So why is WG so obstinate in refusing to grant player requests?

[Camperdown]

So, in my recent poll we have seen an overwhelming lack of trust in WG from the members of this forum. Ofc that is no scientific result, but 300 out of 350 responders voting 1 to 3 is pretty bad by any standard.

A lot of gripes could be ameliorated and a lot of goodwill created by WG being just a bit more responsive to veteran player requests. It does not have to be a complete CV rework V2, but some small steps could go a long way.

 

So why don't they do it? It can't be good for the company bottom line to have such a bad reputation. A few shows of positive actions could restore some goodwill, would not cost much and probably return some revenue from now disgruntled veteran players.

 

@YabbaCoe and other WG employees,can you help us with some insight here? Why the total breakdown between WG and veterans on this forum?

 

And forum members, which small steps would in your view do a lot of good? Please stay positive in your answers and try to stick to smaller changes that would be acceptable to WG and feasible to implement.

 

I would suggest:

- some smaller tweaks to CV mechanics to address the worst issue. The nerfing of rocket planes is a good example imo 

- restoration of 1 existing scenario that is inactive now 

 

What do you think?

 

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 22 Stunden, Camperdown sagte:

So why don't they do it?

Because the forum represents the minority of the playerbase, and - despite quite a lot of examples suggesting otherwise - the forumites are the more experienced and informed players, in contrast to the masses who are cluelessly playing the game, are maybe not even able to read more complicated terms than "BUY NOW" and are totally ignorant of the past and future of this game.

 

TrollofWar, expert for nothing, disagrees. So I'm probably correct.

[Camperdown]

6 minutes ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

Because the forum represents the minority of the playerbase, and - despite quite a lot of examples suggesting otherwise - the forumites are the more experienced and informed players, in contrast to the masses who are cluelessly playing the game, are maybe not even able to read more complicated terms than "BUY NOW" and are totally ignorant of the past and future of this game.

I understand that the forum is a minority, but 300 responses are 1% of the EU player base and a lot of them are veterans. It is very unlikely that this sentiment is not shared in the larger player base. Also, forum members are connected, and their sentiments will spread.

It is not scientific, but you can't ignore the negativity that exists. It must harm WG in a non-trivial way.

[quickr]

My guess, veterans are not valued cos they don't spend as much (some not at all considering the state of the game) money as new players. New players are oblivious to what extent WG  will go to scam it's costumers. New players don't bi*ch on forums and reddit nearly as much as some of us do . New players are also oblivious to game breaking bugs and broken game mechanics. In short, new players are better costumers.

 

But that is the problem WG created. If the game was better, bugs fixed in timely manner, experienced and skilled players valued more,etc etc...... I'm sure WG would have profited out of veterans players just as much if not more than from new players. And forums would be a much better place to visit.

 

What WG needs to do to "fix" the current situation. Simple answer:  A LOT! Starting with fixing the bugs, putting subs in their own game mode, removing CVs from any and all competitive modes, giving us more maps instead of premium ships, etc...

What will WG do: Absolutely f**ing nothing, just more empty words.

 

[Andrewbassg]

31 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

So, in my recent poll we have seen an overwhelming lack of trust in WG from the members of this forum. Ofc that is no scientific result, but 300 out of 350 responders voting 1 to 3 is pretty bad by any standard.

A lot of gripes could be ameliorated and a lot of goodwill created by WG being just a bit more responsive to veteran player requests. It does not have to be a complete CV rework V2, but some small steps could go a long way.

 

So why don't they do it? It can't be good for the company bottom line to have such a bad reputation. A few shows of positive actions could restore some goodwill, would not cost much and probably return some revenue from now disgruntled veteran players.

 

@YabbaCoe and other WG employees,can you help us with some insight here? Why the total breakdown between WG and veterans on this forum?

 

And forum members, which small steps would in your view do a lot of good? Please stay positive in your answers and try to stick to smaller changes that would be acceptable to WG and feasible to implement.

 

I would suggest:

- some smaller tweaks to CV mechanics to address the worst issue. The nerfing of rocket planes is a good example imo 

- restoration of 1 existing scenario that is inactive now 

 

What do you think?

 

Incapacity and unwillingness.

[ColonelPete]

30 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

So, in my recent poll we have seen an overwhelming lack of trust in WG from the members of this forum. Ofc that is no scientific result, but 300 out of 350 responders voting 1 to 3 is pretty bad by any standard.

A lot of gripes could be ameliorated and a lot of goodwill created by WG being just a bit more responsive to veteran player requests. It does not have to be a complete CV rework V2, but some small steps could go a long way.

 

So why don't they do it? It can't be good for the company bottom line to have such a bad reputation. A few shows of positive actions could restore some goodwill, would not cost much and probably return some revenue from now disgruntled veteran players.

 

@YabbaCoe and other WG employees,can you help us with some insight here? Why the total breakdown between WG and veterans on this forum?

 

And forum members, which small steps would in your view do a lot of good? Please stay positive in your answers and try to stick to smaller changes that would be acceptable to WG and feasible to implement.

 

I would suggest:

- some smaller tweaks to CV mechanics to address the worst issue. The nerfing of rocket planes is a good example imo 

- restoration of 1 existing scenario that is inactive now 

 

What do you think?

 

Because small changes to CV will not change the issue.

We just had the rocket aiming change and the opinion about CV did not really change on the forum, but it cost WG around 15% of their regular CV players.

The only thing that would help would be a complete rework that made CV, Non-CV players and WG happy. Good luck

13 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

I understand that the forum is a minority, but 300 responses are 1% of the EU player base and a lot of them are veterans. It is very unlikely that this sentiment is not shared in the larger player base. Also, forum members are connected, and their sentiments will spread.

It is not scientific, but you can't ignore the negativity that exists. It must harm WG in a non-trivial way.

More like around 0.2% of the EU playerbase.

[Aragathor]

38 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

So why don't they do it?

Business culture. We often forget that WG, and especially Lesta, is a Russian company. And Russians do stuff differently.

They have a strong leader type of business, where the boss decides and everyone has to fall in line. This can be seen in the fact that CVs were forced through, now Subs are forced in, all ignoring feedback.

Player opinions don't really register with them, until they threaten their income or get too loud.

 

To make a real change you would need to move the studio elsewhere and change the responsible people at all levels. Not gonna happen.

 

PS: This is not only a WG problem. Other Russian game dev studios have the same issue.

[Taliesn]

1 hour ago, Camperdown said:

So, in my recent poll we have seen an overwhelming lack of trust in WG from the members of this forum. Ofc that is no scientific result, but 300 out of 350 responders voting 1 to 3 is pretty bad by any standard.

A lot of gripes could be ameliorated and a lot of goodwill created by WG being just a bit more responsive to veteran player requests. It does not have to be a complete CV rework V2, but some small steps could go a long way.

 

So why don't they do it? It can't be good for the company bottom line to have such a bad reputation. A few shows of positive actions could restore some goodwill, would not cost much and probably return some revenue from now disgruntled veteran players.

 

@YabbaCoe and other WG employees,can you help us with some insight here? Why the total breakdown between WG and veterans on this forum?

 

And forum members, which small steps would in your view do a lot of good? Please stay positive in your answers and try to stick to smaller changes that would be acceptable to WG and feasible to implement.

 

I would suggest:

- some smaller tweaks to CV mechanics to address the worst issue. The nerfing of rocket planes is a good example imo 

- restoration of 1 existing scenario that is inactive now 

 

What do you think?

 

 

As others have already answered, the return is not worth the effort. The money is with the great unwashed.

Also, and from their point of view, that is a very slippery slope. Where do you stop? What do you concede and how sure are you that the veterans agree on what's to be done in the first place? What's the return anyway, when they are already spending less than most, are on the way out and/or will find another thing to moan about as soon as they get this or that?

 

28 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

Business culture. We often forget that WG, and especially Lesta, is a Russian company. And Russians do stuff differently.

They have a strong leader type of business, where the boss decides and everyone has to fall in line. This can be seen in the fact that CVs were forced through, now Subs are forced in, all ignoring feedback.

Player opinions don't really register with them, until they threaten their income or get too loud.

 

To make a real change you would need to move the studio elsewhere and change the responsible people at all levels. Not gonna happen.

 

PS: This is not only a WG problem. Other Russian game dev studios have the same issue.

 

Yes, because EA or Blizzard are the benchmark for good gaming practices and business culture, lol.

[Tanaka_15]

Op forum players are not the target. This game is not beeing made for us, and we are not the main customers therefore our opionon dont matters. This game is made for Whale 45% WR with all the premiums in port and his opinion matters. 

[Dutchy_2019]

Apparently there was one example where WG listened to the player base about ships. And it resulted in a completely broken Graf Zeppelin.

[Aragathor]

5 minutes ago, Taliesn said:

 

Yes, because EA or Blizzard are the benchmark for good gaming practices and business culture, lol.

There are other game publishers that make good games and don't fail in listening to players. Or at least they don't fail as hard.

[Dutchy_2019]

44 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

Business culture. We often forget that WG, and especially Lesta, is a Russian company. And Russians do stuff differently.

They have a strong leader type of business, where the boss decides and everyone has to fall in line. This can be seen in the fact that CVs were forced through, now Subs are forced in, all ignoring feedback.

Player opinions don't really register with them, until they threaten their income or get too loud.

 

To make a real change you would need to move the studio elsewhere and change the responsible people at all levels. Not gonna happen.

 

PS: This is not only a WG problem. Other Russian game dev studios have the same issue.

 

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

 

Quite a few Western (including US) companies are little better. This is not a Russian (game) company issue. This is generally an issue of (big) business.

[Gvozdika]

21 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

Business culture. We often forget that WG, and especially Lesta, is a Russian company. And Russians do stuff differently.

They have a strong leader type of business, where the boss decides and everyone has to fall in line. This can be seen in the fact that CVs were forced through, now Subs are forced in, all ignoring feedback.

Player opinions don't really register with them, until they threaten their income or get too loud.

 

To make a real change you would need to move the studio elsewhere and change the responsible people at all levels. Not gonna happen.

 

PS: This is not only a WG problem. Other Russian game dev studios have the same issue.

^^ What he said. 

 

Russians are lovely people and a lot of fun to be around. However they take bloody-minded stubbornness to a whole new level - it is virtually a national sport. This enables them to achieve a lot but it also means they struggle to comprehend that they are not, in actual fact ALWAYS right. I know, the horror!

 

Unfortunately it is also self-destructive in many cases - that is why you see WG and Gaijin continually shoot themselves in the foot, dig themselves in progressively deeper holes, etc. To back down or change their mind is unthinkable. If the facts disagree - then find different facts (hence the hiding behind the spreadsheet argument so often while never actually divulging what the mythical spreadsheet actually says). 

 

Sprinkle in obvious language barriers (to Western ears Russian can seem quite abrupt when translated directly) and a mutual distrust between the devs/community - the results are predictable. 

 

[Purnylla]

1 hour ago, Camperdown said:

The nerfing of rocket planes is a good example imo 

 

Is it? Everybody complained about CV being too effective against DD, but since the rocket nerf everybody complains that CV aren't focusing on DD anymore. Not sure that's an improvement. 

[Tanaka_15]

2 minutes ago, Purnylla said:

 

Is it? Everybody complained about CV being too effective against DD, but since the rocket nerf everybody complains that CV aren't focusing on DD anymore. Not sure that's an improvement. 

it is. And i didnt hear any complains about CVs not focusing dds. But a lot of compplains aobut cvs in general. 

[Aragathor]

36 minutes ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

 

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

 

Quite a few Western (including US) companies are little better. This is not a Russian (game) company issue. This is generally an issue of (big) business.

My statement is based on personal experience with Russian companies, not only in the gaming sector though.

There can be different reasons why other companies are bad.

[Prophecy82]

8 minutes ago, Purnylla said:

 

Is it? Everybody complained about CV being too effective against DD, but since the rocket nerf everybody complains that CV aren't focusing on DD anymore. Not sure that's an improvement. 

 

You really belive they made that change for DDs and not for Subs? 

[Ubertron_X]

The problem is that a better game does not automatically guarantee more money, however it automatically gurantees more work. Yes there is the argument that a better game might create more money by attracting more players (or stop losing players), however this effect is an indirect one and very difficult to gauge. Omitting low hanging fruits like CVs and Subs, fixing all known bugs and creating new maps is something that most of the veteran playerbase can rally behind, the problem being that doing so will not provide WG with any additional direct income. On the contrary, how many new players will join if there are 17 instead of 15 maps (example figures) or because the "torpedo aim" and "all shells falling short" bugs are fixed. How many old players will leave because these issues are not fixed in comparison to leaving because they are generally losing interest in the game?

[Hugh_Ruka]

you know the 80/20 rule in software development ?

 

80% of the features cost 20% of total resources and the last 20% cost the remaining 80% ... that's where we are with the CV rework and Captain rework. The main features (80%) were done. Now the fine-tuning and fixing is the expensive part ... not enough ROI for them ...

 

Expect this to be true with about any other feature they will develop ....

[arttuperkunas]

2 hours ago, Camperdown said:

original post

 

I suggest you watch this, if you haven't. It explains clearly and concisely that this game is not made for us, the veteran players. We are not the main customers, therefore our opinions don't really carry much weight. The return on investment is not good enough; let's face it, we are demanding customers, and if they can get much more return by just farming whales with a constant stream of lazy premium ships, they will do it.

 

 

 

[Taliesn]

24 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

My statement is based on personal experience with Russian companies, not only in the gaming sector though.

There can be different reasons why other companies are bad.

 

I have personal experience with companies from Canada, UAE and from just about every EU country. I'd say the worst I've found at the management level are the spanish and UK ones, and do you know why? Because I've had the chance to know them deeper. There is a good chance it is no better or worse elsewhere.

 

Edit:

 

3 minutes ago, arttuperkunas said:

I suggest you watch this, if you haven't. It explains clearly and concisely that this game is not made for us, the veteran players. We are not the main customers, therefore our opinions don't really carry much weight. The return on investment is not good enough; let's face it, we are demanding customers, and if they can get much more return by just farming whales with a constant stream of lazy premium ships, they will do it.

 

 

 

 

I've been saying this for ages. New players/customers is where it is at, that usually works outside online gaming and WG too.

[arttuperkunas]

2 minutes ago, Taliesn said:

 

I have personal experience with companies from Canada, UAE and from just about every EU country. I'd say the worst I've found at the management level are the spanish and UK ones, and do you know why? Because I've had the chance to know them deeper. There is a good chance it is no better elsewhere.

 

Edit:

 

 

I've been saying this for ages. New players/customers is where it is at, that usually works outside online gaming and WG too.

Yes, this is nothing new. I linked the video not because this is a new concept that hasn't been brought up (even in this thread, several times), but because iEarlGrey explains the whole issue very well.

[HassenderZerhacker]

18 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

you know the 80/20 rule in software development ?

 

80% of the features cost 20% of total resources and the last 20% cost the remaining 80% ... that's where we are with the CV rework and Captain rework. The main features (80%) were done. Now the fine-tuning and fixing is the expensive part ... not enough ROI for them ...

 

Expect this to be true with about any other feature they will develop ....

and that's exactly why classic software engineers fail at banking or financial trading software. because it's not even remotely acceptable when accounts are 80% exact, trades 80% accurate or 80% on time.

 

every time one of those clowns pronounces the words "business requirement" you can feel it's meant as an insult.

that's why ALL successful trading businesses took on IT people as an integral part of front office business units. because the 9 to 5ers don't deliver.

 

in the game world, a game with many veteran players is a game that will last and attract new players, maybe not as much as a marketing driven vaporware game, but steadily and long-term because veterans will recommend the game.

what is needed to keep veteran players? balance, strategical depth, continuity, and PAY2WIN that stays moderate. this means that the game is run by people who understand and play the game themselves, not marketers, consultants, managers or software architects.

 

they have their logic the wrong way around - they think about building something neat and efficient and to then monetize it, while a successful approach is to design the business model/process first and then to build the software.
because when the 9 to 5 lamers are done thinking, the business has moved on already.

[Camperdown]

24 minutes ago, Ubertron_X said:

The problem is that a better game does not automatically guarantee more money, however it automatically gurantees more work. Yes there is the argument that a better game might create more money by attracting more players (or stop losing players), however this effect is an indirect one and very difficult to gauge. Omitting low hanging fruits like CVs and Subs, fixing all known bugs and creating new maps is something that most of the veteran playerbase can rally behind, the problem being that doing so will not provide WG with any additional direct income. On the contrary, how many new players will join if there are 17 instead of 15 maps (example figures) or because the "torpedo aim" and "all shells falling short" bugs are fixed. How many old players will leave because these issues are not fixed in comparison to leaving because they are generally losing interest in the game?

My point is not that you need to fix it all, but that the current level of unresponsiveness is obviously counterproductive. Small steps in the right direction are likely to have a good positive effect. F.e. many players are happy with brawls. The appreciation for that gives a markedly different tone of posting. 

A few more small steps could change the atmosphere. My point also is: the effect may not be immediately measurable in profits, but would extend the life cycle of the game.

[Dutchy_2019]

31 minutes ago, Aragathor said:

My statement is based on personal experience with Russian companies, not only in the gaming sector though.

There can be different reasons why other companies are bad.

 

My feeling is that the difference in is in the way they tell the customer they can f** off (western companies are better at hiding it behind all kinds of customer rep and PR BS), and the difference not so much them ignoring their customers.