Important message for the community

[Decommissioner]

You want to make the game better? Give us the option to choose whether we want CVs and Subs in Random Battles or not (it's just two checkboxes). Then you can see how incredibly popular those classes are and most of us can finally start enjoying a game with surface ships ;)

[Nettopp_Naa]

Ihvertfall Just read some fine words, and are lokking forward to see if they they are met with action ( I'm crossing my fingers.) But not a word about submarines wich has been a major issue lately. Will they be a part of the general game, or will they be in a derivater game mode? I for noe gave up CV's a long time ago. Hope for clarification soon. 

Best regards. 

 

Nettopp_Naa

[mtm78]

1 hour ago, Excavatus said:

* expressing your opinions and feelings in a spiteful and disrespectful way. 

Turry would like a word with you

[Benser33]

I am unsure whether to be cynical or optimistic.

 

The post is very nice and offers a lot of welcome changes and provides acknowledgement of issues of various scopes that had so far been seemingly dismissed. Some of this does seem a bit like backpedalling but I will allow myself to believe that whether some of these things did not receive the attention they deserved before due to blissful or willful ignorance that the important part is that they are declared and that they happen.

 

I do appreciate that the post begins with an apology to those CCs who gave the most and were let down. The way you treat CCs is a direct reflection of your attitude towards all players. Long term damage takes a long term effort to repair, so time will tell.

[thiextar]

@Crysantos Would you consider adding the score timer mod to the base game?

 

Its such a useful feature that its basically mandatory, and the mod just got discontinued due to the recent shitstorm

 

[MimosA_A]

6 minutes ago, DreadArchangel said:

I really think one of the subjects they'll have to change is lootbox's, they generate a lot of grief for them.

To be fair to WeeGee, that's an industry issue that should just be resolved by legislation IMHO. Fact is, they're extremely lucrative and basically industry standard. Expecting a giant corporation to just do away with them for moral reasons or to please the community is a pipe-dream. I really don't know why it takes governments (except Belgium) so long to make at the very least clear guidelines, but WeeGee is not the worst offender here. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see them go ASAP, but since companies collectively have shown they'll rather take the profits over the responsibility, it's time the governing bodies take the responsibility.

[PaP_Mentoles]

2 hours ago, Crysantos said:

Dear players,

 

Lately a lot of you have been upset with various incidents, our decisions, as well as a general state of things in the game and community. Before we continue, we want to apologize to all of you, players, content creators, moderators, testers, and other volunteers, to those who support us and those disappointed with us. Everything that happens within the game and the community is our responsibility, and we are sorry that we let the situation come to its current state. 

We want to take this opportunity to be more transparent about how we will take actions to improve our internal processes and our relationship with you. It will be a long read, you will see items of different scales and with different times required to see results. No doubt more news and announcements will follow, so please don't treat this as a final plan and the ultimate solution to everything. Instead, please treat it as a list of things we're currently working on and a way to show our intentions to make the game and community a better place. Also, please note that it is not comprehensive, as many other measures are revolving around internal processes.

Monetization

World of Warships is a free-to-play title following the game-as-a-service concept with substantial monthly updates and a constant evolutionary cycle. To support this model we rely on a multitude of monetization tactics considered to be standard practice in the industry. While we believe it's unreasonable to expect to discuss our monetization strategies in all but the most general terms - this is business-critical information - we do understand that there are specific details that are a cause of concern for some of you. We will address them as best we can below.

• Random mechanics. As a business, we always follow laws and comply with new regulations as they appear. Therefore, our position on containers and random bundles is always consistent with governments' decisions on this matter and will keep being so. In some cases, we will even try to work ahead of industry practices. We are aware that there are slowly progressing trends to regulate the digital space more and more, to catch up with technical solutions and business models built on them. With that in mind, we appreciate your feedback and commit to the following: from now on for all new ships, if they are distributed via Containers or Random Bundles, there will be an alternative way to obtain them. Methods may vary and may include timegating (i.e. early access or time delayed offers), direct purchases, completing in-game activities, etc. 
• Drop rates. We plan to publish all drop rates for all Containers and Random Bundles and are already working on it. It will take some time, but our hard commitment is that it will happen over the course of next year.
• Return of Missouri. The initial concept of the event was perceived negatively, and we should have known better. The case was a learned lesson for us and we added an alternative way to purchase the ship. We're also addressing the situation with the ship's earnings to make sure that those who owned Missouri before 0.10.7 will on average receive not less credits than before the changes to the ship's economics. We're grateful for the battles you played, these helped us to collect sufficient data. This amount of data allows us to add a +10% bonus to the special Missouri combat mission (from 20% to 30%). Additionally, we will issue appropriate amount of credits to all the affected players as a sign of appreciation; details will be published in Devblog separately.
• Summer Sale. Unfortunately, we made a translation mistake in a sensitive description. We fixed it ASAP and to protect you from such mistakes in the future, we will add additional checks and approvals to our internal processes. If anything like that happens again, we will offer refunds to all of the affected players. We did it before and we will do it again to make sure that you are compensated. We will also pay more attention to the positioning of such events: for example, many of you stated the term "Sale" suggests direct discounts on in-game items.
• Age ratings. We've already added disclaimers about in-game purchases with random items to our PEGI ratings. We're also in touch with other rating organizations to adjust our ratings everywhere in a consistent way. While our game was never popular among minors and we adhere to legislation in all countries where we publish World of Warships, we plan to go beyond what is required of us by laws and we are working on our own in-game measures to additionally protect children who interact with our game. We will share more details on this point once we're ready to announce them.

Feedback

One of the main topics we want to address is how your feedback influences the game. Regrettably, it was not always clear how we use certain types of feedback and where it fits into our decision-making process. We've always taken it into account, but looking back, we see that in some cases it was not balanced well enough against other equally important sources of information: large volumes of data and the team's creative vision of the game. We want to change this situation and make sure we pay more direct attention to your suggestions and opinions while also giving you more insight into how the decisions are made. Things we are considering and evaluating right now:

• More reaction to feedback on ships balance. We know there are several ships you want to be addressed, and we'd like to confirm: balance changes are planned for Zao, Petropavlovsk, and FDR in 0.10.10. Moving forward we will try to increase the promptness of addressing released ships in a similar way and when it is not possible (for example, changing a ship will move it out of the interval of normal performance), we will put more effort into giving you insights and explaining our reasoning.
• Aircraft Carriers. Despite many other things happening in the game, we haven't forgotten that there are still questions to be answered regarding CVs. We've implemented a lot of changes to this class since the rework, but we acknowledge more changes may be needed. CV spotting is a good example - we conducted several tests before and did not find a good, adequate way to address it. That does not mean we will not continue to improve it. It's not something that can be done quickly, please keep that in mind. Another common question is regarding odd-tier carriers, which were previously mentioned as "support CVs". Right now they are in an early prototyping stage (developing document concepts), and we want to honestly tell you that they are not to be expected in 2022.
• New gameplay experiences. We will keep evolving the game by introducing new game modes and mechanics, both fiction- and history-based. For example, in 0.10.8 we will have a new mode - Convoys - inspired by historical events. We will keep exploring new game modes in the future, - it's one of our priorities. Expanding permanent types of battles (primarily Random battles) with new modes is also one of the long-term goals to keep the game fresh and entertaining. However creating a mode suitable not just for a short gaming period, but for a permanent presence with high replayability is a much bigger challenge, so it takes many more tries and effort. 
• Maps. We've slowed down with adding new maps to the game recently because the team focused more on the game's visuals in general (updated visual effects, new water, and other improvements) as well as introducing a whole new level of underwater world. That said, in 2022 at least one new map will be released, and another one has some chances to make it in time. Spoiler: we're also going to try a new mechanic with the first of these new maps not previously used in the game.
• Operations. CV rework rendered a lot of AI-related internal tools obsolete and made working with AI-aircraft-related stuff very difficult or impossible. Right now we're in the process of removing this obstacle. It's being worked on for many reasons, not just for the sake of Operations, but one of the benefits we will have when this project is done is that we will be able to return some of the old Operations in 2022.
• Other. There are plenty of other things we know you're interested in, and quite a lot of them are being worked on in different stages of development. We haven't forgotten about things such as secondary builds for cruisers, the update of some old ship models, Tier IV CV tuning, Huron (coming 2022), West Virginia'44 (coming 2023), addressing the chat system, improvements for Ranked Battles, and many other small and not so small changes to the game that will make your experience with it better.

Communications

We are a large, distributed team of over 500 people working across more than 4 countries. Coming from all walks of life, culturally varied and hindered severely by the pandemic from travelling to see each other in person to be able to align on certain matters, we are bound to have organizational challenges in the realm of communication. However, these internal challenges should not be visible, much less influence the player experience. Improving communications is a never-ending process which needs to be evolutionary and not revolutionary, so you will see those improvements incrementally over time in many areas, rather than as a one-time institutional overnight change. But we want to address a few specific points you pointed out in this area.

• Community Contributor Program. When we created our CCTP, our goal was to help talented folks interested in our game create content and grow their channels. Right now it's clear that a lot of things in the Program do not work as they should, which leads to frustration and failed expectations even though some other parts are running well. We will update the Program, both in terms of rules and the way we work with it internally. We expect to have some sort of internal plan and first action points ready in the second half of September, and then proceed with the changes during this Autumn.
• Future of the game. We'd like to offer you a deeper look into the future of the game. Right now we have Devblogs (where we basically announce everything that comes to Supertest) and the Waterline series (quarterly updates). To complement these and expand the horizon of events, we want to share a general roadmap with you, of what you can expect to see in World of Warships in the far future. It will give you an idea of what we want to focus on - but please keep in mind that things can and will change. At the same time, we want to show the progress World of Warships achieves. The game evolves a lot each year and it will make it easier for you to follow what we are doing.
• Communications quality. There have been a lot of communication mistakes and incidents on our side recently. While mistakes always happen and we're all human, we acknowledge that we need to improve in this area. We've already launched a full internal review of all related processes. We want fewer mistakes and translation errors, more answers, and productive conversations. We want to improve the way you interact with us in any place, be it Forums, Customer support, Discord servers or official streams. 
• General transparency. We need to work hard on it: on the one hand, we need to pay more attention to the community sentiment, on the other hand, we have to be more transparent and explain our positions. We will create a series of publications to make our development process more transparent and to show the logic behind what we do. For example, players did not understand why the latest torpedo bug took 2 updates to fix, while a CV bug (plane losses in 0.9.9) was fixed almost instantly. They are in fact very different: the CV bug was fixed by quickly adjusting some parameters, while the torpedo bug involved game logic, and even though it was technically fixed within a week, it had to go through all regular quality assurance processes. Deploying such change through a hotfix is extremely risky for the game. This should have been communicated transparently and we will do our best to do so in the future.
• In-depth communications and insights. When it's necessary we will use more specifics and will provide deeper explanations of our decisions. For example, we implemented the system for CvC ship bans, which helps us to keep the meta fresh, and we want to tell you more about how and why we use it, as it's something that our hardcore players are interested in.

 

All of it is just our current, first plan. We will keep looking for other points of interest and challenges. We want to show you our responsibility, care and desire for the game by the way we communicate and through our actions - to make the game better for everyone.

 

A final word on passion and communication. While we are working hard to improve the way we communicate and interact with you, we want to take a moment to address your passion and the way that we communicate with each other. We know that you care about the game a great deal and ask you to remember that there are people - community managers, support staff, developers and volunteers - that read your communications and posts, wherever they may be made. While we as a company certainly need to work on the way we communicate with you, we ask that you treat the people you interact with fairly and with respect. Your voice will carry as much – or more – weight with them if you present your feedback and opinions in a reasoned and constructive way.

 

Yours sincerely,

Victor Bardovsky, Publishing Director

Andrey Lisak, Development Director

World of Warships Team

Empty promises. Lengthy announcement but basicly saying nothing.

Just words, words, words.

You are asking to treat you with respect, just to let you know you (the company) did nothing to deserve respect.

[S_h_i_v_a]

[NoLuvForPhatShips]

1 hour ago, Glandolin said:

What a wall of text yet no action to resolve what started all this - f-ing over LWM and Chobi.

When I say this I mean it seriously - those two, especially LWM is 50% of what makes this game interesting. If you guys don't get her back the game will suffer. Message her, go make things right, ask what she wants, deliver. Then I'll start thinking I maybe believe you. Seriously, we've seen so much bull from WeeGee that nothing you would post without actions being taken and visible will ever matter at this point.

 

When (if) LWM returns is when(if) the spirit of the game returns.

 Yup on the NA forum They haven't publicly done anything hopefully they will they're looking into it more.

1 hour ago, Sir_Lawrence42 said:

I am still amazed how ppl like you care that much about CCs in the first place - do they somehow pay your salary or why should anyone give a crap about them in the first place? Everyone can decide for themselves if they wanna be a partner or not - and reminder they do it for free )))

This thread/news is about the important stuff and sorry the entire CC program doesnt effect me nor anyone i know personally.

 LWM is a big part of the NA server the voice of reason in the wilderness. 

 She has always come correct and has been instrumental in a lot of QA issues.  A lot of us over there prize her opinion and are very sore over what has transpired.

 I know there's more issues but it was the shot heard around the world that got this going.

[Twanky]

What is the point in Karma points? I always played CVs hence never had Karma points because players hate CVs and report CV player simply for entering a battle. Karma points may serve to bolster a player's confidence, pride and give him or her a big head, but the negative side also counts even if a player is not a very good player, why rub it in with this stupid additional way to depress and insult your players. We can't all be like you pet players that you stream all the time. Many of us are simply casual players who just want a bit of fun and relief from whatever the day threw at us. The last thing I need as an elderly man with disposable income that I could spend in this game, is in fact a game that has a built in option that tells me how crap I am even if I am in fact a crap player. Way to go, rub it in, what the hell are you thinking?

 

 So you introduced CVs and now ruined them. What is the point of the rocket planes now? Because of the recent stupid CV decisions, CV haters will be happy to know I sold all my CVs barr 2 which I rarely play. But again, as an elderly player, CVs game pace suited me as I'm pretty much crap in other ships. Now you're introducing Submarines, which also seem to have a different pace of gameplay. If the way CVs have been ruined, why even bother with submarines as you'll only ruin them anyway.

 

What is the point in having different types of premium? One premium that covers Tanks, Planes and Ships was good while it lasted and I did play those other games. But complicating the premium system for greedy reasons I think you may well find has cost you money as people stopped playing the other games and hence didn't buy stuff in those games. Why don't you try using that precious commodity called, "common sense" a bit more once in a while?

[Crysantos]

24 minutes ago, DreadArchangel said:

I really think one of the subjects they'll have to change is lootbox's, they generate a lot of grief for them.

Several of the commitments we've made in the statement address this topic.

26 minutes ago, quickr said:

If this came from any other company, literally any other, I would be (cautiously) optimistic. But it's WG and you guys are known for empty words and promises. And it's not just last couple of months but years of empty words, looking down on your community and showing no respect.

 

How about we come back to this post a year later and see what you actually did, what you actually changed. How you moved forward as a company. How you developed this game we all love and care about except you, the very people that created it.

We understand that you're unhappy with past decision and statements - but we do care a lot about this game. We created it, we built it and we invest a lot of passion, time, effort and love into developing this game.

 

1 hour ago, GraysonGreyDeathCarlyle said:

Yeah..the again is the problem. When you have to "earn peoples trust again" multiple times per year, when do YOU think the people should accept that the trust is not worth it?

We understand that we've let you down and our goal is to not be in this situation again.

 

33 minutes ago, Asatori said:

Someone pinch me, I'm dreaming. 

 

An actually well written statement adressing a lot of the issues of the community. A hint of self reflection. A look into the way forward. 

 

No matter how much I'd love to be the pessimist, I can't fault any of the things written in this statement.

It really seems that this time they skipped the legal department when they wrote this.. 

 

So well done, but now we need to see this converted into actual deeds. 

 

Not a word on submarines though... 

 

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.

1 hour ago, Ghesthar said:

 

I accept this, but with regards to transparency, especially with lootboxes, the odds are literally something you have to come up with when creating the product you are selling, so I don't think you are going to get (or deserve, quite frankly) a lot of latitude to push back on this.

 

Published odds are very much an industry standard, you create them when you make the box, making them public should require little more than formatting them nicely.

World of Warships operates in all regions of the world, including China. As you may know, in terms of video games and random monetization mechanics, China is especially regulated region. We want to disclose drop rates for Containers and Random bundles in a consistent way in all regions, so we have to do a fair amount of legal and technical work to make it happen and to make sure we are compliant everywhere. We commit to do it no later than 2022, and will do due diligence to do it as soon as we can.

 

55 minutes ago, mihaitha said:

Right, because 2 full patch cycles aren't enough to move a bug through QA.

 

As a software developer, all I can say is:

(X) Doubt.

I think we'll be able to shed more light on this in future publications - but depending on the severity of the bug and what part of the game it touches the risk can be significantly higher.

 

1 hour ago, Zigiran said:

A good, well writen article!

 

Like many said here: this sounds all good, so I hope you keep this up and make this all come true.

But yeah, good start!

Thank you, we'll do our best!

 

1 hour ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

@Crysantos

 

Thanks for this statement. Personally I have the feeling that some of what was written here could and SHOULD have been published when everything exploded over the weekend about a month ago.

 

If you manage to hold true to these promises, you go a long way to restoring some confidence and trust by the community in WoWs and WG.

 

Personally, the non-communication (simply no response or explanation) from WG towards the community and everything seemingly being covered under NDA (where CCs and Super Testers) are involved makes people lose trust in you. And if there is an answer, these are often bog standard - "The spreadsheet says..." has become a meme for a reason. And some of these answers, like "The spreadsheet says..." actually make people LOSE confidence in the decision-making. A decent portion of the player base IS fairly to very intelligent, and knows and understands that spreadsheets never cover everything that is actually going on, and only give a partial representation (at best) of what is actually going on. The spreadsheet (or the interpretation of said spreadsheet) might not match the experience of many players in the player base (see double CV in general, let alone what IMHO is the mess that is double CV in T4). 

 

For me, as a player, I wonder why AFTER release, CCs and Super Testers are not allowed to talk about their experience with that ship during testing. How the ship felt during testing, and how that changed. 

 

To me it feels that WG can make better use of the combined knowledge of the game as a whole. Whether that be for the designs/models of the ships (Some of the UK Heavy cruisers come to mind), names (see for instance a number of posts made about why the name Frederick van Hendriks is simply incorrect (and an explanation why) since it simply does go against Dutch naming conventions), but even game mechanics or the effect of some implemented changes (the effect of the long range targeting skill on play in the Captain Rework earlier this year). And this is NOT meant as an outright disqualification of the Dev team, but as a Dev team, you (a) cannot know everything, and (b) I can imagine that you are so involved in the development of the game and its complexity, that you start no longer being able to see the forest through the trees, so to speak. The combined knowledge base of the community as a whole (CCs, Super Testers, regular players) can serve as the new/refreshing individual coming in that sees things that others are missing because of them being involved so long and so deeply in a project.

 

And on a personal note, respect for you, Conway and the others braving the forums on a regular basis, even when they are the proverbial s***storm.

Thank you for the kind words, they're very much appreciated - especially in rough times. We're doing our best to fix the communication problems we have and we're looking into the topics highlighted. When it comes to involvement in the game design process, this will be much harder to accomplish and we'll have to see how we can improve things there.

 

1 hour ago, Nyyo22 said:

Thx for this statement and for adressing these issue.

 

I hope we will see quickly some of these improvenents (especially in regard of loot box and communication).

Thank you!

 

1 hour ago, Wannna said:

First, thank you for the communication, many points to look in the future.

 

Second, we need an action from you to believe all this, take subs out, nobody want them and they are not ready, I'm still not coming back even with your promises. I need real action, I lost trust.

I think I'm not alone to wait for at least one action now not in 2022

Thank you for your answer. We're doing our best to improve things - but we also don't want to make promises we can't keep. We're sorry to hear that you don't want to have submarines in the game and we respect that position but there are a lot of players who do want them in the game. Who asked for them for years, who are testing and playing them right now. We're working very hard on improving them and incorporating a lot of the feedback over the last iterations, adding a new layer of gameplay and experience in the game. But we won't be able to make everybody happy in our game. Every player has a personal expectation, experience and vision for the game.

 

1 hour ago, SuperRenard said:

A lot of empty words and promises, and the promise to still dismiss player feedback about changes made to the game because we, players, don't understand and we need explanations. That's a whole new level of BS. Stop dismissing how we feel about the game period. If we say we don't like something, we do not need to be explained why we like it.

We're sorry if you feel dismissed, this isn't what we want to achieve when we explain our actions. We try to provide insights and explanations for you to understand our motivation and decisions - not to dismiss your personal opinion or experience. We might come from different point of views or opinions but we don't want to devalue it. We'll do our best to make you feel heard and being taken seriously but we also have to make sure that you understand that we don't make decisions against you but we believe they benefit the game.

 

1 hour ago, _Segador said:

Hey, they have finally listened to our feedback... about hiring some competent PR guy. A part from that just more words, no specifics and more of "next year if we feel like it". Just delaying tactics to see if we forgot all about this in the coming months.

This kind of comment is neither helpful, nor is it true. We didn't hire anybody new and this isn't coming from our PR department - it's coming from the Warships team. Many of the changes listed have a big scope and require a lot of internal work and readjustment of plans - we're willing to make them but they will take time.

 

12 minutes ago, thiextar said:

@Crysantos Would you consider adding the score timer mod to the base game?

 

Its such a useful feature that its basically mandatory, and the mod just got discontinued due to the recent shitstorm

We suggested this already in the past and I can follow up on what's the general opinion on this - it might improve the game in terms of how players play, on the other hand for some it might remove the tension of whether they will win the game. But I'll ask and see whether this is something we could add in the future :)

Greetings, Crysantos

[Seafood_Scraps]

The latest apology speaks to business sensitivity and thats as it should be. An actual apology to LWM and the CC program as a whole would speak to corporate culture which always runs deeper and is more insidious, therefore a positive move in that direction would be far more revealing and meaningful. How about it?

[piet11111]

In the netherlands we have a saying "new brooms sweep the cleanest"

So as long as wows management stays in place i do not believe a word of this.

@Sub_Octavian you need to leave too much has happened to turn this game for the worse under your leadership, you may not have come up with those bad ideas but you sure did sign off on them.

 

[Spartan_Renegade]

The first step (which is also the hardest) is to shed all EGO because like most regulars, I came here of my own accord and not cause of some creative ad I found on some educational site...lol

Spoiler

 

 If WG stays true to its promises then there's no reason for veteran players to walk out in droves and start looking for other alternatives.  Now script us some more Operations so we can make WoWS great again!  

[PhantomSailor]

3 hours ago, Crysantos said:

Dear players,

 

Lately a lot of you have been upset with various incidents, our decisions, as well as a general state of things in the game and community. Before we continue, we want to apologize to all of you, players, content creators, moderators, testers, and other volunteers, to those who support us and those disappointed with us. Everything that happens within the game and the community is our responsibility, and we are sorry that we let the situation come to its current state. 

We want to take this opportunity to be more transparent about how we will take actions to improve our internal processes and our relationship with you. It will be a long read, you will see items of different scales and with different times required to see results. No doubt more news and announcements will follow, so please don't treat this as a final plan and the ultimate solution to everything. Instead, please treat it as a list of things we're currently working on and a way to show our intentions to make the game and community a better place. Also, please note that it is not comprehensive, as many other measures are revolving around internal processes.

Monetization

World of Warships is a free-to-play title following the game-as-a-service concept with substantial monthly updates and a constant evolutionary cycle. To support this model we rely on a multitude of monetization tactics considered to be standard practice in the industry. While we believe it's unreasonable to expect to discuss our monetization strategies in all but the most general terms - this is business-critical information - we do understand that there are specific details that are a cause of concern for some of you. We will address them as best we can below.

• Random mechanics. As a business, we always follow laws and comply with new regulations as they appear. Therefore, our position on containers and random bundles is always consistent with governments' decisions on this matter and will keep being so. In some cases, we will even try to work ahead of industry practices. We are aware that there are slowly progressing trends to regulate the digital space more and more, to catch up with technical solutions and business models built on them. With that in mind, we appreciate your feedback and commit to the following: from now on for all new ships, if they are distributed via Containers or Random Bundles, there will be an alternative way to obtain them. Methods may vary and may include timegating (i.e. early access or time delayed offers), direct purchases, completing in-game activities, etc. 
• Drop rates. We plan to publish all drop rates for all Containers and Random Bundles and are already working on it. It will take some time, but our hard commitment is that it will happen over the course of next year.
• Return of Missouri. The initial concept of the event was perceived negatively, and we should have known better. The case was a learned lesson for us and we added an alternative way to purchase the ship. We're also addressing the situation with the ship's earnings to make sure that those who owned Missouri before 0.10.7 will on average receive not less credits than before the changes to the ship's economics. We're grateful for the battles you played, these helped us to collect sufficient data. This amount of data allows us to add a +10% bonus to the special Missouri combat mission (from 20% to 30%). Additionally, we will issue appropriate amount of credits to all the affected players as a sign of appreciation; details will be published in Devblog separately.
• Summer Sale. Unfortunately, we made a translation mistake in a sensitive description. We fixed it ASAP and to protect you from such mistakes in the future, we will add additional checks and approvals to our internal processes. If anything like that happens again, we will offer refunds to all of the affected players. We did it before and we will do it again to make sure that you are compensated. We will also pay more attention to the positioning of such events: for example, many of you stated the term "Sale" suggests direct discounts on in-game items.
• Age ratings. We've already added disclaimers about in-game purchases with random items to our PEGI ratings. We're also in touch with other rating organizations to adjust our ratings everywhere in a consistent way. While our game was never popular among minors and we adhere to legislation in all countries where we publish World of Warships, we plan to go beyond what is required of us by laws and we are working on our own in-game measures to additionally protect children who interact with our game. We will share more details on this point once we're ready to announce them.

Feedback

One of the main topics we want to address is how your feedback influences the game. Regrettably, it was not always clear how we use certain types of feedback and where it fits into our decision-making process. We've always taken it into account, but looking back, we see that in some cases it was not balanced well enough against other equally important sources of information: large volumes of data and the team's creative vision of the game. We want to change this situation and make sure we pay more direct attention to your suggestions and opinions while also giving you more insight into how the decisions are made. Things we are considering and evaluating right now:

• More reaction to feedback on ships balance. We know there are several ships you want to be addressed, and we'd like to confirm: balance changes are planned for Zao, Petropavlovsk, and FDR in 0.10.10. Moving forward we will try to increase the promptness of addressing released ships in a similar way and when it is not possible (for example, changing a ship will move it out of the interval of normal performance), we will put more effort into giving you insights and explaining our reasoning.
• Aircraft Carriers. Despite many other things happening in the game, we haven't forgotten that there are still questions to be answered regarding CVs. We've implemented a lot of changes to this class since the rework, but we acknowledge more changes may be needed. CV spotting is a good example - we conducted several tests before and did not find a good, adequate way to address it. That does not mean we will not continue to improve it. It's not something that can be done quickly, please keep that in mind. Another common question is regarding odd-tier carriers, which were previously mentioned as "support CVs". Right now they are in an early prototyping stage (developing document concepts), and we want to honestly tell you that they are not to be expected in 2022.
• New gameplay experiences. We will keep evolving the game by introducing new game modes and mechanics, both fiction- and history-based. For example, in 0.10.8 we will have a new mode - Convoys - inspired by historical events. We will keep exploring new game modes in the future, - it's one of our priorities. Expanding permanent types of battles (primarily Random battles) with new modes is also one of the long-term goals to keep the game fresh and entertaining. However creating a mode suitable not just for a short gaming period, but for a permanent presence with high replayability is a much bigger challenge, so it takes many more tries and effort. 
• Maps. We've slowed down with adding new maps to the game recently because the team focused more on the game's visuals in general (updated visual effects, new water, and other improvements) as well as introducing a whole new level of underwater world. That said, in 2022 at least one new map will be released, and another one has some chances to make it in time. Spoiler: we're also going to try a new mechanic with the first of these new maps not previously used in the game.
• Operations. CV rework rendered a lot of AI-related internal tools obsolete and made working with AI-aircraft-related stuff very difficult or impossible. Right now we're in the process of removing this obstacle. It's being worked on for many reasons, not just for the sake of Operations, but one of the benefits we will have when this project is done is that we will be able to return some of the old Operations in 2022.
• Other. There are plenty of other things we know you're interested in, and quite a lot of them are being worked on in different stages of development. We haven't forgotten about things such as secondary builds for cruisers, the update of some old ship models, Tier IV CV tuning, Huron (coming 2022), West Virginia'44 (coming 2023), addressing the chat system, improvements for Ranked Battles, and many other small and not so small changes to the game that will make your experience with it better.

Communications

We are a large, distributed team of over 500 people working across more than 4 countries. Coming from all walks of life, culturally varied and hindered severely by the pandemic from travelling to see each other in person to be able to align on certain matters, we are bound to have organizational challenges in the realm of communication. However, these internal challenges should not be visible, much less influence the player experience. Improving communications is a never-ending process which needs to be evolutionary and not revolutionary, so you will see those improvements incrementally over time in many areas, rather than as a one-time institutional overnight change. But we want to address a few specific points you pointed out in this area.

• Community Contributor Program. When we created our CCTP, our goal was to help talented folks interested in our game create content and grow their channels. Right now it's clear that a lot of things in the Program do not work as they should, which leads to frustration and failed expectations even though some other parts are running well. We will update the Program, both in terms of rules and the way we work with it internally. We expect to have some sort of internal plan and first action points ready in the second half of September, and then proceed with the changes during this Autumn.
• Future of the game. We'd like to offer you a deeper look into the future of the game. Right now we have Devblogs (where we basically announce everything that comes to Supertest) and the Waterline series (quarterly updates). To complement these and expand the horizon of events, we want to share a general roadmap with you, of what you can expect to see in World of Warships in the far future. It will give you an idea of what we want to focus on - but please keep in mind that things can and will change. At the same time, we want to show the progress World of Warships achieves. The game evolves a lot each year and it will make it easier for you to follow what we are doing.
• Communications quality. There have been a lot of communication mistakes and incidents on our side recently. While mistakes always happen and we're all human, we acknowledge that we need to improve in this area. We've already launched a full internal review of all related processes. We want fewer mistakes and translation errors, more answers, and productive conversations. We want to improve the way you interact with us in any place, be it Forums, Customer support, Discord servers or official streams. 
• General transparency. We need to work hard on it: on the one hand, we need to pay more attention to the community sentiment, on the other hand, we have to be more transparent and explain our positions. We will create a series of publications to make our development process more transparent and to show the logic behind what we do. For example, players did not understand why the latest torpedo bug took 2 updates to fix, while a CV bug (plane losses in 0.9.9) was fixed almost instantly. They are in fact very different: the CV bug was fixed by quickly adjusting some parameters, while the torpedo bug involved game logic, and even though it was technically fixed within a week, it had to go through all regular quality assurance processes. Deploying such change through a hotfix is extremely risky for the game. This should have been communicated transparently and we will do our best to do so in the future.
• In-depth communications and insights. When it's necessary we will use more specifics and will provide deeper explanations of our decisions. For example, we implemented the system for CvC ship bans, which helps us to keep the meta fresh, and we want to tell you more about how and why we use it, as it's something that our hardcore players are interested in.

 

All of it is just our current, first plan. We will keep looking for other points of interest and challenges. We want to show you our responsibility, care and desire for the game by the way we communicate and through our actions - to make the game better for everyone.

 

A final word on passion and communication. While we are working hard to improve the way we communicate and interact with you, we want to take a moment to address your passion and the way that we communicate with each other. We know that you care about the game a great deal and ask you to remember that there are people - community managers, support staff, developers and volunteers - that read your communications and posts, wherever they may be made. While we as a company certainly need to work on the way we communicate with you, we ask that you treat the people you interact with fairly and with respect. Your voice will carry as much – or more – weight with them if you present your feedback and opinions in a reasoned and constructive way.

 

Yours sincerely,

Victor Bardovsky, Publishing Director

Andrey Lisak, Development Director

World of Warships Team

@Crysantos
I wish this was the first response given, instead of all these back and forward communication ''battles''.
BUT let's take this statement and let's see what is good about it..

Quote

Before we continue, we want to apologize to all of you, players, content creators, moderators, testers, and other volunteers, to those who support us and those disappointed with us. Everything that happens within the game and the community is our responsibility, and we are sorry that we let the situation come to its current state. 

I mean.. the apology might be too late to feel heartfelt and sincere due to all of these back and forward ''communication issues''. But let's hope this is the final apology that is meant to keep the players of this game satisfied, to a point where the players/community and the developers are happy/okey with the changes.

Quote

No doubt more news and announcements will follow, so please don't treat this as a final plan and the ultimate solution to everything. Instead, please treat it as a list of things we're currently working on and a way to show our intentions to make the game and community a better place.

Well this tells me what is represented here is just a draft, everything said here can and will change... And this isn't a good thing, there should be a solid plan, but hopefully this plan will satisfy the community with this draft and the ''final plan''. Let's hope the end game here benefits the community! 

Quote

Monetization
To support this model we rely on a multitude of monetization tactics considered to be standard practice in the industry. While we believe it's unreasonable to expect to discuss our monetization strategies in all but the most general terms - this is business-critical information - we do understand that there are specific details that are a cause of concern for some of you. We will address them as best we can below.
..With that in mind, we appreciate your feedback and commit to the following: from now on for all new ships, if they are distributed via Containers or Random Bundles, there will be an alternative way to obtain them. Methods may vary and may include timegating (i.e. early access or time delayed offers), direct purchases, completing in-game activities, etc. 

WHY not go back to the old monetization plan we had many years ago?
We had Missions and Containers that had a decent drop rate for a Mission to the Early Access ships.
Why hide Early Access content behind Random Bundles and Containers for Doubloons etc with low chance of obtaining?
Your old business model of Containers and Early Access content worked pretty well many years ago, why not go back to it?
My guess, Wargaming see the high potential of earning high monetization value by hiding it behind high payment.
Yes you are a Free-To-Play game... but you guys didn't struggle to earn money with the only practices and old business model.....
Keep the community happy and don't hide behind this gambling strategy that is currently in the game.
 

Quote

Monetization
Drop rates. We plan to publish all drop rates for all Containers and Random Bundles and are already working on it. It will take some time, but our hard commitment is that it will happen over the course of next year.

THIS should have been added from the start, every game that has lootboxes such as Apex Legends has drop rates listed.. Good to see it finally coming, hopefully really soon, and not the end of 2022!
 

Quote

Return of Missouri

Please.. just grant us early owners the old Missouri back, remove the mission, and keep the ship and its earnings untouched.
And clone the ship instead so the mission will not make any more adjustments or ''activation renewal'' per year...
By doing this you can keep the promise you guys are making, but this should have been the first solution, not Random Bundles and remove credit multiplier and compensate with a mission that doesn't work the same way...  

Feedback

CVs: Good, that you acknowledge there needs to be more changes... FDR for example is the most unbalanced thing there is.. And still after the upcoming nerf, its still too strong!
General ship feedback: I think there should be more focus on do a hotfix change, if a released ship doesnt meet certain criteria to a majority of the community.. Do a hotfix to let the community feel it's part of something!
Operations: WHY not tell us the restrictions in the first place when removing operations etc.. instead of hiding behind ''it doesn't work''. Tell us WHY. And for it not to work, that the reason is CV rework.. that is hilarious!
Other: - It's sad to see that the Cruisers like Ägir, Bismarck/Tirpitz etc had Secondaries basically nerfed and neglected... Ship models... being Gearing that is STILL NOT done after April 2020, and taking forever?

 

Communication

Quote

We are a large, distributed team of over 500 people working across more than 4 countries. Coming from all walks of life, culturally varied and hindered severely by the pandemic from travelling to see each other in person to be able to align on certain matters, we are bound to have organizational challenges in the realm of communication.

Why not have a style format before publishing... And why not share the draft with the developer, community manager that speaks said language better to fix or alter certain interpretations?
Or just hire a someone that is in the company that has high language translator skills?
And blaming the pandemic for communication errors/communication skill gap.. that isn't even a valid excuse for a company that can work from home, don't have to physically interact..... 

CCTP - Hopefully this program will be more beneficial for the Promoters of this game.. Let their feedback have enough value when it's community related issues/feedback/concerns. 

Roadmap - 

Quote

...what you can expect to see in World of Warships in the far future. It will give you an idea of what we want to focus on - but please keep in mind that things can and will change.

You don't have to make in-depth spoilers to a Roadmap... Like this: 

We have planned to release:

• 3 new tech tree ships within 2022
• Overhaul current or original maps
• Introduce 1 new map
• 2 new temporary modes (more to be announced when the time is near)
• New mechanic
• 50 new contents to the Armory section

These are our plans for 2022, we hope to release these changes and implementations unless there are unforeseen issues that may push said plans aside.  
 

Quote

For example, players did not understand why the latest torpedo bug took 2 updates to fix, while a CV bug (plane losses in 0.9.9) was fixed almost instantly. They are in fact very different: the CV bug was fixed by quickly adjusting some parameters, while the torpedo bug involved game logic, and even though it was technically fixed within a week, it had to go through all regular quality assurance processes. Deploying such change through a hotfix is extremely risky for the game.

Why not do a more in-depth article and video like you did back in the day with the FPS drop or Hotfix patch video?
You will be more credible and make the community aware, this will also show your process and the obstacles of said issue and fix that may occur next patch or later.
You have Public Test server... why not release the hotfix to said server to make players test???
This is why we have the Public Test client.... 

[rage1750]

This is REALLY original, 10/10 never heard WarGaming ever say something like this.

 

Oh wait, yes I have!  It happens after every WeeGee clusterf*** as part of damage control.   

 

I have simply been lied to too much to believe you people again.  I will believe it when I see it; and I do not believe that we will ever see it.

[Amaha]

16 minut temu, Crysantos napisał:

(...)

We understand that we've let you down and our goal is to not be in this situation again.

(...)

I play this game from some like middle of open beta, and I can openly bet with You, that this kind of situation will happen again. It might not be same way, but sooner or later WG will break their promises.

[Captain_Breeze]

As you can see from my stats you can call me a veteran player.

What WG did to the CC's was really bad and that has tainted my view big time.

The monetisation has been very aggressive. These are Management failures so I'm not impressed with them in the slightest.

 

However, the game still holds my interest, just the whole aspect of it.

So I will not be leaving for the time being.

 

It is by a long shot the most time I've ever spent on any one game.

 

Just hoping that the management improve and actually implement what they say they will do.

[Carandraug]

Well... Super late apology is better than none and seems like they hired a new PR guy, which is certainly a good thing. Also any distant hint of self-reflection is unheard of previously, so we should give them credit for that. 

 

HOWEVER...

 

Starting all the "transparency" talk with repeating the lie about "translation" error concerning Summer Sale scamboxes is quite telling. You can't make the same translation error to 16 languages, sorry.

 

Also big words about better listening to feedback, while other WG employees are feeding us absolute bull***t about submarines. Just yesterday @Yabbacoe in the czech forum essentially said they measure success of submarines in Ranked by number of people playing the mode. Which is wrong on so many fronts it's not even funny. Also casually confirmed that subs are coming to Randoms and NOTHING can change that. And the coup de grace came with the usual "forums are vocal minority", who don't understand the glory of developer's big minds.

 

So color me super sceptical about any significant change in the whole company strategy and handling of feedback anytime soon. But hey, they are getting better in damage control...

 

[Never_Talk_To_Strangers]

Your actions speak for itself. You words are like ashes in the mouth. So my pocket is closed, but nevermind the mass of the players dont read forums, dont watch CC videos, so your fraud can still go on and you can ripp off the players, these shitstorms in forum and on twitch/youtube will be ignored with some nice sentence like this above.

 

[acecel]

A lot of words but still NO immediate action taken, and completely ignore many problems like subs for example...

Many excuse to why some actions take time are just plain stupid, like having to wait next year to know loot drop chance ? You already have the value, all you have to do is show it on the market, it should take a few days at worst ... (i'm a dev)

You really take your customers like idiots, stop it already.

 

For me it's clearly the exact same thing you keep doing for the past years, "yeah we are sorry ... we listen to you ..." then no real (or at least effective) action is taken, you lost the trust of your playerbase, you will need way more than a few words from PR to get it back.

[PaP_Mentoles]

49 minutes ago, Crysantos said:

but we also don't want to make promises we can't keep.

Oh really?

Can't count the times that you did that last couple of years.

[Chav_Guevara]

Actions not words

#Walletstillclosed

 

[_HomTanks_]

3 hours ago, Crysantos said:

Dear players,

 

Lately a lot of you have been upset with various incidents, our decisions, as well as a general state of things in the game and community. Before we continue, we want to apologize to all of you, players, content creators, moderators, testers, and other volunteers, to those who support us and those disappointed with us. Everything that happens within the game and the community is our responsibility, and we are sorry that we let the situation come to its current state. 

We want to take this opportunity to be more transparent about how we will take actions to improve our internal processes and our relationship with you. It will be a long read, you will see items of different scales and with different times required to see results. No doubt more news and announcements will follow, so please don't treat this as a final plan and the ultimate solution to everything. Instead, please treat it as a list of things we're currently working on and a way to show our intentions to make the game and community a better place. Also, please note that it is not comprehensive, as many other measures are revolving around internal processes.

Monetization

World of Warships is a free-to-play title following the game-as-a-service concept with substantial monthly updates and a constant evolutionary cycle. To support this model we rely on a multitude of monetization tactics considered to be standard practice in the industry. While we believe it's unreasonable to expect to discuss our monetization strategies in all but the most general terms - this is business-critical information - we do understand that there are specific details that are a cause of concern for some of you. We will address them as best we can below.

• Random mechanics. As a business, we always follow laws and comply with new regulations as they appear. Therefore, our position on containers and random bundles is always consistent with governments' decisions on this matter and will keep being so. In some cases, we will even try to work ahead of industry practices. We are aware that there are slowly progressing trends to regulate the digital space more and more, to catch up with technical solutions and business models built on them. With that in mind, we appreciate your feedback and commit to the following: from now on for all new ships, if they are distributed via Containers or Random Bundles, there will be an alternative way to obtain them. Methods may vary and may include timegating (i.e. early access or time delayed offers), direct purchases, completing in-game activities, etc. 
• Drop rates. We plan to publish all drop rates for all Containers and Random Bundles and are already working on it. It will take some time, but our hard commitment is that it will happen over the course of next year.
• Return of Missouri. The initial concept of the event was perceived negatively, and we should have known better. The case was a learned lesson for us and we added an alternative way to purchase the ship. We're also addressing the situation with the ship's earnings to make sure that those who owned Missouri before 0.10.7 will on average receive not less credits than before the changes to the ship's economics. We're grateful for the battles you played, these helped us to collect sufficient data. This amount of data allows us to add a +10% bonus to the special Missouri combat mission (from 20% to 30%). Additionally, we will issue appropriate amount of credits to all the affected players as a sign of appreciation; details will be published in Devblog separately.
• Summer Sale. Unfortunately, we made a translation mistake in a sensitive description. We fixed it ASAP and to protect you from such mistakes in the future, we will add additional checks and approvals to our internal processes. If anything like that happens again, we will offer refunds to all of the affected players. We did it before and we will do it again to make sure that you are compensated. We will also pay more attention to the positioning of such events: for example, many of you stated the term "Sale" suggests direct discounts on in-game items.
• Age ratings. We've already added disclaimers about in-game purchases with random items to our PEGI ratings. We're also in touch with other rating organizations to adjust our ratings everywhere in a consistent way. While our game was never popular among minors and we adhere to legislation in all countries where we publish World of Warships, we plan to go beyond what is required of us by laws and we are working on our own in-game measures to additionally protect children who interact with our game. We will share more details on this point once we're ready to announce them.

Feedback

One of the main topics we want to address is how your feedback influences the game. Regrettably, it was not always clear how we use certain types of feedback and where it fits into our decision-making process. We've always taken it into account, but looking back, we see that in some cases it was not balanced well enough against other equally important sources of information: large volumes of data and the team's creative vision of the game. We want to change this situation and make sure we pay more direct attention to your suggestions and opinions while also giving you more insight into how the decisions are made. Things we are considering and evaluating right now:

• More reaction to feedback on ships balance. We know there are several ships you want to be addressed, and we'd like to confirm: balance changes are planned for Zao, Petropavlovsk, and FDR in 0.10.10. Moving forward we will try to increase the promptness of addressing released ships in a similar way and when it is not possible (for example, changing a ship will move it out of the interval of normal performance), we will put more effort into giving you insights and explaining our reasoning.
• Aircraft Carriers. Despite many other things happening in the game, we haven't forgotten that there are still questions to be answered regarding CVs. We've implemented a lot of changes to this class since the rework, but we acknowledge more changes may be needed. CV spotting is a good example - we conducted several tests before and did not find a good, adequate way to address it. That does not mean we will not continue to improve it. It's not something that can be done quickly, please keep that in mind. Another common question is regarding odd-tier carriers, which were previously mentioned as "support CVs". Right now they are in an early prototyping stage (developing document concepts), and we want to honestly tell you that they are not to be expected in 2022.
• New gameplay experiences. We will keep evolving the game by introducing new game modes and mechanics, both fiction- and history-based. For example, in 0.10.8 we will have a new mode - Convoys - inspired by historical events. We will keep exploring new game modes in the future, - it's one of our priorities. Expanding permanent types of battles (primarily Random battles) with new modes is also one of the long-term goals to keep the game fresh and entertaining. However creating a mode suitable not just for a short gaming period, but for a permanent presence with high replayability is a much bigger challenge, so it takes many more tries and effort. 
• Maps. We've slowed down with adding new maps to the game recently because the team focused more on the game's visuals in general (updated visual effects, new water, and other improvements) as well as introducing a whole new level of underwater world. That said, in 2022 at least one new map will be released, and another one has some chances to make it in time. Spoiler: we're also going to try a new mechanic with the first of these new maps not previously used in the game.
• Operations. CV rework rendered a lot of AI-related internal tools obsolete and made working with AI-aircraft-related stuff very difficult or impossible. Right now we're in the process of removing this obstacle. It's being worked on for many reasons, not just for the sake of Operations, but one of the benefits we will have when this project is done is that we will be able to return some of the old Operations in 2022.
• Other. There are plenty of other things we know you're interested in, and quite a lot of them are being worked on in different stages of development. We haven't forgotten about things such as secondary builds for cruisers, the update of some old ship models, Tier IV CV tuning, Huron (coming 2022), West Virginia'44 (coming 2023), addressing the chat system, improvements for Ranked Battles, and many other small and not so small changes to the game that will make your experience with it better.

Communications

We are a large, distributed team of over 500 people working across more than 4 countries. Coming from all walks of life, culturally varied and hindered severely by the pandemic from travelling to see each other in person to be able to align on certain matters, we are bound to have organizational challenges in the realm of communication. However, these internal challenges should not be visible, much less influence the player experience. Improving communications is a never-ending process which needs to be evolutionary and not revolutionary, so you will see those improvements incrementally over time in many areas, rather than as a one-time institutional overnight change. But we want to address a few specific points you pointed out in this area.

• Community Contributor Program. When we created our CCTP, our goal was to help talented folks interested in our game create content and grow their channels. Right now it's clear that a lot of things in the Program do not work as they should, which leads to frustration and failed expectations even though some other parts are running well. We will update the Program, both in terms of rules and the way we work with it internally. We expect to have some sort of internal plan and first action points ready in the second half of September, and then proceed with the changes during this Autumn.
• Future of the game. We'd like to offer you a deeper look into the future of the game. Right now we have Devblogs (where we basically announce everything that comes to Supertest) and the Waterline series (quarterly updates). To complement these and expand the horizon of events, we want to share a general roadmap with you, of what you can expect to see in World of Warships in the far future. It will give you an idea of what we want to focus on - but please keep in mind that things can and will change. At the same time, we want to show the progress World of Warships achieves. The game evolves a lot each year and it will make it easier for you to follow what we are doing.
• Communications quality. There have been a lot of communication mistakes and incidents on our side recently. While mistakes always happen and we're all human, we acknowledge that we need to improve in this area. We've already launched a full internal review of all related processes. We want fewer mistakes and translation errors, more answers, and productive conversations. We want to improve the way you interact with us in any place, be it Forums, Customer support, Discord servers or official streams. 
• General transparency. We need to work hard on it: on the one hand, we need to pay more attention to the community sentiment, on the other hand, we have to be more transparent and explain our positions. We will create a series of publications to make our development process more transparent and to show the logic behind what we do. For example, players did not understand why the latest torpedo bug took 2 updates to fix, while a CV bug (plane losses in 0.9.9) was fixed almost instantly. They are in fact very different: the CV bug was fixed by quickly adjusting some parameters, while the torpedo bug involved game logic, and even though it was technically fixed within a week, it had to go through all regular quality assurance processes. Deploying such change through a hotfix is extremely risky for the game. This should have been communicated transparently and we will do our best to do so in the future.
• In-depth communications and insights. When it's necessary we will use more specifics and will provide deeper explanations of our decisions. For example, we implemented the system for CvC ship bans, which helps us to keep the meta fresh, and we want to tell you more about how and why we use it, as it's something that our hardcore players are interested in.

 

All of it is just our current, first plan. We will keep looking for other points of interest and challenges. We want to show you our responsibility, care and desire for the game by the way we communicate and through our actions - to make the game better for everyone.

 

A final word on passion and communication. While we are working hard to improve the way we communicate and interact with you, we want to take a moment to address your passion and the way that we communicate with each other. We know that you care about the game a great deal and ask you to remember that there are people - community managers, support staff, developers and volunteers - that read your communications and posts, wherever they may be made. While we as a company certainly need to work on the way we communicate with you, we ask that you treat the people you interact with fairly and with respect. Your voice will carry as much – or more – weight with them if you present your feedback and opinions in a reasoned and constructive way.

 

Yours sincerely,

Victor Bardovsky, Publishing Director

Andrey Lisak, Development Director

World of Warships Team

+1

[Admiral_Bing]

Wargaming has inflicted so much damage on itself it’s hard to see how they can regain trust of players in the European and North American Markets.

I suspect at some point legislation will have to come in on loot boxes as there is increasing pressure on legislators in many countries to do so, making those games that have them have to raise the age to 18+ or whatever age the gambling laws are in a country.  The odds on loot boxes should be made clear now.

Actions are needed by Wargaming to show they are serious about bridging the growing chasm between them and much of their EU and NA player base. Making proper amends to LWM and other hardworking CCs would be a start followed by some overdue bug and gameplay fixes..My wallet remains closed until I have seen clearly that Wargaming that they are taking action and that could take some time, likely many months.