Hot Fix: Why We Need UX Research

[johncl]

what is there constructive to say about such a crap company ..You can't change if you can't except the truth ..hence why you go round and round chasing your tails .in a word pathetic 

[Zegrze]

I don't think either of these two 'experts' in the video or anyone else in their departments play the game on a regular basis because if they did then they would be just as frustrated as the player base and would actually have a clue.

 

 

 

[anonym_cwVecOS6ecVy]

I would not even wonder if they hired actors for this. The audacity to create such a video, post it, rub it into our eyes and then expect people to love the "insight" and like it. Before you care about UX you should care about balance and fun. Because WoWs is not fun anymore.

[Capt_Popei]

UX is getting worse day to day because you WG have never listened to us. Please wargaming stop lying. 

 

You said: teams will be balance and we  lost games in 5 minutes.

You said: Carriers in even tiers.

You said: never be submarines in game...

 

The list of your lies keep growing.  

 

TO BE HONEST. I DON´T KNOW HOW YOU CAN DARE TO SAY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU HAVE BEING DOING FOR SEVEN YEARS.

AND  WHEN SOMEONE TELL YOU THE TRUTH. YOU REQUEST CONSTRUCTIVE CRITISM. 

 

 

[Catslave]

14 hours ago, gnist0s said:

If they listened to players - which i suppose they mean by user experience - we did'nt have submarines, superships and carriers had been nerfed radically.

Besides that; no more than 3 or occasionally 4 dds on each team and only 1 cv on each team.

In coop there are carriers and submarines on each team in each battle, even if no live players in sub and cv, there are bot cv and sub on both teams, thats stupid.

 

DID YOU LISTEN WEEEEGEEEE        

Ya, they have been listening for the past 6 years...... but appearently the feedback does not match the "team's creative vision" (wargamings words)...

13 hours ago, lmperial_Japanese_Navy said:

Off topic but how do you expect player to play against subs in the Tone ? 

 

She does not have a single ASW ! ! ! Where is the dept charge or airstrike ?!? 

  Reveal hidden contents

The torpedo bombers can not hit submarne !

And ? There are multiple ships (surprisingly enough including all carriers) with no ASW at all. Several others got shafted (like 4km ASW bombers on ships like Musashi or the Shi*thog launcher on Halland) ....
Actually torpedo bombers can hit the surfaced submarine, it's just that the hitbox is 2x2 pixels.

10 hours ago, lmperial_Japanese_Navy said:

 

Even if he is submerged ? Or only if he is surfaced ? 

 

I circled that stupid thing for like 10 second or more and he remained under water while i could not play against it until he managed to sneak out of my radar and i have to give up, where he later caused trouble for my teammates, unbelievable.

Only surfaced. Only depth charges and submarine launched torpedoes can hit a submerged submarine.

9 hours ago, UnrepentantSinner said:

This is comedy gold, you only have to watch the Twitch streams, read the chat and see how they completely ignore everything they don't like, to know how much they value their players opinion. 

To be precise: they don't ignore, they ban. Anyone mentioning the current sh*tstorm in the official stream gets insta banned for eternity. As soon as something annoying starts to explode, WG adds all related words to the autoban and "greatly values " all your feedback concerning the matter...

 

8 hours ago, admiraldelorin said:

The previous posters might have done some research them selves before babbling off.  They might have found that actually at least one of the presenters im the past did research and published at least one sientific paper on the topic. ( I did not dig to deep )  As such i take the content on face value, weather it is truth to power is another thing, but i understand it to direct company policy. 
The bashing above simply is not based on fact but just reflect opinions of some loud individuals, best ignored as long as the bottom line tells a different story.   

I really hope this is a joke.....
WG has ignored all player feedback since the earliest days. Dozens of pages of negative feedback, many with suggestions for improvements and no reply at all ... but among them is a single post from some 80 games guy praising WG and that one instantly gets a mod reply "how nice that you like it, we will continue as is". 
WG's common replies to feedback are "our game is good as is, therefor we have no plans of changing anything", " the ship is popular so no buffs needed/the ship is not popular so no nerfs needed", "the silent majority agrees with us" or "your feedback does not match the creative vision of the team".
There was a vote about carrier after the rework, out of ~10k votes around 75% were negative - WG brushed it off as biased and the "silent majority" is happy with carriers. There even was an official vote on the official Discord about adding legendary modules to the Research Bureau.....overwhelmingly negative reply and the following week WG added the modules to the RB.

6 hours ago, Zegrze said:

I don't think either of these two 'experts' in the video or anyone else in their departments play the game on a regular basis because if they did then they would be just as frustrated as the player base and would actually have a clue.

 

 

 

Take that as you will. Wargaming divisions on Stream have had the fun of enjoying carrier attention. Chrysantos, MrConman and some other made an all soviet Division with Kremlin and double petro (if i remember correctly). Enemy T8 carrier literally sh*t on them and MrConman's statement (aka excuse) was, that the carrier didn't play normal because he (the carrier) focused them....

 

[Asatori]

8 hours ago, floribe2000 said:

I removed some political comments as well as insults.

Please stay constructive.

Disagreeing with this is fine but insulting others is not. And politics, as always, is forbidden in this forum.

 

lmao, I can't even..This just makes it even more hilarious.

 

"We don't like your feedback so we will sensor it"

WG in a nutshell. 

 

[britinmadrid]

11 hours ago, admiraldelorin said:

The previous posters might have done some research them selves before babbling off.  They might have found that actually at least one of the presenters im the past did research and published at least one sientific paper on the topic. ( I did not dig to deep )  As such i take the content on face value, weather it is truth to power is another thing, but i understand it to direct company policy. 
The bashing above simply is not based on fact but just reflect opinions of some loud individuals, best ignored as long as the bottom line tells a different story.   

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." WG uses all of them! Did WG react to the CV rework feedback? Did WG fix the catastrophe of the Commander rework? Has WG or will WG listen to the Submarine feedback? No, nup, and nope! SeKrIt sPrEadShEeT says player base is happy.

 

How can you claim that the majority of people on this very Forum express unhappiness with WG's decisions and with their responses to the aforementioned topics, admiraldelorin? Well, you cannot. You are entitled to your opinion and to express it, but we all know that to deny the majority opinion makes you a white knight. That is not bashing: that is a fact. Have a nice day, admiraldelorin! 

[WWDragon]

22 hours ago, gnist0s said:

In coop there are carriers and submarines on each team in each battle, even if no live players in sub and cv, there are bot cv and sub on both teams, thats stupid.

Bot CVs in co-op are free damage, the usual complain about CVs is "spotting" but in Co-Op bot know were players are at all times, they dont need spotting even if some rules still apply.

 

They got smarter with attacks but they fall into the same problem CV face, reserves and by allowing their squadrons to be destroyed they end not having much in the way to actually attack and even if they do, it falls into the Co-Op RNG dispersion lotto, only real danger is bombers as they got decent on that ... rest? avoidable.

 

Also due to how Co-Op turned into a crapshow, bot CV at least gives the BBs a chance of dealing damage as DDs cannot murderize then like they do to all other ships.

 

As for subs, I havent seen a bot sub being created without a player bot and its either "you are already dead" to "utterly useless", I just dont like then there because its damage lost (unlike CVs) as well they can very well delete players due to how Co-Op is a rush to get more damage in before the rest of the team kills the bots, playing "safe" means you get a crap score and lose credits.

 

But then again, you just using Co-Op to complain about CVs and Subs, nobody that plays Co-Op would complain about CV bot since its ...

 

1- One less player competing for damage

2- CV bots are mostless harmless and are free damage

[Spartacus_Mills]

When will you stop posting Russian made content?

[gnist0s]

2 hours ago, WWDragon said:

Bot CVs in co-op are free damage, the usual complain about CVs is "spotting" but in Co-Op bot know were players are at all times, they dont need spotting even if some rules still apply.

 

They got smarter with attacks but they fall into the same problem CV face, reserves and by allowing their squadrons to be destroyed they end not having much in the way to actually attack and even if they do, it falls into the Co-Op RNG dispersion lotto, only real danger is bombers as they got decent on that ... rest? avoidable.

 

Also due to how Co-Op turned into a crapshow, bot CV at least gives the BBs a chance of dealing damage as DDs cannot murderize then like they do to all other ships.

 

As for subs, I havent seen a bot sub being created without a player bot and its either "you are already dead" to "utterly useless", I just dont like then there because its damage lost (unlike CVs) as well they can very well delete players due to how Co-Op is a rush to get more damage in before the rest of the team kills the bots, playing "safe" means you get a crap score and lose credits.

 

But then again, you just using Co-Op to complain about CVs and Subs, nobody that plays Co-Op would complain about CV bot since its ...

 

1- One less player competing for damage

2- CV bots are mostless harmless and are free damage

I know what i will have called you in a discussion face to face. I hate people who try to tell me what i mean when im saying something, just like you in the line:

 

"But then again, you just using Co-Op to complain about CVs and Subs, nobody that plays Co-Op would complain about CV bot since its ..."

 

DON'T YOU NEVER EVER LAY THE WORD IN MY MOUTH     D O   Y O U   U N D E R S T A N D  

[WWDragon]

21 minutes ago, gnist0s said:

DON'T YOU NEVER EVER LAY THE WORD IN MY MOUTH     D O   Y O U   U N D E R S T A N D  

Then why are you complaining about CVs in Co-Op? I have more issues with very unbalanced teams like all cruisers or 5 DDs+1BB+2 Cruisers, subs are a problem but at the same time, its not as if bots way to handle torpedoes is very suspect to begin.

 

You said nothing about the problem is with CVs in Co-Op or subs for that matter, most players dont have a problem with CVs in Co-Op because the other option for completing certain directives is randoms, in fact show me were people are complaining about CV bots in Co-Op otherwise yes, I am going to make a assumption over what you said.

[Asatori]

1 hour ago, TerryCox said:

When will you stop posting Russian made content?

I think it's fairly obvious by now that you can take WG out of Russia but you can't take Russia out of WG. 

[_I_love_my_Loliboats]

You guys just read it wrong. They said they'd "collect information from the community", not that they would actually read or even act on it. My bet is that they print the feedbacks, tickets and complaints and use them as toilet paper.

[admiraldelorin]

29 minutes ago, _I_love_my_Loliboats said:

You guys just read it wrong. They said they'd "collect information from the community", not that they would actually read or even act on it. My bet is that they print the feedbacks, tickets and complaints and use them as toilet paper.

You assume to much. Especially they are not listehning to you. I'll advise you right now they will never listen to you.  Wg development methodolgy is very slow, lots of backtracking and analysis of results but it in perptuially ongoing. Tomorrows game is never the same as yesterdays.  Economics so far, speak for their methods.  If your opinion correlates with the results you would conclude that WG actually listens. So what is wrong?  The results or your opinion? CV 's been banned from CB for 9 month's straight now. So the results there must point in that direction..   no matter how stupid we (that's the player community i know) think that is but hey WG never listens right?

BTW I start seeing random battles with only 1 or 2 BB's on either side, not all CV's understand spotting and a lot have players no clue about scoring with AA  but yeah WG is listening to us.  Funny that ..  :)   

[HMS_Kilinowski]

1. Tell your researcher not to look at the ceiling when telling the community, their data is anonymized. It tells me they are telling us what we want to hear while privacy might not be practiced as strictly on a daily business.

 

2. Educate your researchers that using scripts on qualitative responses to extract frequencies of words takes away the qualitative aspect of the response and turns it into a quantitative response of an a priori open format. You basically are not considering open feedback, but you convert it into the form of an answer to a quantitative question that you have not asked specifically. It greatly limits the big picture that a researcher gains from such answers and defies the purpose of a qualitative survey to begin with.

 

3. Your reasearchers do not explain how they address non-observation bias. People who don't take your surveys or dodge questions for reasons not captured in your data, will bias the results. A player frustrated with the game is less likely to take your survey, although he may have similar performance and personal data as another person enthusiastic about the game, both for reasons of where the game is heading. It may confirm the biased view that the route taken is liked by the sample.

 

4. The connection between the players and the developers is not getting stronger as a result of the research done. Sharing the everyday experience of the game, is. I can't remember the last time I saw a WG-employee in the game. You are substituting first hand experience with results of a survey. How did e.g. the first-hand experience of fear for a beloved person in your life compare to whatever description of it you might have read in some book? Which of the two would give you a more accurate picture of that sentiment?

 

5. "Tell us about cases when the results of your research directly affected the game". And then tell us about the cases, when the results did not affect the game, tho heavily indicated by the respondents. Also, if your researcher has to go back to beta-testing to recall a case where player opinion mattered, maybe that's not a testimony to this happening regularly.

 

6. Have your researchers, who think of their respondents as serious and commited, considered the possibility that non-respondents are ignoring the surveys specifically cause they are commited and care about the game and have given up on trying to reach the people making the decisions?

 

7. Do your researchers play the game and if so how many battles do they play regularly?

[admiraldelorin]

9 hours ago, britinmadrid said:

How can you claim that the majority of people on this very Forum express unhappiness with WG's decisions and with their responses to the aforementioned topics, admiraldelorin? Well, you cannot. You are entitled to your opinion and to express it, but we all know that to deny the majority opinion makes you a white knight. That is not bashing: that is a fact. Have a nice day, admiraldelorin! 

So in elections party wins 66% of the vote. 66% off elligble voters actually went to the ballot.  So why is it that 1/3 can claim they represent all ? And this is a forum, social media anonymous posters.. where you claim to speak for a majority..  THAT is a fact  you claim the game publisher is not listening to you another fact Game publisher informs the wider public on some of their methods. The game publishers conclusions (direction of the game) do not correlate with your opinon. Publisher is still arround maintaining direction (because they do no like what they see?)  Now you go count the posts in this thread and count where happyness is expressed with the maintained direction.

All im doing is really really having a problem with people that claim rights and entitlements without a single solid argument other than an opinion.  If that makes me a withe knight, cool!   Happy to be one.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

I forgot one:

 

8. Since your reasearchers told this anecdote:
 

 

How many players of this majority that told you they wanted a relaxing arcade game back in 2015 are still playing the game today as compared to the ones who told you to make it more complex?

[admiraldelorin]

Quote

1. Tell your researcher not to look at the ceiling when telling the community, their data is anonymized. It tells me they are telling us what we want to hear while privacy might not be practiced as strictly on a daily business.

Anonymized but not to potect your privacy you already dicarded by publisizing your stats. Anonymized to ensure validity.

 

Quote

2. Educate your researchers that using scripts on qualitative responses to extract frequencies of words takes away the qualitative aspect of the response and turns it into a quantitative response of an a priori open format. You basically are not considering open feedback, but you convert it into the form of an answer to a quantitative question that you have not asked specifically. It greatly limits the big picture that a researcher gains from such answers and defies the purpose of a qualitative survey to begin with.

Validity of the survey is determined by correlation to development?  There is no correlation to be had from qualitative respoinses that something for the PR and marketing department.

 

Quote

3. Your reasearchers do not explain how they address non-observation bias. People who don't take your surveys or dodge questions for reasons not captured in your data, will bias the results. A player frustrated with the game is less likely to take your survey, although he may have similar performance and personal data as another person enthusiastic about the game, both for reasons of where the game is heading. It may confirm the biased view that the route taken is liked by the sample.

I understood the survey to be repetative bias as absolute value has no value the change in bias can be correlated.

 

Quote

4. The connection between the players and the developers is not getting stronger as a result of the research done. Sharing the everyday experience of the game, is. I can't remember the last time I saw a WG-employee in the game. You are substituting first hand experience with results of a survey. How did e.g. the first-hand experience of fear for a beloved person in your life compare to whatever description of it you might have read in some book? Which of the two would give you a more accurate picture of that sentiment?

WG employee in game as such is heavely subjected to bias. Anonymously you would never know.

  

Quote

5. "Tell us about cases when the results of your research directly affected the game". And then tell us about the cases, when the results did not affect the game, tho heavily indicated by the respondents. Also, if your researcher has to go back to beta-testing to recall a case where player opinion mattered, maybe that's not a testimony to this happening regularly.

 

Research says do X, particpation declines, do Y and participation increases? 

 

Quote

6. Have your researchers, who think of their respondents as serious and commited, considered the possibility that non-respondents are ignoring the surveys specifically cause they are commited and care about the game and have given up on trying to reach the people making the decisions?

I sincerly hope researches stay away from speculating facts

 

Quote

7. Do your researchers play the game and if so how many battles do they play regularly? 

 

Qualifing researcher by the number battles the play? That is how players are qualified, however the top 10 does not produce the revenue to sustain the game.

[BillBrasky]

---

I thought Lesta was nothing to do with WG anymore, as you told the world you were no longer affiliated, so why does the video feature their employees? I'm confused.

[Zemeritt]

1 hour ago, BillBrasky said:

---

I thought Lesta was nothing to do with WG anymore, as you told the world you were no longer affiliated, so why does the video feature their employees? I'm confused.

 

Properly because this interview was recoreded ages  ago before the split.

 

 

OT: Yeah, nice middle finger.

Had a survey yesterday: Would you recommend WoWs to a friend.

 

Assuming a 0 or 1 would instantly end the survey, I picked 4.

The survey still ended immediatly.

No questions why you wouldn't recommend it.

[Maris_Piper]

From a company that Ends aa Survay as soon as you give answers they don't like, BS like this makes my blood bpil, You Don't ihg Listen WG so Cut The Crap.

[gnist0s]

18 hours ago, WWDragon said:

Then why are you complaining about CVs in Co-Op? I have more issues with very unbalanced teams like all cruisers or 5 DDs+1BB+2 Cruisers, subs are a problem but at the same time, its not as if bots way to handle torpedoes is very suspect to begin.

 

You said nothing about the problem is with CVs in Co-Op or subs for that matter, most players dont have a problem with CVs in Co-Op because the other option for completing certain directives is randoms, in fact show me were people are complaining about CV bots in Co-Op otherwise yes, I am going to make a assumption over what you said.

 Read the subject for this threat; its about listening to what the players say, or try to point out for wg. I pointet out some subjects, where i think wg dont listen, and some irregularities in coop,

The point is not weather i like or dislike sub's and cv's, and about the matter with them in coop, i pointed out that there are bot sub's and cv's on both team, even if no live player try to enter battles in those 2 shiptypes.

Another thing, wg told us a year or two ago, that there would never be more than 4 dd on each team, but it is not uncommon there are 5 dd on each team. Pointing that out, is not because i dont like dd's, just so you

dont put that in my words.

The subject is for players to point out problems as they see it, not that players, like you, turn their words into what your oppinion is, its my words and my oppinion i point out, not yours!

 

EOD +

[IlljustcallhimDave]

On 5/11/2022 at 3:06 PM, Fatal_Ramses said:

.

Compile their answers and send the report to higher ups.

 

sticking it in the shredder more like

 

https://tenor.com/view/late-night-seth-lnsm-lnsmgi-fs-seth-meyers-paper-shredder-gif-9199043

[britinmadrid]

11 hours ago, admiraldelorin said:

So in elections party wins 66% of the vote. 66% off elligble voters actually went to the ballot.  So why is it that 1/3 can claim they represent all ?

Possibly I am misunderstanding you and if that is the case, I apologise. However, eligible voters are the ones who get off the sofa and vote so they make themselves important by making an effort. Meanwhile, the 'couch potatoes' who elect not to vote exclude themselves which makes them unimportant to the political parties in the election, i.e. WG in this case. That being said, I do not understand your analogy of 1/3 claiming they can represent all. The majority of people on this forum (count the comments, admiraldelorin ... count) are unhappy with the state of CVs, op ships like the Petro which is finally being nerfed after wrecking Clan Wars and KoTS for over two years, Commander rework, and Subs. This is a fact, so why you seem to assert that 33% is speaking for the people who cannot make the effort to express an opinion I do not know.

 

Quote

And this is a forum, social media anonymous posters.. where you claim to speak for a majority..  THAT is a fact  you claim the game publisher is not listening to you another fact Game publisher informs the wider public on some of their methods. The game publishers conclusions (direction of the game) do not correlate with your opinon.

My opinion is my own, as is yours. But When the majority of the expressed opinions are negative ...

 

Quote

Publisher is still arround maintaining direction (because they do no like what they see?)  Now you go count the posts in this thread and count where happyness is expressed with the maintained direction.

The vast majority of opinions are negative. Perhaps it is you who are not reading the Forums?

 

Quote

All im doing is really really having a problem with people that claim rights and entitlements without a single solid argument other than an opinion.  If that makes me a withe knight, cool!   Happy to be one.

I'm happy that you are happy. The fact that you can 'Trump' and ignore factual numbers, whilst twisting logic to state that everyone who hasn't spoken must be in favour of WG means that you are a tiresome troll who likes provoking people, or a deeply unintelligent person who cannot count negative views. I see other people are pulling your arguments apart and that you are simply arguing that they are wrong. so this will be my last ever interaction with someone who is boring forum naysayer #334. Yawn! 

 

Bye, admiral! Zero respect for intellectual rigour, arguments and puberty rage! 

[WWDragon]

19 hours ago, gnist0s said:

 Read the subject for this threat; its about listening to what the players say, or try to point out for wg. I pointet out some subjects, where i think wg dont listen, and some irregularities in coop,

Oh there are many yes but then we have some obvious bias from both sides.

 

I think WG have a fear that by adding a Co-Op mode they lose players from PvP and how PvP is the focus of development leading so having ships that simply do not function well in Co-Op due to their nature and the other way around, slow battleships can work in Random due to their static nature but wont in Co-Op.

 

This matters because WG defaults to Random in relation to balance, the developers are biased towards PvP as well having a aversion towards Co-Op even if that have changed a bit in the last years (Yamamoto used to be PvP only), that they dont listen to PvE players is no surprised because there is only there due to a significant enough part of the playerbase that plays Co-Op and Operations almost exclusively despite WG best efforts.

 

No matter what feedback PvE gives, it will be ignored since as far Lesta is concerned, the game is balanced entirely on Randoms and only Random matters in development, thus all other game modes suffer as a result. This is a ingrained culture on the development team that would be hard to be changed.