planes and let him strike. I had a ship with "okay" AA, and used it as well as possible. In the end our little blob couldn't even shoot down the last 4 planes to prevent his final strike on me. His damage output was relatively consistent too, so it wasn't some lucky strike (if we count N=4 as somewhat representative...)

 

edit: basically I ended up trading my life for 3 attack planes :D woe to the CVs

[Maris_Piper]

[Prospect_b]

11 hours ago, Figment said:

They just seem to want to have something that they can interpret in any way they want by not having themselves be pinned down to actually knowning the issues that frustrate players. :)

 

11 hours ago, DanSilverwing said:

^^ We're all a bunch of cynics here.

lol, that's cynicism for you? My theory is that it just does nothing with the results to begin with, and just pops up at regular intervals to make us not forget the illusion wg likes to sell about caring about our feelings towards the game.

 

Anyway, apparently they do follow the "immediate game quits" (like altF4) etc. So if people would altF4 every time after they got killed by a CV, things might change.

I have this suspicion that most of the altF4s for the last years was when BBs got torp-deleted after sailing in a straight line for 5 minutes, and a certain class is paying the price.

[CptBarney]

23 minutes ago, Saiyko said:

 

lol, that's cynicism for you? My theory is that it just does nothing with the results to begin with, and just pops up at regular intervals to make us not forget the illusion wg likes to sell about caring about our feelings towards the game.

 

Anyway, apparently they do follow the "immediate game quits" (like altF4) etc. So if people would altF4 every time after they got killed by a CV, things might change.

I have this suspicion that most of the altF4s for the last years was when BBs got torp-deleted after sailing in a straight line for 5 minutes, and a certain class is paying the price.

small petes voice: aaahhh!

so all we have to do is sail in dd broadside for 10mins and when we go POOF! we alt f4 and weegee buffs dd's.

 

noice

[Karasu_Browarszky]

20 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

small petes voice: aaahhh!

so all we have to do is sail in dd broadside for 10mins and when we go POOF! we alt f4 and weegee buffs dd's.

 

noice

 

I've seen CV's push way past mid point flanking the enemy. Some like to do 'island hopping' in a sense.

[CptBarney]

3 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

I've seen CV's push way past mid point flanking the enemy. Some like to do 'island hopping' in a sense.

i've done it a few times myself, in midway. Although easier with japanese CV's with their lower concealment and i think better speeds and manuvourability.

[Yedwy]

6 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

I've seen CV's push way past mid point flanking the enemy. Some like to do 'island hopping' in a sense.

Well the closer you are to the action tbe higher your DPM is...

 

Ideally you are just far enough to be undetected all the time and having space to predrop what you need before zeroing in on your victim

[NothingButTheRain]

What I find annoying is that I have to answer before I can even see the post battle results.

[Wulf_Ace]

what do they expect the answer will be? If you played well ofc you will say good, if you died fast and played bad ofc the answer will be bad, so what is the point of the battle question there? 

What are we really grading there after the battle? QUestion is way to GENERAL to be answered that easily. Can I really say I am satisfied with the battle if lets say I died first? Pointless question if you ask me.

[MagicMooby]

Vor 2 Stunden, Wulf_Ace sagte:

what do they expect the answer will be? If you played well ofc you will say good, if you died fast and played bad ofc the answer will be bad, so what is the point of the battle question there? 

What are we really grading there after the battle? QUestion is way to GENERAL to be answered that easily. Can I really say I am satisfied with the battle if lets say I died first? Pointless question if you ask me.

well for starters the data could be used to determine whether players prefer quick victories with low bxp or long drawn out losses with high bxp

there are a lot of very different scenarios to how a battle plays out

WG can get all the necessary stats from the server but player satisfaction is something they need to ask us for

this is a way to determine which types of battles are most enjoyable for the majority of the playerbase

for some people a win is more important than high bxp, for others it's the other way around and for a few players neither has any influence on their enjoyment, they just came to shoot guns and kick sterns

 

in my (naturally biased) experience these surveys tend to pop up after very short games (below 8 min) so I would assume that WG is using this data to determine whether battles should be longer or shorter

but whether or not WG actually uses this data this way is anyones guess