Is it true that there is a mode of personal oppression and twisting in WoT?

All avid tankers have somehow heard about spins and the personal oppression mode in World of Tanks. Thoughts on this matter are completely different, some insist on the presence of this algorithm, and the second - about its absence. Well, it's time to share your observations and reasoning on this matter.

Evidence for a regime of personal oppression

To be honest, randomness has always been one of the key ingredients for winning. If it works for someone, logically, at the same time, the randomness works against your opponents. It is extremely difficult to check exactly how the game algorithms work, because all the miscalculations of events occur on the servers. However, there is a general trend and it can be analyzed.

Here is a video of a popular WoT player on YouTube (of course, this is in the past), which was released 5 years ago, but so far the meaning of all the problems is true. Air is not a proof, but rather an explanation of the problem.

The main argument is Viktor Kisly and Ivan Mikhnevich's patent about supporting interest in the game. There, almost in plain text, it says about the presence of this regime.

The white paper states:

“According to another aspect, the matchmaking server may store the win/loss percentage for each user (or vehicle) at a given battle level. As the win/loss ratio of a player decreases, the likelihood that the player will get into battles in which the battle levels are at the lower end of the acceptable range increases, while as the win/loss ratio of the player increases, the likelihood that he will get into fight is increasing. battles in which combat levels are at the upper limit of the allowable range. Thus, when the player repeatedly participates in too many difficult battles, balancing is done in favor of easier combat sessions, thus rewarding the player by providing a lighter gaming environment. Similarly, when the player has repeatedly participated in too many easy battles, the balancing is done in favor of more difficult combat sessions, thus keeping the player on their toes instead of letting them get bored in easy games"

Another quote from the developers, which, unfortunately, was deleted in the original source:

“There are server rules written at the program level, including misses, ricochets, penetrations. There is no accident. As soon as you go through a series of defeats, your tank starts shooting with 100% penetration and no ricochets, and vice versa, if you often win, then you become easy prey for enemies, and you yourself are unable to do any harm.

Arguments against

The official position of WarGaming denies such spins and the existence of a regime of personal oppression. According to the developers, now their algorithm is such that in order to interrupt the series of victories, they move the player from the bottom of the list to the TOP.

Is there an RPA?

People who talk about things like that quickly get disliked. All due to the fact that there are a lot of those in the CIS who like to humiliate another. “Cancer”, “you just don’t know how to play”, “even premium doesn’t help you”, etc. As long as it doesn’t concern the person personally. In truth, many players do not encounter such a system, since they have an average level of skills and drain and take levels on their own without the need for additional twists. Those who play tanks “very tightly” face spins more often.

Our opinion is that there are twists. Why:

  • First, it's easy to see when the system behaves strangely when the player does all the same actions that usually win him.
  • Secondly, WarGaming has all the necessary tools for this. All calculations, all “accidents” are very easy to tweak.
  • Thirdly, documentary confirmation of twists.
  • Fourthly, for us the most important argument is profit. WarGaming needs revenue, and if all the newcomers are taken out by experienced players in a couple of shots, they will lose the audience. The most important thing for a company is to maintain balance.

What do you think about the regime of personal oppression?