Is WG making minor changes and not telling us about it?

[_Montagne]

I'm  seriously starting to think that WG are making small changes without telling the players. I don't know if its just me but here's what I'm thinking. For example. The dispersion on Missouri has dramatically decreased. Resulting in me getting crappy games( barely getting above 100k damage). I'm not sure about this one but it feels as if Missouri is making less credits than before even with credit modifiers. 

 

Please tell me other people are noticing changes and its not just me.

[principat121]

11 hours ago, _xKhaos_ said:

The dispersion on Missouri has dramatically decreased.

How do you know?

How many battles do you have examined?

How did you recognized the the change of the dispersion?

What analyse tool did you use to measure the disperion of your shots?

 

 

 

I guess you cannot answer one single question above! And how could you?! You lack the abilities to even recognize changes in disperion. Just another tin-foil-hat conspiracy BS thread. You have not a single proof of anything. Just a weired gut feeling. Nothing more.

 

Please, come back, if you have something to talk about. Something more objective.

 

 

 

 

edit

My sincere thanks to "someone" who took the specifically effort to login in his tryhard reroll account just to downvote this post! I feel pleased by your attention!

[Tungstonid]

IMO changing credit modifiers and dispersions is NOT a small change and at least the dispersion is something WG usually packs into the patch notes. AFAIK the credit modifier is a dark stat anyway and can't really be quantified unless you have access to the source code and know how the income is calculated.

That said, other people have reported such things before, especially regarding the income of the Missouri. However, without official statements from WG it is hard to distinguish between truth and the mixture of spreading rumors and conformation bias.

[Tyrendian89]

ah, we havent had this particular case of Tinfoil Hat Syndrome for a few months I dont think? welcome back old friend!

[Aotearas]

I should check my Tirpitz 

[AgarwaenME]

27 minutes ago, _xKhaos_ said:

I'm  seriously starting to think that WG are making small changes without telling the players. I don't know if its just me but here's what I'm thinking. For example. The dispersion on Missouri has dramatically decreased. Resulting in me getting crappy games( barely getting above 100k damage). I'm not sure about this one but it feels as if Missouri is making less credits than before even with credit modifiers. 

 

Please tell me other people are noticing changes and its not just me.

How is above your average crappy?

[elblancogringo]

57 minutes ago, _xKhaos_ said:

I'm  seriously starting to think that WG are making small changes without telling the players. I don't know if its just me but here's what I'm thinking. For example. The dispersion on Missouri has dramatically decreased. Resulting in me getting crappy games( barely getting above 100k damage). I'm not sure about this one but it feels as if Missouri is making less credits than before even with credit modifiers. 

 

Please tell me other people are noticing changes and its not just me.

[Drug_Kartman]

It's just the WG RNG^TM  :)

[ColonelPete]

Is not decreased dispersion a good thing?

 

 You do not even know what you are complaining about...

[Phlogistoned]

I understand your feeling, OP.

 

With that said, this is a question that pops up quite often. So often that some people are tired of it (and some just see it as an opportunity to post a meme).

 

The problem is that it IS impossible to answer unless you have a very detailed log of a lot of Missouri battles. And asking a question about it will always attract people that FEEL the same, but can't prove it. And since we've heard it all before, you're bound to get some memes as answers.

[xXx_Blogis_xXx]

Well , you not the first who says , that cred earn nerfed , play more games and see )

[ColonelPete]

1 hour ago, Phlogistoned said:

I understand your feeling, OP.

 

With that said, this is a question that pops up quite often. So often that some people are tired of it (and some just see it as an opportunity to post a meme).

 

The problem is that it IS impossible to answer unless you have a very detailed log of a lot of Missouri battles. And asking a question about it will always attract people that FEEL the same, but can't prove it. And since we've heard it all before, you're bound to get some memes as answers.

Dispersion values (yes, the hidden stats too) are read out after every major patch.

[Asakka]

10 hours ago, _xKhaos_ said:

I'm  seriously starting to think that WG are making small changes without telling the players. I don't know if its just me but here's what I'm thinking. For example. The dispersion on Missouri has dramatically decreased. Resulting in me getting crappy games( barely getting above 100k damage). I'm not sure about this one but it feels as if Missouri is making less credits than before even with credit modifiers. 

 

Please tell me other people are noticing changes and its not just me.

Its just you

[Excavatus]

Thank you for presenting us a total textbook case of Percetion Bias.

 

People start to play better.. "I am getting good at this"

People start to play worse.. "They must have been changed something!"

 

No one ever asked "Do they changed something because I am getting good at it!"

and one ever asked, "I am getting worse after hundreds of battles.. what can cause this?"

 

Classic WG clientele!

[Phlogistoned]

2 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Dispersion values (yes, the hidden stats too) are read out after every major patch.

Out of the client code, yes, but not out of the server code. Or am I mistaken?

 

And since this is one of those things that MUST be calculated server-side to prevent cheating, there's nothing stopping the values from being completely different.

[Aschwell]

I am not saying that OP is correct but I have really seen some questionable dispersion from even Missouri as of late.

 

Many people seem to forget that if tanks have hidden stats values, don´t you think they are doing the same for ships... Just saying. It´s WG after all.

 

But putting this to evidence and trying to measure it, is really hard or impossible perhaps. With that saying I see no wrong in the OP asking if others feel the same even if it´s a lot of tinfoil theory or whatever. But you don´t have to butcher his post and credibility just to make yourself feel better and superior even if you might be correct and OP not.

[principat121]

The contrary!

 

You have to call BS as what it is: BS.

 

Otherwise every tinfoil theory will be taken "worth" talking about. No! There is no reason to waste time and effort, if even the TO do not what to spent time and effort to proof his "hypothesis".

[piet11111]

Well wargaming does manage to get bugs into patches that i cant explain away by logic like the yamato turret armor bug.

Unless they use really shi**y tools to compile a new build that can mess up values like yamato turret armor something that a human developer should not be messing with since its a value that does not need alteration.

[Exorite]

12 hours ago, _xKhaos_ said:

The dispersion on Missouri has dramatically decreased.

That would be a buff actually. And since it affects a BB as you said, I would not even wonder.  :)

[ColonelPete]

49 minutes ago, Phlogistoned said:

Out of the client code, yes, but not out of the server code. Or am I mistaken?

 

And since this is one of those things that MUST be calculated server-side to prevent cheating, there's nothing stopping the values from being completely different.

No idea.

But that is next level tinfoil hat thinking that hidden values are different between client and server on purpose.

What should be the motivation for changing stuff unannounced?

[Phlogistoned]

7 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

No idea.

But that is next level tinfoil hat thinking that hidden values are different between client and server on purpose.

What should be the motivation for changing stuff unannounced?

I will ignore the questions and just refer to/reiterate my first post in the topic;

 

Since there is no way to tell, there is no use discussing, since it will just be a lot of opinions and feelings on both sides.

 

And since he discussion has already been up a number of times before, OP shouldn't take the memes personally.

[ForceM1782]

I am not usually one of these people suspecting such ninja changes.

But in another game i play we knew it was happening and devs openly admit it too.

 « client stability has been improved » is the usual patchnote you get there for this kind of stuff... 

 

And since i am pretty new in WoWs i can’t speak for the Missouri. I got her one day before she disappeared for good, and i have to say i was not impressed by her accuracy at all. She is no more accurate than other BBs i own.

I have no comparison, but it would really suck if they had ninjanerfed the ship before taking it out of the store. That’d be really unneccessary. If i had known of such a thing i would have gotten Musashi instead...

[ColonelPete]

If they admit to it, it is no ninja change.

 

WoWs changed the accuracy of ships many times. These changes were always documented.

Why should they do it differently this time?

 

All data we have show that they did not change the accuracy.

[Crysantos]

14 hours ago, _xKhaos_ said:

I'm  seriously starting to think that WG are making small changes without telling the players. I don't know if its just me but here's what I'm thinking. For example. The dispersion on Missouri has dramatically decreased. Resulting in me getting crappy games( barely getting above 100k damage). I'm not sure about this one but it feels as if Missouri is making less credits than before even with credit modifiers. 

 

Please tell me other people are noticing changes and its not just me.

No, we don't - you can find all changes mentioned in the patch notes when it comes to balancing ships or adjustments to their performance, I understand that with the RNG factor it sometimes seems you're very unlucky - but it's also a matter of perception. Since when you land a decent salvo, you won't complain about bad RNG, right? We changed nothing about the Missouri or its income, it was simply removed from the techtree.

 

Greetings, Crysantos

[Aschwell]

 

2 hours ago, principat121 said:

The contrary!

 

You have to call BS as what it is: BS.

 

Otherwise every tinfoil theory will be taken "worth" talking about. No! There is no reason to waste time and effort, if even the TO do not what to spent time and effort to proof his "hypothesis".

Your point is understandable and probably most certaintly correct. Question is why are you wasting your time on this post at the moment 

14 minutes ago, Crysantos said:

No, we don't - you can find all changes mentioned in the patch notes when it comes to balancing ships or adjustments to their performance, I understand that with the RNG factor it sometimes seems you're very unlucky - but it's also a matter of perception. Since when you land a decent salvo, you won't complain about bad RNG, right? We changed nothing about the Missouri or its income, it was simply removed from the techtree.

 

Greetings, Crysantos

Thanks for the Gascogne, it can be a fun ship if you play it correctly. Really dig it, Cheers