Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
WES_HoundDog

@ Supertesters/Community contributers

20 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

601
[KILL]
Members
1,100 posts
12,894 battles

Hello,

Well i guess first off to verify, is it your job as part of your position to test the new unreleased content and provide feedback to WGing before Wging releases it?   With the seemingly endless stream of unbalanced, broken or unwanted content updates coming from Wging, I would like to know if you feel you are actually contributing anything to the testing of these updates and if so, what?     

 

When or if you respond to this post,  please state how long you have been a tester,  your feelings toward Wgings openess to listening to the testers feedback, and add at least three recent instances where you have had positive or negative feedback on an unreleased game change.   What that feedback was and if WGing changed their direction based off of your feedback or didn't.

Please don't look at this as being critical of you testers,  it's more of a information search to identify the kind of information WGing is receiving and their actions upon it.  And comparing it to general playerbase experience.

 

Of course if you feel uncomfortable by any of these questions , a simple "I decline to respond"  is still valuable feedback.

 

Thank you

Warships Playerbase

 

 

  • Boring 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,432
[FEM]
Members
2,108 posts
17,811 battles

When I was a tester it seemed like a bit of a hive mind, where the majority opinion was the only one that mattered, and even then that was often ignored. This was about a year ago, apparently since then they started getting some good players into the program so hopefully that helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,312 posts
4,540 battles

I used to be a supertester from the Alpha tests and the first quarter after official release.  At that time, WG seemed receptive.  The reason why I left was because I didnt want to get burned out on the game.  There were events going on in the live server and I was vesting time on ST at the same time.  So it was geting to be a bit too much for me personally.  I did return to test the CV Rework and then now for the submarine beta test.  WG seemed receptive to change on the early suggestions of the CV rework.  So yeah, it seems alright from perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36,645
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
26,265 posts
22,545 battles

I've been a supertester since 2015.

WG operates on its own agenda. Our feedback is listened to, but with as many testers as there are, each with their own opinions and ideas, it's impossible to do everything we suggest. Even then, while our feedback tends to be from a microcosm of single ship feel and playstyle and we might suggest changes to that, WG has access to a lot more data, and sometimes has different intentions and plans for a ship than we do.

For example, WG will want some ships to underperform and some ships to overperform. Like free gift ships (Prinz Eitel Friedrich for example), WG wants them to be interesting but somewhat underperforming. We might suggest all the buffs we want, but if they conflict with WGs agenda, they won't be implemented.

Then there are 'hype' ships, ships that WG wants to overperform a bit, to create hype for a nation, feature, gimmick or line. Here too WG won't outright just do what we're suggesting. An example is Missouri. She was the first FXP ship, and as such WG wanted to hype that type of ship acquisition up, and what better way than by making it overperform.

Then there are different types of players doing testing. I'm a BB main who seconds cruisers and thirds destroyers, and I'm not a very good destroyer driver, and a middling cruiser driver. Plus, my suggestions are from a viewpoint of a generally capable player, who plays for enjoyment and fun. Someone who plays destroyers competitively for example will have entirely different suggestions and recommendations than me.

One example where WG did exactly as I suggested was with Massachussets. When she was in early testing my feedback was, and I quote, 'If you want people to spec into secondaries, you'll have to make them worth speccing in to'. And the next balance patch on Massa, her secondaries got a quicker reload, better accuracy and much better range. Now I don't claim credit for coming up with that, and I don't claim that WG did that because I suggested it, but it's an example of me suggesting a change, and WG implementing it.

An example where WG did not listen was with Prinz Eitel Friedrich, which I repeatedly recommended at least increasing turret traverse to make her more fun to play. A recommendation WG did not implement.

Testing can be a thankless job, but on the whole - ... Yeah, I do still feel I'm doing my part and my one singular voice among many is at least heard on some level. Whether they do what I recommend, well, if it fits with WGs own agenda and goal for a ship, then, yes. Otherwise no.

  • Cool 9
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,953 posts
11,269 battles

I've been testing since October of 2015 when I joined the Supertest Program.  Community Contributors began getting access to pre-release ships in early 2016.  Let's tackle your questions:

Well i guess first off to verify, is it your job as part of your position to test the new unreleased content and provide feedback to WGing before Wging releases it?

  • No, I am not in the employ of Wargaming, nor is any Supertester or Community Contributor. 
    Not what you were asking, perhaps, but the way you phrased it makes it sound like we are.  All of the Supertesters and Community Contributors are volunteers.  Yes, we do submit feedback to Wargaming on unreleased content.

With the seemingly endless stream of unbalanced, broken or unwanted content updates coming from Wging, I would like to know if you feel you are actually contributing anything to the testing of these updates and if so, what?

  • Yes, I contribute a lot and enjoy many a discussion with the devs and my peers regarding unreleased content.  Keep in mind there two elements Wargaming looks at when evaluating test ships:  Data and Feels.  The data is generated by the multitude of playtest games made by Supertesters, Community Contributors, Modders and Wargaming staff.  The second half are from the feedback forms.  So all of us are contributing with the former.  The latter, which is weighed just as importantly as the data, prompts much talk.  A ship can be perfectly balanced and still feel awful to play, for example.  Similarly, an overpowered ship can be boring as all get out.  These are just two examples.  The sheer volume of feedback is diverse and often contradictory, however.

Add at least three recent instances where you have had positive or negative feedback on an unreleased game change.  What that feedback was and if WGing changed their direction based off of your feedback or didn't. 

  • Let's see, Haida was my baby.

    1.) At one point, Haida was going to have her concealment nerfed, essentially turning her into a Commonwealth Blyskawica with crawling smoke.  I pushed hard for her to keep a lower concealment in order to preserve the close-range knife-fighting combat Haida espouses now.
    2.) Haida used to have the same AP and HE performance as Cossack.  I pushed for Haida to have improved striking power with her guns, advocating that she get RNCL AP shells to give her some more teeth.  What we got instead was modified HE shells with higher alpha but less fire chance.  I couldn't be happier with this change.
    3.) Here's a silly one:  I raised a huge stink about Cossack being released before Haida.  For those unaware, Cossack was modeled and built first and was used as a stand-in for testing Haida.  Haida would end up being released first but it wasn't always guaranteed.

    I didn't quite get my own way here but I do feel my voice was heard.  I could state numerous examples of feedback being either heeded or declined.  The issue is that there are literally hundreds of testers, each with conflicting opinions, so who should Wargaming listen to?  They don't always go with what's popular.  As @Lert touched upon, sometimes ships need to come out differently than what the players think they want.

The biggest problem is this:

 With the seemingly endless stream of unbalanced, broken or unwanted content updates coming from WG

Most players can't tell if something's unbalanced or not.  This goes even for unicum.  A lot of people mistake "isn't fun to play against" with unbalanced.  Balance can (and is) objectively measured.  Whether or not something's fun to have in game is a completely different discussion.  Wargaming doesn't release broken ships often.  There was one released this year that had a bug in it:  The only ship that comes to mind as being outright broken was the original release of Graf Zeppelin.  As for unwated content updates, someone is always (ALWAYS) going to complain about new content -- it doesn't matter if the community as a whole wants it or not.  The moment this game stops providing a constant stream of new stuff is when the game is being put out to pasture to die.  The game is going to be forever changing.  The game you're playing now will not be the same in 2020, for example.

Hope these insights helped.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,695
[TSG4]
Volunteer Moderator, Privateers
3,534 posts
18,473 battles
14 hours ago, WES_HoundDog said:

 is it your job as part of your position to test the new unreleased content and provide feedback to WGing before Wging releases it?   With the seemingly endless stream of unbalanced, broken or unwanted content updates coming from Wging, I would like to know if you feel you are actually contributing anything to the testing of these updates and if so, what?     

 

When or if you respond to this post,  please state how long you have been a tester,  your feelings toward Wgings openess to listening to the testers feedback, and add at least three recent instances where you have had positive or negative feedback on an unreleased game change.   What that feedback was and if WGing changed their direction based off of your feedback or didn't.

Please don't look at this as being critical of you testers,  it's more of a information search to identify the kind of information WGing is receiving and their actions upon it.  And comparing it to general playerbase experience.

 

Of course if you feel uncomfortable by any of these questions , a simple "I decline to respond"  is still valuable feedback.

1- I am not a WG employee, i look at the Super Tester Program as an opportunity for me to give feedback to WG. I also like playing around with different ship builds and game styles and thus often cost a lot to demount upgrade module or reset a capt, and the ST program provide such service. Its a win win situation for me and WG. Of course, i tried to apply for the ST for 2 yrs straight before accepted.

 

2- I also understand that WoWs is not my game, i am not the one developed the game in the first place, i am just simply a devoted gamer who like to see the game progress further (i love this game). I dont see unbroken or unwanted content in the statement, but i felt that i am contributed a lot to the program core. I played as many games in the given testing ships as i can so that WG can obtain all the data they needed. Both in silly or serious manner, every possible scenario asked and at the same time stay within the scope a tester allowed to. I dont have 10 19 pts or something like super player do, i dont use mod any more as i believed that playing vanilla is better, some ships not testing ship i played got various capt skills.

 

3- 6 months

4- I dont look into detail if WG listen to feedback or not, like i said before, i dont want to mess around with WG business model or source codes, in fact i endorsed their business, after all, WG need to make income and continue to generate income. Then more content for player like myself. Whatever WG doing with my feedback is entire up to their disposal, i just felt honor to part of Super Tester Program and satisfied. Like Lert and LWM above, WG may have their own agenda and i respect that. It the developers game, not my game, and certainly not "your" game. WG have entire company to look after, the employees also have future, family as well. Think for them for once.

1 positive soooo far about WG is not too long ago WG had to cancel "something" because the entire players banded together and rejected. You should know about this "something".

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,119
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
3,408 battles

This is all very interesting.

Given WG's tendency to ignore feedback from people not in the testing program...

Would it be an interesting idea for one of you to setup a discussion forum on ideas for publicly announced ships?

I would definitely bury it in your Community Contributor or the Development section so that only the dedicated would find it. But it seems to me that we lack a forum where we can talk details of specifics with someone actually wanting to hear what we have to say.

It shouldn't take 9 months to fix something like AA. Nor should we be blindsided by major class changes like what happened with 0.8.0 (where the community knew how to break the game before the patch launched).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,953 posts
11,269 battles
34 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Given WG's tendency to ignore feedback from people not in the testing program...

This is a loaded statement that means little to nothing.  With almost any work-in-progress content, there will always be contradictory feedback -- some advocating for X, others for the opposite.  So no matter what, people could claim that Wargaming ignores feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,119
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
3,408 battles
8 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

This is a loaded statement that means little to nothing.  With almost any work-in-progress content, there will always be contradictory feedback -- some advocating for X, others for the opposite.  So no matter what, people could claim that Wargaming ignores feedback.

It's a statement about how the feedback process feels.

I thought you wanted to have us give feelings based feedback as well as data driven ones?

But ok, if you want data...

Flying Hakuryu / Shimakaze was a known issue during PTS of 0.8.0. Heck farazelleth was making videos of how to set up the captain and ship build to do it before the update dropped. This feedback, along with the feedback about the broken autopilot, and the way splitting the AA performance into bands was going to mess with air defense...was dismissed contemptuously by WG staff. The infamous 'nope' communication is a great example.

Now, Hakuryu was nerfed because of the PR outrage from the videos. Autopilot (something that needed to be ready from day 1) wasnt ready until 8 MONTHS later. Similarly, it took 8 months to finally admit AA was broken and implement 0.8.7, which is essentially the feedback the CV mains gave in the PTS.

Now, with submarines coming (an even greater change than 0.8.0), we have WG staff ridiculing posts giving feedback about ways to break the game with submarines.

What conclusion would you draw from that data? Is WG receptive to feedback that says, "Respectfully, the way the meta will adapt to your proposal is not what you think...and the resulting situation will either be broken OP or not fun to play against."

And if I'm right...and my interpretation of the data would suggest so. The only option for those of us who want to have a serious discussion about how the game meta will react to these changes is to find someone who will actually listen and not immediately dismiss discussion points because they poor cold water on the current development build.

Are you willing to have those conversations or not?

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,953 posts
11,269 battles
9 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Are you willing to have those conversations or not?

No, I'm not willing to play "Defend Wargaming from accusations" from someone who ignores development time and patch deployment.  If you want to be angry, go right ahead.  There's lots to be angry about, but you are (in my opinion) choosing to be angry about the wrong thing and it's not something I want to waste what little energy I have upon explaining. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,763
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts
18 hours ago, Lert said:

For example, WG will want some ships to underperform and some ships to overperform. Like free gift ships (Prinz Eitel Friedrich for example), WG wants them to be interesting but somewhat underperforming. We might suggest all the buffs we want, but if they conflict with WGs agenda, they won't be implemented.

Then there are 'hype' ships, ships that WG wants to overperform a bit, to create hype for a nation, feature, gimmick or line. Here too WG won't outright just do what we're suggesting. An example is Missouri. She was the first FXP ship, and as such WG wanted to hype that type of ship acquisition up, and what better way than by making it overperform.

This right here is a pretty stark and damning confirmation of what players have long suspected.

 

17 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Now, with submarines coming (an even greater change than 0.8.0), we have WG staff ridiculing posts giving feedback about ways to break the game with submarines.

Yeah, that's a new twist.

WG staff mainly abstained from joining in the effort to belittle, demean, and minimize/silence CV rework criticism.  Now, with subs, they're starting to directly do so.

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,119
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
3,408 battles
Just now, LittleWhiteMouse said:

No, I'm not willing to play "Defend Wargaming from accusations" from someone who ignores development time and patch deployment.  If you want to be angry, go right ahead.  There's lots to be angry about, but you are (in my opinion) choosing to be angry about the wrong thing and it's not something I want to waste what little energy I have upon explaining. 

Sigh. I'm not asking you to defend WG.

I'm looking for people who want to talk about the actual game mechanics and how changes would impact them.

I'm sorry the vast majority of people have poisoned the well of feedback such that it is impossible to even connect with someone who wants to improve the game.

I wish you better health in the coming months.

I had hoped that there was someone willing to listen to game mechanics feedback. It would appear that there is no one. And that, is a serious tragedy.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,177
[WORX]
Members
14,361 posts
20,908 battles

WG under its own accord due to priors dating from patch 0.8.0 and its sibling patches....

Have mastered the art of selective listening on certain topics that meets their purpose.

On the other side, certain CCs have been willing accomplices in contribution to WGs mastery selective hearing skills.

I, hope (with little faith). History will not repeat it self. HOWEVER, you see people signing up for Sub beta for sabotage reasons.

 

So statistics in repetition of the above event is very high if you ask me..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,284
[WG-CC]
Wiki Editor, Members
9,100 posts
7,995 battles

Been a Wiki Editor for almost two years now.

I do not have any job regarding WG, I never signed a contract regarding Wiki work (the only piece of paper that I signed is a "I won‘t open my mouth about things that are secret"-paper, formally known as NDA), and I actually don‘t have to test anything. If I want to, I can, but since my real life schedule is packed I don‘t play most of the ships I do entries on (which when I write about a ship‘s design is no real loss).

My feelings towards WG‘s openness to feedback is mixed. There are times when I wish they‘d listen more to feedback (Graf Zeppelin for example), and times where I wish they‘d listen less (Georgia for example). Granted that‘s a bit unfair of a position to take, since it‘s highly subjective and they‘d always step on someone‘s foot. But that‘s my feeling towards things.

Since my feedback and the counter-feedback (as in, someone from WG telling me that it was feedback in particular that caused the change) happened in channels that are under NDA, no answer. If you want to believe that these instances happened is up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,885
[FEM]
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
2,281 posts
19,393 battles

Heyo,

Chiming in on this as I have personally been involved in majority of the programs on offer before joining WG in an official capacity in which I now manage some of the program.

Firstly; information on majority of the programs can be found in the Community Programs Section of the forums which gives a broad overview of the programs and their intentions. 


Onto your main questions:

21 hours ago, WES_HoundDog said:

Well i guess first off to verify, is it your job as part of your position to test the new unreleased content and provide feedback to WGing before Wging releases it?

All of these programs are volunteer based, participants are not paid nor employed by Wargaming. They are selected for programs based on their activities in and outside the game and are offered the opportunity to test WIP content and provide feedback on it. In some programs they do get to keep the ships after testing and have access to items for giveaways. Some programs, participation in providing feedback through either written, verbal, or gameplay means is a requirement to remain active in the program, others it is more voluntary in nature. 

21 hours ago, WES_HoundDog said:

With the seemingly endless stream of unbalanced, broken or unwanted content updates coming from Wging, I would like to know if you feel you are actually contributing anything to the testing of these updates and if so, what?     

This is a somewhat loaded statement. Whether a ship is OP/UP/Etc is very subjective in nature, all ships are designed to have their strong points, and their weaknesses. Smolensk is a great example of this, while it does have high RoF and fire qualities, it suffers in close quarter combat and has an extremely susceptible armor scheme to counter its strong qualities. All community program participant data is used in determining early trends / stats of the ship, and consideration given to the general "feel" of the ship from participants. Opinions are often varied on the quality of a ship offered some finding it good, some not. Speaking from experience from being a ST, many changes to ships often occur before the ship even makes it to live server testing. It would be unfair for me to comment on how participants may feel when it comes to their feedback being taken, but I can confirm we do take it and use it. 


While I can't make comment on actions taken specifically from particularly participant feedback, I can assure you that we do listen and act when appropriately - and this isn't limited to feedback from program participants alone. Some key examples of us listening and revising based from Community and participant feedback include:

  1. Giulio Cesare rebalancing: Decision was reversed to amend this premium ship based on community feedback. Follow on decision to not touch premium ships after release beyond game wide mechanics changing.
  2. Original NTC concept: Scrapped completely based on community and participant feedback. Redesigned with out ship bonuses.
  3. Priority Sector system: System was redesigned completely to be more interactive based from feedback that the old system was clunky to use and ineffective. 

I hope this helps with your perceptions of the programs and their intentions.

Fem, 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
773
[-AFK-]
Members
1,379 posts
16,793 battles
21 hours ago, Kebobstuzov said:

When I was a tester it seemed like a bit of a hive mind, where the majority opinion was the only one that mattered, and even then that was often ignored. This was about a year ago, apparently since then they started getting some good players into the program so hopefully that helped.

I am slowly building up my stream community, when or If I get big enough to apply to be a CC.... I am not going to. 

I like my individuality, 

Mr Gibbons is the only CC I watch, not a fan of the rest. (sorry, nothing personal) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,295
[NSC]
Members
2,662 posts
12 minutes ago, Femennenly said:
  1. [3.] Priority Sector system: System was redesigned completely to be more interactive based from feedback that the old system was clunky to use and ineffective. 

What sort of feedback did you see? What did this feedback say about the old system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,098
[ERN]
Modder, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
10,904 posts
4,896 battles

When I was in the supertest program. They mostly listen to our feedbacks but once in a while they will just flat out ignore everyone and go ahead with it current build even through we know it broken. Look what happened with the cv reworks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,953 posts
11,269 battles
2 hours ago, henrychenhenry said:

What did this feedback say about the old system?

My feedback was that it was easy to forget about and it felt clunky.  I preferred clicking on incoming planes.

Edited by LittleWhiteMouse
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,295
[NSC]
Members
2,662 posts
2 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

My feedback was that it was easy to forget about and it felt clunky.  I preferred clicking on incoming planes.

Thanks for the reply! You are right that the old system (post 0.8.0) is much more static.

I was just curious what feedback WG acted on.

Thanks again!

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.

×