[2019] It's hard to take CV feedback to the devs when...

Captains,

Firstly, I'd like to say thank you for your input in matters important to you in-game, such as the CV rework. We are lucky to have such an involved and dedicated community that genuinely cares about the game, and as such we do receive ample amounts of feedback. Some of it positive, some of it negative, some of it useful, other... not so much. I believe this is the feedback that LWM is referring to.

Let it be known, we want your feedback, on whatever topic you have feedback on, however there are a few characteristics we need within feedback for us to be able to do something with it and put weight behind its value.

We do not mind if you disagree with a game element or development intention, just include why and be constructive.

"I hate the CV rework, CVs should be removed" - while is feedback, is not giving us information beyond an opinion. It does not highlight the key issues which is dampening your game-play experience that we can report onward to development. While you are offering a "solution" in this case is not a realistic expectation.

In comparison.

"I hate the CV rework, I find playing ships like destroyers considerably more difficult due to the ample spotting that CV planes have. Coupled with the dropped fighter that can restrict my movement substantially to my smoke or keep my spotted until I have a chance to get away, it has made playing this class substantially less enjoyable. While I wish the game did not have the CV class, a middle ground solution could be [insert solution here]. I have included a video clip of the issue I'm facing to show you what I mean. - This feedback is significantly more useful for development because it:

clearly states an opinion


explains why/how the opinion has been formed


offers a reasonable solution


includes a visual/detailed proof of the issue

When feedback includes these elements, it allows the staff present development staff more than "Players don't like X"

I encourage you all to provide your feedback, we do want it, and we do read it, but remember - neither CCs or Staff can construct anything with feedback that isn't well formulated or backed with fact.

Fem,

Heyo,

This would be better off posted in the Bug section of the forum: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/forum/125-world-of-warships-feedback-and-bugs/

When posting bugs please ensure you are giving as much detail as to how the bug occurred. Please follow these instructions:

Fem,

I have "recommended" my post so that it shows at the top of the thread and is easier to see :)

Daniel,

While there is always room for improvement on our end, with thousands of players world it is also critical to consider not all feedback is correct, or can be acted on. It is also not feasible for staff to loop back on every feedback thread as much as we wish we had the resources available to do as much.

The current community team is up to the task of rebuilding trust within the community however meet us half way in judging us for our actions not the actions of our predecessors.

Fem,

While it would be awesome to be able to do this, this would involve us cataloging every piece of feedback to us, finding it when a decision is made, and then referring back to, this would be... a massive time sink, which with current resources we simply couldn't commit to. We'd much rather use the time to correlate the feedback and pass it onward. Furthermore, typically changes are developed from feedback from multiple sources across multiple avenues, its not really possible to loop back on certain things.

I will say, there is always room for improvement, but as a whole in comparison to other products/games, we are extremely proud of the amount of information we provide our players in regards to the future of the game and what changes are coming ahead of time. While we have many programs in place (Dev Blog, ST program, and CC programs previews to name a few) we cannot simply show all our cards all the time for a variety of reasons. Sometimes the reasoning behind decisions will go over-the-head of the common player-base, sometimes it has to do with an internal issue or concern, sometimes its simply because it doesn't need to be shared.

The Giulio Change: as per the feedback from the player-base this proposed changed never went through. We were open with our intention to change it (through our EA channels - mentioned above), you provided us feedback, and we changed plans. Since we were transparent, you all were able to give your opinions and we made a change as per them.

The Viribus: As all items when first announced, they are stated to be WIP and subject to change based on play testing and assessment. As such, when the initial T4 version was tested it was deemed to strong based on data brought back from our ST/CST/CC programs. As such we changes her to be in a position where she is more balanced, in this sense moving her to T5 made the most sense.

The Fire Change for Khron / Stalin: This matter was also discussed on the Dev blog and reasons as to why it was occuring provided. Many players had motioned the strength of these ships which is feedback we listened to.

Alaska being "Delayed": The Alaska release date was never stated, thus it was never delayed. Just because a ship is deemed completed and balanced, does not mean it will be released the same week. We typically release ships to coincide with events or patches.

In looking at your exampled situations:

The Giulio shows we do take onboard feedback from the player base as this change never progressed.


Viribus/Khron/Stalin balance changes show that we are determined to maintain a balanced game environment where possible, these ships were deemed strong in various areas and they were adjusted to ensure they fell within the standard. This is keeping the game health above all else, which ultimately makes for a more enjoyable experience for all players, not just the ones with the "strong" ships


Alaska, well, we never pre-announce when ships are being released. (I'll give you half of this to be frustrated about)

I hope this helps provide some insight/clarity/proof there is a progression from feedback to action.

If it was possible, I would love to do this. However you're looking at your piece of feedback, while staff must consider every piece of feedback, from every player, from every input source (FB/Reddit/Forums), all the time. It simply isn't feasible. When we find constructive feedback in any of these locations, we do report it onward to the appropriate people to see if its something the development staff can do something with. While I completely understand your request for a closed loop in terms of feedback, it is literally unfeasible to make happen. It is also important to remember, not all suggestions are good. We have access to significantly more tools to just and predict outcomes of changes. Whenever we make changes to existing content within the game it is primarily prompted from player feedback, solutions may be different to what is suggested, but we don't just go "I think we want to change X today".

Lets look at the recently released Victory event which was adapted from the Sharks v Eagles campaign. During that period, players complained there was not motivation to switch teams and the teams felt heavily stacked. For this iteration we adjusted the rewarding scale for consecutive wins to make it harder for that team to win, as proven over the weekend (On NA) with Glory picking up a win despite being 3 behind. Whether this is the ultimate fix to these event cycles or further adjustments need to be made, once again it stemmed from player feedback. Who provided us that feedback, I don't recall, but fact of the matter is a change occurred due to player sentiment.

I am here, and I'm not a moderator. Please consider office hours and the time it takes us for to read through, digest and reply to posts. As much as I'd reply through the night, I need to get sleep too. I'm catching up at the moment and replying to what is possible to reply to.

.

Fem,

We don't expect feedback, it is up to the individual player to decide whether they want to provide us feedback or not.

What we're asking is when you are providing feedback, for it to be taken seriously, its better for it to have the characteristics I mentioned before.

You are correct, we do have tools and databases to measure player game engagement etc, and we can assess trends, but this data does not provide us the more subjective feelings of the playerbase.

While we do shift through a lot of *ahem* poor feedback, if a simple guidance of how to provide feedback improves feedback quality by 10%, this greatly improved the value of data we can pull from feedback, the rate of which we can pull it, and the overall ability for us to respond productively to it.

Using my example from above, the first version there really isn't anything I can reply to that with beyond Ty for your opinion. The second version I can expand on the players points and make an assessment to the validity of the feedback and whether there is a misunderstanding in how something works, or add details as to why an element exists.

When we're presented with more/useful information, we can in-turn, return with more valuable information to you guys.

Captains,

While this post has been majorly productive on the topic of how to give feedback its beginning to derail into a catchall for complaints and opinions on recently announced topics.

We thank you for your feedback and would now encourage you to post it into the appropriate threads as per the topics (such as the Dev blog individual posts as they are made), or if there is not an already created thread, please make one.

For now I will be closing it.

Fem,