Tiers - Subdivision and slow revision: Proposal
Дата: 11.01.2019 13:05:02
fighting_falcon93, on 10 January 2019 - 10:35 PM, said: Thank you for sending the feedback up the chain of command.
Although, I believe there's a problem in WG's system of
communication between players and developers. From what I've
understood, you summarize what you read on the forums and send this
as a report to the developers. The problem with this approach is
that: 1. The only information that gets across is the
*what* component. Because when you summarize what players
discuss, you leave out the *how* and
*why* components in order to make the report size managable.
This results in the developers only getting to know
*what* problems there are, not *how* they should be solved,
and not *why* they should be solved. I've seen countless examples
of this. Take artillery or premium ammunition for example. The
developers decided to rework it, because they knew players disliked
it, but it seems they had no clue *why* players disliked it, and
*how* players wanted to change it. 2.
There's never coming any response back to the players. From a
players perspective, it's impossible to know what WG thinks about
their suggestion. Do they like it? Do they hate it? Will they
implement it? Will they skip it? It's impossible to know, because
all we hear is that information will be forwarded, but there's
never any response. After a while it's starting to feel pointless,
kind of like repeatedly calling in an air strike that never
arrives. And I guess that's why so many players have this sceptic
view when you write that WG does listen to their players. Even if
WG do listen, it doesn't feel like that when there's no reply back.
Can you please suggest to the developers that they should
start interacting with the EU forum aswell and not only the RU
forum? There could be a development section on the forum, where
players can write constructive suggestions for the developers.
Moderators would help by removing rants etc. And the
developers would write a short reply to each suggestion what they
think about it. It would also present all 3 components, *what*
*how* *why*, to the developers, so they would get a better insight
into not only the current problems in the game, but also how
players want the problems solved.eekeeboo: That's true in that you risk this, but I can assure you that
we as a community team work together and it goes through multiple
stages. So it's never just x is y, we don't catch everything, but
the reason I am so active on the forums is so that I can get the
best picture possible with all the info and perspectives I
can. Once it goes from there, sometimes, though
something is unpleasant there's a reason for it. But the feedback
will still be passed on that "players are unhappy." The reason I
value constructive feedback so highly and prefer it, it's better to
say "Players don't like x because y and would prefer z". Will it
help? Not guaranteed, but it's more to go on. For
answers in return, that's part of my job in communicating back the
responses that are given and have been given as well as the
reasoning for these choices. We are currently working on improving
the communication between developers and players to be clearer and
more concise, but there's already a lot of information coming, it's
just in a lot of different formats. For the
suggestions, I understand your point, but you also have to
acknowledge that you will see there are suggestions made now on the
thread, even though they've been suggested a million times before,
answered a million times before and the answer stays the same. Not
all suggestions can be introduced, I do my best to explain why, but
there gets to a stage where you repeat yourself because people
believe only their suggestion matters, that their view is the only
one that matters, especially of things like arty, maps, OP tanks
etc. When the community management team interact with
you, we are also doing this on behalf of WG and the developers, we
don't always have the answers, and likewise, have to wait for this.
Developers have a lot of work to do already and asking to interact
on multiple platforms in different languages detracts work away
from their "main job" to a job others should be doing. It's an idea
I want to improve on and hopefully, we can drive this information
sharing more in 2019, but I can assure you that any developer that
interacts is usually swamped and you then have complaints why they
don't get all the attention over another person. Let alone that the
answer a developer gives, a player may not like, but that answer is
the truth and is a raw answer, with business reasoning and
information a player doesn't/can't have. This then affects the
view, that's why it's important for community managers and the
community team to be as engaging as possible (hence my forum spam
and walls of text). I will try to answer any topic and give the
answers I am told to give as well as pass on the information I have
to share, people may not like it, but I will do it.
LordMuffin, on 10 January 2019 - 11:00 PM, said: It is also the issue that WG seems to ignore all/most forwarded
stuff anyway. For example the Obj 268v4. Huge parts of the
community said, before release. It is to good, nerf it. It was
released. Huge part of the community said: It is to good,
nerf it. 6 months of players saying the Obj 268 v4 bring to strong,
WG manages to nerf it.eekeeboo: But that's an assumption of ignoring, not that it's
prioritisation and other processes taking place.
Somnorila, on 11 January 2019 - 10:09 AM, said: I don't really think that the game is simpler if tanks have
more weak spots. I'm ok with tanks being fortresses, but only that.
If you able them to take additional roles then there is no logic to
the game and its rules. I don't like games where you have a lot of
variation in theory because you have only one or two viable best
build. I want to be able to choose whatever build i like while
still where all builds are equal. A rock paper scissors where you
can be whatever of them if you make it so. Not in all your battles
but in the same match. I for one would rather have more draw
matches than not be able to change the course of the match because
my tank can't fight back or run away. Just make draws be seen as
wins and be done with it. Becouse most of the bad sentiments
towards draws were just because players felt they lost something,
silver, xp and so on. I mean the no cap kill all bs comes exactly
from players feeling they lose some xp for their grind. Maybe
WG could make the grind less time consuming or more fun
somehow. Maybe have tanks with all modules enabled but still have
same xp requirement for next tanks. Or tweak MM so that players
have similar level or modules installed, they all have tiers too. I
don't know, just spitballing here.eekeeboo: The problem with encouraging draws is that you have the
campiest game styles possible from this. You saw this from the old
style WGL games, whereby a team would prefer to draw than lose, so
kemp it up.
Tiers - Subdivision and slow revision: Proposal