Important message for the community

[Benser33]

53 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

I think I agree with you here, too (and I think on most things I've skipped over): I would prefer the monetization to be less random/lootbox-oriented. However, I think we disagree on how much weight individual choice should play.

I'm not so sure if it's about individual responsibility, but rather in lieu of individuals there is a degree of accountability from WG that should be addressed. That is not to say that individual responsibility is not a factor, but there needs to be an aspect of governance regardless.

 

Quote

I am a horrible person, I like playing carriers... ...and obviously a bit of a chicken/egg situation, but there you go.

Ive bought dozens of premiums, hundreds even. But that's because I can buy them and receive them instead of a chance at receiving them. I would rather buy a ship straight up than try to gamble for it, even if it could save me money through luck. That is why I do not appreciate when WG leaves no alternative.

 

Quote

I would prefer things to not be exclusive to lootboxes. However, I'm not sure I care about the 'testing the waters' methods - things like the dutch cruiser boxes are nothing but time preference, for instance. I think the initial pushback on Missouri is probably reasonable - getting a direct purchase option IS better, and IS a win. I do not appreciate the petulance about 'well, we want it in the shop NOW, we don't want to do trivial missions' or claims that WG is lying about it because at some point in some stream someone said that if they brought it back it would be in the armoury for dubs... because it is - I can click on the armoury and buy it for doubloons right now if my time and cost preferences match the horrible deal awaiting me.

I think we would all prefer things not to be exclusive to lootboxes.

 

The issue with WG trials "new and exciting" ways to distribute rewards is that early iterations can be fairer than future iterations, and players can think "yeah this is pretty reasonable" with initial attempts and continue to believe future versions of some gambling-like method of distribution will be similar, when it is not. Taking advantage of unpublished drops rates and behaviours like sunk cost fallacy.

 

But I also agree, there are a lot of players whose argument seems to stem purely from greed, just wanting to get more and more for less and less, more free stuff, less buying things, which is understandable, but not a reasonable moral argument and an unrealistic expectation of a game that utilises a F2P model.

 

Quote

I'm not sure.

 

In my mind, frankly, someone committing to buy 41 boxes probably values their money a lot less than I value mine, so I doubt their participation would vary whether they got it on box 2 or box 41. Box 20 is better than the mean, but still 1.5x the price of Missouri in armoury. I would say that, with the knowledge of it being available for direct purchase, it would dissuade. Without it, probably about neutral.

You are right that people value their money differently. When you account only for the value of Missouri then the ratios are worse but when you account for the contents of the bundles, including the tokens that can obtain other random premiums things start to look better. Does that mean this series of random bundles has the same overall value are other series? Past or future? I know people who began whaling on the early access bundle series when those were new, they do not do that anymore, it's far too expensive and ultimately the early access feels like a waste. But based on their original experiences with random bundles, and some luck obtaining the tier 9 early access ships they felt more incentive to invest it later iterations of the series. And so, in the end, they feel they lost out despite their earlier fortune.

 

This can, of course, be attributed to the individuals and their personal judgement on how to conduct themselves and their funds, but when the end up feeling like their investment wasn't worth it was it only because of their judgement or because of the predetermined likelihood of a satisfactory and cost effective outcome as determined by WG when they set the odds? The outcomes would seem to speak for themselves, a lot of people feel like losers in the end which only adds to the feelings of soured expectations and disappointment when WG does not relent with these practises. A lot of players have experienced this to the point of exhaustion and it only seems to escalate.

 

Quote

Missouri is, though, less aggressive than the previous iteration of the same: down from 72? lootboxes, for something that is at least only available through a 'purchase' method rather than rapid free to play accumulation. It is clearly a test, and whether it is 'good' or not kind of depends: what if instead of pure random, the black friday containers were a 20-box set with 4 seasonal premiums? Is that better or worse than an indefinite lot?

What is this 72 box example you provided? Missouri originally in 72 bundles? I don't remember this. But there is more to the aggressive strategy than any single event, that is what allows them to get away with, incrementally increasing things over time. Dockyards are another example, the rewards have gotten less generous as time has gone but the cost to participate has seen no noticable change. It is as if WG will always try to discover a new method to exploit and slowly escalate it over time until the community finds it untenable.

 

If the black friday bundle was 4 premiums and 20 containers I would wonder why I would buy 20 additional containers for no reason, since I already obtained the ship. That's just forcing stuff into huge, expensive bundles like Admiral bundles or for example the ARP Yamato bundle or Azur Lane collab bundles. Their pricing is excessive but there is no chance involved.

[Ghesthar]

5 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

The issue with WG trials "new and exciting" ways to distribute rewards is that early iterations can be fairer than future iterations, and players can think "yeah this is pretty reasonable" with initial attempts and continue to believe future versions of some gambling-like method of distribution will be similar, when it is not. Taking advantage of unpublished drops rates and behaviours like sunk cost fallacy.

I agree that this CAN be the case, but recently it doesn't seem to be: Dockyards have certainly moved in the right direction since PR - very much so. The 'limited batch' containers as well, though the 'step in a right direction' is still atrocious. To me, the limited batch things are a move in the right direction, at the very least because they are (confirmed to be) effectively published odds - the boxes are equally weighted. The offerings have been awful, value wise, but I don't despise the model, in comparison to 'traditional' loot boxes.

 

21 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

What is this 72 box example you provided? Missouri originally in 72 bundles? I don't remember this. But there is more to the aggressive strategy than any single event, that is what allows them to get away with, incrementally increasing things over time. Dockyards are another example, the rewards have gotten less generous as time has gone but the cost to participate has seen no noticable change. It is as if WG will always try to discover a new method to exploit and slowly escalate it over time until the community finds it untenable.

Wasn't the dutch cruiser box in the same format 72? It was some larger number, at least (I think) and I don't think the rewards were more or less generous - less, probably, as it is fundamentally a techtree ship.

 

I can agree that the dockyard 'trickle in' rewards have gotten less generous, as have the seasonal event (anniversary, for instance) rewards. I suspect the dockyard, at least, is due to the popularity of them - it is still a very 'budget' premium ship, and the rest is free stuff. They are probably trying to find the 'sweet spot' before people start to complain about the trickle rewards, as you say.

 

25 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

If the black friday bundle was 4 premiums and 20 containers I would wonder why I would buy 20 additional containers for no reason, since I already obtained the ship. That's just forcing stuff into huge, expensive bundles like Admiral bundles or for example the ARP Yamato bundle or Azur Lane collab bundles. Their pricing is excessive but there is no chance involved.

I mean, assuming the black friday ships are available directly as normal, I agree.

 

What I was trying for was: the event is of the same model, but instead of just 'black friday box' that may have a ship or other stuff in it of an indefinite run, a limited run with guaranteed outcomes. I suppose this would mostly come down to what was in the 'filler' crates and how well or badly they stacked up against just buying the ships directly, so if they were to go with this the ships would be unlikely to be available directly, making the whole thing rather moot.

28 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

But based on their original experiences with random bundles, and some luck obtaining the tier 9 early access ships they felt more incentive to invest it later iterations of the series. And so, in the end, they feel they lost out despite their earlier fortune.

I find this a strange sort of inverted gambler's fallacy - it is random, and they aren't thinking they've been unlucky so it is 'their turn' to be lucky, but that they were lucky and will continue to be?

 

29 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

This can, of course, be attributed to the individuals and their personal judgement on how to conduct themselves and their funds, but when the end up feeling like their investment wasn't worth it was it only because of their judgement or because of the predetermined likelihood of a satisfactory and cost effective outcome as determined by WG when they set the odds? The outcomes would seem to speak for themselves, a lot of people feel like losers in the end which only adds to the feelings of soured expectations and disappointment when WG does not relent with these practises. A lot of players have experienced this to the point of exhaustion and it only seems to escalate.

The reason why I have a hard time sympathising here is that, as I started with, there is no compulsion: players who have spent a lot on events and 'burnt themselves out' on it have just.. done so. It isn't morally good or bad that they have, it just is the state of affairs. Whenever there is a lootbox, I say the same thing, and do the same 'math' for myself: if I buy some and get the 'bad' results only, how will I feel? Sometimes, fine - the christmas crates, traditionally, for all their weird shortlisting mechanics (which would pretty much be fine if disclosed accurately, imo) have quite good 'bad results' - loads of premium time and similar. Some others, especially the recent event ones, seem to be a small handful of signals for a disproportionate cost. I do think the 'floor' value of the crates is in order - an internal reevaluation of WG's 'doubloon valuation' for free xp, signals, etc - which would probably shift my internal math somewhat, and maybe the feelings of others. However, this whole thing is back to a 'more stuff for less money' argument, to some extent. With regard to the event containers, I think 'more stuff for less money' is desperately in order to make them even remotely approach reasonable, but this is a matter of opinion.

[Cammo1962]

49 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

Wasn't the dutch cruiser box in the same format 72? It was some larger number, at least (I think) and I don't think the rewards were more or less generous - less, probably, as it is fundamentally a techtree ship.

 

I can agree that the dockyard 'trickle in' rewards have gotten less generous, as have the seasonal event (anniversary, for instance) rewards. I suspect the dockyard, at least, is due to the popularity of them - it is still a very 'budget' premium ship, and the rest is free stuff. They are probably trying to find the 'sweet spot' before people start to complain about the trickle rewards, as you say.

The Dutch cruisers was 71 bundles and originally Missouri should have been 75 bundles but after the leak they change it to 41 bundles. The higlighted is what i have heard and a gain it could be wrong.

[Andrewbassg]

 

 

 

 

Directly from the Salt Mines. With some guests

 

[LeopardXI]

To put it again, where the problem matters, allow me to repeat my first message since WG has not yet responded to it properly yet.

 

First of all,

For me at least, the apology is too little and FAR too late. While the game state is being described in detail, Im missing the changes to improve your relations with the enitre playerbase, the players, Community Contributors and Content creators alike since it required  a combined effort from all of us to actually get this shitstorm going.

I think Wargaming really needs to evaluate what they have been doing wrong the past few years. And like most players here, I want to see the resulting action in accordance with the message that has been sent, not just another empty promise. The mass-exodus of the CC's is testiment to this.

Like I said, this isn't exactly the first time it has gone badly wrong. To name a few:

 

- Puerto Rico disaster

- Aircraft Carrier Rework

- A broken promise of never implementing Submarines (back in the early days), I was a Closed Beta Tester when I saw this.

- USS Missouri debacle

- Lootboxes and monetization

- Disrespecting LittleWhiteMouse and other Community Contributors.

 

After every misstep, Wargaming promised to do better but this, regrettably, turned out to be false information.

It isn't just the fact that Wargaming ignored the players, the fact that they were DENYING the PROBLEMS ALL ALONG  is completely unnacceptable. Factor in the utter nighmare that unveiled last month and you get the perfect storm.

 

The proposed changes are steps in the right direction. But the canyon of distrust that has been left behind will remain visible for years to come and will not be forgotten.

 

To sum it all up: the communication towards all the players is not the only thing that needs drastic changes in order to improve the overall gaming experience. It is neccessary for Wargaming to improve it's own communication lines BETWEEN the playerbase and the company, not just their own towards players. And maybe withing your own company as well but that is not up to the players.

And finally, stop blaming miscommunication and DELIVER ON YOUR PROMISES. All I hear about is promises, this time their statement contains more promises than usual but regardless, these are... STILL.... JUST.... PROMISES... Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Do what is needed to be done to make the overall game experience enjoyable again. 

[Benser33]

9 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

I agree that this CAN be the case, but recently it doesn't seem to be: Dockyards have certainly moved in the right direction since PR - very much so. The 'limited batch' containers as well, though the 'step in a right direction' is still atrocious. To me, the limited batch things are a move in the right direction, at the very least because they are (confirmed to be) effectively published odds - the boxes are equally weighted. The offerings have been awful, value wise, but I don't despise the model, in comparison to 'traditional' loot boxes.

I am not sure we can be certain the random bundles are weighted equally but we can only guess at this point. It is an improvement in that it does cap things, somewhat like a gacha pity mechanic. A pity that no such safety is implemented in other scenarios yet.

 

Quote

Wasn't the dutch cruiser box in the same format 72? It was some larger number, at least (I think) and I don't think the rewards were more or less generous - less, probably, as it is fundamentally a techtree ship

I am not sure, but generally speaking this was for early access to standard ships and not for access to a premium. The ships would later be freely available, the monetary investment was into consumables, some exclusive permanent camos and for early access to the ships. Not participating did not deny you access to the ships until the next opportunity to invest money.

 

Quote

I can agree that the dockyard 'trickle in' rewards have gotten less generous, as have the seasonal event (anniversary, for instance) rewards. I suspect the dockyard, at least, is due to the popularity of them - it is still a very 'budget' premium ship, and the rest is free stuff. They are probably trying to find the 'sweet spot' before people start to complain about the trickle rewards, as you say.

Yes, I agree that dockyards are most likely being diluted because they are becoming more frequent. But that does not change the fact that the cost to participate is remaining the same, or arguably worse when you factor in the time required. WG still appears to be trying to gain the same profit from each dockyard while releasing them with increasing frequency, while asking for increasing time commitments (the ZF-6 dockyard required more time than Hizen, for the same dubloon cost, and with less rewards overall).

 

Quote

I mean, assuming the black friday ships are available directly as normal, I agree.

What I was trying for was: the event is of the same model, but instead of just 'black friday box' that may have a ship or other stuff in it of an indefinite run, a limited run with guaranteed outcomes. I suppose this would mostly come down to what was in the 'filler' crates and how well or badly they stacked up against just buying the ships directly, so if they were to go with this the ships would be unlikely to be available directly, making the whole thing rather moot.

Yes, it's a bit difficult to make a reasonable assessment of value without having an exacting example. But if the decision is between potentially spending £2-£50 on random bundles to obtain a ship, or as an alternative to spend £50 on an inflated bundle that guaranteed the ship along with a bunch of filler stuff then the alternative at least paints a clear cut expectation between vendor and customer. People that cannot afford it cannot buy in, people cannot spend the last of what they have for the money on a 50/50 effort buying half of the random bundles and ending up disappointed (or ending up suceeding, but having spent their money anyway, but believing the odds are generally favourable next time as well).

 

Quote

I find this a strange sort of inverted gambler's fallacy - it is random, and they aren't thinking they've been unlucky so it is 'their turn' to be lucky, but that they were lucky and will continue to be?

Yes, I believe they thought that that their previous investment had been worthwhile and was worth repeating.

Without knowing the odds, players collaborate to determine the odds for themselves, but these odds can change over time. Christmas containers of 2018 and 2019 were not the same.

You might reasonably assume that you have a 1/41 chance of getting missouri from the 41 bundles, but what if that 1 that contains Missouri is less likely than the others?

What if the bundle with the early access t9 EU DD, ITA BB, GER DD and NL CA were equal odds, but this one isn't?

You might reasonably assume you have a 1/41 chance, when you do not. "I can't get all of the bundles but I can buy half, and 50% isn't bad odds" but the odds are not 50% at all.

 

Quote

The reason why I have a hard time sympathising here is that, as I started with, there is no compulsion: players who have spent a lot on events and 'burnt themselves out' on it have just.. done so. It isn't morally good or bad that they have, it just is the state of affairs. Whenever there is a lootbox, I say the same thing, and do the same 'math' for myself: if I buy some and get the 'bad' results only, how will I feel? Sometimes, fine - the christmas crates, traditionally, for all their weird shortlisting mechanics (which would pretty much be fine if disclosed accurately, imo) have quite good 'bad results' - loads of premium time and similar. Some others, especially the recent event ones, seem to be a small handful of signals for a disproportionate cost. I do think the 'floor' value of the crates is in order - an internal reevaluation of WG's 'doubloon valuation' for free xp, signals, etc - which would probably shift my internal math somewhat, and maybe the feelings of others. However, this whole thing is back to a 'more stuff for less money' argument, to some extent. With regard to the event containers, I think 'more stuff for less money' is desperately in order to make them even remotely approach reasonable, but this is a matter of opinion.

Interesting, I collected data on over 1000 containers of various sizes and the chance for premium time was ~1% in 2019. Prior to this, premium time was not in the containers. In 2020 the rates did not appear to change.

Did you know that since the first year the best container to buy for (cost:premium ship quantity) ratio is the medium container (named the Big Gift), not the most expensive one? When players value ships over the other contents of containers generally, they might well draw the conclusion that the most valuable container has the highest chance to contain a ship, which it does (the actual chances for ships, as determined over the years, appears to be approx 2.5%/10%/12.5% between the three) but that does not make it the best container in a $:ship efficiency. Is the large container the best value? Perhaps. But is it the best way to obtain ships?

 

If you have $50 you can buy 11 mega containers and receive ~1.3 ship (12.5%)
Or with $50 you can buy 20 big containers and receive ~2 ships (10%)

If your objectives was to buy ships, would this make sense to you? Would you be pleased to discover this after the fact?

 

I can well go on to this coming new year and decide that I want some more premium ships and decide to buy a few Big Gifts in order to do so cost effectively. And if WG change the rates this year and I don't discover that until 2000 people have bought containers and published their results? Well, that's just too damn bad I suppose.

 

I can understand your point regarding the "more for less" argument, I do feel a lot of people are happy to jump on this band wagon for more selfish reasons than moral reasons (personally, I find WGs treatment of CCs and the community to be the most important issue, but you can still find people who will chime in here to do nothing but complain that Missouri is too expensive) but I think there is a fine line between that and the revelation that the odds were stacked in the first place. Once members of the community discover what odds they actually faced they feel deceived, the probability is key to determining value for money unless you can go all in and purchase everything, or choose to make an educated guess and sometimes the only pretext for that is past experience. A lot of people find themselves considering buying containers for the first time, buying a respectable amount, discovering that the contents were poor and then feeling angry at WG as a result. WG get closer and closer to creating scenarios where that anger is justified, and so is the subsequent discord and mistrust.

 

I would also remark that when I say players are exhausted I don't mean "have spent enough money to be burnt out", but the mere requirement of doing so. The game is free to play and must be funded somehow, but when every event comes with more things to buy, at greater prices, for less value, for more time, constantly, unrelentingly, events beginning to chain together without end, ships released weekly, in terms of content distribution WG really produces quite a lot of stuff but the requirements to participate have only escalated more and more as time has gone on.

[Ghesthar]

Just now, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

I am not sure we can be certain the random bundles are weighted equally but we can only guess at this point. It is an improvement in that it does cap things, somewhat like a gacha pity mechanic. A pity that no such safety is implemented in other scenarios yet.

It was confirmed by WG previously, and again in this thread. I guess that doesn't "prove it," but come on.

 

2 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Interesting, I collected data on over 1000 containers of various sizes and the chance for premium time was ~1% in 2019. Prior to this, premium time was not in the containers. In 2020 the rates did not appear to change.

Did you know that since the first year the best container to buy for (cost:premium ship quantity) ratio is the medium container (named the Big Gift), not the most expensive one? When players value ships over the other contents of containers generally, they might well draw the conclusion that the most valuable container has the highest chance to contain a ship, which it does (the actual chances for ships, as determined over the years, appears to be approx 2.5%/10%/12.5% between the three) but that does not make it the best container in a $:ship efficiency. Is the large container the best value? Perhaps. But is it the best way to obtain ships?

Maybe I just got really lucky the first year I bought any - which was also when I bought the most - and ended up with over a year banked between that and CB rewards. Probably confirmation bias. The medium size (large?) was traditionally the best return for ships, at least according to reddit/etc data collection.

 

Honestly, I hope there is something resembling odds published this christmas. I find their 'sometime next year' timeline to be ridiculous, even though I accept that they can't just instantly publish them.

 

7 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

 A lot of people find themselves considering buying containers for the first time, buying a respectable amount, discovering that the contents were poor and then feeling angry at WG as a result. WG get closer and closer to creating scenarios where that anger is justified, and so is the subsequent discord and mistrust.

I can understand the reaction, but even without odds the contents are published. As I said, maybe the floor needs to be raised, but my sympathy here is kinda limited.

 

8 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

I would also remark that when I say players are exhausted I don't mean "have spent enough money to be burnt out", but the mere requirement of doing so. The game is free to play and must be funded somehow, but when every event comes with more things to buy, at greater prices, for less value, for more time, constantly, unrelentingly, events beginning to chain together without end, ships released weekly, in terms of content distribution WG really produces quite a lot of stuff but the requirements to participate have only escalated more and more as time has gone on.

I mean, I see what you mean, but so many of the events are such poor value that I don't really understand why people would feel the need to do so. There are lots of opportunities to spend money, but vanishingly few things that look like decent value (at least, to me.) So, I don't really understand the 'requirement' aspect here. Most of the best ships are still quite old, there really isn't that much in the way of power creep, etc. While there is the psychological 'keeping up' aspect, taking a step back, there is no REASON to do so at pace.

 

I do think the volume of events and overlap is a bit overwhelming even for free to play resources - constant brawls, cbs, ranked, and then some mission sets that can randomly only be done in one of them, or in randoms, or some other contrived limitation. There is, for me, some degree of 'event burnout,' but I react to that by just skipping them and doing something else for a month, until CBs or whatever catches my attention again. 

[MrConway]

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

 

 

 

 

Directly from the Salt Mines. With some guests

 

 

RIP my last hour ;)

[Benser33]

36 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

It was confirmed by WG previously, and again in this thread. I guess that doesn't "prove it," but come on.

This was something I missed then, I can't confess to having read all 20+ pages.

 

Quote

Honestly, I hope there is something resembling odds published this christmas. I find their 'sometime next year' timeline to be ridiculous, even though I accept that they can't just instantly publish them.

The sooner they deliver this the better, although "sometime next year" could still include january. We shall see...

 

Quote

I can understand the reaction, but even without odds the contents are published. As I said, maybe the floor needs to be raised, but my sympathy here is kinda limited.

But like I said, WG push the limits of what people expect the odds might be. Agincourt is still a star example, with people buying multiple boxes to obtain her and getting no ship. How many containers would be fair to have a reasonable chance to obtain a tier 5 premium ship? Similarly priced to the big gift containers, you could assume a 10% chance. And hey, it's just a tier 5 and this is the only method, the rate can't be that low? But people could buy 20, 40, 60 containers and not get her. If you invested this amount to secure an interesting premium ship I am not confident that having received slightly more signals or whatever other method of raising the floor in the process will do anything to compensate. People that bought these containers did not do so because "at least ill get some signals and camo", but because it was the only way.

 

You may still not sympathise purely because you would not put yourself in this situation, which is fine. But that should not prevent you from empathising with the people that feel frustrated and angry when all they did was try to play along with the means WG provided to obtain ships in a game about ships.

 

Quote

I mean, I see what you mean, but so many of the events are such poor value that I don't really understand why people would feel the need to do so. There are lots of opportunities to spend money, but vanishingly few things that look like decent value (at least, to me.) So, I don't really understand the 'requirement' aspect here. Most of the best ships are still quite old, there really isn't that much in the way of power creep, etc. While there is the psychological 'keeping up' aspect, taking a step back, there is no REASON to do so at pace.

I think this might come down to personal taste. I don't think wows has very much in respect of "fear of missing out" but there are certainly plenty of examples of content that have come and gone, never to return again. Again, Agincourt is a recent example. If you didn't gamble hard enough during the time it was available it is not obtainable now. WG have said the ship will be on sale again in January, but that could well mean that it will be on sale in random container form again. Dockyard ships have never returned. Premiums like Missouri, Musashi, Kronstadt are expensive to obtain and time limited once more. Premiums like Thunderer, Smaland, Smolensk are gone, unobtainable presently in any form. New ships lines are released incrementally. For free they do arrive once every 2 months or so, which can be enough time to grind them out if you just want to possess the line, but that is not always conducive with grinding dockyard objectives, missions that become available with a week to complete them, timed objectives that are presented as the only alternative to freely, or cost effectively, obtain time limited rewards.

 

You don't have to rush through the game, there is a lot less content in the last few years that is just meta breakingly efficient and balance changes seem more comprehensive. Recent premiums can be nerfed if they are too strong, weak premiums can be buffed if they underperform. A lot of people maintain the perspective of "if I can't buy it because it's overpowered why would I buy it?" while simultaneously complaining about game balance. Lots of ships are worth owning without being cause to rework entire game mechanics, but this returns to personal taste. Some people like to experience everything the game has to offer, or simply love everything associated with the game, but that isn't always easy to do.

 

EDIT

Quote

I do think the volume of events and overlap is a bit overwhelming even for free to play resources - constant brawls, cbs, ranked, and then some mission sets that can randomly only be done in one of them, or in randoms, or some other contrived limitation. There is, for me, some degree of 'event burnout,' but I react to that by just skipping them and doing something else for a month, until CBs or whatever catches my attention again. 

I missed this the first time I read the post. But I cover it in my previous paragraph. I even forgot to account for brawls, CB and ranked myself, that's just how much burden there can be. And that's the problem, to try and make the most of the game feels like a burden.

[Ghesthar]

4 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

 

You may still not sympathise purely because you would not put yourself in this situation, which is fine. But that should not prevent you from empathising with the people that feel frustrated and angry when all they did was try to play along with the means WG provided to obtain ships in a game about ships.

 

I think I fundamentally don't understand the 'collector' mindset. If someone NEEDS to have something and will buy any number of boxes to get it, they are kind of accepting the 'any number' part. I can understand the frustration at 'any number' being higher than they wanted, but they had to know this was a possibility going in. Strangely, they may be the primary beneficiaries of the 'fixed number' boxes. That being said, I do not especially like ships being unique to lootboxes, and strangely, I object more strongly to something being unique to a lootbox, but coming back at a later date (without prior disclosure) for direct purchase. If part of the sales pitch is the exclusivity, removing that later on bothers me.

 

The fear of missing out, again, seems to me to be a 'collector' mindset thing. Like, there is a weird confluence of complaints: there is a fear of missing out, wanting to obtain ships, but there are too many ships coming out. It isn't about ships, it is about THAT ship, or EVERY ship, and this seems like a self-imposed need or limitation that I just don't get. If I ask the question: "why do you want Agincourt?" what is the answer? If there are so many ships coming out that it is hard to experience that one, what is wrong with the free ones? And, I mean, you're right: I don't get it because I can't see myself in it. I can understand the frustration, but I have a hard time as seeing it in any way other than 'well, don't do that, then' - the problem is kind of internal, as is the solution.

 

18 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

You don't have to rush through the game... Some people like to experience everything the game has to offer, or simply love everything associated with the game, but that isn't always easy to do.

The first part is kind of what I'm getting it. I think I don't understand the 'experience EVERYTHING the game has to offer' mindset.

 

19 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

And that's the problem, to try and make the most of the game feels like a burden.

I think I agree with that, I just don't see the connection to monetization or 'bad practices,' I guess - I think it is a 'problem' but it is mostly disconnected? I suppose the argument could be that it is keeping people playing, but I'm not sure how related that is. It could also be similar to the premiums: it is just different ways to collect resources, and nobody 'needs' to do it all, but I definitely get the 'fomo' here if I'm skipping free dubs/steel. I think I would definitely prefer fewer, 'better' (I'm not sure what that means in context, though) events over the constant event spam, but I'm not sure how this feeling compares to 'the community' at large - maybe people like lots of options, and all get the ship-fomo that i don't get, but not the steel-fomo that I do.

[Benser33]

48 minutes ago, Ghesthar said:

I think I fundamentally don't understand the 'collector' mindset... the problem is kind of internal, as is the solution.

I understand your perspective here, I think what matters from both standpoints is to understand each other, because we're all part of the same community. It would be less fair to care only about the "injustices", to use perhaps a needlessly strong word, that only affects the self, and not those that affect other people. For the playerbase, these "injustices" are perpretrated by the one entity; WG, and we all can become victim to them now or later. This is why the issue is not solely internal. If the entire community just as one mind decided "well we can't be ship collectors lets just ignore everything that is not free" then WG would adapt to that, and what was previously the safety of non-collectors becomes the new target of that strategy.

 

You could consider the game population as comprised of either whales or non-whales. And the whales keep the game going (this is a gross oversimplification for the purpose of example).

If WG scares all the whales off with their tactics, then they target the non-whales next.

 

The solution can be to just not participate. But that is only the solution of the individual. If there is an axe murderer in the forest near where you live, the individual solution is to not go to the forest. But, that axe murderer might just move on to another forest to murder people there instead. That's not your problem still, you don't even see the appeal of going in the forest anyway. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be better for everyone if we could all just be nice fairy tale friends with the axe murderer and get along nicely instead.

 

And that is what we want, we want (the axe murderer) WG to not be something to be avoided, to not (murder people) practise things that frustrate and enrage and distress and exploit people. You can not participate in their predatory schemes, that doesn't make them less predatory or prevent you from become the target of that later on. We could enjoy the stuff that they produce and distribute with far less of the negativity.

 

Quote

The first part is kind of what I'm getting it. I think I don't understand the 'experience EVERYTHING the game has to offer' mindset.

I mean, that's fine. Not everyone is a collector, a completionist, not everyone has that OCD to tick every box, colour in every square, etc.

 

The game is designed with an economy of constant progression which never ends. There is always something to aim for. A lot of players are of the sort who continue to play for that satisfaction of progression, of meeting objectives, clearing missions, filling out the tech tree. But even these players can be overwhelmed by how much content gets added, and once more what should be satisfying becomes stressful. Running out of time to complete missions. Can't play ships they like because they don't count towards their current missions. Can't grind the ships they didn't spend money to skip via early access because they also have to play clan wars and want to play ranked. Having to regrind old lines rather than play new ones because that's the only way to earn research bureau ships. It is a constant economy of progression that never ends and some players can't keep up even when they rush, even if that is what they enjoy. Of course, you can always just buy those dockyard stages...

 

Quote

I think I agree with that, I just don't see the connection to monetization or 'bad practices,' I guess - I think it is a 'problem' but it is mostly disconnected? I suppose the argument could be that it is keeping people playing, but I'm not sure how related that is. It could also be similar to the premiums: it is just different ways to collect resources, and nobody 'needs' to do it all, but I definitely get the 'fomo' here if I'm skipping free dubs/steel. I think I would definitely prefer fewer, 'better' (I'm not sure what that means in context, though) events over the constant event spam, but I'm not sure how this feeling compares to 'the community' at large - maybe people like lots of options, and all get the ship-fomo that i don't get, but not the steel-fomo that I do.

Despite my originally saying that wows doesn't have a lot of fomo maybe that is the best way to describe it. I've never gotten the impression that the quantity of content is very well appreciated from my own clan, regularly people will just skip what they can't manage and accept their loss. Current dockyard missions for example, people will farm in co-op even when they hate playing co-op because it's faster. Not really a sign of healthy design is it?

 

And the issue here, the part that a lot of people should want to hold WG accountable for is that it is by design. Because what better way to incentivise people into paying for time saving shortcuts like skipping new tech trees with early access or buying premium time/ships to supplement income or skipping dockyard progress with dubloons than by making it very difficult to actually have the time to do everything while making the primary objectives people strive for exclusive. The whole strategy is intentional.

[WWDragon]

1 hour ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Can't play ships they like because they don't count towards their current missions.

Yep, I cannot progress the German Cruiser line because, surprise, its still under T5 and doesnt count.

 

Also there is the effectiveness of ships, take the Brazilian Flag that requires 199 main battery hits in a single battle and lot of ships gets excluded because they will never get so many hits during a single battle, this leads people taking ships with high rate of fire to get it done like Kitakaze, Smol and Atlanta.

 

We dont have unlimited time, the constant back to back events have added stress because we dont even get a week were can just work on a line without directives being active, people have started to skip some due to their low rewards and its just going to get worst.

 

WG doesnt understand why people are playing less and thinks 6 camos will somehow make people play longer as its the constant flag+6 camos that are making people play less to begin.

[WildWind84]

On 9/2/2021 at 6:59 PM, Crysantos said:

Thanks! Submarines are a complex topic and they're still in development and testing. More information submarines will follow once we've decided the next steps for them after reviewing the results of this test.

 

 

OK, about mechanic/technical stuff I can't speculate. But, FACT IS THIS (REALITY): 

Ranked Bronze: players can't play ships in which are good just because one simple things: all ships hasn't ASW. Second problem is: MM and one side with more ships (bbs or cruisers) without ASW - other side with ships with ASW (not all, but more than half ships, including bbs). So, if you don't wanna make difficult for your team, you need play ships just with ASW?! Third part - subs just doesn't belong in random/ranked (for coop I don't know for sure).

Ranked SILVER: just 2 battles I lost from only one reason: MM or from 3 bbs on each side, one side have 2 bbs with ASW, other side have 0 ASW bbs... Cruisers - same story... Our subs was deleted, and then you can try to explain team how are you of all american bbs actually in ONLY Massachutets ( and Georgia, but she isn't in this Ranked) hasn't ASW...

AND - ABOUT SKILLS OF PLAYERS IN SUBS.... That is long long theme... (unequal on each side, drastic) - that is in bronze and in silver.

 

[Andrewbassg]

 

 

To continue the educational series of videos.....

 

 

 

 

 

[Van_Bazel]

On 9/2/2021 at 4:24 PM, Crysantos said:

We actually made a lot of changes based on the feedback we received for Submarines and we will keep doing this. The change with ASW isn't final yet but the current plan.

 

Thanks for the trust!

 

Greetings, Crysantos

Subs feedback ? Remove them or put them in seperate game mode ore ops.

Trust?  Trust is good Control is better.

Kr

[Ghesthar]

10 hours ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

I understand your perspective here, I think what matters from both standpoints is to understand each other, because we're all part of the same community.

I understand that people who want to collect or be completionists exists, even if I don't understand the mindset. I guess where it falls down for me is that I don't really understand how to make things 'better' for that end without the solution becoming 'more stuff for cheaper.' I mean, if the level of 'cheaper' desired is 'not in indefinite lootboxes or at 2-4x the price of a normal premium the same tier or packaged with 9999 commanders nobody cares about,' I can get behind that.

 

Is some of the problem here the time exclusivity on top of the random exclusivity? Like, for the same of argument, if WG were to decide that random crate exclusivity was absolutely core to their monetization model and not going anywhere no matter what, would making those crates indefinitely available (or, at least, over a substantially prolonged period - a year or something) somewhat cut down on the churn/affordability/fomo feeling for someone aiming to collect or complete? How much of this 'problem' is solved by the randomness/gambling gate, and how much by the confluence of that with time pressure?

 

10 hours ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Despite my originally saying that wows doesn't have a lot of fomo maybe that is the best way to describe it. I've never gotten the impression that the quantity of content is very well appreciated from my own clan, regularly people will just skip what they can't manage and accept their loss. Current dockyard missions for example, people will farm in co-op even when they hate playing co-op because it's faster. Not really a sign of healthy design is it?

I definitely think some of the specific sorts of grind (kills, torp hits, floods, fires, whatever) are so much less frustratingly done in coop that they should be reconsidered. I appreciate some of higher effort (from a design point of view) missions where they are a low effort buy long grind condition, or a high effort 'good game or few games' condition. Some of this, again, comes down to time preference - if you play normally, most of the dockyard missions will simply complete over a relatively small number of random games. With some of the later missions this time around (multiple million damage per ship class, pick two, eg) I definitely start to feel there is a bit of a 'grind it in coop or pay to get around it' pressure that I am not fond of. However, I also kind of understand why that is there - 'pay to get around it' is tried and true f2p monetization.

 

I can say that some of the 'harder' missions are basically why I quit play WoT - the first iteration of their 'campaigns' included such specific, random, difficult confluences of requirements that trying to complete them felt like playing against the matchmaker and RNG - a specific count of fires on tanks a tier or two tiers higher than yours, or tanking such an absurdly high amount of damage that you needed both an utterly incompetent enemy AND an utterly incompetent team who didn't simply kill off that enemy. While there was no time pressure to complete these,  the lack of ability to 'progress' killed my motivation - and I was playing at the kind of 1800 pr equivalent in that game, so probably more able to complete a 'skill' task than most. That isn't to brag, it is to emphasise: I was reasonably competent, and the requirements were so 'hard' that they frustrated me into quitting. So, to some extent, I can see the 'appeal' (from wg's point of view) of grind rather than skill/random gated tasks.

 

10 hours ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

And the issue here, the part that a lot of people should want to hold WG accountable for is that it is by design. Because what better way to incentivise people into paying for time saving shortcuts like skipping new tech trees with early access or buying premium time/ships to supplement income or skipping dockyard progress with dubloons than by making it very difficult to actually have the time to do everything while making the primary objectives people strive for exclusive. The whole strategy is intentional.

But this is where the complaint, to me, needs to be really.. careful? specific? something: 'Pay to do faster' or 'pay to skip' are not unreasonable. If the grinds resembled the PR dockyard, or War Thunder, I would find 'pay to skip' quite grating. However, the grinds REALLY aren't bad. The majority of the 'skipping new tech tree' lines, at least to the point where tiers are regular and playable, is accomplished through the free part of launch events. As it is, though, deciding what the 'win' condition is for all monetization complaints (boxes, skipping, etc) has to be a balance: there will be monetization somewhere, and different people have different preferences. If the complaint appears to boil down to 'cease monetizing' it will be simply ignored - it kind of has to be. Some of this also may need to be internal: it frustrates me, but I accept that I can't get every 'free' resource going. I can't help but feel that as frustrating as it may be for them, someone with a different preference (completion, collection, whatever) may need to accept that they can't meet all their goals in line with their spending or time goals. I'm not sure that fully resolving this is possible.

 

The idea that the event overload is by design in that way (that there is so much to do you can't do it all so you pay to finish some of it) is interesting - I hadn't thought of that. It makes sense, though, and really is consistent with one of my primary complaints with dockyard/missions/etc: there are all these ways of playing, but if I want to actually 'make progress' on these missions, I'm limited to random or coops a lot of the time. The dockyard stuff is available in ranked, which is a nice change to me, but the grinds don't really 'align' with the format. Almost nothing is doable in clan battles, brawls, or any other events that come up.

 

10 hours ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

You could consider the game population as comprised of either whales or non-whales. And the whales keep the game going (this is a gross oversimplification for the purpose of example).

If WG scares all the whales off with their tactics, then they target the non-whales next.

Out of order, but as I think I've mentioned before (maybe to someone else) I think this may actually be backward. I think the 'loud' element of the player base constantly pushing back in not necessarily reasonable ways, threatening to spend no money if design change x goes through, etc. has pushed WG to target the non-forum/reddit/CC-engaging (majority, frankly) population of big spenders: the wide base of low to moderate spenders doesn't really exist, and in this way, dockyards are probably a huge win - some monetization from a much broader base. This is, as I've said before, a bit chicken/egg - if there are products at a low to moderate price that a wider base of players sees as 'good value' they will become paying players. If there aren't, they won't. However, if the wider base refuses to engage with low-cost 'value' offerings, we'll just get more £100 anime tie in ships instead. 

 

The non-whales are the product that WG sells to the whales - every ad references player numbers, if people want to know if something is 'dead' or not they look at steam charts. People who are loudly refusing to spend any money ever because WG is greedy force the behaviour they complain about, it doesn't mitigate it - they have already removed themselves from the pool of customers, and placed themselves in the pool of product. Their complaints, unless the complaints translate into not playing, have no value at all from a product perspective.

[Andrewbassg]

Hmm .....

 

Changed the rewards under the "Naval Community" tab:

Removed the bundle with  III Katori. However, this ship is still available to purchase in the Armory for 2,550 Doubloons.

With the release of Update 0.10.9, Premium Ship V and Premium Ship VII containers, as well as the Restless Fire commemorative flag,will no longer be available in exchange for Community Tokens. They'll be replaced by new rewards. The full details will be announced when the release of Update 0.10.9 is near.

 

Getting back to biz as usual ? I mean......

 

 

 

 

[MrConway]

15 hours ago, LeopardXI said:

To put it again, where the problem matters, allow me to repeat my first message since WG has not yet responded to it properly yet.

 

First of all,

For me at least, the apology is too little and FAR too late. While the game state is being described in detail, Im missing the changes to improve your relations with the enitre playerbase, the players, Community Contributors and Content creators alike since it required  a combined effort from all of us to actually get this shitstorm going.

 

We have listed several things that we want to do to improve our relationship with the larger playerbase, as well as stating that we are working on similar plans for the contributor program. If you have specific ideas of what else we could do, let us know.

 

15 hours ago, LeopardXI said:

I think Wargaming really needs to evaluate what they have been doing wrong the past few years. And like most players here, I want to see the resulting action in accordance with the message that has been sent, not just another empty promise. The mass-exodus of the CC's is testiment to this.

 

Which we are doing.

 

15 hours ago, LeopardXI said:

Like I said, this isn't exactly the first time it has gone badly wrong. To name a few:

 

And I would like to point out that we acknowledged these issues and in the older cases have learned from the accordingly.

 

15 hours ago, LeopardXI said:

- Puerto Rico disaster

Dockyard events following Puerto Rico were re-designed and are now significantly easier to complete, while letting each person weigh whether and how much they want to play and pay.

15 hours ago, LeopardXI said:

- Aircraft Carrier Rework

You can see how we have changed our approach with submarines, taking a far slower and more careful approach to their introduction.

15 hours ago, LeopardXI said:

- A broken promise of never implementing Submarines (back in the early days), I was a Closed Beta Tester when I saw this.

A point that often gets brought up. We did not say "There won't be submarines" because we wanted to promise you never to add them, but because at the time we did not have any plans to introduce them and hadn't thought of a way to do it if we would want to.

15 hours ago, LeopardXI said:

- USS Missouri debacle

- Lootboxes and monetization

- Disrespecting LittleWhiteMouse and other Community Contributors.

 

All points that we are working on.

 

15 hours ago, LeopardXI said:

After every misstep, Wargaming promised to do better but this, regrettably, turned out to be false information.

 

We do have an unfortunate tendency to find new ways to make mistakes, but we always do our best to learn from them.

 

15 hours ago, LeopardXI said:

It isn't just the fact that Wargaming ignored the players, the fact that they were DENYING the PROBLEMS ALL ALONG  is completely unnacceptable. Factor in the utter nighmare that unveiled last month and you get the perfect storm.

 

The proposed changes are steps in the right direction. But the canyon of distrust that has been left behind will remain visible for years to come and will not be forgotten.

 

To sum it all up: the communication towards all the players is not the only thing that needs drastic changes in order to improve the overall gaming experience. It is neccessary for Wargaming to improve it's own communication lines BETWEEN the playerbase and the company, not just their own towards players. And maybe withing your own company as well but that is not up to the players.

And finally, stop blaming miscommunication and DELIVER ON YOUR PROMISES. All I hear about is promises, this time their statement contains more promises than usual but regardless, these are... STILL.... JUST.... PROMISES... Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Do what is needed to be done to make the overall game experience enjoyable again. 

 

We're working on it.

 

26 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Hmm .....

 

Changed the rewards under the "Naval Community" tab:

Removed the bundle with  III Katori. However, this ship is still available to purchase in the Armory for 2,550 Doubloons.

With the release of Update 0.10.9, Premium Ship V and Premium Ship VII containers, as well as the Restless Fire commemorative flag,will no longer be available in exchange for Community Tokens. They'll be replaced by new rewards. The full details will be announced when the release of Update 0.10.9 is near.

 

Getting back to biz as usual ? I mean......

 

The content available for community tokens will be changing over time as we rotate things in and out, but we'll always try to have cool things available there. And if nothing catches your fancy, you can keep the tokens until we add something that you do like.

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

@MrConway Why were aircraft carriers given AP armament, while the class and related mechanics are PvE?

With submarines we see a repetition of this design philosophy (homing torpedoes). What is the reason you decided to add the last two classes as PvE in an online multiplayer game, instead of PvP based like the surface ships?

[Aragathor]

39 minutes ago, MrConway said:

We do have an unfortunate tendency to find new ways to make mistakes, but we always do our best to learn from them.

Don't make us laugh, you're not even funny.

What you do when you're called out, is to utter an empty apology, and then try to repeat it next event.

Learning assumes you also put effort to improve. The only effort you make is to scam the player base and deprive them from any rewards, as we now see with the community points.

 

The community sees that all the things that you posted, are empty words, as there is no effort to really do better.

[ScarletReaper]

A MESSAGE TO WARGAMING

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Andrewbassg]

4 hours ago, MrConway said:

The content available for community tokens will be changing over time as we rotate things in and out, but we'll always try to have cool things available there. And if nothing catches your fancy, you can keep the tokens until we add something that you do like.

Yes I know. Look,  l'm actually wanting "you" to succeed in restoring the good relation with the player base.  I'm just not painting a rosy picture because, things are not. At all.

Until now we didn't have a direct communication channel, so....... there is a LOT to put up with. 

 

I will quote a discussion from NA because it is pertinent to the bigger picture.

 

3 hours ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Yeah, they gave us the benefit of the doubt and figured we would play nice. Perhaps they should have treated us like scummy scam-artists from the first? 

 

2 hours ago, Bandi73 said:

Buddy.....this is, even according to them, very much a F2P game. Which means that people will try to get as much they can. That's literally the name of the game. If they didn't wanted to be generous, how about putting those pesky braincells to some usage and think before doing stuff??

It is "nice" to "game the system"? Certainly not always. But the playerbase of a F2P game is very much like...cats. Cats are always nice? No not really .Cats can  very much steal your meal off the dinner table but you certainly don't cut them off from the ration. or punish them in other ways. You still very much pet them. I mean....they are very much still pets, right? 

 

If somebody doesn't understand the cat ABC i wonder why they want...well  to  keep cats in the first place??

There is a very good reason  why I put up this video.

 

 

 

There is a problem namely "you" are not players of this game. For "you" it is a job. In  russian it is called "robota". Yeah..... So there is a very wide pov difference.

 

The most "important" outtake from that conversation is that the company needs " boots on the ground" and I don't mean the...."loving kind" but those who can and willing to be impartial. I would argue that LWM and Flambass were ( perhaps are!!) ideal candidates. They are widely respected and for good reasons. "You" need the input of players who are actually playing the game and who are balanced enough, to provide you with a clear picture and "you" need that picture. Desperately.

 

I'm actually trying to help, even if I'm not smiling at "you" and I'm not pretending that A is somehow a B.

[MrConway]

6 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yes I know. Look,  l'm actually wanting "you" to succeed in restoring the good relation with the player base.  I'm just not painting a rosy picture because, things are not. At all.

Until now we didn't have a direct communication channel, so....... there is a LOT to put up with. 

 

We have always had direct communication channels with you guys, just saying.

 

6 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

 

I will quote a discussion from NA because it is pertinent to the bigger picture.

 

 

 

There is a problem namely "you" are not players of this game. For "you" it is a job. In  russian it is called "robota". Yeah..... So there is a very wide pov difference.

  

The most "important" outtake from that conversation is that the company needs " boots on the ground" and I don't mean the...."loving kind" but those who can and willing to be impartial. I would argue that LWM and Flambess were ( perhaps are!!) ideal candidates. They are widely respected and for good reasons. "You" need the input of players who are actually playing the game and who are balanced enough, to provide you with a clear picture and "you" need that picture. Desperately.

  

 I'm actually trying to help, even if I'm not smiling at "you" and I'm not pretending that A is somehow a B.

 

I understand that I am of course not a regular player, but do assert that I have a very good idea of what many of you are feeling and thinking, I have after all been talking to "you" for the past 6 years 

 

We have a lot of input, our struggle is how to deal with that input, translate it into action and give input back.

[Andrewbassg]

8 minutes ago, MrConway said:

We have always had direct communication channels with you guys, just saying.

Yes.... Well I understand that the disconnect wasn't just on a single level. Or limited just  to the... outside.

 

8 minutes ago, MrConway said:

I understand that I am of course not a regular player, but do assert that I have a very good idea of what many of you are feeling and thinking, I have after all been talking to "you" for the past 6 years 

Well I can talk only about myself. But...

 

Siegfried. I stopped caring about anything in the RB as a result

 

Operations.

 

Lack of increased rewards in ranked, while testing subs. i mean a compensation/reward would have been fair. Obviously for those who actually played with/against subs.

 

 Cv's.... 

Cv 's cant burn or flood easily.

Cv's can't detonate.

Cv's can launch planes when under direct fire or on fire. All three of them.

Cv's  don't take module damage to their plane regeneration capacity. Let alone the destruction of that capacity. 

All of that in a PvP game, in which every other class is subject to all of that. Its just absurd and obscene. 

And the question of AA which can't  even be attempted to properly balance ( i.e not favoring neither side) because of the MM. Cv 's should see only =/+1 tier ships. .

All of that not taking into account the inherent differences resulting from the different playstyle. I e doing damage by planes, with all the tactical advantages which that confers

And the biggest problem is their spotting.

 

Did I  already said  operations? Btw which ones are coming back? :P

 

And that's just me.

8 minutes ago, MrConway said:

We have a lot of input, our struggle is how to deal with that input, translate it into action and give input back.

Which means there is a need for filtering. And that's what I was talking about.

[Ghesthar]

19 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Which means there is a need for filtering. And that's what I was talking about.

Is there a good way to construct that filter?

 

Your list of people who are 'impartial' are, functionally, people you like and agree with. Mine, if I could come up with a list, would probably be conceptually identical. They may or may not intersect. Most players in most games (so, probably this one too) do not interact with content creators, streamers, forums, or subreddits. Picking prominent figures from these give a snapshot of the mood of the dominant element of that subgroup, not a snapshot of the player base as a whole.

 

You might be happy with the set of biases created with that snapshot. Others, like myself, would not be. WG probably has better data on how many people are in which 'segment' and may be able to choose or filter a bit based on that, but otherwise this sort of 'council' of players seems kind of sketchy do me.

 

If an actually objective sample could be obtained, this would be great. However, I have no idea how one would go about doing so.