Jump to content

Croda

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    420
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    11284
  • Clan

    [WOLF7]

Community Reputation

521 Excellent

About Croda

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah I said the same a while back as well. It's a great idea. Unfortunately, WG's concept of "micro-transactions" isn't so micro.
  2. Croda

    Silent majority

    I'm not a statistician, so here's my lightly-educated opinion. They have hard metrics, and they have soft metrics. The hard metrics like damage done, dmg received, etc. are easy to capture and easy to work with. Seeing the charts in that devblog linked earlier gives a great example of these and how they are used. The soft metrics are much tougher. As mentioned earlier in the thread, they have data on player behavior - how often do people exit the game after playing vs. a sub or cv for example, and they have various surveys. The behavioral data can speak to actions, but they can't give context or ascribe intent to the actions. Sure they can say that over 20k battles where players encountered a submarine, X% resulted in the player immediately quitting and in Y% the player continued to play. But the fact that a player quit or continued doesn't speak to how they were feeling. The idea is that it will balance out over a large number of games, but to be sure they also augment the behavioral data with survey data. This includes the random "how was your last battle" popup we get occasionally plus the distributed surveys with targeted questions. They then have a wealth of soft metrics to use in order to get at the underlying feelings of the player base. The question then is one of data interpretation, and my suspicion is that any soft data that doesn't point to outright rejection of something is interpreted as acceptance and tacit approval - and here you have your silent majority. Again, this is my best guess and could certainly be way off, but I'm not sure how else to make sense of how they correlate disparate behavioral data and survey results with the idea that they have a low expectation on player interest in subs, yet are reporting a high number of a "silent majority" who are keen on their inclusion. That's right. Thanks for that. I pulled the 10% from the devblog that was linked, and couldn't recall the original number that was stated.
  3. Croda

    Silent majority

    Personally, I have trouble reconciling the idea that a silent majority are happy with subs being in the game, yet WG is only expecting around 10% engagement with subs. So does that mean that if 10% will play subs and a silent majority want them in game, then in excess of 40% of players want subs yet have no interest in playing them? Someone help me out here.
  4. I completely agree with the op. WG seems unhappy that so may play only high tiers, and I think they overlook this as one of the causes. Most of my ships are tier 10 because I don't feel like regrinding things. IMO, captains should not lose their ability to command a ship they've already been assigned to, and premium time should include unlimited free captain respecs as well. I can't begin to tell you how much more I'd play this game if those two things were in place m
  5. This was my thought on it as well. There was nothing he answered that wasn't data WG already had. I can't fully understand the purpose, but I also have trouble seeing how this isn't constructed just to be an advertisement. Is that criminal? Nope. But considering people generally view surveys as legitimate fact-finding attempts in order to better a product (or its marketing), when the net of the survey seems to be nothing more than an advertisement, then moves like this undermine the credibility of the entire survey process. After seeing this I'll personally be a lot quicker to decline the survey offers and I can't imagine that was the initial desire of issuing this particular survey.
  6. It feels like there's a distinct lack of urgency to address game-impacting submarine issues. This one and the scenario where the sub can toggle between depths and have full vision as well as damage immunity are two recent ones that come to mind. I realize that subs are still in testing, but they are in testing on the live server, in live games, with live paying players - many of whom are having their game experiences lessened by these submarine issues. The company needs to decide if this is a test server or a live server. If it's a test server, stop asking people to spend money on it. If it's a live server, fix the egregious game-impacting issues like this one. Superships were on the live server for about a day before there was a quick economics fix based on very early math. Those economic issues were not game breaking in the slightest yet were corrected with extreme urgency. Yet submarine bugs languish because "they're still in testing."
  7. Croda

    More San Diego Nerfs

    But BURST is very powerful!!!!!!!!!!! BURST BRRRRRRRRRRRRRST!!!! joke
  8. Thank you both. About what I was figuring. A more player-focused approach would be to give out nothing but low-tier tickets and allow you to combine them in increments up to the tier 4 bonus limit. Their current approach definitely makes Bank on the innate gambling instinct for that one good game.
  9. How much will it cost to use the Armory service to break higher tier tickets into lower tier ones? Has it explicitly been stated to be free, or is it one of the hanging vagueries that almost certainly means it'll cost doubloons?
  10. Croda

    Tier 11 premium ships !

    That's gonna be one fun dock yard event...
  11. Very few people care if it's up any more
  12. Croda

    Merits of Super ships in Clan battles??

    Do we know if super ships will match as tier 10? Will a team with super ships match against a team without?
  13. Croda

    Massachusetts: Sub Killer

    I think it's simpler, actually. Nothing nefarious. They just get so caught up in the game design aspects of "making it work" that they lose all concept of things making any sense. The interactions between ships are crazy complex and the hole is now dug so deep they can't get out. Just keep designing and make it work. If it won't work, get as close as possible and move on to the next thing. They just can't see what they've lost in the process, which is any semblance of the reality the game used to be based on. I don't know if any of the original devs still work on this game, but I'd have to imagine that the ones who did - wherever they are - must be furious at the shambles their creation has become.
  14. Croda

    Massachusetts: Sub Killer

    Yeah I have to agree. I think they extrapolated way too much from the initial tests. It's been over 2 years and it still doesn't feel close. That says a lot.
×