Реклама | Adv
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
  • Rotator
Сообщения форума
Реклама | Adv

Type 5 Heavy review - why this tank is extremely bad for the game, very poorl...

Дата: 25.09.2017 18:17:34
View PostCheatingFishMonk, on 25 September 2017 - 01:08 PM, said: i agree that things like this are a two-sided thing, but if you as a person think that they're not listening you might become less civil, though i do not approve of it, i can somewhat relate, however Ph3lan, Would you mind as a sign of goodwill tell us some ideas you have yourself with regards of the type-5?

Ph3lan:   I can relate as well, but I hope we manage to fix this little by little :)  I don't usually share my personal ideas because what I see on the forums is seen as official communication from WG and it is hard to distinguish between my own, personal ideas and what our devs think about something. I am gathering your feedback irrespective of whether I agree or not. What I could offer is to bring this question up when I have the next stream Q&A session with our devs, maybe some of you guys can pop into the chat and remind me.?  

View PostAikl, on 25 September 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:   I have little trouble believing you, but if you asked me two days ago, I would not have guessed that it was, apparently, a primary concern for the staff (outside of the 'pure' mods) to collect feedback.   As for which sections to use, I guess it makes sense to use the ones you mentioned. Still, there's even a pinned thread in this subforum for suggestions. I'm guessing that one's viable as well?
A 'template' might make little sense, but quite literally the point is to filter out simple whining topics - even though from what I understand, large parts of the playerbase are most comfortable expressing themselves with grunts and insults on sexual orientation rather than eloquent sentences. Anyway, duly noted, might gather up some of the focused rants from the last few months and repost them in the CU forum (which I was under the impression was to changes made rather than what should be improved in the future).   It's good that the staff, or most likely rather the higher-ups, have realized that a forum presence is a good idea. The same goes for general interaction with the players. Something like the 'sneak peek' on missions would work nicely for what WG is working on. Nowadays we seem to get some peaks at things coming wa-ay in the future, with no real status. Like, HD maps are coming soonTM, according to MrConway. We've seen them - but have no idea on the ETA, or if they are even coming in the first place. Kind of reminds me of certain other projects, like the Havok physics.   Anyway, interaction with the players is good. Hopefully your efforts on the forum is a sign that WG wants to improve that outside the forums as well, though I have a sneaking suspicion that this was a EU staff initiative rather than some order from Minsk:  

Ph3lan:   Gathering feedback was always one of the primary things we did, maybe we didn't communicate it properly. Well formulated, constructive feedback is always appreciated and we are gathering it from different sections including the ones mentioned above as well as the gameplay section and the different crossposts from the portal articles. However it is much easier to miss something worthwhile here, than in the Current Update and the Public Test sections for example.   We are trying to dial up our interaction with you guys on every front. To give you a sneak peek: We are looking into a lot more streams on our end, including gameplay, themed streams, Q&As with the devs etc. We will have more info about this very soon.    The HD maps are indeed in the works, they were playable at gamescom 2017, and you can take a look at our gamescom streams if you want to see them in action.    

View PostWunderWurst, on 25 September 2017 - 02:35 PM, said:   I am sorry and I guess I went overboard a bit and maybe did not make it clear enough I am by no means "critizising" you as a person, or your work but criticise WG as you are in this case representing WG for me and most of the community. I am also not questioning your work here. I am pretty certain that you are doing a good job and forward all the things which make sense to be reported to the devs.   However I would like to discuss that last sentence and I just cannot belive that is happening. Maybe thats a lack of communication. However as a decent player it is EXTREMELY hard to understand the decisionmaking of the balancing department. Much and more just seems not to make ANY sense in my eyes but also the eyes of pretty much any other decent player I came across and talked to. I would like to know the reasoning why certain balancing changes are done the way they are. And would it hurt to show statistics on which base these decisions are made? I am well aware of the fact that complex problems often require complex solutions and cannot be done "with an easy fix". Its just not how it works.   Yet I truely must wonder who came up with certain balancing decision on what base and for what reason or purpose. Lets pick the Type 5 for an example - kinda also makes sense because of this thread :) I can only interpret the changes done to the line in one way, as for me there is not a single other reasonable explanation for what is going on: The Type 5 (and its line) were designed to promote the gold spam hence indirectly the pay2win aspect gold ammo is. All that is done to increase the sales of WG products only obtainable via real money (Gold / Premium time / Premium Vehicles). For me it very much looks like balancing is abused (in this case) to make more money rather than ensure the quality of the product. Understand please that I cannot see another reason for the changes they made happen to the Type 5. Maybe there are reasons other than what I just said but I just cannot see (maybe due to a lack of information).   Now lets go further and look at the latest adjustments the addition of "weakspots" to that tank. I dont even want to go into to much detail but the so called "weakspots" are obviously non. Its an "empty" change. A competent balancing department (! Again I am well aware that you have nothing to do with balancing!!!) would have understood that from the get go. Its their job to know that and frankly if they did not know that, maybe they are not the right guys for the job. All that will make me belive that this "change" was soloe done to pretend that WG is listining to their players, while they are actually not willing to do so.   I hope I brought my point across a bit better now.

Ph3lan:   Yep, this is much more constructive, thanks for that :) I can totally understand where you are coming from. lately I have had the pleasure to talk to our developers in person a lot more than usual (thanks for all the streams we made from tankfest and gamescom) and after all these talks I have a much better understanding of how they make their decisions. We all have our ideas about how these things work and we tend to think that some of the things are so obvious and easy to fix that the only reason for not fixing them can be either incompetence from the devs or some kind of malicious money grabbing scheme, right? However, as players we are simply looking at a small portion of the big picture and we don't really appreciate how complex of a system the game is and how many considerations the devs have to take into account, things we are completely unaware of. I hope that by giving you guys more direct access to the developers, for example on Q&A streams, they will be able to share some of their vision and give you a better sense of this "bigger picture". Obviously they can talk about everything, and it will take some time, but the will is there to involve the players more and share more info, so I hope that you guys can also meet us and the devs half way in our efforts.   

Реклама | Adv