Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Sudden

  1. Therefore I will take it upon myself to promote a new world war game starting in the pacific theater,  The nuts and bolts of my proposal are ready for venture capitalist viewing.  All the drawbacks holding "this" game back from growth are already solved.

    I don't work well with others and have a habit of taking over anything I am involved in. My story is the same as Stallone trying to make the first Rocky movie. I know I'm right but lesser people stand in my way. I have overcome odds like these my whole working life and this obstacle will fall like others before it.

    My story is no different than the humble beginnings of this beloved game. There is more, much more, potential but it remains unseen by the powers that be and the naysayers who challenge my thinking. A spinoff is coming and with it's revenue I will purchase the European theater from CRS and swallow it up. It's the only way to save this game and I know it.


    The Toxic Avenger




  2. 8 hours ago, XOOM said:

    So one key word I forgot there was, "about." So, "the level of toxicity that you and others are talking about, really does matter." Which means everyone matters, and we need to help steer each other down the right road, and all the rest of my post entailed. I think my fast typing is working against me :D, sorry @Sudden

    Image result for the toxic avenger

    There's only one way to save this game now. You must drop everything you are doing. Then you must, with lightning speed, move the whole map to the pacific. Heed my advice. Park Europe.

    1 person likes this

  3. The wall of text is clearly needed here.


    1. The choice of metric is not as important as people think. We rarely see a company succeed or fail based on the specific metric that it choses. That doesn’t mean that you can chose a ridiculous metric, but most reasonable metrics provide the same potential for success (and failure). In general, NPS is a reasonable metric to chose, as our data shows that it often correlates to customer loyalty. As organizations mature, we try to get them to use metrics that are more closely aligned to their brand promises.
    2. Driving improvements is what’s critical. Instead of obsessing about the specific metric being used, companies need to obsess about the system they put in place to make changes based on what they learn from using the metric. Successful NPS programs systematically take action on insights they uncover. If the program is working well, then the company isn’t debating scores. Instead, they’re continuously making changes to create more promoters and eliminate detractors.
    3. Promoters & detractors need their individual attention. The most important thing you can do with NPS is to understanding what is driving NPS. It turns out that the things that create promoters are not just the opposite side of the issues that create detractors. So you need to separately identify changes to create promoters and decrease detractors. All too often, companies focus just on detractors. This helps to fix problems, but it does not identify opportunities to propel your organization. By focusing on what causes promoters, you will get the opportunity to engage the organization in uplifting discussions—instead of just beating the drum about what’s broken.
    4. Sampling patterns really, really matter. The approach for sampling often has a very significant impact on NPS results (and results from other metrics as well). If you have multiple segments of customers and they each have a different NPS profile (as many do), then your overall NPS can change wildly based on the mix of those customers that are included in the NPS calculation. In B2B, this may come from combining results from enterprise accounts with smaller clients, or mixing responses from executive decision makers and end users of your products. In B2C, the variance may come form mixing data between new customers and repeat customers.
    5. NPS is for relationships, not transactions. Asking people if they would recommend a company isn’t a good question to use after an interaction. If a customer is a detractor on an NPS survey deployed right after a call into the contact center, for instance, then it doesn’t necessarily mean that there was a problem with that interaction. The contact center might have done a great job on the call, but the customer may still dislike something else about the company. If the contact center interaction had been problematic, then the customer’s NPS score might be temporarily lowered and not reflective of the customer’s longer-term view of the company.
    6. NPS is for teams, not individuals. Since NPS asks about the likelihood to recommend a company, it actually reflects the actions of more than one person. So if you want to look for someone to hold responsible for NPS results, think about making it a shared metric across a large group, not an individual KPI. Many companies that fall in love with NPS, start applying it to every part of their business, trying to give everyone their own NPS. While it’s worthwhile to look for improvements across the business based on NPS, you run into problems when you try to create to many levels of NPS.
    7. Compensation can be a real problem. When an organization shares a common metric (like NPS) and its people collectively have some compensation tied to it, then it can help align everyone’s focus on customer experience. But if the compensation gets too significant, then people start focusing too much on the number—questioning its validity and strong-arming customers—instead of looking for ways to make improvements. Remember, the majority of your discussions should be about making improvements, not data.
    8. Target ranges make more sense than single numbers. NPS is an inherently jittery metric; there’s only a porous line keeping passives from becoming promoters or detractors. And the situation is magnified by the sampling issues described above. That’s why we see many customer insights group wasting a lot of time running around trying to explain small movements in their companies’ NPS, as executives overreact to small movements. Instead of setting NPS goals as a specific number, consider defining a range (similar to a process control chart). As a start, think about adopting a 3- to 5-point range. That way you only react to results outside of the range or multiple periods of increases or declines.
    9. There are four loops to close. When people talk about closed loop and NPS, they often mean contacting customers after they answer the NPS question. But that immediate response is just one what we call the four customer insight-driven action loops: Immediate response, corrective action, continuous improvement, and strategic change. Any NPS program should put in places processes to close all four loops.


  4. 6 hours ago, erasmo said:

    They are called "toxic people".


    Correct. The question posed by xoom has no answer. Normally you avoid toxic people and go on your merry way. Here, and in Walmart, you invite them in. The question should be,,, how do we at CRS do a better job handling toxic people. What is the correct response to unreasonable anger?

    On a deeper level, what have we done to create these toxic people and how can we (CRS) put water on the fire instead of fuel?

    Simply asking an aggressive poster to police his responses is a recipe for disaster. AKA fuel.

    2 people like this

  5. I honestly cannot think of anything that will stop it from happening. It's called passion and it comes in many forms, some not so polite. Asking angry frustrated players to tone it down doesn't work. You have laid the groundwork for a better experience by fixing background issues. Now you need to deliver tangible improvements on equipment complaints, ease the learning curve to raise the number of people online and playing. This game cannot be fully enjoyed with low pop numbers.

    That said, the only way to get rid of the complainers is to get rid of the non-positive players or deal with their issues one by one until they are solved.

    2 people like this

  6. 38 minutes ago, csm308 said:

    In short, you can do anything you want except anything of importance.  The worst part of this SCKING is that you don't really understand what nugitx is saying.  Your response to him is entirely knee-jerk.

    You, as a Rat, evince no interest whatsoever in anything Nugitx had to say except to shoot him down.  That's another subscription, meaning money, that you may  have just driven away.


    I think a middle ground is needed then. If, the rats, could make behind enemy lines battles meaningful in a tactical sense it should satisfy nugitz. Like RDP but for ground pounders. Enough to hurt the enemy if they don't respond but not enough to create the chaos scking is trying to avoid.

    2 people like this

  7. FB's should fall and there should always be a battle to accomplish the felling. The only thing bad about FB's is the guarding. Put an EWS on the FB and you still get to take it down but not so easily as when the PB gets bored of sitting at it like a canary in a mine. "Enemy Forces Spotted near X FB" If you don't heed the call you put the FB in easy mode. With an EWS you let the people who come to the game to fight, fight. Everybody wins and we're all so happy we cycle off to isis territory.