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

WG Doesnt Listen to Testers

82 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

155
Members
188 posts
4,110 battles

I think his ideas are solid. I really believe CV players need to control their ships and consumables and that automation of certain functions is a terrible idea. Basically WG took a failed platform WOP and gimped it even more and merged it with a very successful platform WOWs. Had WG actually taken the WOP platform and fully integrated it into WOWS it  might of actually worked

This being a Russian business I am not surprised they don't listen to testers and WG has a notorious reputation in the gaming community for not listening to them. In most Russian business models the Supervisor, CEO is always right and testers have 1 job and 1 job only. Yes sire your idea is excellent sire.. Maybe WG you don't hire western testers who tend to speak their mind

 

  • Cool 8
  • Boring 8
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314
[MIA-E]
Members
2,749 posts
7,608 battles

Have you considered that WG has different goals for the game than every individual player?

WG isn't building this game for unicums. If you have played much at all in this game, you'll realize the average player skill is... very low as it is, let alone with complex interactions. Many CV players are barely averaging any damage at all in the game. So, clearly many of them are not really capable of multitasking to the level required to do that. WG has designed this CV rework around most players - not just Fara level of players.

Now the top %? Sure, they can absolutely do multitasking just the same as in the pre-CV rework and so for them some of the objections that Fara is raising are true.

But until most players aren't terrible in the new CVs I think that it's really a bit silly to call out WG on this.

  • Cool 6
  • Bad 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
155
Members
188 posts
4,110 battles
16 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

Have you considered that WG has different goals for the game than every individual player?

WG isn't building this game for unicums. If you have played much at all in this game, you'll realize the average player skill is... very low as it is, let alone with complex interactions. Many CV players are barely averaging any damage at all in the game. So, clearly many of them are not really capable of multitasking to the level required to do that. WG has designed this CV rework around most players - not just Fara level of players.

Now the top %? Sure, they can absolutely do multitasking just the same as in the pre-CV rework and so for them some of the objections that Fara is raising are true.

But until most players aren't terrible in the new CVs I think that it's really a bit silly to call out WG on this.

the skill gap hasn't changed. In fact the most unrealistic goal of the whole rework was to close the skill gap.

A player who can multitask 6 squadrons wont have a problem managing 1 squadron in the rework. In one battle yesterday the enemy CV Lexington sank 6 ships versus ZERO for our CV..We never had a chance

The average RTS/GOOD player will stomp any new CV players who will probably get quickly discouraged from playing. The only skill gap that was closed is the gap between the very good and the good and im betting 90% of those are players from the pre 8.0 CV system

A NOPE response to person who is trying to help is as unprofessional, disrespectful and dismissive and rude as anything. Try a nope response at Microsoft and see how far it gets you?

The skill gap will never be closed. The team with the better CV player will win most of the time and that WILL NEVER EVER CHANGE!

Edited by Anij

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314
[MIA-E]
Members
2,749 posts
7,608 battles
Just now, Anij said:

the skill gap hasn't changed. In fact the most unrealistic goal of the whole rework was to close the skill gap.

A player who can multitask 6 squadrons wont have a problem managing 1 squadron in the rework. In one battle yesterday the enemy CV Lexington sank 6 ships versus ZERO for our CV..We never had a chance

The average RTS/GOOD player will stomp any new CV players who will probably get quickly discouraged from playing. The only skill gap that was closed is the gap between the very good and the good and im betting 90% of those are players from the pre 8.0 CV system

I mean that's the case for every class of ship at the moment though.

For me? The rework is slowly materializing into success because it's made the average CV player way worse. The constant spotting is annoying still but it's basically rendered a much higher percentage of CV players completely incapable of having any game impact than before. I'm ok with that, honestly, because my ideal is longer term no CV players ;-)

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
155
Members
188 posts
4,110 battles
1 minute ago, enderland07 said:

I mean that's the case for every class of ship at the moment though.

For me? The rework is slowly materializing into success because it's made the average CV player way worse. The constant spotting is annoying still but it's basically rendered a much higher percentage of CV players completely incapable of having any game impact than before. I'm ok with that, honestly, because my ideal is longer term no CV players ;-)

Yeah but a battleship cant rule the whole battlefield. A CV can influence the whole battlefield really quickly because you just said so yourself--The constant spotting

The reason why your constantly spotted in 8.0 is because in 7.12 if you were being harassed by a enemy CV I would send fighters to help you..now CVs cant..I am not sure removing CV is the answer but I do think 8.02 should be pulled and a comprehensive survey done by WG as to what players want in the CV rework in its existing form. one can hope..

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314
[MIA-E]
Members
2,749 posts
7,608 battles
Just now, Anij said:

Yeah but a battleship cant rule the whole battlefield. A CV can influence the whole battlefield really quickly because you just said so yourself--The constant spotting

The reason why your constantly spotted in 8.0 is because in 7.12 if you were being harassed by a enemy CV I would send fighters to help you..now CVs cant..I am not sure removing CV is the answer but I do think 8.02 should be pulled and a comprehensive survey done by WG as to what players want in the CV rework in its existing form. one can hope..

Most CVs are terrible though post rework.

Which I guess is hard to really evaluate. Is it better to have more CV players who are on average worse? Or better to have fewer, better CV players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,163
[WOLF9]
Members
1,305 posts
40 minutes ago, Anij said:

I think his ideas are solid. I really believe CV players need to control their ships and consumables and that automation of certain functions is a terrible idea. Basically WG took a failed platform WOP and gimped it even more and merged it with a very successful platform WOWs. Had WG actually taken the WOP platform and fully integrated it into WOWS it  might of actually worked

This being a Russian business I am not surprised they don't listen to testers and WG has a notorious reputation in the gaming community for not listening to them. In most Russian business models the Supervisor, CEO is always right and testers have 1 job and 1 job only. Yes sire your idea is excellent sire.. Maybe WG you don't hire western testers who tend to speak their mind

 

American auto manufacturers once thought this way, notice you don't see many of them these days. Apparently, the "you know nothing, now give us more money," business model, is perhaps, not the best.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
155
Members
188 posts
4,110 battles
15 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

Most CVs are terrible though post rework.

Which I guess is hard to really evaluate. Is it better to have more CV players who are on average worse? Or better to have fewer, better CV players.

really good point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
Members
65 posts
10,377 battles

WG needs to come to the realization that they made a big mistake releasing the CV re-work. Once ranked is over, a lot of players are going to be playing less and some will stop playing altogether, myself included. The game just isn't as fun anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
878
[NG-NL]
Members
5,342 posts
8,985 battles

There's also the possibility WG considers the game balanced after taking average player skill into account.

The RTS mode had to go since player skill difference was too serious--they acknowledged this problem in one Fall broadcast, if memory serves--and this dynamic FPS version is easier to handle.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,564 posts
4,254 battles
6 minutes ago, Reymu said:

There's also the possibility WG considers the game balanced after taking average player skill into account.

The RTS mode had to go since player skill difference was too serious--they acknowledged this problem in one Fall broadcast, if memory serves--and this dynamic FPS version is easier to handle.

I think the idea of managing skill gap is the problem. Instead they are putting an artificial ceiling on some areas while opening up for a greater gap in others.

@Anij has it right in that before my allied DDs did not get perma spotted because of my fighters. Also my bombers would avoid being near my DDs to prevent a stray fighter squadron spitting them chasing my bombers.

The issue with spotting is something I talked about before we got our hands on the rework. With one squadron players will figure out what and where good areas to scout are. With one squadron players will figure out that attacking DDs forces them out of position and forces poor consumable uses. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
663
[DAKI]
Beta Testers
2,904 posts
4,248 battles
32 minutes ago, Doombeagle said:

American auto manufacturers once thought this way, notice you don't see many of them these days. Apparently, the "you know nothing, now give us more money," business model, is perhaps, not the best.

lul wut? Tesla, GM, Ford, Ram, Fiat/chrysler....those are massive companies.

As far as im aware, none have died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[KERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,192 posts
5,037 battles
1 hour ago, enderland07 said:

Have you considered that WG has different goals for the game than every individual player?

WG isn't building this game for unicums. If you have played much at all in this game, you'll realize the average player skill is... very low as it is, let alone with complex interactions. Many CV players are barely averaging any damage at all in the game. So, clearly many of them are not really capable of multitasking to the level required to do that. WG has designed this CV rework around most players - not just Fara level of players.

Now the top %? Sure, they can absolutely do multitasking just the same as in the pre-CV rework and so for them some of the objections that Fara is raising are true.

But until most players aren't terrible in the new CVs I think that it's really a bit silly to call out WG on this.

A few problems with this post.

 

1) No, they're not building it for players at all.  I'm hardly Unicum but I am a tester, and my posted issues with gameplay were ignored until they were youtube fodder on the live server.  Then they realized I was not talking out my [edited]and put out hotfixes, and then had to hotfix the hotfix.

 

2) Claiming that an average player cannot multitask is not only insulting, it's wrong.  (and I resent the implication in the original announcement that WoWS players were too stupid to do more than one thing at once.) Again, I'm a crapplayer, and I could still operate the CVs on the old system well.  This is to make it playable for consoles.  That's it.  And if they wanted CVs to be more playable and more desirable TO play, this rework is not only the wrong thing to do, it's an abomination that has chased away both old players and new players alike.

 

3) No, it's the perfect time to call WG out on this as if the class is universally BAD and even good players struggle to make good plays in them, then that's poor design. 

 

I know it's not done this way in Russia, where you WILL buy their service or ELSE, but if game manufactures want to sell their product as a service, they have to understand that they're SERVING the players.  If playerx are unhappy, then that's a bad service that most likely won't have a long life.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[KERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,192 posts
5,037 battles
3 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

lul wut? Tesla, GM, Ford, Ram, Fiat/chrysler....those are massive companies.

As far as im aware, none have died.

You might want to turn on the news then.  You may not be aware of it, but 100% of those are currently struggling, particularly GM who laid off about 20,000 people in the last three months.  General Electric can also be added to that list, as they're getting out of the 'Electric' business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
187
[LRM3]
[LRM3]
Members
515 posts
6,276 battles

I've noticed less cv players now. This is a positive thing. I'm hoping that the rework does nothing to increase those cv numbers and they just do away with them indefinitely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[KERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,192 posts
5,037 battles
9 minutes ago, pastore123 said:

I've noticed less cv players now. This is a positive thing. I'm hoping that the rework does nothing to increase those cv numbers and they just do away with them indefinitely. 

Again, as I've said, this Rework as succeeded in doing the opposite of the stated intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
663
[DAKI]
Beta Testers
2,904 posts
4,248 battles
9 minutes ago, thegreenbaron said:

You might want to turn on the then.  You may not be aware of it, but 100% of those are currently struggling, particularly GM who laid off about 20,000 people in the last three months.  General Electric can also be added to that list, as they're getting out of the 'Electric' business.

when i graduated, tesla stocks were 20$ a pop. They are now 310/e 

that is not the sign of a struggling company.

dodge is at its highest point since 2006.

the only one you could arguably say is struggling is GM, probably because they have multiple brands for the exact same cars. which is just dumb, but whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,815
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
17,519 posts
10,213 battles
1 hour ago, Anij said:

the skill gap hasn't changed. In fact the most unrealistic goal of the whole rework was to close the skill gap.

A player who can multitask 6 squadrons wont have a problem managing 1 squadron in the rework. In one battle yesterday the enemy CV Lexington sank 6 ships versus ZERO for our CV..We never had a chance

The average RTS/GOOD player will stomp any new CV players who will probably get quickly discouraged from playing. The only skill gap that was closed is the gap between the very good and the good and im betting 90% of those are players from the pre 8.0 CV system

A NOPE response to person who is trying to help is as unprofessional, disrespectful and dismissive and rude as anything. Try a nope response at Microsoft and see how far it gets you?

The skill gap will never be closed. The team with the better CV player will win most of the time and that WILL NEVER EVER CHANGE!

They were not trying to close the skill gap, they were trying to minimize the out sized impact on a teams winning or losing the skill gap in the old CV's had. I believe they have been successful in that. Yeah, the top CV players are going to wreck face but the top players in every ship do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,272
[SALVO]
Members
18,369 posts
18,943 battles
30 minutes ago, StoneRhino said:

I think the idea of managing skill gap is the problem. Instead they are putting an artificial ceiling on some areas while opening up for a greater gap in others.

@Anij has it right in that before my allied DDs did not get perma spotted because of my fighters. Also my bombers would avoid being near my DDs to prevent a stray fighter squadron spitting them chasing my bombers.

The issue with spotting is something I talked about before we got our hands on the rework. With one squadron players will figure out what and where good areas to scout are. With one squadron players will figure out that attacking DDs forces them out of position and forces poor consumable uses. 

 

This is nonsense, Rhino.  Maybe YOU would use your fighters to prevent your team's DDs from being perma spotted, but many, MANY carrier players would basically tell their team's DDs to go bleep themselves and not use their fighters in this way.  And frankly, I think that players like you who would help their teams' DDs were in a very tiny minority, from my personal experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
855 posts
5,273 battles
1 hour ago, Doombeagle said:

You and I have very different notions of Fara...

th1MF0XS4G.jpg

I remember that on my wall,,,, gah I feel old.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[KERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,192 posts
5,037 battles
3 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

when i graduated, tesla stocks were 20$ a pop. They are now 310/e 

that is not the sign of a struggling company.

Between December and January they lost 25% of their value.  If that's not a sign of struggling, I'm not sure what is.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Crucis said:

This is nonsense, Rhino.  Maybe YOU would use your fighters to prevent your team's DDs from being perma spotted, but many, MANY carrier players would basically tell their team's DDs to go bleep themselves and not use their fighters in this way.  And frankly, I think that players like you who would help their teams' DDs were in a very tiny minority, from my personal experience.

Glad to be a member of yet another small minority.

 

7 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

They were not trying to close the skill gap, they were trying to minimize the out sized impact on a teams winning or losing the skill gap in the old CV's had. I believe they have been successful in that. Yeah, the top CV players are going to wreck face but the top players in every ship do that.

No, they have not.  And while that's true that players with mad skillz will wreck shop the major issue is that they made it unfun to play for, apparently, a majority of players, looking at the falloff of CV statistics for the server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[SALTY]
Members
339 posts
5,488 battles
8 minutes ago, Crucis said:

This is nonsense, Rhino.  Maybe YOU would use your fighters to prevent your team's DDs from being perma spotted, but many, MANY carrier players would basically tell their team's DDs to go bleep themselves and not use their fighters in this way.  And frankly, I think that players like you who would help their teams' DDs were in a very tiny minority, from my personal experience.

The summon fighters rarely actually intercept enemy planes and protect teammates from strikes. They're a bit pathetic in that department. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,654
[PSP]
Members
8,038 posts
1 hour ago, Anij said:

 

This being a Russian business I am not surprised they don't listen to testers

And I'm not surprised that you don't seem to know that WG isn't a Russian business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,272
[SALVO]
Members
18,369 posts
18,943 battles
1 minute ago, thegreenbaron said:

Glad to be a member of yet another small minority.

 

The thing is that I can understand why many carrier players wouldn't want to try to provide some cover to their team mates.  If you do that with your limited fighter squadrons, your bombers have no cover and can get massacred by enemy fighters.  I think that it was a bad kind of game design because it created a massive incentive for the carrier players to NOT want to provide cover for their team mates so that they could cover their own ability to do damage, i.e. their bombers.

I think that the change in the high level concept of carrier player that removed player controlled fighters from the mix has helped greatly in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×