Jump to content


WG going batshit with copyright threats?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2808 replies to this topic

thiextar #381 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:44 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13753 battles
  • 346
  • Member since:
    06-21-2012

View Postwsatnutter, on 19 May 2017 - 11:41 AM, said:

 

The comment section of that video was full of enough pitchforks to bring an empire down.



alienslive #382 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:47 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 72470 battles
  • 1,254
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013


Stanek_ #383 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:47 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 19817 battles
  • 95
  • [TDSTR] TDSTR
  • Member since:
    03-05-2014
WG is so greedy and so naive in this greediness that thinks that the majority of players will pay for win and buy prem ammo and prem tanks just for few stats... Moreover, they cut income from CW just to force to buy gold instead of winning it... But the problem is, that the majority of players were playing in this game because they didn't have to pay anything to be on the same level as 'rich' player. This is why and how WG became one of the richest game company worldwide. Unfortunately, the best players are not stupid. They don't care about tanks or wg, they just looking for a free entertainment to show that they can be better without paying anything. If WG won't start to listen to active community of forum, yt, twitch they will slowly die. And we will all meet on different forum of a better game, which is for the players not for the huge wallets of WG owners.

Edited by Stanek_, 19 May 2017 - 11:51 AM.


Velvet_Underground #384 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:48 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 22243 battles
  • 2,867
  • Member since:
    12-19-2014

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 19 May 2017 - 11:41 AM, said:

They are not destroying a game if it is growing.

 

Skorpion is listed on wot news with total vehicles: 111.000

Defender is listed on wot news with total vehicles: 40.000

 

Skorpion has sold almost 3 times as much as the Defender. Jagdtiger 88, which is an old premium, has sold 216.000, if we can believe the numbers.

 

So no, the profit does not mainly stem from the new OP premiums at all.

 

Let's just assume that wargaming, the balancing department or whoever made the decisions regarding vehicle stats is neither incompetent (as in actually balancing the game out; being good at milking the playerbase is rather irrelevant in this case) nor greedy (e.g. knowingly screw the balance for (short term?) profit). How do you explain the whole E5 and Maus shenanigans, the evident OPness of new premium tanks like the defender etc?

Nallic #385 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:49 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12409 battles
  • 525
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    11-25-2012

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 19 May 2017 - 10:41 AM, said:

They are not destroying a game if it is growing.

 

Skorpion is listed on wot news with total vehicles: 111.000

Defender is listed on wot news with total vehicles: 40.000

 

Skorpion has sold almost 3 times as much as the Defender. Jagdtiger 88, which is an old premium, has sold 216.000, if we can believe the numbers.

 

So no, the profit does not mainly stem from the new OP premiums at all.

 

Missed the OP tanks the first time around. :(

As soon as that defender comes up again, I'm getting 2!!



Irisviel_Einzbern #386 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:50 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5492 battles
  • 25
  • [MTAA] MTAA
  • Member since:
    04-03-2016

Tanks like the Chrysler are like playing the game with cheats, because noone on the same tier can penetrate it frontally as soon as you angle it... lower plate becomes 240 mm of effective armor and that's too much for a lot of not only standard, but even gold rounds. There are no weakspots to aim for, and if you fight this thing in a corridor (like almost every heavy tank flank in current map design) there is no way to penetrate it.

 

So, SirFoch was right that this kind of a vehicle is bad for the game, and you decided to censor him.



Ceeb #387 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:50 AM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 26041 battles
  • 4,386
  • [BULL] BULL
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

View PostNallic, on 19 May 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

 

Missed the OP tanks the first time around. :(

As soon as that defender comes up again, I'm getting 2!!

 

If I could gift you mine, I would. 

 

 



Element6_TheSprout #388 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:51 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 24702 battles
  • 8,866
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostVelvet_Underground, on 19 May 2017 - 11:48 AM, said:

 

Let's just assume that wargaming, the balancing department or whoever made the decisions regarding vehicle stats is neither incompetent (as in actually balancing the game out; being good at milking the playerbase is rather irrelevant in this case) nor greedy (e.g. knowingly screw the balance for (short term?) profit). How do you explain the whole E5 and Maus shenanigans, the evident OPness of new premium tanks like the defender etc?

I can explain what I think about Defenders and Maus, for example, once someone has explained to me how this game can ever be balanced when a fully elited IS-3 with a 4 perk crew, full complex equipment and camo paint can encounter a stock IS-3 with a 75% crew, no equipment and no camo paint...

 

We can't even have individual tanks balanced against itself...



tajj7 #389 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:53 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 22065 battles
  • 12,799
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014
Cos camo is very important for an IS3 :facepalm:

Ph3lan #390 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:55 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 16783 battles
  • 325
  • Member since:
    11-17-2010

Hi guys!

 

I promised yesterday that I would be back to answer questions when I am back in the office, so since there are a lot of questions and comments I’ll try to answer most of them here. Let’s do this in a Q&A style:

 

Q: Did we remove Sirfoch from the contributor program and ask him to remove the video because he was criticizing us or the Chrysler?
A: Nope. We are totally fine with our contributors (or any other content creator or player) criticizing our content. We have never taken down videos simply because someone voiced criticism about our content and we will not do so in the future either.


Q: Then why was he removed from the program?
A: While the content of the video was fine, the way he delivered the message was anything but. The video was full of name calling and insults.

 

Q: But Foch is always like this. Why is this any worse than his previous videos?
A: We understand the SirFoch is…salty. That’s part of his personality and style and a lot of people enjoy it. We have been fine with his saltiness so far because we appreciate his skill both in the game and in creating fun and engaging content for our players. We have talked to him about trying to be a bit less offensive in his content, however, this time he went from salty to being outright offensive. He resorted to absolutely unprofessional name calling and provocations. This went beyond saltiness and entered into the defamation territory. 

 

Q: Ok, removing him from the contributor program is one thing, but why ask him to remove the video?
A: Our contributors are not working for us and they are not being paid by us, however they are representing us to a certain extent towards our players. While we know that SirFoch is not exactly the best role model at times, but we valued his contribution enough to still include him in the program. This might have been a mistake, since he used his status, influence, and the exclusive preview content he was given to defame Wargaming and World of Tanks. I am sure that his intentions were good, however the end results were clearly not. We have several channels where our contributors can reach us and we are always trying to listen to their feedback and concerns. SirFoch didn’t contact us about his clearly strong feeling about the Chrysler producing the video in question instead. 
To put it bluntly, we asked him to remove the video because he abused his status as a contributor and the content he received from us to create a video that defamed our company image with the tone and language he used.  

 

Q: Did you tell him that if he doesn’t take it down you are going to go through YouTube to take it down?
A: At first we asked SirFoch to take down the video, due to the above mentioned reasons. He refused to do so. At this point we told him that we will go through YouTube if necessary to remove the video. 


We understand that you guys are wary of censorship and companies asking YouTube to take down content created by the players. I would like to emphasize that we haven’t asked SirFoch to take down the video because of the critique he voiced. We don’t intend to silence or censor anyone and we are totally fine with you guys voicing your opinion. The only thing we ask from you and our contributors is to share your concern in a constructive and civilized manners and don’t resort to unnecessary name calling. Despite the tone of SirFoch’s video we heard his message about the Chrysler and we will pass it on to our developers together with all the feedback we gathered from you guys on the forums and Social media channels. 

 



SovietBias #391 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:56 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34562 battles
  • 1,091
  • [DIRE] DIRE
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 19 May 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

I can explain what I think about Defenders and Maus, for example, once someone has explained to me how this game can ever be balanced when a fully elited IS-3 with a 4 perk crew, full complex equipment and camo paint can encounter a stock IS-3 with a 75% crew, no equipment and no camo paint...

 

We can't even have individual tanks balanced against itself...

 

Sound logic. Let's make it worse because it is all crap anyway.

Dis4ster #392 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:56 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 26172 battles
  • 2,798
  • Member since:
    02-12-2012

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 19 May 2017 - 11:41 AM, said:

They are not destroying a game if it is growing.

 

Skorpion is listed on wot news with total vehicles: 111.000

Defender is listed on wot news with total vehicles: 40.000

 

Skorpion has sold almost 3 times as much as the Defender. Jagdtiger 88, which is an old premium, has sold 216.000, if we can believe the numbers.

 

So no, the profit does not mainly stem from the new OP premiums at all.

 

Do you even read your comments yourself? You wrote about profit increase, i told you that the new premiums are the reason for this increase. But lets do the math JT 8.8 is 5 years old 216.000/5 = 43.200 sold per year, Skorpion G not even 1 year old(10 moths i guess) sold since release 111k, Defender not even 4 Months old 40k sold since release.

I hope you get it, if not then you should try to apply as an WG employee you would fit there perfectly.


Edited by Dis4ster, 19 May 2017 - 11:56 AM.


signal11th #393 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:57 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 30883 battles
  • 4,812
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-14-2011

View PostPh3lan, on 19 May 2017 - 10:55 AM, said:

Hi guys!

 

I promised yesterday that I would be back to answer questions when I am back in the office, so since there are a lot of questions and comments I’ll try to answer most of them here. Let’s do this in a Q&A style:

 

Q: Did we remove Sirfoch from the contributor program and ask him to remove the video because he was criticizing us or the Chrysler?
A: Nope. We are totally fine with our contributors (or any other content creator or player) criticizing our content. We have never taken down videos simply because someone voiced criticism about our content and we will not do so in the future either.


Q: Then why was he removed from the program?
A: While the content of the video was fine, the way he delivered the message was anything but. The video was full of name calling and provocation.

 

Q: But Foch is always like this. Why is this any worse than his previous videos?
A: We understand the SirFoch is…salty. That’s part of his personality and style and a lot of people enjoy it. We have been fine with his saltiness so far because we appreciate his skill both in the game and in creating fun and engaging content for our players. We have talked to him about trying to be a bit less offensive in his content, however, this time he went from salty to being outright offensive. He resorted to absolutely unprofessional name calling and provocations. This went beyond saltiness and entered into the defamation territory.

 

Q: Ok, removing him from the contributor program is one thing, but why ask him to remove the video?
A: Our contributors are not working for us and they are not being paid by us, however they are representing us to a certain extent towards our players. While we know that SirFoch is not exactly the best role model at times, but we valued his contribution enough to still include him in the program. This might have been a mistake, since he used his status, influence, and the exclusive preview content he was given to defame Wargaming and World of Tanks. I am sure that his intentions were good, however the end results were clearly not. We have several channels where our contributors can reach us and we are always trying to listen to their feedback and concerns. SirFoch didn’t contact us about his clearly strong feeling about the Chrysler producing the video in question instead. 
To put it bluntly, we asked him to remove the video because he abused his status as a contributor and the content he received from us to create a video that defamed our company image with the tone and language he used.

 

Q: Did you tell him that if he doesn’t take it down you are going to go through YouTube to take it down?
A: At first we asked SirFoch to take down the video, due to the above mentioned reasons. He refused to do so. At this point we told him that we will go through YouTube if necessary to remove the video.


We understand that you guys are wary of censorship and companies asking YouTube to take down content created by the players. I would like to emphasize that we haven’t asked SirFoch to take down the video because of the critique he voiced. We don’t intend to silence or censor anyone and we are totally fine with you guys voicing your opinion. The only thing we ask from you and our contributors is to share your concern in a constructive and civilized manners and don’t resort to unnecessary name calling. Despite the tone of SirFoch’s video we heard his message about the Chrysler and we will pass it on to our developers together with all the feedback we gathered from you guys on the forums and Social media channels.

 

 

ok, all the screaming mob and snowflakes can settle down now.

Folau #394 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:58 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 15221 battles
  • 2,501
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 19 May 2017 - 10:19 AM, said:

 

 I don't think they took stabs in the dark in terms of the Sandbox, Common Test and how we've got to 9.18. But that was a much larger decision and required alignment of strategy.

 

What we're talking about here is a few new products (premium tanks) and not the best way to deal with feedback. 

 

Now if the products have been designed as part of a new corporate strategy (dumbing down. P2W etc) then the more they do it, the more they need to see if it makes them money. If they lose customers (including me) that's their fault. But we've given our feedback that the "loyal" players don't seem to like it. So if they go for short term gain, over long term sustainability that's their choice.

 

The second aspect, is confusing someone breaking a rule (the CC conduct) and how to deal with that in a way that doesn't create a bigger problem.

 

 

The early Sandboxes - "roles", smashing accuracy, and the like - convinced that WG got lucky with WoT and don't really know how to balance it properly.



Irisviel_Einzbern #395 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:59 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5492 battles
  • 25
  • [MTAA] MTAA
  • Member since:
    04-03-2016

View PostPh3lan, on 19 May 2017 - 11:55 AM, said:

Q: Ok, removing him from the contributor program is one thing, but why ask him to remove the video?

A: Our contributors are not working for us and they are not being paid by us, however they are representing us to a certain extent towards our players. While we know that SirFoch is not exactly the best role model at times, but we valued his contribution enough to still include him in the program. This might have been a mistake, since he used his status, influence, and the exclusive preview content he was given to defame Wargaming and World of Tanks. I am sure that his intentions were good, however the end results were clearly not. We have several channels where our contributors can reach us and we are always trying to listen to their feedback and concerns. SirFoch didn’t contact us about his clearly strong feeling about the Chrysler producing the video in question instead. 
To put it bluntly, we asked him to remove the video because he abused his status as a contributor and the content he received from us to create a video that defamed our company image with the tone and language he used.  

 

 

He used none of your content because he hasn't featured any preview version of the tank in the video. All he did was look at its colision model at tanks.gg which ANYONE could do and create a video of.



Nixuebrig #396 Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:59 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31434 battles
  • 281
  • [CG4A] CG4A
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

offensive language like Edited, xyz your mother (or your sister,or.. ) etc. does not get moderated here at the forums and in game reports on that are ignored with sending a standard answer, so what problem has this PR-desaster guy with the vid? Each company gets the community it is asking for, and if you are cheated and treated like total idiots, there is the point when you are (verbally) exploding.

 

So Phelan, the ghosts you(WG) were calling finally arrived.

 

 

This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks.

 


Edited by VMX, 19 May 2017 - 03:49 PM.


shishx_the_animal #397 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:01 PM

    Colonel

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 28841 battles
  • 3,587
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    04-06-2013

View Postsignal11th, on 19 May 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

 

ok, all the screaming mob and snowflakes can settle down now.

 

And here I was thinking that the game is over because of all this drama and the new prem tank! What a shocker!

Corvids_Fall #398 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:02 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 26225 battles
  • 54
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

View PostPh3lan, on 19 May 2017 - 10:55 AM, said:

 

Q: Did you tell him that if he doesn’t take it down you are going to go through YouTube to take it down?
A: At first we asked SirFoch to take down the video, due to the above mentioned reasons. He refused to do so. At this point we told him that we will go through YouTube if necessary to remove the video. 


We understand that you guys are wary of censorship and companies asking YouTube to take down content created by the players. I would like to emphasize that we haven’t asked SirFoch to take down the video because of the critique he voiced. We don’t intend to silence or censor anyone and we are totally fine with you guys voicing your opinion. The only thing we ask from you and our contributors is to share your concern in a constructive and civilized manners and don’t resort to unnecessary name calling. Despite the tone of SirFoch’s video we heard his message about the Chrysler and we will pass it on to our developers together with all the feedback we gathered from you guys on the forums and Social media channels. 

 

 

And here you lost all my future business. You must understand how this is not acceptable?



Rico_Shay #399 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:03 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26593 battles
  • 135
  • Member since:
    11-26-2014

View PostNallic, on 19 May 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

 

Missed the OP tanks the first time around. :(

As soon as that defender comes up again, I'm getting 2!!

 

Yeah add another nail in the coffin

Nixuebrig #400 Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:04 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31434 battles
  • 281
  • [CG4A] CG4A
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostPh3lan, on 19 May 2017 - 11:55 AM, said:

Hi guys!

 

I promised yesterday that I would be back to answer questions when I am back in the office, so since there are a lot of questions and comments I’ll try to answer most of them here. Let’s do this in a Q&A style:

 

Q: Did we remove Sirfoch from the contributor program and ask him to remove the video because he was criticizing us or the Chrysler?
A: Nope. We are totally fine with our contributors (or any other content creator or player) criticizing our content. We have never taken down videos simply because someone voiced criticism about our content and we will not do so in the future either.


Q: Then why was he removed from the program?
A: While the content of the video was fine, the way he delivered the message was anything but. The video was full of name calling and insults.

 

Q: But Foch is always like this. Why is this any worse than his previous videos?
A: We understand the SirFoch is…salty. That’s part of his personality and style and a lot of people enjoy it. We have been fine with his saltiness so far because we appreciate his skill both in the game and in creating fun and engaging content for our players. We have talked to him about trying to be a bit less offensive in his content, however, this time he went from salty to being outright offensive. He resorted to absolutely unprofessional name calling and provocations. This went beyond saltiness and entered into the defamation territory. 

 

Q: Ok, removing him from the contributor program is one thing, but why ask him to remove the video?
A: Our contributors are not working for us and they are not being paid by us, however they are representing us to a certain extent towards our players. While we know that SirFoch is not exactly the best role model at times, but we valued his contribution enough to still include him in the program. This might have been a mistake, since he used his status, influence, and the exclusive preview content he was given to defame Wargaming and World of Tanks. I am sure that his intentions were good, however the end results were clearly not. We have several channels where our contributors can reach us and we are always trying to listen to their feedback and concerns. SirFoch didn’t contact us about his clearly strong feeling about the Chrysler producing the video in question instead. 
To put it bluntly, we asked him to remove the video because he abused his status as a contributor and the content he received from us to create a video that defamed our company image with the tone and language he used.  

 

Q: Did you tell him that if he doesn’t take it down you are going to go through YouTube to take it down?
A: At first we asked SirFoch to take down the video, due to the above mentioned reasons. He refused to do so. At this point we told him that we will go through YouTube if necessary to remove the video. 


We understand that you guys are wary of censorship and companies asking YouTube to take down content created by the players. I would like to emphasize that we haven’t asked SirFoch to take down the video because of the critique he voiced. We don’t intend to silence or censor anyone and we are totally fine with you guys voicing your opinion. The only thing we ask from you and our contributors is to share your concern in a constructive and civilized manners and don’t resort to unnecessary name calling. Despite the tone of SirFoch’s video we heard his message about the Chrysler and we will pass it on to our developers together with all the feedback we gathered from you guys on the forums and Social media channels. 

 

 

My advice, get better PR department, this sounds lame. Sorry, you have a reputation as a bunch of liars. Why should I believe you this time?

If this would be true, it could have been said in your first posting.  So you just bought time to find a suspicious excuse.

 

 






18 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 18 guests, 0 anonymous users