Jump to content


Silentstalker's closing statement. When will WG realise?


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

war4peace #41 Posted 06 March 2015 - 10:10 PM

    Colonel

  • Translator
  • 30106 battles
  • 3,909
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View PostLol_N00b, on 06 March 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

Which of those players should WG listen?

 

The arty lovers or the arty haters?

The skill-based MM lovers or the skill-based MM haters?

The XVM lovers of the XVM haters?

The RNG lovers or the RNG haters?

The gold ammo lovers or the gold ammo haters?

 

The player base is so divided that whatever part of the players WG would want to listen would just make the changes as unappealing to the other part. 

 

1. The latter (Obsidian removed arty based on focus group feedback)

2. The former. Skill-based MM gives equal chances between teams, I usually enjoy balanced (skill-based) battles more than those where one team is green/blue and the other is orange/red.

3. Irrelevant. Not part of the core game.

4. Both. There is ample middle ground.

5. The former, since that type of ammo is available to everyone.

 

But first and foremost, what WG needs is the equivalent of EVE Online's CSM.



Dr_LoVe69_makesWoTgreat #42 Posted 06 March 2015 - 10:16 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Clan Commander
  • 55744 battles
  • 3,301
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010

View Postwar4peace, on 06 March 2015 - 10:10 PM, said:

1. The latter (Obsidian removed arty based on focus group feedback)

 

They did?

In this video form 2 weeks ago there is arty.



war4peace #43 Posted 06 March 2015 - 10:33 PM

    Colonel

  • Translator
  • 30106 battles
  • 3,909
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View Postedger2020, on 06 March 2015 - 11:16 PM, said:

 

They did?

In this video form 2 weeks ago there is arty.

 

I stand corrected, then. They had removed it, apparently they have added it back with amendments.

Doktorszigor #44 Posted 06 March 2015 - 10:41 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8493 battles
  • 330
  • Member since:
    05-26-2014

That's it? Czechoslovak tanks and a vision? Are those supposed to be accomplishments?

 

From a guy who just got hired by Obsidian?

 

The WoT community is by far the whiniest I've ever seen, but this is just ridiculous.



Dr_LoVe69_makesWoTgreat #45 Posted 06 March 2015 - 10:46 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Clan Commander
  • 55744 battles
  • 3,301
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010

View Postwar4peace, on 06 March 2015 - 10:10 PM, said:

But first and foremost, what WG needs is the equivalent of EVE Online's CSM.

 

I forgot that part of your post.

Ain't gonna work. Who's gonna be in council, prem players of freeloaders?

 

View PostDoktorszigor, on 06 March 2015 - 10:41 PM, said:

That's it? Czechoslovak tanks and a vision? Are those supposed to be accomplishments?

 

Depends who you ask.

WG got space program and Obsidian got CZ tanks.



unfluffydave #46 Posted 06 March 2015 - 10:47 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2224 battles
  • 272
  • Member since:
    01-18-2014

View Postwar4peace, on 06 March 2015 - 10:10 PM, said:

 

But first and foremost, what WG needs is the equivalent of EVE Online's CSM.

 

LMAO hell no, the CSMs are just a bunch of players that represent the big player corps. They are about as much use to the the rest of the population as a chocolate HE shell.

Jetser #47 Posted 06 March 2015 - 11:50 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15439 battles
  • 491
  • [NOFUN] NOFUN
  • Member since:
    08-26-2011

It's pretty weird the whole EU community had to rely on a 3rd party blog for game/dev updates.

 

I understand SS's feeling of a lack of vision and effort from WG, other than cashing in even more. 



Jigabachi #48 Posted 07 March 2015 - 12:28 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 21,021
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostSlyspy, on 06 March 2015 - 09:22 PM, said:

Besides which when people ask someone to  "listen to feedback" they mean "act on feedback", two very different things.

True. But still: There is a lot of feedback they could use to work with.



gpalsson #49 Posted 07 March 2015 - 01:02 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 24508 battles
  • 8,965
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013

Considering how smart the average WoT player is, I don't think listening to the playerbase is good.

 

Actually when I think about it they should listen:

Listen to the playerbase, and then do the exact opposite!

 

Skill based match making: Don't do it. The whiners will complain endlessly when they find out they lose even more with SBMM.

Make premiums much better than Panther 88: Don't do it. You will get type 59 situation over again.

Make the game +-1 tier: Don't do it. It will make the game boring.

 

Lots of ideas from the playerbase are idiotic.

 

If AW are to be successful (I hope they will be) they need to not listen to the drivel most players produce.



Enforcer1975 #50 Posted 07 March 2015 - 01:36 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 21568 battles
  • 10,968
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostHomer_J, on 06 March 2015 - 06:01 PM, said:

 

Really?

 

If they had done that we would have tank horns and tanks driving underwater and other stupid ideas.

 

Luckily they know that players don't really know what makes a good game.

 

Exactly that...i wonder how many games would have been utter garbage if you did everything the player base asked for.

And i wonder how long the creators of AW will "listen" to their customers...depends on how fast they can fill their wallets i bet. Sure the grass always looks greener on the other side but in the end it's the same sh*t everywhere else just looking different.



CaptianNemo #51 Posted 07 March 2015 - 04:27 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4142 battles
  • 264
  • Member since:
    04-25-2013

Generally the average player has truly horrible ideas about how to "fix" things.

 

As for AW. It is a good thing SS is over there. Its not like WG would have hired him or that he would have done FTR, at what ammout's to a loss, forever. Plus it was really, really, time consuming.



conductiv #52 Posted 07 March 2015 - 05:12 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 34565 battles
  • 3,372
  • [FIFO] FIFO
  • Member since:
    08-25-2010

View Postwar4peace, on 06 March 2015 - 10:10 PM, said:

1. The latter (Obsidian removed arty based on focus group feedback)

2. The former. Skill-based MM gives equal chances between teams, I usually enjoy balanced (skill-based) battles more than those where one team is green/blue and the other is orange/red.

3. Irrelevant. Not part of the core game.

4. Both. There is ample middle ground.

5. The former, since that type of ammo is available to everyone.

 

But first and foremost, what WG needs is the equivalent of EVE Online's CSM.

 

I'm just going to throw a wrench in there,

 

1. neither, what another company does is inconsequential, balance issues about a impopular class is something they will have to figure out on their own the last thing you want to do is become some stitched together zombie from games that basically copy you.

2. neither, skill based MM punishes the increase of skill...while the current MM allows for frequent newbbashing, a previous attempt to introduce a skill based game mode was revoked quickly because the mode was quite simply abandoned by players...indicating that not enough players feel that challenge is more important then simply shooting newbs or tomatoes in tanks

3. relevant, WG has to sort out its modding politics across the board.

4. agreed

5. gold ammo is broken and the ingame economical consequence has proven irrelevant for its "spam level", it messes up the balance of the older armor based heavies. its actually wiser to listen to the haters to regain some of the games previous glory...but for now WG is most likely going to listed to the money rolling in from people that have issues with their garage economy.



TaHko3d #53 Posted 07 March 2015 - 05:44 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22751 battles
  • 1,004
  • Member since:
    02-25-2014

View PostHomer_J, on 06 March 2015 - 07:07 PM, said:

 

That looks like a statement of fact rather than an insult.

 

SS had personal issues with EG:EU, he never made any secret of it.

 

  indeed. He cried about his CZ tanks for 2 years and never got it. He also didn't score the job at the office (we know he tried so hard....) Oh and the hate towards better players......now he will finally get "skilled MM"

I_Guffed_In_Your_tank #54 Posted 07 March 2015 - 11:35 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12358 battles
  • 288
  • Member since:
    07-31-2014

As with everything in retail if they do not listen to the playerbase it will eventually bite them in the butt.

 



PowJay #55 Posted 07 March 2015 - 12:11 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 40388 battles
  • 5,600
  • Member since:
    09-07-2012

I agree that some of the playerbase has wacky ideas, but let's be a little more objective. These comments are based not only on comments on the forum, but my own experience. They are not exhaustive, but just food for thought.

 

Arty. There are arty haters and arty lovers, but many arty players are frustrated with arty as well as those that they (eventually) manage to hit. I was insulted by an IS-4 the other day for killing him with my S-51. What he may not have realised is that it took TEN shots to do 808 damage with TWO hits, including the kill shot.


I don't want to play arty like this. It is frustrating, it costs a fortune in shell costs and you are neither able to support a poor team that is stomped, or have a good game with teams that stomp the enemy.


Rather than make arty FAR more frustrating to play- and then introduce missions that cause a massive re-introduction of arty (and frustrated arty players) to the game- maybe some of the ideas brought forward should be put into practice.

 

I DO NOT know what the answer is, but I have seen many sensible proposals made. Maybe it should just be removed but if we accept that it isn't going, then something needs to be done for ALL the players- arty and non-arty players.

 

MM. This game can reward good players, but hopelessly mismatched teams often mean that decent players can be left behind as a small handful of Unicums stomp everything in their way- especially in slower vehicles such as UK TDs, Churchills, KV-1 and KV-2.  The alternative is that your own team gets stomped by the enemy while your three tomato tier VIII heavies are all AFK and you are dead in three minutes.


Surely if the Team Battles work- I haven't played these but I understand that there is a skill balance- then surely introduction of SOME element of skill-based MM can work.

 

I don't want to be an XVM [edited], but my heart simply sinks when I see an entire team of reds and oranges- with me as the top player- and an enemy team of greens and yellows with a smattering of blue or purple.

 

What makes it worse is your THREE player platoon of total tomatoes in a tier X heavy with a tier V med and a T1 Cunningham, while their team has a platoon of Unicums in their Bat-Chats.

 

I am NOT in favour of leagues, but some balance of the good and bad players should (IMHO) offer more prolonged games with a chance for even average players to make at least a small difference without the team being obliterated in three minutes.

 

Maps. Map rotation can be incredibly frustrating- especially on those days when you seem to get Ruinberg, Winterberg, Himmelsdorf and Ensk when you feel like playing arty, or Hidden Village every other game.


Otherwise, many maps- even those that have been reworked- have issues. The biggest issue being that just as you get used to a map, it is reworked and made even worse and you have to learn it all over again.

 

Vehicles- MORE and MORE and MORE with only a few being so distinctive as to be really worth aiming for (on the Tech-Tree, not the battlefield) and many were little more than sketches before they were binned. Also, replacing or seriously nerfing much-loved vehicles and just generally messing about with the whole mess with no apparent consideration for all the time that was spent trying to grind for the tank that you really wanted.

 

Finally- placing NO barriers to total tools making their way to tier X without the first clue how to play. Considering that WG have taken the time and trouble to make an incredibly complex game with so many factors to learn about to play successfully, surely at least some of the development staff must be frustrated at the fact that there are so many chimps out there who are so bad at play that it is a wonder that they can even figure out how to turn their PCs on.

 

Surely positive or negative reinforcement to encourage players to PLAY would be of value all round.

 

I mean, FFS, I saw a red SU-85 yesterday camp at A1 on Redshire right until the end-stage when a T-150 and I were capping the enemy base. We fought off and killed a St Emil and a Churchill, but my ally was killed. The Su-85 fired ONE shot the entire game which did reset and save the match, but he was a total tomato with 12 or 13 thousand games and NO apparent desire to learn, or even to get fully involved. WHY the hell should people who take loads of time and (in many cases) pay loads of money to enjoy this game to the max have to put up with players like that on their team?

 

Many on the forums claim to love them on the enemy team, but there are not so much fun on your own.

 

Please note that if you have got this far, then all I am saying is that ALL of these points have been mentioned and discussed on the forums and opinion is usually in favour of change, even if not everyone is not sure what that change will be.

 

What do we get, however? More tanks, more maps, more noobs, more frustrations and more meddling.



Fighto #56 Posted 07 March 2015 - 12:43 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38074 battles
  • 1,090
  • [WHO] WHO
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011

A blogger bashes a game after just signing a contract with a big rival .... the shock.

 

I love the way he then says after bashing wot, that he is not bashing wot. A lot of things to describe this comes to mind ,he has no credibility. Seriously 3 weeks of non stop bashing of WOT claiming everyone is using warpack etc. Threatening to quit multiple times fishing for donations  etc. .... You notice he didn't mention when he signed with AW either, but hey it would be shame to  disrupt the donations eh?

 

 

Credability = 0

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Fighto, 07 March 2015 - 01:02 PM.


EPIC_RAGE #57 Posted 07 March 2015 - 02:42 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 35202 battles
  • 191
  • Member since:
    02-17-2013

AW is a fail before it is even released. Skilled MM? Yeah that ain't gonna work, I can already imagine what will every 3rd post on their forum be about.

​The mighty CZ tanks? Really? Well guess if the community cries enough they could implement Zimbabwean cardboard tonks too.

​Nah, listening to dumb playerbase won't end well.

​Hey how about we implement little remote controlled wheeled anti-tank mines? That would be fun, no?



CaptianNemo #58 Posted 07 March 2015 - 04:48 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4142 battles
  • 264
  • Member since:
    04-25-2013

View PostPowJay, on 07 March 2015 - 04:11 AM, said:

I agree that some of the playerbase has wacky ideas, but let's be a little more objective. These comments are based not only on comments on the forum, but my own experience. They are not exhaustive, but just food for thought.

 

Arty. There are arty haters and arty lovers, but many arty players are frustrated with arty as well as those that they (eventually) manage to hit. I was insulted by an IS-4 the other day for killing him with my S-51. What he may not have realised is that it took TEN shots to do 808 damage with TWO hits, including the kill shot.

Most people are too stupid to realize that.
I don't want to play arty like this. It is frustrating, it costs a fortune in shell costs and you are neither able to support a poor team that is stomped, or have a good game with teams that stomp the enemy.


Rather than make arty FAR more frustrating to play- and then introduce missions that cause a massive re-introduction of arty (and frustrated arty players) to the game- maybe some of the ideas brought forward should be put into practice.

 

I DO NOT know what the answer is, but I have seen many sensible proposals made. Maybe it should just be removed but if we accept that it isn't going, then something needs to be done for ALL the players- arty and non-arty players.

Nobody knows what the answer is. Not even WG.

MM. This game can reward good players, but hopelessly mismatched teams often mean that decent players can be left behind as a small handful of Unicums stomp everything in their way- especially in slower vehicles such as UK TDs, Churchills, KV-1 and KV-2.  The alternative is that your own team gets stomped by the enemy while your three tomato tier VIII heavies are all AFK and you are dead in three minutes.


Surely if the Team Battles work- I haven't played these but I understand that there is a skill balance- then surely introduction of SOME element of skill-based MM can work.

 

I don't want to be an XVM [edited], but my heart simply sinks when I see an entire team of reds and oranges- with me as the top player- and an enemy team of greens and yellows with a smattering of blue or purple.

 

What makes it worse is your THREE player platoon of total tomatoes in a tier X heavy with a tier V med and a T1 Cunningham, while their team has a platoon of Unicums in their Bat-Chats.

 

I am NOT in favour of leagues, but some balance of the good and bad players should (IMHO) offer more prolonged games with a chance for even average players to make at least a small difference without the team being obliterated in three minutes.

 

Maps. Map rotation can be incredibly frustrating- especially on those days when you seem to get Ruinberg, Winterberg, Himmelsdorf and Ensk when you feel like playing arty, or Hidden Village every other game.


Otherwise, many maps- even those that have been reworked- have issues. The biggest issue being that just as you get used to a map, it is reworked and made even worse and you have to learn it all over again.

 

Vehicles- MORE and MORE and MORE with only a few being so distinctive as to be really worth aiming for (on the Tech-Tree, not the battlefield) and many were little more than sketches before they were binned. Also, replacing or seriously nerfing much-loved vehicles and just generally messing about with the whole mess with no apparent consideration for all the time that was spent trying to grind for the tank that you really wanted.

AW will have as many vehicles as the developers can put in it.

Finally- placing NO barriers to total tools making their way to tier X without the first clue how to play. Considering that WG have taken the time and trouble to make an incredibly complex game with so many factors to learn about to play successfully, surely at least some of the development staff must be frustrated at the fact that there are so many chimps out there who are so bad at play that it is a wonder that they can even figure out how to turn their PCs on.

 

Surely positive or negative reinforcement to encourage players to PLAY would be of value all round.

 

I mean, FFS, I saw a red SU-85 yesterday camp at A1 on Redshire right until the end-stage when a T-150 and I were capping the enemy base. We fought off and killed a St Emil and a Churchill, but my ally was killed. The Su-85 fired ONE shot the entire game which did reset and save the match, but he was a total tomato with 12 or 13 thousand games and NO apparent desire to learn, or even to get fully involved. WHY the hell should people who take loads of time and (in many cases) pay loads of money to enjoy this game to the max have to put up with players like that on their team?

 

Many on the forums claim to love them on the enemy team, but there are not so much fun on your own.

 

Please note that if you have got this far, then all I am saying is that ALL of these points have been mentioned and discussed on the forums and opinion is usually in favour of change, even if not everyone is not sure what that change will be.

 

What do we get, however? More tanks, more maps, more noobs, more frustrations and more meddling.

 

View PostFighto, on 07 March 2015 - 04:43 AM, said:

A blogger bashes a game after just signing a contract with a big rival .... the shock.

 

I love the way he then says after bashing wot, that he is not bashing wot. A lot of things to describe this comes to mind ,he has no credibility. Seriously 3 weeks of non stop bashing of WOT claiming everyone is using warpack etc. Threatening to quit multiple times fishing for donations  etc. .... You notice he didn't mention when he signed with AW either, but hey it would be shame to  disrupt the donations eh?

 

 

Credability = 0

That is where you are so wrong. If you had any knowledge of FTR News you would never print such B.S. If he was truly bashing WoT, and he has in the past, you would clearly know it. He didn't claim everyone used it he claimed that everyone could get away with using it on the WG EU because they are a bunch of complete idiots, and they are(majority are). He threatened to quit because it takes serious time, he got very depressed several times(not to mention sick as he was very ill for a time) and he ran the whole thing at a loss even with donations.

View PostEPIC_RAGE, on 07 March 2015 - 06:42 AM, said:

AW is a fail before it is even released. Skilled MM? Yeah that ain't gonna work, I can already imagine what will every 3rd post on their forum be about.

​The mighty CZ tanks? Really? Well guess if the community cries enough they could implement Zimbabwean cardboard tonks too.

​Nah, listening to dumb playerbase won't end well.

​Hey how about we implement little remote controlled wheeled anti-tank mines? That would be fun, no?

AW would fail if it was released as originally designed. Thankfully that will not be the case.



Dr_LoVe69_makesWoTgreat #59 Posted 07 March 2015 - 04:57 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Clan Commander
  • 55744 battles
  • 3,301
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010

View PostPowJay, on 07 March 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:

WHY the hell should people who take loads of time and (in many cases) pay loads of money to enjoy this game to the max have to put up with players like that on their team?

 

Saying that only freeloaders should get tomatoes while paying customers should get unicum teams?

 

View PostCaptianNemo, on 07 March 2015 - 04:48 PM, said:

 and he ran the whole thing at a loss even with donations.

 

Can you please elaborate ow can any blogger lose money when blogging software is free?



Chevayo #60 Posted 07 March 2015 - 05:00 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 9607 battles
  • 1,619
  • Member since:
    03-12-2014

View PostCommander_Chris, on 06 March 2015 - 05:13 PM, said:

 

"Armored Warfare developers have a vision, that doesn’t consist entirely of selling you more and more stuff – and they listen to the players. An example: it took me two years to convince Wargaming to put Czechoslovak tanks into the game. It took me three minutes to do that with Obsidian."

 

 

Sorry, i do not mean to offend anyone. I am also all for adding new, perhaps not widely known tanks, including but not limted to Czechoslovak ones. And i do understand, why SilentStalker being a Czech tank enthusiast is interested in that specific line.

 

What i fail to see, is how some singular tank line is so important to constitute the fuss about "Visions".

So they listened to a prominent community guy, who is expected to bring a good deal of his followers to the game, by committing to a token form his agenda. This is totally vision and in no way commerce.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users