HMS_Kilinowski

You gotta take weaker players into account. Part of The Smolensk-issue was that any 48%er could pull a 100k game by just sitting in his smoke and pressing the mouse button. The utter potatoes got deleted early, yes, but the bulk of the players had an impact on the game in easy-mode. If you only go by the good players then a BB with 16 x 460mm guns and a 1.4 sigma would be fine. Poor players would not be punished for their bad aim and still get reasonable damage numbers, while good aim would not be rewarded. It would still ceteris paribus be a pretty OP ship. "It's not toxic for the reason you gave but for another one." is what I said in a nutshell. That's not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. You define toxicity as "it annoys me to play against" and I define it as "alters the meta in an ill manner and encourages bad play". There is no contradiction in my words. You're missing the point. It's about the overall effectiveness. You can find all sorts of reasons why a Marceau does not perform as well as a Smaland in some lab environment. Faced with the typical random battle, these ships work. They do other jobs better and that wins them the game. You can't reduce a DD to how it performs 1v1. Then LeTerrible would be the king of T8, cause it ruled the 1v1 Brawl season. Nobody would have taken the Asashio. And still it does great in randoms. So what? Next month someone comes in here and says Asashio needs to be nerfed, cause it does so well torping BBs and that all of a sudden is the single determining criterion for being OP and then being bad in DD duels does not even count? You can't just pick an isolated strength and build an OP-argument around it. This is not a sound way to argue. Interesting, I admit, but not conclusive. As I said, I checked the data before buying it, cause I like to know what I invest my ressources into, and my analysis was 1.5-2% above average, the rest was driven by other factors., i.e. player skill. Don't get me wrong 1.5% better than average is still good enough for me to invest 2M FXP. 2M FXP btw is a lot and I know a lot of people who did not go for the ship, cause they felt it was too high a price tag. But, as for the high winrate: It is played mostly by good players, we already had that. That drives most of the difference in winrate. How often do you see a radar-Yueyang outside of divisions, playing solo? You hardly see them these days anyway, but if you see them, they are playing in triple divisions. I myself wouldn't play it alone, cause I know random players suck at supporting. Pretty much the same goes for me and the Smaland. It's a division-choice. Ideally you play together with another good DD player who brings smoke and compensates for the weak torps. I call that the "Huanghe-Effect". Huanghe has good winrates although it's a weaker Perth. Its winrate is driven by it being played in division with CVs, to guarantee good AA for the CV and spotting for the smoked Huanghe. Works like a charm. Huanghe is a poor solo choice. Smaland also benefits largely from divisions, which is why I play it in divisions and apparently the word got out and a lot of people are playing it in divisions. Division winrates are higher than solo winrates for good players. So long story short: The Smaland winrate benefits from being played by good players in divisions. I can't check that in the data, but I can well check if the winrate on Smaland has increased since release beyond the initial 1.5% difference from player winrate. I doubt it. Marceau is played more by bad players, cause every pleb gets coal. Even coop-players have it. Trying to come up with 2M FXP, with good alternatives only costing half (Alaska, Friesland, ...), was not an option for many casual players. Also Marceau doesn't care about not outspotting anybody, cause it gets its impact dakka-dakkaing 2min into the game and zooming across the map for 15min. It has french saturation. If it decides to take on a DD it just goes dark, repositions and rushes the DD from behind an island. Good luck trying to motivate your random team to shoot a target they deem too small and fast to hit. And even if it is heavily damaged it can still spam torpedoes that do more than just trigger the DCP. Same goes for you, Stomp your feet, ...., the stats say its fine and these are not stats hidden in the basement of WG-HQ, but stats that anyone can check with access to the API. Even if your hypothesis was true that Smaland was the most powerful DD. Then nerf it, and next month some smart person comes in here and says Daring is the most OP DD. So nerf that. And then a month later someone comes in here and says DD XYZ needs to be nerfed cause OP. Newsflash: There is always going to be a DD that leads the pack in terms of stats. You might just as well argue about the weakest DD and talk about buffs. But instead there is this weird obsession about "mowing the lawn", cause minute differences in winrates of ships are unacceptable while all personal flaws are fine. It was the deepwater torpedoes. The Gearing didn't need a nerf cause it had regular ones. If you think that deepwater torpedoes are less valuable than normal ones, you missed the point. Why is Asashio competitive even in T10 games, although it can't even hit cruisers, which PA-DW-torps can? Why is the Fenyang a nerfed version of the Akizuki? Cause the mitigating factor is the deepwater torpedoes. In the update notes it doesn't say a thing about the ship being too powerful due to radar. If radar was the issue, they would have nerfed it as they nerf Stalingrad now, reducing its radar duration. Funnily enough radar wasn't used that much on the ship apart from Clan Battles. The patch notes specifiy: "All these factors in combination mean that the destroyer can significantly influence the outcome of battle and surpass same-type ships in terms of statistics." Now I'm not a stickler. I know WG doesn't always give the real reasons for a nerf. But here it was just that. The combination of a good gunboat that basically could dev strike a BB with one salvo of dw-torps, with a reaction time of 4.5s. having two launchers in total and a reload of well under 2 min. The Yueyang has good concealment, had excellent gun reload and on top of that a torpedo power that made it a threat even with 1hp left, where a Smaland can pack her bags. I'd take an old pre-nerf smoke-Yueyang any day over a Smaland.

It was nerfed because it combined the traits of a great torp boat with the traits of a good gun boat. It would spit out very hard hitting torps with 13.5km range and excellent concealment rather fast and on top had Gearing dpm. That alone was a bit much. The radar was a good addition, but again you are talking a bout CB, where you got a team of people with brains who shoot what is radared, a thing that cannot be said about randoms. So it got nerfed and now it's considered useless and hardly ever seen in randoms. That doesn't make sense as there is mirrored matchmaking. Also you are holding one thing constant that is variable, the player. I was not talking about the imapct of one player on a ships winrate, that doesn't even make sense as there is no variance if you only have one observation. You gotta look at all players and analyse the variation across players. That variation accounts for ~25% difference in winrate, while the ship type accounts for 5%. If there was no mirrored classes, then a statement about classes would make sense. As it is, it doesn't. The Thunderer may have all those properties, it doesn't mean the ship is toxic. It just means some players are rectally hurt, cause their ship gets burnt down, which may well be for the best of the team and help their team win. So that alone is not a measure of being toxic. The toxicity of the Thunderer lies in how it impacts the meta, by allowing it to stay in the back and farm damage in a manner that is parasitic to the team and winning the game. The Thunderer incentivizes players to no longer do their job as a BB, i.e. putting their foot down on a map segment, claim that for their team and defend it with their huge HP pool and superior armor. All that, mind you, has nothing to do with the Thunderer being OP. It's not, it's a noob ship and thanks to nerfing its range, those players will finally improve by being forced to do their job again. Smaland does not have the highest dpm. Marceau has the highest. Vampire II and Harugumo have similar dpm. They got smoke, Harugumo got 30mm pen, Marceau has french damage saturation which makes it way more durable than any heal. You can always come up with parameters and say they are decisive. If I look at the results, they are not. Simple as that, if the Smaland holds so many advantages and it can't turn them into a superior winrate or damage and whatnot, all that anecdotal superiority is imo meaningless. Again, stat-wise all that dominance does not promote the outcome of the battle. Maybe no other DD can deal with it on its own (Marceau begs to differ, Vampire II is raising its hand to), then appearantly the other DDs do something else instead, something that has an impact on the battle to an extent, that makes this direct comparison irrelevant. An Asashio certainly cannot take on an Akizuki 1on1. But then the Akizuki runs out of friends as this very situational torpboat dev strikes all the BBs in the Akizuki's back. It's not that black and white. As long as you play your DD to its strengths, you will always have an impact and the numbers show, Smaland does not dominate. It's mostly player-driven. If WG had turned it around and offered the Marceau for FXP and the Smaland for coal, we'd probably see Marceau doing 55% and Smaland doing 52%.

How would you define 'overpowered'? Maybe this topic is too big to just discuss one ship. Maybe we should define some basics first. We're getting deeper down the rabbit hole and not making progress. Now suddenly a ship is OP if Erazer does well in it. The overall playerbase does not, at least not in the Smaland to an extent that would need us worrying. In general, what I see in the data is, that the ships are right now rather well balanced. Ofc nobody likes to hear that, cause then nobody can blame WG for his losses. There are exceptions, like e.g. Kamikaze, but that is not just due to the ship, but also the factor that it is owned by mostly seasoned players and that those players can make full use of a 21pt Yamamoto commander specialized in torpboats, which is unusual for a T5 DD. The OPness as such is not inherent to the ship, but several factors. One can always come up with stories and settings where one ship is superior. But that does not constitute an OP ship, at least not in my book. Isn't it obvious that topics about a ship being OP are driven by egomania? A ship's power is relative, it depends on the power of the other ships. A ship may seem OP if it is more powerful than its competitors. We could see topics about ships people don't own being too weak or ships a person owns being too strong. We however see topics about ships one doesn't own requiring a nerf and ship one owns requiring a buff. We don't, cause the mind works selfish. A player gets beaten by a ship and he wants to flatter himself. He doesn't want to admit misplaying, he wants to be beaten by a superior enemy holding an unfair advantage. That makes it easy, cause nobody needs to rethink his play. So he comes to the forum and wants the competitors ship nerfed. We never see a topic "I just beat the crap out of a Gearing and me winning was unfair and that Gearing really needs a buff." Why not? Cause it would take away from our pride of being superior. And this is what this all is about. Someone didn't get the ship and now he wants to take away his brothers toy, cause if the brother has the green car, then it must be better than the red car. So we're opening up the next bracket, without closing the previous ones. Now we are talking about ships that promote play style typical for good players. So, if I get you right, there should not be ships that reward a good player, cause they are already good as it is. Then the logical step would be to change the whole game more towards properties that mitigate skill, so the skill gap is less pronounced. So we should have more ships like the new USN-BBs, with more guns and more dispersion, so luck is more of a thing than good aim. But strangely bad players don't even like that. At least I missed posts from bad players rejoicing "finally even I hit something. Thx, WG!" So what do you want? A game that rewards good play and has a variety of ships promoting different playstyles for different skill levels? Or the opposite, a design, where skilled play has a minor impact on the outcome?

No cause most players like to invest as much into the game as installing it, loading it and pressing the battle button. If things don't work out as they imagined: "WG needs to .... " Ofc I myself need to do squat. I am a customer, I want an enjoyable game experience on a silver platter. I can't be bothered to think about counterplay or even read a wiki or watch a tutorial. It all takes effort and I can't be bothered to invest brain cells in what "is only a game". Ofc if a ship impacts the outcome of 1-2 out of 100 battles, that is an issue. If a player impacts the outcome of 10 battles, that is perfectly acceptable.

Less versatile? That is why it has slower torpedo reload than the Gearing, cause the torpedoes are less effective and WG wanted to further hamper its mediocre effectiveness as a torp boat? You people are amazing. You're right, it's so overpowered and your anecdote has nothing to do with you being a way above average player. I did my homework before getting the Smaland. I wasn't gonna spend 2M FXP on a bad ship. So I checked the micro data. The winrate on Smaland was 1.5% higher than that of its owners at T10. The typical Smaland player had about 53% winrate in T10, while the Smaland was at about 54.5%. In other words: If every player had access to the ship, its winrate would be around 51.5%. Where is the OPness? Surely we all love a good anecdote, but I fail to see the claimed superiority in the data.

Two hypotheses and no argument. Doesn't help me get your point at all.

I make it sound like I have the ship and don't cherry pick situations where you dominate. The Smaland is not a bad ship, but it does not dictate the terms of the engagement. In its full gunboat build it doesn't have CE, so it gets outspotted and shot at. So it can react by radaring the DD that is spotting it. Mind you, you don't have russian gun arcs, but you are gunning it out at medium range. So the DD waits out your radar, wiggles a bit and once your radar is off he now outspots you again, while you are open and he goes dark. Ofc one can always make the argument that most opponents are not exactly geniuses, but that is not a property of the ship. I have won gun duels against Klebers in a Somers. Doesn't make it a gunboat. It's just the whole thing of this forum seeing the ever same topics over and over again. "WG, nerf this", "WG, buff that". Why the hell are you people so concerned about ships being OP or UP? Do I need to spell it out? 70% of the outcome is determined by RNG and MM, a.k.a. your team composition and chance. Oh yeah, we hear about that a lot in here. Everybody is whining about why they always get the bad team although they are god-tier brilliant players. 25% of the outcome is determined by your skill as a player. Pretty much impact for 1 out of 24 players. But that takes action on the player's behalf. That is inconvenient. Let's never talk about that. 5% of the outcome is determined by a player's ship. That is a pretty minor factor, but that we need to talk about to the point of obsession. Should maybe trying to gitgud be the first priority and topic for everyone? And then, when you feel you reached your ceiling, you at some point start arguing about how ships cost you 0.1 percentage points of your winrate? I have terrible news: Removing the ten most powerful ships in the game is not going to affect anybody's winrate even as much as 0.1%. The sooner people start to understand it's about themselves being underpowered and not their opponent's ship being overpowered, the sooner we might start seeing some quality play in this game again.

Who is talking about fighting radar cruisers? Ofc that is irrelevant. Wasn't it obvious I was talking about the radar on your own team? If your team doesn't shoot a DD in a Smaland you have a problem, cause you are open as soon as you fire a single shot, while most other DDs will just smoke up to break line of sight. A Smaland is a one-trick-pony in a community that is too incompetent to understand the basics of the game, much less support a DD when he needs it. Every ship is OP as long as you don't have it.

I had lots of battles where I didn't use my radar a single time, cause it turns out radar cruisers have much better radar. Radar and dpm are useless, if your team does not shoot the DD that you are radaring and if you cannot open fire, cause then you are spotted for at least 20s, which is much worse than any short range radar. The Smaland depends on its team. In other words, it's only good in divisions. It works quite well in ambush situations, that I happily admit. But then again you are not ambushed, you let yourself be ambushed. The Smaland is a solid DD with a situational radar and a dpm that is bought by forgoing other relevant skills, like RPF or CE. It is not overpowered. It lacks what any DD imo needs: The torpedo power to dev strike. It's speed boost also is too short to allow for open water gunboating. If Smaland is OP, then certainly so are Kleber and Marceau, which have better dpm, dev strike power and can spam the hell out of BBs while speedboating across the entire map. As far as the economy is concerned: I have every FXP-ship since the Musashi. At times it was challenging to come up with the FXP needed, but there are a lot of ships that you really don't need. However I never skipped a line, many times I didn't even skip a stock configuration. I played those stock ships, which clearly are underpowered. I paid a price in terms of worse results. Playing underpowered ship versions I earned the FXP and with that the privilege to get some nice FXP-ships. I didn't have my cake, so now I get to eat it. Simple as that. Other people make different choices. They get annoyed with A-hulls, short ranges or entirely underwhelming silver ships. They paid the FXP to get rid of the discomfort of playing bad silver ships. Isn't that supposed to come at a price? They had their cake and now they still want to eat it?

If Smaland is so OP, why didn't you just get it? Maybe skip less modules and subpar ships with your FXP and then you can afford a nice FXP-ship and don't have to be jealous and whine about other people having it. It's funny how every ship that WG removes, becomes OP in the minds of those that don't have it. If WG removed Salem, there would be people whining about it being OP. There were OP ships in the game, that have been removed. As a result the gap between the worst and best ships shrank. Then there were people looking at the then best ships and saying these were OP. So at some point those ships got removed. Now we're at a state where ships like Asashio, Z-39 and Lenin get removed, cause 52.5% aggregate winrate is so OP. If 52.5% is so alarmingly OP, how about working on those 20-30 percentage points that are driven by your personal skill?

Intuitiv sind die Stufen am besten ausbalanciert, die am wenigsten Premiumschiffe haben. Premiumschiffe sollen ja gekauft werden und halbwegs konkurrenzfähig zu sein ist durchaus ein Kaufargument für ein Premiumschiff. Nun hat Wargaming in den Stufen besonders viele mächtige Premiumschiffe verkauft, die sich für sie am meisten rechnen, also in den Stufen, in denen man Schiffe teuer verkaufen kann. Dies sind die Stufen 8 und 9. Auf Stufe 4 have ich nur ein einziges Premiumschiff, die Ishizuchi, und die ist nicht herausragend. Deswegen würde ich sagen, T4 is gut ausbalanciert, wenn man von den stupiden Hosho-Mains mal absieht. Auf höheren Stufen ist Stufe 7 ganz erträglich. Es gibt wenige Schiffe die auf Stufe 7 total abfallen oder herausragen. Nelson isst gerne Zitadellen, Z-39 macht wenig Schaden. Belfast ist zu stark, aber selten. Alles in allem kann jeder auf Stufe 7 ein Schiffe finden, das gut mithält.

A change in the files system is supposed to be done manually by you, not by the client. I'm not an expert but changing the files system usually requires to format the partitiion that you want WoWs to be installed on. You will lose all data on that partition and will need to do a backup before you do it. Or did I get you wrong? Cause the new client usually overwrites old files and in that respect erases whatever old files were on that respective sector. But this has been the case for all updates so far.

First of all I love you for the mere topic "...want to improve". This is what we all love to read. If more people wanted to improve rather than wonder "what's wrong with my teams", we'd have a far smarter player base. As was already noted, you seem to be well above average as is. So not much need telling you basics. In general you need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of your ship and play accordingly. Sounds trivial but has lots of strings attached. You also need to know the same for your likely opponent. You check the map and follow the appearance of the enemy DD line-up. Which DD pops up on a distant flank and what DDs remain to be possible opponents in your cap? Then you compare them. Say you are in a Shimakaze and your possible opponent is a Z-52 or a Yueyang. So you know, you will spot them first. So you don't want to rush in hard to close the distance and be spotted back, but get them spotted while remaining dark. Now you also check the enemy clan tag or stats, cause a good player in a Yueyang - even more so in a division - might well have radar equipped. In that case you don't want to giveaway your position dipping into the cap. You see, the whole thing is about "what would I do if I were them and how do I take that into account"? It's flowing. If the opponent is a Z-52, you need him at arms length, so he can't hydro you. So in Shimakaze, your firepower is inferior, but you dominate the engagement with distance and spotting. Spot the DD while remaining dark and wait until your cruisers have done 8-10k damage to the DD. Then you dominate and can even take the duel, if you have to. Second thing a Shimakaze or similar ships have is good arcs. So why fight a Gearing at 5km, when you can hit him at 7km while he struggles to still hit you back? The whole thing turns upside down, when you are the Gearing. Then you don't want to pursue a Shima, cause he got all the guns on the rear plus he lures you to his friends. So you make more ambushes, getting close and hitting the DD close range with your superior dpm. You can shoot AP at angled targets, but angles change so fast and it's a matter of timing. It's like dancing. Say you reload every 4s, but the enemy DD turns in to shoot his rear gun every 6s. Then you can only shoot him with AP when he gives you that angle, which is every 6s. So you just killed 1/3 of your dpm, just waiting for the enemy to show the angle where you don't bounce or overpen. That only makes sense on slower reloading DDs with very good AP. In general, DD-duels are a lot of mind games and knowing what they know or what they think you know. That's the beauty of DD play. You are playing against humen and you can feel their personality in their way of playing the ships. You gotta understand quickly what character you are playing against. Is he stubborn, will he try to gun you down no matter what, then you lure him to your team. Is he cautious. Then you let him see you run away, just to turn when dark and rush him hard. There is literally a thousand things to say about a thousand situations and nobody could describe them all. Know your ship, know their ship, know your support and his support and know the person behind the ship. Take all that into account in a few seconds, come up with a preliminary plan and if you fail, analyse where you got it wrong.

In the initial poll I had 2 lines reset. Now I have got the Ohio and Siegfried. All in all I have earned ~178k RP through resets and daily missions and I got another 36k RP waiting on ships that I am currently regrinding. Originally I wanted to get the Slava and Paolo Emilio in that order. But now I will probably skip the Paolo Emilio and get Slava and Vampire II, or maybe just wait and see.

The whole topic has become a bit pointless, since time progresses. The poll is outdated. People who stated having reset 1-3 lines, by now probably have reset 2-8 lines.

The best T8-BB for a new player is T4-Ishizuchi. It's also the least costly T8-BB.

BBs are not super boring, BB-players are. The issue is not the class, it is the fallacious idea of BB-players, what a BB is. You think of BBs in terms of comfort and reserves, while no ship has comfort or reserves, if it is played as intended.

Poor @SV_Kompresorwas whining that he's the only one bumbing this. So, for a change, I thought I'd step in. Please join the clan. This clan has evolved into an asylum for the insane. We desperately need doctors. On the upside you get to div up with me, which most certainly must be one of the most fulfilling experiences in this game.

What does you losing karma have to do with us? Mods, I feel discriminated against.

Da brauchst du nicht lange suchen. Die gibt's ja nu wirklich wie Sand am Meer. Musst du nur kurz die Clansuche anschmeißen. Idealerweise tragen sie so bedeutungsschwangere Namen wie "Die Hinterdupfinger-Löschweiher-Wolfsrudel-Elite des Todes". Kurz: Je elitärer, martialischer und regionaler der Name, desto geringer die Verpflichtungen.

Verstehe ich. Vielleicht stell ich mir das vor wie klein Häns'chen. Solche Kollaborationen sind eine Partnerschaft. Im Falle von Godzilla vs Kong ist Wargaming da wohl sowas wie der kleinere Partner, dem man Bedingungen diktieren kann. Im Grunde macht WoWs doch Werbung für einen Film, der, dank Covid, froh sein muss um jeden Zuschauer im Streaming. Umgekehrt fängt niemand an, WoWs zu zocken, nur weil's da jetzt Godzilla gibt. Wargaming ist doch nicht Bittsteller und falls doch, dann kollaboriert eben mit kleineren Partnern. Ovechkin war doch sicher pflegeleichter und hat auch Aufmerksamkeit generiert.

Das Beste wäre, aus derartigen Events nicht immer ein gut behütetes Geheimnis zu machen, sondern frühzeitig die Spielerschaft in den Schaffensprozess einzubinden. Wir sind ja keine Menschenfresser. Ich find's so schade, diese Dinge zu sehen, die so oft vermeidbar wären, wenn man früher und offener kommunizieren würde. Aber zumindest gut, dass die Käufer nun unkompliziert vom Kauf zurücktreten können. Dann kann sich jeder in Ruhe überlegen, ob's ihm das wert ist und hinterher gibt's kein Geschrei.

I think @Sunleaderhas already described the situation quite accurately. So I just want to add a few notes. Cost is definitely a factor. I would add effortlessness to it. If you are e.g. a bottom tier BB, you are relatively easy to strike compared to the alternative targets the CV sees, which are mostly higher tier ships with good AA. Part of that easiness is how low on HP you already are. If a CV can kill you in one sortie, you are a priority target. The good CV-players want to remove enemy impact on the battle. One complete BB that can no longer contribute with its massive salvo, can turn one flank in the CV-player's team's favor. So try not to lose health too much, but also, if a team mate is low, try to tank for him a bit. If he becomes a priority target and gets deleted by the CV, that won't help win either. So it's not just about you. Even if you can avoid damage from a CV or not be a target, if that means that more vulnerable team mates will die faster, don't dump the CV on them. It's often a zero sum game. To dodge attacks, you must see them coming as early as possible. That means you must get used to keeping one eye on the mini map. You can see planes approaching from 10+ km away. I regularly see players who only take notice of planes, when the AA is already shooting. That's too late. Plan your dodging ahead. Don't get forced to turn broadside to enemy BBs. Try to manipulate the CV into attacking from a direction where you can dodge while remaining angled to the enemy. That's easier said than done. It takes experience and foresight, a.k.a. getting better and better. Stay close to team mates for combined AA. That makes you unattractive as a target. Use islands. If you are close to an island, torpedoes from that side won't have time to arm. But keep in mind: An island also makes it easy to sneak up on you with bombers. Especially german and japanese AP-bombers should not be allowed to sneak up.

In all fairness I should mention there are also WG-employees who play as much as 150 battles a month. I would assume they know what the current meta looks like. It's just that as employees they certainly have all the ingame ressources they need at their disposal. So even they won't understand what it means that they e.g. cut the free respecs for Clan Battles. You gotta be a player to understand what it means if you have changed nothing and had a working build and then Wargaming reworks something, releases a meta-changing ship and whatnot and suddenly your build doesn't work anymore. Suddenly you are expected to pay a ressource for a change that you yourself did not cause, which feels quite unfair and was completely dealt with by granting free respecs just for participating in Clan Battles. I think there is a mentality of distrust with game developers towards their player base. They think that the players are working them, trying to get ever more concessions, more free stuff, some selfish changes. I can understand that to a certain degree, cause it is partially true. Players e.g. like to claim a ship needs a buff that they own and like to play a lot, even if it is fine. If Wargaming listened to so many voices, many of which are incompetent, the game could also get worse. But the great issue as with every business is money. A thorough feedback process and customer relations take employees dedicated to that, investing a lot of time. That increases labor cost. Executives have a hard time comprehending indirect effects, such as satisfied customers investing further into the game. For them it's just cost. Just think about the recent example of Flamuu trying to get a restitution on his Kong-commander. Someone thinks it's a good idea to deny people a refund on a product, whose flaws only become obvious once you used them at least once in a battle, thus voiding your eligibility for a refund. Will those people really spend money again? I wouldn't. Ofc I am not stupid enough to dump my hard earned money into a Kong-commander lazily designed within 5min. Obviously not even they are obliged to play their reworked CVs.

Not that I am trying to disturb your dialogue, just as a general remark, please @Kaledoniq, use the standard font color, cause nobody with the dark theme can read your text. Appreciated.