Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
warheart1992

WG, communication issues with the playerbase and solutions.

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,440
[KWF]
Members
4,040 posts
6,190 battles

Normally I am not one to tell people how to do their jobs. However, I keep on seeing issues regarding the way WG communicates with it's playerbase, at least regarding the NA server. Please keep in mind this is not a rant, tantrum or anything of the sort; consider it more of a personal opinion on some things that if changed, could benefit both sides. Anyway, here goes:

WoWs is a free to play game, and as such every player is a potential customer. This means that a player has to be attracted not only by the game to spend money, but also by factors such as community outreach, healthy developer-playerbase relationship etc.  While WG tries to engage in them, I consider them lacking when it comes to communication.  Namely, three quite important examples of communication issues spring to mind, which if in my opinion were solved could create a better environment and thus lead to happier players. A reasonable amount of these players could even become customers, turning the effort of proper communication into profits.

EXHIBIT A: WoWs Dev Blog.

First of all, let me begin by saying the Dev Blog is already one of the best things WG has done for the community, giving us some insight into upcoming ships, designs, mechanics. It gives us a feeling that we can witness the evolution of the game first hand, be it good or bad. That said, the method of delivery, namely exclusively posting on Facebook, isn't optimal. While it's the most common social platform, quite a few people simply don't use it anymore. Many people can't see the posts or social media are blocked on their workplace.  People have to copy the post in plain text, then post on the forum for all to see.

The value of social platforms in attracting an audience shouldn't be discounted, but it's not of much benefit in this case. What WG could instead do is reach a compromise. Post ONLY the teaser pictures on Facebook as a way to pique interest, then follow up on the same day with a locked post on the forums with the preliminary stats of the upcoming ship on a separate subforum.

EXHIBIT B: Monthly Missions and Discounts:

We are being drip fed Missions and Discounts, with us often having to look on other servers to see what we most likely will get. Why can't all the missions and discounts be instead listed at the start of each month, with a simple tab for each week providing additional detail on offers and missions? The playerbase is old by gaming standards and with jobs/university, why not let us plan ahead on what to buy and when to have our sessions?

EXHIBIT C: Purpose and Pricing for upcoming Premium Ships.

With the proliferation of Free XP and in general the spread of various resources such as Steel or Coal, the way in which one can obtain a new premium ship has become quite important. People often hoard their resources or Free XP because the pricing simply isn't disclosed. This further continues the circle of Free XP and resource hoarding, creating issues for the ingame economy. Alaska is an obvious and recent example of such a case. Now, I get that plans change and a ship that was planned to be obtainable in a certain way has to become available in another. However, if it's made absolutely clear that all info is subject to change  I don't see why the preliminary method of getting a new premium shouldn't be mentioned. The planned amount doesn't have to be included, just a heads up for people to know when to spend.

 

I am sure more issues can be found with the current way things function, but I feel these are quite important. Information in our time is very valuable especially when it comes to buying products. By providing us with this info in a timely manner not only does WG create a more enjoyable environment, but also helps up make informed decisions that may result in a purchase of their digital products. 

Thanks for reading and sorry for the ramble.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,597 posts
21,531 battles

File this one under can't make everyone happy.

Exhibit A - you're suggesting replacing full updates on a popular social media platform and moving it to forums where 5% or less of the player base actually uses. This would make things worse for communications.

Exhibit B - each server is managed by different entities so sometimes the NA server gets something first & other times it's last.

Exhibit C - you lost me here because all info issued by WG in the Dev Blog is always preliminary and subject to change until it's ready for release. What exactly are you referring to in the Alaska example?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[B_Y_F]
Members
92 posts
8,090 battles

do you guys have problem comprehend  WG NA's post? It seems like it's written by non-native English speakers. Or it's some kind of direct English translation straight from Russian. 

Exhibit D: 

The rules of the changed aircraft carriers are intended to ensure maximum advantage (Shouldn't we use benefits here instead of advantage?) to players, and the general principle is really simple: you have gained an advantage rather than lost something.

A special category, Aircraft Carriers, will be added to the Inventory to display all of the aircraft carriers you've researched and purchased. If you don't like the new gameplay or would like to research the entire branch from the beginning once again, you can go to this category and exchange the available researchable aircraft carriers for credits and Free XP. Also, you can sell Premium aircraft carriers for their full price in doubloons. Please note: it will be possible to exchange researchable aircraft carriers starting from higher tiers. For example, if you want to convert Ranger, you won't be able to keep higher-tier ships, e.g. Midway, on your account.

And the above paragraph is quite hard for me to understand the first time i read. But I am also a non-native English speaker too, so I don't know it's my own problem or it's their wording made it difficult. 

 

Any native speaker wanna answer this? thanks!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
[CSM]
[CSM]
Members
490 posts
5,156 battles

WG does a lot of things extremely poorly. Not so much game wise but pretty much anything business related.

I've got a feeling they have computer coders trying to do the job of marketing & media professionals, and public relations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
479
[KERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,275 posts
6,913 battles

I'd suggest just not insulting the players in announcements: see current CV announcement.  I can, actually, do more than one thing at once.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,258
[XBRTC]
Members
3,154 posts
10,011 battles
2 hours ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

Exhibit A - you're suggesting replacing full updates on a popular social media platform and moving it to forums where 5% or less of the player base actually uses. This would make things worse for communications.

 

What he's suggesting, rather, is also posting full updates on WG's official forum. Because, y'know, this is their actual official comms system for players. FB and Reddit, on the other hand...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,240
[SQUAD]
Members
2,136 posts
12,263 battles

You are eliminating body fluid into the wind ... I've tried to persuade WG that they need to look at what and how they communicate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×