New Player Surveys

[Quazie]

Reposted in suggestion thread where it should have gone.

 

I suggest a number of surveys be put out.

I believe much of the mistrust today comes from past experience with the way WG handle things and some of that is down to communication of specific things without any supporting data or flawed supporting data.

I think you need to go back to grass roots methods and capture some real data.

You could run the surveys through the forums with a link in game to direct people to the surveys.

Take a subject and actually ask the players what they think.

 

Take the current random player survey, Were you satisfied with the game No to Yes doesn't really tell you much, there is no indication of why.

 

Subs Survey

What do you like about Subs?

What do you dislike about subs?

Do you think subs should be in Coop?

Do you think subs should be in Ranked?

Do you think subs should be in Randoms?

Do you think subs should be in Clan Battles?

Do you think there should be sub based Operations?

 

Check the positives and negatives against the number of responses to get a feel for what the players think and not what some flawed spreadsheet tells you.

Be honest and Publish survey results, you can do follow up surveys with suggestions YOU have on how fix the problem and get player response to the options they think may work best.

 

Storms Survey

Do you like or dislike the inclusion of storms?

Is the reduced visibility set too high or too low?

Should there be a random element to the level of visibility?

Do the storms move too fast or too slow?

Should there be a random element to the storm speed?

Should there be a random element to a storm duration?

 

For example here if  the majority like storms, but the number that don't was high then maybe make the chance of one a little less likely, or answers to other questions show that you can make a few tweaks to improve things.

 

WR% Survey

Do you think the current method for WR% is accurate?

Are you happy the WR% is largely reliant on team performance?

Do you think WR% should be biased toward individual performance?

Do you think gun accuracy should be factored in?

Do you think torpedo accuracy should be factored in?

Do you think capping should be factored in?

Do you think spotting should be factored in?

Do you think battles survived should be factored in?

 

Anyway you get the idea, surveys can be run on just about anything to gather data on what the players actual think, how they feel about specific things.

You may consider surveys on Containers, the Armoury, Tokens, Coal, Gold, Steel, Oil, Naval base, Naval Battles, Operations, signals, modules, upgrades, Karma, news articles, achievements, ship classes, individual ship balance, game balance, MM.

The list is endless, identify and issue do a survey gather some real data to help you make decisions, like no action required, minor tweak, major rethink.

Try a few and see what response you get, if you don't get enough from it you can always stop, but you may be surprised at what you can gain from very little work.

[geschlittert]

10 minutes ago, Quazie said:

WR% Survey

Do you think the current method for WR% is accurate?

Are you happy the WR% is largely reliant on team performance?

Do you think WR% should be biased toward individual performance?

Do you think gun accuracy should be factored in?

Do you think torpedo accuracy should be factored in?

Do you think capping should be factored in?

Do you think spotting should be factored in?

Do you think battles survived should be factored in? 

will just repeat what i said in the other thread, do you know what winrate is?

[tocqueville8]

1 hour ago, Quazie said:

WR% Survey

Do you think the current method for WR% is accurate?

Are you happy the WR% is largely reliant on team performance?

Do you think WR% should be biased toward individual performance?

1) The current method for Win-Rate is to count the number of games you win, divide it by the number of games you played...right? What else could Win-Rate possibly mean?

2) It's a team game, so naturally Win-Rate depends on team performance. Again, how could it not?

3) It already is: you play better, you win more games.

[Quazie]

5 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

1) The current method for Win-Rate is to count the number of games you win, divide it by the number of games you played...right? What else could Win-Rate possibly mean?

2) It's a team game, so naturally Win-Rate depends on team performance. Again, how could it not?

3) It already is: you play better, you win more games.

I do know what WR% means, however it is used as a gauge of a players performance by many, when in reality it is a gauge of a players success based on the team performance of all the games he/she has played.

So either people should stop throwing Win Rate out to degrade people or the WR% should be substituted for a player rating based on other items which have more reflection on an individuals performance.

 

You could just as easily have a separate value working in conjunction, if both are bad the player is crap, if WR% only is bad  he is unfortunate in team mixes, if WR% only is good he is fortunate and being carried etc.

 

At the end of the day the subject don't matter, it was the principle of Surveys to gain data of a more meaningful nature, as I mentioned there are many things that could be surveyed. 

[Aethervoxx]

1 hour ago, tocqueville8 said:

3) It already is: you play better, you win more games.

Garbage. One can do really well - be at the top of the team list (or near the top) but it's still a team of losers (for a number of reasons including intentional WG 'arrangements' to the two teams).

[geschlittert]

2 minutes ago, Aethervoxx said:

Garbage. One can do really well - be at the top of the team list (or near the top) but it's still a team of losers (for a number of reasons including intentional WG 'arrangements' to the two teams).

And why did i win 67% of my 1500 solo games this year? luck?

[geschlittert]

@Aethervoxx typical of you. don't have an answer and downvote :D come on, try it at least. I believe in you!

[Lootboxer]

What is funny is the correlation between low WR and team blaming mentality. 

Obviously nobody can win every game but the best of us can repeatedly go up to even 70-80% WR solo in thousands of games when the worst are firmly sitting at 30-40 blaming bad luck and MM.

 

[Aethervoxx]

2 hours ago, Quazie said:

I suggest a number of surveys be put out.

Your title, OP, is New Player Surveys. However, most of your 'suggestions', imho,  are more for the experienced player. New players won't have much of an opinion on most of your survey suggestions.

You do have a good idea.

I would suggest WoWS themselves have a pop-up  Survey Window  in a new players port where they can ask for & receive  specific new player  responses when that player is still in protected MM (for example).

 

[Lootboxer]

1 hour ago, Quazie said:

You could just as easily have a separate value working in conjunction, if both are bad the player is crap, if WR% only is bad  he is unfortunate in team mixes, if WR% only is good he is fortunate and being carried etc. 

You can look at PR, KD ratio, average damage, XP etc. Good clans will look at all of those above when recruiting. 

[SodaBubbles]

The new surveys are great. Kudos to WG for sending out questions like the one on whether subs are ready and whether they should be in Randoms etc. That's really a great move.

But everything is followup. I'm only a small person, but I will buy some premium ships if WG publishes the survey results and tells us it is using them for decision-making, and then makes decisions that incorporate and reflect those findings.

[MementoMori_6030]

New players are unlikely to visit the forum, let alone read much or even do surveys.

[Lootboxer]

11 minutes ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

New players are unlikely to visit the forum, let alone read much or even do surveys.

And most still have no clue about the game so value of that feedback would be limited.

[ColonelPete]

5 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

Garbage. One can do really well - be at the top of the team list (or near the top) but it's still a team of losers (for a number of reasons including intentional WG 'arrangements' to the two teams).

When this happens in the majority of your battles, you are doing something wrong. Too much farming?

6 hours ago, Quazie said:

I do know what WR% means, however it is used as a gauge of a players performance by many, when in reality it is a gauge of a players success based on the team performance of all the games he/she has played.

So either people should stop throwing Win Rate out to degrade people or the WR% should be substituted for a player rating based on other items which have more reflection on an individuals performance.

 

You could just as easily have a separate value working in conjunction, if both are bad the player is crap, if WR% only is bad  he is unfortunate in team mixes, if WR% only is good he is fortunate and being carried etc.

 

At the end of the day the subject don't matter, it was the principle of Surveys to gain data of a more meaningful nature, as I mentioned there are many things that could be surveyed. 

• It is a metric used by the players
• WR does not give you feedback on the teams performance, unless you are AFK all the time, then you end up at 40% WR or lower
• nobody has a bad WR, just because of his teams, after a thousand battles
• nobody has a good WR, just because of his teams, after a thousand battles

 

[tocqueville8]

7 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

Garbage. One can do really well - be at the top of the team list (or near the top) but it's still a team of losers (for a number of reasons including intentional WG 'arrangements' to the two teams).

It's garbage to think the two things are mutually exclusive.

 

Of course you can be at the top of the team and lose, in fact it's inevitable that *someone* is going to be in that position, but it's simply incorrect to suggest that WR is *not* "biased towards individual performance": if the individual player plays better on average, the individual player will win more on average.

[tocqueville8]

8 hours ago, Quazie said:

I do know what WR% means, however it is used as a gauge of a players performance by many, when in reality it is a gauge of a players success based on the team performance of all the games he/she has played.

So either people should stop throwing Win Rate out to degrade people or the WR% should be substituted for a player rating based on other items which have more reflection on an individuals performance.

 

You could just as easily have a separate value working in conjunction, if both are bad the player is crap, if WR% only is bad  he is unfortunate in team mixes, if WR% only is good he is fortunate and being carried etc.

No one should degrade anyone, but no other metric than a "clean" Win-Rate (meaning you have to weight her for divisioning, sealclubbing and only playing extremely strong ships) can tell how good a player is.

 

Provided one doesn't regularly division with above-average or below-average players (there are tools to look at the "solo Win-Rate", anyway), the team composition evens out after enough games, and what's left is the individual player's performance.

[Quazie]

5 hours ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

New players are unlikely to visit the forum, let alone read much or even do surveys.

Not at first,, but then we don't know for sure as the option is not there, as for visiting the forum that is why I suggested a direct link in game.

Besides that would become evident very quickly, or WG could filter for minimum x number of games.

[BielayaSmert]

Then…. How can explain the existence of players with +10k games and >65WR and players with +10k games and <45WR?

 

Its easy:

Few battles --> WR depends on teams more than in players

Many battles --> WR depends on players more than in teams

 

Thousands of battles --> WR depends on the players

 

Fat numbers Law

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 8 Minuten, Quazie sagte:

that is why I suggested a direct link in game

WG wants their players to be as uniformed, ignorant and dumb as possible to maximize the profit. The least WG wants is players to be aware of the game's flaws, bugs and scams.

[Quazie]

1 hour ago, tocqueville8 said:

9 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

Garbage. One can do really well - be at the top of the team list (or near the top) but it's still a team of losers (for a number of reasons including intentional WG 'arrangements' to the two teams).

It's garbage to think the two things are mutually exclusive.

 

Of course you can be at the top of the team and lose, in fact it's inevitable that *someone* is going to be in that position, but it's simply incorrect to suggest that WR is *not* "biased towards individual performance": if the individual player plays better on average, the individual player will win more on average.

Aethervoxx is correct, we have all experienced it. Most objections to change generally come from the better players who it is not a problem for. For the average player who can't carry games as well as the better players it is a problem.

tocquerville8 you say get better, many of the players don't have the time to invest to become that good. It was not long ago that I saw videos on YT of top players throwing their hands up and claiming 200K games and 10 or 11 loses in a row.

 

I am an average player never claimed to be anything else, but even that is illusion, take 2 players starting at the same time, for arguments sake they are about the same level at the start.

Player 1 adapts quickly to the game an grinds up the lines quickly. Within a thousand games he is 60% plus.

Player 2 learns well, but he learns slowly, he could reach 60% however it has taken him 4K games to get to this point and his WR% suffered all that time to get there. To gain his 60% he now has to win far more games to make a gain on his WR%

He is just as good but his slow learning rate makes WR% reflect otherwise.

[Quazie]

8 minutes ago, BielayaSmert said:

Its easy:

Few battles --> WR depends on teams more than in players

Many battles --> WR depends on players more than in teams

 

Thousands of battles --> WR depends on the players

 

I am an average player never claimed to be anything else, but even that is illusion, take 2 players starting at the same time, for arguments sake they are about the same level at the start.

 

Player 1 adapts quickly to the game an grinds up the lines quickly. Within a thousand games he is 60% plus.

Player 2 learns well, but he learns slowly, he could reach 60% however it has taken him 4K games to get to this point and his WR% suffered all that time to get there. To gain his 60% he now has to win far more games to make a gain on his WR%

He is just as good but his slow learning rate makes WR% reflect otherwise.

 

[Captain_Breeze]

Your PR rate is of more value than your WR.

 

But as for doing a survey, waste of time as WG do not give a . It is that simple.

[Spartan_Renegade]

People who judge a player by their WR are deluding themselves. Like, you can try all you want to drag your sorry*** team to victory and get into the top 3 position and still end up losing the match cause divisions and OP ships in the opposing team can determine if you'll win or lose.

IMO, average dmg says more about a player's effectiveness in battle than WR which is dependant on the entire team's collective effort in a battle. 

 

 

 

[Quazie]

7 minutes ago, Captain_Breeze said:

Your PR rate is of more value than your WR.

 

But as for doing a survey, waste of time as WG do not give a . It is that simple.

 

I agree, so something like PR should be analysed and given in game as a better evaluation.

 

As for WG not caring, I also agree, but ever the optimist I live in hope .. And yes I know the phrase "An Optimist is just an inexperience Pessimist" 

[BielayaSmert]

3 minutes ago, Captain_Breeze said:

Your PR rate is of more value than your WR.

Depends on your goal in the game:

 

Your goal is to make damage? Then PR

Your goal is to win battles? Then WR

 

 

Anyway, imho the best stat to know how good a player is... last 6 months solo WR at tiers >V