Solutions for Wargaming
Дата: 19.09.2013 00:08:39
Tenet, on Sep 18 2013 - 22:36, said: You do see the problem with that - right? (see point #1 in the op -
'VISIBLE Communication')If this was a serious effort, we would see:
1. Read Only forum post where the above would be announced and progress-updated.
2. Read Only / Restricted Discussion forum post where Q/Hyp can raise questions regarding any problems that show up.
When it's not visible, there is no accountability, and there's an appearance of 'nothing new happening'.
When it's visible there is pressure on representatives to finish the proposal, and then pressure on WGNA / WG to respond to it constructively.
Every soldier spending 3+ nights a week on CW, and investing in the game, needs to have that information at a glance, in one known place, not through hearsay and 'people in the know'. COAF forum is a desert. I raised a simple question there and it wasn't answered.
Who is COAF now anyway? Why are all the discussions and meetings private? Why no podcast / chat logs?
Quemapueblos: Hello I'm Q!
Hyp already wrote most of what I was thinking as well, but I want to add a few things.
We don't post every detail of what we are working on because we know most of it is not final and subject to change. This puts us in the difficult position of either keeping you informed and telling you things that might not happen or telling you the bare minimum of only the things we know are getting done. Obviously the answer is somewhere in the middle and this is something we balance everyday. As avid players of this game before we worked here, we know how frustrating the lack of information can be sometimes and it is something both of Hypnotik and I are working to change.
We try hard to be accountable to what we say which is why we only post things that have a high probability of happening. Both of us work very hard to listen to the community feedback and form it into detailed proposals for the development team, but these things take time especially when we are dealing such a time difference between offices. When we do receive questions and updates from HQ, we bounce ideas off players who have proven themselves to give constructive feedback. The three root causes you listed in the OP are what the Council is working on. For example, we currently have a restricted discussion going on in the Council of Armored Forces working on many of these things you have mentioned.
Hyp already wrote most of what I was thinking as well, but I want to add a few things.
We don't post every detail of what we are working on because we know most of it is not final and subject to change. This puts us in the difficult position of either keeping you informed and telling you things that might not happen or telling you the bare minimum of only the things we know are getting done. Obviously the answer is somewhere in the middle and this is something we balance everyday. As avid players of this game before we worked here, we know how frustrating the lack of information can be sometimes and it is something both of Hypnotik and I are working to change.
We try hard to be accountable to what we say which is why we only post things that have a high probability of happening. Both of us work very hard to listen to the community feedback and form it into detailed proposals for the development team, but these things take time especially when we are dealing such a time difference between offices. When we do receive questions and updates from HQ, we bounce ideas off players who have proven themselves to give constructive feedback. The three root causes you listed in the OP are what the Council is working on. For example, we currently have a restricted discussion going on in the Council of Armored Forces working on many of these things you have mentioned.
Solutions for Wargaming