✏️ Operations / Scenario Survey (Survey Ended)

[S0und_Theif]

WoWs operations / scenario survey.

They survey also includes operations that were pulled out during the 2019 CV rework.

 

Link:

SEA
https://surveys.wargaming.net/s3/PvESurvey-SEA

EU
https://surveys.wargaming.net/s3/PvESurvey-EU

NA
https://surveys.wargaming.net/s3/PvESurvey-NA

[S0und_Theif]

@Max_Battle
@Grygus_Triss
@S4pp3R

Please tag the wolves and other players who likes operations that I missed or forgot.

[S0und_Theif]

 

[Max_Battle]

Done and done.

Everyone please help by doing this survey.

[dejiko_nyo]

MAKE IT SUPER DUPER EXTRA HARD!

[LawrenceXVIII]

Make it available for Tier III to V.

So people can get the hang of it.

[Thyaliad]

Done.

Not sure why they didn't ask about Narai.

[Steel_Phar_Lap]

Added my 10 cents worth

[S4pp3R]

Done...

 By the end I was just linking my video... ... 🤔

[Admiral_Karasu]

Yes, but.. it's been pointed out there is no linked player ID here, so it's like the previous 'By invitation only' unless someone has information to the contrary?

[IJN_Katori]

@Max_Battle @S0und_Theif 

[S4pp3R]

42 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Yes, but.. it's been pointed out there is no linked player ID here, so it's like the previous 'By invitation only' unless someone has information to the contrary?

I don't understand the issue?

You're worried they don't trust the data because it can be abused?

Given how many text boxes they popped in, I'd say they want ideas for direction and things...

[Admiral_Karasu]

8 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

I don't understand the issue?

You're worried they don't trust the data because it can be abused?

Given how many text boxes they popped in, I'd say they want ideas for direction and things...

I mean that they will ignore the data. At least that is what was stated by WG (unless I'm very much mistaken) in the case of the submarine related survey previously. Didn't stop people from filling in that survey, of course, but whether there was any point in doing so remains unclear.

[Grygus_Triss]

Done. I just wish they’d spend as much time reading as I took typing.

[Grygus_Triss]

11 hours ago, LawrenceXVIII said:

Make it available for Tier III to V.

So people can get the hang of it.

And also T8 and 9, those are the hardest grinds, Operations will make it more fun and less arduous.

[Grygus_Triss]

4 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

I don't understand the issue?

You're worried they don't trust the data because it can be abused?

Given how many text boxes they popped in, I'd say they want ideas for direction and things...

I fear they just want to find out what people like about Operations so they can try to put it in Random/some other PvP mode.

I hope I made it clear that one of the things I liked was the relative predictability. The fact that you can win most of the time if you are skilled. I.e, if you have played enough that you know everything the bots will do.

That, and that you can play with a full team of friends and just have fun, muck around a bit, not be too serious about it.

Basically, it’s a more casual mode, without being near pointless in XP, and too short and easy, like co-op.

Anything with PvP, you have to try to out think a human enemy, which is just exhausting when you just want a little fun.

[Paladinum]

WG remember that Hermes existed!? 

[stel1arX]

Thanks, just finish it.

Generally speaking, operations are welcomed because the revenue is guaranteed. 

Hope WG release those removed operations.

Also, it will be better to add bot teammates in operations just like Coop or random in PT because sometimes, like in early morning, there are few players. Also, cv players tend to wait for longer time than others. 

[S4pp3R]

5 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I mean that they will ignore the data. At least that is what was stated by WG (unless I'm very much mistaken) in the case of the submarine related survey previously. Didn't stop people from filling in that survey, of course, but whether there was any point in doing so remains unclear.

I can't believe that they said that specifically, I'm sure it was something like 'we weight the data from surveys like these' which is pretty normal for any kind of polling.

Different metrics and accountability on the input means you balance and weight the data differently for the output, that weighting is based on other metrics or other surveys.

Otherwise why even run the survey? 'To make it seem like they are listening'

There are far easier ways to do that.

Subs are a controversial subject, it may be they just weighted with that in mind.

1 hour ago, Grygus_Triss said:

I fear they just want to find out what people like about Operations so they can try to put it in Random/some other PvP mode.

I hope I made it clear that one of the things I liked was the relative predictability. The fact that you can win most of the time if you are skilled. I.e, if you have played enough that you know everything the bots will do.

That, and that you can play with a full team of friends and just have fun, muck around a bit, not be too serious about it.

Basically, it’s a more casual mode, without being near pointless in XP, and too short and easy, like co-op.

Anything with PvP, you have to try to out think a human enemy, which is just exhausting when you just want a little fun.

Maybe.

Either way I consider that a win. All we've got so far is epicentre, and she's mostly really bad.

I mean you could consider Arms Race but that's bad in the other direction.

WoWS is played in a tactical space - thus caps, Convoy mode was a step in the right direction, there are SO many different things they could do, many of which exist already in Ops.

Ops in this context could function like a training zone for Randoms (which is where I would like it to be in some sense), that doesn't mean it won't be fun or supported.

[dejiko_nyo]

Human enemy easy to predict. DM? Island hugger. Petro? Island hugger.

[NOJ_iron]

I enjoy playing operations, completed the survey.

[Admiral_Karasu]

6 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

I can't believe that they said that specifically, I'm sure it was something like 'we weight the data from surveys like these' which is pretty normal for any kind of polling.

Different metrics and accountability on the input means you balance and weight the data differently for the output, that weighting is based on other metrics or other surveys.

Otherwise why even run the survey? 'To make it seem like they are listening'

 

 

Well, I'm just puzzled because on the NA forum thread: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/249290-wows-survey-about-scenarios/

Arlskandir brought up the question if this one was 'free-for-all to answer or another one of those "You weren't asked, we won't bother to read it" surveys?'. They did page Ahskance for WG input on this put to date there's been no input or official reply/clarification on this.

 

[Sharr_Dextera]

Done...

[Grygus_Triss]

On 12/29/2021 at 9:01 PM, Admiral_Karasu said:

 

Well, I'm just puzzled because on the NA forum thread: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/249290-wows-survey-about-scenarios/

Arlskandir brought up the question if this one was 'free-for-all to answer or another one of those "You weren't asked, we won't bother to read it" surveys?'. They did page Ahskance for WG input on this put to date there's been no input or official reply/clarification on this.

 

Was just looking at the link and one of the players posted this response from WG:

Hello, captain!

The sample for the survey is made in advance and according to certain criteria, that's why the link to the survey is sent in the game client to a particular player. For example, in the Operations survey, the sample included a particular group of players who played Operations, and a group of players who had not played Operations before. The number of players in both of these groups was calculated in advance to ensure proper representation.

We value our players' time for a complete response, so we don't send out more survey links than we need for the analysis. For example, if we need to get 1500 responses, we send 15000 invitations because the approximate response rate is 10%. So if you don't get an invitation to the survey now, you may get one next time.

Among the huge number of those who fit the criteria, the sample is formed randomly. This allows us to take into account the opinions of different people, without deviating to the opinion of a certain group. In the example of the Submarines survey, we collected feedback from different types of players who have spent different amounts of time playing submarines and have different skill level. All the criteria are calculated in advance, so in the general analysis we do not use the responses from externally shared links, to preserve the relatively correct representation and objectivity of the results.

For future surveys, we will add a clarification to the welcome text that only those who personally received the link to the survey in the game client are supposed to fill it.

Along with in-game surveys, we also collect opinions and suggestions daily on Reddit, our forums, and other sources and we are always open to dialogue. Thank you for your feedback and attention.

[Grygus_Triss]

I do get surveys in the in game client from time to time, but they are very clunky and take 5 minutes to load. And then, it may not be a survey I actually care about.

 Also, unlike when I am browsing on the forums, when I’m in the game client I’m also likely to be actually wanting to play, so not in a survey filling out mood… 

Oh well, if nothing else, the responses should indicate how many people actually care about operations.