Post-Campaign Critique

veganzombiez:   On Safari: If you browse the forums, you can see that Safari did pretty well with the community, not just technically, but mechanically.  Yes, there are things that could be better, but overall sentiment's been good.  I'm currently discussing Safari with the devs at this time, and some of the things you guys liked will be in Campaign 4.   Most other things I'm bound by NDA, and I also don't feel comfortable speaking for someone else.  I hope you can respect my decision with that.  

veganzombiez:   Perception's a big thing, and it doesn't seem that NA is listened to, but we are.  Sometimes it's hard to notice that, especially with a game that's as global as World of Tanks PC.  I may not post in every thread, but I read them, and those threads help me get your feedback to the devs.  For example, the Influence economy was adjusted across all regions.  Let's take a look at the Tier X values on NA (Tier VI/VIII comparison here):   Tier X Influence Values Original Season 1 Purchase cost of a Division 350 210 Purchase cost of modules 30 18 Division + Module Purchase 440 264 Upkeep cost of a Division per day 100 60 Upkeep cost of modules 20 12 Division + Module Upkeep 160 96   "Yes vegan, you've already told us it's a 40% drop."   The EU server kept the original values (NA content page for comparison).  Our data did play a part in the decision, but the NA player feedback was just as significant.  When players highlight the toll that skirmish grinding takes on their community, and aren't reporting what they personally like or dislike, that's very valuable feedback.   Some things won't change immediately, especially since GM2 is a little over 2 months old, and Seasons are about 3 days old, but many mechanics are currently being reviewed.  One reason GM2's architecture was emphasized in the reveal is because values and mechanics really can be adjusted based on each region, such as the Influence economy being different across servers.