Jump to content


Feedback to WG


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

LordMuffin #1 Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:12 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48080 battles
  • 10,876
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

Should every players feedback to WG be of equal worth?

 

Example:

Should WG care as much about a 1k battle 45% WR players feedback as they should care about a 55% WR 10k battle players feedback? 

 

Personally I think the 1k battle 45% WR players feedback should be ignored.

These players are not invested in game (only 1k battles)

These players have bad to very bad understanding of game mechanics, tank powerlevel,  map designs, map tactics and so on.

They are basicly uninvested clueless players.

These guys could also leave at any moment for any reason, because they are not invested. And even if all their ideas got implemented, they could leave within the next 300 battles.

 

Should the 10k 55% WR players feedback be taken into account? Yes.

He/she is invested in the game (10k battles) and he/she have some/decent knowledge about tank powerlevel, game mechanics, tactics on maps etc.

This guy have invested more time and effort, which means he probably want the game to succeed and proceed to exist in the long run.

 

 

If we are creating a function of skill and battles and plot it against relevance of feedback. 

I definitely believe that more skilled and higher battle count players feedback should be give way more relevance than that of low skill and low battlecounts players.



Draz_H #2 Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:18 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14692 battles
  • 647
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

If they collected only feedback from players in the first paragraph then you would only have 1 type of ammo and only heavy tanks rolling arounds.

 

Steve the IS-7 driver would love it.


Edited by Draz_H, 27 February 2018 - 09:19 AM.


macenkrace #3 Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:19 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9784 battles
  • 237
  • [RA-DV] RA-DV
  • Member since:
    12-29-2012

View PostLordMuffin, on 27 February 2018 - 08:12 AM, said:

Should every players feedback to WG be of equal worth?

 

Example:

Should WG care as much about a 1k battle 45% WR players feedback as they should care about a 55% WR 10k battle players feedback? 

 

Personally I think the 1k battle 45% WR players feedback should be ignored.

These players are not invested in game (only 1k battles)

These players have bad to very bad understanding of game mechanics, tank powerlevel,  map designs, map tactics and so on.

They are basicly uninvested clueless players.

These guys could also leave at any moment for any reason, because they are not invested. And even if all their ideas got implemented, they could leave within the next 300 battles.

 

Should the 10k 55% WR players feedback be taken into account? Yes.

He/she is invested in the game (10k battles) and he/she have some/decent knowledge about tank powerlevel, game mechanics, tactics on maps etc.

This guy have invested more time and effort, which means he probably want the game to succeed and proceed to exist in the long run.

 

 

If we are creating a function of skill and battles and plot it against relevance of feedback. 

I definitely believe that more skilled and higher battle count players feedback should be give way more relevance than that of low skill and low battlecounts players.

 

How about a high  number of battles but a 48% winrate? should these be also ignored?

You may not be saying this, but it is what you're suggesting. All players invented into the game should have an equal chance, not just higher ranked players.

Draz_H #4 Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:23 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14692 battles
  • 647
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

View Postmacenkrace, on 27 February 2018 - 08:19 AM, said:

 

How about a high  number of battles but a 48% winrate? should these be also ignored?

You may not be saying this, but it is what you're suggesting. All players invented into the game should have an equal chance, not just higher ranked players.

 

Depends on every player regardless of skill. Maybe the 48% would have a nice idea or a cosmetic idea that would suit everyone. Maybe he would just cry about ammo. On the other hand, higher skilled player would probably moan about super heavies / arty.

 

I think all should be considered / read and then quickly disregard autistic complaints.


Edited by Draz_H, 27 February 2018 - 09:24 AM.


Simeon85 #5 Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:32 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,321
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

Well that is the issue isn't it, clearly they have been listening to too many poor players, particularly around armour and we now have the situation with corridor maps and overbuffed armour which is highlighted in ranked where 70% of tanks are heavy tanks, the rest are armoured meds like the 430U and 907, or very heavily armoured TD like the 268 v4.

 

Anything around mobility, flanking, vision etc. in the game has steadily been nerfed because the below average players in the game can't handle it, whined about it, and WG stupidly listened to them. 

 

Making balance changes because bad players can't play the game properly or use tanks properly is a wholly stupid idea for the long term health of the game. This is because the game has a learning curve, most invested players who stick with the game long term will improve, they will progress and learn the game mechanics, except now these sort of players are progressing then getting annoyed because some 47% er gets an easy game because WG have shifted the meta so those sort of players have an easier time through tanks like the Type 5 or corridor maps where learning the game because less relevant. 

 

So your invested players leave, they don't become hooked anymore and your veterans also start leaving because again the game is being dumbed down and they experience and learned skills become less relevant when you can just hump into a heavy tank, barely know what you are doing and still do fine. 

 

It is clear IMO that a lot of the better players have simply left because the game has become dumbed down.

 

Short term thinking, OP premium tanks is another example of that, if they were thinking about the long term health of the game then they would be ignoring bad players whining about their armoured tanks because they should know that they are playing them badly. Long term they would get more income IMO from invested, happy players and their veterans, not newer poorer players.

 

Anyone testing or giving feedback should at least be competent at the game, what feedback are you going to get from player's who drive out sideways in front of 5 tanks, or who drive into the open with no cover, or who camp base in their top tier tanks or suicide scout in their lights.  You are going to learn nothing from these sort of players and trying to make tanks that makes them better leads to OP and broken tanks like the Type 5 or 268v4 that everyone else hates.

 

There is also the issue about objectivity, as we can see from all the Defender whine, player's are selfish and do not care about the overall balance of the game, they just want an OP stomping machine for themselves. 

 

Have said it before but there should be a council of players who do super testing and give feedback on balance changes/new content, these players should be competent players (green and upwards IMO), who are experienced (at least 10k battles if not 20k) and play a wide cross section of vehicles, tiers and nations. 

 


Edited by Simeon85, 27 February 2018 - 09:37 AM.


anonym_kL7qtn3e52MB #6 Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:36 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 6,815
  • Member since:
    07-10-2018

Smells like the  "You need at the very least 1.345.678 samples to get a balanced result. Anything less is bias"

 

And who sets the boundaries?

 

 

 

 

I smell a "Your stats suck, your opinion doesn't matter" ploy (which I thought was something which isn't allowed on this here forum)


Edited by Spek_en_Bonen, 27 February 2018 - 09:39 AM.


unhappy_bunny #7 Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:39 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17926 battles
  • 2,471
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

View PostLordMuffin, on 27 February 2018 - 09:12 AM, said:

Should every players feedback to WG be of equal worth?

 

Example:

Should WG care as much about a 1k battle 45% WR players feedback as they should care about a 55% WR 10k battle players feedback? 

 

Personally I think the 1k battle 45% WR players feedback should be ignored.

These players are not invested in game (only 1k battles)

These players have bad to very bad understanding of game mechanics, tank powerlevel,  map designs, map tactics and so on.

They are basicly uninvested clueless players.

These guys could also leave at any moment for any reason, because they are not invested. And even if all their ideas got implemented, they could leave within the next 300 battles.

 

Should the 10k 55% WR players feedback be taken into account? Yes.

He/she is invested in the game (10k battles) and he/she have some/decent knowledge about tank powerlevel, game mechanics, tactics on maps etc.

This guy have invested more time and effort, which means he probably want the game to succeed and proceed to exist in the long run.

 

 

If we are creating a function of skill and battles and plot it against relevance of feedback. 

I definitely believe that more skilled and higher battle count players feedback should be give way more relevance than that of low skill and low battlecounts players.

 

Of course, if a 35k battle 80% w/r player comes along, then his feedback would count even more than the 10k 55% w/r player, wouldn't it?

Where do you draw the line?

 

 



Simeon85 #8 Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:44 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,321
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013
I'd also add that people that consistently blame their teams/matchmaking etc. *cough* macenkrace *cough* should just be ignored full stop. 

ThebaldEagle #9 Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:47 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 757 battles
  • 375
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View Postunhappy_bunny, on 27 February 2018 - 09:39 AM, said:

 

Of course, if a 35k battle 80% w/r player comes along, then his feedback would count even more than the 10k 55% w/r player, wouldn't it?

Where do you draw the line?

 

 

 

He only draw the line where it do benefit himsel the rest of us dosent matter to him as he is the all mighty one here,

how many remember the nick name he got when he was trolling the general chat it was Lord F.........



iztok #10 Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:54 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 35215 battles
  • 2,463
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

View PostLordMuffin, on 27 February 2018 - 09:12 AM, said:

Should every players feedback to WG be of equal worth?

WG only cares about feedback from players that feed them.



Element6_TheSprout #11 Posted 27 February 2018 - 09:59 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29043 battles
  • 10,382
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

While you can't trust feedback from low battlecount players with bad stats when it comes to game mechanics, you should certainly trust them when they give feeback as to how their percieve the entertainment value of the product. Which poses a dilemma; If the majority of your customers are dissatisfied with a "balanced" product, you will need to do something or else run the risk of losing your customer base. As with any product it is demand that dictate sales, not what you want to sell.

 

I'd argue that for most people who buy cars, they have very little technical insight into the product they are buying, things like feelings, color, petrol type and number of seats play a far bigger role in the overall picture.



Lycopersicon #12 Posted 27 February 2018 - 10:02 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 10600 battles
  • 3,563
  • Member since:
    07-30-2014

There is an argument for weighing a player's opinion by his battle count, but I see no reason to take even a glimpse at a player's performance when considering his opinion. We are all just customers of WG, and our playing experience should matter pretty much equal, regardless of whether we can pull off 40% or 60% wins. A butcher doesn't care whether his client will cook a delicious meal out of the meat he buys or gives it to a dog; a customer is a customer.


Edited by Lycopersicon, 27 February 2018 - 10:03 AM.


Simeon85 #13 Posted 27 February 2018 - 10:19 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,321
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostLycopersicon, on 27 February 2018 - 10:02 AM, said:

There is an argument for weighing a player's opinion by his battle count, but I see no reason to take even a glimpse at a player's performance when considering his opinion. We are all just customers of WG, and our playing experience should matter pretty much equal, regardless of whether we can pull off 40% or 60% wins. A butcher doesn't care whether his client will cook a delicious meal out of the meat he buys or gives it to a dog; a customer is a customer.

 

If a customer came back to a butcher and said my dog doesn't like your meat, I seriously doubt the Butcher is going to take any notice of that feedback or make any changes. 

Lycopersicon #14 Posted 27 February 2018 - 10:24 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 10600 battles
  • 3,563
  • Member since:
    07-30-2014

View PostSimeon85, on 27 February 2018 - 11:19 AM, said:

 

If a customer came back to a butcher and said my dog doesn't like your meat, I seriously doubt the Butcher is going to take any notice of that feedback or make any changes. 

 

No, but if a customer comes and complains that the shop was dirty and the clerk was rude, then it really shouldn't matter whether said customer has a slightest clue what to do with the meat he bought.

Simeon85 #15 Posted 27 February 2018 - 10:31 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,321
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostLycopersicon, on 27 February 2018 - 10:24 AM, said:

 

No, but if a customer comes and complains that the shop was dirty and the clerk was rude, then it really shouldn't matter whether said customer has a slightest clue what to do with the meat he bought.

 

And a 46% player is perfectly capable of complaining about WG's customer service or support or premium shop deal or about the UI etc., but if he's complaining that X heavy tank is not very good, when he is driving it sideways in the open, his feedback quite correctly should be ignored.

 

It would be like someone complaining to a car manufacturer that their car is not very good when they don't know how to drive or spend all the time just driving in first gear.  If you want meaningful and usable feedback, especially for something like balance, then you need an expected level of competency and experience from the user, otherwise the feedback is useless. 

 


Edited by Simeon85, 27 February 2018 - 10:33 AM.


Jumping_TurtIe #16 Posted 27 February 2018 - 10:41 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6127 battles
  • 841
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-26-2015

They should not have to listen to any players at all. They should be good enough to do it themselves since 99% off the players have biased opinions on how this game should be.

 

Ignoring the mojority of the players who bring in the majority of the money would also be a bad idea. And in the end it is all obout the cash income.



Draz_H #17 Posted 27 February 2018 - 10:46 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14692 battles
  • 647
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-30-2011

View PostJumping_TurtIe, on 27 February 2018 - 09:41 AM, said:

They should not have to listen to any players at all. They should be good enough to do it themselves since 99% off the players have biased opinions on how this game should be.

 

Ignoring the mojority of the players who bring in the majority of the money would also be a bad idea. And in the end it is all obout the cash income.

 

Which they are doing for the past 7 years and doing it fine based on the numbers :)

Lycopersicon #18 Posted 27 February 2018 - 11:02 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 10600 battles
  • 3,563
  • Member since:
    07-30-2014

View PostSimeon85, on 27 February 2018 - 11:31 AM, said:

 

And a 46% player is perfectly capable of complaining about WG's customer service or support or premium shop deal or about the UI etc., but if he's complaining that X heavy tank is not very good, when he is driving it sideways in the open, his feedback quite correctly should be ignored.

 

It would be like someone complaining to a car manufacturer that their car is not very good when they don't know how to drive or spend all the time just driving in first gear.  If you want meaningful and usable feedback, especially for something like balance, then you need an expected level of competency and experience from the user, otherwise the feedback is useless. 

 

 

I'm not sure that anyone's opinion should be taken into account when it comes to balance. You need data, i.e. statistics, not someone's opinion for this.

Jumping_TurtIe #19 Posted 27 February 2018 - 11:05 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6127 battles
  • 841
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-26-2015

View PostDraz_H, on 27 February 2018 - 10:46 AM, said:

 

Which they are doing for the past 7 years and doing it fine based on the numbers :)

 

Indeed. Forum full of complaints and they keep making more money each year .... yeps, they are doing a very bad job ... They made 417.000.000 profit in 2017 ...

jabster #20 Posted 27 February 2018 - 11:14 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,811
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostLycopersicon, on 27 February 2018 - 09:24 AM, said:

 

No, but if a customer comes and complains that the shop was dirty and the clerk was rude, then it really shouldn't matter whether said customer has a slightest clue what to do with the meat he bought.

 

More importantly, if a real foodie gave feedback that they won't be using their shop as the animals haven't been raised to the highest welfare standards and the provenance is not clear, well lots of butchers reaction will be whatever mate. Taking feedback only from customers who aren't your majority target market doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Edited by jabster, 27 February 2018 - 11:50 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users