Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Ace_04

WG Apology

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,043
[SALTY]
Members
8,930 posts
18,141 battles

Not sure if anything was submitted like this, as I couldn't find anything recent about it.  My apologies if this has already come up.

 

My question of the day is, does WG owe the NA Community Contributors an apology for the last minute changes that screwed the reviews put together by them?  I've seen a couple YouTube videos now from Zoup and iChase where they have issued apologies to us for incorrect information, but from what I can tell, the CC's have done nothing wrong.

 

The CC's were given the German DD's to review a day before they were released and presented information based on the ships they were given.  After the fact it seems, WG made some last second changes to the ship line that contradicted in many ways what the CC's had brought forth as information to us.

 

Now, I'm not a bounty hunter out for anyone's head, but I do find it very unfair that the CC's are coming to us, the community, and apologizing for something that they didn't even make an error on.  Everything that changed is out of the CC's control.  It seems like a pretty embarrassing hiccup on WG's part to not allow the CC's the proper information and/or inform them of changes so they can present the proper content on their channels.

 

The CC's are an integral part of our community and share very valuable knowledge with us.  And now they are made to look the fool.

 

I think WG should do the right thing and give these hard-working CC's an apology of their own.

 

What are your thoughts?

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,064 posts
1,925 battles

Not sure if anything was submitted like this, as I couldn't find anything recent about it.  My apologies if this has already come up.

 

My question of the day is, does WG owe the NA Community Contributors an apology for the last minute changes that screwed the reviews put together by them?  I've seen a couple YouTube videos now from Zoup and iChase where they have issued apologies to us for incorrect information, but from what I can tell, the CC's have done nothing wrong.

 

The CC's were given the German DD's to review a day before they were released and presented information based on the ships they were given.  After the fact it seems, WG made some last second changes to the ship line that contradicted in many ways what the CC's had brought forth as information to us.

 

Now, I'm not a bounty hunter out for anyone's head, but I do find it very unfair that the CC's are coming to us, the community, and apologizing for something that they didn't even make an error on.  Everything that changed is out of the CC's control.  It seems like a pretty embarrassing hiccup on WG's part to not allow the CC's the proper information and/or inform them of changes so they can present the proper content on their channels.

 

The CC's are an integral part of our community and share very valuable knowledge with us.  And now they are made to look the fool.

 

I think WG should do the right thing and give these hard-working CC's an apology of their own.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Sure thing. I was hyped about the KMS DDs, but now I have nothing to fill my three or four empty port slots with.

 

WG hasn't released an epic line since the KMS BBs.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
972 posts
822 battles

Ultimately, any stats that are released are subject to change and every CC of reputable source even say this concurrently. WG could change all the stats of every ship to be 1 across the board tomorrow if they wanted to.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,263
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,725 posts
26,569 battles

WG hasn't released an epic line since the KMS BBs.

 

It's not a whole line but high tier RNCL are pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,106
[ERN]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
10,906 posts
4,896 battles

they do not own a apology. All ships in testing is subject to change on release. Community Contributors knows this, they made it very clear

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,043
[SALTY]
Members
8,930 posts
18,141 battles

Ultimately, any stats that are released are subject to change and every CC of reputable source even say this concurrently. WG could change all the stats of every ship to be 1 across the board tomorrow if they wanted to.

 

This is very true.  But when you have a support network of CC's out there that are basically pushing them game for you, why would you make them look like fools for?  I mean, it wouldn't have been the end of the world to delay the patch for another couple of days just so everyone can catch up to the changes prior to release.

 

On a secondary note, I have a feeling the fire detection range increase is the first step towards eliminating invisi-fire in the game, as they stated would be an upcoming shift in the game format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,645 battles

they do not own a apology. All ships in testing is subject to change on release. Community Contributors knows this, they made it very clear

 

QFT

 

In a word, no one is owed anything because everyone should already know that it's not released yet and can still change.

 

What I think WG need to apologize for are ending the practice of putting new lines on PTS. PTS is what got the Khabarovsk nerfed from 10,000% [edited]down to the 1,000% [edited]that it was when it was released. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,422
[SOLOH]
[SOLOH]
Beta Testers
4,320 posts

crap in one hand and wish for WG to do something in the other see which one fills up first 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,324
[NERO]
Members
3,630 posts

Everything can change up to release, and non-premiums can change after release. This is the nature of reviewing such things when you want to get views and hits by being early to market. As I said in another thread, the previewers (which is a better word than review since they are not final at the time) made a point to say these stats could change. I didn't watch all of them that were made, so it's entirely likely some CCs didn't give that heads up. If they didn't, that's on them. Not WG. 

 

And if players did get that heads up but assumed nothing was going to change, that's on the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,650 posts
1,608 battles

RN Cruisers are great, once you slog past the early stuff. As for German DDs... I have a feeling that this new "pedestrian" approach is the rule of thumb for destroyers until such time as carriers are revitalized. It's a very, very popular ship type, and there's a lot about the overall design of destroyers that I think Wargaming, frankly, regrets. I wonder if they could do the alpha all over again if they would make some big decisions differently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,088
[MAUS]
Members
13,698 posts

I had about 2/3s of a review ready for the Ernst Gaede when it was made clear that some kind of change was happening.  I put my review on pause, wanting to get the new information rather than add amendments to the article after it was published.  Well, the changes were significant.  So significant in fact that it nulled the playtesting impressions I had about the ship and I knew I would be starting over from scratch.

 

Does Wargaming owe us an apology?  Well, no.  The Community Contributors reported on what was, not what is.  To the credit of players like Zoup and iChase, they appreciate that some players will take their word as gospel and not pay much attention to the caveats and warnings made at the beginning of their videos that everything is subject to change.  They have manned-up (as it were) and provided apologies of their own -- not because Wargaming should have issued apologies to the Community Contributors, but because they appreciate that they have influence within their community and if they report something, people are inclined to believe it.

 

What this has done for us Community Contributors is made us more wary.  This isn't the first time we've had content ready to go and then things change.  Sometimes this is minor, like with the Missouri (who had her AA power improved between review and release).  Sometimes this is pretty major, like with the Saipan getting laser accurate dive bombers and her reserve loadout adjusted.  Sometimes this is a complete overhaul.  I had a review of the Edinburgh well underway when the British Cruisers were pulled and revamped.  My review had to be scrapped.  The changes to the German Destroyers (with their blanket 3.5km detection penalty while firing and other changes) is big-- enough to completely alter perceptions.  For me and the other contributors, it means that the sneak peak we received did us more harm than good -- colouring our initial perceptions and now tainting them when we try and re-evaluate the ships.  This is the price for getting early access, though.  We're privy to seeing stuff that may or may not be permanent.

 

It's rare to see such wild changes right up to release.  We hope that this isn't a precedent for things to come, but you can bet that we'll all be more wary of it in the future.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
471 posts
5,902 battles

Ultimately, any stats that are released are subject to change and every CC of reputable source even say this concurrently. WG could change all the stats of every ship to be 1 across the board tomorrow if they wanted to.

 

That is not an excuse for a last second untested nerf to hit a class....

 

If it was unbalanced then change it and playtest more....  don't end testing and then nerf the class.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,043
[SALTY]
Members
8,930 posts
18,141 battles

I had about 2/3s of a review ready for the Ernst Gaede when it was made clear that some kind of change was happening.  I put my review on pause, wanting to get the new information rather than add amendments to the article after it was published.  Well, the changes were significant.  So significant in fact that it nulled the playtesting impressions I had about the ship and I knew I would be starting over from scratch.

 

Does Wargaming owe us an apology?  Well, no.  The Community Contributors reported on what was, not what is.  To the credit of players like Zoup and iChase, they appreciate that some players will take their word as gospel and not pay much attention to the caveats and warnings made at the beginning of their videos that everything is subject to change.  They have manned-up (as it were) and provided apologies of their own -- not because Wargaming should have issued apologies to the Community Contributors, but because they appreciate that they have influence within their community and if they report something, people are inclined to believe it.

 

What this has done for us Community Contributors is made us more wary.  This isn't the first time we've had content ready to go and then things change.  Sometimes this is minor, like with the Missouri (who had her AA power improved between review and release).  Sometimes this is pretty major, like with the Saipan getting laser accurate dive bombers and her reserve loadout adjusted.  Sometimes this is a complete overhaul.  I had a review of the Edinburgh well underway when the British Cruisers were pulled and revamped.  My review had to be scrapped.  The changes to the German Destroyers (with their blanket 3.5km detection penalty while firing and other changes) is big-- enough to completely alter perceptions.  For me and the other contributors, it means that the sneak peak we received did us more harm than good -- colouring our initial perceptions and now tainting them when we try and re-evaluate the ships.  This is the price for getting early access, though.  We're privy to seeing stuff that may or may not be permanent.

 

It's rare to see such wild changes right up to release.  We hope that this isn't a precedent for things to come, but you can bet that we'll all be more wary of it in the future.

 

It just seemed like you could sense the overtones of frustration in the videos.  And maybe I'm in the wrong for thinking an apology by WG is warranted.  But I still do feel that the carpet was pulled out from under you guys in a way that could have been handled much better.

 

I don't really like getting into the politics of the game too much, as I do very much like this game and the effort that WG puts into it.  In fact, they still do many things very well and I know their intentions are good.  The devs put in a ton of hard work to try and keep us satisfied.

 

But like you said, let's just hope this isn't a precedence for things to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,455
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
3,985 posts
2,373 battles

Seems like the simplest solution would be to adopt a stricter policy of making every possible effort to not drop the community contributor NDA on unreleased content until absolutely 100% certain that no further changes are to be made between then and the release.

 

I understand that there could never be a bulletproof guarantee that something can't fall through the cracks and need to be remedied.  In that (hopefully rare) scenario, a dev could make a post under 'Important Topics' explaining any changes not reflected in the reviews, and why they were made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,043
[SALTY]
Members
8,930 posts
18,141 battles

Seems like the simplest solution would be to adopt a stricter policy of making every possible effort to not drop the community contributor NDA on unreleased content until absolutely 100% certain that no further changes are to be made between then and the release.

 

I understand that there could never be a bulletproof guarantee that something can't fall through the cracks and need to be remedied.  In that (hopefully rare) scenario, a dev could make a post under 'Important Topics' explaining any changes not reflected in the reviews, and why they were made.

 

Exactly.  

 

Just so that those who voluteer to make the game better don't waste valuable time producing irrelevant/misinformed content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,088
[MAUS]
Members
13,698 posts

 

It just seemed like you could sense the overtones of frustration in the videos.  And maybe I'm in the wrong for thinking an apology by WG is warranted.  But I still do feel that the carpet was pulled out from under you guys in a way that could have been handled much better.

 

I don't really like getting into the politics of the game too much, as I do very much like this game and the effort that WG puts into it.  In fact, they still do many things very well and I know their intentions are good.  The devs put in a ton of hard work to try and keep us satisfied.

 

But like you said, let's just hope this isn't a precedence for things to come.

 

It is frustrating, to be certain.  I can't speak for the others, but one "Premium Ship Review" or "Ship Preview" represents up to (and including) 20 hours worth of work.  And don't for a moment think that it's not enjoyable (it totally is), but it is a significant investment of hobby hours that could be better spent elsewhere. Finding twenty-hours to dedicate to a project means budgeting carefully over several days up to a week if we have the advanced notice.  This  ensures that I get everything done on time to be ready.  So the frustration is perhaps understandable when you consider that significant changes made to a ship at the eleventh hour represents throwing away not only the 20 hours of work so far invested into a project, but also everything that was put off in favour of getting the project done (like going to see Rogue One with my friends, divisioning with my online buddies, playing with my niece, working on my Aurin-house in Wildstar, etc).

 

As ever, the Community Contributor program is still in its infancy.  Wargaming and we contributors are still learning from one another.  We provide feedback based on our experiences.  We've let them know, for example, that expecting us to have content ready with less than 48 hours to playtest and produce videos / articles, etc, just isn't feasible for anything but a one-off venture.  For example:  all of the HMAS Perth content you saw was all done within 48h of being given access to the ship.  I'm not happy with how that content came out (I would have preferred to have a done a detailed side by side with the Leander but there wasn't time). 

 

Now I'm not privy to what happened behind the scenes with the German Destroyers.  The Supertesters that are in the know aren't allowed to comment.  My best guess is that the ships underwent two or three iterations, with the last iteration being tested while the Community Contributors were being given access to the previous version.  We produced our content on one version while the final adjustments and feedback were being collected for what would become the final draft of the ships.  As Community Contributors are completely detached from the testing process, we have no warning or communication that significant changes have been, or will be made.  This is obviously a flaw in the review system and we've asked to be kept appraised of changes -- not necessarily the details (if it represents a risk of a leak) but merely that such changes are coming and how extreme.  This will let us decide for ourselves whether to risk publishing or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,515 posts
3,255 battles

I think what WG owes is an explanation of where DD play is going. The new German line is easily the weakest line in the game. They have hydro, but with the nerf will play more like Russians with US shell arcs, and it won't come into play. Every thing else other destroyers can do better.

 

So where is WG going with stealth firing and the DD meta? Because it makes no sense investing my time past tier 4 unless the meta changes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,043
[SALTY]
Members
8,930 posts
18,141 battles

I think what WG owes is an explanation of where DD play is going. The new German line is easily the weakest line in the game. They have hydro, but with the nerf will play more like Russians with US shell arcs, and it won't come into play. Every thing else other destroyers can do better.

 

So where is WG going with stealth firing and the DD meta? Because it makes no sense investing my time past tier 4 unless the meta changes

 

Well, based on the initial CC reviews, it was safe to say that the invisi-fire window on the high tier German DD's was a bit much.

 

However, it has been stated that WG wants to eventually remove stealth-fire from the game completely.  I personally think this is the first step in the process.

 

Eliminating stealth-fire may not be a bad thing (as nobody likes being killed from an invisible enemy), but your point about the high shell arcs combined with almost being forced to play their guns like Soviet DD's will make it challenging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,088
[MAUS]
Members
13,698 posts

I suspect that the nerf to German invisi-firing is a sneak peak at things to come.  Hide your stealth-gunships, because I think we may see more blanket "3.5km" stealth taxes taped on across all ships in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,263
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
27,725 posts
26,569 battles

Hide your stealth-gunships

 

Only ship I have that I really play as such is my Blyskawica. I wonder how WG is going to tackle the premium ships with this "we want to get rid of stealth firing" thing they're on about.

 

I suspect wg did this on purpose, to make these ships seem better that they actually are. cc's say they're great and everyone goes after them and wg wins $$$

 

That doesn't make any sense. WG knows very well what public backlash can do after the recent Alabama thing, and anyone invested enough to check out CC reviews on a ship line is also going to be invested enough to pick up on the backlash that the firing concealment penalty nerf is bringing. My bet is they decided at the tail end of playtesting that the line was still too strong and implemented the nerf in a hurry before the deadline. Their only other option was to delay the introduction of the DEDDs and that wouldn't have gone over well with the public either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,645 battles

 

Only ship I have that I really play as such is my Blyskawica. I wonder how WG is going to tackle the premium ships with this "we want to get rid of stealth firing" thing they're on about.

 

 

Hopefully they get their heads out of their asses on the "we don't nerf prem ships" thing and they nerf them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,088
[MAUS]
Members
13,698 posts

 

That doesn't make any sense. WG knows very well what public backlash can do after the recent Alabama thing, and anyone invested enough to check out CC reviews on a ship line is also going to be invested enough to pick up on the backlash that the firing concealment penalty nerf is bringing. My bet is they decided at the tail end of playtesting that the line was still too strong and implemented the nerf in a hurry before the deadline. Their only other option was to delay the introduction of the DEDDs and that wouldn't have gone over well with the public either.

 

I don't think Wargaming could afford to delay the launch of the German Destroyers -- not with the timing around the holiday season.  Let's be honest, a delay of a week around this time of year can quickly spiral into a delay of three weeks to account for various holidays between different denominations of faith.  No, the German Destroyers had to go out ASAP or risk being pushed back well into 2017 and upsetting any future plans further.  Of course, I am just guessing here, but this is based on my experiences dealing with different companies over the years.

 

Only ship I have that I really play as such is my Blyskawica. I wonder how WG is going to tackle the premium ships with this "we want to get rid of stealth firing" thing they're on about.

 

I can see them doing it a couple of ways.

 

  • Change Captain Skills & Modules.  There are few premium ships that can stealth fire without Captain Skills and modules tweaking their performance.  An overhaul of Captain Skills and a general nerfing of the Concealment Modification would go a long way towards providing this.
  • Remove the offending premiums from the store.  Ships like the Blyskawica, Leningrad, Lo Yang & Anshan go the way of the Gremyashchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,596
[-KIA-]
Banned
9,382 posts
28,311 battles

Hopefully they get their heads out of their asses on the "we don't nerf prem ships" thing and they nerf them. 

A stealth-fire nerf wouldn't necessarily be a nerf to a premium ship depending on how it's done.  If the concealment numbers on the ship itself are reworked then that's a direct nerf, but if they just change the logic of the concealment algorithms, that's a blanket nerf.

 

Still a nerf either way but we know WG loves to walk those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[1TEX]
Members
494 posts
6,702 battles

Not sure if anything was submitted like this, as I couldn't find anything recent about it.  My apologies if this has already come up.

 

My question of the day is, does WG owe the NA Community Contributors an apology for the last minute changes that screwed the reviews put together by them?  I've seen a couple YouTube videos now from Zoup and iChase where they have issued apologies to us for incorrect information, but from what I can tell, the CC's have done nothing wrong.

 

The CC's were given the German DD's to review a day before they were released and presented information based on the ships they were given.  After the fact it seems, WG made some last second changes to the ship line that contradicted in many ways what the CC's had brought forth as information to us.

 

Now, I'm not a bounty hunter out for anyone's head, but I do find it very unfair that the CC's are coming to us, the community, and apologizing for something that they didn't even make an error on.  Everything that changed is out of the CC's control.  It seems like a pretty embarrassing hiccup on WG's part to not allow the CC's the proper information and/or inform them of changes so they can present the proper content on their channels.

 

The CC's are an integral part of our community and share very valuable knowledge with us.  And now they are made to look the fool.

 

I think WG should do the right thing and give these hard-working CC's an apology of their own.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Nah.

 

I for one am glad the toned down the German DDs a bit; keep them from power-creeping the IJN and Lo Yang out of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×