How would you make the game and the community better?

Jigabachi, on 28 January 2019 - 06:23 PM, said: I really like what you did so far, except for some ignorant posts about the state of things... but what you said there sounds like a broken record. That kind of stuff gets promised to us twice a year. So far, nothing happened, nothing improved, it just got worse. But hey, maybe mods will start to add a second line to their short closing comments again for two weeks, like the last time everything was supposed to get better.


cro001, on 28 January 2019 - 07:15 PM, said:   IMO EU office has terrible interaction with community, if my opinion even matters to you.


kubawt112, on 28 January 2019 - 09:41 PM, said: Setting up the forum structure properly would be a good start. WG themselves have been guilty of putting what they deem fitting into the 'Gameplay' section, even 'sticking' it. Proper moderation would ensure that everything wouldn't be put into one big pile. That extends into the userbase: It's a well-known fact that you can be a proper idiot on the forums without any real issues. Some are intentional, others seem to just be in the habit of using the same old "debate techniques" to confuse and derail threads at will. Neither are good things, and I would not be surprised if certain 'forumites' have an easier time getting away with their behaviour than others. Regardless, I've got better things to do than properly adress these people, and it's not always something you'd want - it tends to derail the thread or lead to pointless discussion about debeating in itself. I much prefer to ignore them. That's not exactly ideal for creating a good climate for debate, but the only viable solution unless you want to spend half your evening answering posts on a game forum.   As for differing opinions, experience suggests some might be reading too much into individual opinions than others, or rather feeling an express need to contest them without bringing anything else to the table, simply due to the topic/content/player itself. I'm not sure why, though those who've read their share of Internet discussions might have their suspicions. I believe that something posted from a player's viewpoint remains an opinion when someone expresses their personal experience, and that circumstantial/unofficial evidence isn't given value beyond its actual weight. There's after all a definite lack of proper evidence when discussing this game, but I hardly expect anyone to prove (beyond 'reasonable doubt why e.g. reducing damage on premium ammo is a good thing, why tanks need weakspots, presence of powercreep or why 'sniping bushes' should be a thing. There are however plenty of matches/situations/mechanics that make for good examples when discussing the above, though it's not exactly evidence of why something is bad or good. I'm hence not entirely convinced that debating a game is a place to demand evidence. It would quickly become a way to dismiss anyone's opinion. I've seen my fair share of, ahem, historical discussions, and it usually devolves into just that. It creates a terrible climate that fosters a 'status quo', wherein debate is pointless because differing viewpoints are discouraged.   It's also worth considering that English isn't everyone's first language, nor are everyone 'professional debaters' (open to interpretation). Take that into account when reading and responding to posts that are clearly not meant to cause harm or disruption. Most likely they'd be expecting others to express their differing/nuanced opinion, in particular when the recipient isn't known. I probably don't pay enough attention to know for certain, but I can't say I see a lot of players being attacked for their stats - outside of those making claims where their battle performance actually has some weight. Someone who demonstrably performs terribly won't have a good claim for complaining about teams or 'rigging', for instance. I'd expect the exact same thing if I implied advanced knowledge of stock trading, while all my recommendations were very clearly terrible. Alternatively, that I spent a significant amount of time discussion the game and arguing against points made (seemingly just for the sake of it) - despite not really playing the game anymore.
Generally, I'm not convinced the forum would be a terribly bad place if some of the more obvious stuff was sorted out, namely moderation that was based a bit more around 'common sense' in addition to the clear-cut forum rules. Not sure about how exactly you'd solve it, but you'd need the trusted ones to have the interest and ability to understand the forums - perhaps a bit beyond what some staff members are capable of now. Perhaps kind of like our dear Peekaboo - clearly going 'beyond the call of duty' compared to other staff members (which is probably down to changes in policy, management, let's be fair).       They have, though Peekaboo here evidently seems to try harder than the sum of all his predecessors. Like Jigabachi points out there's little 'hard' evidence to be seen so far, but he definitely seems brighter than just about every other staff member I've communicated with over the years. Maybe I'm easily impressed, but it's the first time I've seen a staff member manage a solid response to the more 'confrontational' posts.   Can't expect him to read all our posts and then brand the responsible WG staff like livestock, but his current behaviour makes me far more likely to believe that someone is actually wanting to hear our opinion (for God knows what reason, though).     Nohe isn't the head moderator, I believe, but might have been at the time you sent that PM. Earlier this year both Nohe and Jbnn were referenced as head of moderation - in the FAQ and forum rules respectively. I think they corrected it after someone pointed it out. Don't expect a non-mod staff member to chime in unless called upon.   Currently, the following are mentioned in both the FAQ and rules: http://forum.worldof...ser/dn-Kenibi-/ http://forum.worldof...unnyCommander-/   I do know about some who've had sanctions overturned, but I wouldn't take it for granted. It is well known that certain moderators have been known to act a bit more irrational than others, and that certain staff members (e.g. not just the mods) prefer to uphold a single warning point backed up by meager circumstantial evidence, despite being confronted by extensive, sound reasoning and proper evidence provided - in a borderline childish act of defiance.   In other words, don't spend time making sense.  


Rato_Black_Baron, on 28 January 2019 - 11:16 PM, said: Great forum and great game!   The passion for the game that I saw in this forum, was what made me install it in Feb2013.
It's a great bussiness tool.   For a better forum:
2 Ectars, 2 iScendings and 4 eekeeboos (great job Sir Boo!), and of course... a Premium VIII for the forumite/thread of the week.   For a better game:
Drop the 3-5-7 MM patern, and implement +1/-1MM with better chances for top tier, for the prefMM tanks. Or better, return to weight MM, with the tank's weight based on the vehicles recent performance (make it an ingame vehicle dynamic stat). Stop the powercreep and the carroussel of buffs. Change the whole strategy.   Kill a Dinger and post it = 100 bonds.