Sorry to say this, but physics is an observation based science. Theories will only be considered if they can explain observations. To quote R.P.Feynman: It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
Physics doesn’t say that dark matter exists. Dark matter is just an idea among others to explain observations. But in this thread, we have someone who claims to have observed something. We are not even all in agreement on the observation he made.
This is basically your capitulation - if you ignore completely what i wrote and come with flat earth nonsense and repeat the wording “conspiracy theory” in a shortened version you are either just proving that you have either no clue what you are talking about or, way more likely, dismiss the possibility that something like the OP described could exist.
Even if the CEO of gaijin would publicly declare that something similar as claimed by the OP would not exist - either you believe it or not.
Basically this discussion is pointless until somebody would leak their code which would provide hard evidence to prove or disprove the claim.
im repeating the word conspiracy theory because it is a conspiracy theory. otherwise go and prove it. bring me 100 clips, 50 where you shoot high level players and 50 where you shoot low level players, every clip from the games none hidden or cherry picked. if noobs planes were reinforced to the point where someone can notice it then it would be visible.
otherwise its just bullshit yapping and “i feel” this and that conspiracy theory. i dont care about your fancy use of words. conspiracy is a conspiracy.
for a claim like that, producing evidence would be incredibly easy.
i like your way of thinking, but from my pov you underestimate the rather limited possibilities any game developer has to steer player behaviour - which has the ultimate goal to earn money by increasing player commitment as long as they are income relevant.
It is basically the same as with countless threads regarding bias - if something like it would exist it would be a result of multiple factors working together - with the sole purpose to deny the ability of players to identify clearly a single parameter.
A few percentages here or there (hit probability, spread, RNG for pen/not pen / shrapnel damage) are impossible to prove on their own, but might be suited to show desired effects.
If you read about highly complex psychological mechanisms implemented in video games you might chance your mind regarding actual probabilities.
Sorry to say this, but you describe just one aspect of physics - called experimental physics. Physics has way more aspects, the most known conflicts result in differences between experimental and theoretical physics (which tries exactly what i wrote: Try to explain things without physical evidence, or like with the dome example when experimental physics shows weaknesses).
Dark matter was used by me on purpose to describe the limits of physics as soon as experimental and theoretical physics have to work with too many unknown variables. Usually theoretical physics work with assumption when available technology is not advanced enough to prove them with experimental physics.
This is technically seen not correct - the main issue i see is that he made assumptions based on his observations - and these assumptions might be true or not; it actually doesn’t matter if others have deviating observations or come to other conclusions.
I criticised the instant rejection of such theories. Even if the probability seems rather low the whole concept of probabilities works with the fact that even rather unlikely events might happen.
the thing op argued for is easily proveable and obviously would show up in statistics too. if noob planes were reinforced and high level planes werent you could obviously track the hit, damage and death statistics effortlessly
or what next? gaijin secretly deletes hit data to hide their very secret discriminatory system from being exposed and no one can ever prove it and can only feel it in their bones!
like i said if there is something that can be noticed that the op argued about like the idea of low lever planes being more bullet resistant you could record each hit and obviously prove that low level planes can tank more without having the code
however if low level and high level planes actually tank the same amount of hits and die the same then that would also be visible which is why you dont like the idea of recording such data
no balls go get me 100 clips to try and support OP you wont
You are way to experienced to overlook the major flaw of any player attempts to prove or disprove any assumptions based on in-game footage and replays. They simply don’t show in every case what actually happened as technical limitations (lag, ping, PL, whatever) lead to calculated results which might not be visible.
You are fully aware of that in some matches you get hit by enemies even from impossible angles and you see in game enemy shots flying 3-5 meters below you whilst in the replay they either actually hit you or (in rare occasions) even pass you with greater distances but you still got hit.
yet if the thing op is claiming is true and it is visible to him it will be visible on footage. only way it couldnt be visible is if it didnt happen.
statistics will show. replay will show. after 100 clips if it actually exists to the point where it makes your experience worse it will be visible. your experience wasnt worse if 100 clips and everything worked out perfectly: planes actually took same amount of damage and died after same amount of hits. cry about it.
There are other options we have to rule out. If OP is workin in US and usually plays in the evening, he will encounter kids from europe playing after school. So while he thinks “low level”, it might actually be “high ping” that causes his perception.
As we can’t all even agree on the observation, we won’t be able to settle the cause.
I believe there is a possibility that Gaijin does some shady things behind the curtains for the sake of balance, or perhaps as a way of influencing player experience for the sake of profit, but I have no evidence beyond purely anecdotal experiences.
For example, I’ve been playing low tier ground battles (event grind) and I ran into the same sealclubber like 5 times on the same day. Every single time he was on the other team. Considering we were both level 100s with similar KDRs and playing on the same platform, I wouldn’t be surprised if the matchmaking deliberately puts us on opposing teams as some sort of balancing measure. But of course, I have no way to prove it and 5 matches are too small of a sample size.
There’s of course a pretty big difference between the game taking whatever statistics they use to measure player performance to form teams, to dynamically altering hit percentages, damage and RGN results on server calculations. Not impossible, but I find it unlikely. More complexity means more ways of screwing it up and this is Gaijin we’re talking about.
I would not call them shady as almost everything in life which is somehow connected to sales works with strategies which aim to influence thought processes of customers, it doesn’t matter if open or hidden. Even your local Fast Food chain advertises with Burgers looking like produced by [insert preferred god] whilst the product you receive looks just remotely related…
You will find dozens of vids and studies how sales psychology influences game design. Most of the analysis show that in “newer” games only a minor part of the budgets were spent on the game itself, the majority of expenditures are specific designs which are dealing with any kind of monetary transactions with players and plain marketing costs.
Regarding you anecdotal experiences - a quote from another thread:
You might argue that BR changes and open or hidden nerf of individual Flight Models play a role too - but these adjustments happen 2-4 times year at best.
So if you follow this logical path it seems not entirely unlikely that certain parameters (like weapon damage or penetration values) might also be used by adding RNG factors.
Therefore i simply refuse to join the “torch & pitchfork” guys if this or similar topics pop up - even if i personally think that the description of the alleged “modifications/adjustments” is way too generic and look rather like technical issues or a rant.
Imho we are way beyond this point that gaijin has full control and transparency in which way they can screw up what function.
If you followed certain developments in the last 5-6 years it is obvious that gaijin looks more like a company with various complex and outdated IT systems working in parallel and every update presents unexpected results - mainly as changes in system A produces trouble in system D (which was not on their screen) and subsequent systems.
Gaijin’s internal testing looks reduced to pure damage control as long as the game keeps running - i saw irl a lot of failed (and extremely expensive) IT projects which were unable to replace old but stable software with less complex newer stuff.
That chart shows the true “balance” challenge that the developers face with everything they do with the game. Keeping the players “engaged” in the “flow” . . that is actually what it’s all about. Not an easy task with the wide variety of players/demographics from so many different cultures from all around the world.
I would argue that their data analytics team ensures that they set the “right” priorities. I mean data crunching is no rocket science.
So with millions of user data (including their monetary investments) in more than 10 years it looks rather easy to know how long your key customers will play the game & how long they will spend money.
If we have a common understanding that the game follows mainly economic goals it seems rather clear that the game is tailored to please a very young (but shooter experienced) audience with limited time (to play the game actually and the duration how long they play until they uninstall).
So in order to increase the attractiveness for this group it makes sense to lower entry barriers to play the game without an essential need to learn or improve.
That’s also the reason why the hundreds if not thousands of very good proposals provided by long term players are not considered - as they include mostly a more demanding game play, which increases complexity and are therefore an obstacle for new players on their way to spend as much money as possible in short time spans.
Yeah, most F2P game “business” models are very similar to how you run a restaurant - “get 'em in, get 'em fed, get paid, get 'em out . . NEXT!”
While that is a crude generalization, it’s not far off.
Long term players have never been a goal for a F2P game, while they have invested their time and hopefully money we tend to have “outlived our usefulness” to the eyes of many game makers after a certain point.
Newer players, once “hooked” are more apt to spend money and try to proceed after the carrot on the stick, so they are always in demand . . hence Gaijin’s marketing strategy the past 4 years or so, and nothing wrong with that.
One thing ALL F2P games require is . . . participation, no players, no game, no game no money . . it’s a loop.
I personally don’t spend much money anymore. Two reasons, I have a LOT of stuff and don’t play or seek much high tier stuff, and . . I am now retired and my income is smaller, so I have to be more “selective” in my game spending. Nothing against Gaijin or the game . . . just how it is. Do they still want me around? . . . no idea, I do still play a lot of matches doing BP stuff, so I help fill the games I choose to play . . but other than that . . . . “tits on a boar hog” . . .
