Another "Important message for the community"

[ThePopesHolyFinger]

It's been a few weeks since the last fire-fighting exercise from weegee, and I'm guessing they've put the hoses away for another year.

In the devblog of 02/09 https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/200  specificaly,  weegee clearly state " One of the main topics we want to address is how your feedback influences the game"

So I present the results of the latest feedback for 0.10.9.
 

Do you enjoy Submarines in Random Battles?

I love it 10

I generally like it 13

Neutral 10
I generally don't like it 19

I don't like it at all 403
There you have it weegee, 88% of respondents say you're not listening to us. Again.
When are you going to remove subs from randoms? Or are you going to ignore our views again?

You don't listen, you don't learn.
We shouldn't be surprised. Understand that you have failed us again.

edited to add - can someone tag Sub_Optimal/Octavious

[Lootboxer]

Vocal minority. Spreadsheet say we are having fun dropping depth charges left and right

[Bindolaf_Werebane]

58 minutes ago, WarGamblingUnlimited said:

Vokal minority. Spreadsheet say we are having fun dropping depth charges left and right

I have moar fun *blindly* dropping depth charges on subs doing 30 knots. Spreadsheet is korrekt.

[Prophecy82]

Funfact: This sample size (of about 450 PPL) would suffice to be representative for a population of 40k PPL.... with only 5% deviation. 

[Camperdown]

39 minutes ago, Prophecy82 said:

Funfact: This sample size (of about 450 PPL) would suffice to be representative for a population of 40k PPL.... with only 5% deviation. 

Only if we were a random selection.

[hellhound666]

i wonder why do you still listen and believe what wargambling has to say ...

they tell you whatever suits their short-term needs

if you wait for the change then stop playing this crap till they will listen to us

[CptBarney]

moneh

[lovelacebeer]

That message has already outlived its purpose, WG make politicians look honest with how hollow their statements are. 
 

 

[Prophecy82]

46 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

Only if we were a random selection.

 

Ah, you mean bcs the phenomenon of "the might of dedicated minorities" kicks in... yea, it might be true. 

 

On the other hand its gonna be hard to find an unbiased sample size for this question anyways.  

Consequently no poll on this forum will ever have any statistical value.

[Camperdown]

8 minutes ago, Prophecy82 said:

 

Ah, you mean bcs the phenomenon of "the might of dedicated minorities" kicks in... yea, it might be true. 

 

On the other hand its gonna be hard to find an unbiased sample size for this question anyways.  

Consequently no poll on this forum will ever have any statistical value.

I don't think we are a random selection on this board, it is highly likely that long term veterans, more motivated players and players who educate themselves about the game are overrepresented. 

OTOH, I would be very surprised if polls on this board would not be quite indicative of the direction of opinion of a wider and more random sample of players.

Ofc WG ignores this, because we are a sample that likely overrepresents players that care about the game and game quality. While their interest is in players who carelessly spend money and believe they can pay to win.

[MrWastee]

7 minutes ago, Camperdown said:

[...] and believe they can ping to win.

fify

[Parasitkaffee]

4 hours ago, DB2212 said:

Do you enjoy Submarines in Random Battles?

I love it 10

I generally like it 13

Neutral 10
I generally don't like it 19

When I read your statistics right what I see is 

 

23 people like it. 

 

10 are neutral 

 

19 don't like it. 

 

So what is it you complain about? 

 

Personly I think submarines can work but still ned lots of balance. 

 

I like for example the idea I read here somewhere what would it be if torpedos can bounce off the bow. 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

2 minutes ago, Parasitkaffee said:

When I read your statistics right what I see is 

 

23 people like it. 

 

10 are neutral 

 

19 don't like it. 

 

So what is it you complain about? 

 

Personly I think submarines can work but still ned lots of balance. 

 

I like for example the idea I read here somewhere what would it be if torpedos can bounce off the bow. 

You sure about your reading skills there?

[Parasitkaffee]

1 minute ago, Europizza said:

You sure about your reading skills there?

Oh I think I miss read his text as the internet error code 403 🤣🤣

 

 

Sorry about that English is just my second speech 😅😂🙈

[arttuperkunas]

2 minutes ago, Parasitkaffee said:

Oh I think I miss read his text as the internet error code 403 🤣🤣

 

 

Sorry about that English is just my second speech 😅😂🙈

I'm going to just assume this was some unintended irony demonstrating how WG reads feedback.

[Parasitkaffee]

1 minute ago, arttuperkunas said:

I'm going to just assume this was some unintended irony demonstrating how WG reads feedback.

Nope just my own fail. 

 

🙈

[arttuperkunas]

Just now, Parasitkaffee said:

Nope just my own fail. 

 

🙈

I know, but this is literally what it feels like to us in terms of how WG interprets data.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 minute ago, Parasitkaffee said:

Nope just my own fail. 

 

🙈

I missed it too almost which is funny as hell. 

[Shaka_D]

Those survey numbers are quite revealing, however, I was wondering about the particular demographic who might be giving the feedback in the survey so did a little reading.

 

We know of course it would have been undertaken by wows gamers, but was thinking whether those feeling disenfranchised with the intro of subs might be the ones more likely to offer feedback in this case as opposed to those who are content, so possibly not fussed at all to complete a survey. I did a little casual article research and found references to how happy people are more inclined to give feedback as opposed to unhappy folk so this would potentially indicate the survey results are quite alarming, but also found equally strong references to how unhappy customers are more inclined to leave a bad review whereas only one in ten happy people would potentially leave a review. This could mean the survey is not accurate.

 

Wonder where this leaves us then? My common sense is leaning toward the idea it's the players who are unhappy with subs in this particular case as being more inclined to be more vocal about it, whereas those content with the additions and changes are less so. I think there is already a massive existing negativity and mistrust toward WG which pervades the forums and certain vocal sections of the playerbase to help fuel this need to speak out further, because emotional and unsatisfaction thresholds are now quite saturated. They might then lean toward their own bias in this case as I might be and believe the data is a true reflection of how most players feel toward subs. This is of course not to say there isn't still an issue with subs, because changes are definitely needed.

 

Edit: Sry, forgot to cite sources. Freely available on google / scholar.

[Camperdown]

20 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

Those survey numbers are quite revealing, however, I was wondering about the particular demographic who might be giving the feedback in the survey so did a little reading.

 

We know of course it would have been undertaken by wows gamers, but was thinking whether those feeling disenfranchised with the intro of subs might be the ones more likely to offer feedback in this case as opposed to those who are content, so possibly not fussed at all to complete a survey. I did a little casual article research and found references to how happy people are more inclined to give feedback as opposed to unhappy folk so this would potentially indicate the survey results are quite alarming, but also found equally strong references to how unhappy customers are more inclined to leave a bad review whereas only one in ten happy people would potentially leave a review. This could mean the survey is not accurate.

 

Wonder where this leaves us then? My common sense is leaning toward the idea it's the players who are unhappy with subs in this particular case as being more inclined to be more vocal about it, whereas those content with the additions and changes are less so. I think there is already a massive existing negativity and mistrust toward WG which pervades the forums and certain vocal sections of the playerbase to help fuel this need to speak out further, because emotional and unsatisfaction thresholds are now quite saturated. They might then lean toward their own bias in this case as I might be and believe the data is a true reflection of how most players feel toward subs. This is of course not to say there isn't still an issue with subs, because changes are definitely needed.

 

Edit: Sry, forgot to cite sources. Freely available on google / scholar.

In view of the poll results and the direction of the views expressed on this and other fora, I think it highly likely that the player base in general is quite strongly opposed to subs in their current form. Especially the homing torpedoes, the spotting mechanics below periscope depth and the high submerged speeds.

 

Edit: in addition, in view of the inherent characteristics and limitations of subs, I question whether subs can be implemented in any suitable way. 

[Captain_82]

3 hours ago, hellhound666 said:

i wonder why do you still listen and believe what wargambling has to say ...

they tell you whatever suits their short-term needs

if you wait for the change then stop playing this crap till they will listen to us

 

this.

[OldSchoolFrankie]

Actions speak louder than words and I miss those actions from Wargaming.

We are sorry? Yoyo, move on to the next one..

 

Who don't notice how the mood is about the implementation of submarines in Randoms, you have to be blind and deaf, which would explain the skills of some players. Here in the forum, in videos, in streams, on Discord, in ingame chat - they complain everywhere. And Wargaming can monitor feedback, but they are not acting in the best interests of the players or the interests of gameplay. It's all about the (quick) money! They have now proven that often enough. And ask some of the players who were there from the beginning if it was good for the game.

 

Anyone who still believes the words of Wargaming has not been around for long or is a huge optimist, huge like Kink Kong (with that special voice)..

[Yedwy]

48 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

Those survey numbers are quite revealing, however, I was wondering about the particular demographic who might be giving the feedback in the survey so did a little reading.

 

We know of course it would have been undertaken by wows gamers, but was thinking whether those feeling disenfranchised with the intro of subs might be the ones more likely to offer feedback in this case as opposed to those who are content, so possibly not fussed at all to complete a survey. I did a little casual article research and found references to how happy people are more inclined to give feedback as opposed to unhappy folk so this would potentially indicate the survey results are quite alarming, but also found equally strong references to how unhappy customers are more inclined to leave a bad review whereas only one in ten happy people would potentially leave a review. This could mean the survey is not accurate.

 

Wonder where this leaves us then? My common sense is leaning toward the idea it's the players who are unhappy with subs in this particular case as being more inclined to be more vocal about it, whereas those content with the additions and changes are less so. I think there is already a massive existing negativity and mistrust toward WG which pervades the forums and certain vocal sections of the playerbase to help fuel this need to speak out further, because emotional and unsatisfaction thresholds are now quite saturated. They might then lean toward their own bias in this case as I might be and believe the data is a true reflection of how most players feel toward subs. This is of course not to say there isn't still an issue with subs, because changes are definitely needed.

 

Edit: Sry, forgot to cite sources. Freely available on google / scholar.

Sooo what you are basically saying is - if the feedback on something WG does is good then its real feedback and if its bad is skewed and should be discarded, gotcha... 

 

I mean its EXACTLY what WG does all the time...

[arttuperkunas]

6 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

Sooo what you are basically saying is - if the feedback on something WG does is good then its real feedback and if its bad is skewed and should be discarded, gotcha... 

 

I mean its EXACTLY what WG does all the time...

This is what always bothers me. It's like... the data is flawed, so surely this represents a sample that is biased against us.

 

But... why? What is the assumption behind that conclusion? Why does the bias always run one way? This way of approaching data analysis reminds me of the way that marxist historians used to interpret facts, i.e. "false consciousness". So any way you look at the data, you get the "correct" answer. Allow me to give an example:

 

Scenario 1:

Q: Do you feel that this (whatever) is the result of an imbalance in the ownership of the means of production?

A: Yes, I do

Conclusion: The informant answered yes, therefore our hypothesis is proved correct. There is an imbalance in the ownership of the means of production.

 

Scenario 2:

Q: Do you feel that this (whatever) is the result of an imbalance in the ownership of the means of production?

A: No, I don't

Conclusion: The informant is the victim of false consciousness; the imbalance in the means of production operates at a level of society which he does not perceive - the fact that he answered "no" proves that the hypothesis is correct. There is an imbalance in the ownership of the means of production.

[arttuperkunas]

1 minute ago, arttuperkunas said:

This is what always bothers me. It's like... the data is flawed, so surely this represents a sample that is biased against us.

 

But... why? What is the assumption behind that conclusion? Why does the bias always run one way? This way of approaching data analysis reminds me of the way that marxist historians used to interpret facts, i.e. "false consciousness". So any way you look at the data, you get the "correct" answer. Allow me to give an example:

 

Scenario 1:

Q: Do you feel that this (whatever) is the result of an imbalance in the ownership of the means of production?

A: Yes, I do

Conclusion: The informant answered yes, therefore our hypothesis is proved correct. There is an imbalance in the ownership of the means of production.

 

Scenario 2:

Q: Do you feel that this (whatever) is the result of an imbalance in the ownership of the means of production?

A: No, I don't

Conclusion: The informant is the victim of false consciousness; the imbalance in the means of production operates at a level of society which he does not perceive - the fact that he answered "no" proves that the hypothesis is correct. There is an imbalance in the ownership of the means of production.

Another corollary of this is the freudian school of anthropology. I remember reading some anthropological article from Papua New Guinea that basically boiled down to this:

 

Q: Those yams kinda look like [edited], don't they?

A: They sure do.

Conclusion: Yam farming is connected with ideas/concepts of male fertility.

 

Q: Those yams kinda look like [edited], don't they?

A: Um... not really?

Conclusion: The informant is repressed and unable to vocalise his real thoughts/feelings on the matter. Yam farming is connected with ideas/concepts of male fertility.