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

WG - Save time and heartache - Poll your paying players about plans first

56 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,541
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,866 posts
5,255 battles

WG should take WeeVeegate and use it as a learning experience.

Instead of just making plans and forging ahead with them without any input from your users, they should actually ask the people paying the bills what they would like.   The opportunity to shape the future of the game would vastly outweigh the value of "surprising" the user base.  Often with unpleasant surprises.

The Plan:

WG will maintain a list of players who have spent at least $300 on the game over the past 12 months.  (A very low threshhold, requires only $25/mo in purchases.)

Whenever considering new plans, WG should poll these players about future direction of the game and allow them to weigh in.  This way, WG will not be blindsided by player reaction to various strategic choices.   Questions where this could have saved some aggravation include:

  • We would like to monetize the Colorado A hull.  How should we do this?  West Virginia, West Virginia '41, Maryland, etc?
  • We want to give the Supertesters a special reward ship.  We are planning on using the Alabama for this purpose.  What are your thoughts?  Is there an alternative we should consider?
  • What is the next line of ships we should release?
  • We're creating a special mode with subs.  Should we consider adding these to the main game? (No!!!!)

etc.

  • Cool 9
  • Boring 4
  • Bad 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
435
[VW]
Members
1,932 posts
12,495 battles

What makes you think they or anyone else cares? They said in the stream they dont listen to players, only to stats.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[PRDEF]
Members
79 posts
3,532 battles

Money spent on the game should not have any bearing on player inclusion in such a program.  

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HINON]
Members
2,254 posts
6,298 battles

not sure this is the way to go.... because then you're only getting a small fraction of the community's voice ever heard and would the entire process would reek of elitism and exclusion for those who spend 25 bucks a month or not.

This game is Free-to-play and WG tries to avoid pay-to-win or pay-to-play as much as it can and listens to comments, ideas and critiques of a lot of people.... how much you spend should not factor in how much of a voice you get.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
140
[ENDVR]
Members
410 posts
5,322 battles

The problem with doing so is the person who spends the bare minimum thinking their opinion will be followed despite an overwhelming opposition.  They then make a thread "WG, Listen to ALL your peeps" and we're right back to this thread talking about making changes to a feedback system.  Nevermind the vitriolic threads that would be spawned as well: "I spend $300 and the devs won't listen," or "Cashgrab incentivized feedback is just cashgrab," etc etc etc.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,453
[O_O]
Members
4,397 posts
9,512 battles
33 minutes ago, monpetitloup said:

What makes you think they or anyone else cares? They said in the stream they dont listen to players, only to stats.

And yet there are several examples of WG making changes when the player base reacted to something strongly.

WG does listen to its players.  That doesn't mean everyone gets what they wants, because while you want "A", other players hate "A" and want "B".  Only unified, strong feedback will catch WG's ear.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
114
[RLGN]
Members
420 posts
4,289 battles

If it were a survey it should be open to all players, but "How likely would you be to purchase x?" would be a fair question to include, both to judge interest and to filter opinions on a specific ship by people who are interested in her.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,351
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,387 posts
3,875 battles

I think WG should just ignore anyone who tries to name any controversy "thing-gate".

 

But involving players in the process, at least from a distance, isn't entirely terrible.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
454 posts
8,492 battles
52 minutes ago, TheDreadnought said:

 

  • We want to give the Supertesters a special reward ship.  We are planning on using the Alabama for this purpose.  What are your thoughts?  Is there an alternative we should consider?
  •  

This is one of a long list of problems with this. Everyone is going to want something different and the vast majority will want the world and nothing less.   Someone with reason needs to run the circus and say this is what your getting.  If they don't it's just gona be 80% of people who are going to complain more instead of the 20% that complain anyway.

Edited by WES_HoundDog
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
140
[ENDVR]
Members
410 posts
5,322 battles
15 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

I think WG should just ignore anyone who tries to name any controversy "thing-gate".

 

But involving players in the process, at least from a distance, isn't entirely terrible.

Hey! I enjoyed Thing-Gate, stuff was going on somewhere way back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36
[TBB]
Beta Testers
212 posts
2,510 battles

The entitlement these days is as humourous as annoying. It's not anyone else's game or company. You are not a stock holder let alone controlling stock holder. You are a consumer. Your feedback is noted already entirely based on your purchases. Dont like the WV. Dont buy it. Feedback received. See? Easy.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
5,334 posts
3,939 battles
1 hour ago, monpetitloup said:

What makes you think they or anyone else cares? They said in the stream they dont listen to players, only to stats.

To be fair, players tend to want overpowered things that enable them to win easily.

An example of players running amok is the Graf Zeppelin chaos.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,783
[SALVO]
Members
17,031 posts
17,629 battles
1 hour ago, 212thAttackBattalion said:

not sure this is the way to go.... because then you're only getting a small fraction of the community's voice ever heard and would the entire process would reek of elitism and exclusion for those who spend 25 bucks a month or not.

This game is Free-to-play and WG tries to avoid pay-to-win or pay-to-play as much as it can and listens to comments, ideas and critiques of a lot of people.... how much you spend should not factor in how much of a voice you get.

I guess I disagree.  While this is a free to play game, if you're not someone who spends money on the game, then you're not the audience that WG would care about when it comes to premium goods.  So I have no problem with the idea of asking only the paying customers for feedback on something that involves the sale of premium goods.  That said, I'm not sure that I'd limit such a poll to only those who have spent over $300/yr on the game.  Instead, I'd suggest structuring the poll to include a multiple choice question about how much have you spent on the game over the past year.  Such a question would allow WG to examine the results of the other questions relative to how much one has spent.  That is, maybe people who don't spend that much on the game have a different opinion on something than people who spent a lot on the game.

 

Having said that, if the feedback that WG was looking for wasn't related to premium goods, then I have no problem with the idea of asking the entire community.  After all, overall game play (for example) isn't specifically something related to being a paying customer.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
326 posts
31 battles
1 hour ago, rufus374 said:

Money spent on the game should not have any bearing on player inclusion in such a program.  

Sure it does, if I spent 4k on the game my voice should carry more weight than all the people who have never contributed a cent to the game combined. It is the whales that keep the servers on.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,508
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,090 posts
12,646 battles

The paying vs. free players argument is short-sighted, as always. Free players keep the queues short and the player base active. Paying players keep the bills paid. One doesn't survive without the other. Now kiss and make up.

As for polling past customers, it's a good idea. However, so is polling potential future customers. Getting new wallets opened is just as important and valuable as keeping the old ones from closing.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,541
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,866 posts
5,255 battles
54 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

I think WG should just ignore anyone who tries to name any controversy "thing-gate".

 

But involving players in the process, at least from a distance, isn't entirely terrible.

. . . and yet the two "Gates" (Alabama and West Virginia) have been the most successful examples of WG making a course correction based on player response.

They may hate us. . . but they did it anyway.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,541
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,866 posts
5,255 battles
1 hour ago, monpetitloup said:

What makes you think they or anyone else cares? They said in the stream they dont listen to players, only to stats.

#Alabama

#WestVirginia

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
220 posts
7,619 battles

WestVirginaGHAZI! has a better ring and is a bit more modern than -gate, brohan. But addressing your point I think listening to whales would be opening a pandoras box because having a limited number of opinions influencing the direction of the game would be as dangerous as having a limited diversity of opinions on anything, brohan. Although we could all go "well how is it going to get worse than the plague of poop boats WG has unleashed upon our good people such as the worcester and harugumo" and/or "it doesn't get dumber than making the West Virginia a T6 boat" well it can always get worse. It can always get worse. So although yeah these ideas as they exist are dumb and WG probably knows it but is too embarrassed to say they are dumb as they exist currently and are probably going "holy cow how did we make such dumb ideas" to each other while trying to fix them, maybe we should just let them fix them and hope they stop making dumb ideas. Thanks for reading brohans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,541
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,866 posts
5,255 battles
5 minutes ago, Pytheas said:

WestVirginaGHAZI! has a better ring and is a bit more modern than -gate, brohan. But addressing your point I think listening to whales would be opening a pandoras box because having a limited number of opinions influencing the direction of the game would be as dangerous as having a limited diversity of opinions on anything, brohan. Although we could all go "well how is it going to get worse than the plague of poop boats WG has unleashed upon our good people such as the worcester and harugumo" and/or "it doesn't get dumber than making the West Virginia a T6 boat" well it can always get worse. It can always get worse. So although yeah these ideas as they exist are dumb and WG probably knows it but is too embarrassed to say they are dumb as they exist currently and are probably going "holy cow how did we make such dumb ideas" to each other while trying to fix them, maybe we should just let them fix them and hope they stop making dumb ideas. Thanks for reading brohans.

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,351
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,387 posts
3,875 battles
8 minutes ago, TheDreadnought said:

. . . and yet the two "Gates" (Alabama and West Virginia) have been the most successful examples of WG making a course correction based on player response.

They may hate us. . . but they did it anyway.

I just think there are less idiotic ways to name a controversy, and the use of -gate as a hot take meme extends well beyond this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
120
[SRPH]
[SRPH]
Members
500 posts
1,025 battles
1 hour ago, monpetitloup said:

What makes you think they or anyone else cares? They said in the stream they dont listen to players, only to stats.

How do they have stats on ships that aren't in game yet to know if people will like or want them?  Even if USN BB's currently trended high in general popularity, clearly many were not excited for the first WV version they came up with.  General stats will not determine how successful a specific ship will be.  In another game I play, we are all convinced that management makes their decisions using a dartboard...might apply here too, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,541
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,866 posts
5,255 battles
15 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

I just think there are less idiotic ways to name a controversy, and the use of -gate as a hot take meme extends well beyond this forum.

Yeah I actually kinda agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
Members
706 posts
13 minutes ago, Bonfor said:

How do they have stats on ships that aren't in game yet

internal testing, by giving a surrogate ship the projected parameters they will use

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
872
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,437 posts
8,085 battles

Money should be a none factor - and I say that as someone with multiple premium hips and over a months premium time still left, but it depends on what exactly were talking. 

In the case of do they develop a ship in terms of basics IE say "lets make a stock hull Essex tier 8" - that is up to Wargaming, there should really be no real involvement on us on that level.

However, when it comes to something like West Virginia, where the ship was totally rebuilt and all, and they wanted to make a stock hull CO, this is where you put out a basic poll on "what should we name the ship". It would also not be a bad way of maybe looking at what ship to release next and all as a "what would you like to see" thing once in a while. So, an example that could happen - the Lexington class Battle Cruiser, maybe even as a tech tree ship, is up for addition to the game. Were I them, I would put out a poll because as we all know, that name is currently taken by the tier 8 CV, with the poll being which is Saratoga, and which is Lexington. Which for me, because the CV is in fact Saratoga (had I not seen the hull years that used to be in place of letters, her upgrades are unique to Saratoga), I would say change the CV's name and call the BC's Lexington.

When it comes to things like the CV rework - we should have absolutely been included months ago, not this top secret double probation nonsense that is likely to fail across the board and prove a waste of everyone's time. They should listen to everyone, and I mean everyone, not the crap they puled with GZ because those of us without one and who actually understand how CV's work TOLD THEM it was OP, but many of the owners obviously went "nope, this is fine" as they delete ships. Seriously give me maybe 20 minutes and I can solve the basic fighter issues at tier 4 and 5 so they can fight 1-1 on even footing, just may need some refining afterwards seeing as strafing isn't an issue at those tiers but the fighter balance for it is more an issue that has never been properly dealt with. Give enough time, I can make it a tier 6 fighter stands a chance against tier 7 or 8 with the DFE skill, both nations are balanced better, figure out what we need to nerf the alpha damage to on all ordnance, rough estimation of reduction of USN DB dispersion, already have Midway older numbers and know what Hak should have been buffed to instead, and can tell you the average DPS by tier for AA needed against altered plane HP so as to make it a tier 8 CV won't blow though tier 6 AA but a tier 6 CV can still attack a tier 8 BB and not be an act of futility, even when AA build is in play. I can even work up rough stats and all for I think it's Soryu to go at tier 6, and Yorktown at 7, in the tech tree with Ranger moved down to 6, so as to make it tier 6+ CV's can actually compete more evenly, and less attrition issues, leaving the escort types to tiers 4 and 5 beginner ships that are shielded from seeing the higher tier CV's, and are better suited to getting to learn things with 1 of each group. Without the stupidity and flash of the rework that is just new twists on old problems like strike CV's squaring off in a damage race. Then again, anyone with a basic understanding of what is actually wrong with CV's, knows the numbers and looks at the wiki, understands how CV's work, has access to a calculator and the ability to make educated guess at a starting point on things like DPS can figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×