The WG "Sub_Octavian" replied to my Reddit thread about latest "Submarine Survey"...

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

The WG "Sub_Octavian" replied to my Reddit thread about latest "Submarine Survey"...

 

 

Quote

Hello guys,

 

I have to explain to you how our surveys work. We send them out to a big properly randomized representative group (or to be more precise, groups, because we take player game activity and other factors into account, too), not to the whole playerbase. We have many surveys so 99% of them are not sent to everyone to avoid spam and keep the response ratio good.

 

That means that unless you received this survey personally, there is no use to copy the link and reply there. We send them out personally for a reason. For statistical and quality analysis we will only process the replies from the target group. Otherwise the research will not be properly representative.

 

We've also checked and double checked several times and it's an established fact that after a certain threshold there is no need to increase the target group size, as the replies will be absolutely the same. It only "spams" people (the more surveys they receive, the less they are willing to complete them in future) and overloads our research team in their quality analysis.

 

For this particular survey, we've sent it out to ~100 k players from those who played at least 5 battles in Randoms in the respective version.

 

If you did not receive survey you still absolutely can influence the direction of our work. For example the homing torpedo rework coming in 0.10.10 was done based purely on quality feedback analysis, before the survey was even sent out. We read and analyze your feedback from Forums, Discord, this sub and other platforms. As for the surveys - sorry - but if you did not receive one, there is no point in filling it via the link.

 

Cheers.

 

What I find very odd here is that there is no player identification in this particular survey (i.e. anyone can fill it up) and therefore there is simply no way that WG can differentiate players who where invited to do the survey from those who filled it up anyway but weren't invited...

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

 

 

P.S.

WG "Sub_Octavian" answered how they know who participated in survey:

 

Quote

Yes, but the link is originally personalized for each player. Thus, we have the necessary identification.

 

[hellhound666]

perhaps our european wargamblers could step in and explain what their boss said and how the identification is done ...

[Prophecy82]

In other words, if you didnt get the ingame-survey, your survey doesnt count. 

Eh.... this was definitly the last survey I filled out. 

[Fat_Maniac]

Picking up on a snippet of Sub_O's reply .. "We've also checked and double checked several times and it's an established fact that after a certain threshold there is no need to increase the target group size, as the replies will be absolutely the same. It only "spams" people (the more surveys they receive, the less they are willing to complete them in future) and overloads our research team in their quality analysis."

 

The key word here for me is target. WG are targeting the customers they want to answer, as they predict they will give WG the answers they want. Confirmation bias at its best. 

[Miscommunication_dept]

Oh a randomized group that takes players activity and other factors into account?

 

This is a selected group NOT a randomized group. 

 

For an outsider to make an inference from the results, one would need to see the criteria used to select these groups.

 

If the 'other factors' included, for example, players who have played at least 50 submarine battles, you can easily see how survey results could be curated to be positive toward submarines.

 

Ask the right people the right questions and get the desired outcome.

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 2 Minuten, Prophecy82 sagte:

In other words, if you didnt get the ingame-survey, your survey doesnt count. 

Eh.... this was definitly the last survey I filled out. 

Not belonging to the "target group" is probably the highest mark of destinction for player competence one could get. 

[Miscommunication_dept]

@Gwynbleidd11

 

You are very quick on the dislike button this morning.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

6 minutes ago, Prophecy82 said:

In other words, if you didnt get the ingame-survey, your survey doesnt count. 

Eh.... this was definitly the last survey I filled out. 

Why not just fill out those you actually get notified of by WG??

Sub_O clearly says that those are taken into account.

Also he explains that the survey THANKFULLY only reaches players who played at least 5 battles in the current patch. THIS IS IMPORTANT because the opinion of pepegas who dont play the game and just like to cry like a few on this forum should not matter as they don't experience anything themselves. No, watching flamu raging is not like playing the game yourself

[Prophecy82]

4 minutes ago, Yosha_nai said:

Why not just fill out those you actually get notified of by WG??

 

The last time I filled out a notified one, I wrote "no CVs in CB" to a specifically asked question. 

You know what happend? 2xCV in CBs. 

Yea....

[Yosha_AtaIante]

1 minute ago, Prophecy82 said:

The last time I filled out a notified one, I wrote "no CVs in CB" to a specifically asked question. 

You know what happend? 2xCV in CBs. 

Yea....

So you expect that because You write no CVs in CB it must happen?

 

Oh my the entitlement...

[Miscommunication_dept]

6 minutes ago, Yosha_nai said:

Why not just fill out those you actually get notified of by WG??

Sub_O clearly says that those are taken into account.

Also he explains that the survey THANKFULLY only reaches players who played at least 5 battles in the current patch. THIS IS IMPORTANT because the opinion of pepegas who dont play the game and just like to cry like a few on this forum should not matter as they don't experience anything themselves. No, watching flamu raging is not like playing the game yourself

It is certainly appropriate to only include players who have played in this patch.

 

The problem I have is with the 'other factors' he hasn't said what these are and this in itself is enough to invalidate any piece of research. 

Of course, IF these surveys are only there to buttress WG confirmation bias.......

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Just now, gopher31 said:

It is certainly appropriate to only include players who have played in this patch.

 

The problem I have is with the 'other factors' he hasn't said what these are and this in itself is enough to invalidate any piece of research. 

Of course, these surveys are only there to buttress WG confirmation bias.

he doesn't need to explain anything to you yet he gave a farly detailed explanation. He also justified quite well why it's not being send to literaly everyone. 100k players is quite a lot of an average of 20k players per day being online and I recieved a survey too (i just didnt fill it because not interested in providing feedback). A friend of mine I play with often didn't recieve the survey even though we have the same opinions on the games so where is the bias?

[Prophecy82]

3 minutes ago, Yosha_nai said:

So you expect that because You write no CVs in CB it must happen?

 

Oh my the entitlement...

Yup, biggest troll move ever. 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Just now, Prophecy82 said:

Yup, biggest troll move ever. 

explain please? Or are you one of those "We are the community therefore I am the community" kind of people?

[bobtherterrible]

While I am deeply skeptical of the utiity of this or any other survey, I do think it is important to get feedback from people who actually currently play the game, unlike the OP who seems to have played just 2 random games in the last month.

Just like the amazon reviews which read along the lines of "well I haven't actually opened it or used it yet but the box looks nice, 5 stars"

While great experience of the previous versions of the game may well be of value, contriving to have an opinion on a change that you have barely experienced seems a little ambitious..

 

For my part, the experience of subs in the game and the expectation you would have from reading this forum are vastly at odds. 

On the very rare occasion I actually encounter a sub, it has proven to be unlikely to be an effective threat. From reading the forum you would imagine the game to be totally unplayable, much like it was heralded to be after:

commander rework

hybrid ships

dutch air strikes

etc etc

Now I;m not saying these are necessarily positive improvements, but they don't seem to be as problematic as predicted and here we still are.

 

 

[Tanaka_15]

lol. hehehe so this is like, we creat survey to get results. The result is players want subs in current state in random. If your survey is not this result your feedback is just spam. WG :) 

[Prophecy82]

Just now, Yosha_nai said:

explain please? Or are you one of those "We are the community therefore I am the community" kind of people?

Nah, I think they targeted me personally with their 2xCV season. 

[Procrastes]

13 minutes ago, Fat_Maniac said:

The key word here for me is target. WG are targeting the customers they want to answer, as they predict they will give WG the answers they want. Confirmation bias at its best. 

For some time now I have been under the impression that the fill-in-the-box questionnaire on customer satisfaction that pops up now and then after a battle, has a tendency to appear after those battles where I have performed better than my personal average. I have no way of confirming if this is so, it' just a feeling. But it is a feeling that has prompted me to always go for the "Neutral" response.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

2 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

For some time now I have been under the impression that the fill-in-the-box questionnaire on customer satisfaction that pops up now and then after a battle, has a tendency to appear after those battles where I have performed better than my personal average. I have no way of confirming if this is so, it' just a feeling. But it is a feeling that has prompted me to always go for the "Neutral" response.

It happened to me on a loss during CBs before. It happens on games where I carry hard too. It mostly feels random to me

[Shaka_D]

29 minutes ago, Fat_Maniac said:

Picking up on a snippet of Sub_O's reply .. "We've also checked and double checked several times and it's an established fact that after a certain threshold there is no need to increase the target group size, as the replies will be absolutely the same. It only "spams" people (the more surveys they receive, the less they are willing to complete them in future) and overloads our research team in their quality analysis."

 

The key word here for me is target. WG are targeting the customers they want to answer, as they predict they will give WG the answers they want. Confirmation bias at its best. 

Ironically, and with all respect, this can also be said of your view towards WG's motivations - jaded by a lack of trust in them, therefore negatively influencing your view toward anything they do. To me, the use of the word target is simply the particular demographic they're targetting, i.e. those with particular battle counts, or who have played at least 5 games of the version in question, etc. Target audiences or groups does not imply they're targeting specific people to deliver a specific outcome, as you're suggesting. This is a massive bias all on it's on and a lot conspiratorial.

 

It's easy to automatically assume that just because someone doesn't do as we do, or believe what we believe, that they're against us in some way. This is how we tend to rationalise things because the alternative option is that we're simply wrong in thinking this way, and this is a reality we're less inclined to accept. Cognitive dissonance. WG appear to be attempting to remedy their previous shortcomings, lets give them a chance. I appreciate their feedback and attempt at openess here.

[Miscommunication_dept]

11 minutes ago, Yosha_nai said:

he doesn't need to explain anything to you yet he gave a farly detailed explanation. He also justified quite well why it's not being send to literaly everyone. 100k players is quite a lot of an average of 20k players per day being online and I recieved a survey too (i just didnt fill it because not interested in providing feedback). A friend of mine I play with often didn't recieve the survey even though we have the same opinions on the games so where is the bias?

 

He certainly did not!

 

He called the survey randomized then went on to reveal that there were selection criteria and mentioned only one of a minimum three.

 

Transparency is important if WG then want to use this survey to tell the saltier members of the player base that they are wrong

[Procrastes]

Just now, Yosha_nai said:

It happened to me on a loss during CBs before. It happens on games where I carry hard too. It mostly feels random to me

I rather think you are right. It's really not very healthy to feed one's inner conspiracy troll. Even with this in mind, though, I am on two minds on how to respond. I can still have a lot of fun in individual battles, but I am far from happy with the general state of the game. Does this mean I should always give a negative response, even after an enjoyable game session? This is also part of the reason for my "Neutral" response policy.

[Yedwy]

What they stated explains everythig really, they derive their Feedback from targeted surveys and ofc the results will be tainted

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Just now, Procrastes said:

I rather think you are right. It's really not very healthy to feed one's inner conspiracy troll. Even with this in mind, though, I am on two minds on how to respond. I can still have a lot of fun in individual battles, but I am far from happy with the general state of the game. Does this mean I should always give a negative response, even after an enjoyable game session? This is also part of the reason for my "Neutral" response policy.

TBH conspiracy or not or WG being biased or not it all in the end doesn't matter because the amount of clanmates and players I played and talked with who said they answer dishonestly because they believe they get a supercountainer for answering "Very dissatisfied" every time. These surveys are not being answered honestly in the first place so any information WG gets out of them is false anyway

[TheAlba2014]

12 hours ago, Yosha_nai said:

TBH conspiracy or not or WG being biased or not it all in the end doesn't matter because the amount of clanmates and players I played and talked with who said they answer dishonestly because they believe they get a supercountainer for answering "Very dissatisfied" every time. These surveys are not being answered honestly in the first place so any information WG gets out of them is false anyway

So is that a "Your clan and buddies answer dishonestly, therefore the community answers dishonestly" kind of thing?

 

NB see your previous post to Prophecy82, pot, kettle, black.