Players knew the game would get worse if they were implemented.
But they weren’t… so it didn’t… so there was zero reason to change one’s recommendation of the game to new players versus a month earlier. So doing so anyway is lying, misleading shoppers in Steam’s store, and breaking Steam’s policies. So they were 100% correct to not count those reviews that hurt their customers (people shopping for games wanting good faith reviews)
There was a reason to change the recommendation because Gaijin tried to push a horrible change, and people realized that they will keep doing that.
Even if they didn’t, Gaijin tried to.
They would’ve succeeded if the community didn’t protest, and war thunder wouldn’t have gotten any better.
Why would they? When you’re a retailer and you try posting a higher price and get stiff pushback, you don’t have any incentive to keep trying it again. You don’t want the highest price (They could just make all premiums $300 then, why not, by your logic?), you want the market clearing price.
“They would’ve succeeded if the community didn’t protest, and war thunder wouldn’t have gotten any better.”
Yeah probably. And? None of that has anything to do with new players enjoying the game or not in a review. So you’re abusing the review system by cramming it in there anyway, against Steam’s policies and against Steam and its users’ best interests.
So a bad change happens
People leave negative reviews
Reviews cause the bad change to be reverted
People are wrong for placing negative reviews because the changes were reverted.
???
You have though. None of the stats are usable because of how fucked the site is in tracking. It doesn’t have full data. Some vehicles have a 12 K/D globally, some vehicles have the wrong amount of battles etc. TS stopped accepting new users like 4-5 years ago afaik… so it cant actually track anything anymore.
TS stopped accepting new users like 4-5 years ago afaik… so it cant actually track anything anymore.
Who comes up with that nonsense?
Comes up with what?
Even OP is on TS and that’s from 2021.
Regardless… The site has massive issues and they aren’t being addressed therefore using it discredits and devalues any argument. It would be much better for people (including you) to simply do their own analysis and tests instead of relying on an ancient website that doesn’t work anymore.
I cannot possibly analyze thousands of matches manually to draw conclusions from.
Yes, TS obviously has issues, but most arguments against it are just disingenuous and taking statistics at face value instead of taking these statistics and making an effort to determine how they came to be.
What is a sample size?
You need to get it into your head, Thunderskill is unreliable, and gives bad data. Bad and unreliable data is worse than no data. The website itsself hasnt been updated in years, its been abandoned and left to run, there is no visiblity on how it does any calculations, the samplle size is tiny, but also of a specific subsection of the playerbase, not a good sample of everyone, and it simply doesnt seem to include many vehicles, specifically for air and naval, so who knows where those stats are going. Also its made by a russian guy, which is enough evidence for some people to decide that it must be disengenous, however that is not a thought process based in reality.
Yeah, once someone brings up compelling arguments rather than it’s bad because I manage to nitpick some weird examples and made unfounded claims about how it’s made up.
Naval and helicopters are not included, no idea what all these vehicles are that you’re missing outside of that.
Sorry, the planes arent missing, they are just in the “other” class. Either way, you still cannot see the calculations it does, or how it does them, you have no idea how it gets to the values it shows, and with how small the sample size is, it would be so easy for the values to be skewed anyway. You use it because it suits your narrative and as soon as it doesnt, you will cast it out and ignore it. Like was said earlier, you are being disengenous.
as soon as it doesnt, you will cast it out and ignore it. Like was said earlier, you are being disengenous.
Feel free to provide the example where I cast out and ignore a statistic entirely because it didn’t fit my narrative.
You are completely ignoring in the absolutely tiny sample size on thunderskill. 127 games in the F-16C on there, thats probably about how many were played 20 minutes after its release. Yet you are ignoring that, for no reason other than it doesnt agree with what you are saying
I never talked about the F-16C and I have always stated that I prefer to look at the larger sample sizes and ideally see a 1000+ battles played.
Not once have you ever been able to catch me taking a super small sample size as fact and I have always acknowledged the need to consider context and to not take the numbers at face value, which is the approach taken by people to discredit the stats.
You’re being disingenuous by coming up with the small sample size, which is a big talking point for you, and then to pretend that because I don’t dismiss TS like you do, I must automatically have an opposing view from you.
I’ll never understand these paratroopers that seems to play from yesterday. Ever waited 7-10 mins for a match? It’s not uncommon. So …you still don’t get it?
I propose measures that will equalize the playfield and make game more fair and fun like flares for more planes, without the need of decompressing, that we can’t get anyways.
…