HMS_Kilinowski

Sorry to tell you, but you lack the competence to understand that my statements are not false, but your preception of the game is. You work under your limited perspective that a battle is supposed to serve your grinding needs. From that point of view, a ship that prevents you from farming a lot of XP is OP and cannot be countered. If you were to broaden your view to a less selfish perspective, you would understand that you rendering the efforts of an enemy sub/CV useless, while his mirror has an impact on the game, is what leads to victory, which is the sole valid objective of the game. There is no "I" in team.

Bitte an alle die teilnehmen: Postet wieder Screenshots eurer erfolgreichen/erfolglosen Gebote, damit wir sehen können, wo sich die Gebote preislich einpendeln.

I can understand people are upset with subs. They were upset with CVs before. Some still are. We have done our job, telling WG subs might be a bad idea, given them loads of feedback on how to design them, if they really insist on having them. As before, they actually insist on having subs. They have ignored players leaving the game for the prospect of new players being attracted by submarines. Our suggestions were widely ignored. WG was basically cherry-picking the suggestions that fit their plans and saying they were listening to the community. However, all of this is given, for me as a player in a battle with a sub/CV. What I struggle to understand is why every time such a thing happens, people are complaining like crazy about these changes, while at the same time persistently refusing to learn. When the CV-rework happened, I wasn't happy. But I made my homework. I went into training room, imagine such an option exists for a reason. I played against CV-players. At some point I played CVs myself. By doing so, I learned to counter CVs as good as I possibly can. Now I am no longer afraid of CVs. I even bait them into attacking me rather than my team mates, cause I can waste their time. I had CVs attacking me exclusively all battle, going home with 100 XP. Now I'm doing the same with subs. I already spent a couple of hours in training room trying to figure out subs and how to counter them. I'm far from being perfect, but I get better at rendering subs useless by the day and, as with CVs, there is nothing more satisfying than killing a piggy. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Something new gets added to the game. Of course being new, means it adds some new elements and tactics, good or bad. The point is, don't expect these new ways to play and counterplay to reveal themselves just by sitting in your chair. Get active. Get curious. Ask yourself some questions. And then try them out in training room. Submarines work in the armor resilience test mode on Ocean map. Go there, pick up your friend, who makes such stupid suggestions, stop whining and start doing your homework.

Verbindlichsten Dank dafür, ganz ironiefrei. Mir passiert es auch hin und wieder, dass ich im Chat schreiben will und in der Hitze des Gefechts die Enter-Taste nicht voll durchdrücke. Jeder hat so seine Momente. Könnte also, wie die genannte Katze, ein Versehen sein. Kann auch einfach Unwissen sein. Viele Spieler beschäftigen sich nicht mit den Reichweiten der Waffen und Verbrauchsmaterialien. Wenn man nicht weiß, dass Torpedos erst mal geladen werden müssen und nicht unendlich Reichweite haben, könnte man sie schon früh erwarten. Und natürlich könnte das betreffende Schiff auch ein Bot sein. Die sind darauf programmiert, bestimmte Verbrauchsmaterialien relativ sinnbefreit zu aktivieren. Da hat jemand einfach keinen Bock gehabt, bei der Programmierung Kopfschmerzen zu bekommen.

The whole superships idea is flawed. First of all, they cheat the player base, who made purchases based on the given impression that e.g. a T10 ship would be top of the line. An ARP-Yamato is not worth >200 €, if it's only the second best ship in the battle. If you own the top floor penthouse, it's value drops the second someone is allowed to build another floor above it. WG is cheating the whole community and the community, as usual, is too limited in their perception to see this. And second, all WG needed to do was allowing multiple copies of each ship on our accounts. The second this was possible, you'd see people having three versions of Bismarck in port, secondary, survival and AA-spec. They would have duplicate T10-ships at least of all the ships with Unique Upgrades. People would spend money on port slots again. It would be a huge credit sink. It would have made the CXP-rework obsolete, cause players would need double the amount of fully trained commanders. It would have solved a lot of issues and players would not be upset or cheated as they are with T11, cause all that would happen is that now they'd have more freedom to keep all interesing builds of a ship type in port. It's part of the casual player fallacy. They think a more powerful ship is better for their results, when in fact it only means they now get matched against a more powerful enemy who has a bigger impact on the battle against them than they can match with their limited skills. Consequently they lose more battles, get steam-rolled more often and get less XP over time. A smart newb would make a deliberate effort to be bottom tier as often as possible, to get the 50% XP-bonus of winning plus the bonus of doing damage to higher tier enemies. Ofc they are incapable of critical thinking, once they get this newsletter from WG telling them to buy a T9 premium ship, which must imply they are ready to play it.

@BlueMerry: Interesting. I wasn't aware the chat system had any specifics. However, I am not surprised that they would be linked to each other in a funny way. I wouldn't even be surprised if changing something in the chat system accidentally would affect detonations in the game. I have two theories. Either 1) they want to remove karma. Then they increase the number of reports, knowing what a toxic community this is. They expect people to report each other to the point, where only streamers have any karma left. By that point 99% of people will have zero karma, enabling them to argue it is basically a dead mechanic, so they can remove it, without people complaining that they lose something. Or 2) they got plans to turn karma into some meaningful feature. I wouldn't know how that could ever happen, but increasing the options to do so could be a first step. Probably it's something in between and they still don't know one day what they did the day before.

So, is there not going to be any statement about this from Wargaming? Do they just accidentally change the number of compliments and reports, without even mentioning it in the patch notes or anywhere? Do we need to start pinging staff to get an answer?

Actually, please explain further. Isn't the fairest type of auction the second price auction, being fair in the sense that no bidder has any incentive to bid above or below his individual valuation of the auctioned item? At least that is what my professors told us. Mind that "fairness" is not a typical virtue in economics. So if scholars in Auction Theory or Mechanism Design make that statement, they likely mean that this type of auction guarantees the highest amount of overall welfare. Correct me if I'm wrong. I learnt, the purpose of an auction is not to generate the highest possible selling price, but to yield a market equilibrium for a good of previously unknown value. In situations where the value is known, e.g. the grocery store, all buyers pay an equal price, tho different people would have a different willingness to pay. So here we got an auction that yields a lowest successful bid. One might argue that is the fair value. Still different people pay different prices like at some middle eastern bazaar, I fail to see how this reflects our western culture of equality and transparency. The issue that I see is that the auctioneer is also the seller of the good, which leads to designing the auction in a manner that biases the valuation of the sold goods. As I already elaborated, the fair way to do it, would be a second price auction in the sense that all successfull bidders pay the highest unsuccessful bid.

Since you have a professional experience, you should also have made the distinction between a first price auction and a second price auction, That whole sealed bit and reserve price thing is perfectly fine. It's the combination of sealed bid and first price auction that makes the whole process quite intransparent. There is no control over whether WG actually hands out the advertised number of items. They can advertise any believable amount to create a sense of exclusiveness. If it weren't for the players communicating to one another, we wouldn't even know the lowest successful bids. I might be a wary fellow, but in my book intransparent equals dubious. It's a cherished quality within WG, since we still don't know the e.g. the drop rates of supercontainers and other drops, that could be published within a day, if they wanted to do so. Refresh my memory folks, what was the timetable on those drop rates?

Wenn ich mir die Wortwahl des OP ansehe, dann scheint er das bereits erfolglos probiert zu haben. Mein Alternativvorschlag wäre: Einfach mal besser spielen. Das soll, was man so hört, wahre Wunder bewirken. Natürlich muss nicht jeder gleich perfekt spielen, aber wenn man das Heck nicht vom Bug unterscheiden kann, sollte man nicht gleich in den ersten 10 Radom-Gefechten sofort auf Stufe 3 springen. Das Spiel hat eine Lernkurve. Die Stufen 1 und dann 2 existieren aus gutem Grund, damit man dort lernen kann. Ich prognostiziere dem OP eine deutliche Verschlimmerung der ihm entgegen schlagenden Toxizität, falls er weiter blind das Spielen in immer höheren Stufen erzwingen will. Man hat's halt oft selber in der Hand.

You misread what was written. The Zao and Khaba were examples of UU that were deemed too strong and nerfed iirc. I think @Aragathorwas hinting at the irony of these specific ships. Correct me if I'm wrong. But these two ships had become inferior over the years and were not doing well for years. Zao was beautiful to play 4 years ago. Then more and more ships with 50mm+ armor were dumped into the game and suddenly Zao-HE would shatter, while it's own 25mm nose was penetrated by all T8-BBs and even such extremes as T6 West Virginia. If a cruiser only does fires while not being able to tank anything, it becomes inferior, which happened to Zao. No half-competent clan has been using Zao in Clan Battles for 3 years. Khaba was made obsolete by the Kleber. It turns out that since the player base is slowly learning to miss their shots on the Kleber by only half a boat length, implicitly their aim is perfectl for hits on the Khaba. It's ironic, I know, but that is what happened. On top you get the better Khaba with the Kleber, a ship that with its saturation can tank much more damage than a Khaba with heals and that can dial in insane dpm, when it really needs it. So that is two examples of ships that have become inferior. Now what is the big irony here? The unique upgrades slightly compensated that inferiority. They made those ships better. While that was not enough to make them competitive again, the UUs at least kept both ships in the mix, even if only on the low end. Thgen however Wargaming made some funny analysis and concluded that these UUs were upgrades rather than sidegrades, meaning that a Zao or Khaba with the UU performed better in the game than their non-UU versions. So they took these results as a justification to nerf these UUs. When you say you "don't see anything wrong", that is precisely cause you only see the nerfed UUs. These now are actual sidegrades. The point to be made however is that while sidegrades are the viable way to design a UU, in the case of Zao and Khabe, that only meant nerfing these struggling designs back into oblivion. I have 3.5M Elite XP on the Zao. I played it that much before the Stalingrad and russian BBs entered the game. I now play maybe two battles a year in it. UUs are dead for a simple reason: If it's a sidegrade, it's not worth the extreme price tag. If it's an upgrade, it becomes mandatory.

If Coop means no operations, but actual Coop: DDs: Okhotnik & Akatsuki Cruisers: Prinz Eugen, Königsberg & ARP Myoko BBs: Georgia, Gneisenau & (if I had it) Pommern Coop imo is all about torpedoes and brawling, so you need DDs with smoke and at least 3 spreads of torps, cruisers with at least 4 torp launchers and bow tanking ability and BBs with speed boost, secondaries and torps.

Wenn du sagst "reicht eigentlich völlig", dann stellt sich doch die Frage wofür es reicht? Ich maße mir hierzu keine Antwort an, nur so viel: Die Antwort darauf ist zum einen subjektiv. Was dem einen völlig ausreicht, mag jemand anderem bereits viel zu viel sein und für wieder jemand anderen zu wenig. Die Antwort ist zudem objektiv relativ. Das was du als völlig ausreichend empfindest, reicht objektiv für ein bestimmtes Spiel-Niveau relativ zu den Mitspielern. Es trägt aber auch absolut dazu bei, wie geordnet und bewusst so ein Spiel gespielt wird. Vielen Einsteigern wird ihr Wissen über das Spiel ebenfalls subjektiv völlig ausreichen, schon alleine deshalb, weil man nichts vermissen kann, von dessen Existenz man nicht weiß. Das ändert aber nichts an der Möglichkeit, dass deren fehlendes Wissen objektiv relativ mangelhaft ist, und absolut gesehen eine 5 min dauernde Schlammschlacht begünstigt, wo Stammspieler gerne einen geordneten, ins eigene Team integrierten Spielstil hätten.

Wie ist das Fakt? Gibt's dazu eine nachprüfbare Statistik, also mehr als nur irgendeine Zahl die mal ein WG-Mitarbeiter in den Raum geworfen hat? Mein Eindruck ist durchaus, dass die sehr kurzen Gefechte zunehmen. Belegen kann ich das natürlich nicht. Dazu hätte ich eine eigene Statistik bereits zu einer Zeit anfangen müssen, als dies noch nicht so zu sein schien. Wer macht schon Aufzeichnungen über etwas, das kein Problem ist, in der Erwartung, dass es mal eines werden könnte? Und natürlich sollte man nicht so sehr in "i.d.R."-Kategorien denken. Die mittlere Gefechtslänge kann unverändert sein. Wenn ein Teil der Gefechte 2 min länger dauert, weil am Ende noch ein scheues U-Boot im Niemandsland herumschippert, dann gleicht das statistisch gesehen die Steamrolls aus. Für mich erzeugt ein Mix aus Steamrolls und Versteck spielen aber Magenverstimmung. Da hst du sicher recht. All das, was du beschreibst, ist ein Problem und passiert auch so. Allerdings ist es nicht die Schuld der Spielerschaft, dass viele gute, erfahrene Spieler sich von WoWs abgewandt haben und an ihre Stelle Leute rücken, die keine Lust auf informieren haben. Man kann sich seine Spielerschaft auch heranzüchten, indem man über Werbebotschaften und Anreize die falschen Erwartungen weckt und dann auch bedient. Wargaming hat sich seit Jahren hart und stur gegeben gegenüber Kritikern und konsequenter Weise ist viel Kompetenz abgewandert. Gleichzeitig hat man die Monetarisierung massiv hoch gefahren. Die Konsequenz: Ein neuer Spieler musste sich zu Open-Beta-Zeiten die Details von 80 Schiffsmodellen merken, heute von mehr als 400 Schiffen. Welcher Neueinsteiger kann das noch leisten? Also wissen diese Spieler eben nicht mehr, welches Schiff welche Panzerung hat und bei welchem Winkel mit welchem Kaliber sie durchschlagen wird bzw. ähnliche Details. Ja klar, ich weiß auch, dass bereits damals viele Spieler zu faul waren, sich die Details dieser 80 Schiffe zu merken. Die Möglichkeit dazu war allerdings gegeben und realistisch. Bei 400 Schiffen ist es nicht mehr nur eine Frage des Willens. Gerade die älteren Spieler kriegen da massive Probleme. WG hat neue Schiffe auf Teufel komm raus ins Spiel geprügelt und das Spiel massiv beschleunigt. Vor 3 Jahren hätte ich dir noch jedes Schiff im Spiel aus dem FF aufzählen können, heute fehlt mir jede Übersicht. Damals war sowas wie der Indianapolis-Marathon noch eine zehrende Ausnahme. Heute taumeln wir von einem Event zum nächsten, ohne Pause. Dazu kommt dann Wargamings verzweifelte Suche nach neuen Ideen und Kombinationen. Irgendwann, wie bei einer langjährigen Fernsehserie, ist eben alles erzählt. Ein Spiel braucht keine 20 verschiedenen Klassen und Subklassen, um Spaß zu machen. Wenn zu viele Variablen ins Spiel kommen, dann läuft es eben nicht mehr rund. Aber WG gibt sich damit nicht zufrieden. Es entstehen also neue Schiffsdesigns, die mit logischer Konsequenz brechen. Es gibt einen guten Grund, warum jede Nation bestimmte Eigenschaften hat. Auf diese Weise kann der Spieler zumindest grundlegend den Spielstil eines Schiffes richtig einordnen und eine Lernkurve über eine ganze Linie hinweg aufbauen. Da hat WG dann allerdings Stolpersteine für seine Spieler geschaffen, Vor ein paar Tagen hab ich ein Video gesehen, wo Jingles nicht mehr wusste, dass eine Anshan normale Torpedos hat. Gut, Jingles halt. Trotzdem symptomatisch. Man schafft also bestimmte Eigenschaften, z.B. bestimmte Torpedo-Arten mit typischer Reichweite, Geschwindigkeit und Schaden, bestimmte Verbrauchsmaterialien für bestimmte Nationen, und bricht dann wieder mit ihnen. Dadurch entsteht für die Spieler nie ein roter Faden. Plötzlich bin ich im Radar irgendeines neuen Schlachtschiffes, dass, entgegen des roten Fadens, ein Radar bekommen hat. Es ist für mich als Stammspieler schon fordernd, mir all diese Ausnahmen und Spezifika noch zu merken. Jeder neue Spieler winkt ab und sagt sich "Da lern ich ja eher eine neue Fremdsprache, bevor ich mir all die Details in diesem Spiel raufgeschafft hab." Ich kann es ihnen kaum noch verübeln. Und schließlich hat WG wiederholt einen riesen Haufen auf seine freiwilligen Helfer gesetzt. Die haben sich viel Mühe gemacht und seeeehr viel Lebenszeit investiert, um Details des Spiels zu dokumentieren, eine Aufgabe, die eigentlich von WG übernommen werden müsste und dort massive Kosten erzeugt hätte. Wir hatten mit Shipcomrade eine Seite, wo Anfänger Vorschläge für ihre Kapitäns-Builds bekommen haben, wir hatten einige Statistik-Seiten (z.B. Warships-today, Maplesyrup), wir hatten die erstklassigen Rezensionen von LittleWhiteMouse und wirklich gute Tutorials. Dann hat WG all diese Informationen immer und immer wieder obsolet gemacht, indem es das Spiel radikal verändert hat. Die freiwilligen Helfer bekamen keine Anreize, ihre Informationen immer und immer wieder zu aktualisieren, sie wurden teils sogar sehr von oben herab behandelt. Wer hat da noch Lust ein Video neu aufzunehmen, nur weil die Änderung einer Mechanik wie Stealth-Fire oder IFHE alles, was dazu gesagt wurde, obsolet macht? Wer will schon seine Rezension für ein Schiff aktualisieren, nur weil die massgebliche Mechanik, die das Schiff interessant gemacht hat, radikal verändert wurde? Wie hätten wir als Community unsere Empfehlungen für Builds bei Shipcomrade zurücksetzen können und für Neueinsteiger sichtbar machen können, dass eine bestimmte Build nicht mehr valide ist? Neue Spieler dagegen sind mit diesen Informationen konfrontiert. Selbst wenn sie sich im Internet informieren, können sie nicht erkennen, ob eine Information noch gilt oder bereits durch eine neue Meta abgelöst wurde. Sie sind also nicht nur mit einem Vielfachen an Informationen und Komplexität, verglichen mit früher, konfrontiert, sondern finden keine solide Info mehr. Wie gesagt. Ich stimme dir schon zu, dass die Spieler ihren Beitrag zu einem verhunzten Spielerlebnis leisten. Aber die hier erläuterten Phänomene geben nur einen Teil dessen wieder, wo Wargaming alles Mögliche getan hat, das Spiel intransparent und unzugänglich zu gestalten.

This might all be true. But it does not explain why all of a sudden there is double the amount of reports/compliments. This is not an accident, but a deliberate step. Wargaming actively decided to double them. To change a feature that has been seen as an artifact of early development. Yet, while they are making that massive change, they sneak it into the game, without giving any notice in the news section or explaining that step. I find that puzzling.

Does Wargaming make any announcement about this? I don't understand this step. For 5 years karma was a residual of some abandoned idea of feedback to better identify bot programs, griefers and chat abuse. It has become increasingly obsolete with the automated detection of profanities, afk-players and bots and with the removal of team damage. If anything I was expecting the announcement some day that karma would be removed since it no longer servers a legit purpose. So, dear Wargaming, what legit purpose of this feature do you plan for the future? Why have the compliments/reports doubled? Please clarify.

You don't need to agree or disagree on that cause I did not say it was suspicious, even less so "necessarily suspicious". I merely point out that the opposite is not true, that one cannot quote such data and claim it was an indication that everything was fine. You can't look at 3+ years of stagnation and state it was proof of no control exerted over your results. In fact, if there was some control algorithm at work, the results would look pretty much like that. But all the other players had to make that adjustment, too. For new players the learning curve is even steeper, since they are faced with a wall of data on 400 ships, whereas you started with ~80 ships. On top you get to play the ships that you like, that you are good in, while new players these days have to grind their way through a lot of inferior designs. If anything that should give you an advantage, increasing your win rate. The guys around 100% are lucky. If you toss a coin, you will get series of heads eventually. I had a day where I lost 21 out of 24 battles and I did not sabotage them. So yes, imagine the other end. On the positive end you got people rerolling, doing triple divs with other unicums, anything to bump the stats. Hell, there was a time when I was no 1 on Icarus with 90%+ and that was not skill but orchestrated. Ofc, if there was any motivation to make something close to 0%, you could use all the levers available: Play triple griefer div. T10 for guaranteed top tier. That's already 9 v 12. Maybe even sync into battle with another griefer div. Remember the old days, when you could dev strike a friendly? You could have nuked 3 friendlies, died and left your team in a 6 v 12. Then you play some coops, shake off that pink color and do it again. I imagine people going for 100% over a low number of battles pull all the stops. All you need to do is think about what you'D do on the low end. The possibilities exist.

Only that every day every streamer is complaining about his shells missing. When everyone is busy confirming the train they are in, is moving, nobody spends a thought on the movement of the earth. It doesn't make a point in either direction. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference of reaching your ceiling or being hampered by some gradual penalty. If you look at your winrate, you could conclude you have reached your ceiling. You could also conclude you have stopped making an effort. But then again, both would require that there has not been a single learning experience for the last 3 1/2 years that you incorporated into your play style, not a single instance of doing something in a better way. I find that hard to believe. Mind, I am being nice here and suggesting you haven't been idle for 3 1/2 years. You tell me you haven't learned a thing in the last years? And others just stop early making an effort to improve or might be hampered. Hard to tell which is which from a personal potentially over-confident perspective. Can you please repost those screenshots in a higher resolution? And sorry, @Zerberus76, I forgot something. I get all of that and yes, I appreciate the math and the example. But you made an example accounting for the effect of 100 battles on 10k battles (1%) and it affected the winrate by 0.4%. I was pointing out a period of time probably accounting for a portion of 2/3 of the total battles played, with WR not improving by even 0.1 percentage points. What are you suggesting, that a player hits his ceiling at 3000-4000 battles and doesn't learn any lessons even slightly beneficial to his win rate for another 7k battles? Does that make sense to you?

When I check aggregate player stats, I don't see any barrier. To me the win rates look almost normally distributed. As I said, it's besides the point to argue about barriers, as it does not explain a would be unable to progress even by a minute margin.

With all due respect but for the record: You edited your post after I wrote my reply. Your post, when I quoted it, consisted of the first three paragraphs. Everything past "Playing with a fixed team" was written after or while I was writing my response. So yes, I did not fully read your post for the trivial reason that it was much shorter for at least 15 min. I beg your forgiveness that I need some time to write my response and cannot refresh the topic every minute to check whether you added something to your post. I might have ignored that 3rd paragraph, cause it does not apply. Nobody ever entertained the idea of win rates close to 100% being possible. Your claim that 60% is the hard ceiling is arbitrary. Why 60%, why not 60.5% or 59.5%? This claim is obviously not a fact. And second, your paragraph does not give any explanation as to why there is not even a slight increase over a period of 3 1/2 years. Is ther some speed of sound type of barrier at 60%? Third, you are fixating on an argument that has nothing to do with the discussion. And fourth, even if there was such a hard ceiling, as you claim, that would not contradict the idea of an artificial control of win rates, but would actually support it.

I am aware of that, thank you. As you said, "the harder it becomes", but there is still some improvement. However, you did notice that his win rate hasn't changed for 3 1/2 years. It was ~59% on 30 September 2018, and now, on 31 March 2022 it is the same ~59%. I doubt an active player hits his ceiling after 5k battles. There could theoretically be some sort of handicap applied to his dispersion. Just saying. Also, I am not building an argument around these stats. All I'm saying is that you can't look at such stats and say "nobody notices any difference, which then by implication is an indication that nothing has changed, no matter how gradually". And that is exactly why I argued for aggregate stats in the first place, cause this anecdotal evidence does not indicate anything. You can find all sorts of examples that back all sorts of hypotheses. You would need hard data on the distribution of win rates or hit ratios or potential damage today versus in some earlier state of the game. This is the point I'm making.

I am talking about tracking the distribution of win rates, not your individual winrates. You do that? Also, since when does popularity equal expertise? Them not compaining isn't indicative of anything. Aren't "these players" the same people that did not notice server lag and shells falling short, and weren't they quoting from each other a flawed interpretation of the dynamic crosshair for years? So there is nothing noticeable? First of all, I elaborated a very simple example of how a change can be done do keep it unnoticable. That example has not been challenged by anything you or anybody else wrote, correct? And second, your win rate has been stagnant for more than 3 years. That time must account for at least 2/3 of your overall battles. Have you ceased to improve over such a long period of time or have you still improved and some adverse effect has neutralized that positive effect on your win rate? And if so, what effect could that be? Mind, I am not suggesting there is some weird stuff going on. But looking at those stats, would you say they falsify the hypothesis of a structural break?

That is the whole point of what I wrote about being within the boundaries of statistical error, keeping it within the boundaries of random variation and gradually bringing it down. Let me give a simple example: If you were a waiter and you wanted to steal from your boss who is usually making 1000 Euros of revenue during your shift, you wouldn't start stealing 100 Euros from the cash register. Your boss would immediately notice that. What you'd do instead is holding back 10 Euros. Your boss isn't going to realize a change of 1% of revenue. It's just within the usual fluctuation of revenue. So you wait for a month and then you take away 15 Euros. It will take your boss a year to even ask himself whether revenue wasn't higher a while ago. There will be plenty of outside explanations within that year, why revenue would be declining other than "somebody is stealing from me". And by the time revenue is down to 800 Euros, your boss has lost track of what the numbers were 3 years ago and earning 800 Euros has gradually become the new standard of comparison. Who can actually track what the distribution of win rates was 1 or 3 or 5 years ago and whether it has changed? And even if somebody had such numbers and even if there was some difference in the distribution of win rates, then you could still argue that was due to the higher portion of players with OP ships who have stopped playing now, while newer players have a more balanced port.

Well, as I said, everybody has his conception. We could all agree that the patterns of salvos might have changed or that shells are falling short or whatever. Then anybody can deny that perception by just stating this is RNG. Even if at some point that pattern would be verified, someone would say he never denied this was a bug, but he just pointed out that RNG sufficiently explains it. Long story short: talking about perception is just begging to be trolled by the usual suspects and won't help this topic move forward. What would be required, is some evidence, if key stats have changed. You'd need numbers on main battery hit ratio and/or potential damage. If there was some mechanic at work that increases dispersion against rookies, hit ratio would need to be lower than before and potential damage would need to be higher. Both numbers would need to be different by a large margin. Current numbers cover all metas since open beta (early 2016?). For example the Dead Eye meta is also part of that, which should make current gunnery less accurate for most ships, not taking into account individual changes of dispersion and sigma. The issue here is that the few sources of data currently available don't save earlier periods. They at most take a current snapshot and calculate some changes between this period and the period of the last few snapshots - on wows-numbers that is a comparison of the last 24 hours, the last week and the last 3 weeks. To really see changes that are not driven by meta changes but by some bug, you would need to be able to jump to any arbitrary date and compare numbers from there to numbers now. So you need daily or weekly panel data. The time for collecting old data has passed. It would have needed to be done back then. You could only start doing so from now on. Collecting and accumulating such data would take TB of disc space and a lot of RAM to be even partially processed. That's a lot of ressources for what for most people is a hobby project. So I doubt you can ever move past perception and check data for hard facts. The guys who maybe could do something like that are the WG data-guys. But what we've seen in the past, that is not in WG's interest. They just want you to keep playing. The quality of the game is not an issue as long as it does not affect the number of players. Most of the players are so casual, they don't realize most of the bugs anyway. So yes, it would be quite possible to make some adjustments to accuracy to penalize good players and help bad players. It's quite simple to do so. All you need to do is keep the adjustment small enough, so it remains in the boundaries of statistical error. You can basically calculate the value of such a correctional parameter. Then you leave it untouched for a year or so, for a time period long enough so the player base gets used to it, and then you successivley lower the rates within those boundaries.

That might be an explanation, if the observation is actually true. What we'd need is an objective measure. The WG stats page for example gives you the overall hit ratio for each ship. If there was a tool or stats page that processes these numbers into a graph, one might detect patterns. Scientifically speaking, the difference of subsamples must be quite noticeable to result in sufficient confidence to make the claim of a structural break within the sample. In other words, you'd see a line parallel to the time-axis that makes a sudden jump, before running parallel again at a different level.