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

How satisfied were you with the battle you just played?

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

494
[XXII]
Banned
862 posts
791 battles

Saw this survey right after a blowout loss in the langley. Put in 'neutral' because the dmg I did was high for my standards

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,108
[ADR]
Members
4,505 posts
16,864 battles

it's been in game for several years.  clearly it's a joke survey to make you feel as if you are giving them feed back they might listen to.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
110
[-PVE-]
Members
299 posts
13,610 battles
7 minutes ago, Shadowrigger1 said:

it's been in game for several years.  clearly it's a joke survey to make you feel as if you are giving them feed back they might listen to.  

I always click the second from the worst, so I know they don't listen. This is not a lie, I do this because this is how I feel towards the game now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
563 posts

I click very dissatisfied whenever that waste of time survey pops up. That's all the effort WG puts into feedback yet claims players want major reworks, subs, research bureau etc...

Edited by OuijaApologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,401
[S0L0]
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,797 posts
7,421 battles

I played a match in T4 last night, working on Epoch campaign..  Loaded in with Arkansas B to a two per side CV match..    Both red CVs,  Hosho & Rhein. with clan tags I recognized,.  Of course they are on me like white on rice from start..   I didn't check profiles, but as a CV player I know experienced CV player drops when I see them.    4 mins later I'm going to port.  Got same survey on my way out.  No real way to answer that but the honest way...   "Very dissatisfied"   I'm obviously fine with CVs in game, however... how else can you answer that question but honestly.     T3/T4 ships... even with AA,  are in a pretty tough spot against 1 competent CV.  Against 2?        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,541
[YORHA]
Members
5,265 posts
10,438 battles
15 minutes ago, iRA6E said:

I played a match in T4 last night, working on Epoch campaign..  Loaded in with Arkansas B to a two per side CV match..    Both red CVs,  Hosho & Rhein. with clan tags I recognized,.  Of course they are on me like white on rice from start..   I didn't check profiles, but as a CV player I know experienced CV player drops when I see them.    4 mins later I'm going to port.  Got same survey on my way out.  No real way to answer that but the honest way...   "Very dissatisfied"   I'm obviously fine with CVs in game, however... how else can you answer that question but honestly.     T3/T4 ships... even with AA,  are in a pretty tough spot against 1 competent CV.  Against 2?        

See.. that is being helpful and giving them useful information.

People who think it is some kind of protest vote...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,350
[CVA16]
Members
6,094 posts
18,714 battles
26 minutes ago, OuijaApologist said:

That's all the effort WG puts into feedback yet claims players want major reworks, subs, research bureau etc...

See, WG would interpret your dissatisfaction with the game being the result of no subs, need for a rework, or any other factor they want to assign to your response. There is never a 'WHY' follow on survey so they get to fill in the blanks any way they want.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,106
[USCC2]
Members
6,352 posts
2 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

See.. that is being helpful and giving them useful information.

People who think it is some kind of protest vote...

:Smile_amazed: The explanation he gave in this thread is good, yes - but the actual feedback WG asked him for was exactly the same as the others in this thread.

A tick in the box.

 

So he gave the people who collect that tick box exercise results, no additional help at all.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
433
[-1]
Members
772 posts
10,900 battles
44 minutes ago, Lose_dudes said:

Saw this survey right after a blowout loss in the langley. Put in 'neutral' because the dmg I did was high for my standards

It's the same thing as karma--you feel like they care...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,106
[USCC2]
Members
6,352 posts
4 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

See, WG would interpret your dissatisfaction with the game being the result of no subs, need for a rework, or any other factor they want to assign to your response. There is never a 'WHY' follow on survey so they get to fill in the blanks any way they want.

That is terrible trolling lol.

They could as easily see that as a negative because CVs were in game, or BBs/CLs-CAs/DDs if we want to imagine how one decision in a tick box is going to be translated,

 

:Smile_teethhappy:Classic.

 

Edit: It is obvious they care about our feedback. :cap_like:

Edited by _WaveRider_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
563 posts
10 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

See, WG would interpret your dissatisfaction with the game being the result of no subs, need for a rework, or any other factor they want to assign to your response. There is never a 'WHY' follow on survey so they get to fill in the blanks any way they want.

I believe the devs think any change is good for the game. I'm sure the spreadsheet gets manipulated until it agrees. Rite now they are probably looking at it and saying, "Less players are using cruisers, that proves they aren't popular anymore."

Edited by OuijaApologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
696
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
2,306 posts

Those always come up after the worst of stupid battles. One time the entire team of BOTS (All of them) funneled straight into my B with my Gearing. 4 were kremlins. This was years ago. My team had Krems out the whazoo. Two on each of the far side objectives and proceeded to plod into there far from the death struggle up to my eyeballs alone in B.

I had nightmares from that stupid little game. Very dissatisfied. Raging even, throwing stuff around my land. Heavy stuff. Got it out of my system.

Four krems... 1 km apart and 9 km and closing. Torps to load and ready in 40 seconds... Smoke was another 20 left.

The resulting manuvers was VERY satisfying but I wont tell Weegee that. I snuggled up against a couple of our human BB's taking the occasional scrape into pink as a form of living armor. They thought I was gay or something. Ugh.

Damn Kremlin Bots... But we won that goddamn match. Even if its bots. 600,000 HP worth advancing at 20 some odd knots. Torping was constanty LATE on the johnny but could not be easier. Just wall to wall grey hulls. Mash the firing button.

Edited by xHeavy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,350
[CVA16]
Members
6,094 posts
18,714 battles
1 minute ago, _WaveRider_ said:

They could as easily see that as a negative because CVs were in game, or BBs/CLs-CAs/DDs if we want to imagine how one decision in a tick box is going to be translated,

I thought that was what I was implying. In general, they get to assign why you were dissatisfied. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,541
[YORHA]
Members
5,265 posts
10,438 battles
6 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

:Smile_amazed: The explanation he gave in this thread is good, yes - but the actual feedback WG asked him for was exactly the same as the others in this thread.

A tick in the box.

 

So he gave the people who collect that tick box exercise results, no additional help at all.

There was an article somewhere on the site that explains how those surveys work.  As I recall they are initiated when the MM puts certain conditions into a match (ie 2 CVs per side) so his feedback could have been valuable.  Unfortunately it gets drowned out by the childish "Boy I sure showed them hurrrr durrr durrr" crowd putting negative votes into every survey they get.  It's a question of signal o noise ratio.

Edited by JCC45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,106
[USCC2]
Members
6,352 posts
Just now, Sabot_100 said:

I thought that was what I was implying. In general, they get to assign why you were dissatisfied. 

lol I did add my edit after to indicate your terrible scepticism and the fact WG cares about you! :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,106
[USCC2]
Members
6,352 posts
1 minute ago, JCC45 said:

There was an article somewhere on the site that explains how those surveys work.  As I recall they are initiated when the MM puts certain conditions into a match (ie 2 CVs per side) so his feedback could have been valuable.  Unfortunately it get drowned out by the childish "Boy I sure showed them hurrrr durrr durrr" crowd putting negative votes into every survey they get.  It's a question of signal o noise ratio.

Which makes absolutely no sense unless you are informed what criteria they are looking at:

They put 2 CVs in game and I am in a AA ship that shreds the planes and I have a great game - I enjoyed the game.

Next match 2 CVs and I'm in a tub that gets obliterated - I hate the game!

 

If the hope was to find out whether I liked the specific fact 2 CVs were in the game - they messed up. Now if they come out and ask if I like 2 CVs in game then whether I had a good game or not - my answer would remain the same.

 

As @Sabot_100 states, if you do not know the question they are asking you, how can you possibly answer truthfully?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,995
[ARGSY]
Members
23,038 posts
17,042 battles
12 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

As I recall they are initiated when the MM puts certain conditions into a match (ie 2 CVs per side) so his feedback could have been valuable. 

The problem I have with it in general is that there are reasons to be "extremely dissatisfied" with a battle I just fought which go beyond questions of game balance, OP ships, CV, whatever. Way back in 2018 when I was grinding through the Isokaze, I had a battle which was ALMOST my second-ever Kraken except that I abruptly started getting ping times in the 3000 millisecond region and could barely steer my ship, let alone finish off the enemy wounded. I eventually traced that back to the internet plan I was on, a situation which has not since recurred, so it certainly wasn't Wargaming's issue.

To say that I had an extremely sour taste in my mouth after that was to understate the matter, but saying I was dissatisfied with such a battle (if I had been asked) would have given a false impression; I still had a four-kill game; and if the ping delay had waited just a little longer, I'd have had five kills, my best DD game ever, and satisfaction to make Mick Jagger envious. Likewise, if I derp to my grave and die in the first three minutes, my dissatisfaction with the battle stems entirely from my performance.

Sabot and WaveRider are correct; the big issue here revolves around exactly what significance they are applying to the data. 

Edited by Ensign_Cthulhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,350
[CVA16]
Members
6,094 posts
18,714 battles
19 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

Which makes absolutely no sense unless you are informed what criteria they are looking at:

They put 2 CVs in game and I am in a AA ship that shreds the planes and I have a great game - I enjoyed the game.

Next match 2 CVs and I'm in a tub that gets obliterated - I hate the game!

Two CVs and you are in an AA ship but the CVs leave you alone--??

So many other reasons you could have had a bad game unrelated to the CVs or lack thereof. Like:

MM put you on the predetermined losing side. Again.

One or more of your team were complete jerks in play and/or chat. 

You were having technical issues.

You were bottom tier for 5th game in a row.

Your team was too good. (especially in COOP) where you don't get to do much.

 

How would the standard survey parse this out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,233
[WOLFG]
Members
11,624 posts
10,762 battles
37 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

There was an article somewhere on the site that explains how those surveys work.  As I recall they are initiated when the MM puts certain conditions into a match (ie 2 CVs per side) so his feedback could have been valuable.  Unfortunately it gets drowned out by the childish "Boy I sure showed them hurrrr durrr durrr" crowd putting negative votes into every survey they get.  It's a question of signal o noise ratio.

I don't get it either.  If you are playing enough games to keep WG happy, they don't really care if you hit a negative every time the survey comes out.

 

26 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

The problem I have with it in general is that there are reasons to be "extremely dissatisfied" with a battle I just fought which go beyond questions of game balance, OP ships, CV, whatever. Way back in 2018 when I was grinding through the Isokaze, I had a battle which was ALMOST my second-ever Kraken except that I abruptly started getting ping times in the 3000 millisecond region and could barely steer my ship, let alone finish off the enemy wounded. I eventually traced that back to the internet plan I was on, a situation which has not since recurred, so it certainly wasn't Wargaming's issue.

To say that I had an extremely sour taste in my mouth after that was to understate the matter, but saying I was dissatisfied with such a battle (if I had been asked) would have given a false impression; I still had a four-kill game; and if the ping delay had waited just a little longer, I'd have had five kills, my best DD game ever, and satisfaction to make Mick Jagger envious. Likewise, if I derp to my grave and die in the first three minutes, my dissatisfaction with the battle stems entirely from my performance.

Sabot and WaveRider are correct; the big issue here revolves around exactly what significance they are applying to the data. 

Yeah, if you are in a two CV game, and teamkilled by a cruiser, is it really the CV that caused the negative vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,106
[USCC2]
Members
6,352 posts
1 minute ago, Sabot_100 said:

Two CVs and you are in an AA ship but the CVs leave you alone--??

So many other reasons you could have had a bad game unrelated to the CVs or lack thereof. Like:

MM put you on the predetermined losing side. Again.

One or more of your team were complete jerks in play and/or chat. 

You were having technical issues.

You were bottom tier for 5th game in a row.

Your team was too good. (especially in COOP) where you don't get to do much.

 

How would the standard survey parse this out?

Exactly, there is no way to know why the person indicates their satisfaction - or what the question was angled to uncover.

I merely used the 2 CVs as an example as it was one that JCC45 stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,167
[SALVO]
Members
6,685 posts
5,279 battles

Got one of those this week while playing Ops... Oh surprise, I was Satisfied. I wonder how the level of satisfaction contrast between Ops, Coop, Ranked and Randoms :cap_yes:

Can we have access to that info? Which game mode will be the happier one? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,995
[ARGSY]
Members
23,038 posts
17,042 battles
2 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

Yeah, if you are in a two CV game, and teamkilled by a cruiser, is it really the CV that caused the negative vote?

That's a poor example, since it's very likely that they would tag the manner in which you died and realize instantly what the problem was (in which case the issue they are trying to probe for is irrelevant, and your datum would have to be discarded as far as answering it was concerned).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,233
[WOLFG]
Members
11,624 posts
10,762 battles
1 minute ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

That's a poor example, since it's very likely that they would tag the manner in which you died and realize instantly what the problem was (in which case the issue they are trying to probe for is irrelevant, and your datum would have to be discarded as far as answering it was concerned).

That is part of the problem.  We don't know how much data they collect (in evaluating the response).  In theory they can collect (and use) all of it, but in reality, no one does that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,350
[CVA16]
Members
6,094 posts
18,714 battles
14 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

That's a poor example, since it's very likely that they would tag the manner in which you died and realize instantly what the problem was (in which case the issue they are trying to probe for is irrelevant, and your datum would have to be discarded as far as answering it was concerned).

Don' know if they could just throw it out because you died to gunfire. Could be you were tag-teamed by the cruisers because you were permaspotted by the CVs and unable to disengage.

WG really needs a follow up survey to the quicky survey. Unless they are just looking at the mass stats whether more people hit "dissatisfied" in battles including CVs than without. And do the results change further when there are 2 CVs present. Assumes the other causes balance out. 

Seems a more targeted survey would be superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
555
[NSEW]
Members
2,234 posts
11,821 battles

It's a placebo.  Makes the clients think they are 'included', but otherwise not really utilised...unless it is to build (positive) data for their investors to look & be accepted with.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×