Type 5 Heavy review - why this tank is extremely bad for the game, very poorl...
Дата: 25.09.2017 20:00:47
Gkirmathal, on 25 September 2017 - 05:10 PM, said: The issues is in my opinion, and has been for years (!),
that WG Minsk has no communication coming back, via you, WG EU
staff, on loads and loads of player feedback/suggestions you guys
collect and all the nagging issues that this game still has.
For example: the current template MM system and it's issues. The
sticky thread here is what...is 73 pages long and just 1 month old.
There have been countless single threads on general, some non
constructive but the last few which have been locked contained very
constructive information and idea's by players. In light of said
mountain with feedback, what have the folks at Minsk actually said
regarding that mountain with feedback? Do they agree, don't they
agree, what are their idea's on that subject, is there and ETA of
sorts. Has Minsk actually replied to any player feedback you
(EU staff) send them? Yes? No? What was their reply? Where can we
read this reply? "Minsk replying to you, on player feedback you
send and you then relaying Minsk their message on the forums in a
sticky" When was the last time we had proper communication back and
forth, relayed via EU staff, over our given feedback? Rubicon and
perhaps Foch. So two occasions I remember. The rest of the
time (2 years since Rubicon) the player base has gotten the
impression that their feedback falls on deaf ears and they see
changes being "pushed" to release that they simply don't
understand. Changes that don't reflect any feedback given by EU and
NA. That gets folks pumped up and cynical. So better
you staff communication and if that is not possible....be
honest about it! 
Ph3lan: Unfortunately this is a real problem and it is due to
several things: 1. Visibility: We are not very transparent
about how we gather the feedback. In actual fact, every issue you
guys raise on the forums is passed on to the developers, even we
don't point it out every single time. This is tricky, since if we
just say "thanks for your feedback" every time we gather
feedback, then that becomes repetitive really fast. The better way
is to show more presence in the topic while the discussion is
happening, and we are working towards this. 2. Some
information we can't share due to different reasons. For
example because if I say that something is planned for a specific
time and it gets postponed (due to technical reasons, or because it
simply didn't work out) then people will complain about us lying to
them. If we share our plans, even if we make it clear that it is
only a plan and it could change, people will take it for
granted. For this reason we tend to only share
information when we already know for sure that it is
happening. Maybe we could be more forthcoming in this regard
and risk a bit more, but it is not easy to change old habits.
3. Feedback on the feedback: This is kinda connected to, and
a result of the points above. I can go in and say that "okay guys,
we hear you and we passed on your feedback to the devs who are
looking into it." This will be true every single time and while it
will calm down some people, it will also enrage others because we
are not giving an immediate solution (see point 2) That
being said, I can tell you that we are pushing to share more
information for you and I hope that already shows a little
bit. In the case of the MM you mentioned, I can tell
you that we indeed gathered and shared the feedback extensively. I
spoke to our specialist and producer about this as well and I hope
we can address the topic during one of our upcoming Q&As with
the devs who can give you more insight. At this point I can share
that we are looking into the "platoons are always at the
bottom of the pile" situation and a fix is already in the
pipe.
Type 5 Heavy review - why this tank is extremely bad for the game, very poorl...