Jump to content


What merits do you need for becoming a supertester?


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

jabster #21 Posted 09 October 2018 - 10:45 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12754 battles
  • 25,896
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostHomer_J, on 09 October 2018 - 08:59 AM, said:

It's supposed to be a mix of player abilities but from what I heard the problem is more to do with the testing regime WG have set up than the testers.

 

From my limited understanding of what supertesters actually do a lot of the complaints about them seem to be a mismatch between what players think they should be doing and what WG gets them to do. The impression I get is that the programme is really designed to test whether the changes have the desired outcomes and not whether those outcomes are ‘good for the game’.

 

In this case the clamour for EU testers would seem rather misplaced. 


Edited by jabster, 09 October 2018 - 10:47 AM.


Simeon85 #22 Posted 09 October 2018 - 11:06 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 1141 battles
  • 4,131
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostJumping_Turtle, on 09 October 2018 - 10:26 AM, said:

 

The game would be dead wintin two years if you only listen to the best/better players.

 

It really wouldn't. 



Jumping_Turtle #23 Posted 09 October 2018 - 11:11 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 70021 battles
  • 7,708
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostSimeon85, on 09 October 2018 - 11:06 AM, said:

 

It really wouldn't. 

 

I really think it would. This game isnt made for the 5% of the best players. It is here to make money from all the others. And the things the better to best players want arent the same as all the others want I think. And gamebalance, what the better players want, isnt always the best option when you want to make money.

Koriin #24 Posted 09 October 2018 - 11:12 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14553 battles
  • 229
  • Member since:
    11-02-2012

Not long ago, early September 2018, I received an email saying some ships are added to my World of Warships account. The email was received from the supertest team of WoWs. Now, I never played, installed or showed interest in WoWs so I don't know how this happened, but unfortunately I was not planning to do anything with it.


For WoT I am not sure. Wouldn't mind testing some stuff, but I don't really have a lot of time either. 



anonym_VJVVUp5heVv5 #25 Posted 09 October 2018 - 11:17 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 1,055
  • Member since:
    01-15-2019

I don't see many benefits other than turning a hobby into a job, which is the fastest way to kill a hobby.

 

 



Jumping_Turtle #26 Posted 09 October 2018 - 11:26 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 70021 battles
  • 7,708
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostEdweird, on 09 October 2018 - 11:17 AM, said:

I don't see many benefits other than turning a hobby into a job, which is the fastest way to kill a hobby.

 

 

 

Certainly when ignored and/or not listened to all the time ...

arthurwellsley #27 Posted 09 October 2018 - 11:28 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 54060 battles
  • 4,018
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostDorsVenabiIi, on 08 October 2018 - 06:36 PM, said:

They're probably one of the reasons game is going downhill, do they just pick anyone without thought to for example how much experience they have, in game stats, having experience in all significant (tiers 5 and up), especially having experience in tier 10. Not saying everyone should be a unicum, but there shouldn't any under average players making such decisions, you should be half decent in my opinion all across the board in every tier and tank class( except arty since a monkey could do well with that). 

 

How does it work?

 

1. Make an account on RU.

2. Be able to use the feedback areas, express yourself clearly, and not use profanity.

3. Give regular feedback.

4. Be capable of fluently expressing yourself in Belarussian or Russian.

5. Be capable of adhering to the terms and conditions and not leak stuff (something all the EU Supertesters seemed incapable of).

 

Making your own account on RU is not difficult (I have one). Expressing yourself in a foreign language can be challenging. Being dedicated enough to give regular feedback means putting aside some of your time to writing stuff up (were you studious at school?). I was a tester for WOP, WOWS, and Total War: Arena, and gave up as it took up too much time.

 

Complying with the terms and conditions seems an issue for some people (both For the Record and Armored Patrol rely on leakers for information).

 

But OP from your forum posts I suspect that the reason you personally might not be chosen, even if you met the criteria in 1,3,4, and 5 above is encapsulated in point 2. Your forum posts are impolite quite often. Why would an employee of WG who is chosing someone to regularly give feedback chose someone who's posts are frequently churlish?


Edited by arthurwellsley, 09 October 2018 - 11:31 AM.


Geno1isme #28 Posted 09 October 2018 - 11:33 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48319 battles
  • 10,232
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostSimeon85, on 09 October 2018 - 10:41 AM, said:

That is the issue with a lack of transparency, WOWs EU/NA seems to do a lot better with communication and a connection to the game developers than WOT EU/NA/SEA were we just seem to be cash cows and the future development of the game seems very focused on the Russian playerbase.

 

Well, for WoT RU stands for like 60-70% of the global playerbase (ignoring china). With WoWs those numbers are likely far more balanced across the regions simply due to the navy being more rooted in history with US and UK than tanks.

Simeon85 #29 Posted 09 October 2018 - 11:36 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 1141 battles
  • 4,131
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostJumping_Turtle, on 09 October 2018 - 11:11 AM, said:

 

I really think it would. This game isnt made for the 5% of the best players. It is here to make money from all the others. And the things the better to best players want arent the same as all the others want I think. And gamebalance, what the better players want, isnt always the best option when you want to make money.

 

That implies that better players would make a game for themselves which is a bit assumption in itself.

 

A greater understanding of the game means a greater understanding of what works, what doesn't, what is balanced and what is not IMO.

 

A bad player has a narrow perception of the game, they struggle to see beyond their own limited understanding of the game, we see that on the forums, if they are beaten by X tank, then X tank is OP and bad, they complain about X tank, they cannot see why X tank beat them and why X tank might actually be balanced and good for gameplay diversity. 

 

If you don't know how the mechanics of the game work, how can you know that something that operates within those mechanics is balanced? 

 

Also many players are on the journey towards being better players, for many that is why they are here, the learning curve, the attempt to master the game, to improve, players on that journey are essentially the same as your top players, they just aren't quite as far along the path, but likely their principles and wants are going to be similar.  These are also players you want to engage, they are generally going to be your most dedicated players who are likely to invest the most. 

 

Personally I wouldn't advocate something as arbitrary as 'top 5%' or whatever, I think what would be best is players who are experienced, dedicated, have played all the classes to some level, have experienced multiple lines AND can show a general competence of play that shows they understand the game mechanics and can think about them critically. That isn't top 5%, it applies to more people than that, but it's not some 8k battles 48% er that has only played TDs.

 

I agree though what is good for balance is not necessarily good for WG's bank balance, which is why we probably see OP premiums and OP tier 10s, but then those in reality are not good for WG's bank balance long term, because those sort of balance ideas put players off whatever their skill level. 

 

Balance is generally good for everyone because they just play the game and feel they contribute, if they feel they are losing or their fun is impacted because of an OP tank, broken mechanic, bad MM etc. then they will stop playing, play less or stop paying, whatever their skill level.

 

Plus there is a whole apathetic level of  player in this game who do not care whatever, they click to battle, they shoot some red tonks, they die, they move on. It doesn't really matter what you do, those players will still be here so you might as well engage the players who do care. 

 

It's why I think the player's council that Warthunder came up with is a good one, like I said I don't think it should be some unicums club, but it should be the better end of the playerbase because you need to know how the game works and how any proposed changes would work within that game. 



Homer_J #30 Posted 09 October 2018 - 11:51 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 32787 battles
  • 35,616
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostKoriin, on 09 October 2018 - 11:12 AM, said:

Not long ago, early September 2018, I received an email saying some ships are added to my World of Warships account. The email was received from the supertest team of WoWs. Now, I never played, installed or showed interest in WoWs so I don't know how this happened, but unfortunately I was not planning to do anything with it.

 

And you got another a few days later saying it was a mistake.  Someone just used the wrong mailing list that's all.

 

View PostSimeon85, on 09 October 2018 - 11:36 AM, said:

 

That implies that better players would make a game for themselves which is a bit assumption in itself.

 

A greater understanding of the game means a greater understanding of what works, what doesn't, what is balanced and what is not IMO. 

What is balanced for the top 1% isn't balanced for the middle 60%

 

Quote

It's why I think the player's council that Warthunder came up with is a good one, like I said I don't think it should be some unicums club, but it should be the better end of the playerbase because you need to know how the game works and how any proposed changes would work within that game.

The thing is the game has been quite successful (i.e. making lots of money) while ignoring suggestions from those top players for quite some time.



Jumping_Turtle #31 Posted 09 October 2018 - 12:15 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 70021 battles
  • 7,708
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostSimeon85, on 09 October 2018 - 11:36 AM, said:

 

That implies that better players would make a game for themselves which is a bit assumption in itself.

 

 

I think everyone who is making sugestions based on his own experiences is altering the game so it benefits themself more than anything else.

One example. There are not that many players or suggestions who think about the consequences for WG moneywise. And after all it comes down to that. For us it is a game, for WG it is a business where every choice is about making money. We never think about that. And we can say a lot about WG but they do know how to make money. They are in the top 10 earning games for a reason for the last 5 years with a 510 million profit last year. And that without listening to the playerbase for the most part.



jabster #32 Posted 09 October 2018 - 12:15 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12754 battles
  • 25,896
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostHomer_J, on 09 October 2018 - 10:51 AM, said:

The thing is the game has been quite successful (i.e. making lots of money) while ignoring suggestions from those top players for quite some time.

 

Seems the player council would be a pretty easy job. If any of the rump of players complains about an issue then the solution is to learn to play.



Jumping_Turtle #33 Posted 09 October 2018 - 12:28 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 70021 battles
  • 7,708
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View Postjabster, on 09 October 2018 - 12:15 PM, said:

 

Seems the player council would be a pretty easy job.

 

We cant even agree here on the forum most of the times. So how that council if that would exist of a selection of all players would work beats me.

geoff99 #34 Posted 09 October 2018 - 01:41 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 42903 battles
  • 306
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    09-20-2012

View PostJumping_Turtle, on 09 October 2018 - 11:28 AM, said:

 

We cant even agree here on the forum most of the times. So how that council if that would exist of a selection of all players would work beats me.

 

Good point. The Players Council will sometimes agree on stuff (eg offer tanks for sale standalone as well as in bundles) and sometimes disagree (eg Arty should be removed). I'd have thought that discussing issues and trying to present an honest view of the full spectrum of players opinions to WG would be an important part of the council's role.



Simeon85 #35 Posted 09 October 2018 - 02:01 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 1141 battles
  • 4,131
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 09 October 2018 - 11:51 AM, said:

And you got another a few days later saying it was a mistake.  Someone just used the wrong mailing list that's all.

 

What is balanced for the top 1% isn't balanced for the middle 60%

 

Quote

It's why I think the player's council that Warthunder came up with is a good one, like I said I don't think it should be some unicums club, but it should be the better end of the playerbase because you need to know how the game works and how any proposed changes would work within that game.

The thing is the game has been quite successful (i.e. making lots of money) while ignoring suggestions from those top players for quite some time.

 

Balance is balance, the clue would be in the name, the skill of the players is pretty irrelevant. An E100 and Bat Chat are fairly well balanced against each other, yet one has a higher skill ceiling and higher potential than the other.  

 

And the game has been at its most successful actually listening to players, arty got nerfed because of players, emblems for increased crew skills got binned because of players, pref-MM changes got binned because of players, most of that came from this forum and other media that will be more skewed to the more dedicated and generally above average players.

 

Plus the game is old and losing players, so can;t live on past glories and WG shouldn't be naive to believe that their dedicated players will take anything they throw at them, which they clearly are not, as the decline shows.

 

A players council would be one part of better engagement with that dedicated community and show that they were listening to their main playerbase. 

 

View PostJumping_Turtle, on 09 October 2018 - 12:28 PM, said:

We cant even agree here on the forum most of the times. So how that council if that would exist of a selection of all players would work beats me.
 

 

The sandbox forum was a smaller bunch of dedicated testers, generally the right decisions were still made, WG just butchered the decisions made there at later dates. There was discussion and plenty of disagreement but it was still valuable feedback and it helped make (at least from our view) good balance decisions. 

 

You just need good moderation and actual engagement from WG employees, which we don't have on this forum, we have moderators that don't even read things in context or read whole threads, like the moderator that congratulated a troll thread the other day, in which the OP had literally written that they had pretended to be disabled throughout. 

 

 


Edited by Simeon85, 09 October 2018 - 02:05 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users