HypnotoadYT

@Crysantos No, this needs to be addressed as soon as possible, not just "next year". With all the skewed values of thousands of community members working together and bringing together information, it's looking more and more like you're manipulating the values of dropboxes, whereas certain content (especially premium ships) are hidden in the last 5-10 loot boxes, while selectively others who aren't whaling get better / fixed results. We're not talking about slight errors, we're talking about Multimodal distribution, which only happens when an outside force is applied to what should be normal distribution. This is not the first time where something "mistakenly" happens in the favor of WarGaming. Please tell me about something that "mistakenly" favored the community recently. I'll wait. No, it isn't. Let's just take one example, the Christmas containers. You rigged them to always give ships from a specific shortlist that wasn't declared and never really addressed the issue. This is exactly why a report has been filed against WarGaming by none other than me, to the European Parliament of Economy and Science. This is not off the table yet and just one of many issues with the loot boxes (see above, heavily skewing results in a multimodel distribution. Do you mean the feedback you gave regarding the Zao just recently, that according to spreadsheets it's fine, while the Petropavlovsk is a hard ship to play? Or am I missing something? Please address further what KIND of balance changes you have in mind and how you want to reimburse people who bought the nerfed ships, such as the FDR, with the hardest-to-get-in-game currency. Remember, you're not in Beta status anymore to hide behind. Oh, what kind of changes have you done besides the rocket one? Please name a few. Also there are community members with a LOT of good ideas who already aggregated several things you could try. Almost like the community could... I don't know, contribute to that program or something. If only you'd listen. I'm actually happy about this. Well done. Took a while but I'm glad it's coming. What I'm not glad about is that the community said "yeah, it's a fun mode and it seems balanced!" and then you nerfed the HP of the convoys by 50%, making it imbalanced. Not sure if you have trouble with data engineers and data scientists being wonky or not knowing their craft but I can hook you up with some good ones that actually analyze the data. Give us a deadline for the roadmap. You say you have one. How about sending it to the graphics department to make it look nice (they are doing amazing work by the way) and then share it with a big fat disclaimer saying: "Our plan, but subject to change, please give us your input on our ideas" That'd be swell, right? After denying vehemently that there are NO communication errors for years, then claiming there are community errors, well done. Now let's hope you don't hop back to "no communication errors ever!" As a software- and indie game developer, this is a pathetic excuse. This is exactly what tests are for. And I'm talking Unit- and Integration Tests. Before you deploy your software, have it check if torpedos actually go where they go. For every...single...ship. Put in some expected values and if they deviate too hard, well, get to debugging. I get it, some project managers are pushing for a release and you don't have the tests ready, but tough crap, these are essential. So to the project managers: Either get the commitment from your dev-team that tests have been successful or don't publish broken software. I really hope you're working agile. Here's an idea, how about letting the players decide, like in other games, such as MOBAs. Before the match, the two clans set rules which ships (or class) they want to ban, then they fight it out.

I'd like to join the lottery. And good luck to everyone.