Jump to content


Sandbox Server - Apply Now!


  • Please log in to reply
280 replies to this topic

OverThrill #41 Posted 06 June 2016 - 06:16 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 36691 battles
  • 20
  • [-TLC-] -TLC-
  • Member since:
    03-17-2011
"To get started, send an application by clicking on the button below. You will get to a special page, where you will complete filling in the application in a couple of steps."
I only got a page with a APPLY button and no filling in requiered. Is there a mistake in the text or in the application window?


luciffer #42 Posted 06 June 2016 - 06:16 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49903 battles
  • 1,016
  • [DBWS] DBWS
  • Member since:
    12-27-2011
the only problem in my opinion will be lack of players willing to play it and actually participate with feedback 

Celution #43 Posted 06 June 2016 - 06:19 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 28027 battles
  • 1,708
  • [SENSE] SENSE
  • Member since:
    09-26-2010

View PostMrConway, on 06 June 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

 

That is the reason behind this whole initiative! This gives us the opportunity to radically change parts of the game for testing with a large audience that can provide us with feedback on the changes. This wouldn't be feasible on a regular test server.

 

 

We will be picking a mix of players based on a variety of criteria which should lead to a good mix of player skill.

 

It's a great initiative and something I never would have expected given that I've been involved in this game since closed beta in 2010. However, I fear that your selection will be based on quantity of games plus that you'll base the selection on player skill level.

Skill level is completely irrelevant in gameplay design and especially when designing a good and exciting game balance. What you need for such an initiative is proper applications in which people will have to write a small summary of who they are, what their views are and how they think they can contribute towards the improvement of this game. Right now it feels like you're applying for an automated selection (much like how closed alpha/beta selections are done) rather than applying for a selection where the selected people are those who really want to contribute and share their views, insights and opinions.

 

There will be thousands of applicants who solely applied "to just see what is new, what WG is up to and what might be changed", much like 99% of the people playing the Public Tests. You really do not want such people for a Sandbox; you want people who have good insights and most importantly, people who have a completely unbiased, neutral point of view that are able to see the bigger picture of the desired gameplay that lead designer Slava Makarov envisions.

People who are just going to join the Sandbox to scream the obvious are also not going to help out at all, the last thing you want is the forums to be flooded with topics such as "arty is broken, pls nerf" or "Don't change tank x because I love it and I spent money to acquire it".

 

As said, it will be of vital importance that the selected people are unbiased, have the capability to communicate in a common sense with proper explanations supporting their statements and are able to observe the entire situation from a distance.


Edited by Celution, 06 June 2016 - 06:31 PM.


R4B3N_ #44 Posted 06 June 2016 - 06:24 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20600 battles
  • 98
  • Member since:
    01-25-2013
''How to get access to the Sandbox server?

To get started, send an application by clicking on the button below. You will get to a special page, where you will complete filling in the application in a couple of steps.

 

 

​I did go to a special site where there's a button saying 'send application', but that was all. I didn't go to a ''special site where i had to fill in the application in a couple of steps'' after that.

So either there went somthing wrong or the description isn't clear. (at least not to me)

How's pressing a button multiple steps? And I didn't need to fill in anything?



5everin #45 Posted 06 June 2016 - 06:32 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 79257 battles
  • 1,664
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011

Block Quote

 That is the reason behind this whole initiative! This gives us the opportunity to radically change parts of the game for testing with a large audience that can provide us with feedback on the changes. This wouldn't be feasible on a regular test server.

 

You as in Wargaming have five+ years worth of feedback on this forum alone let alone all the other outlets, video sites etc. You have ignored it all while being smug and condescending towards anyone who thought your game mechanics/ "balance" etc were less than perfect.

 

Whats so different now? profits falling?


Edited by 5everin, 06 June 2016 - 06:38 PM.


Maki711 #46 Posted 06 June 2016 - 06:37 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24448 battles
  • 359
  • Member since:
    06-09-2011

View PostMrConway, on 06 June 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

 

That is the reason behind this whole initiative! This gives us the opportunity to radically change parts of the game for testing with a large audience that can provide us with feedback on the changes. This wouldn't be feasible on a regular test server.

 

 

We will be picking a mix of players based on a variety of criteria which should lead to a good mix of player skill.

 

Very bad decision. But hey, that is just my and few hundred people opinion.

What is the point of picking mix of players ? A bad player will always have something that he do not like and he will cry about it.

Choosing people with experience is much better move. Those people actually will know what to look at and will have ideas that are good for the game and players.

I doubt that a random 47-50% wR player will actually know what to look for and what would be good for the game.



Maki711 #47 Posted 06 June 2016 - 06:41 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24448 battles
  • 359
  • Member since:
    06-09-2011

View Post5everin, on 06 June 2016 - 06:32 PM, said:

 

You as in Wargaming have five+ years worth of feedback on this forum alone let alone all the other outlets, video sites etc. You have ignored it all while being smug and condescending towards anyone who thought your game mechanics/ "balance" etc were less than perfect.

 

Whats so different now? profits falling?

 

Most likely, yes. I mean, a large company will only do major changes when the money is getting low, very low.



Celution #48 Posted 06 June 2016 - 06:50 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 28027 battles
  • 1,708
  • [SENSE] SENSE
  • Member since:
    09-26-2010

View PostMaki711, on 06 June 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

 

Very bad decision. But hey, that is just my and few hundred people opinion.

What is the point of picking mix of players ? A bad player will always have something that he do not like and he will cry about it.

Choosing people with experience is much better move. Those people actually will know what to look at and will have ideas that are good for the game and players.

I doubt that a random 47-50% wR player will actually know what to look for and what would be good for the game.

 

The problem is, that plenty of highly skilled players have a completely wrong view of the bigger picture and don't like huge changes at all because it means they'll have to adjust their own tactics and so on. Hence why I stated that gameplay design and the design of game balance is rather unrelated to player skill. Of course you don't want people who have no idea about how the game mechanics function and have no clue of how to perform on average joe level, but at the same time you also do not want highly skilled players just because they are highly skilled. It is thus vital to have people who understand how all the game mechanics function but not a complete requirement to have people who know how to use and apply them consistently.

 

Besides, you want people who can put everything into a general perspective (as in, how it should work in text-book examples and how things should work theoretically), and not those who can only put their mind on specific situations that only occur on certain maps for example.


Edited by Celution, 06 June 2016 - 07:03 PM.


FreibierFred #49 Posted 06 June 2016 - 07:06 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24966 battles
  • 345
  • [HEFFY] HEFFY
  • Member since:
    11-05-2011

If Wargaming-employees would play their own game, they would have known 2 years earlier that arty makes us camp MORE, not less.

 

But they prefered lying to us "we play our own game", "statisictly everything is fine" and "we got automated system for xyz and that system is working"...cant hear that [edited]anymore.

 

 

 

Finally a good step! maybe you WG-guys finally start listening to players and not treat us like crap(for exmaple with your socalled "support")

 



Maki711 #50 Posted 06 June 2016 - 07:08 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24448 battles
  • 359
  • Member since:
    06-09-2011

View PostCelution, on 06 June 2016 - 06:50 PM, said:

 

The problem is, that plenty of highly skilled players have a completely wrong view of the bigger picture and don't like huge changes at all because it means they'll have to adjust their own tactics and so on. Hence why I stated that gameplay design and the design of game balance is rather unrelated to player skill. Of course you don't want people who have no idea about how the game mechanics function and have no clue of how to perform on average joe level, but at the same time you also do not want highly skilled players just because they are highly skilled. It is thus vital to have people who understand how all the game mechanics function but not a complete requirement to have people who know how to use and apply them consistently.

 

Besides, you want people who can put everything into a general perspective (as in, how it should work in text-book examples and how things should work theoretically), and not those who can only put their mind on specific situations that only occur on certain maps for example.

 

After thinking for a while about this, yes. You are right. I agree.



Jinxers #51 Posted 06 June 2016 - 07:12 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 9739 battles
  • 15
  • [CPCA] CPCA
  • Member since:
    06-09-2012

View PostCelution, on 06 June 2016 - 05:50 PM, said:

 

The problem is, that plenty of highly skilled players have a completely wrong view of the bigger picture and don't like huge changes at all because it means they'll have to adjust their own tactics and so on. Hence why I stated that gameplay design and the design of game balance is rather unrelated to player skill. Of course you don't want people who have no idea about how the game mechanics function and have no clue of how to perform on average joe level, but at the same time you also do not want highly skilled players just because they are highly skilled.

 

Besides, you want people who can put everything into a general perspective (as in, how it should work in text-book examples and how things should work theoretically), and not those who can only put their mind on specific situations that only occur on certain maps for example.

 

I couldn't agree more i may only have a wn8 of around 1300  and abit over 7 k battles  with a 52% wr not the best stats in the world but not the worst, i consistently get attacked by other players with higher rankings simply because i won't ruin my rank for their betterment, I'm a team player at the end of the day and assist in anyway to gain that win even if it means i have a not so great game but won't be bullied into having bad games so others can have a shot at being lucky. But im getting a little side tracked,The "traditional" vehicle class rolls do not work such as in tier 8 scouts not being as effective as they should be in a tier 10 match up since they are treated as a tier 9 and with tanks like the batchat 25t this makes matters worse.  but you're right some high skill players refuse to budge because of a stubborn "i know best because my stats are better" attitude which causes further bullying/abuse in game.

Edited by Jinxers, 06 June 2016 - 07:14 PM.


Emily_1 #52 Posted 06 June 2016 - 07:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8400 battles
  • 903
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012
Pick all the arta players. What could go wrong...

sacuka #53 Posted 06 June 2016 - 07:28 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 57717 battles
  • 276
  • [2MPH] 2MPH
  • Member since:
    02-21-2012
This is a big joke,this whole video is a big joke!If you wouldive cared about the game that is fun or not,you WG guys shouldive done it already.The game is a big pile of garbage,since the matchmaker mostly does mixed tier battles too often.On the other hand credits for gold ammo,yes this is what made the game so bad.Cause a skilled player gets pushed back by these gold spammers,who cant hit a weakspot.And yes the game is far not fun,even a tank gets spotted through 3 bushes(yeah a real big joke!).Instead of promising,or making false believeths do something about these fllaws.Also its getting very damn boring that medium tanks are the main role player of every battle.And it was a big msitake to remove the WT auf E100,because that destroyer balanced the chances in a battle against autoloadin heavys,artys and mediums,this Grille is way far for fun unlike the WT.Only people whine about the WT,who cannot or dont know how to play it correctly.Buffing,nerfing tanks wont make the game more fun...

Edited by sacuka, 06 June 2016 - 07:45 PM.


_Iwasawa_ #54 Posted 06 June 2016 - 07:31 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18204 battles
  • 262
  • [-322-] -322-
  • Member since:
    01-30-2012

Well, should have done this like years before, you always just add new tanks make the old ones worse and worse. For example, BC and F155. They are underpowered as hell, but you can still use them, its just harder.

You should...

- nerf view ranges

- buff bushes

- buff accuracy in general

- redesign arty

- redesign ALL maps or revert them to their old form because that was better.

- remove or nerf goldammo(better remove it)

- nerf all russian meds, grille, tvp50

- make much more exciting maps

- remove usa light tank line

- take airfileld and burn the whole map or push up into someone's [edited]because that map is a piece of crap

- make offensive play more rewarding

- rebalance credit income

- bigger maps would be nice, with longer cap times

- some hills for maps, that are accessible


Edited by _Iwasawa_, 06 June 2016 - 07:37 PM.


XBlackMagicX #55 Posted 06 June 2016 - 07:42 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 23562 battles
  • 19
  • [D-I-C] D-I-C
  • Member since:
    03-22-2012

View PostAlm1ghtyArtur, on 06 June 2016 - 03:00 PM, said:

I wonder who gets picked for this, hopefully it's not full of 48% players, that would be a disaster...

 

Why not... see this is just unfair just because you have a W% of 55% does not mean your voice is more important... it's like when WG started to put out HD models for tiers 1 and 2... see all you care is about yourslef and the top tiers but WG is smart and you have 0 brain cells to realsie they want to make the game appealto neweplayers... but again your just a unicum who only cares about themself and call everyone noobs.. It is a bloody multiplayer game there iwll always be noobs World of Tanks is a grerat game but thecommunity is just vile and disgusting with immature children spewingout insults...

Obsessive_Compulsive #56 Posted 06 June 2016 - 07:44 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 28750 battles
  • 8,481
  • [BULL] BULL
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014
very positive video WG. very positive action. I approve.:great:

Folau #57 Posted 06 June 2016 - 07:45 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 15521 battles
  • 2,590
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013

Will perform sexual favours to be part of this testing phase. Just to get a heads up about whether it's worth renewing my premium account now my old CW gold ran out :(


Edited by Folau, 06 June 2016 - 07:45 PM.


sacuka #58 Posted 06 June 2016 - 07:45 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 57717 battles
  • 276
  • [2MPH] 2MPH
  • Member since:
    02-21-2012

View PostConor_Notorious_McGregor, on 06 June 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

very positive video WG. very positive action. I approve.:great:

 

Yes its positive,but its a big bluff...

MrConway #59 Posted 06 June 2016 - 07:57 PM

    WoWs Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 13048 battles
  • 862
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

View PostMoving_Chicane, on 06 June 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

@MrConway: How long before we know if we got in on the server or not?

 

I'll try to get some more information on the criteria and timeline tomorrow!

 

View PostMaki711, on 06 June 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

 

Very bad decision. But hey, that is just my and few hundred people opinion.

What is the point of picking mix of players ? A bad player will always have something that he do not like and he will cry about it.

Choosing people with experience is much better move. Those people actually will know what to look at and will have ideas that are good for the game and players.

I doubt that a random 47-50% wR player will actually know what to look for and what would be good for the game.

 

Our plan is to enable all of our players to have fun, which means we need to involve players with as many different backgrounds and skills as possible to the test.



MrConway #60 Posted 06 June 2016 - 07:59 PM

    WoWs Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 13048 battles
  • 862
  • [CIRC] CIRC
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

View PostFolau, on 06 June 2016 - 07:45 PM, said:

Will perform sexual favours to be part of this testing phase. Just to get a heads up about whether it's worth renewing my premium account now my old CW gold ran out :(

 

:facepalm:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users