For the Devs.

Geno1isme, on 07 September 2017 - 03:15 PM, said: - More timely information instead of announcing specials after they have started for example (ideally there should be at least 24 hours between announcement and event)   Unfortunately this is a problem we are still facing. We will be trying to do better.    - A constantly updated roadmap listing the planned changes for the next 6-9 months or 2-3 major patches (even if it's just general plans like "rebalancing british techtree" ). I understand you're reluctant to publish that due to people complaining in case some milestone isn't achieved in time, but making people speculate on everything is just as bad. E.g. currently there is no info wether the planned changes to chinese premiums were just delayed, need to be reworked or were completely canceled.   I know that this is a popular idea and I know that it works for some titles, especially smaller or Early Access games. I am not convinced that it would benefit a big title like WoT though. I have seen first hand how people react to delays or canceled features even when we made it clear that we are only sharing the preliminary plans and nothing is set in stone. As I mentioned earlier, we are sharing more info lately and I am sure we can push for even more in the future, but a full blown road map might be more detrimental than helpful I think.    - When publishing balance changes where "stats" are cited as reason also state what exact stats were problematic (e.g. Obj140 Buff) So basically, even more detailed reasoning for the changes. Point taken, I'll try to push for more background info.   - Publish information without waiting for it to be translated in all languages. Also less PR-filtering of statements (e.g. Gamescom Party Q+A transcript isn't false, but also doesn't really reflect what was said on stage)   This is an interesting point, since all the other languages would probably argue for the opposite The reason the gamescom party transcript is a different, isn't because of PR filtering. It is simply due to the fact that the written answers were sent to us by the devs and we shared them on the forums, however on the stage they didn't just "stick to their script", but discussed the topics or reacted to follow up questions. I would argue that this is actually a good thing and shows you that they didn't want to simply recite a pre-written  PR text.   - Would be nice if we could get the devs here directly interacting with the EU community in some way on a somewhat regular basis and not just during Gamescom We are planning regular Q&A sessions with the devs in the future. In fact we already started doing it before Tankfest and gamescom, but then these two big events happened and we did some special streams instead of the "regular" ones. We plan to talk to the devs a lot more on streams and give you guys the chance to interact with us/them on the stream more.    - Alternatively a monthly summary about what feedback you guys are sending the devs (because for example at Gamescom it sounded as if the devs weren't really aware of the massive MM issues we see esp. with platoons). Ideally also where it comes from (forums, facebook, support channels, contributors, ...), as often we've seen "we've listened to your feedback" as justification for things where at least around here nobody has ever seen such feedback.
Good point and I completely agree.  We are already trying to be more present in the feedback threads and I asked Kandly and MrConway to not only lurk in the threads and gather the feedback in our reports, but interact with you guys more in those threads and let you know when they gathered your feedback.


Chopchopchop, on 07 September 2017 - 03:31 PM, said: Guys, Ph3lan here just poke out a little, if we all fire our derp guns (issues) at him. He might just hide again. Keep it clean and objective would be nice.