arttuperkunas

Finally got it now, yay! Took me quite a bit of grinding (and ticket was not successful). By my calculation, I had an average damage of around 120k in the last 100 BB T10 games, so the in game calculator for the emblem does appear to be quite broken. Anyway, not gonna touch the Yamato for a while now, bit of an overdose :).

Was that before or after the big MM changes? (I think there were done during the last year, maybe even this spring?) My impression is that MM was changed so that T6 and T8 are much less painful than they were before. Oddly enough, these are the tiers with a lot of premiums for sale, that no one wanted to buy due to shitty matchmaking :P.

That's the thing, who wants to bring an Iowa when they can bring a Georgia? Who wants to bring an Izumo if they can bring a Musashi? An Alsace if they can bring a JB? The only saving grace of these premiums, which are either more interesting, stronger, or both than their tech tree equivalents, is that they are or lat least have been obtainable for in game resources. Of course, soon all three will only be available in Awesome Opportunities like Satan crates.

Tier 5 and 7 are not fine. Going up against T7 ships in a T5 is horrible, and you have two CV tiers to deal with (T4 and T6). Tier 7 is dreadful after the changed MM, probably the worst tier (after IV) in the game. You get constantly uptiered, and constantly see the likes of Musashi, Jean Bart and Georgia in Tier 7 ships. Fun and engaging. (my example is not exaggerated; you probably have as many, if not more premium T9s in T9 MM right now than tech tree, and they are really, really OP)

I've played Yammy pretty intensely the last few weeks. Tier X is bearable, except matches with Manfreds. Nothing like a Manny doing 4 bomp drops on you with one squadron, taking you down to nothing in a matter of minutes while you watch your pathetic AA do nothing. Those AP bombs are absolutely stupid. And not just stupid, but soulcrushing. Even the torp spam doesn't engender the same feeling of helpless rage as you watch your HP disappear with unhealable citadels, with absolutely nothing you can do about it except vainly hope the CV gets bad rng. Whoever came up with that idea needs their head examined.

I would argue that T6 is pretty good these days due to the MM changes. You see a lot of pure T6 battles, and/or battles where you are mid tier or even top tier (tier 5-6). I would say tier 8 is good too, again due to MM changes. The cursed tiers are: IV (CV hell), V (uptier/CV hell), VII (uptier hell). VIII is ok, IX is great, and X is of course X. I realise you've played massively more than I have, but I have played solely in the new MM and mostly midtiers, so I am (unfortunately) intimately familiar with what they are like in the changed MM world.

Customer support was fast, professional, courteous, and worked with me on my refund request, I have no complaints regarding their behaviour. Indeed I have generally a fairly good opinion of customer support in this game.

This is correct. What the consumer has been told, or led to believe, is pretty much key for assessing whether the offered service or good is defective. If it doesn't conform to those actual (i.e. what was actually promised) or reasonably assumed (i.e. what the customer would have probably believed based on the information available), then there is probably a defect in the service. The issue of false/misleading advertising is in addition to this general rule on what constitutes a defective product/service. EU consumer law tends to view the customer as somewhat gullible and in need of protection. This kind of social darwinist thinking of "oh what chumps, their own fault" is not really how these cases are assessed.

Is the Yamato UU really worth it? I find the Yammy to be very accurate even at stupid ranges (25 km) without it. Seems kinda of harsh to give up on 4 seconds of reload.

Thank you for clarifying so quickly, that answers my question(s).

I was told in a ticket that I am missing 6 premium flags (3 OUrobouros, 3 something else). I used them by accident due to clicking all flags before becoming more careful. In three days time, I will have those 6 flags back on my account due to combat missions. I have not used any other items from the crates. Am I still eligible for a refund without a rollback? I really, really, really don't want a rollback as I have played intensely since 4 December and would really not want to lose the progress.

(as a side note, all of this talk about "innocent until proven guilty" and "self incrimination", "proof beyond reasonable doubt" has nothing to do with the price of fish in civil litigation. In civil litigation, there is no concept of "guilt", no defense of self incrimination, and no requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt -> the standard of proof is much lower. Of course, if you think this is a case of fraud rather than false advertising, then please continue! As that is a criminal suit)

Yeah, you can do that here as well, and you would probably need to, tbh. I said it's proven in my eyes, but probably you would need to at least try for discovery/requests for documents if this was a real court case. All I can say is, good luck getting them out of Greece! This is also why I am presenting arguments in the court of public opinion rather than implying that I would ever take WG to court. Litigation is a pain, and no sane person would pursue it for 50 euros. Not to mention the likely momentous procedural headaches of taking this case to Greek courts (or trying to enforce a Finnish judgment in Greece; again, good luck with that).

Ok, then it is a misunderstanding of terms. I am not a scientist, I'm a lawyer. When I talk about proof or evidence, I don't mean in the context of natural science; your background appears to be different. However, if we are talking about proof/evidence in the context of law, then as a lawyer, I can tell you that evidence does not work like that, at least in civil law jurisdictions. You have different standards of evidence, and when you have a situation like we have here - individual consumers with no access to data vs a big multinational company that has all the answers - the initial burden and standard of proof can be adjusted or even reversed. That said, the normal rule is that the claimant (let's pretend this is a court case) provides evidence, and if sufficient evidence is provided, then the defendant will need to rebut that with his own evidence. The players have provided all of the evidence that they reasonably could (as they have no access to Wargaming's servers or algorithms). It is up to Wargaming to rebut that evidence with its own. It has conspiciously failed to do so. That is why I said that in my eyes, this is proven until shown otherwise.

That is nonsense. Absolute nonsense. As we both know, there is only one party that could furnish that proof, and that is wargaming. What players have done is state a theory, that appears to be very solidly grounded in evidence, and has yet to be disproved despite needing, as you say "only 1 negative result". As far as I'm concerned, the theory is proved until shown otherwise. Edit: you might be approaching this from a natural science point of view, where of course we do not have 100% proof. But from the point of view of law (which is the relevant point of view here, I would argue), we have proof.