Jump to content


Video - Losing player's trust


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

FlakValleyExpress #1 Posted 07 December 2017 - 02:55 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 16 battles
  • 3,663
  • Member since:
    02-09-2012

This is interesting video. Basically any on-line game company should be looking at this factor too in keeping the player base.

 

 

This YouTube channel has so many game developer related items to watch. This is so insightful.


Edited by FlakValleyExpress, 07 December 2017 - 02:55 PM.

Airborne Scout - Class of 1.0

Vae victis

Update 2.0 - It's not a bug, it's a feature

"Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in."

 


cobra_marksman #2 Posted 07 December 2017 - 03:53 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 678 battles
  • 112
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-28-2014
Well after watching your interesting video. I did some research and applied it to our clan. Being one of several recruiters, Stats, battles,& win / loss ratio, are a few priority's that we tend to keep an eye on. Since the release of 2.0, over 90% of our members are playing much less. Post 2.0 .... 50% of them are playing under 100 battles a month. 30% of that group play less the 10 battles a month, & 20% of the original ( 50%) group are not even playing the game anymore. So as you can see Playing time from our members has dropped off of the cliff. As each passing day goes by, more & more of our members are playing less & are requesting out of Clan & then out of the game of Wowp. In simple terms .... " they are playing other On- line games ". A few of our members have come back to see if the any changes were made, but after a few round, they inform us, that they are done waiting, & are going elsewhere to game. I just hope they get their stuff together before it too late, & what we use to enjoy playing ...is gone forever.   Members Are Leaving.....Open your Damn Eyes, >>> pull your damn Heads out of the sand.  before it's too late.     Search :  World of Warplanes Dev QnA part 1 « Status Repor

Edited by cobra_marksman, 08 December 2017 - 12:28 PM.


El_Mulo #3 Posted 07 December 2017 - 06:16 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 883 battles
  • 101
  • [CHKAL] CHKAL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2015

Agree with what Cobra said.  In my clan the situation is quite similar.  I can t understand why they didn t listen to us.

The Priolia declaration of that the game is what it is :  "love it or leave it"  doesn t make sense to me.  The game is not art is bussines.  In art you can say "love it or leave it" but in bussines you have to make a product that is gonna be required by people.  That is to say you must make a "lovable" product and what better than buyers saying to you WHAT they want to be sold to they..
I insist WG is great at programming but have no idea of bussines.

 


Edited by El_Mulo, 07 December 2017 - 06:18 PM.

What we say to death?

cobra_marksman #4 Posted 07 December 2017 - 06:22 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 678 battles
  • 112
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-28-2014

Q: How did the release of 2.0 influence the total number of active players?

In several regions where the game is available our daily player count grew so significantly that in fact it reached several times higher than we’ve seen over the last three years. That’s impressive considering that a part of players thought the changes we’ve made were too drastic for them to continue playing. This indicates that we are on the right track and we will continue developing new exciting features. We are sure you will like them.   Guess they already made up their minds...  , they are not going to change a thing, if  anything they are going to be moving further in the new 2.0 direction. Well guess that answers our question, Take it....  or  ....Leave it.   Search :  World of Warplanes Dev QnA part 1 « Status Repor    


Edited by cobra_marksman, 08 December 2017 - 12:29 PM.


Catch21 #5 Posted 07 December 2017 - 06:44 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 466 battles
  • 94
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013

View Postcobra_marksman, on 07 December 2017 - 06:22 PM, said:

Q: How did the release of 2.0 influence the total number of active players?

In several regions where the game is available our daily player count grew so significantly that in fact it reached several times higher than we’ve seen over the last three years.

I hope they're not deluding themselves. My (admittedly player, not developer) take was that the increase was in folks coming to check 2.0 out, after playing and moving on from 1.x. Whether they did- or will- stay, we'll maybe know post-New Year, but with the specials they're offering in comparison with their WoT and WoS cousins, they've some cliff to climb.

 

The best indicator to this player of whether 2.0 is succeeding is how many bots there are in a battle. Every bot is a human that should be there- as in WoT or WoS- but for whatever reason isn't.


Edited by Catch21, 07 December 2017 - 06:47 PM.


SalTuskin #6 Posted 07 December 2017 - 08:30 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Alpha tester
  • 144 battles
  • 12
  • [ANVIL] ANVIL
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

and cobra the game was doing so good before 2.0 i played this in alpha, beta and quit,  this game now may not be the flight sim you want but it is fun to play and a few of us old timers are even back playing

this game maybe not what  you want and had may have been what you want and the other maybe 100 people playing but you cannot have a business with 100 people playing so wargaming took a chance and changed it up if you dont like it dont play

sure there are not a lot of people that play but i bet there are more now than 4 months ago and that is that is what wargaming wanted

you may not like and you have to the right to leave some people like it and will stay so in the end it play or leave

 

and sure there are alot of bots in the game but before 2.0 how many 15v15 games were exactly 0 so what does wargaming have to lose by trying this before you have 3v3 4v4 now we have the same but with bot so nothing much changed so time will tell if this works or not


Edited by SalTuskin, 07 December 2017 - 08:33 PM.


CamoCladWarrior #7 Posted 08 December 2017 - 12:40 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 57 battles
  • 86
  • [-DOW-] -DOW-
  • Member since:
    09-10-2016

View Postcobra_marksman, on 07 December 2017 - 06:22 PM, said:

Q: How did the release of 2.0 influence the total number of active players?

In several regions where the game is available our daily player count grew so significantly that in fact it reached several times higher than we’ve seen over the last three years. That’s impressive considering that a part of players thought the changes we’ve made were too drastic for them to continue playing. This indicates that we are on the right track and we will continue developing new exciting features. We are sure you will like them.   Guess they already made up their minds...  , they are not going to change a thing, if  anything they are going to be moving further in the new 2.0 direction. Well guess that answers our question, Take it....  or  ....Leave it.       Source Link:  https://ritastatusre...dev-qna-part-1/

 

 

I tried to follow the link but it was bad.  I dug a little and found the page.  Reading some of the Q&A I have come to the conclusion they are deluded...  Your observations precisely describe myself and many members of my clan.  For the 2.0 fanboys good luck, I derive no enjoyment from 2.0 and have stopped playing, more importantly I have stopped spending money with Wargaming.net.  After pulling the rug on a game I loved and spent a bunch of money on I cannot in good faith even contemplate spending money on their other products out of fear they might pull the same [edited]...  Trust is everything and they blew it as far as I'm concerned.  The attitude knowing how many of their loyal players feel betrayed speaks volumes and reinforces my gut feeling not to trust them with their other products.

BTW correct link: https://ritastatusreport.live/2017/12/07/world-of-warplanes-dev-qna-part-1/


 


Edited by CamoCladWarrior, 08 December 2017 - 12:41 AM.


Mercsn #8 Posted 08 December 2017 - 01:16 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 432 battles
  • 2,589
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

View PostSalTuskin, on 07 December 2017 - 02:30 PM, said:

and cobra the game was doing so good before 2.0 i played this in alpha, beta and quit,  this game now may not be the flight sim you want but it is fun to play and a few of us old timers are even back playing

this game maybe not what  you want and had may have been what you want and the other maybe 100 people playing but you cannot have a business with 100 people playing so wargaming took a chance and changed it up if you dont like it dont play

sure there are not a lot of people that play but i bet there are more now than 4 months ago and that is that is what wargaming wanted

you may not like and you have to the right to leave some people like it and will stay so in the end it play or leave

 

and sure there are alot of bots in the game but before 2.0 how many 15v15 games were exactly 0 so what does wargaming have to lose by trying this before you have 3v3 4v4 now we have the same but with bot so nothing much changed so time will tell if this works or not

 

The last time I played was 1.0.  They ruined the game near the very end of beta with scattergun dispersion and very severe altitude band caps and combined with an anemic experience economy post launch, with several control scheme changeups thrown in for good measure.  The shooting was terrible.  The plane would argue with you when you told it to do something and the game was very grindy.   Now, the shooting is reasonable (although, even with my bad aim, I'd still prefer zero aim assist, with current reasonably low dispersion), the controls are intuitive and responsive (although the actual flying is somewhat "muddy"), the altitude band caps feel less severe, partly by gameplay design that puts enemies at various altitudes and the game isn't grindy.

 

 


 

It's not perfect, but it is fun.  Granted, I have no idea what 1.1 through 1.9 played like, but I'm enjoying the current iteration ALMOST as much as I enjoyed the beta game before they "broke" it just prior to release.


 

My one suggestion would be to bring back supremacy mode, either as a queue choice or random setting and the missing maps.  The current mode is so confusing and needlessly complicated that players are unclear of what actions may affect a win or loss and therefore, it's not rewarding in a sense of "ya, I helped my team win!" the way supremacy was with relatively clear cut "do this better than the other team to win" gameplay.  And, the maps are seriously getting repetitive.
 


All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

mnbv_fockewulfe #9 Posted 08 December 2017 - 02:19 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 52 battles
  • 1,700
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

Altitude caps feel worse IMHO.

I was one of those people that actually liked the new altitude system when it first came out. Granted, it may have contributed to HF meta in 1.9, I don't remember what it was before the variable plane performance at altitude. The system was bad, it just could have been tweaked a little bit to favor TnB by making the impact on BnZ planes more severe at low alt (read the Ta-152, best high alt performance in the game, preformed significantly worse at low alt, however this was the only plane that had this relationship).


 

Now...

BnZ is NOT handicapped by being at low alt. To compensate, they compressed horizontal space so you have to be going faster in order to get any kind of reasonable distance out of gun range.


 

Climbing was superinflated, so that after only a few seconds of climbing I get to the point where I feel like this invisible hand is pushing down on me keeping me from climbing any higher. Yet the guy 300m below me has vastly more kinetic energy than me and I can't dive fast enough to make use of the potential energy I acquired by climbing. All of these mechanics ultimately force you to fight on the deck and only on the deck.


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


Mercsn #10 Posted 08 December 2017 - 03:31 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 432 battles
  • 2,589
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013
they needed to get rid of the altitude bands altogether. this is the only actual solution to the problem they created. the original method of having aircraft perform better in the altitude band that the engine or craft historically did was the way to go. there was zero reason to change it.  they added the altitude bands as a system of "cover" the way a first person shooter would use a building...but it just doesn't work in a flight game.  Either way, having 1 p-51 solo an entire enemy team using altitude, was terrible.  Now, the altitude is merely "bad".

All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

Bobby_Tables #11 Posted 08 December 2017 - 03:47 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 603 battles
  • 717
  • [-DOW-] -DOW-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

View PostMercsn, on 07 December 2017 - 09:31 PM, said:

Either way, having 1 p-51 solo an entire enemy team using altitude, was terrible.  Now, the altitude is merely "bad".

 

I know you stopped playing at or near the end of beta, so just to fill you in a bit:

 

The 1.8/1.9 meta was players in heavy fighters going up very high and staying there, refusing to engage in the fight.  Then, after they watched their teammates die, the bots would try to climb up to the heavy (stalling in the process), the heavy would dip down, destroy a stalling bot, go back up and rinse and repeat.  I also did this when I was feeling a bit abused, but found it was boring and repetitive and really gave no satisfaction unless you were into stat padding.  For the stat padders, it was an easy-win solution unless some other human in a heavy was against them.

 

Oh yeah, then you would have 2 heavies in a flight doing this and they could be defeated with a good team, but that was hard to come by.  

 

Anyway, I do admit I liked playing 1.9 more so that I do 2.0.x at this point in time, although by my battle count, I am playing 2.0.x as you can tell. 

 

Now the light fighters tend to rule the roost and heavies (aside from a few) are not the sure win they were in prior versions.   That is actually cool by me as the heavies were way OP compared to historical norms.  Unfortunately, it seems like all my major token missions are for multirole and heavies.  I think WG is trying to push people to play these planes in order to bring some variety.  Otherwise, everyone would be flying light fighters and GA.   



mnbv_fockewulfe #12 Posted 08 December 2017 - 04:13 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 52 battles
  • 1,700
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostMercsn, on 08 December 2017 - 03:31 AM, said:

they needed to get rid of the altitude bands altogether. this is the only actual solution to the problem they created. the original method of having aircraft perform better in the altitude band that the engine or craft historically did was the way to go. there was zero reason to change it.  they added the altitude bands as a system of "cover" the way a first person shooter would use a building...but it just doesn't work in a flight game.  Either way, having 1 p-51 solo an entire enemy team using altitude, was terrible.  Now, the altitude is merely "bad".

 

Interesting you put it that way as being a sort of "cover".

It took me awhile to realize it but BnZ isn't just a method of offense. It's also a really strong defense. 1.9 alt cap meant a skilled player would know better than to fight out of his zone and he would avoid getting out of his good zone as much as can be helped. This however, doesn't help the bad players at all, and tbh bad players are more likely to fly TnB planes (which is easier to learn) which have a lower alt cap. This makes them easy fodder for good players a bit more I guess.

I do like the old alt system, even if for nothing else it was a bit more realistic. Planes do vary in performance as they change altitude. Removing the climbrate nerf on TnB planes, and raising the overall alt caps to something more historical (read 6,000m ceiling for the P-51 not 2,400m) would have gone a long way to fixing the imbalance.

Now the balance is in the opposite extreme.


 

edit: you don't know how rewarding solo carrying an entire match in your P-51 feels until you've done it yourself.


Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 08 December 2017 - 04:41 AM.

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


Tyrson #13 Posted 08 December 2017 - 04:59 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Alpha tester
  • 91 battles
  • 22
  • [RTIDE] RTIDE
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSalTuskin, on 07 December 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:

and cobra the game was doing so good before 2.0 i played this in alpha, beta and quit,  this game now may not be the flight sim you want but it is fun to play and a few of us old timers are even back playing

this game maybe not what  you want and had may have been what you want and the other maybe 100 people playing but you cannot have a business with 100 people playing so wargaming took a chance and changed it up if you dont like it dont play

sure there are not a lot of people that play but i bet there are more now than 4 months ago and that is that is what wargaming wanted

you may not like and you have to the right to leave some people like it and will stay so in the end it play or leave

 

and sure there are alot of bots in the game but before 2.0 how many 15v15 games were exactly 0 so what does wargaming have to lose by trying this before you have 3v3 4v4 now we have the same but with bot so nothing much changed so time will tell if this works or not

 

I have to say I agree with you.
The reason I talk to myself is that I'm the only one whose answers I accept.
George Carlin

I honored the fallen enemy by placing a stone on his beautiful grave.
Manfred von Richthofen

mnbv_fockewulfe #14 Posted 08 December 2017 - 05:08 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 52 battles
  • 1,700
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

What do people have against realistic flight mechanics? -_-

To Hawd?


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


Bobby_Tables #15 Posted 08 December 2017 - 05:28 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 603 battles
  • 717
  • [-DOW-] -DOW-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 07 December 2017 - 10:13 PM, said:

It took me awhile to realize it but BnZ isn't just a method of offense. It's also a really strong defense. 1.9 alt cap meant a skilled player would know better than to fight out of his zone and he would avoid getting out of his good zone as much as can be helped. This however, doesn't help the bad players at all, and tbh bad players are more likely to fly TnB planes (which is easier to learn) which have a lower alt cap. This makes them easy fodder for good players a bit more I guess.

I do like the old alt system, even if for nothing else it was a bit more realistic. Planes do vary in performance as they change altitude. Removing the climbrate nerf on TnB planes, and raising the overall alt caps to something more historical (read 6,000m ceiling for the P-51 not 2,400m) would have gone a long way to fixing the imbalance.

Now the balance is in the opposite extreme.


 

edit: you don't know how rewarding solo carrying an entire match in your P-51 feels until you've done it yourself.

 

OK, not totally disagreeing with you but I do take issue with the whole "getting out of the good zone/TnB planes were fodder for good players".  Good God man!  There were so many videos about how to exploit the bots in 1.9 using a heavy fighter it was not funny.  And yes, you could take a heavy way up into the red zone in altitude and it still would perform.  So, were those players good?  Not in my opinion.  They were exploiting a huge gap in the game and using it to shoot down bots to the detriment of their team.  Yes, they would win, but using "skills" that simply required boosting and shooting and pretty much little else.  

 

I did it.  I know how easy it was.  You could take an HG II or HG III and fly it up to the stratosphere and just wait for bots (and some people) to try to come up to you.  Let them stall, then swoop down, kill them with incredible cannons and simply climb back up and repeat.  That was not skill, that was not a challenge, that was shooting passenger pigeons with a 20 gauge from 10 feet out.  

 

One thing I did was use my HGII as a fighter because it was surprisingly agile in certain situations.  I had a lot of fun in it.  When I flew it as an exploit plane, it was just a mind-numbing go high, kill stallers grind.  

 

/End Rant


Edited by Bobby_Tables, 08 December 2017 - 05:34 AM.


Uwe13 #16 Posted 08 December 2017 - 01:59 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 6 battles
  • 17
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013

Instead of having fun and playing a game the rule is:  Players like to abuse the system wherever and whenever they can in order to get an upper hand on others. This abuse is masked and traded as "skill". This is the cancer of each game.

It is on the game maker to prevent this abuse. Unfortunately for this game was that each attempt to balance the game lead to loss of players.

To make some examples the attempt to group people according to their rank you ended up waiting for minutes only to end up in a 1:1 match.
That drove players away.

Filling the empty spots with bots wasn't accepted and many players left.
Removing 2 tier spread drove another group away.

Reducing flights from 3 to 2 had an impact on the clan guys.
Etc, etc,. you don't need to go into technical details. In my point of view they've failed to balance the game and couldn't attract new players to fill in the gap.
 


 

The game was dying before 2.0, no doubts. What else could you do than grinding planes ? Something had to be done.
So they did what was mentioned in the video. They looked at their competitor and saw the rising number of players there. I think they are aiming for players over there to come to join WoWP.

But the old player base picked this game because it was different, now it looks like a clone, so they left (including me)

Trust was mentioned in the video too. How can you trust a game maker which core business is in Russia and neglects other regions ?

And to sum this up as mentioned above. Once you've left a game and found another one chances are low to come back, am I right ?
 



soshootmenow #17 Posted 08 December 2017 - 07:10 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 9 battles
  • 20
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

Cobra, El Mulo, All.....I agree with you. I am an Exec in our Clan. We have a great bunch. Every day after a long day of work I used to look forward to signing on with my Clan and going in for some good competition with everyone. We had a great online community.  Now, almost no one (including me) is ever on. In our Clan and all of the others. And I don't blame them. I tried some battles in 2.0 but it just does not work for me. It has become another kiddie-arcade wiz-bang joke. War Thunder does a better job of that type of game. But I don't feel like starting all over in that game for something that I did not enjoy playing on that type of game in the first place. That is why I picked this game.

Under Suggestions I wrote up the framework for an idea that I thought could work for everyone. It is titled 'A Proposal'. I have gotten several suggestions (as well as several hundred views) but have not heard anything (not a single thing) from the developers or WG mgmt. that they might consider this simple solution.

Please read it and if anyone has any developer or mgmt. contacts please pass it along if you believe (as I do) that this could be a workable solution for everyone.

If the game mechanics and format stay like it is or anything similar with no other options then I am sorry to say that I sincerely doubt I will continue to play.

Should that be the case please let me just say here that it was great flying with you all and that I will miss those thrilling daily battles, camaraderie, and competition. Gentlemen, it truly has been an honor and a pleasure.  I will miss this and all of you.


 

Thankyou All.


Edited by soshootmenow, 08 December 2017 - 07:18 PM.


ArrowZ_ #18 Posted 08 December 2017 - 10:27 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 10 battles
  • 2,527
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

Eh, good video but there are some points I disagree - like this statement about anti-micro transaction groups wanting "free stuff" just because they hate spending more money on top of already paying for the game copy. That statement is just silly. Also it's pretty hard to relate this video with WOWP & WG because WOWP flopped in its initial launch therefore the player's trust never really generated and developed further passed release. Because of the insistent disregard for the developer's lack of consideration with player's criticism and feedback for their game, WOWP was doomed to fail from the beginning back in 2014. It didn't "sell well" and it surely didn't "do well" either.

 

The best way to earn player's trust for this game is to establish a first bases communication with the developers (the very people that make this game) either through this forum or the abandoned blog site. Once you see regular communication flows between developers - playerbase, that's when you know a player's trust can start to generate and improve overtime. Persha has a long way to go and alot to learn outside of their comfort zone in RU. They need to be more open minded about their neighbouring regions as well, and not just focus in the main hub in RU. For so long NA has had a tonne of brilliant ideas to make WOWP better. Not once have I seen any of them come in here to acknowledge any of them.


Edited by ArrowZ_, 08 December 2017 - 10:32 PM.

That Ozi Client Side Lagger

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users