Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Willy55_1955

What is WG afraid of?

174 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

259
[ONAVY]
[ONAVY]
Members
628 posts
15,231 battles

In a number of CC videos they have stated that WG is changing the NDA to include posting WIP videos. They 'feel it takes away from producing content on existing ships'. Really, or do they just want to push through ships without any player base input? Why are comments and suggestions from the players feared? Since we are the ones who ultimately have to play these ships why can't we have input into their creation (which the super testers do, I know).

Its like German CVs. Who asked for German CVs? They never had any (GZ never completed). Why not historic Italian BBs instead of paper CVs? I just don't understand their thought processes.

  • Cool 16
  • Boring 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
383 posts
4,100 battles

My guess is what players want usually isn't what WG think is best for business. I think the current methods of getting player feedback, from surveys (in-game, and out of the game), super testers, and public betas is pretty good to round out features.

There are also other factors that need to be taken into account, such as development and research costs for what gets put into the game. Russian ships were added, even tho the Russian navy didn't really impact WW2 as much as other nations, but were added due to the availability of historical specs and the fact its a "Russian" game. 

Another example would be the fact submarines were unarguably more impactful throughout the WW2 period then surface ships, and yet weren't even considered by WG themselves until recently. (Ever heard of the Battle of the Atlantic?)

Now to address what WG is afraid of, its that no one plays their game. Adding consistent content usually is better then adding "more historically important" content, since its debatable how impactful that is on the bottom line. Also adding more premiums usually is a good idea from a financial standpoint ;P

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,103
[SOV]
Members
4,621 posts

Zoup stated that there taking it back to the way it was.

CC did this to them selves. CC refused to be positive or even fair to the CV rework. They lied about and exaggerated and fannded the flames of hate before it even came out.

Notser put our 1 vid on the Sipan. It was a t6 game and he was the only t8.  He then proceded to say how op it was but never played it in a t9 or 10 game.

Ichase did the same thing with his flying Shimi vid

All these vids did was fan hate before it even came out.

If you were a dev you would not want your hard work lied about iether all day long.  There is still alot of testing anyway.

Edited by jags_domain
  • Cool 14
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,308
[SIM]
Members
4,914 posts
7,991 battles

Players are mostly myopic, combative simpletons, and CCs like to trot out ships that are still in testing and whip the masses into a frenzy to get video/stream clicks. Something had to change. 

  • Cool 15
  • Boring 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,428
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,086 posts
18,898 battles
3 minutes ago, jags_domain said:

Zoup stated that there taking it back to the way it was.

That's exactly what's happening. It used to be this way, NDAs with specific lifting dates, usually the day the ship dropped.

2 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

Players are mostly myopic, combative simpletons, and CCs like to trot out ships that are still in testing and whip the masses into a frenzy to get video/stream clicks. Something had to change. 

And those players tended to write exaggerated, hype-driven clickbait, hyperbole filled whine threads about unreleased ships still in testing / balancing. Another thing WG wants to limit.

  • Cool 15
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
186
[D-H-O]
[D-H-O]
Beta Testers, Volunteer Moderator
277 posts
6,152 battles

The problem, IMO, is that CC's threw out opinions and showed ships that were VERY early WIP ships and just handed off for testing.  Most test ships get several trials before being released.   

So what you get is that a test ship may be OP or something, a CC blasts that out there, and then the community goes nuts.  And more often than not, regardless of what changes are made and even if a CC may correct the path in a later vid, the original concept and blast of the OP ship is what people remember.   

And as stated above, CC's were throwing up games that were not realistic (at times) to what the ship would normally face - example would be the Saipan in a T6 battle, yeah, it's gonna look OP, but more often than not it sees T10 battles where it's low hanger size comes back to bite it.   

From my understanding CC's are going to be able to talk about the ships pre-release... they just have to wait till it's closer to being polished than blasting it on it's first round of testing.  

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
506
Members
1,410 posts
10,523 battles
8 minutes ago, Lert said:

That's exactly what's happening. It used to be this way, NDAs with specific lifting dates, usually the day the ship dropped.

And that's how we got the KMDD bait and switch. Given WG's history I'm not sure NDAs will be better than CC clickbait.

Edited by Rouxi
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32,428
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,086 posts
18,898 battles
Just now, Rouxi said:

And that's how we got the KMDD bait and switch.

Yep, that was a whole thing. Happened with Graf Zep as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,949
[RLGN]
Members
14,241 posts
25,057 battles
5 minutes ago, jags_domain said:

Zoup stated that there taking it back to the way it was.

CC did this to them selves. CC refused to be positive or even fair to the CV rework. They lied about and exaggerated and fannded the flames of hate before it even came out.

Notser put our 1 vid on the Sipan. It was a t6 game and he was the only t8.  He then proceded to say how op it was but never played it in a t9 or 10 game.

Ichase did the same thing with his flying Shimi vid

All these vids did was fan hate before it even came out.

If you were a dev you would not want your hard work lied about iether all day long.  There is still alot of testing anyway.

Why should they, (the CCs,) or I, (just a random player who participated in the CV beta,) be supportive of a rework that was and still is complete garbage?

WG shot themselves in the foot with the rework, and as far as I’m concerned they deserve every jot of grief they catch, for shoving it down the player’s throats.

I don’t give two whits about the devs whining the players don’t appreciate their efforts.

This misbegotten raft of repetitive boring gameplay masquerading as a rework took away everything I liked about carriers, and left me with everything I hated.

I should ‘appreciate’ the devs efforts, why exactly?

  • Cool 22
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
186
[D-H-O]
[D-H-O]
Beta Testers, Volunteer Moderator
277 posts
6,152 battles
2 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Why should they, (the CCs,) or I, (just a random player who participated in the CV beta,) be supportive of a rework that was and still is complete garbage?

WG shot themselves in the foot with the rework, and as far as I’m concerned they deserve every jot of grief they catch, for shoving it down the player’s throats.

I don’t give two whits about the devs whining the players don’t appreciate their efforts.

This misbegotten raft of repetitive boring gameplay masquerading as a rework took away everything I liked about carriers, and left me with everything I hated.

I should ‘appreciate’ the devs efforts, why exactly?

That's just off-topic in the thread.  We are discussing the change to CC's NDA process...  not the CV re-work.   

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,768
[WORX]
Members
10,586 posts
18,482 battles

CCs shot themselves in the foot on this one... I welcome the change... CCs have crossed the line from educational commentary/narrative to flat out activism.

CC activism is the main reason we have

  • a worthless AA mechanic
  • CVs that are disproportionate (as of 0.8.0.1 to current).

At the same time, it helped derail (somewhat) NTC project... So now WG is moving them aside and accelerating their objective...

Whatever the objective is moving forward, they can't blame CCs when this change goes through.

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,949
[RLGN]
Members
14,241 posts
25,057 battles
5 minutes ago, DEWEY_96_ said:

That's just off-topic in the thread.  We are discussing the change to CC's NDA process...  not the CV re-work.   

Quote included comments about CVs, and the devs.

Base comment related to the NDA then; I don’t give a large rodent’s behind what the devs think.

Whether it’s them specifically or bean counter directives from above; any sympathy I might have had started eroding in 2017, and any left died a flaming death over the course of 2019.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
469
[SOUP]
[SOUP]
Members
1,654 posts
7,278 battles

Well, they are Russian, so my best guess is that they fear BABAYAGA :Smile_ohmy:

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,039 posts
4,347 battles

I think I've figured out what Wargaming is afraid of.

It's bad press from their CCs and their playerbases, which also detracts from the large sums of money that they make off of people who spend a whole lot of money on the game ( whales ), as well as the people who do not spend money to play the game ( like myself ). 

Think about it this way. I'm going to use Petropavlovsk as an example here because it's relatively new and it's also a warship that has generated quite a bit of controversy. Flambass posting his video on the Petropavlovsk the first time he played it showed an example of just how powerful it was, delivering a paddling of the ages through the side of that Kremlin. Of course, he neglected to mention one thing that could have possibly kept people from going insane over this ship: that Kremlin player was an absolute potato who showed his side to a cruiser at very short ranges. Hell, Des Moines, Zao, Henri, and even Hindenburg can put rounds through the side of a Kremlin and penetrate it for massive amounts of damage, because the citadel is exposed on the side of the warship, rather than being internal like the Grosser Kurfurst or Republique. Petropavlovsk doing it was no different, yet Flambass reaction to that was what actually stirred the brewing pot.

I'm not calling out Flambino for this, but his reaction was quite overstated, even though he knew that other Tier 10 CAs can punch through to all BB Citadel sections ( with the exceptions of the Grosser Kurfurst, which is protected by a Turtleback,and even there, the weakspot is quite hard to expose for the average player), and thus, the whole "Wargaming bad" mentality took over, and drove most of us crazy.

Also, I hardly see the Russian Bias here when the ships of other nations can do things as well as or better than the Russian Ships ( with the possible exception of Pobeda, but then again, it's not like WG is that insane to bring in the Pobeda )

A few examples of Russian Bias not existing, with Tier 10 being the prime grounds for basis of context

  • Ohio and Grosser Kurfurst both can brawl better than the Kremlin, as well as Kurfurst being able to tank better than Kremlin
  • Yamato has the ability to b****-slap BBs from the front, something Kremlin cannot do
  • Des Moines/Salem and Hindenburg are more flexible than either the Stalingrad and Moskva, as well as the upcoming Petropavlovsk
  • Daring, Gearing, Halland, Smaland, and Yueyang are more well-rounded than Grozovoi
  • Kleber is much better at the rocket-gunship playstyle than the Khabarovsk
  • There are NO RUSSIAN TORPEDO BOATS that can match up to Shimakaze
  • Minotaur out-DPMs and outstealths the Smolensk ( also forgot to mention the MONSTER British CL AP and the 10km stealth radar, and the superheal )
  • Worcester can out DPM the upcoming Alexander Nevsky by a significant margin.

Need I say more?

:SerB:

  • Cool 8
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,103
[SOV]
Members
4,621 posts
30 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Why should they, (the CCs,) or I, (just a random player who participated in the CV beta,) be supportive of a rework that was and still is complete garbage?

WG shot themselves in the foot with the rework, and as far as I’m concerned they deserve every jot of grief they catch, for shoving it down the player’s throats.

I don’t give two whits about the devs whining the players don’t appreciate their efforts.

This misbegotten raft of repetitive boring gameplay masquerading as a rework took away everything I liked about carriers, and left me with everything I hated.

I should ‘appreciate’ the devs efforts, why exactly?

If you truly are this angry and filled with hate for the devs and creaters of the game then you should take a break.

I took a year off because of the over the top hate that flowded in chate and the forum.

Take a year off, go do something else and see if your interested later.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,103
[SOV]
Members
4,621 posts
27 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

 

At the same time, it helped derail (somewhat) NTC project... So now WG is moving them aside and accelerating their objective...

 

The NTC could have been great. Now it just flags and 2 ship.  I enjoyed regrinding my lines again. Right now we all have alot of time to do it!

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
[--K--]
Members
1,342 posts
10,133 battles
1 hour ago, jags_domain said:

Zoup stated that there taking it back to the way it was.

CC did this to them selves. CC refused to be positive or even fair to the CV rework. They lied about and exaggerated and fannded the flames of hate before it even came out.

Notser put our 1 vid on the Sipan. It was a t6 game and he was the only t8.  He then proceded to say how op it was but never played it in a t9 or 10 game.

Ichase did the same thing with his flying Shimi vid

All these vids did was fan hate before it even came out.

If you were a dev you would not want your hard work lied about iether all day long.  There is still alot of testing anyway.

Playing against CV’s fanned the flames of hate, not some video that was irrelevant two patches later, because all the stats changed.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,524
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
3,487 posts
13,882 battles
1 hour ago, Willy55_1955 said:

In a number of CC videos they have stated that WG is changing the NDA to include posting WIP videos. They 'feel it takes away from producing content on existing ships'. Really, or do they just want to push through ships without any player base input? Why are comments and suggestions from the players feared? Since we are the ones who ultimately have to play these ships why can't we have input into their creation (which the super testers do, I know).

Its like German CVs. Who asked for German CVs? They never had any (GZ never completed). Why not historic Italian BBs instead of paper CVs? I just don't understand their thought processes.

Aloha,

We explained exactly why we changed the NDA requirements and Embargo rules on test ships.

It is literally because information and opinions were being released on ships that were not finalized yet. Which meant the public made up opinions about ships before they were in their final stage.

Case in point opinions about changes to Odin currently, people are making their opinions about the ship based off videos and information from people without the final product being, well final.

I will tell you there are A LOT of test ships that I am running that I LOVE that people have said "are not good" due to changes they didn't agree with.... Point being, we want opinions on content based around the more FINALIZED product, not test products that have changes coming.

-Hapa

  • Cool 10
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,021
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
11,356 posts
15,763 battles


So glad this change is happening. 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[QC_1_]
Beta Testers
140 posts
6,554 battles

Why would we pay 60-100$ for a game feature (a new ship), if we cannot even have an honest, third party, analysis and gameplay overview?

  • Cool 9
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,884
[SYN]
Members
15,855 posts
12,803 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

Yep, that was a whole thing. Happened with Graf Zep as well.

Well, to be fair, GZ was a shitshow from the start, because WG did a rush job to get it out by Gamescon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,524
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
3,487 posts
13,882 battles
1 minute ago, gorium said:

Why would we pay 60-100$ for a game feature (a new ship), if we cannot even have an honest, third party, analysis and gameplay overview?

You WILL get honest and third party analysis, it will just be closer to release, not MONTHS before. Again, case in point Odin, she has been in testing for some time and will not be released for some time..... but people are already "reviewing" her.

-Hapa

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
118
[ANKER]
Members
229 posts
4,806 battles

it's Business guys..You cant put a ship for Sale if our kind CC will review it first before it comes out and tell us that the ship is not worth buying....Good for us But bad for WG

it all goes back to $$...Sad Fact.

 

Desperation is real :cap_tea:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
186
[D-H-O]
[D-H-O]
Beta Testers, Volunteer Moderator
277 posts
6,152 battles
8 minutes ago, BarneyStyle said:

Playing against CV’s fanned the flames of hate, not some video that was irrelevant two patches later, because all the stats changed.

And the community was in such an uproar of the initial videos that the later videos made no difference.   

I'm all for CC's having the ability to give opinions.  When you're opinions are based on WIP ships that are VERY early on in testing, then how valid are those opinions after changes have been made in the ship after multiple test iterations.  But yet we get fixated on the initial opinion that nothing after matters.  

All that WG is working on is that opinions on ships can be developed closer to final product..... 

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
186
[D-H-O]
[D-H-O]
Beta Testers, Volunteer Moderator
277 posts
6,152 battles
Just now, 9TenSix2Eight said:

it's Business guys..You cant put a ship for Sale if our kind CC will review it first before it comes out and tell us that the ship is not worth buying....Good for us But bad for WG

it all goes back to $$...Sad Fact.

 

Desperation is real :cap_tea:

You will get a review before it goes out.  The change did not say they have to wait till release to review... the CC's have to wait until told that it's in it's final steps of testing and the NDA is lifted on it.  From my understanding, that will still be prior to release.   

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×