Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
IJN_Katori

Why WG is ignoring Community Feedback.

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

821
[LBAS]
Member
3,377 posts
15,835 battles

It's because of the Cesare issue that WG wanted it to Tier 6 

 

And then Community outrage to stay it on tier 5

 

Look what happened now

It's the community fault. Not WG 

I believe this is why Carrier gets buff and rather not balance other ships.

@S0und_Theif @S4pp3R

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
821
[LBAS]
Member
3,377 posts
15,835 battles

And alot of reasons remain unsolved including the Italian Battleships being rebalanced into dead states before released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
804
[LYNMF]
Beta Tester
1,982 posts
6,591 battles

I blamed both WG Fanatical Community Bastards and WG more than i can ever say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,666
[-CAT-]
Member
3,392 posts
13,561 battles
15 minutes ago, IJN_Katori said:

It's because of the Cesare issue that WG wanted it to Tier 6 

 

And then Community outrage to stay it on tier 5

 

Look what happened now

It's the community fault. Not WG 

I believe this is why Carrier gets buff and rather not balance other ships.

@S0und_Theif @S4pp3R

WG made a mistake and blamed the user for their mistake?

Now where I have seen and heard this things before? :Smile_trollface:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
821
[LBAS]
Member
3,377 posts
15,835 battles
Just now, S0und_Theif said:

WG made a mistake and blamed the user for their mistake?

Now where I have seen and heard this things before? :Smile_trollface:

More like they blamed the community C*ntributors for reviewing the ship IMPROPERLY for the uptier of a said ship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,666
[-CAT-]
Member
3,392 posts
13,561 battles
7 hours ago, IJN_Katori said:

More like they blamed the community C*ntributors for reviewing the ship IMPROPERLY for the uptier of a said ship.

 

Each CC has their own opinion, playstyle, and biases.

If WG can not collect proper data and make proper decisions for themselves, and always will put the blame on others, then there is no end to their shenanigans while we the players suffer over their shenanigans.

Blame Lesta CEO, No, Blame iEG, or WG - Blame the CC, No, CC - Blame WG. (This is just example.)

 

Shenanigans beget shenanigans.

image.thumb.png.44adb1ce59056359d5d35333f7d13a66.png

 

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
821
[LBAS]
Member
3,377 posts
15,835 battles
1 minute ago, S0und_Theif said:

Shenanigans beget shenanigans.

I should give them Ideas and make a clone Vladivostok, but rename it as Siberia (Gulag) :Smile_trollface:

Vladivostok - Warships detailed statistics - WoWS Stats & Numbers - EU

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
829
[SMOKE]
Member
2,487 posts
18,013 battles
1 hour ago, IJN_Katori said:

More like they blamed the community C*ntributors for reviewing the ship IMPROPERLY for the uptier of a said ship.

 

I used to be software developers in my younger years, and one thing we al know back then - Do NOT ASK SOMEONE WHOSE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH THE SOFTWARE TO DO THE PROPER TESTING - WG correct and collect data based on  a set of users who are known to be not portraying majority of the player population , so should it not be expected that the so call balance / change reflected thus do not seems to abide with the wider community. But of course then WG never properly do any testing of any new ships on PTS , which they should and at least for a few patch before launching.

Edited by Mechfori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,402
[151ST]
Member
3,538 posts
11,931 battles
1 hour ago, IJN_Katori said:

I believe this is why Carrier gets buff and rather not balance other ships.

@S0und_Theif @S4pp3R

Who knows... It's all speculation...

[speculation goggles activated]

I think there's probably a range of things going on. By and large they have complicated data metrics that compare how a player goes in a particular class of ships and they weight the data accordingly.

I strongly suspect that the state of ships on release in general is a byproduct of them having a compressed ship design process and deadlines on many of them as far as release goes.

Their prerequisites for failure (ship delay) are on the bonkers end, and usually only happens when they are trying a new gimmick out.

So what happens is they churn out a ship in an 80% condition and just tweak certain things based on data.

That's why you get stupid ships with values that don't necessarily fit the ship.

Odin is a prime example, and I'm concerned RM BBs will be as well.

Yes by having certain values, the ship becomes 'balanced' enough for release but do those specs match the ships role?

Mogami is a great example of this; her range is crap and an outlier in the line and yet she's 'balanced'.

It's because of her 155s. But here's the thing; why not just fix her range and nerf 155s reload a bit?

Who knows. Probably don't want to go through testing her again and it's more than the iterative changes they make at that stage of the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
821
[LBAS]
Member
3,377 posts
15,835 battles

they'll be like "Spreadsheetz are Balans" 

 

:Smile_trollface:

 

Then totally blame it on the community why its nerfing a carrier

 

its a nutshell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[NOOB1]
Member
113 posts
7,346 battles

Greed is good 

Short term profit gain 

Pushing out minimum viable product, MVP 

Focusing on CHURN ; capturing new players ( 200 % coupon )

Bots are allowed because they become sold accounts

Grind = Content  

WG has a business model which seems based on a late 1980s capitalism snap shot.

It caters for new players - that way they  dont need to focus resources on balance / game bugs /server improvements / content

Its almost the opposite of most business best practices which focus on rewarding loyal customers

Which centers around good customer experiences and customer longevity.

in my experience with dealing with ex-communist's business in the 1990s - there seem to be a mind set of :

We only do things our way ,

No one can tell us what to do ,

We could be doing it better but I dont want to know about it

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[TF44]
Member
207 posts
1,944 battles
1 hour ago, Dano07 said:

 

WG has a business model which seems based on a late 1980s capitalism snap shot.

It caters for new players - that way they  dont need to focus resources on balance / game bugs /server improvements / content

Its almost the opposite of most business best practices which focus on rewarding loyal customers

Which centers around good customer experiences and customer longevity.

 

Businesses don't focus on rewarding loyal customers. Loyal customers don't move so they don't need to be catered to in that way. New customers get the rewards. Because they then become your customers, and ultimately loyal. It's the way it works for banks, insurance, telecommunications, and plenty of other industries. Loyal customers are going to spend anyway, why reduce the margins for sales you are going to make anyway.

And let's be brutally honest here. Games do not have particularly long product life cycles. All that expense that goes in to developing the game, and then in the ongoing marketing and support of the game needs to be covered in a short time while still generating enough profit that justifies the investment in the first place in a shortish timeframe. 5 years is a long active lifetime for a game, and by profit I don't mean more than the cost is enough, profit in this sense means the money invested in the game earns more than it would make invested in other investments. It is no good generating a return of 5% if you can make 6% investing it elsewhere.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,337
[TLS]
Member
4,836 posts
21,272 battles
1 hour ago, CarvinMarvin said:

Loyal customers don't move so they don't need to be catered to in that way

Those are not loyal customers. They are called Sheeple. 

I stay with my bank because it offers me valued customer privileges for my time with them. My ISP calls me up first to offer their offerings despite me saying no. And I love my hotel frequent traveller rewards. 

2 hours ago, Dano07 said:

TL;DR

Summed up well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
829
[SMOKE]
Member
2,487 posts
18,013 battles
3 hours ago, CarvinMarvin said:

Businesses don't focus on rewarding loyal customers. Loyal customers don't move so they don't need to be catered to in that way. New customers get the rewards. Because they then become your customers, and ultimately loyal. It's the way it works for banks, insurance, telecommunications, and plenty of other industries. Loyal customers are going to spend anyway, why reduce the margins for sales you are going to make anyway....

unfortunately that is very true , remind me of old days , IBM, Kodak, and ah ..... Nokia ... and well ..... Blizzard

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[TF44]
Member
207 posts
1,944 battles
2 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Those are not loyal customers. They are called Sheeple. 

I stay with my bank because it offers me valued customer privileges for my time with them. My ISP calls me up first to offer their offerings despite me saying no. And I love my hotel frequent traveller rewards. 

Summed up well.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a loyal customer of a number of organisations. But if you seriously think your bank is offering you more to stay a customer than they are offering new customers to become one you are being naïve. Likewise with the rewards. It isn't being a sheep, it's just customer inertia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,337
[TLS]
Member
4,836 posts
21,272 battles
14 minutes ago, CarvinMarvin said:

Don't get me wrong. I'm a loyal customer of a number of organisations. But if you seriously think your bank is offering you more to stay a customer than they are offering new customers to become one you are being naïve. Likewise with the rewards. It isn't being a sheep, it's just customer inertia.

It is called being a Sheeple if you are blindly loyal to a fault. Perhaps Western banks have followed american capitalism for too long in the pursuit of profits.

Edited by dejiko_nyo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,402
[151ST]
Member
3,538 posts
11,931 battles
10 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

It is called being a Sheeple if you are blindly loyal to a fault. Perhaps Western banks have followed american capitalism for too long in the pursuit of profits.

Look up a summary of the findings in the recent Australian Royal Commission into Banks...

It will freak you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,337
[TLS]
Member
4,836 posts
21,272 battles
7 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Look up a summary of the findings in the recent Australian Royal Commission into Banks...

It will freak you out.

I know. Aus banks have been americanised. Here banks have been offering loan moratoriums since March on suggestion by the government. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,618
[FORCE]
Modder, Member
3,011 posts
13,704 battles

As true as it is, the Cesare fiasco could have led the game into a massive clusterduck on its own level.

Say, I hate Kamikaze because the crazy fast torp reload & god tier concealment make the ship a literal P2W since there is no legitimate counter like radar at T5.. Since it is technically impossible to nerf her, why can't WG push her into T6 instead?

Once the first domino falls, why stop at one ship?

  • Scharnhorst is a perfect brawler at T7, why don't WG push her to T8?
  • Tirpitz is a better Bismarck because she has torps, why don't WG push her to T9?
  • Enterprise is too OP at T8, why don't WG push her to T10?
  • Siegfried should not be a T9 cruiser due to those 15 inch guns, why don't WG make her a BB instead?
  • The list goes on....

You don't buy a Toyota only to have the government replaces it with a Timor, although the government convinces you it is for the sake of making the country great again.....

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
188 posts
638 battles
2 minutes ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

You don't buy a Toyota only to have the government replaces it with a Timor, although the government convinces you it is for the sake of making the country great again.....

Nice, but unexpected analogy:Smile_trollface:

For those who don't get it: Timor was a car manufacturer that would have kickstarted the national car project for Indonesia during Suharto's regime. However the project was abandoned after Suharto's downfall. Only one model came out of the manufacturer, but it was more or less a "home grown" Toyota Corolla, and rebadged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×