WGs Convoluted Explanations

[Malum0ne]

This reinforces my belief that WG intentionally makes their explanations, and/or descriptions confusing or misleading.
At first, I thought it was a language translation thing but it's obviously not. 
One example is in the release of Clan Battles announcement in Dev Blog 535 - TWO MORE D-DAY OPERATIONS, CLAN BATTLES AND MORE - CLOSED TEST 13.5, dated 12.05.2024.

"Season 26 will begin with the following restrictions:"

"Players will be able to go into battle aboard cruisers, destroyers, and battleships.
No more than two battleships per team."

There are no restrictions on cruisers or destroyers.

Napoli, Petropavlovsk, Louisiana, or Alexander Nevsky cannot be taken into battles.
Limited the number of certain ships. One team cannot have more than one ship from the following groups:
- Kléber, Marceau and Marseille
- Moskva, Stalingrad and Des Moines
- Småland and Gdańsk
- Ohio, Kremlin and St. Vincent
(I wonder what they think the word "Restriction" means?)

So, they say: "There are no restrictions on Cruisers or Destroyers."
Then: in the very next line, they put restrictions on Cruisers and Destroyers. (*what the doodle*?)
This drives me nuts. OK, I'm a bit O.C.D., and I can hear the little voice in my head saying, "Well, you know what they mean." "Is this the only thing you have to worry about?"
I know... I know... But I shouldn't have to sift through something to figure out what they mean.
The words "Restriction", "Restrict", "Restricts" "Restricted", and "Restrictions" mean:
"put a limit on; keep under control.
Similar words: "limit, set/impose limits on, keep within bounds, keep under control, regulate, control, moderate, cut down on.
Limit someone to only doing or having (a particular thing) or staying in (a particular place).
Similar: confine limit make do with only, be happy with."

I would hope that WG has a Translator or two to translate/transcribe from one language to another. 
This is not a translation error. It's not the use of a wrong word. I could forgive that. And it's not a one-time thing.
This is the lack of giving a sh*t about and not giving thought to what they want to say, and how to say it.

Therefore, I offer this as one of the reasons I stay so confused trying to read some (most) of WGs descriptions of how things work.
Good grief, I'm confused enough as it is, without this. I'm not saying I'm a genius, but quite the opposite. I'd say I reside on the other end of that spectrum.
But, I'm such a literal, logical, and analytical person, that I refer to Adrian Monk's mantra: "It's a gift AND a curse."

The things that keep me up at night.

[ArIskandir]

15 minutes ago, Malum0ne said:

The things that keep me up at night.

There are far worse, consider you blessed

[Wolfswetpaws]

20 minutes ago, Malum0ne said:

The things that keep me up at night.

The "left hand" and the "right hand" not knowing what each other is doing?  And "some things were lost in *translation*"?  😉 

[HogHammer]

It kind of reminds me of this famous quote:  “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

[Nevermore135]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

The "left hand" and the "right hand" not knowing what each other is doing?  And "some things were lost in *translation*"?  😉 

In context it’s pretty clear the “restrictions” being referenced are the number of ships in the team composition, as it immediately follows the item restricting the number of BBs to two per team. I don’t think this is a translation issue or an example of internal miscommunication, but rather either the author or proofreader simply inserting a line break/extra bullet point where they should have perhaps not done so.

I find it pretty hard to get worked up over this, all things considered. Could it be worded/formatted a bit better? Sure, but at the same time when the entirety of the entry is considered it isn’t misleading in any way.

Edited May 13 by Nevermore135

[Malum0ne]

At least I... (Well, I started to say at least I'm not nuts after all... but, that ship sailed right after the Crazy Train.)

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

4 hours ago, Malum0ne said:

This is the lack of giving a sh*t about and not giving thought to what they want to say, and how to say it.

Yup.

[UnderTheRadarAgain]

So, anyone planning on taking 2 Schlieffen's and 5 Darings out?

[Ensign Cthulhu]

Much ado about nothing.

It's obvious in the context of the immediately preceding text that they meant no restrictions on cruiser or DD numbers. 

[Itwastuesday]

2 hours ago, UnderTheRadarAgain said:

So, anyone planning on taking 2 Schlieffen's and 5 Darings out?

Schlieffen schlieffen moskva salem salem ragnar ragnar 🙂

[Montrala]

8 hours ago, Malum0ne said:

This reinforces my belief that WG intentionally makes their explanations, and/or descriptions confusing or misleading.

Not really.

• First restriction on battleship as a class is described: not more two ships of battleship class in a team.
• Then there is stated that there are no restriction on destroyers and cruisers as a classes.
• And finally restrictions on specific ships (not classes of ships, but named ships) are listed.

I had zero problem to understand what WG wanted to say there. Maybe it is due to my poor English that is compatible whit WG's poor English? 😉

[Yedwy]

12 minutes ago, Montrala said:

Not really.

• First restriction on battleship as a class is described: not more two ships of battleship class in a team.
• Then there is stated that there are no restriction on destroyers and cruisers as a classes.
• And finally restrictions on specific ships (not classes of ships, but named ships) are listed.

I had zero problem to understand what WG wanted to say there. Maybe it is due to my poor English that is compatible whit WG's poor English? 😉

Ditto, the text might be a bit “clumsy” but the message is easy enough to understand

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

Classic WG communication skills (or miss-communications....)

Thats why I dont read anything WG post any longer but instead wait for the forum thread with people fluid in WG coms can tell me in English what they actually ment.

[SeaQuest]

13 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

The "left hand" and the "right hand" not knowing what each other is doing?  And "some things were lost in *translation*"?  😉 

Do not forget about the hand they are using to distract us while they pull the spend money magic trick. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

5 minutes ago, SeaQuest said:

Do not forget about the hand they are using to distract us while they pull the spend money magic trick. 

So... it's a team effort on WG/WOWs' part?  🙂 

[Merc85]

I also think that this sentence is missing something as well:   "One team cannot have more than one ship from the following groups:"

One team cannot have more than one ship FROM EACH of the following groups:

[Malum0ne]

17 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

In context it’s pretty clear the “restrictions” being referenced are the number of ships in the team composition, as it immediately follows the item restricting the number of BBs to two per team. I don’t think this is a translation issue or an example of internal miscommunication, but rather either the author or proofreader simply inserting a line break/extra bullet point where they should have perhaps not done so.

I find it pretty hard to get worked up over this, all things considered. Could it be worded/formatted a bit better? Sure, but at the same time when the entirety of the entry is considered it isn’t misleading in any way.

 

14 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Much ado about nothing.

It's obvious in the context of the immediately preceding text that they meant no restrictions on cruiser or DD numbers. 

 

I suppose you guys are correct if we started adding words that they (WG) didn't put in... to help clean up the sentence. So, why don't we add words to every rule to make it lean toward our benefit?
We shouldn't have to assume what WG "means". Nor should we have to add words to figure out what they (WG) mean.
And again, we shouldn't have to add words to a sentence to clarify it. The word "Class" doesn't appear anywhere in the entire section, so why add it ourselves? If WG meant "Class", why didn't they put "Class" in the statement?  -and again, here we are adding words, and interpreting what WG really means. 
Line 3 states: "There are no restrictions on cruisers or destroyers." period. There is no debating what it says, or means. It doesn't say: "Other than the following cruisers and destroyers," It states: "There are no restrictions on cruisers or destroyers." No restrictions means NO RESTRICTIONS. Then the next line states: "Napoli, Petropavlovsk, Louisiana, or Alexander Nevsky cannot be taken into battles." No debating is needed there. It's clear and concise. The word "cannot" is restrictive. Those ships aren't allowed -period. 
I'll admit that I am making a mountain out of a molehill, I guess the health issues I've been dealing with are starting to wear me down in more ways than one. 
But, I believe if it is a rule... rules are rules. And a rule should never be vague. It wouldn't bother me if it were a story or something other than a rule. 
Rules should be clear, concise, and to the point. Wording a rule, so that it leaves the rule open for interpretation, transforms it into a suggestion rather than a rule. 
And I wouldn't want to try to enforce a suggestion. How would you? If we all started writing rules so that they are open to interpretation and making the reader assume and add words to interpret what the rules mean, we all would get a different meaning of it. Then you'd have people like me running around dazed and confused. (I'd be dazed and confused, regardless.) We'd be wasting our time, making mountains out of molehills and debating what the rule means. I just get this little voice saying: "Why did WG write this rule in such a non-specific, convoluted way? Is it a mistake? Did they do it intentionally? Is it a Communist Plot?😉 Is this part of Plan 9 from Outer Space? Should I even waste time thinking about it?" If we don't point out and learn from a mistake, we are doomed to make the same mistake again... and again. The same as learning from history; then pretty soon we'd be giving a pass to everything, right or wrong, there would be no difference.

"It's OK, you don't have to spell it correctly, I know what you meant"  It's a slippery slope... "Everybody gets a trophy!"🤦‍♂️

 

 

 

Edited May 14 by Malum0ne

[Pugilistic]

The contortions in WG's analysis of their submarine poll were about as funny as a Yuro video. 

Edited May 14 by Pugilistic

[Ensign Cthulhu]

3 hours ago, Malum0ne said:

I suppose

Some people make a habit of always wondering what the hell WG is talking about. Others make a habit of knowing. 

It is quite possible for those in the first category to ask a succinct question of those in the second, in a way that clarifies the situation immediately and doesn't involve the assumption of deliberate malice. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

6 hours ago, Malum0ne said:

 

 

I suppose you guys are correct if we started adding words that they (WG) didn't put in... to help clean up the sentence. So, why don't we add words to every rule to make it lean toward our benefit?
We shouldn't have to assume what WG "means". Nor should we have to add words to figure out what they (WG) mean.
And again, we shouldn't have to add words to a sentence to clarify it. The word "Class" doesn't appear anywhere in the entire section, so why add it ourselves? If WG meant "Class", why didn't they put "Class" in the statement?  -and again, here we are adding words, and interpreting what WG really means. 
Line 3 states: "There are no restrictions on cruisers or destroyers." period. There is no debating what it says, or means. It doesn't say: "Other than the following cruisers and destroyers," It states: "There are no restrictions on cruisers or destroyers." No restrictions means NO RESTRICTIONS. Then the next line states: "Napoli, Petropavlovsk, Louisiana, or Alexander Nevsky cannot be taken into battles." No debating is needed there. It's clear and concise. The word "cannot" is restrictive. Those ships aren't allowed -period. 
I'll admit that I am making a mountain out of a molehill, I guess the health issues I've been dealing with are starting to wear me down in more ways than one. 
But, I believe if it is a rule... rules are rules. And a rule should never be vague. It wouldn't bother me if it were a story or something other than a rule. 
Rules should be clear, concise, and to the point. Wording a rule, so that it leaves the rule open for interpretation, transforms it into a suggestion rather than a rule. 
And I wouldn't want to try to enforce a suggestion. How would you? If we all started writing rules so that they are open to interpretation and making the reader assume and add words to interpret what the rules mean, we all would get a different meaning of it. Then you'd have people like me running around dazed and confused. (I'd be dazed and confused, regardless.) We'd be wasting our time, making mountains out of molehills and debating what the rule means. I just get this little voice saying: "Why did WG write this rule in such a non-specific, convoluted way? Is it a mistake? Did they do it intentionally? Is it a Communist Plot?😉 Is this part of Plan 9 from Outer Space? Should I even waste time thinking about it?" If we don't point out and learn from a mistake, we are doomed to make the same mistake again... and again. The same as learning from history; then pretty soon we'd be giving a pass to everything, right or wrong, there would be no difference.

"It's OK, you don't have to spell it correctly, I know what you meant"  It's a slippery slope... "Everybody gets a trophy!"🤦‍♂️

 

 

 

The trouble begins when you realize that WG likes to write imprecisely...so they can decide later what action to implement that gives them the most advantage...

...and then they claim it's a miscommunication.

It's intentional, guys. It's a strategy, a trick.

That's why it's safe to assume that any vague statement will be interpreted in the way that brings the most short term advantage to WG staff.

That assumption rarely fails.

[SunkCostFallacy]

Back in the day I made the mistake of letting a boss know that I was ... not ill-equipped to write long and detailed explanations/discussions about things. Some people in the forum here might have noticed that trait.

It came about because our senior management had demanded that we implement a certain feature, and it was a terrible idea. I volunteered to write an email explaining the problems with the feature, and the issues that it would be reasonably expected to cause in the future.

When he saw it, my boss was overjoyed. It combined just the right amount of clear and simple mixed in with a healthy dose of impenetrable tech-speak and it appeared to predict the apocalypse without actually saying so.

Afterwards my boss (who was very good) pointed out something that I'd not really been aware of ... being competent in a tech field (be it programmer, hardware, systems) does not require being competent at communicating to non-techs¹. Because I was literate in tech-speak, I had no trouble communicating with my peers ... and hadn't realised that sometimes they needed a translator.

When I see another example of WG having trouble like this ... I just put it down to the poor quality of their tech-speak translators.

 

 

1. Yes ... being competent at tech-support DOES require that you can communicate with non-techs ... but it's surprising how few of them actually ARE, especially these days in the era of the trained monkey reading from a prepared script.

[Yedwy]

16 hours ago, SeaQuest said:

Do not forget about the hand they are using to distract us while they pull the spend money magic trick. 

I have become resistant to that a while back, now I only spend when its in my own interest and thats a VERY rare occasion, for instance i bought PART of the dubs for this DY event, spent like IDK what was it 13€ or so, last time I spent before that was a set of Santa Boxes and before that I dont even remember