Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
MannyD_of_The_Sea

WG, It Is TIME to Step Up Cooperation With Cutomers

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,084 posts
6,009 battles

Wargaming, you NEED to work with your customers Regarding Coal, Steel, Free XP, and Ships, and be more forthcoming. The Arsenal is only weeks old, and consternation is starting to set in among your customers.

I am among those who welcome the new currency/resources that you have introduced into WoWs. This opens up other means of acquisition, that were heretofore unavaialble to us, for ships, signals modules, etc.

However, this introduction is causing problems to your player base: The Free XP premium ships/higher cost coal ships are significant long-term goals for your customers. Lack of information regarding long-term availability of ships by the various means now available adversely affects the ability of your customer base to plan acquisitions.

Threads are starting to pop up on this subject; I will use my own situation as an example:

I am about 90% of the way to a Free XP T9 ship. I am, with a coupon, about 40% of the way (with coupon) to the Musashi in the Arsenal. I am interested in both Kronshtadt and Musashi. So, my course would seem rather straightforward: get kronshtadt via Free XP, then Musashi via coal in the Arsenal.

But, like many, I have concerns about the continued availability of both ships. And then there is the coming introduction of Alaska. Free XP ship? Coal ship" Steel Ship? Other ship? The same could be said of the upcoming Jean Bart.


These ships represent too large an amount of resource saving and planning to have vagueness regarding means and times of availablity.

Wargaming/WoWs needs to step up it cooperation with customers and provide information that helps its customers plan major resource expenditures/ship acquisitions.

The matters with Missouri and its removal, when it was marketed with phrases like "to stay", etc., doubtlessly have left a bad taste in some customers mouths. Only WG/WoWs has the ability to prevent this kind of situation in the future

Does Kronshtadt face removal upon release of Alaska because, as WG expressed it (recalling from memory the best I can): "Having two Free XP ships serving the same role is pointless"?

Does Musashi face removal upon release of Jean Bart because, as WG expressed it (recalling from memory the best I can): "Having two Free XP ships serving the same role is pointless"?

Removal is hardly the only problem on the horizon: Does a customer save up for two expensive ships via two currencies, to purchase one, only to see, the second switched between currencies before the second acquisition can be made?

 

@Pigeon_of_War, @Gneisenau013, @Radar_X, @turbo07

  • Cool 6
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
297
[KNTI2]
Members
787 posts
4,311 battles

Third option: get Kron and Musashi via F2P FXP, then pay for 750k convertible as needed to get what you want after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
471 posts
12,484 battles

They are giving you free stuff and you are complaining?

I understand your point, and Wargaming could/should improve.

On the other hand the tone of your post is dictating to them . Maybe ask next time instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
697
[5D5]
Members
2,289 posts
14,387 battles

Umm, you could have gotten your point across in 2-3 sentences instead of this novel.

Mo's removal was messaged well in advance of it's actual date (months ahead). Some players lamented that they didn't plan wisely but there was no bad taste within the player base otherwise there would have been more threads than "when are subs coming into the game" since it's removal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,084 posts
6,009 battles
18 minutes ago, NATOMarksman said:

Third option: get Kron and Musashi via F2P FXP, then pay for 750k convertible as needed to get what you want after.

Wargaming's favorite customer right there. First option: "Plan better. Save $120."

I like my option.

I'm reasonably confident that short of an Alaska monkey wrench, I'll meet my goal. This may help others (and me too) further down the road.

 

19 minutes ago, Prothall said:

They are giving you free stuff and you are complaining?

I understand your point, and Wargaming could/should improve.

On the other hand the tone of your post is dictating to them . Maybe ask next time instead.

Telling Wargaming that they risk getting customers rankled due to unforeseen (or foreseen but allowed) consequences is not a complaint. Telling them that they have to do better than the past in similar areas is not dictating, it's just having a good grasp of the situation, and providing warning to their benefit.

 

17 minutes ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

... but there was no bad taste within the player base...

You can find plenty of salty posts upset over Missouri being available "forever" (and you'll find me in there, responding that Wargaming never used that word.)

20 minutes ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

Umm, you could have gotten your point across in 2-3 sentences instead of this novel.

You make your points your way, I'll make mine my way. Feel free to miss my points, your way.

Note to self..."Reduce level of writing to forum reading level...increase misspellings to suitable level. Consider crayons."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
297
[KNTI2]
Members
787 posts
4,311 battles

> plan better save $120

More like "plan better, don't get enough coal per day, and then complain about having another freemium option available because it's not fast enough".

It's not having the information would change your choice. Even if you knew either would be removed for certain, it just forces the same choice you're already making, which is "what freemium do I want first". This is a decision you would have made even if they remained available.

If you want to collect them for certain, convert and it will physically be in your port and not in doubt.

Otherwise choose and deal with the possibility of not getting the other.

It's that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
156 posts
12,547 battles
5 minutes ago, MannyD_of_The_Sea said:

Note to self..."Reduce level of writing to forum reading level...increase misspellings to suitable level. Consider crayons."

I'm feeling a bit hurt right now...  :Smile_sad:  LOL!

However, not knowing what will (or will not) be available in the Arsenal at some point in the future is somewhat frustrating.  (hoping to get the SALEM, but will likely require 5-6 more weeks of grinding out coal)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
697
[5D5]
Members
2,289 posts
14,387 battles
17 minutes ago, TheGreatBlasto said:

Picture one of those obscenely overused In Before the Lock gifs right here--> x.

 

 

For once I have to agree with you, please stop this in the future though :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[LOU1]
Members
3,061 posts
8,148 battles

In all fairness, I don't think they have set a time frame yet.  I know that I wouldn't at this time if I was in the same position.  As in other things, I figure that they are watching to see what the actual earning rate of the playerbase is in practice and how long it takes to earn ships.  Then they will have an idea of how long to keep a ship in the Arsenal.  If they set a time frame now, without that knowledge, it could be too long or too short.  Both of those situations would case a lot of consternation if they were far off the mark.  We only see a small sample of trends/stats, but as LWM and others have pointed out, WG looks at the low, middle, and top percentiles to make decisions.  In almost two years, I have never seen WOWS treat us poorly and I don't think they will start now.  It would be nice to know now, but I would rather wait until they discern a pattern than have them make a snap decision that is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
312
[BROOK]
Members
1,618 posts
3 minutes ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

For once I have to agree with you, please stop this in the future though :Smile_teethhappy:

The other one used ad nauseam is the "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means" one.   Talk about a low effort post utterly lacking in any creativity.  It's enough to make a grown man weep.

:Smile_hiding:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×