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

Tin foil hat time

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

23
[1NJS]
Members
79 posts
5,418 battles

So I was eating breakfast and this weird thought popped into my head.  Might be the conspiracy stories or too many really convoluted political drama series I have been watching recently but anyway. 

 

So the CV rework has been implemented and regardless of if you like it or not, I think we can agree that it has not gone well for WG.  For whatever reason they could not get "enough" data from the PTS to balance them properly and there is the appearance that many community contributors, testers and PTS players that have said that WG ignored the concerns that were made before the launch but they went with them anyway and launched the rework.  The outrage and fury being dumped on WG has even forced a hot-fix, something that I can not remember having been done before.  Suffice to say that the PR that WG is getting from this launch has been bad to say the least.  It appears to me that there is a lot of anger from players and a significant loss of trust (I personally trust them less at this point).

 

Tin Foil Hat - WG create something that they have no real intention of doing so as to be able to "give back".

Next we hear that WG is to be *looking* at re-balanced some of the premium ships by nerfing or changing tiers, starting with the GC.  This again has also resulted in a significant player outcry although there are some individuals that have opinions that this is a good thing.    From a gameplay point of view I can see why you want balanced play but from a business / consumer relationship you start to tread on very thin ice when you are charging for these ships.  Yes, WG might compensate for the change with in game credits / dubloons but in my opinion this will only have value *IF* there is still trust between the player and WG.  If I do not trust my government, do I trust my governments currency?   Do also keep in mind that they are basing the adjusting of a ship on data mostly from before the CV rework where there was virtually zero CV play.

 

So, we now have 2 narratives going on here at the same time and neither one of them appears to have much change of having an good PR spin.  1) The CV rework was deployed, with very damning evidence that WG did not listen to, nor took the concerns of the testers seriously enough to think twice about their choices.  2) That they are also looking at re-balancing premium ships, something that has never been done before and has a bad taste of fishing for sales, selling the cake and then chasing after you to take a slice of the cake before you blow out the candles. 

 

Tin Foil Hat reminder - So *if I were WG*, I would use these 2 PR nightmares to mitigate some of the damage done and still get a benefit from this - How?   Well problem is, up until now you have spent a significant amount on development of the CV rework that has been received well. Also we are loosing revenue from sales because we do not want to make certain ships available because we did a bad job at balancing them before releasing them.  So I get my accountants and an economic consultant to give some input and let them have at the numbers.  How much has been spent on the CV rework?  How much am I likely to make from the sale of re-released nerfed premium ships and how many new customers and how many customers will I loose and what is the revenue likely to look.  Which gives bigger bang for my buck.

 

Were this up to me, you better check that tin foil hat fits right,  I would do something to the effect of:  Do a very wide survey and use the data or just plain ignore it or use parts of it but at least take control of the narrative and spin it in a way that WG comes out looking better.    So, after the survey WG announce that they have listened to the players and they have decided that the nerfing of premium ships is not something that they want to do at this time as they agree with the player base but it does still remain a concern.  At the same time they announce a buff to some under performing premium ship, I might even try to aim for "*very* slightly OP" and with the buff adjustment say that they will be monitoring the effect of the changes but do not put it up for sale, I know a tough call right.  Also announce some modifications to the CV lines that have been most prominent in the fire-storm that has followed the launch as a result of player input. Include examples of the suggestions that will be put into effect as this kind of action shows that you are listening.  Then a while later dial back the buffs you gave on the under performing premium ship, then some time later, make it available for sale.

 

What have you done here?  You have still got your CV rework, there is less anger directed at you as you have acknowledged that things are not right and have shown concrete changes as well as listening to players.   The more often you follow up on this with further adjustments, the better it looks, smaller changes, more often are better than large changes, less often.  You have also shown that you make mistakes with premium ships and you have shown that you have the keys to the premium ship dock.  By dialing back the changes you made to the under performing ship when you "found that it was slightly too strong"  you have also shown that you will fix mistakes.  By not selling the ship immediately you are not accused of a cash grab on a newly buffed ship and you come out as a responsible company.

 

Would this make up for everything that has happened recently?  Probably not but at least the optics are better than they are now.

Will WG get away with nerfing premium ships in the future?  I do not know, for me, they will need to prove that they can balance all the other ships first.  They need to be willing and able to buff a ship in a reasonable time when there is evidence that it is under performing, it cannot take months to happen.   Nerfing a ship, especially a premium one is always going to be a hot topic.

 

Of course WG will do whatever they want to do and they may or may not care what you, or I, or anyone else thinks. On the other hand they may have been trying to be too clever by creating all this noise so that they can spin a "good story" to lessen the effect of a "bad one".

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
238
[55TH]
Beta Testers
955 posts
3,394 battles

Uhmmm, no.  The first thing that usually busts conspiracies is the fact that there are an awful lot of people "trying" to keep a "secret".  Someone somewhere will tell their spouse or best friend or leak it somehow, and it all comes crashing down.  If that were to be the case here, then WG would be right screwed when it came to light.

Also, WG has put a bunch of money behind the rework.  They've paid salaries, for advertising, and all the things that go into revamping the game and hyping it.  To intentionally do all that to then go ahead and lose all that money is ludicrous.

There are many, easier, ways of "giving back" to the players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,826
[ARGSY]
Members
8,153 posts
5,538 battles
17 minutes ago, Squib_Surefire said:

Might be the conspiracy stories or too many really convoluted political drama series I have been watching recently

I call a combination of both. I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

They told us from the start they were going to need live-server balancing, and if you think about it you can see why (no premiums in PTS, and too many of those are at the extremes of AA efficiency). 

It's not all part of some great Machiavellian scheme; it's just fallible human beings taking risks, making mistakes and doing their best to fix them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,172
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
4,218 posts
13,857 battles
21 minutes ago, Squib_Surefire said:

I think we can agree that it has not gone well for WG. 

Next we hear that WG is to be *looking* at re-balanced some of the premium ships by nerfing or changing tiers, starting with the GC.  

I don't agree with the first "we all agree" in a gaming context.  And the second, while possible, is just part of what they've been doing for three years.

Without something unique in the premise, there is  no point in reading the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
452
[TDRB]
Members
1,868 posts
6,219 battles
Quote

It's not all part of some great Machiavellian scheme;

Believing it is a devious scheme is more fun

Quote

it's just fallible human beings taking risks, making mistakes and doing their best to fix them.

because this ^^^^^ is real life and our daily struggle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,597 posts
3,811 battles

Money is the ultimate drive I think sales are going down so they are more keen on listening. It is up to them to find the right balance and altering items already purchased is a huge can of worms. Hmm, Gasboy and Gasbot wonder if those accounts belong to the same person?  @Squib_Surefire Better to post on the reddit as wg defending squad that  derails threads are here on this thread already. No joke turned my common sense thread into a dumpster fire. I like what your proposing and hopefully something can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,826
[ARGSY]
Members
8,153 posts
5,538 battles
53 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

Believing it is a devious scheme is more fun

This IS undeniably true. :cap_haloween: :fish_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
Members
403 posts
2,444 battles
1 hour ago, Squib_Surefire said:

So, we now have 2 narratives going on here at the same time and neither one of them appears to have much change of having an good PR spin.  1) The CV rework was deployed, with very damning evidence that WG did not listen to, nor took the concerns of the testers seriously enough to think twice about their choices. 

   REALLY.... YA DONT SAY... AFTER YEARS OF PEOPLE SAYINGTHIS... NOW YOU ALL NOTICE?

Edited by sartt

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.

×