Jump to content

Gin_Blossoms

Members
  • Content Сount

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [-FH-]

Community Reputation

186 Valued poster

About Gin_Blossoms

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

319 profile views
  1. Gin_Blossoms

    Wargaming and a Failed Knowledge Management Process

    You make a lot of assumptions (glad you admit it too...). You should actually read what I wrote out loud about Knowledge Management (KM), go read the Wiki and you might learn I am right about everything I posted as being out of date. As for stats, do they matter when it comes to KM issues within the community and actual voids/poorly articulated information in the wiki website? Also, do you even know what KM is? What it is for? How corporate businesses and the governments around the world are trying to codify the wealth of tacit knowledge into prepared explicit knowledge? Read a book...they hide things in there called words, which when stringed together make these things called sentences ...which have meaning. I know what NA means, what I am illustrating (for those with small amounts of brain cells -- See what I did their with your thinly veiled innuendo?) is that in the game under tech tree tab, they fall in the Europe tag, in other places Pan-Europe, but on the wiki page NA, meaning they have no identified tag. To a new player (not someone as qualified and glorious in skill as yourself) this IS CONFUSING. This is why I am glad Fem is addressing this. Does it change the fact that much of the material on the wiki is wrong? Why did a noob like me have to point it out before someone actually said...we will address that? Perhaps this is a community run program, but it seems dead to me, like many things of yore. Perhaps a larger effort to recruit new members should be implemented, sooner, rather than later. You need not worry, I clearly do not have what it takes to apply... I have received sufficient feedback on this topic addressing my concerns and since it has devolved into questionable/RUMINT romantic relationships between employees at WG and players in O7...I think you can close this one...its well beyond the original intent. You would think that if someone mentioned Knowledge Management, the next time the term KM is used there would be a connection. Guess not. I have not made the acronym readily available in this post. Thank you...you got what I was saying.
  2. Wargaming should make every effort to tap the potential of player experience in this game and it is my opinion, that there is simply not enough effort to do so. In effect, Wargaming is either unwitting to their managing the veteran players around them or worse, are completely complicit and deliberately excluding some clans in their decision processes. Wargaming will tell us that they regularly interact with the NA server player-base to keep us in the loop, gain our trust, and buy-in for the future of the game, but it is simply not enough. Knowledge Management is critical to the survival of this game. What is KM? Well maybe you should also ask what the difference is between Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Let us review what WG is/is not doing, because it does need mentioning, the good with the bad. Clan/Supertest Programs -- This includes many of the top clans in the game. They probably provide some interesting feedback...but how much of it actually impacts releases? How many social/casual or sub 50% player clans are included in this process? How many clans with under 10 members are included? Ever wonder if that is ok? Wargaming NA Staff has made great strides to state they do not hold the opinions of Super Unicums (purple piranhas) highly when it comes to ship testing because they will find ways to break everything. Example: When Smolensk was released, there was a staff member who specifically stated, "IMHO: If a ship is OP only in hands of a really good player that doesn't make it OP at all." So then, why are only the top clans involved in the Supertest program? Wouldn't you want others in there as well? If your data is derived from clans with many 55 percent plus players...is that not working against your own statements? Also, I can conclude with absolute certainty that Smolensk is balanced. Wiki Editors -- This is in complete shambles. The updates and reworks are happening so fast, no one can keep up. New players coming to the game are failing because they are grabbing a ship like the Mino thinking the AA is good only to find out, it was halved from 0.8.6 to 0.8.7. But whatevah?! Right?!! I do not know who is in charge of this, but it needs help...a lot of help. From what I understand, the purpose of the wiki website is to be the foundational base for players to access and resource everything related to the WOWS game. In the current meta, there has been a large number of changes starting with the carrier rework and the introduction of numerous other ships to the game. There are numerous inconsistencies between the wiki website and the actual state of the game. Worse still, there are entire pages of "filler," which have not even been addressed. There seems to be a growing need for increasing the number of available wiki editors. Right now, if I inquired how many players and or clans are involved in the "supertest" program, I imagine it would be at least 150 to 250 players on the NA server alone, likely more. If I inquired as to how many personnel and resources are assigned to the wiki website, I imagine, there would be a far smaller population (less than 10) and a lower priority/emphasis in the eyes of WG management. Unfortunately, this is a concern because in effect WG is asking players in WOWS to either be/remain A. Uninformed about game mechanics; B. Look elsewhere for relevant answers or C. A combination of both, which adds to the general confusion and disparaging game knowledge between newer players and existing veterans. With each new iteration of changes to the game it would appear that the general state of the wiki website falls into further disrepair as the gap between in-game tweaks and changes increases against the pool of available individuals relegated with codifying and memorializing the identified changes into the wiki website. NA Privateers -- Architects and Construction dudes, the guys who make models...and Wargaming is the primary beneficiary of their hard work. I wonder how much WG actually saves each year on this program? I actually appreciate what is being done in this regard as it falls into a niche somewhere between an actual developer and the wiki editors/cc/supertestor programs. For this though, one can post in their only thread and discover that 45 days go by and there is still no response to a question there. I guess this means actual information that might be useful to the community is not a concern or priority...because submarines come before fixes. How to fix all this? Let's start by removing the barrier of bias built up from three to four years ago against a few select members of the clan O7, aka Devastating Strike, the best clan NA. How much of O7 is involved in the clan supertest program? Why are they excluded? Should I refer to the above program comments and take that as the reasoning? To me, O7 has some of the most veteran and quite frankly, badass players in this game...and yet for all of their achievements they have been actively excluded from participation. I guess my question is, why is O7 getting blackballed? This is a massive Knowledge Management failure. I wonder who else/how many other clans are intentionally excluded... To fix the wiki, why not expand the clan tester program to assign each clan a line of ships? For example give Kraken the British Battleship line. At the time of a new patch, they go in and specifically maintain said line of ships. This breaks up the work and the wiki editors you have in place monitor this and are more project managers with WG reserving the right as the Program Manager. Tap into those players who have informal assessments here on the forums and on other social media outlets. Some are actually pretty sound, have empirical data and others are more of a "feeling", which should not be ignored, because YOUR SPREADSHEETS don't know how I feel despite your best efforts to say that they do! (No matter the performance). Now, a few pictures to show some inconsistencies between the game itself and the wiki website/other areas. 1. Where is SAP? Or are we not allowed to talk about that yet. 2. Mino AA was nerfed wasn't it? So this is misleading. 3. The ingame screen is different from that on the wiki website. 4. Friesland apparently belongs to the Europe...no...Pan Europe...no... NA group. HUH? Very confusing. 5. What category of ship does the Stalingrad fall into? The wiki says, "As a premium ship, Stalingrad doesn't have any upgrades to research." That said, it does not auto populate in that group... Without further ado, please do something about this WG, give more than a select few a chance. Please be inclusive of top tier clans and player input.
  3. Gin_Blossoms

    Share your Happy CV thoughts!

    My happy thought is knowing the spreadsheets support the statements of players having fun against double CV at Tier 10. It is irrefutable. And that makes me happy.
  4. So are you suggesting a DD rework to fix the submarine rework to fix the NTC aka RB rework, which was designed to fix the CV rework?
  5. Gin_Blossoms

    TL:DR - Research Bureau

    I like the idea of RB. Thank you wargaming for such an innovative approach to giving players more options. As soon as I can, I am going to be regrinding lines. Cannot wait to experience what its like to farm millions of xp again.
  6. Gin_Blossoms

    Can we have special mode - "club developer"

    Spreadsheets indicate people are having fun. Statements like these seem to be a USN playerbase issue.
  7. Gin_Blossoms

    My Preliminary Opinion on Somers

    If you had a choice, would you prefer to be a Somers or a Neustra?
  8. Gin_Blossoms

    Privateer Program: General Information + FAQ

    Where can one find a list of the current privateers?
  9. Gin_Blossoms

    Is Gearing outdated?

    Yes
  10. This thread is about two specific topics both rolled into one. I had the opportunity to tune into the fight for flagship tournament today and I would like to express my gratitude to a return to nostalgia and a second chance at redemption, which I will explain later. @Femennenly You wanted shout outs so here is mine. First things first, watching the streams today, there was some fun games and good plays. I also learned a lot about positioning and hope to apply it to my own gameplay. The Fight for Flagship tournament could serve several purposes; 1. Improve interest (indirectly) to the Research Bureau as tier 8 ships looked fun to play again. 2. Return to a Supremacy League style format that I used to watch. This was in my opinion the best of all competitive formats. Nostalgic soup! The option to have bans was also a nice touch. 3. Stagnation...by making one of the tournament formats something in other than tier 10...this also helped to be a bit more refreshing...again thank you. As for redemption, I would like to nominate @Quadrilus to be a Community Contributor. Quad assisted in putting together a great tournament and wrote a very length rule guide...which was refreshing and unique to other game modes I have seen. I do believe at one time he was being considered for a CC position but for some reason was not selected. I would strongly ask that you reconsider. He is critical to the community and a value added. In conclusion, give Fight for the Flagship tenure as a return to Supremacy League and give Quad a second chance at becoming a community contributor. Everyone deserves a fair shot at redemption...lets get him into the program!
  11. Gin_Blossoms

    TL:DR - Research Bureau

    Like CVs in 8.0? Or Belfast/Kutuzov? Gremy? Old Midway (rts jets and two torp squadrons)? Missouri (for credits and radar)? Guilio? Or do you stand by the comments above? If so why would nerfs and buffs ever occur?
  12. Gin_Blossoms

    Conq Accuracy

    I would like to think that the Monarchs guns could use some love.
  13. Gin_Blossoms

    Dev Blog: Subs are here

    Once upon a time, folks complained of torp soup. Now, this is going to be grand. When they release I see a lot of teams built as such; 4 x Submarine, 4 x Destroyer (because lets face it, this seems to be a good natural hard counter), 1 x CV, and god help anyone else who has to swim through the torpedo soup. Will deep water torps be able to hit deep water submarines? Will torpedoes be able to be fired underwater or can we just expect subs to ram one another? Also, I see a lot of ships get snagged on islands in the game. If this happens in a submarine and your O2 runs out, does the ship immediately implode? Would be funny...but an island bug should not be a nice way of introducing new fun and engaging game mechanics. Really looking forward to this "change" to how the game will be played...but thought you should hear some potential hot button areas.
  14. Gin_Blossoms

    ST, California & Marceau

    Nice WG, good to see. Looking forward to the CC thoughts on this one, especially the tier 7 American BB!
  15. Gin_Blossoms

    Tell Tale Signs of Good Player

    In ranked or random...or coop? You arent far off...rather surprising.
×