Jump to content

Furboat

Members
  • Content Сount

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    14042
  • Clan

    [HOPAS]

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Furboat

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Furboat

    Important message for the community

    Thank you for the response, a couple of notes: But you did not separate them in your messaging here. Gaslighting is a continuing problem with WG's approach to community communications. It's a horrible way to interact with people and may bely a lack of respect or appreciation for the community. Snap out of that habit. There is nothing technical about the business model. Anyone who has a enough sense to possess money to buy pixels from you has enough sense to understand the business model. Saying "you just don't understand" is another bad habit of WG community communications. I didn't say anything about UX or software other than discussing how WG communicated about it, so this can only be a response to my comment that, in essence, P2W with a loot box model is not great. WG has never even attempted to explain why it is good for the game. We are left to assume, and rightly I believe, that there is nothing about the game that is enhanced by P2W loot boxing.
  2. Furboat

    Important message for the community

    Reposting my response from another thread: Let's start with the obvious. WG has a problem with communication and it is not improved by this message or the intent stated in it. On one hand, the promise of increased transparency is good, as well as the promise of publishing additional information about transactions, such as actual drop odds. This message is undermined by the inability to communicate specific decisions--and the reasonable inference that WG is not able to make specific decisions at this level. The writing is just bad, and bad writing means the message is lost in ambiguity and obfuscation of the point. Technical and persuasive writing are important skills and every organization needs to have people within the organization that have those skills. This message is full of dodges and uncertainty.** Promises of "more to come" and pointing out that some changes and adjustments are hard give little comfort. When you communicate, you have to have simplicity as your goal. Start with your point, provide the facts that caused you to get to the point, then state the reasoning that you applied to the facts in reaching your conclusion. WG does not follow this approach in its writing and readers trying to restructure its statements in their head to make sense of it will lead to different interpretations for different readers. You can also dissect the apology portion for elements of a good apology. See the website sorrywatch.com for more analysis of what makes a "good" apology ("We should have known better" in the Missouri portion, for example). Several elements of a good apology are missing, and there are several elements of a bad apology (such as lashing out at the community for being "unreasonable" about monetization comments, or asking for understanding about WG's professed inability to figure out how to improve its own game) that are present. It's more than we have received from WG in the past. It's not well done. Another issue is the repeated assurances of legal compliance. This is nothing to be proud of. Legal compliance is the most basic obligation. Whether or not something is legal does not mean it is good for the game. Other F2P games don't necessarily firewall the winning meta behind "randomized" loot boxes. That fundamental flaw in the quality of this game may be arguably legal in most jurisdictions, but does it foster a devoted longterm player base that will pay money again and again? My clan has lost members based on this issue alone--and we are every day players. Perhaps the brightest point of the message is the "Feedback" portion that gives at least some information about specific concerns that have been around the game for some time. Some of it is borderline meaningless, like talking about when WV44 might be released, but some of it is very important--like CV balancing and AI issues that came out of the CV rework. Unfortunately, again neither of these explanations satisfy because they point to deficiencies in the core competency of the design team. My bottom line reaction--this is better than what happened before, but this should have been closer to the initial response to the CC revolt. It is not only far from perfect, it reflects a continuing problem in the skillset of the leadership of this company. Is it enough for me to reopen my wallet? Hmm, please understand that this is a very difficult process and there will be more to come as I consider how to decide about the decisions I have to make. **Footnote: I was a little surprised that they used 500 for the number of people in the organization. WG's website used to say 5,000 just recently and now says 4,500. (Sauce: https://wargaming.com/en/careers/) Maybe they meant 500 people in the WoWs team as opposed to all games? More inconsistency and confusion.
  3. Let's start with the obvious. WG has a problem with communication and it is not improved by this message or the intent stated in it. On one hand, the promise of increased transparency is good, as well as the promise of publishing additional information about transactions, such as actual drop odds. This message is undermined by the inability to communicate specific decisions--and the reasonable inference that WG is not able to make specific decisions at this level. The writing is just bad, and bad writing means the message is lost in ambiguity and obfuscation of the point. Technical and persuasive writing are important skills and every organization needs to have people within the organization that have those skills. This message is full of dodges and uncertainty.** Promises of "more to come" and pointing out that some changes and adjustments are hard give little comfort. When you communicate, you have to have simplicity as your goal. Start with your point, provide the facts that caused you to get to the point, then state the reasoning that you applied to the facts in reaching your conclusion. WG does not follow this approach in its writing and readers trying to restructure its statements in their head to make sense of it will lead to different interpretations for different readers. You can also dissect the apology portion for elements of a good apology. See the website sorrywatch.com for more analysis of what makes a "good" apology ("We should have known better" in the Missouri portion, for example). Several elements of a good apology are missing, and there are several elements of a bad apology (such as lashing out at the community for being "unreasonable" about monetization comments, or asking for understanding about WG's professed inability to figure out how to improve its own game) that are present. It's more than we have received from WG in the past. It's not well done. Another issue is the repeated assurances of legal compliance. This is nothing to be proud of. Legal compliance is the most basic obligation. Whether or not something is legal does not mean it is good for the game. Other F2P games don't necessarily firewall the winning meta behind "randomized" loot boxes. That fundamental flaw in the quality of this game may be arguably legal in most jurisdictions, but does it foster a devoted longterm player base that will pay money again and again? My clan has lost members based on this issue alone--and we are every day players. Perhaps the brightest point of the message is the "Feedback" portion that gives at least some information about specific concerns that have been around the game for some time. Some of it is borderline meaningless, like talking about when WV44 might be released, but some of it is very important--like CV balancing and AI issues that came out of the CV rework. Unfortunately, again neither of these explanations satisfy because they point to deficiencies in the core competency of the design team. My bottom line reaction--this is better than what happened before, but this should have been closer to the initial response to the CC revolt. It is not only far from perfect, it reflects a continuing problem in the skillset of the leadership of this company. Is it enough for me to reopen my wallet? Hmm, please understand that this is a very difficult process and there will be more to come as I consider how to decide about the decisions I have to make. **Footnote: I was a little surprised that they used 500 for the number of people in the organization. WG's website used to say 5,000 just recently and now says 4,500. (Sauce: https://wargaming.com/en/careers/) Maybe they meant 500 people in the WoWs team as opposed to all games? More inconsistency and confusion.
  4. Furboat

    WHAT THE .... IS THIS?

    Not only coop. Happened to me in a T6 random. Plus I was in a CV--yeah autopilot rammed me right into the island. No getting out of there while actually playing.
  5. Furboat

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    That's like something professionals would do or something...
  6. Furboat

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    And continually asking us for more time and wait and see. An organization that cannot act nimbly when faced with a crisis is dysfunctional. Add to that, the action is simply more of the same problem? I mean the statement says WG will tell us what their decision is with regard to the Missouri economic boost, but then rolls out a 3% buff without explanation or telling us what their decision is... literally doing the same falsification/miscommunication thing that spawned most of these problems. WG literally does not have anyone making decisions who understands public relations (at least outside of an oligarchic/post-authoritarian quasi-dictatorship). The inability to comprehend its own market is staggering. Even if they have no intention of making meaningful change, they can use much better messaging to placate us. We can still know we're being misled, but at least the messaging would be competent. #walletsclosed #mouseup #endthegambleboxgamemode
  7. I mean, I would trust and listen to skance on anything having to do with CV mechanics. I've seen some better, but he has spent the time (even if only over a couple of years) to understand and get gud. But a lot of us have just been playing longer, let alone those who have been in or interacted with the CC program longer. skance acknowledges this several times, even suggesting that he came into the scene after the "nexus event." So it's that perspective, and from an admitted and humble WG apologist. It seems like most of the CCs who do any kind of analysis beyond streaming shooty botes feel obligated to say something about the state of affairs, but, e.g., Fem (above), as way more of basis to have an opinion. Conviction and research don't necessarily equate to authenticity and understanding.
  8. Furboat

    "Ship Shake" Underwater

    It's a video. Not working? Replay might not show the problem because it appears to be a rendering issue.
  9. Anyone else getting kinda bad shake or jitter underwater? Trying to figure out if it's just because of problems with 4K or something else. I sometimes get a slight shake aiming at enemies far away, but never have seen my own ship doing it. Vid for example: Fuze.tv - Furboat's post
  10. Furboat

    WG made 2 million from the De Witt Update(NA alone)

    As long as the next bundle is actually randomized, I'd agree. The intent and consumer effect is clear though. You can't see the next one until you buy the one you see. The issue is much more pronounced in crate purchases, e.g., the Makarov effect.
  11. Furboat

    WG made 2 million from the De Witt Update(NA alone)

    Terrible explanation of intellectual property. Most of us in this forum are US players, so this is US law here. There is no such thing as a "corporate privilege." Nothing having to do with competitive information such as money made from a certain offering is patentable. Now, WG is technically based in Cyprus, with most operations in Mother Russia. But US law still applies to them to the extent they have a US physical presence, actively market to the US consumer, and have a large US player base. There is a trade secret element to this. Being a privately held company, WG does not have an obligation to release its financials or other data. That's where the competitive information comes in. If certain requirements are met, WG can keep information about its player base and the money they spend on what items secret. BUT, consumer protection laws do require that a "random" thing be actually random and that odds of obtaining a "random" thing for money be disclosed. WG may not offer games of chance for money over the internet.
  12. Furboat

    WG made 2 million from the De Witt Update(NA alone)

    I'll credit WG this: De Witt is showing up in a lot of people's random bundles way earlier than the other early access ship bundles. I did throw some money at it. Bought 9 bundles. Got the De Witt at bundle 8. I think it is more randomized now than it was before. I was looking at that 70-odd bundle chain like De Witt will be showing up at 60 to 70. But lo and behold... random ship bundle is random.
  13. Furboat

    Napoli Build question

    After watching Potato Quality's Napoli video I switched to ASM and range. The dispersion improves substantially, and I didn't feel the pain reducing secondary range at all. You get damage at most angles with AP at range and citadels like a beast close. It's still not a carry ship, but boy will you scare the pants off DMs, Moskvas, and the occasional pushing Stali. Then smoke and let your secondaries and torps work on BBs. PQ's vid:
  14. Furboat

    Brindisi compared to Venezia

    Never meet an Italian ship I didn't like... OK other than T7-8 tech tree BBs. (Veneto is OK I guess.)
  15. Furboat

    CV, ISE, Air Strikes division in 3x3 Brawls

    When people complained about CVs in brawls, my clan mate responded "Imagine not bringing a CV to brawls."
×