ColonelPete

Und? Spieler beschweren sich das die CoOp Gefechte zu kurz sind. Jetzt macht WG was dagegen, gibt Dir die Option fuer mehr Spannung, Schaden, XP und Credits und dann ist Dir das auch nicht Recht?

"Now you truly frakked up cruisers." is not factual. Especially when other players play cruisers and get good results and you have to tell them they need to play more. Such assessment is only fitting when you notice a huge difference in almost every game. Otherwise it is just hyperbole. That is not factual...

Congratulations on noticing what was announced weeks ago. The difference is only noticeable when you used dragonflags, but you should have a similar booster now.

That is strange, considering your amount of answers...

Both get 10%. Why are you so intent to go offtopic?

Why did you have to rename so many camos? Many players knew their names and how they looked like on the ships. Now you have to put them on the ships to view them again, as you cannot judge their appearance from their new name or the small icon.

Better not, since you seem to be of the opinion that a percentage base change does not act in the same way for every subject...

We are talking about dispersion.

That is how the world works. If you run 100m in 50s, people consider you to be a bad sprinter, if you run them in 10s, people consider you to be a good sprinter.

All classes with main guns are affected by dispersion. As you said youself, the change is percental, it affects all main gun dispersion equally.

reducing the sample size, which is problematic when the base sample is already quite small artificially weighting of samples, despite there being no difference between ships, see my example in post #73 If 5% percentiles showed equally skilled players for ships, how is this possible?: There are multiple options: mandatory tutorials if mandatory is not tolerable for the target group, then reward taking part in tutorials well do not reward bad performance in battle that well give players that are not interested in PvP better alternatives

Not on purpose. The game gives me more camos for free than I can use.

The issue is not about good players getitng better results. It is about bad players getting worse results. I do not know if you are new to the forum, but a lot of people complain about bad players and players getting worse. Maybe they are all wrong? And I still do not see how the change favours one class.

Why would anyone pay before?

People complain regularly about the gap between good and bad players. Increasing the gap cannot be a good thing for the game.

I do not see it as a problem for cruisers, but it increases the gap between good and bad players even more. Good players will hit better and bad players will get less lucky hits, when aiming badly.

I will sell the ugly ones.

What is a patchday without the people wondering why the servers are not running?

That does not change the fundamental problem of the percentiles... But we have better data than wows-numbers, that considers timing and offers a more complete data set. Averages are only problematic, when you are not interested in a complete view of a ship. I would like that data too, but we do not get it. In the past some players made these graphs with the data from the closed down maplesyrup site. In theory you can still get the data from the wows server over the API.

That is the battle count, not the player count. What is the counter argument to the fact that you compare stats from different game versions? I must have missed that. Percentiles ignore parts of the playerbase, making any evaluation biased and, depending on sample size, not even statisticly valid. I do not know about you, but I do not meet only the top 5% players of each ship. Imagine you would look at the world best result of any ship ever recorded and included all data and use that as a benchmark. Eagle would be a chicken compared to Haku (shortly after CV rework), but it does not represent the current game. Then you do not know enough, as wows numbers misses a lot players and jumbles the data from the last 7 years together. Yes, DM performs better, despite being more accessible. When you select percentiles, you tend to favour the ship with the smaller player sample, apart from telling you only part of the story. Imagine two ships are played by the top hundred players of the server. These hundred players perform absoutly equally in both ships. Ship A is also played by further hundred players of average skill and ship B is played by further thousand players of average skill. Now you look at the top 50% of both ships. Which ship is stronger?

Not one bit, see the screenshots. With wows-numbers, you do not even know how big the samples are. But I am not comparing superships to only steelships. Since when is DM or Minotaur a steelship? They are even easier to access than superships. I already explained the problem with wows-numbers and the percentiles

as I said, looking at very small samples gives a skewed view of the situation contrary to you, I do not compare data from the time the superships were for free variance works in two directions, it can inflate or deflate WR the data does not show that toptier makes good players win more Example for data of top players:

reducing the size of the sample leads to only more variance you are comparing all time stats with recent stats the leading ships are not steel ships Tier X ships are not leading in winrate, I wonder when people understand that being toptier does not make everyone win more...

But we know they are the same ships...

It has been answered multiple times the answer to all of your questions is not yes... I wonder how one can miss weeks of discussions, diagrams, articles and calculators...