Jump to content


WG going batshit with copyright threats?


  • Please log in to reply
2544 replies to this topic

Titaniumas #941 Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:28 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 34936 battles
  • 121
  • Member since:
    12-18-2011
Still Ph3lan not telling me why the Fv4202 has 170mm written on stats about the frontal turrett while only having 60mm.

bachu93 #942 Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:29 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 30805 battles
  • 40
  • [5TAR5] 5TAR5
  • Member since:
    09-19-2012

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.  

 

Yeah... So if CC's are representing WG and you care about them and their quality so much, why do you have people like Faja77 in your CC crew? His steams are full of bad language, alcohol and disgusting behavior.

Examples? Here we go...

 

No. It isn't a joke, it's one of Polish CC...



Slyspy #943 Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:34 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 13607 battles
  • 15,178
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011
If only Foch had kept a civil tongue in his head none of this would have happened. He could easily have got the same point across without being so crass about it. Simple as that. He was bound to cross the line at some point. There is no censorship. He could post a video reaching similar conclusions tomorrow if he remembers that he is a human being dealing with other human beings.

HeathLedger_ #944 Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:37 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 250 battles
  • 422
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 20 May 2017 - 12:28 AM, said:

Have you been to Wot News server statistics page?

 

Primary player retention methods? 6.3 million people played more than 500 random battles, while clan battles was played more than 500 times by 526.425 players. SH seems to be doing worse. I might be mistaken, but I get a sense that you believe that larger portions of the playerbase share your opinion(s) than what is actually the case. I mean, the numbers here is one internet page away and a few clicks of the mouse, and you think that 30% play SH etc.

 

I might be an idiot, I might appear to be a shill sometimes, I might be percieved as a troll, but damn, atleast I do not deny reality.  

 

 

Dude, did you not read those stats you posted. you shouldn't be looking at clan battles, look at SH. 9.2% of the population played > 500 stronghold battles. Why the [edited]are you implying that's meaningless in any way, especially considering it's one of the "endgames" of the game. On that's been conveniently ruined recently to boot.

 

Players who played more than 500 stronghold defense battles
230 782 (1.89%)
Players who played more than 500 stronghold skirmish battles
1 187 998 (9.16%)


HeathLedger_ #945 Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:40 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 250 battles
  • 422
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017
Like, no insults meant element, but if you bother to post stats and argue semantics and numbers with people, read the info you try to quote. SH is a substantial part of this game for clans. Not that this thread was about Sh in the slightest apart from the defender and craparguably making it P2W as the defender is a very strong contender for best heavy with the Is-3, the patriot is a better med than any t8 med, the skorp a better TD than any t8 TD and the m41 Gf objectively the best light. 

SovietBias #946 Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:44 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 32248 battles
  • 915
  • [DIRE] DIRE
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 20 May 2017 - 12:12 AM, said:

How nice of you to just casually pop in here and completely change the subject from which modes are played, to T8 balance. Impressive. I was replying to a claim about player retention modes, and the was my poin. It is amazing that I need to spell that out. But thanks for pointing out how apparently T8 SH seems even more bleak in comparison to lower tiers that doesn't even have that. Do you see how relatively little they actually "disturb" by releasing OP T8s? Release them where the bulk of your players are not. Now it seems even more logical. And broken to some, of course. But still logical.

 

I did not casually pop in here. I was following the discussion that you started here:

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 19 May 2017 - 04:28 PM, said:

They could also be aiming for players that play less once they have unlocked "everything", trying to retain them for longer with the possibility of getting better equipment and new modes. I'm not there yet, but if and when I unlock the last T10 tank it is highly likely my activity will go down.


Which was your take on the new development directions WG has taken. Nothing wrong with that.

Point is, how do the numbers you show justify the current retention methods if they are just aggregates that include gamemodes long gone?

You dismissed earlier another post on the basis SH are meaningless (1%), when seen in light of the whole battle tier spread.

 

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 20 May 2017 - 12:12 AM, said:

 

4.9% of tanks played are T8? That's not very impressive, is it? 

 

Indeed. Yet the tier with most premiums is Tier 8. Go figure. Perhaps paying customers actually are there? Could that be the case of SH, despite being as small as 1% of the battles, is still relevant since it is played by their "active" customers?

Not to mention that having a balanced endgame is, IMO, a goal on its own, as to justify all the grinding that comes with it.

 

View PostElement6_TheSprout, on 20 May 2017 - 12:12 AM, said:

 

Tell me, what do you read out of them? Oh wait...those 23,88, 17,26 and 12,08 percentages that are T2, 3 and 4 are irrelevant.... yes, that's how it is. Am I correct?

 


I don't read them as irrelevant. Apparently WG does, as they are and always have been a mess. And currently, no premium vehicles (except perhaps those OP PZ II J and some other oddities) are launched with them in mind, suggesting that's not where the money is. However, 50% right?



WindSplitter1 #947 Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:46 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 8188 battles
  • 165
  • [N_P_T] N_P_T
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

OH MY STARS!

 

Wargaming.net DID notice my signature and DID erased it.

It was previously:

 

"Revert stats of Light tanks as they were in 9.17.1

Stopped buying premium stuff until SPGs and LTs are fixed. My fav Classes. WG really cares."

 

They DO care and they do a lot. How pathetic. Hahahaha. This company... :D

 

Nevermind... :(


Edited by WindSplitter1, 20 May 2017 - 01:47 AM.


SixDasherr #948 Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:52 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 7243 battles
  • 2,091
  • Member since:
    04-28-2015

View PostSlyspy, on 20 May 2017 - 01:34 AM, said:

If only Foch had kept a civil tongue in his head none of this would have happened. He could easily have got the same point across without being so crass about it. Simple as that. He was bound to cross the line at some point. There is no censorship. He could post a video reaching similar conclusions tomorrow if he remembers that he is a human being dealing with other human beings.

 

Again with the antifa definition of free speech. Yeah, pull his CC status, sure... but going after his channel with copyright claims that they know they will lose in court, just because they are a huge corporation and Foch is just a lone gamer, is lower than low, scum of the earth tactic. If you find nothing wrong in that, than you really need to put up that antifa logo or rethink some things.

Slyspy #949 Posted 20 May 2017 - 01:58 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 13607 battles
  • 15,178
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostSixDasherr, on 20 May 2017 - 01:52 AM, said:

 

Again with the antifa definition of free speech. Yeah, pull his CC status, sure... but going after his channel with copyright claims that they know they will lose in court, just because they are a huge corporation and Foch is just a lone gamer, is lower than low, scum of the earth tactic. If you find nothing wrong in that, than you really need to put up that antifa logo or rethink some things.

 

I made no comment on the ethics of threatening Foch with a copyright strike. Nor do I understand the word antifa. But I do believe in being civil in my interactions with other people.

HeathLedger_ #950 Posted 20 May 2017 - 02:12 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 250 battles
  • 422
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

View PostSlyspy, on 20 May 2017 - 01:58 AM, said:

 

I made no comment on the ethics of threatening Foch with a copyright strike. Nor do I understand the word antifa. But I do believe in being civil in my interactions with other people.

 

The antifa reference is towards the Anti-Fascist group that popped up in Murica(where else?) which is (un)surprisingly Fascist in their handling of critique and opposing views. The kind of group that goes to a scheduled free speech protest with an unscheduled counter-protest and gets violent very time without failure, to the point where there were stabbings some time ago. 

 

Not that that makes you any less right for saying foch was a [edited], but the point wasn't foch being a [edited]. It's Wg not taking the moral high ground, but even worse stooping to something as despicable as threatening arguably false copyright claims.



Strappster #951 Posted 20 May 2017 - 02:22 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 17719 battles
  • 5,545
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostTitaniumas, on 20 May 2017 - 12:28 AM, said:

Still Ph3lan not telling me why the Fv4202 has 170mm written on stats about the frontal turrett while only having 60mm.

 

Maybe because the frontal armour of the turret is 170mm and the roof is 60mm? Also you don't have to use all the gun depression to turn that roof into an auto-bounce zone for everything except the Death Star / Shitbarn.

 

Admittedly, that 170mm is only a strip above the gun but it's how WoT has always presented turret armour values.



Capus #952 Posted 20 May 2017 - 02:22 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38142 battles
  • 1,714
  • Member since:
    05-13-2012

View PostNjial, on 19 May 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

I understand that my statement can be seen dubious compared to the screenshot posted, and the implied threat there. However I want to point out that there was no copyright claim done on SirFoch and I assure you it wouldn't have come to that.  

So you just held a proverbial gun to his head but didn't fire. Oh my, what paragorns of virtue you are.

 

That leaves the questions on our communication yesterday with SirFoch, where the focus was completely and only on his vocabulary, unfortunately the wrong words had been chosen to express the importance of the situation to us. And I apologize to SirFoch, censorship was in no way ever the goal. We will certainly learn from the situation and will continue to work on the we communicate. Rofl... just rofl.

 

 

 



Slyspy #953 Posted 20 May 2017 - 02:27 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 13607 battles
  • 15,178
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostHeathLedger_, on 20 May 2017 - 02:12 AM, said:

 

The antifa reference is towards the Anti-Fascist group that popped up in Murica(where else?) which is (un)surprisingly Fascist in their handling of critique and opposing views. The kind of group that goes to a scheduled free speech protest with an unscheduled counter-protest and gets violent very time without failure, to the point where there were stabbings some time ago. 

 

Not that that makes you any less right for saying foch was a [edited], but the point wasn't foch being a [edited]. It's Wg not taking the moral high ground, but even worse stooping to something as despicable as threatening arguably false copyright claims.

 

Thanks for the explanation. If I'm being given a label I like to know what it means!

 

The root of the matter is a man behaving badly and then the situation escalating from there.



NiemandXL #954 Posted 20 May 2017 - 02:28 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 34127 battles
  • 2,577
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013

View PostZoidFile, on 20 May 2017 - 01:05 AM, said:

 

I also leave this here:

 

 

 

Wow, seems like WG is really getting the publicity they deserve. Becoming the star of the next Jimquisition is probably not what they expected would happen when they attempted to silence Foch.

HeathLedger_ #955 Posted 20 May 2017 - 02:30 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 250 battles
  • 422
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

View PostSlyspy, on 20 May 2017 - 02:27 AM, said:

 

Thanks for the explanation. If I'm being given a label I like to know what it means!

 

The root of the matter is a man behaving badly and then the situation escalating from there.

 

Which only really was a problem for Wg because he was made a community contributor. Funny how those circles work. It's hard to blame foch directly for Wg overstepping their limit and threatening DMCA's.

Slyspy #956 Posted 20 May 2017 - 02:33 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 13607 battles
  • 15,178
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostHeathLedger_, on 20 May 2017 - 02:30 AM, said:

 

Which only really was a problem for Wg because he was made a community contributor. Funny how those circles work. It's hard to blame foch directly for Wg overstepping their limit and threatening DMCA's.

 

He caused the situation to become charged in the first place and it went from there. People make mistakes.

HeathLedger_ #957 Posted 20 May 2017 - 02:38 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 250 battles
  • 422
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

View PostSlyspy, on 20 May 2017 - 02:33 AM, said:

 

He caused the situation to become charged in the first place and it went from there. People make mistakes.

 

The only reason it could become charged in the first place is WGs fault. Foch went over the limit. Revoking his CC status was justified. Everything past that was WG's transgression no matter what foch did or didn't do. It's unfair to omit Wgs part of the blame, just like it's unfair to omit foch's part in the blame.

HugSeal #958 Posted 20 May 2017 - 05:05 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17485 battles
  • 1,308
  • [SWEC] SWEC
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012

View PostSlyspy, on 20 May 2017 - 01:58 AM, said:

 

I made no comment on the ethics of threatening Foch with a copyright strike. Nor do I understand the word antifa. But I do believe in being civil in my interactions with other people.

 

Well, you actually kind of did. You basically said that Foch brought it upon himself ("If only Foch had kept a civil tongue in his head none of this would have happened" ) and that it really is that simple. And I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

He brought losing cc status onto himself, sure. But what he did not bring upon himself was getting threatened by a huge company to take down the video or otherwise they would abuse a system to make a strike not in any way connected to the issue just to get rid of his video and threaten Fochs livelihood.

 

I mentioned earlier in this thread that claiming he brought this upon himself is like claiming assault victims brought it upon themselves because they walked around at night. But it is not the victims fault when someone decides to overpower them through their size and very shady actions. The one doing the overpowering is always the one to blame.

 

Well, atleast that's my opinion, it's just one of those principles I tend to stick by.

 


Edited by HugSeal, 20 May 2017 - 05:13 AM.


Innapropriate_Username #959 Posted 20 May 2017 - 05:19 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 7542 battles
  • 78
  • Member since:
    12-12-2015

View PostOcelot_Shalashaska, on 19 May 2017 - 11:53 PM, said:

having tanks in the same tier, Obj.268 and Maus, one has average win ratio of 46% and other has 57% on the same tier clearly means that something is off.

it is a solid 1 tier difference between their ability to carry battles.

 

Yea something is off all right!

One has a TURRET, other is TD.... dooohhhh...  one is most legendary tank ever to roll on this planet, - other one doesn't even have a name.

 

The sodium levels are erupting, and WG will want to.... how to put it, present a " Sacrificial Maus " to ease off rage of community.

 

On the altar of "end of OP buffing" one Maus will be nerf-slaughtered, and thousands of Defenders, Patriots, Libertes, Scorpions, E25s, M6A2A1s, Cryslers, Blackdogs, VK168's,...etc...etc..etc... will be made available in game shop for "Only This one unique time in History (third times a charm) "

 

Nobody will have problems with Arty or Maps, Game filled with happy players playing T8 OP Premiums with Arty in Peace! And Foch will be ResErected.

 

Everything will be fine, if they only nerf the maus, Peace! And all will go back to sleep (gamestore).

 

.

...

All this "Sodium" is old as Berlin-Treo, and Fosh was foaming about it Year after Year after Year after Year !!! (ok mabe not so many years, but it sounds right!)

His video "Thumbnails" got progressively more dark, yellow and now RED - He was talking and warning - Asking and pointing it out for Years: "PAY2WIN OP IT BURNZ IT BUURNSS!!!"

WG did not talk to him, nobody took him seriously- all just ignored him... and only now, at the braking point they heard the screams of AEEEDZZZZ and all froze in shock!

They did not know what to do, panicked and went for the jugular, foul play, unfar plane...  knife in the back "STFU or Ivan here know how to rub in sodium" and Fosh backed away...

 

But that is Censorship and company internal policy- DO NOT BRING MAUS into "OP-premiums" Pay2Win [edit]STORM!

 

If all "OP" tanks deserve to be deleted from the game, Maus is only one that deserves to stay - clean up all the mess first.

Only after you "fix" Liberte/Parrot-tank/Defender/Crysler-aka-Foshwagon/+++++/ALL of them - only then can you whine about the Maus.

 

 



trispect #960 Posted 20 May 2017 - 06:28 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 28627 battles
  • 1,413
  • [HSOP] HSOP
  • Member since:
    01-16-2011

View PostSlyspy, on 20 May 2017 - 02:58 AM, said:

 

I made no comment on the ethics of threatening Foch with a copyright strike. Nor do I understand the word antifa. But I do believe in being civil in my interactions with other people.

 

Do you understand word victim blaming?




31 user(s) are reading this topic

8 members, 23 guests, 0 anonymous users


    ZoidFile, Velvet_Underground, 8126Jakobsson, Strangeduck, Kovislevy, chris223324, CmdRatScabies, Presidente_San_Escobar